As infrastructure continues to age and traffic levels intensify, there is a growing need for efficient methods to verify the reliability of many existing structures. Field testing offers the possibility to assess the current condition of a structure. Specifically, in a proof load test, substantial loads are applied to evaluate the structure's resistance to future loads that could compromise structural safety. However, to prevent excessive test loads and their potential damage, it is desirable to assess structural reliability by monitoring the response under more moderate loads. This study merges laboratory and in-situ testing results through a Bayesian update of the structural reliability after each successful load application. Two case studies are presented where laboratory testing on structurally similar elements and analytical modelling provide ample evidence to justify test load reductions of 20 % and 25 %. The proposed method offers a systematic framework to link the structure's response during testing to structural reliability and address the uncertainties in resistance, loads and measurements. Nonetheless, the representativeness of the data in terms of structural similarity and uncertainties related to measurements continue to be significant factors. Despite these challenges, incorporating monitoring data during proof load testing is expected to reduce target loads in most cases.

@en

The authors regret that the original publication of this paper did not assign the correct affiliations to R.D.J.M. Steenbergen. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

@en

Structural assessment of existing bridges is one of the most challenging aspects for the correct and sustainable management of civil infrastructures that emerged in the last few years. Specifically, Italy has a substantial number of bridges over 50 years old, mainly represented by simply supported prestressed concrete I-girder-type with a cast-in-situ deck. Proof load testing represents an empirical alternative to the standard calculation methods commonly adopted for safety assessment of existing structures. This article investigates the reliability of a bridge in different configurations including damaged and undamaged scenario through sitespecific traffic data collected by Weigh-In-Motion (WIM) systems in the Netherlands. Assuming a target load corresponding to characteristic load combination according to Eurocode provisions, the proof load test resulted into slightly reduced reliability indexes during the test while achieving higher values under successful completion. Preliminary results contribute to demonstrate proof load test can represent a valuable method for assessment of existing bridges.

@en

In the assessment of existing structures, such as bridges and viaducts, reliability requirements are used to decide if a structure is sufficiently safe, even when subjected to degradation. The reliability requirements may be expressed in different ways but should ultimately result in similar reliability performance of the structure. Most of the current assessment rules follow from a maximum allowable failure probability, depending on the reliability class, within a fixed period of time (the reference period: e.g. 15, 30, 50 or 100 years). A reliability requirement expressed using a fixed reference period fits the design of new (to be built) structures, but it is problematic for existing or temporary structures. In the case of existing structures, when for instance the design life has passed, the assessment should be flexible with respect to the expected or desired remaining life. Other factors, such as deterioration or changing loads, may also call for an assessment with a smaller time period since the failure rate could increase with time which makes a reliability requirement for a longer period less useful. Using fixed reference periods therefore could lead to suboptimal solutions where the economy and environment are unnecessarily hurt. Reliability requirements formulated on an annual basis provide a solution to this problem. In this article, reliability analyses of several typical bridges are performed to quantify the requirements in such a way that assessments based on annual reliability result in performance similar to the current practice. Special attention is paid to minimising and highlighting the cases where the annual requirements may lead to a trend that breaks with the current reliability requirements.

@en

Given the ageing infrastructure, verifying the reliability of existing structures is crucial. Field testing presents a viable approach to evaluating a structure’s current condition, particularly proof load testing. In a proof load test, a large load is applied to assess its reliability. Structures in sound condition are expected to display satisfactory behaviour under average load intensities. Can good structural performance under moderate load levels already prove sufficient structural reliability? The proposed method utilises data from laboratory tests on similar structural elements. A case study was conducted on a bridge to illustrate the effectiveness of the method. Data acquired from laboratory tests were pre-processed to provide the required input for the reliability updating. It reveals that sufficient reliability can be demonstrated without excessive load levels by incorporating laboratory data. However, the actual capacity of the bridge and the uncertainty associated with the laboratory data remain important factors.

@en

In the assessment of existing structures, it is uncommon to consider a track record of the structural performance of the structure itself or similar structures. However, the structure's proven strength in service could play a significant role, along with the performance of similar structures in the population. Because the population track record does not apply in the design of new structures, it is not encountered in design standards. An assessment that does not incorporate the track record may conclude insufficient structural reliability whilst, in reality, the reliability is satisfactory. In the suggested approach, information obtained from laboratory experiments is combined with the track record in a Bayesian way to assess a structure's reliability. As a case study for this article, the reliability of the connection strength between wide slab floor elements is considered. Although laboratory tests indicate poor connection strength, the track record indicates just one failure and many well-performing floors. It is found that considering the time-dependent nature of structural reliability is vital for understanding how proven strength develops from the completion of the structure to its usage today. The number of similar objects in the population that show satisfactory performance is varied and is shown to have a significant effect when its number grows. The presented method and case study show that reliability assessments incorporating a track record enable more accurate structural reliability predictions for existing structures.

@en

Due to the aging of infrastructure, methods are explored by which the reliability of existing bridges and viaducts can be assessed. In case limited information of the structure is available or its condition is of concern, proof load testing may be used to demonstrate sufficient load-carrying capacity. Proof load tests in the USA are typically performed using the Manual for Bridge Evaluation (MBE) published by AASHTO. The proof load is expressed by the regular live-load model magnified by the target proof load factor. The level of reliability obtained using the target proof load factor is not explicitly stated in the MBE, but is of particular interest. In this article relevant background documents are investigated to uncover the underlying calculations, assumptions and input data. Current challenges in proof load testing are described in which the consideration of time-dependence, stop criteria, available information and system-level assessment are highlighted. Subsequently, improvements to the MBE proof load testing background are suggested. An example calculation using traffic data from the Netherlands shows that the HL93 load model and Eurocode LM1 provide a reasonably constant proof load factor with span length for bending and shear. However, the HS20 load model does not scale well with increasing span length. It is found that the magnitude of the target load as specified through the proof load factor is directly related to the desired level of reliability. Although the MBE proof load testing method is practical, several challenges remain.@en

In the evaluation of existing bridges and viaducts, relying solely on a desk study is often inadequate for determining their structural reliability. Performing a proof load test provides valuable field data that offers detailed information about the structural integrity. However, the relation between the magnitude of the load and the structural reliability is not immediately clear. This study addresses the challenges associated with determining the target load and highlights the uncertainties that play a key role. A case study is presented that shows the time-dependent character of the structural reliability and the influence of an informative and a weakly informative prior distribution in a Bayesian context. It is shown how both past traffic loads and a proof load test may contribute to the proven strength of a structure. The described method provides a starting point towards a flexible approach for proof load testing in which structure-specific knowledge levels and requirements are considered.

@en

Because of the aging of infrastructure, methods are explored by which the reliability of existing bridges and viaducts can be assessed. In cases in which limited information of the structure is available or its condition is of concern, proof load testing may be used to demonstrate sufficient live load carrying capacity. Proof load tests in the U.S.A. are typically performed using the Manual for Bridge Evaluation (MBE) published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The proof load is expressed by the regular live load model magnified by the target proof load factor. The level of reliability obtained using the target proof load factor is not explicitly stated in the MBE, but is of particular interest. In this article, relevant background documents are investigated to uncover the underlying calculations, assumptions, and input data. Current challenges in proof load testing are described in which the considerations of time dependence, stop criteria, available information, and system-level assessment are highlighted. Subsequently, improvements to the MBE proof load testing background are suggested. An example calculation using traffic data from the Netherlands shows that the HL93 load model and Eurocode LM1 provide a reasonably constant proof load factor with span length for bending and shear. However, the HS20 load model does not scale well with increasing span length. It is found that the magnitude of the target load as specified through the proof load factor is directly related to the desired level of reliability. Although the MBE proof load testing method is practical, several challenges remain.

@en

In the assessment of existing infrastructure performing only a desk study is often not sufficient to determine the structural reliability of a bridge or viaduct. For concrete structures gathering field data by performing a proof load test offers detailed information about the structural performance. However, the relation between the magnitude of the load and the structural reliability is not immediately clear. In the present study the challenges in determining the target load and the uncertainties that require attention are described. An approach is presented that addresses the time-dependent character of the structural reliability, the need for accurate stop-criteria, the knowledge level and spatial uncertainty. It is shown how both past trafic loads and a proof load test may contribute to the proven strength of a structure. The described methodology provides a starting point towards a flexible approach for proof load testing in which structure-speciic information and requirements are considered.

@en