Proof Load Test On Jambatan Jalan Kompleks Waterfront FL 745/000/45 WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN Labuan

PROOF LOAD TEST ON JAMBATAN
JALAN KOMPLEKS WATERFRONT FL

745/000/45 WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN
LABUAN
June, 2014
VOLUME I
CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND

PROOF LOAD TEST REPORT
Prepared by : For :
Evénfit
Evaluate and retrofit
EVENFIT CONSULT SDN. BHD. JABATAN KERJA RAYA MALAYSIA

36-2, Jalan Rimbunan Raya, Cawangan Kejuruteraan Awam, Struktur dan Jambatan
Laman Rimbunan, Ibu Pejabat JKR Malaysia
Kepong, 52100 Tingkat 20, Menara PJD
Kuala Lumpur No. 50, Jalan Tun Razak
50400 Kuala Lumpur
Tel: (603) 62575790, Fax: (603) 62575792
Tel: (603) 26181202, Fax: (603) 26181228
Proof Load Test on Jambatan Jalan Kompleks Waterfront FL 745/000/45 Wilayah Persekutuan
Labuan
Volume I: Condition Assessment and Proof Load Test Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia (JKR) had appointed Evenfit Consult Sdn. Bhd.
(Evenfit) to conduct a proof load test of the bridge at Jalan Kompleks Waterfront in
Wilayah Persekutuan Labuan (Bridge number FL745/000/45). The objective of the
proof load test is to assess the structural capacity of bridge with respect to the
vehicular loads (specified in the First Schedule permitted for roads in List I of the
Second Schedule of Weight Restriction (Federal Road) (Amendment) Order 2003
(WRO 2003) and its compliance with the Medium Term Axle Load (MTAL) policy.
JKR required Evenfit to assess the bridge in two aspects: (i) comprehensive
inspection and condition assessment of the bridge and (ii) proof load test of the
bridge.
This single span, simply supported reinforced concrete bridge with a span of 20m
and width of 10.3m was believed to be constructed in 1990. Without any as-built
drawings, the structural capacity of the bridge could not be determined. Thus, JKR
intended to determine the capacity of the bridge vide a proof load test.
Comprehensive Inspection
The conditions of the bridge was assessed by conducting a comprehensive visual

inspection following Evenfit’s ISO procedure and REAM’s publication ‘A Guide for
Bridge Inspection’. The conditions of the bridge were reported 3 formats namely:
i. Pictorial report which depicts the conditions of the bridge with pictures and
captions,
ii. Summary report and checklist following the REAM’s Guide in which the
conditions of the components were rated between 1 (as new) and 5 (very
poor),
iii. Defect maps which presented the conditions (defects) of the bridge in
drawings.
Evenfit Consult Sdn. Bhd. Tel: (03) 62575790, Fax: (03) 62575792 I
Website: www.evenfitconsult.com E-mail: evenfit_consult@yahoo.com
Labuan
The comprehensive inspection found that the bridge was in fairly good conditions
with presence of some minor damage/defects to the structural members that were
unlikely to affect the structural capacity of the bridge. The main damage/defects was
fine vertical cracks observed at mid-span of the beams which were likely due to
shrinkage based on their pattern and fine crack widths. In addition, two of the wider
cracks monitored during the proof load test did not widen when the bridge was
loaded. Besides that, there were localized honeycomb at soffit of the beams, cracks
and rupture of rubber seal of the expansion joint, broken drainpipe and minor cracks
in pavement.
Material Tests
In addition to the comprehensive inspection, material tests were also conducted to

determine the underlying durability aspect of the bridge. The tests were carbonation
test, chloride test and half-cell survey. The tests indicated that the bridge was in
good conditions as:
i. Maximum depth of carbonation was only 10mm and five out of the ten
locations tested did not suffer any carbonation.
ii. Maximum percentage of chloride content by weight of concrete at 0.03% was
small and many of the test samples did not show any signs of chloride
ingress.
iii. Half-cell surveys did not show any indication of any likelihood of corrosion of
reinforcement to occur.
Besides test on durability, test on material properties namely compressive strength

tests on cored samples and tensile tests on steel reinforcement were also
conducted. The results showed that estimated cube strengths of concrete were
acceptable, i.e., ranging from 30 N/mm2 to 45N/mm2. The two steel tensile test
samples produced good yield stresses of 574N/mm2 and 611N/mm2 which were
much higher than the characteristic strength value of 460N/mm2.
Evenfit Consult Sdn. Bhd. Tel: (03) 62575790, Fax: (03) 62575792 II
Labuan
Proof Load Test
The proof load test was conducted by incrementally loading the bridge with known
loads until the maximum load that equaled MTAL load effects. The loading was done
using 2 high bed loaders (test vehicles) placed at predetermined positions and
loading them using concrete blocks from Load Level 1 (total load of 494kN) to Load
Level 3 (total load of 990kN). At each load level the bridge responses in terms of
vertical displacements and strains were recorded via data loggers. Joint inspection
was conducted before and after the load test to check whether the load test had
caused any damage to the bridge.
A briefing to JKR Labuan personnel and other related local agencies was conducted
on 2nd April 2014. This was to explain to them on the procedure for the load test and
to get comments and assistance from them for the load test as the bridge would be
closed to traffic during the load test. Prior to the load test on 10th April 2014
advertisement was placed in the local newspaper, announcements were made in the
local radio and signboards were place at the roads near the bridge to warn the road
users on the impending closure of the bridge.
During the load test, the displacements were recorded using linear variable
displacement transducers (LVDT) placed at mid-span of the beams to record beam
deflections and at abutments to record any settlements. Strains were measured
using 150mm vibrating wire strain (VWS) gauges and 80mm spot weldable VWS
gauges. The 150mm VWS gauges were installed on the concrete surface while the
80mm spot weldable VWS gauges were spot welded directly on the reinforcing bars
and were installed at bottom half of the beams where there were vertical cracks. The
purpose of using the spot weldable gauges was to avoid errors that could arise from
these cracks. The strain gauges were installed at mid-span of the beams to measure
critical strains at mid-span and near support to measure the shears.
The deflection results followed closely the theoretical values but were slightly
smaller. The deflections against loads for all the beams also produced straight lines
throughout the entire load test which indicated that the beams were within the elastic
limit state. The monitoring of the abutments also showed no signs of settlement
Evenfit Consult Sdn. Bhd. Tel: (03) 62575790, Fax: (03) 62575792 III
Labuan
which indicated that the abutments also have the capacity of at least MTAL. The
strain readings were less consistent as some of the readings for strains across the
beams, bottom strains across the deck and shear forces at the beam ends deviated
too much from the theoretical values. It was difficult to ascertain which the erroneous
readings were and the specialist contractor had checked and verified that the gauges
were in good order. Notwithstanding, the maximum measured moment and shear
force was generally smaller than the calculated capacity of the beam. Thus, the proof
load test was within the moment and shear capacity of the beams.
Summary and Recommendation
The proof load test conducted on the Jalan Kompleks Waterfront bridge showed that
the bridge could carry at least the vehicles specified in List I of WRO 2003. The load
test did not caused any damage to the structural components. The measured mid-
span deflections of the beams and was smaller than the theoretical deflections and
the deflections had fully recovered after the load test had completed. The abutments
also did not experience any settlement.
The inspection of the Jalan Kompleks Waterfront Bridge revealed that the bridge was
in fairly good condition with some minor damage/defects that were unlikely to affect
the structural integrity of the bridge. This observation was complemented with
material tests which showed that bridge had no incipient sign of deterioration. The
damage/defects could be repaired using standard repair techniques such as sealing
the cracks by epoxy injection, patch repair the honeycombed concrete, and reinstate
the damaged expansion joint and drainpipe. The details of the repair work are given
in Volume II of the Final Report.
Evenfit Consult Sdn. Bhd. Tel: (03) 62575790, Fax: (03) 62575792 IV
Labuan
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
The Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia (JKR) is desirous to assess the structural capacity
of the Jalan Kompleks Waterfront Bridge in Wilayah Persekutuan Labuan in order to
upgrade the bridge to comply with the medium term axle load (MTAL) policy and the
Weight Restriction Order (WRO) 2003. The bridge is located along the Jalan
Kompleks Waterfront (FL745) with the Bridge Number FL745/000/45. The location of
the bridge is as shown in Figure 1.
JAMBATAN JALAN
KOMPLEKS
WATERFRONT
(FL745/000/45)
TO KOMPLEKS
TO CITY SUKAN LAUT
CENTRE
Figure 1: Location of Jalan Kompleks Waterfront Bridge.
The bridge was believed to be constructed in 1990 and JKR does not have any as-
built drawings of the bridge. Without the as-built data, JKR was not able to calculate
its structural capacity. One technique to assess the capacity of the bridge was to
conduct a proof load test. JKR thus appointed Evenfit Consult Sdn. Bhd. (Evenfit) to
conduct a proof load test of the bridge vide its Letter of Appointment (LOA) Ref: (22)
dlm JKR.CKASJ/10.500/020/19 Jld.2 dated 7th February 2014. The appointment
requires Evenfit to assess the bridge in two aspects: (i) comprehensive inspection
and condition assessment of the bridge and (ii) proof load test of the bridge.
Evenfit Consult Sdn. Bhd. Tel: (03) 62575790, Fax: (03) 62575792 1
Labuan
This report presents the work done by Evenfit in conducting condition assessment
and proof load test of the bridge. It describes the methodology adopted by Evenfit,
the findings and finally the recommendations.
1.2 Main Objective
The main objective of the proof load test is to assess the structural capacity of bridge
with respect to the vehicular loads (specified in the First Schedule permitted for
roads in List I of the Second Schedule of Weight Restriction (Federal Road)
(Amendment) Order 2003 (WRO 2003) and its compliance with the Medium Term
Axle Load (MTAL) policy.
1.3 Scope of Work
The scope of consultancy services as specified in the Terms of Reference (TOR)

shall include:
i. To propose Traffic Management Plan and provide temporary access,

working platform, scaffolding, sky-lift, man-lift, equipments, safety tools
etc. for the proof load test;
ii. To carry out comprehensive inspection and condition assessment on the

bridge;
iii. To carry out proof load test on the bridge to assess the structural capacity
of the bridge with respect to vehicular loads as per First Schedule
permitted for roads specified in List I of the Second Schedule of WRO
2003 and its compliance with MTAL policy.
Labuan
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE BRIDGE AND REFERENCING SYSTEM
2.1 Description of the Bridge
The Jalan Kompleks Waterfront Bridge is a single span, simply supported reinforced
concrete bridge having a span length of 20m and width of 10.3m. The bridge deck
comprises of 5 numbers of rectangular RC beams and RC slab. It has a carriageway
width of 7.28m and pedestrian walkway of 1.20m on both sides of the carriageway.
The general arrangement of the bridge is as given in Figure 2 and some
photographs of the bridge are shown in Figures 3, 4 and 5.
Labuan
Figure 2: General arrangement of the bridge.
Labuan
Figure 3: General view of the bridge. The JPS flood gate

(on the right hand side) is at the upstream of the bridge.
Figure 4: Side view of the bridge from the downstream.
Labuan
Figure 5: View of the underside of the bridge.
2.2 Bridge Referencing System
Devising a referencing system that is easy to apply and understand was an

important task done prior to starting the inspection work. This is to ensure a
systematic recording and reporting the conditions of the bridge components and for
ease of JKR in understanding the reports.
The referencing system for the Waterfront Bridge generally adopted the reference
indicated in the REAM’s publication on ‘A Guide to Bridge Inspection’. The
referencing system is as described herebelow.
i. Abutment A is the abutment near to Labuan City Centre and Abutment B is

the abutment near to the Kompleks Sukan Laut. See Figure 6.
ii. Beams are numbered 1, 2, 3, etc., in ascending order from left to right while
facing towards Kompleks Sukan Laut. See Figure 7.
iii. The referencing for the surfaces of the beams is based on where the beam
surface is facing as shown in Figure 8.
Labuan
From City Centre To Kompleks Sukan Laut
ABUTMENT A ABUTMENT B
Figure 6: Naming of abutments.
Kompleks Sukan Laut
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5
Figure 7: Naming of bridge beams.
Kompleks Sukan Laut
Left Hand Right Hand

Side View Side View
Bottom View
Figure 8: Naming of beam surfaces.
Labuan
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF WORK
3.1 Comprehensive Inspection
3.1.1 Preparatory Work
Upon receipt of Letter of Offer (“Pelawaan Mengemukaan Cadangan Bagi

Perkhidmatan Perunding”) on 12th December 2013 Evenfit immediately conducted a
reconnaissance survey of the bridge on 26th December 2013 to assess the
conditions of the site and planning of the work and to organize with the local
contractors/companies on the assistance Evenfit may require when actually doing
the work. The Consultant also requested for all available drawings and other relevant
records from JKR in order to study them and have a better understanding of the
bridge.
In order to ensure that the work would be conducted smoothly and efficiently, a kick-
off meeting was held at Evenfit’s office on 28th February 2014. The purpose of the
meeting was to brief the inspection team on the scope of work and the various
activities involved in the work. Among the important matters discussed were the
inspection procedure; roles and responsibilities of inspection team; planning and
organising the work; bridge referencing system; and the equipment needed for
inspection.
3.1.2 Inspection Procedure
The inspection was carried out by visual observation of the structures and
supplemented by material tests. The inspectors systematically moved around the
bridge looking for defects, assessing and recording them. The procedures for the
inspection were conducted following Evenfit’s ISO procedure and REAM’s
publication ‘A Guide for Bridge Inspection’. This would ensure conformity of the
inspection report as JKR and most bridge owners in Malaysia adopted the REAM
Guide in their bridge inspection work. The process of comprehensive inspection is as
shown in Figure 9.
Labuan
Desk Study of
As-built records and
reports
Devise referencing
System
Prepare forms
• Checklist
• Summary form
Prepare equipment
Conduct Comprehensive
Inspection
Take photographic Fill out checklists Sketch defects &

records of damage take dimensions
Prepare Pictorial Prepare Summary Prepare Defect

Report Report Maps
Figure 9: Inspection flow chart.
As the inspection required the inspectors to be closed to the bridge structure Evenfit
engaged a local contractor to erect a temporary access platform at the mid-span of
the bridge prior to the inspection work (Figure 10).
Labuan
Figure 10: Staging erected underneath the bridge for access.
The inspection was conducted by a team comprising an engineer inspector and two
technician inspectors. The engineer inspector took photographic records of the
damage/defects and recorded them in photo list forms. The engineer inspector then
collated the photographs back in the office and prepared the report on the conditions
of the bridge in the form of pictorial report. The pictorial report which depicts the
conditions of the bridge with pictures and captions is given in Appendix A. A
summary on the conditions of the bridge and a general recommendations and
remedial solutions are given at the end of the report.
The technicians assisted the engineers in locating the damage/defects and recording
them in the checklist taken from the REAM Guide with a slight modification of
converting the form from a landscape format to a portrait format. The latter have the
advantage over the former in that it is easier to work at site and also it reduces the
form from two pages (per span) to just one page. The content of the checklist form
remain unchanged. The conditions of the bridge components were recorded in one
checklist. The ratings for each components were then transferred to the Summary
Report Form back at the office. In addition, the Summary Report Form also gave the
summary of findings together with brief recommended actions for the inspected
Labuan
components. The filled out checklists and Summary Report Form are given in
Appendix B.
The conditions of the bridge were rated following the REAM Guide. The procedures
involved a systematic inspection of every major bridge components and assigning
condition ratings as shown in Table 1 below. Each bridge component was then rated
based on the worst condition ratings of the damage observed in the particular
component.
Table 1: Definition of condition rating for Structures
RATING DEFINITION
1 No damage found and no maintenance required as a result of the inspection.
2 Damage detected and it necessary to record the condition for observation

purposes.
Damage detected is slightly critical and thus it is necessary to monitor or
3
implement repair work / routine maintenance work.
Damage detected is critical and thus it is necessary to implement repair work or

4 to carry out a detailed inspection to determine whether any rehabilitation works
are required.
Being heavily and critically damaged and possibly affecting the safety of traffic, it
5 is necessary to implement emergency temporary repair work immediately or
rehabilitation work without delay after the provision of a load limitation traffic sign.
In addition, the technicians also made sketches of the damage/defects observed in

the bridge and recording their respective dimensions and positions. These sketches
were then drawn back using Autocad back in the office. The defect maps for the
bridge is as given in Appendix C.
Comprehensive inspection and condition assessment of the bridge were carried out
by Evenfit from 11th March 2014 to 13th March 2014. Some photographs of the
inspection work area as shown from Figures 11 to Figure 14.
Labuan
Figure 11: Taking measurement of bridge length.
Figure 12: Taking measurement of deck slab.
Labuan
Figure 13: Marking of defect.
Figure 14: Checking on beam condition.
Labuan
3.1.3 Safety During Inspection
Evenfit placed great emphasis on safety during inspection. All the safety attire such
as safety jackets, helmets and boots were worn at all times. Inspection was always
carried out in a group of at least two inspectors to make sure that the inspectors
could look after one another in case of untoward accidents to any one of them.
Staging erected for access was thoroughly checked to ensure that it was strong
enough to support a few inspectors at one time.
3.2 Material Test
The material testing on the bridge was included in the Project in order to assist
Evenfit in determining the material properties and durability of the bridge. This was
useful in determining the current conditions of the bridge and also in conducting
structural analysis of the bridge. Evenfit had appointed Materials Testing Laboratory
Sdn. Bhd. (MTL) to carry out the material testing. The tests that were conducted on
the bridge are as given in Table 2.
Table 2: Material tests
No. Purpose Standard Tests References Quantity

Compression test
1 Core strength BS EN 12504-1 5
on cored samples
2 Depth of carbonation Carbonation test BRE 6/81 10
3 Chloride content Chloride test BS 1881: Pt 124 10
Cover and
4 Cover meter BD 1881: Pt 204 5
reinforcement
Tensile strength of EN 10 002: Pt 1
5 Tensile test 2
reinforcement EN 10 002: Pt 2
Corrosion of
6 Half-cell survey ASTM C876-80 8
reinforcement
Labuan
The material testing was conducted by MTL from 13th March 2014 until 16th March
2014 under close supervision by Evenfit. The locations of the material tests are as
given in the material test report in Appendix D. Some photographs of the material
tests are as shown from Figure 15 until Figure 22.
Figure 15: Coring work for 100mm dia. sample for

compression test.
Figure 16: Coring work for 25mm dia. sample for

carbonation and chloride test.
Labuan
Figure 17: Covermeter survey to determine location

and size of reinforcement.
Figure 18: Half-cell survey to detect likelihood of

reinforcement corrosion.
Labuan
Figure 19: Extraction of main reinforcement for tensile test.
Figure 20: Lapping back main reinforcement by welding.
Labuan
Figure 21: Applied anti-corrosion coating

reinforcement before patching.
Figure 22: Patched back by using to the SikaGrout-

215.
Labuan
3.3 Proof Load Test
The proof load test of the Jalan Waterfront Bridge was conducted following the
guidelines from REAM’s Publication ‘A Manual on Bridge Asset Management’. The
load test is a complex operation, which requires extensive planning, analyses,
specialised equipment, test vehicles, concrete blocks and lifting crane, and large
manpower utilisation. The activies involved in the load test are described in this
section.
3.3.1 Load Test Work Flow
The proof load test involved many activities from the planning stage until the conduct
of the load test and finally analysis of the results and reporting. A flowchart of the
work activities in the load test is as shown in Figure 23.
Plan, schedule and organize the Install instrumentation at bridge site

load test
Joint inspection before load test

Specify and procure test
contractor, local contractor/supplier
Conduct load test
Simulate MTAL to obtain test

vehicle
Joint inspection after load test
Weighing of test vehicles
Analyse test results

Study the bridge structure and plan
out instrumentation for load test
Summarize load test results and
prepare report
Conduct computer modelling and

obtain theoretical values for
various loading levels
Figure 23: Proof load test flow chart.
Labuan
3.3.2 Planning, Scheduling and Organizing
Planning, scheduling and organizing were an important part of the activity of load
testing to ensure that the load test was to be carried out smoothly. This involved
discussions among Evenfit’s team, Evenfit’s sub-contractors, JKR Headquarters and
local JKR to fix important dates leading to the load test. Among the activities that
needed to be scheduled were procurement of test vehicles, lifting crane, concrete
blocks, and local subcontractor/supplier; weighing of test vehicles at JPJ weigh
station; installation of instruments at site; briefing on test plan and traffic
management plan to local JKR and other authorities; announcement of load test on
local radio and newspaper; joint inspection before and after load test; the date for the
load test etc.
3.3.3 Structural Modelling and Theoretical Calculation
Theoretical Modelling for MTAL
The bridge superstructure was analysed using a structural analysis program known
as STRAP. A full composite action between the deck slab and the R.C beam was
confirmed during the bridge inspection. The bridge was modelled as a grillage
method according to C&CA/CIRIA by R.West. Dimensions of the beams and deck
slab were obtained from site measurement during the comprehensive bridge
inspection.
The bridge grillage model was loaded with MTAL which consisted of a uniformly
distributed load (UDL) and a knife edge load (KEL). To obtain the maximum sagging
moment at mid-span of the beam, the span was fully loaded with MTAL UDL and
KEL at mid-span of the beam. To obtain the maximum shear force in the beam near
Abutment B, the span was fully loaded with MTAL UDL while KEL was loaded along
the support at Abutment B.
Determination of Load Pattern for Test Vehicles
When the maximum load effects from MTAL were obtained, several trials of test
vehicles loading positions were made on the grillage models so that the maximum
moment and shear produced by those corresponding positions of the vehicles equal
Labuan
the effect due to MTAL loading. The load pattern of the test vehicles was created on
STRAP so that application of load on the bridge becomes easy.
Calculation for Strain
The comparisons of strains were considered between theoretical and experimental

results. The theoretical results were calculated from the bending theory. For flexural
strain, the formula = and = were adopted.
where:
M = Moment (Nmm)
I = Moment of inertia (mm4)
σ = Stress in the member (N/mm2)
y = Distance of the extreme fibre from the neutral axis (mm)
E = Modulus of Elasticity (N/mm2)
ε = Strain in the member
From the calculated strains, a graph was plotted to compare it with the strains
measured during the load test.
Labuan
Calculation for Shear
Shear in beams at support for the effect of test vehicles was obtained from the
grillage model. However, during the load test, Cartesian components of strain ( , ,
and γ xy ) relative to a specified set of X-Y coordinate axes were measured using
vibrating wire strain gauges in three directions (Figure 24). These strains were then
converted to shear strain and thus the shear force at support.
Figure 24: Strains measured in three directions.
The measured strains were converted to shear strain using the formula
γ xy = 2ε c − (ε a + ε b ) and then converted to shear stress from the formula τ xy = γ xy * G .
From these calculated values, shear at support was calculated using the formula
τ xy It
V= ,
Q
where:
τ xy = Shear stress (N/mm2)
V = Shear force (N)

Q = Statical moment of area (mm3)
t = Thickness of beam web (mm)
I = Second moment of area (mm4)
G = Shear modulus (N/mm2)
γ xy = Shear strain
Labuan
Deflection
During the load test, the load was applied incrementally in four levels. The test
vehicles were placed in position for maximum moment, shear, and deflection of each
beam in this position was obtained. Load-deflection graphs were plotted during the
load test to monitor the elasticity of the bridge during the load test.
Results of Simulated Load
The load effects at the beams from the grillage models due to MTAL loading and the
test vehicles are as shown in Table 3 below. The test vehicles load effects were
reasonably close to MTAL load effects although a bit higher in maximum shear.
Table 3: Results of Load Simulated
Load Effect
Test Vehicles Test Vehicles

Position for Position for
MTAL Theoretical Theoretical Capacity of
Effect Moment Shear beams
Max. moment
3597 kNm 3637 kNm - 4038 kNm
at beam
Max. shear
626 kN - 650 kN 877 kN
force at beam
Labuan
3.3.4 Weighing of Test Vehicle
The Consultant had conducted weighing of the test vehicle on 20th February 2014 at
Stesen Penguatkuasa JPJ Jalan Rancha-Rancha in Labuan. The weights of every
axles were taken at every load levels. At the same time the dimensions of the test
vehicle were also taken. This is to ensure that the actual vehicle dimensions and
weights are used in obtaining the theoretical values for the load test. The test vehicle
dimensions and arrangement of concrete blocks are shown in Figure 25 and 26
respectively. The axle weights of the test vehicle at different load levels are as
shown in Table 4.
Figure 25: Test vehicle configuration.
Labuan
Figure 26: Concrete blocks arrangements for different load levels.
Labuan
Table 4: Axle weights at various levels for test vehicle
Load No. of Axle weight, kN Truck gross

level block weight, kN
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 47.3 29.0 30.0 20.8 31.6 158
1 4 48.1 34.7 32.3 72.7 107.5 295
2 7 47.4 34.4 34.0 116.6 165.6 398
3 10 49.2 49.7 48.9 148.6 206.6 503
Some photographs showing the weighing of the test vehicle are as shown in Figures
27, 28 and 29 below.
Figure 27: The Stesen Penguatkuasa JPJ Ranca-Ranca

used for weighing of the test vehicle.
Labuan
Figure 28: The 2-axle high bed trailer and the 3-axle prime mover
which was used as the test vehicle.
Figure 29: The arrangement of concrete blocks for load Level 3.
Labuan
3.3.5 Test Plan
The test plan was prepared to explain to JKR HQ, local JKR and the relevant
authorities on how the load test was going to be conducted. The test plan included
description of the bridge, identifying the location and quantity of instruments,
weighing of test vehicles, loading position of the test vehicles, staging for access,
traffic management plan, methodology of the load test, schedule and safety during
load test
One important task in preparation for the load test plan was to plan out
instrumentation of the beams, positioning of the test vehicles, locations of tents for
data logger and guests, storage of concrete blocks and location of crane(s) for
loading and unloading of concrete blocks. The positions of the test vehicles for the
load test is as shown in Figures 30, 31 and 32.
Figure 30: The positions of the test vehicles at plan view.
Labuan
Figure 31: The positions of the test vehicles at side view.
Figure 32: The positions of the test vehicles at cross sectional view.
Labuan
3.3.6 Instrumentation
The installation of instruments at the bridge commenced on 2nd April 2014 by

Evenfit’s instrumentation contractor, Material Test Lab Sdn. Bhd. (MTL). Prior to that,
the staging for access at the mid-span had been prepared by Evenfit’s sub-
contractor.
The instruments used to capture the bridge responses during the load test were
uniaxial, 150mm vibrating wire (Model SG-4000) and 80mm vibrating wire spot-
weldable (Model Midrange-52602100) to capture strains (Figure 33 and 34); and
linear variable displacement transducers (LVDT) (50mm range – 0.01mm resolution
– Model SDP-50C) (Figure 35). In addition, thermocouples were also install to record
temperatures at the deck, underside of the deck and ambient temperatures.
Figure 33: 150mm vibrating wire (Model SG-4000).
Labuan
Figure 34: 80mm vibrating wire spot-weldable (Model 526230).
Figure 35: Linear variable displacement transducer (LVDT)

used to capture vertical displacement.
Labuan
The LVDTs were used to capture vertical displacements of beams at mid-span,

vertical displacement of the abutments and to check for any widening of the cracks
during the load test.
The 150mm vibrating wire strain gauges were installed on the concrete surface
whereas the 80mm vibrating wire spot-weldable gauges were installed directly on the
steel reinforcement (Figure 36). The spot-weldable strain gauges were installed to
capture strains near the bottom of the beams at mid-span. The spot-weldable strain
gauges were used because Evenfit feared that the fine vertical cracks at the bottom
of the beams may affect the strain readings if the vibrating wire strain gauges that
attached to the concrete surfaces were used.
Figure 36: Installation of 150mm vibrating wire strain gauges and 80mm
vibrating wire spot-weldable gauges on the beams.
Labuan
The strain gauges and the LVDTs were connected to a data logger CR10X with
thermocouple wire from Cambell Scientific Inc. USA and TML portable data logger
(Model TDS-302) with switch boxes from Tokyo Sokki Kenkyujo Co. Ltd. Japan
(Figure 37).
Figure 37: CR10X data logger (top) and TML portable data logger (bottom)
used to capture the readings
Labuan
The locations of the LVDTs and strain gauges installed at the bridge is as shown in
Figures 38, 39 and 40. For monitoring of the beams and abutments the LVDTs were
fixed on independent supports to ensure that LVDTs captured the true
displacements of the beams and the abutments.
Figure 38: Instrumentation at longitudinal and plan location of the beams.
Labuan
Figure 39: Instrumentation at mid-span of the beams.
Labuan
Figure 40: Instrumentation at/near the Abutment A (top) and Abutment B.
Labuan
3.3.7 Traffic Management
Closing of the bridge during the load test was inevitable as the arrangement of the
test vehicles does not permit any vehicles to pass through the bridge. The bridge at
Jalan Kompleks Waterfront is usually not that busy but in order to make sure that the
bridge closure had minimal impact on the road user a proper traffic management
plan was proposed by Evenfit. The traffic management plan was finalized upon
discussion with JKR Labuan and local police during a briefing at JKR Labuan on 2nd
April 2014. The traffic management plan is as given in Figure 41.
Figure 41: Traffic management for the bridge closure.
In order to ensure that the public was well informed of the closure of the bridge
during the load test, the following steps were taken:
Labuan
• Announcement in local radio stations

• Advertisement in local newspaper (Figure 42)
• Signboards at strategic locals at the vicinity of the bridge (Figure 43)
Figure 42: Advertisement in the local newspaper.
Figure 43: Signboard placed at strategic locations at vicinity of the bridge.
Labuan
3.3.8 Conduct of Proof Load Test
The load test was conducted on 10th April 2014 commencing at 8.30 am and
completed at 4.30 pm. Firstly, the bridge was closed to all traffic and then the test
vehicles were guided to their predetermined positions on the bridge (Figure 44). The
test vehicles positions in were intended to simulate the MTAL load effects in terms of
bending moment and shear based on the analysis done earlier in the office.
Once the test vehicles were in position, the readings due to the empty test vehicles
(Level 0) were taken. The bridge was then loaded incrementally up to the maximum
Load Level 3 following the concrete block arrangements done during the weighing of
the test vehicle at Ranca-Ranca JPJ Station. At each load levels, the strains and
displacement readings were taken for a period of 30 minutes. This was to ensure
that the bridge responses to the loads had stabilized. The mid-span deflections at
every load levels were monitored to ensure that they increased linearly, i.e., the
bridge was within the elastic limit state. The measured deflections were also
compared with the theoretical values to ensure that the measured readings did not
deviate too much from the theoretical values.
One important aspect of the load test is to check whether the load test had caused
any damage to the bridge. This was achieved by recording the conditions of the
bridge before and after the load test by conducting a joint inspection with JKR one
day before the load test and one day after the load test. The joint inspection forms
before and after the load test is given in Appendix E.
Photographs showing some activities during the load test are as shown from Figure
45 until Figure 49.
Labuan
Figure 44: Guiding and positioning of the test vehicles.
Labuan
Figure 45: Briefing the objective and the procedure of the load test to JKR personnel
before the test began.
Figure 46: Test vehicles positioned at predetermined location.
Labuan
Figure 47: Loading of concrete blocks to the test vehicles.
Labuan
Figure 48: Monitoring the results.
Figure 49: Loads at Load Level 3.
Labuan
4.0 THE FINDINGS
4.1 Comprehensive Inspection
The conditions of the bridge components were recorded in 3 formats namely,
i. Pictorial report on condition of the bridge (Appendix A);

ii. Structural Condition Checklist for the bridge and Summary Report
Form (Appendix B),
iii. Defect maps (Appendix C).
A summary of the bridge conditions with components having condition ratings of 3 or

worse is given in Table 5 below. The main damage/defects are highlighted, followed
by their corresponding recommended actions.
Table 5: Summary of conditions for the bridge components
Component Rating Main Defects Recommended Actions
- Fine vertical cracks at mid- - Seal the cracks by

Beam 3 span of bridge. epoxy injection.
- Localised honeycomb. - Regular monitoring.
Pavement cracks 4.8m from - Regular monitoring

Surfacing 3
Abutment A.
- Replace rubber seal

Cracks and rupture of rubber
Expansion 4 or reinstate with
Joint seal
asphaltic plug type
Drainpipe 4 Short (broken) drainpipe - Replace drainpipe
From Table 5, it could be seen that the bridge was in fairly good conditions despite
its age. There were some damage/defects detected but none that caused adverse
effect to the bridge. The damage/defects are described below.
Labuan
i) Fine vertical cracks at mid-span of beams
Fine vertical cracks were observed at the mid-span region of all the beams (Figures
50 and 51). The cracks were mostly 0.1mm wide and closely spaced that is between
200mm to 400mm and were confined between the intermediate diaphragms (Figures
52 and 53). Generally the cracks were observed at the soffit of the beams and
propagated up the sides of the beams and stopped at mid-height of the beams.
However, a few of the cracks at the beam soffit did not continue to the sides of the
beams. These cracks are unlikely to be structural based on the following
observation:
a. The cracks at the soffit of the beams were narrower than the cracks at the
sides of the beams. If the cracks were structural they would be wider at the
soffit than at the sides of the beams.
b. Some of the cracks at the soffit did not propagate to the side of the beams.
c. The cracks at the sides of the beams propagated until the mid-height of the
beams. If these were structural cracks, the crack widths would be wider for
them to propagate to that height.
d. The cracks were mostly fine, i.e., about 0.1mm only.
Based on the above observations, the cracks were likely due to shrinkage and thus
would not affect the structural integrity of the bridge.
Labuan
Figure 50: Fine vertical cracks at mid-span RHS Beam

1 (white chalk drawn alongside of the cracks).
Figure 51: Fine vertical cracks at mid-span LHS Beam

5 (white chalk drawn alongside of the cracks). The
other beams also showed similar crack pattern.
Labuan
Figure 52: Defect map at mid-span of Beam 1
Figure 53: Defect map at mid-span of Beam 4
Labuan
ii) Damaged expansion joint at Abutment B
The expansion joint at Abutment B had suffered some damage (Figure 54). The
expansion joint which is of compression seal type had suffered cracking and rupture
of the rubber seal. This damage was due to constant impact from the vehicle tyres
on the expansion joint, and due to aging as under long period of cyclic hot and cold
the rubber seal lost its flexibility and failed to expand sufficiently to cater for
expansion and contraction at the joint. The assessment by computation analysis and
site inspection showed that joint is sufficient to cater for the movement at the bridge.
The nosing was however, still in good condition. Damaged rubber seal allows
rainwater to leak through the joint and wet the component underneath the expansion
joint. This may lead to durability problem in the long term.
Figure 54: Cracked and ruptured rubber seal of expansion joint at Abutment B.
Labuan
iii) Cracks at asphaltic concrete surfacing
An area of fine multiple cracks was observed on the asphaltic concrete (premix)
surfacing about 4.8m from Abutment A (Figure 55). This is a typical damage to
premix surfacing which is an indication on the weakness of the pavement. Based on
the crack width, they were still at an initial stage but they need to be monitored to
regularly as they may worsen into pot holes.
Figure 55: A small area of fine multiple cracks in

pavement about 4.5m from Abutment A
Labuan
iv) Damaged Drainpipe
One of the drainpipe near the mid-span of RHS of Beam 1 had broken near the soffit
of the slab (Figure 56). The broken drainpipe allowed rainwater to splash directly on
the beam and the constant dampness at that area may eventually lead to durability
problem.
Figure 56: Broken drainpipe at RHS of Beam 1.
Labuan
4.2 Material Test
The results of the material tests are given in the material test report submitted by
MTL and is included in Appendix D of the report. The result of material test is
summarised as below.
i) Compressive strength test
The compressive strength test on 5 cored samples taken at the beams (4 nos.) and
deck slab (1 nos.) is as given Table 6 below.
Table 6: Compressive strength test results
Concrete Core Est. Cube Strength

No. Component/Marking
Strength (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
1 Slab (C1) 44.0 45.0
2 Beam 1 (C4) 40.0 41.0
3 Beam 2 (C5) 43.0 44.5
4 Beam 4 (C2) 29.5 30.0
5 Beam 5 (C3) 32.0 33.0
The estimated cube strength obtained from the cored samples showed a big
variation, ranging from 30.0 N/mm2 to 45 N/mm2. Even though there was a big
variation in the cube strength, this is to be expected due to the intrinsic nature of
concrete being non-homogeneous. Nonetheless, the lowest strength of 30.0 N/mm2
is still acceptable as it was above the allowable strength usually used for reinforced
concrete design.
ii) Covermeter survey
The cover meter survey to locate the positions, sizes and cover of the reinforcement
was carried at 5 locations at the beams (4 nos.) and at the slab soffit (1 nos.). The
summary of the cover is as given in Table 7.
Labuan
Table 7: Summary results of the covermeter survey.
Minimum Cover Maximum Cover

(mm) (mm)
1 Beam 1 (Cs4) 28 56
2 Beam 4 (Cs2) 47 66
3 Beam 4 (Cs5) 47 67
4 Beam 5 (Cs1) 11 52
5 Bottom Slab (Cs3) 38 58
The results showed that the covers were generally quite deep, i.e., mostly greater
than 30mm. Only a small area near the bottom of Beam 5 has a low cover of
between 11m and 16mm. This is expected to be localised construction fault.
Therefore, it can be deduced that the concrete cover for the bridge is adequate.
Based on the covermeter survey, the probable steel reinforcement at the beam is as
given in Figure 57.
Labuan
Figure 57: Steel reinforcement at the beam.
iii) Depth of Carbonation
The result of the carbonation test is as given in Table 8.
Table 8: Results of Carbonation test
Depth of Carbonation
(mm)
1 Beam 5 (Ca1) 10
2 Beam 2 (Ca2) None
3 Beam 2 (Ca3) None
4 Bottom Slab (Ca4) None
5 Beam 1 (Ca5) 4
6 Bottom Slab (Ca6) None
7 Beam 3 (Ca7) 8
8 Beam 5 (Ca8) 10
9 Beam 3 (Ca9) None
10 Beam 1 (Ca10) 10
The carbonation test results showed that the bridge do not have problems with
carbonation as the deepest carbonation depth detected was 10mm which was much
Labuan
lesser than the general cover detected of more than 30mm. This was also evidenced
from the comprehensive inspection as there was no sign of cracking, delamination
and spalling due to corrosion of reinforcement.
iv) Chloride test
The chloride content test was conducted at 3 depth, i.e., 0-20mm, 20-40mm and 40-
60mm. The results of chloride test is given in Table 9.
Table 9: Chloride test result

Chloride Content by
Component
No. Depth weight of concrete
/Marking
(Cl, %)
0 - 20 0.02
1 Beam 5 (Cl1) 20 - 40 ND (< 0.01)
40 - 60 ND (< 0.01)
0 - 20 0.02
2 Beam 2 (Cl2) 20 - 40 0.01
40 - 60 0.02
0 - 20 0.02
3 Bottom Slab (Cl3) 20 - 40 0.03
40 - 60 ND (< 0.01)
0 - 20 0.03
4 Bottom Slab (Cl4) 20 - 40 0.02
40 - 60 ND (< 0.01)
0 - 20 ND (< 0.01)
5 Beam 1 (Cl5) 20 - 40 ND (< 0.01)
40 - 60 ND (< 0.01)
0 - 20 ND (< 0.01)
6 Bottom Slab (Cl6) 20 - 40 ND (< 0.01)
40 - 60 ND (< 0.01)
0 - 20 ND (< 0.01)
7 Beam 3 (Cl7) 20 - 40 ND (< 0.01)
40 - 60 0.02
0 - 20 ND (< 0.01)
8 Beam 5 (Cl8) 20 - 40 ND (< 0.01)
40 - 60 ND (< 0.01)
0 - 20 0.02
9 Beam 3 (Cl9) 20 - 40 ND (< 0.01)
40 - 60 ND (< 0.01)
0 - 20 ND (< 0.01)
10 Beam 1 (Cl10) 20 - 40 ND (< 0.01)
40 - 60 ND (< 0.01)
Labuan
The results showed that minimal amount of chlorides (maximum of 0.03%) had
penetrated the concrete at the depth 0-20mm. No chlorides were detected deeper
than that on most of the collected samples. Since the maximum content of chloride
detected is 0.03% by weight of concrete which is less than 0.06% by weight of
concrete (the minimum content to promote corrosion), it can be concluded that the
bridge is not susceptible to corrosion of reinforcement due to chloride ingress.
v) Half-cell survey
The half-cell survey allowed us to detect the likelihood of corrosion activity of the
underlying reinforcement. The survey was conducted using a silver/silver chloride
half-cell. The results of half-cell survey is as shown in Appendix D – Material Test
Report. The risk of occurrence reinforcement corrosion as given by ASTM C 876 –
80 is as given in Table 10 below.
Table 10: ASTM C 876 - 80
No. Half-Cell Potential Relative to Percentage Chance of Corrosion

Electrodes (mV) Activity
1. E > - 120 Greater than 90% probability that no
corrosion is occurring
2. - 120 > E > -270 Corrosion activity is uncertain
3. E < -270 Greater than 90% probability that
corrosion is occurring
The results of the half-cell survey at the 8 locations surveyed showed that the half-
cell potentials range between -172 and 195. Thus, form Table 10 it was unlikely that
there is any likelihood of any corrosion activity occurring. This further support
Evenfit’s observation on the exposed reinforcement bars from the covermeter and
tensile tests that all the reinforcement bars were in good condition.
Labuan
vi) Tensile test
The results of tensile test is as given in Table 11 below.
Table 11: Tensile test result
The tensile test results showed that the yield strength and tensile strength of the
steel bars were much higher than the characteristic strength value 460 N/mm2.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the steel bars used in the bridge are acceptable.
The graphs for obtaining the yield stress and tensile strength for the T16 and T32
steel bars is given in Figure 58 and 59 respectively.
Labuan
Figure 58: Stress-time curves for 16mm and 32mm diameter steel bars.
Labuan
Figure 59: Stress-strain curves for 16mm and 32mm diameter steel bars.
Labuan
4.3 Proof Load Test
4.3.1 Temperature Monitoring
Temperature variations were monitored at the top of the bridge deck, at beam soffit
and ambient temperature for a period of 24 hours prior to the testing, during the load
test and 24 hours after the load test. Figures 60, 61 and 62 show the variation of
temperature at the bridge deck with time. From the graphs it is evident that from the
time of first reading (on 9/4/2014 at 9.00 am) until the last set of reading (on
11/4/2014 at 4.00pm) the top of the deck had higher temperatures than the beam
soffit. This temperature gradient at the bridge deck had caused it to deflect upward
(see Table 12 and 13). The upward deflections were increasing from morning with
the highest upward deflection taken on 9/04/14 was 3.04mm on Beam 3 at 4.00pm.
Similarly the highest upward deflection taken on 11/04/14 was 3.30mm on Beam 3 at
4.20pm. Temperature effect on the strain levels was also apparent during the load
test. The strain readings under temperature effect also indicated that the deck was
hogging (see Table 14 and 15). Because of this temperature effect on the deflection
and strain readings, the deflections and strains taken during the load test had to be
compensated with readings without loads before and after the load test. The
calculation on determining the deflection after compensation due to temperature
effect is as shown in Appendix F.
Figure 60: Temperature variation of the deck during the load test (10/4/14).
Labuan
Figure 61: Temperature variation of the deck before the load test (9/4/14).
Figure 62: Temperature variation of the deck after the load test (11/4/14).
Labuan
Table 12: Mid-span beam deflections without load on 9/04/14

Temperature Monitoring Linear Displacement Transducer *
Time Air
Top Bottom B1 B2 B3 B4 B5
Temp
9.00 28 35 28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10.00 31 38 30 0.20 0.42 0.44 0.38 0.16
11.00 35 43 31 0.45 0.89 0.98 4.19 0.35
11.19 0.54 1.05 1.19 0.00 0.44
12.00 34 45 30 0.73 1.40 1.60 0.37 0.60
13.00 35 45 32 1.04 1.93 2.23 0.92 0.87
14.00 35 40 30 1.29 2.37 2.72 1.35 1.10
15.00 31 38 32 1.44 2.59 2.97 1.58 1.24
16.00 30 36 31 1.49 2.65 3.04 1.64 1.37
17.00 30 34 30 1.45 2.53 2.92 1.53 1.37
Table 13: Mid-span beam deflections without load on 11/04/14

Temperature Monitoring Linear Displacement Transducer
Time Air
Top Bottom B1 B2 B3 B4 B5
Temp
9.20 30 43 29 -0.06 -0.23 -0.30 -0.33 -0.22
10.20 32 49 30 0.36 0.66 0.97 0.48 0.18
11.20 37 51 32 0.73 1.35 1.78 1.18 0.46
12.20 33 42 31 1.04 1.92 2.41 1.77 1.22
13.20 32 38 32 1.18 2.18 2.73 2.04 1.37
14.20 33 38 32 1.29 2.32 2.90 2.18 1.50
15.20 33 37 31 1.43 2.54 3.15 2.42 1.64
16.20 32 35 32 1.54 2.68 3.30 2.57 1.76
* Note:
Positive displacement indicated that the beams were deflecting upwards
Labuan
Table 14: Mid-span bottom beam strains without load on 9/04/14
Date Time B1-4 B2-4 B3-4 B4-4 B5-4
9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00

10.00 -49.05 -3.75 78.69 -138.8 41.51
11.00 -3.94 -13.66 -76.63 -12.5 -108.95
12.00 -5.63 -25.42 -76.16 -107.0 -29.12
9-Apr
13.00 -7.60 -31.82 -80.87 -128.5 -83.19
14.00 -9.00 -37.41 -78.04 -28.4 -44.27
15.00 -10.97 -38.21 -3.60 -31.5 -45.57
16.00 -9.85 -35.28 -1.44 -28.9 -41.14
Table 15: Mid-span bottom beam strains without load on 11/04/14
Date Time B1-4 B2-4 B3-4 B4-4 B5-4
9.20 3.10 2.95 3.30 3.7 -2.11

10.20 0.84 -7.50 -7.14 -6.1 -10.79
11.20 35.66 44.25 53.82 76.2 51.39
12.20 35.88 44.60 54.30 76.9 51.76
11-Apr
13.20 36.10 44.95 54.77 77.6 52.14
14.20 36.32 45.29 55.24 78.3 52.51
15.20 36.55 45.64 55.71 79.0 52.89
16.20 36.77 45.99 56.18 79.7 53.26
Labuan
4.3.2 Beam Deflection at Mid-span
Measured beam deflections corresponding to different load levels are tabulated in

Table 16 and plotted in Figure 63 and Figure 64. The measured deflections on all the
beams produced straight curves which indicated that the beams were within the
elastic limit state throughout the entire load test and the deflected beams had
returned to their original level after the loads had been removed as evident in the
deflection monitoring after load test as given in Appendix G. It can be seen from
these graphs that the pattern of the measured deflections were similar and quite
close to the theoretical deflection which showed that the assumed model was
reasonably adequate. It was observed that the measured deflections was lesser
compared to the theoretical values which indicated that the bridge is stiffer/stronger
than what the theory predicted.
Table 16: Results of deflection
Labuan
Figure 63: Comparison of theoretical and actual deflections of

the beams at different load levels.
Labuan
Figure 64: Load-deflection graphs at different load levels.
Labuan
4.3.3 Strain/moment at Mid-span
The flexural strains at mid-span of the beams were obtained during each load levels
of loading the bridge. Four strain values at different height of the beams were
obtained for each beam and compared with the theoretical results. The flexural
strains across the beams at different load levels are shown in Figure 65 for the
purpose of comparing the theoretical and measured strains. From the figure it is
observed that not all the strain readings produced a straight line across the beams.
This is especially so for strains across Beam 1 and 4. It appeared that there might be
errors in the strains at Position 3 (counting from the top) as they were too far out
from the strains at other levels. But the strain readings at this position appeared to
move in line with other strains at maximum load level.
In order to study the lateral load distribution characteristic of the bridge, the
measured bottom strains on each beam were converted to bending moments at
different load levels and compared with the theoretical moments (Figure 66). It can
be seen that the measured moment at Load Level 3 generally followed the
theoretical moment curve. However, the measured moment at Beam 1 and 3 were
higher than the theoretical moments. As observed earlier, there is a likelihood of
errors in the readings. The measured moments at Beam 2, 4 and 5 appeared
reasonable as their difference with the theoretical moments were quite constant.
Assuming that these values are correct we can state that the actual moments on the
beams were smaller than the theoretical moments and that the bridge is actually
stronger than the theoretcal prediction.
In order to compare the maximum imposed moment and the moment capacity of the
beam, a graph of theoretical and measured moment inclusive of dead load and
superimposed dead load at maximum load level was plotted together with moment
capacity of the beam (Figure 67). It was noted that the maximum moment for both
theoretical and measured values were lower than the moment capacity of the beam.
Thus, the imposed moment from the load test do not exceed the moment capacity of
the beams.
Labuan
Left blank for Page 67
Labuan
Table 17: Results of Moment due to Test Vehicles
Figure 66: Distribution of moment due to Test Vehicles at different load levels
at mid-span in transverse direction.
Labuan
Table 18: Results of Maximum Moment due to Dead,

Superimposed Dead Load, and Test Vehicles
Figure 67: Distribution of maximum moment at Load Level 3 due to Dead,

Superimposed Dead Load, and Test Vehicles compare with moment capacity
of beams at mid-span in transverse direction.
Labuan
4.3.4 Shear at Beam Ends
Shear forces at support were calculated by standard formulae from the strains
measured in three directions as described in Section 3.3.3. The values of theoretical
and measured shear forces at different load levels are tabulated in Table 19 and
plotted on graphs in Figure 68. There were obvious differences between both values
which could be due to some errors in the gauge readings. Based on the readings, it
is difficult to determine which were the erroneous readings and what caused these
errors. From the pattern, it appeared that there might be error in Beam 5 as the
measured shear force was very high from Load Level 0 to Load Level 3. The
measured shear for Beam 2 might also be wrong as the value at Load Level 1 is
much higher than the shear at Load Level 2 and 3. The measured shear forces at
Level 0 appeared good except for Beam 5.
The shear forces inclusive of dead load and superimposed dead load at maximum
load level are plotted in a graph together with the shear capacity to compare their
values with the shear capacity (Figure 69). It was noted that the theoretical shears
were smaller than the shear capacity. For the measured shears, the shear in Beam 5
exceeded the shear capacity of the beam. However, there was a likelihood or error in
this result as explained earlier. In addition, the joint inspection conducted after the
load test revealed no new defect/damage had occurred due to fracture in shear.
Hence, we can conclude that the measured shear force in Beam 5 was highly likely
erroneous reading and the load test was within the shear capacity of the beams.
Labuan
Table 19: Results of shear force due to Test Vehicles
Figure 68: Shear force due to Test Vehicles in transverse direction

at Abutment B at different load level.
Labuan
Table 20: Results of shear force due to Dead,

Superimposed Dead Load, and Test Vehicles
Figure 69: Shear force due to Dead, Superimposed Dead Load, and Test Vehicles in
transverse direction at Abutment B at maximum load level.
Labuan
4.3.5 Settlement of Abutments
The results of monitoring of the settlements at abutments by installing LVDTs at the

four corners of the abutment (Figure 70) are given in Table 21. The readings showed
that there was insignificant/no settlement of the abutments during the load test.
Hence, it can be concluded that the foundations have the capacity to take at least
MTAL loading. At the same time, the beam deflection readings were not required to
be corrected due to settlement of the abutments.
Figure 70: Locations of LVDT installed at the abutments.
Labuan
Table 21: LVDT readings at the abutments

Load Gross Weight
Abutment Location Settlement (mm)
Level (kN)
1 0.00
A
2 0.01
0 222.8
3 0.02
B
4 0.01
1 0.02
A
2 0.01
1 494.4
3 0.04
B
4 0.05
1 0.02
A
2 0.02
2 701.2
3 0.04
B
4 0.05
1 0.03
A
2 0.03
3 907.6
3 0.05
B
4 0.04
Labuan
4.3.6 Monitoring of Cracks
Table 22 presents the readings from the LVDTs installed at two locations across the
cracks (Figure 71) to monitor any opening of the cracks as the load on the bridge
was increased. The readings showed that there was negligible widening of the
cracks at the monitored locations during the load test. Therefore, it is unlikely that
these two cracks are structural cracks.
Table 22: LVDT readings at the cracks

Increase of
Load Gross Weight Beam
Location crack width
Level (kN) no.
(mm)
1 Mid-span RHS of Beam 1 0.00
0 222.8
5 Mid-span LHS of Beam 5 0.01

1 494.4

2 701.2

3 907.6
Figure 71: Location of LVDT installed across the cracks at the beams.
Labuan
5.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The inspection of the Jalan Kompleks Waterfront Bridge revealed that the bridge was
in fairly good condition with some damage/defects that were unlikely to affect the
structural integrity of the bridge. The main damage/defect to the structural
components was fine vertical cracks at the mid-span region of the beams which was
likely due to shrinkage since the cracks did not exhibit any progression during the
test. There was also minor honeycomb near the bottom of the beams. Besides
these, there were damages to non-structural members of the bridge, i.e., damage at
expansion joint, cracks in the premix surfacing and broken drainpipes.
The material test results conducted showed that the concrete material was in good
condition with minimal/no concern on the durability problem. The concrete
compressive strength is acceptable and the steel reinforcement tensile strength were
much higher than the characteristic strength.
Based on the damage/defects observed on the bridge, it is recommended to take the

following actions:-
i) Cracks at the beams

Seal the cracks by epoxy resin injection.
ii) Honeycomb at bottom of beams

Patch repair with appropriate repair mortar
iii) Damage expansion joint

Replace the damaged rubber seal or replace the joint with asphaltic plug
expansion joint.
iv) Cracks in premix surfacing

Regular monitoring of the cracks.
The bridge was load tested with test vehicles of known weights to simulate MTAL
load effects in terms of maximum moment and shear. The pattern of the measured
beam deflections at the mid-span were quite similar to the theoretical values and the
Labuan
measured values were lesser than the theoretical values. This gave an indication
that the actual bridge behaviour was stiffer than the theoretical model.
The Jalan Kompleks Waterfront Bridge was proof loaded to the load effect equivalent
to MTAL in terms of moment and shear. The deflections recorded by the beams
during the load test were smaller than the theoretical deflections. The recovery upon
removal of the test loads after the 24 hours was observed to be about 100%; which
shows that the test had not caused any permanent defect to the bridge. Further, the
joint inspection conducted on the bridge after the load test also did not detect any
structural damage. Thus, it can be concluded that the Jalan Kompleks Waterfront
Bridge can at least carry the full MTAL loading, i.e., complying to the First Schedule
permitted for roads in List I of the Second Schedule of Weight Restriction (Federal
Road) (Amendment) Order 2003 (WRO 2003).
Notwithstanding, as a good engineering practice the few damages/defects detected

such as fine vertical cracks and honeycomb at the beams, broken drainpipe and
damaged expansion should be rectified using standard engineering practices as
given in Volume II of the Final Report. It is recommended that the bridge is inspected
regularly in the future so that damage/defects observed are always at an early stage
where remedial actions are less extensive and at cheaper cost.

Proof Load Test On Jambatan Jalan Kompleks Waterfront FL 745/000/45 WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN Labuan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proof Load Test On Jambatan Jalan Kompleks Waterfront FL 745/000/45 WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN Labuan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROOF LOAD TEST ON JAMBATAN

JALAN KOMPLEKS WATERFRONT FL

CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND

EVENFIT CONSULT SDN. BHD. JABATAN KERJA RAYA MALAYSIA

Volume I: Condition Assessment and Proof Load Test Report

The conditions of the bridge was assessed by conducting a comprehensive visual

Volume I: Condition Assessment and Proof Load Test Report

In addition to the comprehensive inspection, material tests were also conducted to

Besides test on durability, test on material properties namely compressive strength

Volume I: Condition Assessment and Proof Load Test Report

Proof Load Test

Volume I: Condition Assessment and Proof Load Test Report

Summary and Recommendation

Figure 1: Location of Jalan Kompleks Waterfront Bridge.

1.2 Main Objective

1.3 Scope of Work

The scope of consultancy services as specified in the Terms of Reference (TOR)

i. To propose Traffic Management Plan and provide temporary access,

ii. To carry out comprehensive inspection and condition assessment on the

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE BRIDGE AND REFERENCING SYSTEM

2.1 Description of the Bridge

Figure 2: General arrangement of the bridge.

Figure 3: General view of the bridge. The JPS flood gate

Figure 4: Side view of the bridge from the downstream.

Figure 5: View of the underside of the bridge.

2.2 Bridge Referencing System

Devising a referencing system that is easy to apply and understand was an

i. Abutment A is the abutment near to Labuan City Centre and Abutment B is

From City Centre To Kompleks Sukan Laut

Figure 6: Naming of abutments.

Kompleks Sukan Laut

Figure 7: Naming of bridge beams.

Kompleks Sukan Laut

Left Hand Right Hand

Figure 8: Naming of beam surfaces.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF WORK

3.1 Comprehensive Inspection

3.1.1 Preparatory Work

Upon receipt of Letter of Offer (“Pelawaan Mengemukaan Cadangan Bagi

3.1.2 Inspection Procedure

Take photographic Fill out checklists Sketch defects &

Prepare Pictorial Prepare Summary Prepare Defect

Figure 9: Inspection flow chart.

Figure 10: Staging erected underneath the bridge for access.

Table 1: Definition of condition rating for Structures

1 No damage found and no maintenance required as a result of the inspection.

2 Damage detected and it necessary to record the condition for observation

Damage detected is critical and thus it is necessary to implement repair work or

In addition, the technicians also made sketches of the damage/defects observed in

Figure 11: Taking measurement of bridge length.

Figure 12: Taking measurement of deck slab.

Figure 13: Marking of defect.

Figure 14: Checking on beam condition.

3.1.3 Safety During Inspection

3.2 Material Test

Table 2: Material tests

No. Purpose Standard Tests References Quantity

Figure 15: Coring work for 100mm dia. sample for

Figure 16: Coring work for 25mm dia. sample for

Figure 17: Covermeter survey to determine location

Figure 18: Half-cell survey to detect likelihood of

Figure 19: Extraction of main reinforcement for tensile test.

Figure 20: Lapping back main reinforcement by welding.