Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Static and dynamic testing of highway bridges: a best practice example

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The load bearing capacity of a viaduct and its structural behaviour under traffic or seismic excitation can be evaluated using well-established modelling methods aided by computing facilities of great capability. However, to ensure reliable results, numerical models used in designing should be calibrated with accurate information on material properties and structural components. The static and dynamic testing procedures applied to a multi-span bridge along a new highway link inaugurated in 2014 in northern Italy are examined as a best practice example. The structural responses and performances are compared with and evaluated in the light of static and dynamic load test results. In particular, Operational Modal Analysis and Experimental Modal Analysis are used and compared to match with the numerical model. The comparison showed that the dynamic load test can supplement the static load test for the structural evaluation of new viaducts; it may also be taken as an alternative for the monitoring of operational viaducts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Del Grosso AE (2014) Structural health monitoring standards. IABSE Symp Rep 102:2991–2998. https://doi.org/10.2749/222137814814069804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gatti M (2019) Structural health monitoring of an operational bridge: a case study. Eng Struct 195:200–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.05.102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mufti AA (2002) Structural health monitoring of innovative canadian civil engineering structures. Struct Heal Monit An Int J 1:89–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/147592170200100106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Aktan AE, Catbas FN, Grimmelsman KA, Pervizpour M (2002) Development of a model health monitoring guide for major bridges. Rep. Dev. FHWA Res. Dev. Available at: https://www.scribd.com/document/343127708/Development-of-a-Model-Health-Monitoring-Guide-for-Major-Bridges

  5. Bergmeister K (2002) Monitoring and safety evaluation of existing concrete structures: state-of-the-art report (Fib Task Group 5.1). International Federation for Structural Concrete

  6. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2003) Mechanical vibration and shock—guidelines for dynamic tests and investigations on bridges and viaducts. ISO 14963:2003

  7. Rucker W, Hille F, Rohrmann R (2006) Guideline for structural health monitoring. Final report, Structural Assessment, Monitoring and Control. SAMCO, Berlin

  8. National standard of the Russian Federation (2010) GOST R 53778:2010. Building and Structures. Technical Inspections and Monitoring Regulations [in English]

  9. Österreichisches Forschungsgellschaft RVS (2012) Quality assurance for structural maintenance, surveillance, checking and assessment of bridges and tunnels, monitoring of bridges and other engineering structures [in German]

  10. Moreu F, Li X, Li S, Zhang D (2018) Technical specifications of structural health monitoring for highway bridges: new Chinese structural health monitoring code. Front Built Environ. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2018.00010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fujino Y, Siringoringo DM (2008) Structural health monitoring of bridges in Japan: an overview of the current trend. In: Fourth International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering (CICE2008), 22–24 July 2008, Zurich, Switzerland

  12. Fujino Y, Kawai Y (2016) Technical developments in structural engineering with emphasis on steel bridges in Japan. J JSCE 4:211–226. https://doi.org/10.2208/journalofjsce.4.1_211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. D.M. 17/01/2018 - Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (2018) Aggiornamento delle “Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni”, pp. 1–198 (in Italian)

  14. UNI Standard UNI (Ente nazionale italiano di unificazione). Vibrations on bridges and viaducts—guidelines for the execution of dynamic tests and surveys, Italy

  15. Benedettini F, Dilena M, Morassi A (2015) Vibration analysis and structural identification of a curved multi-span viaduct. Mech Syst Signal Process 54–55:84–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2014.08.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lamonaca F, Scuro C, Grimaldi D et al (2019) A layered IoT-based architecture for a distributed structural health monitoring system. ACTA IMEKO 8:45. https://doi.org/10.21014/acta_imeko.v8i2.640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lamonaca F, Sciammarella PF, Scuro C et al (2018) Internet of things for structural health monitoring. In: 2018 Workshop on metrology for industry 4.0 and IoT. IEEE, pp 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1109/METROI4.2018.8439038

  18. Lamonaca F, Sciammarella PF, Scuro C et al (2018) Synchronization of IoT layers for structural health monitoring. In: 2018 Workshop on metrology for industry 4.0 and IoT. IEEE, pp 89–94. https://doi.org/10.1109/METROI4.2018.8428329

  19. Scuro C, Sciammarella PF, Lamonaca F et al (2018) IoT for structural health monitoring. IEEE Instrum Meas Mag 21(6):4–14. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIM.2018.8573586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Consorzio BBM (2014) Collegamento autostradale di connessione tra le città di Brescia e Milano. CUP E3 1 B05000390007. Esecuzione lavori. Corpo autostradale. Opere d’arte maggiori. Lotto 7–VI003. VIADOTTO ADDA–Km 43 + 220,95 − 44 + 487,92. Rap. prova di carico statica (in Italian)

  21. Consorzio BBM (2014) Collegamento autostradale di connessione tra le città di Brescia e Milano. CUP E3 1 B05000390007. Esecuzione lavori. Corpo autostradale. Opere d’arte maggiori. Lotto 7–VI003. VIADOTTO ADDA–Km 43 + 220,95 − 44 + 487,92. Rap. prova di carico dinamica (In italian)

  22. Peeters B, Van der Auweraer H, Guillaume P, Leuridan J (2004) The PolyMAX frequency-domain method: a new standard for modal parameter estimation? Shock Vib 11:395–409. https://doi.org/10.1155/2004/523692

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the “Società di Progetto Brebemi S.p.A.” for the permission to use the static and dynamic testing data of the Brebemi Viaducts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ENEA–Centro Ricerche Bologna e Laboratori di Ricerca Faenza, Bologna, Italy

    Marcheggiani Laura

  2. Department of Civil and Building Engineering, and Architecture (DICEA), Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy

    Clementi Francesco

  3. Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy

    Formisano Antonio

Authors
  1. Marcheggiani Laura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Clementi Francesco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Formisano Antonio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Formisano Antonio.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Laura, M., Francesco, C. & Antonio, F. Static and dynamic testing of highway bridges: a best practice example. J Civil Struct Health Monit 10, 43–56 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-019-00368-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-019-00368-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation