Full Scale Load Testing BPEX Project, Maptaphut Rayong

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Test BeamFIGURE 12. FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF TEST STRUCTURETABLE 2. SUMMARY OF FORCES UNDER VARIOUS LOAD CASESForceFinite Element AnalysisUniform Load As TestedPositive Moment at Midspan (kN‐m)Dead Load 322 3221.15 Dead Load + 1.5 Live 729 795Load1.2 Dead Load + 1.6 Live 769 839LoadNegative Moment over Support (kN‐m)Dead Load 144 1441.15 Dead Load + 1.5 Live 341 383Load1.2 Dead Load + 1.6 Live 324 404LoadShear at face of support (kN)Dead Load 195 1951.15 Dead Load + 1.5 Live 437 465Load1.2 Dead Load + 1.6 Live 460 491Load* Using ACI methods, with strength reduction factors per ACI 318‐08NominalCapacity*1210147686712
The predicted deflection at various point under test load is shown in Table 3.TABLE 3. DEFLECTIONS AT VARIOUS POINTS OF TEST BEAMLoad Condition Midspan 1/3 of Span ColumnShorteningDead Load 3.3 2.8 0.31.15 Dead Load + 1.5 LiveLoad7.5 6.4 0.6Expected Deflection underTest4.2 3.6 0.3Because the flexural failure is the most likely mode of failure, a Moment‐Curvatureanalysis of the test beam, as well as the beams framing to it, was conducted in orderto gain more insight into the behavior of the member at various stages. Themoment‐curvature of the beam is shown in Figure 13 and summarized in Table 4.Details of calculation are in the Appendix.It can be seen from the moment curvature analysis that the cracking moment (225kN‐m) is smaller than the dead load moment (322 kN‐m). Thus, under the dead load,the beam can be expected to crack as seen during the preliminary site investigation.However, the analysis cannot predict the extent of the crack nor whether the crackfound was not due to understrength of the member.The ultimate moment capacity of the beam (1210 kN‐m) is greater than the factoredultimate moment (769 kN‐m). Thus, the beam appears adequate for the designgravity loads. The curvature at failure is about 8 times of that at yielding, so thefailure behavior (under overloading) is expected to be ductile. Moreover, the shearcapacity of the beam (867 kN) is also greater than the factored ultimate shear force(324 kN‐m) so shear failure is unlikely.Under the test load, the moment caused by the test load (795 kN‐m) is well belowthe moment at first yielding of the steel (1147 kN‐m) so the beam is expected tobehave elastically during the test.13
Page 1 and 2: Full‐Scale Load Testing ofSelecte
Page 3 and 4: EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis report provid
Page 5 and 6: LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1. Test struc
Page 7 and 8: Full‐Scale Load Testing of Select
Page 9 and 10: emoved. The second test may be cons
Page 11 and 12: TABLE 1. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH FROM
Page 13 and 14: FIGURE 5. STEEL LOAD PLATFORMFIGURE
Page 15 and 16: 3 INSTRUMENTATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS
Page 17: 3.2 CRACK MONITORINGA survey telesc
Page 21 and 22: 5 LOAD TESTING RESULTS5.1 DEFLECTIO
Page 23 and 24: 5.2 DAMAGESDuring the testing, exis
Page 25 and 26: FIGURE 18. INTERFACE SHEAR CRACK6 C
Page 27 and 28: 9 APPENDIX: MOMENT CURVATURE ANALYS
Page 29 and 30: 318.1116.1202C cAll dimension are i

Full Scale Load Testing BPEX Project, Maptaphut Rayong

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?