ACI COMMITTEE 437 –

STRENGTH EVALUATION OF EXISTING CONCRETE STRUCTURES

Main Committee Meeting
2004 ACI Fall Convention – San Francisco, CA
Hilton San Francisco, Union Square 14 Room
Tuesday, October 26, 2004 – 8:30 am – 11:30 am

MEETING MINUTES
1. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 8:30 am by Chair Nanni.

2. Attendees Introduction

The following members and visitors were in attendance. Regrets were received from members Michael
Lee, Pat McCormick and Tom Nehil.
Voting Members
Antonio Nanni (Chair) Chuck Larosche
Jeffrey S West (Secretary) Daniel J McCarthy
Tarek Alkhrdaji Matthew A Mettemeyer
Joseph A Amon Renato Parretti
Nicholas J Carino Predrag L Popovic
John A Frauenhoffer Guillermo Ramirez
Zareh B Gregorian Thomas L Rewerts
Pawan R Gupta Jay Thomas
Ashok M Kakade Paul Ziehl
Dov Kaminetzky
Associate Members
Robert Jenkins
Visitors
Dino Bagnoriol Clyde Porter
Lisa Feldman Eugene Tauktovich
Keith Kesner Norm Webster

3. Approval of agenda

Chair Nanni proposed adding Items 5b), Session in NYC and 8a) TRRC to the agenda. The agenda was
approved with this change.

4. Approval of Minutes

Amon motioned to approve the minutes of the Spring 2004 meeting in Washington, seconded by
Mettemeyer. Minutes were approved unanimously by voice vote.
Minutes of Meeting
Committee 437 – Strength Evaluation of Existing Structures
October 26, 2004, San Francisco, CA
Page 2 of 8

5. Chair’s Report

5(a) Membership

West reported that one Voting member, Ufuk Dilek, had been added to the Committee since the
Washington meeting. The membership status for Chuck Larosche was changed from Associate to Voting
Member. Membership now stands at 34 Voting, 3 Consulting and 19 Associate members. A Committee
roster was distributed for members in attendance to review. Changes will be forwarded to ACI by
West.

5(b) Session in San Francisco (co-sponsored with 228)

West reported on the session held during the current Convention. Both morning and afternoon sessions
were well attended. All presentations were excellent, and good discussion was held. Presentations were
made by members of Committees 437 and 228, and from others as selected from a Call for Presentations.
Unfortunately, afternoon session presentations by El-Dash and Munshi had to be cancelled as these
speakers did not attend the Convention.

5(c) Future Session in New York City

Chair Nanni reported that a 437 half-day session had proposed for the New York Convention (Spring
2005) had received preliminary approval from TAC. This session will illustrate the progress made for the
new Committee report on Load Factors and Acceptance Criteria, and provide an opportunity for
discussion and debate. Final session approval was submitted with the report chapter leaders as speakers.
ACI 318-C members will be invited to attend and provide feedback on the report.

6. Old Business - Task Group on ACI 318 Chapter 20

This task group was formed following the Spring 2003 Meeting in response to the ACI Sub-committee
318-C request for input regarding load test magnitudes and acceptance criteria. A “White Paper” on the
subject was prepared and balloted for Committee input in the Fall of 2003. At the Spring 2004 meeting, it
was proposed to expand the “White Paper” into a new Committee 437 Report. The Task Group, led by
Tom Nehil, prepared a draft of the report that was balloted for Committee input prior to the Fall 2004
meeting. Chair Nanni provided a brief synopsis of the report (see outline below) and asked the
Committee for input on how to proceed.
Tom Rewerts gave an abridged version of his presentation “Load Testing as a Means of Evaluating the
Strength of Existing Concrete Structures: Past, Present, and Future Practices.” He delivered the full
version during the ACI 437/228 Sponsored Session on October 25, 2004.
Extensive discussion was held regarding all aspects of the report. The primary comments, questions and
key points are summarized below according to report chapter.
Following the meeting, Chair Nanni prepared a brief summary of “Guiding Principles” based on the
extensive discussions. This is included as an Appendix to these minutes.

Note: Action items are listed in bold.

Minutes of Meeting
Committee 437 – Strength Evaluation of Existing Structures
October 26, 2004, San Francisco, CA
Page 3 of 8

Report Outline: Load Test Magnitude And Acceptance Criteria

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 4 - SELECTION OF LOAD TEST
1.1 - Background PROTOCOL
1.2 - Introduction 4.1 - Introduction
1.3 - Selected Definitions 4.2 - Conventional Static Load Test vs. Cyclic
1.4 - Limitations Load Test Methods
CHAPTER 2 - HISTORY OF THE LOAD TEST, 4.3 - Recommended Protocol for Achieving
LOAD FACTORS, AND ACCEPTANCE Additional Factors of Safety or Increased Load
CRITERIA Rating
2.1 - History of Load Tests in ACI 318 CHAPTER 5 - SELECTION OF ACCEPTANCE
2.2 - Load Tests in Other Codes CRITERIA
CHAPTER 3 - SELECTION OF LOAD FACTORS 5.1 - Criteria for Static Load Tests
3.1 - Introduction 5.2 - Criteria for Cyclic Load Test
3.2 - Load Factors for Various Components of 5.3 - Criteria for Tests to Ultimate Strength
Service Load 5.4 - Criteria for Service Condition Evaluation
3.3 - Load Factors for Extreme Ratios of Live CHAPTER 6 - CLOSURE
Load to Dead Load CHAPTER 7 - REFERENCES
7.1 - Recommended References
7.2 - Cited References
APPENDIX A: NOTATION
APPENDIX B: REFERENCE CALCULATIONS

General Comments/Issues:

• The presentation by Rewerts illustrates that the existing acceptance (deflection) criterion is
fundamentally flawed.

• The report should reflect a fresh look at all aspects of load test magnitude and acceptance criteria.

• Fundamental questions to be answered:

1. Are we testing for acceptable performance at service load or at ultimate? (proof test versus
ultimate).
2. What load do we apply?
3. What are the acceptance criteria? Deflection may not be a good approach. Deflection
recovery may be a better approach.
Chapters 1 and 2 – Introduction and History:

• The contents of Rewerts’ presentation should be incorporated into Chapter 2. Rewerts offered to
provide 437 with his presentation and electronic copies of all documents referenced in the
presentation.
(These documents may be obtained from http://campus.umr.edu/cies/Load_Test/index.htm. Please
note that this material is strictly for committee use and is covered by copyright)
Chapter 3 – Selection of Load Factors:

• Separate load factors should be provided for dead load and superimposed dead load.

Note: Action items are listed in bold.

Minutes of Meeting
Committee 437 – Strength Evaluation of Existing Structures
October 26, 2004, San Francisco, CA
Page 4 of 8

• There is no reason to place large load factors on dead loads for strength evaluation purposes since
there is knowledge of the existing conditions; less variability should mean lower load factors.

• Possible Load Factors:

At Service:
- All L.F. are 1.0
Test Load:
- D.L. 1.0 to 1.1
- S.D.L. 1.0 to 1.1
- L.L. 1.4

Chapter 4 – Load Test Protocol:

• The age of the structure at the time of testing needs to be clarified:

- Most load tests are conducted on existing structures where age will not have a significant
affect on the structure behavior and load test outcome. However, there could be reasons
to conduct a load test during construction. Since age or concrete maturity affects strength
and creep, the age of the structure at the time of the load test needs to be defined.
- The protocol should specify a minimum age (e.g., 56 days) to express the concept. The
decision to test at other ages is left to the Engineer’s judgment. A cautionary note should
be added to convey that the protocol is intended for completed structures subjected to
service loads, and that construction conditions and loading are different as must be
considered as such.

• The overall protocol for load testing should be approached as a combination of the standard 24 hour
load test and the cyclic load test.
- The cyclic load test utilizing hydraulic loads gives a better opportunity to study structural
behavior, including load sharing, degree of fixity and repeatability.
- A cyclic load test protocol could be developed including a preliminary load test to assess
behavior: Two cycles of 25% to 33% of the test load could be applied to assess load
sharing, fixity, etc. The final test load magnitude could then be reevaluated/refined based
on actual behavior.
- After measuring the structural response under cyclic loading, a 24 hour sustained load
test can be conducted to assess the effects of sustained load on creep and compressive
strength of concrete.

• The use of concentrated (hydraulic) loads to represent uniform loads represents an uncertainty in
indeterminate structures. This must be addressed.

• The selection of which protocol should be recommended (24 hour, cyclic or combinations thereof) is
dependent on the definition of acceptance criteria.

Note: Action items are listed in bold.

Minutes of Meeting
Committee 437 – Strength Evaluation of Existing Structures
October 26, 2004, San Francisco, CA
Page 5 of 8

Chapter 5 – Acceptance Criteria:

• If a maximum deflection criterion (under full test load) is included, then there must be a sustained
load definition. The cyclic load test approach does not include a 24 hour sustained load since there is
no maximum deflection criterion.

• The only deflection criterion should be at the “service load level,” to be compared to existing service
load deflection limits (e.g., L/360, etc.). This should depend on the type of structure and should only
be included as a check, and not pass or fail.

• Deflection criteria introduce complications:

- How long should the load be left in place?
- Deflections depend on the type of structural system: degree of fixity, one-way or two-
way action, etc.
- Deflections depend on how load is applied: concentrated loads or uniform (water) loads.

• How should “failure” be defined? (Rewerts will provide the Committee with a Czech reference
that defines failure).

• Acceptance criteria should be defined in terms of structural performance.

• Proposed concepts for Acceptance Criteria:

- Deflection at service load level (L/360, etc., depending on structure)
- Crack widths at service (depending on structure and exposure)
- Recovery (depends on test load and load duration)
For 1.0 DL + 1.4LL: 80% after 24 hour load
Different for non-sustained load
- Non-linearity (deviation from linearity)
Revisit definition in current document
- Repeatability (when cyclic tests using hydraulics are conducted)
Action Plan:

• Task Group Leader Nehil will continue to coordinate work on the report.

• Chapter leader will incorporate comments and address questions and key issues. Assistance
from Committee members will be solicited where needed.

• Chapter leaders will be responsible for preparing a revised draft of their chapters by
December 15, 2005. Draft chapters will be assembled into a draft report.

• The draft report will distributed to the 437 membership by January 15, 2005 for ballot.
Committee responses to be received by February 15, 2005.

• Responses will be incorporated into a revised draft for presentation and discussion at the New
York Session and meeting.

Note: Action items are listed in bold.

Minutes of Meeting
Committee 437 – Strength Evaluation of Existing Structures
October 26, 2004, San Francisco, CA
Page 6 of 8

7. Liaison Members’ Reports

No Liaison Reports were give due to time constraints.

8. New Business

8(a) TAC Repair and Rehabilitation Committee (TRRC)

Chair Nanni reported that ACI would like increased emphasis on existing structures. ACI activities
related to repair and rehabilitation of existing structures are now coordinated by the TRRC. Chair Nanni
will ask the TRRC Chair to attend the next 437 meeting to provide guidance to the Committee.

9. Open Discussion

None.

10. Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 am.

Respectfully submitted,

Jeffrey S. West
Secretary, Committee 437

Note: Action items are listed in bold.

Minutes of Meeting
Committee 437 – Strength Evaluation of Existing Structures
October 26, 2004, San Francisco, CA
Page 7 of 8

APPENDIX - GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Prepared by Chair A. Nanni

It is of primary importance to establish the reason for a load test. A load test is not typically performed to
determine ultimate capacity, but it is intended to determine: a) if a portion of a structure can safely carry a
given load; and b) to demonstrate that it has an acceptable service-level performance.
The three fundamental and interrelated components of a load test are: selection of the level/s, selection of
the loading procedure, and establishment of the acceptance criteria. The presentation order of these
components is intentional, but their interrelation is stressed as shown in the sketch below

load loading
level procedure

acceptance
criteria

Load level/s
Having classified the loads applied to a portion of a structure as: D = dead loads(self weight); Ds =
superimposed dead loads; and L = live loads, the typical total test load (TL) is:

TL = 1.0 D + 1.1 Ds + 1.4 L

This means that the portion of TL to be applied during a load test is:

TLapplied = 0.1 Ds + 1.4 L

Assessment of the serviceability performance is undertaken at a level of applied load equal to:

TLservice = 1.0 L
The total test load may be based on loads applied during construction of the structure when appropriate.
The test load can be applied as a uniformly distributed load or as concentrated load/s. The following
considerations are of relevance:
1. The load distribution is intended to attain the most demanding situation (e.g., alternate spans);
2. For new structures, the load is applied typically after 56 days from construction; and,
3. In case of the use of concentrated load/s (typically attained with hydraulic jacks) intended to
simulate the effects of a uniformly distributed load, it is necessary to compute their equivalency.

Note: Action items are listed in bold.

Minutes of Meeting
Committee 437 – Strength Evaluation of Existing Structures
October 26, 2004, San Francisco, CA
Page 8 of 8

Computation of “equivalent” load is based on the principle that the internal force of interest (e.g.,
bending moment) or displacement (e.g., mid-span deflection) is attained at the critical section.
This is not a trivial task in indeterminate structures where equivalency is, among other factors,
function of: material properties, geometry, level of existing damage, degree of support fixity, and
load sharing of adjacent members.
Loading procedure
An “ideal” load test would consist of the gradual application of the test load, TLapplied, in cycles of loading
and unloading, with the final load value at the last cycle to be maintained on the structure for at least 24
hours.
The benefits of this procedure would be:
a. Understanding of the structural behavior via the analysis of the load-deflection diagrams;
b. Determination of: linear elasticity, repeatability of response under equal load cycles, and
permanency of deformations; and,
c. Evaluation of concrete creep effects.
As it is recognized that the “ideal” load test is not always practical (e.g. test load may be applied with
stacking of weights or flooding), a load test procedure will in any case be such that:
a. Signs of impending failure be monitored at any load value;
b. The deflections and cracking response at the level of the service load, TLservice, be observed
and recorded;
c. The linearity of the response up to the total test load, TLapplied, be determined; and,
d. The permanency (or recovery) of deflection response up to the total test load, TLapplied, be
measured.
Acceptance criteria
Irrespective of the loading procedure, the following criteria are of relevance to determine whether or not a
structure can be considered safe or serviceable:
1. Sign of impending failure (e.g., concrete crushing, excessive cracking) – qualitative;
2. Deflection at service load, TLservice (e.g., L/360) – quantitative;
3. Max crack width at service load, TLservice (e.g., 0.01 in) – quantitative;
4. Deviation from linearity at total test load, TLapplied (e.g., 20%) – quantitative; and
5. Permanency of deflection at total test load, TLapplied (e.g., 25%) – quantitative.
The threshold values of the serviceability criteria at service load, TLservice, (deflection and crack width)
are independent of the loading procedure.
The threshold values of total test load, TLapplied, (deviation from linearity and permanency) are dependant
upon the loading procedure and the duration of load application.

Note: Action items are listed in bold.