Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/265597845
CITATIONS READS
8 1,145
3 authors:
Guido Bolle
Hochschule Wismar
39 PUBLICATIONS 156 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Gregor Schacht on 05 April 2016.
Abstract
This paper gives an overview over the historical development of loading tests and describes the
actual practise in Germany.
The use of loading tests to prove the bearing capacity of structures is as old as the humankind
and plays an important role in the historical development of reinforced concrete constructions.
Loading tests proofed the bearing strength obviously for everybody and therefore they were likely
used to convince the people of the bearing capability of floor slabs or bridges.
With the development of static calculations and of acceptable design rules, load testing
became unnecessary for new structures and by the mid 1960s it was deleted in almost all European
codes. In the last decade of the 20th century the method of test loading was upgraded through big
research projects and since 2000 a guideline for the execution and assessment of loading tests
exists in Germany.
Today there is a big amount of existing structures, which need to be evaluated in terms of
their bearing capacity for future utilization. But the existing design codes and the lack of as-built
information often don’t allow an appropriate analysis of the present bearing strength. With the help
of loading tests, hidden bearing reserves can be detected and the structure can be preserved from
demolition.
1 Introduction
Since prehistoric times people are striving to achieve the largest possible range of safety in all areas
of their lives. For the construction industry this is important in a very special way, because the
failure of structures is much less accepted in society, as for example the failure of motor vehicles or
electronic devices. We especially feel a sense of security if we really „know” or „see” that
structural components can withstand the appropriate loads.
Civil engineering has its origin in the handcraft and especially in this, experiences, which
have been gained by trial and error, were very important. This testing is therefore not only the
literal, but also the historical origin of loading tests, and the first test, if something withstands a
certain stress, like e.g. the test of the tensile strength of a liana or the bearing strength of a fallen
log, already lays back some million years. Loading tests are thus as old as the humankind itself.
They convinced the people that a construction is suitable for a certain load and established trust in
cases of doubt.
1
fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011
Session XXX: YYY
This confidence in the bearing capacity is the goal of all loading tests, which apparently prove the
safety of a structure, visible for everybody. Particularly new construction methods or novel
structural elements had and have to “earn” this confidence, first by passing a loading test.
Especially, reinforced concrete could prevail in its early years only because its performance
has been proven effective by a multitude of load tests to a wide public. Therefore loading tests have
been the ultimate proof of a sufficient bearing capacity of components and structures till the 19th
and 20th century.
Fig. 1 Loading test of the second Reichsbrücke in Vienna in 1937, Picture: Austrian National Archive
To produce the partial considerably loads, always ballast masses were used and directly placed on
the structures. Therefore, depending on the location and function of the bridge and the availability
of the materials, different variations were chosen. For the loading test of the road bridge over the
Thur near Oberbüren (Switzerland) in 1886 the water of the river was pumped up with fire-
fightining, motor pumps into tanks, which were placed on the bridge [1]. For railway bridges, like
the bridge near Tübingen (Fig. 2), the loading was realised with locomotives and heavily loaded
freight cars. For the loading of the road bridge near Walsburg in 1895, sandbags were used to
simulate the uniformly distributed loads and additionally two four-in-hands with a load of 5.3 t
passed the bridge [2]. Often steamroller were used. Von Emperger reports in [3] of a loading test of
2
fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011
Session XXX: YYY
a pedestrian bridge in Rotterdamm in 1901, for which trucks were hung up to the structure with
chains and were loaded with sand from the street below.
Figure 3 exemplarily shows the loading test of a road bridge (Altstädter bridge in Pforzheim
[4]). It can be seen from the picture, that the full loading of the middle field is done with two
steamrollers and six heavy trucks. To simulate the load by human crowd, steel rods were put on
footpaths. As the essential reaction of the structure under load normally only the deflections were
measured. If these were small enough or close to the calculated deflections, the proof of a sufficient
load bearing capacity has been provided.
Fig. 2 Loading test of the railway bridge near Tübingen, Fig. 3 Loading test for commissioning the
[4] Altstädter bridge in Pforzheim, [4]
Otherwise the recognition of a loading test, because of small deflections, did not guarantee a
permanent secure operation of the bridge. The steel-framework bridge over the Morawa near
Ljubitschewo (Serbia) already showed some construction and material deficits before completion.
The loading test was executed at the most carefully engineered opening of the bridge on
September, 21st and 22nd 1892. Gravel from the river bed of the Morawa was used as ballast load.
At the second day of testing the bridge suddenly collapsed caused by a buckling of the
underdimensioned upper chord (Fig. 5). At that time the deflections were within the normal range
and gave no sign of reaching a critical structure condition [5]. The road bridge near Salez (Kanton
St. Gallen, Switzerland) collapsed during a loading test in 1884 at a measured elastic deformation
of 10 mm, also caused by buckling of the upper chords because of a missing bracing and a poor
construction of the junction plates. The bridge abruptly collapsed, even though the as acceptable
declared maximum deflection was 17.5 mm [6].
Fig. 4 Collapsed road bridge over the Morawa near Ljubitschewo (Serbia), [5]
3
fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011
Session XXX: YYY
A similarly sudden failure occurred at loading tests of suspension bridges. Thus, problems with the
quality of the wire cables caused the collapse of the bridge in Maurin (France). The corroded cables
had only partly been renewed and at the loading test for recommissioning, the bridge broke down
[7]. Also the suspension bridge at Tonnay-Charente (France) was to be repaired, but at the loading
test, which should determine the present load bearing capacity, the bridge collapsed [8].
Sometimes these collapses during a loading test were caused by imprudence or gross
negligence. Thus, the Rhône bridge near Peney (Switzerland) with a span of 100 m passed the
loading test with sandbags without any problems. But at lunchtime heavy rain started and the
sandbags absorbed the water till the load was too much for the bridge and the anchorages broke.
Also the 1873 tested bridge over the Broye near Payerne passed the loading test successfully. But it
collapsed, when the worker began throwing the used water tanks over the bridge without any care,
only to be able to take part at opening party quickly and therefore damaged a main girder [9].
Because of some spectacular bridge collapses, like e.g. the collapse of the Münchensteiner
bridge 1891 [10], the Suisse railway department prescribed regular inspections for all railway
bridges [9]. Within these inspections simple loading test had to be carried out, where the loading
corresponded to the load assumptions of the calculation. Therewith loading tests became a standard
procedure with all consequences, whereby the results of the tests often have not even been
analysed. The bridge proved it sufficient load bearing capacity, if it did not collapse and if simply
checkable criteria were fulfilled. These limit criteria have been derived from over centuries gained
experiences and personal feelings and affected mainly the serviceability of the construction,
namely deflections or vibrations.
The limited significance of these criteria for proof of load bearing capacity led to general
discussion about the value of loading tests of steel bridges. Despite all critics Ritter concludes:
“Loading tests must always be done, particularly to calm the laymen” [11].
Therefore loading tests of bridges remain as the standard way of commissioning bridges even
through the 19th and 20th century. In some countries they are still today carried out regularly.
4
fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011
Session XXX: YYY
destruction were carried out to determine a factor of safety compared to the calculated load
capacity.
Figures 5 shows as one example of the wide diversity of testing the ultimate test of so called
Visintini-girders [13], which are prefabricated reinforced concrete girders for ceiling constructions
and for which the advantages of steel framework girders were transferred to the reinforced
concrete.
A remarkable technical development shows Figure 6. The engineer G. Hill developed a hydraulic
testing machine for destructive testing of structural elements. The hydraulic loading ensured on the
one hand the exact load and on the other hand made it possible to test many specimens in a short
time. Also the exact loading and deformation was directly measured by the machine. But the
special advantage of the hydraulic loading for the prevention of a collapse has not yet been
recognised.
Normally the load was applied on the structure using ballast masses, mostly sandbags or railway
rails. Despite the known poor significance of deflection measurements at steel bridges, the loading
tests of reinforced concrete structures were assessed with the help of the same deflection
measurements. Thus, the loading test of three concrete bridges system Hennebique in 1898 were
assessed positively because the steamroller with a load of 18.1 t only cause elastic deflections of
1.2 mm and no plastic deformations at all [15].
While the above describe method of load testing was only used to prove a sufficient load
bearing capacity of individual components or structures, in Stuttgart was worked on systematic
testing to make reinforced concrete predictable. Emil Mörsch became the chief of the technical
5
fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011
Session XXX: YYY
office of Wayss & Freytag AG in 1901 and was assigned to develop a scientific basis for the
calculation of reinforced concrete structures. Also for him loading tests were the precondition for
the development of theoretical basics and calculation models. The activities of Mörsch and several
other scientists demonstrate the important role of loading test for the development of models about
the load bearing behaviour of reinforced concrete.
For a more detailed research of shell structures the company Dyckerhoff & Widmann AG
constructed the shell shown in Figure 7 in 1931. The still today existing shell was also load tested
to study the load bearing capacity. After the successful loading with sandbags, 50 employees were
assembled on the only 1.5 cm thick shell. The shell structures stayed without any cracks during all
tests. This loading test and the proof of the enormous load bearing capacity led to the construction
of many reinforced concrete shell structures [16], [17].
Fig. 7 Test shell with uniform loading (left) and human crowd (right), [14]
But there have also been a lot of problems and inadequacies in the execution of loading tests. The
patent claims of reinforced concrete systems, like the one of Monier or Hennebique, caused that
every construction company developed own reinforced concrete constructions at the turn of the
century. To convince the public of the safety and an adequate load bearing strength of their
constructions, they used loading tests and the results for advertising purposes. But at that time there
were no regulations on how the loading tests have to be done or who is allowed to carry out those
tests. Every layman could do loading tests and sell his product as a safe construction. Answering a
warning on these inadequate loading tests and the wrongly praised safety in 1895 [18] von
Brestovsky first described important requirements of the loading apparatus. At that time von
Bresztovsky is a trainee of Prof. Föppl in Munich and took part in the load testing of slabs and
vaults, which were tested under uniformly distributed loads. The loading was applied with a
loading frame, which was developed by Bauschinger and which ensured, by a statically determined
construction with wooden beams, that the loading equipment did not take part in the load bearing
(Figure 8). Therewith already 1895 the necessary and functional arrangement of the loading
elements is known, but was not respected in many in-situ loading tests.
6
fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011
Session XXX: YYY
An example of a wrong loading test is described in [20], a test of Monier-slabs reinforced on both
sides in Vienna 1905 (Figure 9). The loading with railway rails was then an usual way, but is the
loading itself not movable and therefore the rails are supporting each other while the deflection of
the slab increases and so the load is carried over an arch directly to the supports. Figure 10 also
shows a faulty loading test, where the sandbags act like an additional enlargement of the cross-
section and a big part of the load is not carried by the beam but taken down to the support by
arching action [21].
Despite the many experiences with loading tests, there have always been collapses. In 1908 the
collapse of a warehouse during the loading test in Milan (Italy) is reported in [22]. While the lower
floors passed the loading tests, the floor in the roof was only 14 days old and did not withstand the
loading with sandbags. The collapsing of the upper floor also caused the breaking down of all
lower levels until only a skeleton of columns and girders remained. This collapse caused 13 deaths
and 12 heavily injured worker.
7
fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011
Session XXX: YYY
Such collapses during loading tests have been quite normal in the beginning of the construction
with reinforced concrete. The considerable consequences provide evidence of the risk using ballast
masses without any falling protection and also show that loading tests then have been carried out
with less care and ignorance.
8
fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011
Session XXX: YYY
exceeding a deflection limit, which would have been defined appropriate, in general doesn’t ensure
a total robustness of a construction.”
Despite all critics the determination of the ratio of residual to maximum deflection remained
the only criterion for the assessment of a loading test for many years. To compensate the influence
of a previous loading, some foreign standards allowed to repeat a failed loading test ones (provided
that the construction did not collapse). Then the same (Great-Britain, USA) or a little more restrict
demands (France, Austria) had to be used to assess the deflection ratio. These additional demands
have never been taken over into the German standards.
In the 1970s a strong development of the calculation methods began, which was particularly
based on the increased use of computer technologies. Therewith it was possible to provide the
proof of a sufficient load bearing capacity only by calculation. At the same time reinforced
concrete has become an approved construction method and so the trust of the public existed,
without having to prove it for every single structure. Therefore loading tests as the ultimate proof
of load bearing capacity became unnecessary. This has to been seen positive, because this led to
reduced efforts accompanied with a higher safety, because the always existing risk of a collapse
during a loading test was omitted.
In a nutshell, the trust of professionals and laymen prevailed, that the load bearing capacity of
structural elements can be calculated with sufficient accuracy. As a result of this development and
the shown discussion about the use of loading tests at all, no regulations about loading tests are
given anymore since DIN 1045:1972 [31]. The calculation is for new structures usually the right
and more sufficient approach.
The more engineers had to deal with existing buildings and especially existing concrete
structures, it became clear, that it was necessary to re-establish the method of loading tests for the
assessment in the standards. But it was also clear, that this tool had to be brought up to the state of
the art technically as well as theoretically.
9
fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011
Session XXX: YYY
A considerable push was made, when both development directions were united with the Reunion of
Germany. In a couple cooperative research programs the theoretical basics and functional loading-
and measuring technologies have been developed and brought into practise. As a result of this
development the Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbetonbau published the guideline
“Belastungsversuche an Betonbauwerken” [35] in 2000. This guideline gives the base for the
planning, the execution and the assessment of loading tests in Germany.
Also should be noted, that in these research programs a mobile loading truck BELFA [36]
was developed. This truck is equipped with a complete servo hydraulic system and was especially
developed for loading tests of bridges with small and middle spans.
10
fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011
Session XXX: YYY
structures represent the main focus of the research. Therefore it is assumed that especially the
combination of different measuring technologies, like the Photogrammetry and the acoustic
emission analysis, more precise information about the actual structural condition can be obtained.
In general loading tests today have the importance they deserve, namely as an accepted
alternative method to prove the load bearing capacity of structures. Loading tests allow an
economic and functional further use of existing and damaged concrete structures and helps to limit
necessary renovation or strengthening to an extent required.
This outcome has been achieved with the financial support of the research project granted by the
German Bundesamt für Bau- und Raumordnung, research programm “Zukunft Bau”. All support is
gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Bersinger: Die neue eiserne Straßenbrücke über die Thur bei Oberbüren, Canton St. Gallen,
Schweizerische Bauzeitung, Vol. 8, Nr. 25, 18. Dezember 1886, S.147–150.
[2] Paul, W.: Straßenbrücke bei Walsburg a. d. Saale nach Monier-Bauweise und ihre
Belastungsprobe, Centralblatt der Bauverwaltung (1895) S.32–33.
[3] von Emperger, F.: Handbuch für Eisenbeton, Band 3, Bauausführungen aus dem
Ingenieurwesen, Berlin, Verlag von Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn (1908).
[4] Mörsch, E.: Der Eisenbetonbau – seine Theorie und Anwendung, 3. Auflage, Stuttgart, 1908.
[5] Tetmajer, L.: Ueber die Ursachen des Einsturzes der Morawa-Brücke bei Ljubitschewo,
Schweizerische Bauzeitung, Vol. 21/22 (1893) S. 55–58.
[6] Zimmermann, H.: Einsturz einer Straßenbrücke bei Salez in der Schweiz, Centralblatt der
Bauverwaltung (1884), S. 548–549.
[7] Zimmermann, H.: Ueber Unterhaltung und Dauer von Drahtseilhängebrücken, Centralblatt
der Bauverwaltung (1881) S. 346–347.
[8] Sarrazin, O.: Brücken-Einsturz in Frankreich, Centralblatt der Bauverwaltung (1883) S. 308.
[9] Stamm: Brückeneinstürze und ihre Lehren, Mitteilungen aus dem Institut für Baustatik,
ETH Zürich, Zürich, Verlag Leeman (1952).
[10] Waldner, A.: Das Eisenbahnunglück bei Mönchenstein, Schweizerische Bauzeitung, Vol.17,
Nr. 25, 26 und Vol.18, Nr. 1, 2, 3 (1891).
[11] Ritter: Ueber den Werth der Belastungsproben eiserner Brücken, Schweizerische
Bauzeitung, Vol. 20, Nr. 3, 16. Juli 1892, S.14–17.
[12] Koenen, M.: Für die Berechnung der Stärke von Monierschen Cementplatten, Centralblatt
der Bauverwaltung, 20. November 1886, S. 462.
[13] G., O.: Weitere Versuche mit Gitterträger System Visintini, Beton und Eisen (1904) Heft 1,
S. 42–44.
[14] von Emperger, F.: Handbuch für Eisenbeton, Band 1, Entwicklungsgeschichte und Theorie
des Eisenbetons, Berlin, Verlag von Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn (1908).
[15] Waldner, A.: Probebelastung einer Cementbeton-Brücke, System Hennebique in Lausanne,
Schweizerische Bauzeitung, Vol. 32, Nr. 4, 23. Juli 1898, S. 32.
[16] Stiller, M.: Entstehung und Rettung der Dischinger-Versuchsschale. In: Dischingerfestschrift
(1987) S. 81–89.
[17] Petry, W.: Scheiben und Schalen im Eisenbetonbau; IABSE Congress Reports; Vol.1 (1932),
S. 267–302.
[18] G.: Probebelastung von Decken und Gewölben, Centralblatt der Bauverwaltung,
7. August 1895, S. 339.
[19] von Bresztovszky: Antwort zu [18], Centralblatt der Bauverwaltung, 12. Oktober 1895,
S. 433–434.
11
fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011
Session XXX: YYY
[20] Sanders, L. A.: Belastungsproben mit doppelt armierten Monierplatten, Beton & Eisen
(1902) 5. Heft, S.16–22.
[21] von Emperger, F.: Die Durchbiegung und Einspannung von armierten Betonbalken und
Platten, Beton & Eisen (1902) 4. Theil, S. 21–35.
[22] B., G.: Einsturz eines Eisenbetongebäudes in Mailand, Schweizerische Bauzeitung, Vol. 51,
Nr. 18, 2. Mai 1908, S. 235–236.
[23] Ritter: Ueber den Werth der Belastungsproben eiserner Brücken, Schweizerische
Bauzeitung, Vol. 20, Nr. 3, 16. Juli 1892, S. 14–17.
[24] Von Bresztovszky: Antwort zu [3], Centralblatt der Bauverwaltung, 12. Oktober 1895,
S. 433-434
[25] Waldner, A.: Ueber den Wert der Belastungsproben eiserner Brücken, Schweizerische
Bauzeitung, 15. 05. 1892.
[26] Robertson, J. R.: Die Nutzlosigkeit der Probebelastungen eiserner Brücken, Bulletin de la
Commission internationale du Congrès des chemins de fer, Nov. 1897.
[27] Vorläufige Leitsätze zur Vorbereitung, Ausführung und Prüfung von Eisenbetonbauten von
1904, aufgestellt vom Verbande Deutscher Architekten- und Ingenieur-Vereine und dem
Deutschen Beton-Verein.
[28] Bestimmungen für Ausführung von Bauwerken aus Eisenbeton, Bestimmungen des DAfEb,
1916.
[29] von Emperger, F.: Handbuch für Eisenbetonbau, Band 9 – Die in- und ausländischen
Eisenbetonbestimmungen, Verlag von Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 3. Auflage, 1928
[30] Bach, C., Graf, O.: Gesamte und bleibende Einsenkungen von Eisenbetonbalken. Verhältnis
der bleibenden zu den gesamten Einsenkungen, Berlin, Deutscher Ausschuss für Eisenbeton,
Heft 27 (1914).
[31] DIN 1045 – Beton und Stahlbetonbau, Bemessung und Ausführung (Ausgabe 01.1972)
[32] Schmidt, H., Opitz, H.: Experimentelle Erprobung von Stahlbetonbauwerken in situ,
13. Kongress des IVBH in Helsinki, 6.–10.6.1988.
[33] TGL 33407/04 – Nachweis der Trag- und Nutzungsfähigkeit aufgrund experimenteller
Erprobung, Fachbereichsstandard, November 1986.
[34] Steffens, K.: Experimentelle Traglastermittlung an Bauwerken – Grundlagen, Technik,
Anwendungen; Schriftenreihe des Fachbereiches Bauingenieurwesen der Hochschule
Bremen (1988), Heft 1.
[35] DAfStb-Richtlinie Belastungsversuche an Betonbauwerken, Ausgabe September 2000,
Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin und Köln.
[36] Steffens, K. et al.: Entwicklung, Bau und Erprobung eines Belastungsfahrzeuges (BELFA),
Kooperatives Forschungsbericht 01RA 9901/0, Abschlussbericht, Hochschule Bremen,
Eigenverlag (2002).
12
fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011
Session XXX: YYY
13