Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance

ISSN: 1573-2479 (Print) 1744-8980 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsie20

Bridge performance indicators based on traffic

load monitoring

Ana Mandić Ivanković, Dominik Skokandić, Aleš Žnidarič & Maja Kreslin

To cite this article: Ana Mandić Ivanković, Dominik Skokandić, Aleš Žnidarič & Maja Kreslin
(2017): Bridge performance indicators based on traffic load monitoring, Structure and Infrastructure
Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2017.1415941

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2017.1415941

Published online: 21 Dec 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nsie20

Download by: [University of New England] Date: 22 December 2017, At: 07:29
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2017.1415941

Bridge performance indicators based on traffic load monitoring

Ana Mandić Ivankovića, Dominik Skokandića, Aleš Žnidaričb and Maja Kreslinb
a
Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia; bSlovenian National Building and Civil Engineering Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The assessment of the existing road bridges as a part of bridge management networks has been a subject Received 11 April 2017
of several European research projects and actions in the last few decades. Bridge management includes a Revised 4 October 2017
series of activities, interconnected in order to achieve optimal balancing of required costs, potential risks Accepted 5 October 2017
and overall bridge performance. This paper discusses a valuable link between a specific indicator (traffic KEYWORDS
load information calculated using Bridge Weigh-in-Motion measurement data) and the corresponding Road bridges; performance
structural performance (reliability of existing bridge). It is shown that implementation of weigh-in-motion
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 07:29 22 December 2017

indicators; probabilistic
measurements in the probabilistic assessment of existing road bridges can reveal hidden bridge reserves assessment; traffic load
and predict bridge reliability development over the required lifetime. Consequently, such approach can monitoring; B-WIM; reliability
yield an unrestricted use of the bridge over a much longer remaining service life. Broader advantages analysis
lie in an improved road network management, road bridges in particular, and in a more sustainable
development of infrastructure network and greater satisfaction of road users and owners.

Introduction In order to evaluate the effect of each element on overall

bridge condition, it is necessary to determine its impact on the
Current standards and codes for the design of new bridges are
structural safety, traffic safety and bridge durability. This can
based on conservative assumptions regarding load and resistance
be achieved through evaluation of various performance indica-
modelling in order to be applicable on different bridge types
tors, defined as parameters that have the possibility to indicate
and to guarantee sufficient structural safety over their lifetime.
a bridge condition (Strauss, Bergmeister, & Mandić Ivanković,
Although these codes result in creation of safe and cost-effective
2016; Strauss, Mandić Ivanković, Matos, & Casas, 2016). Basic
new bridges, the use of these standards for assessment of existing
visual inspection of bridge elements provides fundamental
bridges may show that many of these bridges need to be strength-
information for evaluation of performance indicators, but addi-
ened or even replaced (Šavor & Novak, 2015; Wiśniewski, Casas,
tional site-specific data can be collected using Structural Health
& Ghosn, 2012). Recent research has revealed that the site-spe-
Monitoring (SHM) methods and tools. Bridge Weigh-in-Motion
cific bridge assessment, based on measured monitoring data, can
(B-WIM) systems, as a part of SHM, can be used to provide data
lead to reduction in maintenance costs and extension of remain-
for real-life traffic load models for bridges, along with some addi-
ing service life of specified bridges (O’Connor & Enevoldsen,
tional, measured structural parameters that can be used for an
2009; Žnidarič, Kreslin, Lavrič, & Kalin, 2012).
optimised bridge assessment (O’Brien, 2011; Skokandić, 2016).
In addition, over the past few decades, the assessment of these
The first part of this paper contains theoretical introduction
bridges as a part of bridge management networks has been a
on the definition and categorisation of performance indicators
subject of a number European research projects and actions
for road bridges. It is followed by an overview of the B-WIM
(ARCHES D08, 2009; Bien, Elfgren, & Olofsson, 2007; COST,
technology, measurements and associated traffic loading and
2014; Woodward, 2001). Furthermore, bridge performance
structural data. Then, a short introduction on the application
aspects have been analysed within the ongoing COST Action TU
of probabilistic methods in the assessment of existing bridges is
1406 (Quality specifications for roadway bridges, standardisation
presented, followed by practical application of B-WIM data in
at a European level), whose main objective is to develop a guide-
the assessment of a case study bridge, analysis of the results and
line for the establishment of quality control plans for roadway
the conclusions.
bridges (Casas, 2016; Matos, Casas, & Fernandes, 2016; Strauss,
Mandić Ivanković, Matos, & Casas, 2016). Bridge management,
as a part of the road infrastructure network, includes a series Performance indicators for optimised road bridge
of activities, interconnected to achieve optimal levels, including assessment
balancing of required costs, potential risks and overall bridge
The categorisation of performance indicators through compo-
performance. Bridge effectiveness can be analysed through dif-
nent, system and network levels (Figure 1, solid lines) accord-
ferent levels, starting from the analysis of each individual bridge
ing to appropriate technical, sustainability and socio-economic
element.

CONTACT  Ana Mandić Ivanković  mandicka@grad.hr

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2   A. MANDIĆ IVANKOVIĆ ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 07:29 22 December 2017
Figure 1. Interaction of performance indicators and performance goals through bridge management levels (solid lines) with additional input of bridge safety/reliability
assessment based on bridge WIM measurements (dashed lines).
Notes: PI: performance indicators; G(T): intermediate goals (Tasks); MIL: measured influence line; PG: performance goals; SHM: structural health monitoring tool; GDF: girder distribution factor;
DAF: dynamic amplification factor; γ: safety index; β: reliability index.
aspects is proposed (Strauss et al., 2016), in order to simplify
the evaluation of these indicators in compliance with certain
structural performance goal/criteria. At the bridge component
level, the fundamental goal to achieve is the damage assessment,
which implies detection of damage, but also its identification
and evaluation. At this level, damage detection is usually divided
into three bridge sub-systems: substructure, superstructure and
roadway, in order to simplify characterisation of damage and its
consequences on the overall bridge performance. At the system
level, the importance of each component is to be evaluated to
assess the impact of its condition on the overall bridge perfor-
mance. The evaluation is conducted according to each of the fol-
lowing criteria: structural safety and serviceability, traffic safety
and durability. At the final network level, bridge is assessed to
evaluate its importance within the entire infrastructure network,
based on the data from previous levels, in order to achieve the
primary performance goal – priority repair ranking of selected
bridges.
The performance indicator most widely used across Europe
is the condition index (also known as the condition rating, dete-
rioration index etc., depending on the country and/or bridge
owner), which is mainly determined through visual inspection.
In many countries, this is the only performance indicator used
in practice by bridge owners and operators (Strauss, Mandic-
Ivankovic, et al., 2016).
In many cases, visual inspection will not suffice for effective
assessment of bridge performance, and so additional data on the
bridge structure will be required. Typical examples are stiffness
distribution, existing material characteristics, site specific traffic
loads etc., requiring additional testing, measurements, monitor-
ing and advanced methods of processing, modelling and calcu-
lation of bridge performance.
Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) involves a wide range of
activities which, through different technologies and algorithms,
may supply information about the performance of existing/new
structures over their lifetime. Nevertheless, the usefulness of
SHM systems needs to be revealed by quantifying their value,
to convince the infrastructure owners and operators to invest in
these types of systems. This is the main objective of the COST
action TU1402 (COST, 2014). Therefore, a joint task was set
between both COST actions to identify and categorise perfor-
mance indicators that may be detected, evaluated and possibly
quantified with available SHM technologies, and to weigh their
importance in achieving crucial performance goals (Strauss,
Mandić Ivanković, & Soussa, 2016). The major question for
bridge owners: ‘which PI should be monitored to achieve an
optimum long-term bridge performance?’ remains partially
unanswered. COST actions TU1406 and TU1402 are jointly
seeking answers to this question.
The implementation of the bridge weigh-in-motion (B-WIM)
traffic measurements, as an example of SHM tool, into the mul-
ti-level bridge assessment might result in a higher value of bridge
safety or reliability index and, consequently, in an unrestricted
use of bridges over a much longer remaining service life. This
has been proven with the case study elaborated in this paper. To
enhance calculation of structural safety, it is proposed to benefit
from the measured influence lines, girder distribution factors and
dynamic amplification factors, which are the crucial performance
indicators at the system level, before decisions are to be made at
the network level (Figure 1, dashed lines). These performance
indicators together with safety and reliability indexes are listed
in Table 1, and are more thoroughly explained in the following
sections.
Bridge weigh-in-motion as a part of structural health
monitoring
Weigh-in-motion (WIM) (Moses, 1979; Žnidarič, Kreslin, &
Kalin, 2016) is a procedure that is used to measure axle load
and gross weight of a vehicle as it drives over a measurement
 STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING   3

Table 1. Performance indicators based on traffic load monitoring at the bridge – B-WIM.

Performance indicator Description Basic principle

Measured influence line MIL
Girder distribution factor – GDF
Dynamic Amplification factor – DAF
Safety index – γB-WIM
Reliability index – βB-WIM,T
Difference between measured and theoretical influence lines
indicates changes in bridge boundary conditions
Dimensionless parameter that indicates proportion of total
traffic load effect on a bridge, carried by an individual
girder
Ratio of maximum total load (including dynamic part) effect
divided by maximum static load effect
Ratio of designed value of the resistance to bending MRd and
applied internal bending moment MEd
Probabilistic measure, corresponding to probability of failure
True (measured) influence lines can result in reduced traffic
load effects; their change over time can indicate degrada-
tion of bearings and/or expansion joints
Difference between analytical and measured GDF and
changes of GDF over time can indicate degradation and/or
structural changes in bridge girders
Dynamic amplification factor decreases as static load on the
bridge increases
Safety index may reveal reserves of the bridge based on
deterministic (or semi probabilistic) approach
Probability index may reveal reserves of the bridge based on
probabilistic approach within the required lifetime of the
bridge

site at full speed, without the need for slowing down or stop- al., 2012). Furthermore, predictions of increase in the number
ping. Two types of WIM systems exist: one with the sensors built of heavy vehicles are also taken into account.
into the pavement and the other involving the bridge weigh-in- It should be noted that the axle load and spacing of unidi-
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 07:29 22 December 2017

motion (B-WIM). The second one uses instrumented bridges
as weighing scales (Moses, 1979). The main advantage of the
B-WIM systems over the pavement ones is that they are portable.
Furthermore, as all sensors are installed under the bridge, the
installation and maintenance works do not impede the flow of
traffic (Žnidarič et al., 2012). Finally, they provide supplementary
information about bridge behaviour under traffic load, which is
highly valuable for structural analysis.
Data collected with B-WIM measurements can be used for
a number of applications such as traffic analyses, pavement and
bridge design and/or assessment, selection of overloaded vehi-
cles, etc. Weighing results for a two axle truck, as collected by
the commercial B-WIM system called SiWIM®, are given as an
example in Table 2 This system was developed in Slovenia as an
outcome of research performed in the scope of the COST Action
323 (Jacob, OBrien, & Jehaes, 2002) and EC 4th Framework
Project WAVE (Jacob, 2002).
Site-specific traffic load models, developed using B-WIM
measurements, are a key input for an optimised assessment of
existing bridges (Sivakumar, Ghosn, & Moses, 2011; Žnidarič,
Kreslin et al., 2015). The main challenge in the development of
these load models is the extrapolation of measured data and,
consequently, realistic estimation of the maximum expected
load effects on a bridge (bending moments, hogging moments
and shear forces) over a certain time period/bridge lifetime. A
number of methods have been proposed to extrapolate the lim-
ited traffic information (Getachew & Obrien, 2007; Sivakumar
et al., 2011; Žnidarič et al., 2012). They are either based on fitting
statistical distribution on collected data or on using simulations,
such as the Monte Carlo method.
The method used to assess the case study bridge (Žnidarič
et al., 2012) is based on the convolution method (Sivakumar
et al., 2011) and an assumption that the highest load effect is
achieved when two trucks from independent traffic flows are
placed on the bridge side by side in each traffic lane, at the place
of maximum action, which is defined as a loading event. This
assumption is justified for bridges with short to medium spans,
of up to 40 m in length where, due to typical dimensions of heavy
vehicles, a critical event occurs when there is one vehicle in each
lane (Caprani, Grave, O’Brien, & O’Connor, 2002; Žnidarič et
rectional traffic are not entirely independent, but the degree of
correlated vehicles, typically up to a few per cent, varies consid-
erably from one site to another. Furthermore, the correlation is
difficult to model (Enright, 2010) and adds a number of addi-
tional parameters to the already complex simulation models. On
the other hand, the convolution method, which uses independent
traffic in the adjacent lanes, belongs to the group of approximate
load modelling approaches, which has been shown to gener-
ate results similar to the simulations (Moses & Verma, 1987;
Žnidarič, 2017).
Static load effect for the bridge
The calculation of load effect of each vehicle that crosses the
bridge is based on the WIM measurement results (axle weights
and spacing), which are combined with the relevant bridge influ-
ence lines, a method proposed by a number of authors (Ieng,
2015; Karoumi, O’Brien, & Quiligan, 2006; Moses, 1979; Žnidarič
et al., 2012). Influence lines are used to transform traffic load on
the bridge into load effects (moments and shear forces) and,
in theory, they depend only on the bridge span, geometry and
boundary conditions (simply supported, continuous bridge etc.).
The calculation is based on the formula for static load effect
Qs:
n
∑
Qs = Ai Ii (1)
i=1
where Ai is the weight of the axle i, n stands for the number of
vehicle axles and Ii is the value of the influence line due to axle i
at location x. Results obtained with this method are presented in
terms of maximum expected moments and shear forces at critical
sections of the bridge for a specified time period. In WIM data
post-processing, these static load effects given by Equation (1) are
presented as histograms for each lane, creating two independent
probability mass functions (fX and fY), based on the assumption
that the traffic in lanes 1 and 2 is independent. In the next step,
these functions are convoluted to define the probability mass
function (fZ) of all possible load effects generated by pairs of
vehicles from both lanes.
 4   A. MANDIĆ IVANKOVIĆ ET AL.
Table 2. Example of WIM data for single truck passage.
Number of
Time stamp Lane Speed [m/s] Class axles
2007-03-22-00- 1 17.5 41
39-28-955
The cumulative distribution function (CDF) FZ derived from
fZ is presented in Figure 2 (curve labelled ‘CDF’). Finally, cumu-
lative distribution functions (convolution curves in Figure 2) are
defined for different time periods, using the extreme value theory
(Ang & Tang, 1975; Castillo, 1988), by raising FZ to the power
of expected loading events (N) in such periods. Median values
for each time period, derived from CDF functions in Figure 2,
are selected as maximum static load effects for a chosen period.
Furthermore, the shape of distribution function (FZ)N converges
at high values of N to a generalised extreme value (GEV) distri-
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 07:29 22 December 2017
bution, and it is straightforward to estimate its standard deviation
from data in relative frequency histograms using the weighted
standard deviation formula (Montgomery & Runger, 2014).
This information enables application of traffic load effects
in the assessment of existing bridges, in both the deterministic
and probabilistic approaches. A detailed review of the presented
method for traffic load extrapolation, along with a short overview
of other methods, is given in (Žnidarič et al., 2012). It is worth to
mention that O’Brien, Schmidt, Hajializadeh, and Zhou (2015)
reviewed seven methods of statistical inference for bridge safety
evaluation. They have concluded that the accuracy of the results
is less sensitive to the method chosen but more to the quantity
of data used and the assumptions made with regard to the tail.
These issues are also discussed in (Žnidarič, 2017).
Maximum load effect for a girder
The total predicted maximum load effects Q, used in bridge
assessment, are defined by multiplying the predicted static load
effect Qs of Equation (1) with the dynamic amplification factor
(DAF) and girder distribution factor (GDF). The girder distri-
bution factor defines the share of the total traffic load effects
that is carried by bridge elements and cross sections, identifying
critical section of the bridge. In theory, the GDF depends on basic
bridge parameters, such as the cross section, geometry, material
properties etc., and on characteristics of imposed loads.
The dynamic amplification factor is defined as an increase
in static load on the bridge due to the dynamic bridge–vehicle
interaction (ARCHES D10, 2009). It is most often described as
a ratio between the total and static load effects due to a vehicle
crossing the bridge. The DAF values are defined in design codes
for new bridges (Eurocode, 2003) based on span length, number
of traffic lanes on the bridge and the required load effect (bending
or shear). For comparison, in older design codes (DIN-1072,
1988; Furundžić, 1969), the dynamic factor depended on span
length only.
Measurement-based indicators
An efficient bridge assessment requires information about the
true traffic load and about behaviour of the structure subjected
GSW [kN] AW1 [kN] AW2 [kN] Axle spacing [m]
2 123.8 37.07 86.69 6.07
to this load. The information about traffic load can be provided
by any weigh-in-motion system that provides data about axle
load, axle spacing and inter-vehicle distance of all vehicles that
cross the measured road section. In addition, the bridge WIM
systems can, apart from being fully portable, provide additional
structural information about the instrumented bridge behav-
iour under traffic load (Karoumi et al., 2006; O’Brien, González,
Dowling, & Žnidarič, 2013), including realistic values of the
above-mentioned indicators: influence lines, GDFs and DAF.
These measured values are more reliable, and in most cases, less
conservative than the theoretical ones, and can substantially
increase the bridge resistance-to-load ratio.
The difference between the theoretical and measured influ-
ence lines (MIL) can reveal structural reserves or changes in the
bridge behaviour due to deterioration of its bearings, expansion
joints, etc. (Ieng, 2015; Karoumi et al., 2006; Žnidarič et al., 2015).
The true length of influence lines can be different from the the-
oretical ones, due to bearings dimensions and condition, which
can affect traffic load effects at critical bridge sections. Realistic
distribution of the total load imposed on structural members of
the bridge (GDF) can indicate differences in relation to bridge
design, or even changes in their elements’ stiffness, which might
suggest certain defects or design faults. This information is very
useful, as it can point to degradations that cannot be detected
during visual inspections.
Finally, B-WIM measurements of bridge behaviour under
traffic load can provide real-time information about the
dynamic amplification factor (DAF) for each individual vehicle.
Comparison of recommended dynamic factors in current design
codes for new bridges (Eurocode, 2003) and measured values
obtained with B-WIM measurements was conducted as a part
of FP6 ARCHES project (ARCHES D10, 2009). The outcome of
the project was that design code recommendations are in general
conservative, which is appreciated for new structures that will
have to sustain loads over the entire lifetime, but it unnecessarily
increases the load of existing bridges that are assessed for the pres-
ent traffic conditions. The main conclusions of the project were
that DAF decreases with larger and heavier vehicles, and that the
DAF values change by even up to 50% with pavement conditions.
As the critical loading event is assumed when two heavy
vehicles are placed side by side on a critical bridge section, it
was recommended to assess the dynamic allowances of exist-
ing bridges with more accurate methods (ARCHES D10, 2009;
Caprani, 2005; Kalin, Žnidarič, & Kreslin, 2015; Kirkegaard,
Nielsen, & Enevoldsen, 1997). If B-WIM measurements are used
to measure the DAF, the ARCHES project (2009) recommended
to measure at least 100 000 vehicles, or at least two months of
continuous traffic. An overview of DAF calculation methods
exceeds the scope of this paper but can be found in the ARCHES
D10 report (2009) and in (Kalin et al., 2015). The application of
measured indicators (MIL, GDF and DAF) in bridge assessment

Figure 2. Convolution curves of expected load effects in different time periods.
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 07:29 22 December 2017
is presented in detail in the section ‘Application of additional data
in assessment of existing bridges’.
Probabilistic approach to bridge assessment
Probabilistic approach to bridge assessment is based on calcula-
tion of the probability of failure Pf, which occurs when load effects
on the bridge E exceed its structural reliability R. Traditionally,
one of the most frequently used reliability measures of structures
is reliability index β, quantity related to the probability of failure
Pf (Gulvanessian, Calgaro, & Holický, 2012).
The required reliability index for the design of new bridges
is defined in current standards (Eurocode, 2002) based on the
designed lifetime of bridges. No codes have been defined so far
for existing bridges, but the method proposed by Koteš and Vičan
(2012) takes into account the age of the bridge. Unlike current
standards, the proposed method does not define reliability index
for the total lifetime, but for the remaining design lifetime of the
bridge, based on its age and condition. Thus, bridges are assessed for
shorter time periods (difference between the bridge age and design
lifetime), resulting in reduction of required reliability indices.
The reliability index and the corresponding probability of
failure of an existing bridge are key performance indicators in
assessment procedure, as they provide a degree of structural and
traffic safety of the bridge. The calculation of these indicators is
based on a number of stochastic variables representing bridge
load and resistance characteristics, such as the geometry of cross
section and concrete and reinforcement characteristics.
The main challenge in modelling these characteristics as sto-
chastic variables lies in the accuracy of determination of their
statistical parameters and correspondent type of distributions.
The best approach is to directly determine the mean value and
standard deviation from results obtained with measurements,
and to fit those to statistical distribution. As this approach
requires on-site or laboratory testing and is relatively expen-
sive, statistical parameters of these variables can be calculated
theoretically from the original documentation using recommen-
dations from the Probabilistic Model Code (JCSS, 2002), which
also proposes which type of distribution should be used. A major
issue regarding this approach is that the actual bridge geometry
and built-in materials can deviate significantly from original
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING   5
plans, causing big differences between the realistic and theoret-
ical results. Such deviations can be reduced by using Bayesian
methods of probability estimation (Holický, 2013). These meth-
ods provide reliable values of material characteristics, combining
prior information from literature or previous measurements with
new results, in order to reduce model uncertainties (Skokandić,
Mandić Ivanković, & Džeba, 2016; Sykora, 2008).
None on-site measurement data, apart from the B-WIM
results, were available for assessment of the case study bridge.
Therefore, the original design plans and information were used
to model the bridge resistance to bending. Statistical parameters
(standard deviations and mean values) were defined based on
recommendations from (JCSS, 2002).
Application of additional data in assessment of
existing bridges
The assessment of existing bridges using detailed numerical
models is a common approach to determine the bridge load
distribution, modal shapes, deflections and other structural
parameters essential to establish its load-carrying capacity. These
models are mainly developed using the finite element method
(FEM). When original design plans are available, they can be
developed to a very precise level, even taking into account some
degradation over time. Nevertheless, it is hard to simulate the
realistic behaviour of an existing bridge without the on-site meas-
urements and structural monitoring data, as some parameters
are hard to determine with visual inspection only, as described
in the first part of this paper. The inclusion of these additional
parameters into numerical models of the bridge, developed using
Sofistik software for structural analysis (Sofistik, 2014), is pre-
sented in the following sections (Skokandić, 2016).
Case study bridge analysis
The bridge chosen for this analysis is a simply supported highway
bridge with a single span of 24.8 m, and with the superstructure
composed of five prefabricated I-type prestressed concrete gird-
ers connected with the monolithic concrete deck slab (Figure 3).
The 3D FEM numerical model of the bridge (Figure 4) has
been developed based on original design plans, along with built
 6   A. MANDIĆ IVANKOVIĆ ET AL.
Figure 3. Cross section of case study bridge with built in reinforcement.
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 07:29 22 December 2017
Figure 4. 3D FEM model of case study bridge.
in reinforcement and tendons, enabling calculation of the load
carrying capacity to bending and shear. Girders and monolithic
deck have been modelled using grillage method to simulate real-
istic behaviour of bridge elements, providing theoretical trans-
verse load distribution on every girder (theoretical GDF).
Calibration of bridge numerical model using B-WIM data
A multi-level assessment for the case study bridge has been con-
ducted based on the method proposed by Skokandić et al. (2016).
Additional data have been applied in every step to show benefits
of utilisation of bridge monitoring data. Results obtained at every
level are presented in the following sections, both in determinis-
tic (as a ratio of bridge resistance to total load) and probabilistic
(comparison of calculated and targeted reliability) formats. An
overview of step-by-step assessment process is explained in the
sequence.
Step 0 – initial reference step
The linear elastic analysis of the bridge was conducted at the
initial level of assessment based on current design codes for new
bridges. Only the permanent actions (Eurocode, 2004) (self-
weight, fixed equipment and road surfacing) and traffic loads,
according to Traffic Load Model 1 (Eurocode, 2003) were taken
into account. Load effects on the bridge (bending moment and
shear) were calculated by means of Sofistik software using the-
oretical influence lines for simply supported bridges. Bending
resistance of girders was calculated using the built in reinforce-
ment. The corresponding results are presented with all results in
Table 5 (step 0). This initial step has resulted in conservative esti-
mation of the bridge load carrying capacity, and was conducted
as a reference point to demonstrate benefits of monitoring in an
optimised bridge assessment.
Step 1 – application of measured influence line (MIL)
At the next level, the measured influence line for bending
(ARCHES D16, 2009; Ralbovsky et al., 2014), obtained from
B-WIM measurements was compared to the theoretical influence
line for simply supported bridges.
Theoretical influence line for the simply supported bridge
is marked in Figure 5 with thick blue line, while thick green
line is used for the measured line. The difference between the
two reveals that the bridge does not behave as an ideally simply
supported structure, as it could have been expected after the orig-
inal expansion joints were replaced with the asphalt ones. The
measured influence line (MIL) requires adjustment in numerical
model of the bridge. To simulate partially fixed behaviour, the
model is modified with the calibrated influence line marked with
red line in Figure 5.
This modification is accounted for with additional rotational
stiffness of supports, using springs on the bearings, as shown in
Figure 4. As a result of calibration, the bending moments in the
centre of the span reduced compared to the initial level, adding to
the resistance/load ratio of critical cross section of the case study
bridge (Table 5, step 1). Realistic influence lines can be evalu-
ated from a few tens of vehicles measured with a B-WIM system
(Ralbovsky et al., 2014; Žnidarič, 2017) that was installed on the
bridge under inspection. The whole process lasted no more than a
few hours, which reduced the total monitoring cost considerably.
Step 2 – measured load distribution over girders (realistic
GDF)
Theoretical and measured girder distributions factors (GDFs)
were compared in next step (step 2) of the assessment, so as to
review possible differences that might point to degradation of
bridge elements. Furthermore, GDFs were used to determine
critical cross sections of the bridge. As the case study bridge was
composed of identical girders with the same amount of rein-
forcement and tendons, the girder subjected to highest load was
selected. In the theoretical model, GDFs are based on geometry
and stiffness of bridge elements and on transverse position of
the moving load.
On the other hand, a B-WIM system stores maximum strain
values obtained from all strain sensors, which allows calculation
of mean values and standard deviations of the measured GDF.
Comparison of these two sets of values is presented in Figure 6. In
this case, the differences are small (Table 5, step 2), while the GDF
comparison would likely show much bigger deviations in a case
involving one or more damaged or seriously degraded girders.

Figure 5. Comparison of influence lines – case study bridge.
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 07:29 22 December 2017
Figure 6. Comparison of load distribution on each girder– case study bridge.
Such results were expected for the case study bridge, as no
visible signs of degradation were discovered during visual inspec-
tion. No numerical model calibration was conducted due to the
fact that girders are identical in geometry, stiffness and reinforce-
ment, and as the total load was redistributed according to meas-
ured GDF values. In cases where calibration of numerical model
is required, it can be done by moderately adjusting stiffness of
bridge elements in the software, without affecting the geometry.
This method enables detection of invisible degradations of bridge
elements that would in the end result in the reduction of total
maintenance and reparation costs.
Step 3 – site specific traffic load model
In the final step (step 3) of the assessment procedure, a site-spe-
cific traffic load model was developed from B-WIM measure-
ments (Žnidarič et al., 2012). The model was extrapolated using
the method described in the section entitled ‘Bridge weigh-in-
motion as a part of SHM’. The characteristic value that is being
assessed can vary. In this example, the 75-year median values
were chosen to represent the remaining service life of the case
study bridge.
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING   7
In the calculation process, the measured influence lines and
GDF values were used for the calculation of static load and load
distribution, respectively. For the total load effect calculation,
DAF was evaluated for 288,413 vehicles with the gross vehicle
weight (GVW) in excess of 5 t. DAF values for every vehicle, and
their comparison with design recommendations, are presented
in Figure 7 where it can clearly be seen that DAF values decrease
with the GVW of vehicles. For example, a DAF value for 10
heaviest loading events amounts to 1.0067 only. The mean value
for use in assessment was obtained from the relative frequency
histogram presented in Figure 8. It amounts to 1.035 with the
standard deviation of 0.029.
To assess the load carrying capacity at the critical section (in
the middle of the span), the bending moment for traffic load-
ing, calculated from the B-WIM results (Table 5, step 3), was
combined with the permanent load effect obtained from the
calibrated numerical model using Sofistik. Every step of assess-
ment procedure was conducted for shear forces, too, but is not
presented due to restricted length of the paper. The assessment
procedure was also performed using probabilistic approach, as
described in the following section.
 8   A. MANDIĆ IVANKOVIĆ ET AL.
Figure 7. Measured DAF for vehicles with GVW above five tonnes.
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 07:29 22 December 2017
Figure 8. Relative frequency histogram for measured DAF values.
Probabilistic approach – case study bridge
The basic limit state equation for failure probability calculation
is defined as:
Z = 𝜃R ⋅ R − 𝜃E ⋅ E (2)
where E and R are modelled as stochastic variables, described
with statistical parameters (mean value μ and standard deviation
σ) and certain type of distribution, depending on their charac-
teristics. Additional functions θR and θE are defined as model
uncertainty variables in order to reduce model deviations from
reality (Eurocode, 2002; JCSS, 2002). If we assume that function
Z given by Equation (2) is distributed normally, the reliability
index β is calculated as follows:
𝜇z
𝛽=
𝜎z (3)
where μz and σz are statistic parameters of Z, denoting its mean
value and standard deviation, respectively.
Equation (2) for the case study bridge is defined for each
girder separately as:
Z = 𝜃R ⋅ MRd − 𝜃E ⋅ MEd (4)
where MRd and MEd stand for the girder’s cross section resistance
to bending and the total bending moment on the girder, respec-
tively. Further derivation of Equation (4) is as follows:
[( ) ]
Φ
R = MRd ⋅ 𝜃R = h − c − b ⋅ nb ⋅ As ⋅ fy + ng ⋅ d ⋅ Ap ⋅ fypk ⋅ 0.9 ⋅ 𝜃R
2
(5)
E = MG ⋅ 𝜃E,G + MQ ⋅ 𝜃E,Q
[ ]
+ ΔMg ⋅ 𝜃E,G + MQ ⋅ 𝜃E,Q (6)
( ) L2
= A + hd ⋅ bd ⋅ 𝛾 C ⋅
8
where MQ = MT1 for traffic load according to EN 1991-2 and
MQ = MT2 ⋅ DAF for traffic load according to B-WIM. All vari-
ables included in Equations (4)–(6) for the assessment of girder
3 are defined with their values and distribution types in Tables
3 and 4.
In order to solve limit state equations using probabilistic
approach, it is convenient to use specialised software programs,
as mathematical operations regarding parameters with different
distributions types are complex. The first order reliability method
(FORM) and corresponding Hasofer–Lind reliability index was
 STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING   9

Table 3. Statistical parameters for bending resistance of girder 3.

Standard deviation
Variable Units Distribution Nominal value Mean value (μ) (σ)
Girder height h [m] Deterministic 1.66 1.66 /
Concrete cover c [m] Normal 0.02 0.02 0.025 μ
Number of bars/girder nb Deterministic 4 4 /
Number of tendons/girder ng Deterministic 2 2 /
Diameter of bar 𝛷b [m] Deterministic 0.02 0.02 /
Yield strength of reinforc. steel fy [kN/cm2] Normal 22.0 24.64 0.05 μ
Area of rebar As [cm2] Normal 3.14 3.14 0.020 μ
Diameter of tendon 𝛷t [m] Deterministic 0.053 0.053 /
Effective depth of tendons d [m] Normal 1.41 1.41 0.25 μ
Tensile strength of prestress. steel fypk [kN/cm2] Normal 135.28 151.51 0.05 μ
Area of tendon Ap [cm2] Normal 22.0 22.0 0.020 μ
Resistance uncertainty θR Lognormal / 1.2 0.15

Table 4. Statistical parameters for loading of girder 3.

Variable Units Distribution Nominal value Mean value (μ) Standard deviation (σ)
Concrete density γC [kN/m3] Normal 25.0 25.0 0.04 μ
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 07:29 22 December 2017

Bridge span L [m] Deterministic 24.8 24.8 /

Girder cross section area A [cm2] Normal 7052 7052 0.020 μ
Deck height hd [m] Deterministic 0.24 0.24 /
Deck width bd [m] Deterministic 2.80 2.80 /
Additional permanent ΔMg [kNm] Normal / 403.14 0.05 μ
load
Traffic load – EN, 1991-2 MT,1 [kNm] Normal / 2385.88 0.08 μ
Traffic load – B-WIM MT,2 [kNm] GEV / 1302.58 0.10 μ
Dynamic amplification DAF Gumbel / 1.035 0.029
factor
Permanent load uncer- θE,G Lognormal / 1.0 0.12
tainty
Traffic load uncertainty θE,Q Lognormal / 1.0 0.19

Table 5. Assessment procedure results – deterministic approach [kNm].

Girder 1 Girder 2 Girder 3 Girder 4 Girder 5

MEd [kNm] – Step 0 7553.63 7968.83 7728.16 7030.85 5686.29
MEd [kNm] – Step 1 4963.38 5367.21 5317.27 4668.96 3522.73
MEd [kNm] – Step 2 4948.28 5155.85 5421.91 4974.01 3339.48
MEd [kNm] – Step 3 3890.03 4030.52 4181.36 3879.62 2828.86
MRd [kNm] 7901.76

used for the case study bridge assessment using adequate relia-
bility analysis software (Schneider, 2017).
Case study bridge – assessment results
Results for bending assessment conducted with deterministic
approach are presented in Table 5 with bending moments calcu-
lated on each girder for every step of the assessment, along with
the total bending resistance of girders.
Additionally, results are presented graphically in Figure 9 as
a ratio of girder cross section resistance to the corresponding
bending moment, defined as a safety index γ:
MRd
𝛾=
MEd
Probabilistic analysis results are presented in Table 6 and, graph-
ically, in Figure 10, as reliability indexes in every step of the pro-
cedure, calculated for each girder separately. Minimum required
reliability indexes for new and existing bridges are also presented
in Table 6.
Time-variant reliability analysis
Results of the time-variant reliability analysis over the selected
time periods, conducted for Girder 3, are presented in Figure 11.
The analysis is based on the B-WIM site-specific traffic load model,
obtained in step 3 of the assessment method. The blue dashed line
illustrates how the calculated reliability index decreases with time,
depending on the expected traffic load effects shown in the upper
right corner for various time periods. This method can be used
to predict critical point in the projected bridge lifetime, when its
calculated reliability drops below the minimum required level.
Taking into account the reduction of resistance and increase in
traffic load over time, this type of analysis could optimise decision
making in the sphere of bridge maintenance, as it provides tools
(7) to predict bridge reliability levels over time. Time periods can be
chosen depending on the requirements, e.g. a period of 5 years can
be set as it represents the time between mandatory bridge inspec-
tions in some countries. If possible, in order to reduce uncer-
tainties, information about the bridge condition and traffic loads
should be adapted after main or principal bridge inspections,
which are conducted in Europe at every five or six-year intervals.
 10   A. MANDIĆ IVANKOVIĆ ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 07:29 22 December 2017

Figure 9. Bending moment and resistance ratio of every girder.

Figure 10. Reliability index β for every girder.

Table 6. Assessment procedure results – probabilistic approach.

Girder 1 Girder 2 Girder 3 Girder 4 Girder 5

Reliability index β – Step 0 3.82 3.49 3.80 4.25 5.58
Reliability index β – Step 1 6.02 5.55 5.67 6.37 8.16
Reliability index β – Step 2 6.04 5.80 5.48 5.88 8.48
Reliability index β – Step 3 7.76 7.53 7.27 7.72 9.47
βRequired (Eurocode, 2002) 3.80
βRequired (Koteš & Vičan, 2012) 3.70
 STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING   11
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 07:29 22 December 2017

Figure 11. Time-variant analysis of bridge reliability.

Table 7. Impact on performance indicators based on B-WIM measurements in optimised bridge assessment.
Performance indicator
Measured influence line – MIL
Girder distribution factor – GDF
Dynamic amplification factor –
DAF
Application Result Requirements
Step 1 Reveals changes in bridge boundary condition. In most cases reduces maxi- A few hours or a few 100 B-WIM
mum bending moments (in the case study bridge for around 35%) vehicle records
Step 2 Total load is redistributed on the girders identifying bridge critical element A few hours or a few 100 B-WIM
(cross section). Can reveal invisible degradation on structural elements. (In vehicle records
the case study bridge, changes the load effect from the step 1 for around
+/–6%)
Step 3 Static traffic calculated from B-WIM data is multiplied with DAF to define If available, at least 100 000,
the total site specific load effect. Can be used as an indicator for pavement or minimum two months of
condition. (In the case study bridge, reduces bending moment from step continuous vehicle records
2 for around 23%)

Conclusions, recommendations and future research
The implementation of B-WIM measurements in the probabilis-
tic assessment of existing road bridges can reveal hidden bridge
reserves and predict bridge reliability development over a speci-
fied lifetime. Consequently, such measurements can permit unre-
stricted use of a bridge over a much longer remaining service life.
Therefore, it is recommended to recognise parameters and
indexes calculated from the B-WIM measurement results as key
performance indicators for the assessment of bridge functionality
at the system level, before the issue is raised to the network level.
The summary of these parameters and their contribution to an
optimised bridge assessment is presented in Table 7.
Further research will require evaluation of economic aspects
by quantifying the value of initial investments in B-WIM meas-
urements, followed by more detailed bridge assessment, and
comparison with the reduction of bridge maintenance costs
within the management of a set of bridges at the network level.
Acknowledgments
This paper is based on the work carried out in the scope of the COST Action
TU 1406 – Quality specifications for roadway bridges, standardization
at a European level and COST Action TU 1402 – Quantifying the Value
of Structural Health Monitoring, both supported by COST (European
Cooperation in Science and Technology) and on results of the Croatian
national project Performance indicators for assessment of existing bridges.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and
Technology) and Zagreb University.
References
Ang, A. H. & Tang, W. H. (1975). Probability concepts in engineering,
planning and design. New York, Toronto: Wiley.
ARCHES D08. (2009). Report D08: Recommendations on bridge traffic load
monitoring. Brussels: European Commission.
ARCHES D10. (2009). Recommendations on dynamic amplification
allowance. Brussels: European Commission.
ARCHES D16. (2009). Recommendations on the use of soft, diagnostic and
proof load testing. Brussels: European Commission.
 12   A. MANDIĆ IVANKOVIĆ ET AL.
Bien, J., Elfgren, L., & Olofsson, J. (Eds.). (2007). Sustainable bridges
– Assessment for future traffic demands and longer lives. Wrocław:
Dolnoslaskie Wydawnictwo Edukacyjne.
Caprani, C. C.. (2005). Probabilistic analysis of highway bridge traffic
loading (PhD thesis. University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Caprani, C., Grave, S., O’Brien, E. J., & O’Connor, A. J. (2002). Critical
loading events for the assessment of medium span bridges. International
Conference on Computational Structures Technology, 147, 1–11.
Casas, J. R. (2016). European standardization of quality specifications for
roadway bridges: an overview. In Proceedings of the 8th international
conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management, Foz do
Iguaçu (Brazil), Taylor and Francis.
Castillo, E. (1988). Extreme value theory in engineering. Cambridge, MA:
Academic Press.
COST. (2014). Memorandum of understanding – COST 1402. Brussels:
European Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research.
COST 345. (2001). COST 345 – Procedures required for assessing higway
structures. Brussels: European Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and
Technical Research.
DIN-1072. (1988). Straßen und Wegbrücken, Lastannahmen Erläuterungen.
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 07:29 22 December 2017
Berlin, Wien, Zurich: Beuth.
Enright, B. (2010). Simulation of traffic loading on highway bridges (PhD
thesis). University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Eurocode. (2002). Eurocode 0 – Basis of structural design. Brussels:
European Committee for Standardization CEN.
Eurocode. (2003). Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Part 2: Traffic loads
on bridges. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization CEN.
Eurocode. (2004). Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1–1:
General rules and rules for buildings. Brussels: European Committee for
Standardization CEN.
Eurocode. (2005). Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures –- Part 2:
Concrete bridges – Design and detailing rules. Brussels: European
Committee for Standardization CEN.
Furundžić, B. (1969). Privremeni tehnički propisi za opterećenje mostova
na putovima PTP-5 (1949), Zbirka tehničkih propisa u građevinarstvu.
Beograd: Građevinska knjiga.
Getachew, A. & Obrien, E. J. (2007). Simplified site-specific traffic load
models for bridge assessment. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering,
3(4), 303–311.
Gulvanessian, H., Calgaro, J. A., & Holický, M. (2012). Designers’ guide to
EN 1990 Eurocode: Basis of structural design. London: Thomas Telford.
Holický, M. (2013). Introduction to probability and statistics for engineers.
Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media.
Ieng, S.-S. (2015). Bridge influence line estimation for bridge weigh-
in-motion system. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 29(1),
06014006.
Jacob, B. (2002). Weigh-in-Motion of axles and vehicles for Europe (WAVE),
General Report. Paris.
Jacob, B., OBrien, E. J., & Jehaes, S. (2002). Final Report of the COST 323
action. Paris.
JCSS (2002). Probabilistic model code (12th ed.). Lyngby: Author.
Kalin, J., Žnidarič, A., & Kreslin, M. (2015). Using weigh-in-motion data
to determine bridge dynamic amplification factor. In EVACES’15, 6th
International Confererence on Experimental Vibration Analysis for Civil
Engineering Structures. Duebendorf, Switzerland.
Karoumi, R., O’Brien, E. J., & Quiligan, M. (2006). Calculating an influence
line from direct measurements. Bridge Engineering, 159(1–2), 31–34.
Kirkegaard, P. H., Nielsen, S. R., & Enevoldsen, I. (1997). Heavy vehicles
on minor highway bridges: calculation of dynamic impact factors from
selected crossing scenarios. Structural Reliability Theory, R9722(172),
1–44.
Koteš, P. & Vičan, J. (2012). Reliability levels for existing bridges evaluation
according to eurocodes. Procedia Engineering, 40, 211–216.
Matos, J. C., Casas, J. R., & Fernandes, S. (2016). Quality specifications for
roadway bridges (Bridge Spec). In Proceedings of the 8th international
conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management. Taylor and
Francis.
Montgomery, D. C. & Runger, G. C. (2014). Applied statistics and probability
for engineers (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Moses, F. (1979). Weigh-in-motion system using instrumented bridges.
ASCE Transportation Engineering Journal, 105, 233–249.
Moses, F. & Verma, P. (1987). Load capacity evaluation of existing bridges
(Report No. 301). Washington, DC: National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP).
O’Brien, E. J. (2011). Aplicações de pesagem em movimento na engenharia
de pontes [Applications of weigh-in-motion in bridge engineering] In
Proceedings of the 1st International Seminar of Weight in Motion,
Florianopolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
O’Brien, E. J., González, A., Dowling, J., & Žnidarič, A. (2013). Direct
measurement of dynamics in road bridges using a bridge weigh-in-motion
system. The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering, 8(4), 263–270.
O’Connor, A. & Enevoldsen, I. (2009). Probability-based assessment of
highway bridges according to the new Danish guideline. Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering, 5(2), 157–168.
O’Brien, E., Schmidt, F., Hajializadeh, D., & Zhou, X.-Y. (2015). A review of
probabilistic methods of assessment of load effects in bridges. Structural
Safety, 53, 44–56.
Ralbovsky, M., McRobbie, S., Šajna, A., Leban, M. B., Sekulič, D., Žnidarič,
A. (2014). Final report of advanced bridge monitoring techniques –
TRIMM Report D32. Vienna: AIT.
Šavor, Z. & Novak, M. Š. (2015). Procedures for reliability assessment of
existing bridges. Journal of the Croatian Association of Civil Engineers,
67(6), 557–572.
Schneider, J. & Vrouwenvelder, T. (2017). Introduction to safety and
reliability of structures, structural engineering documents. Zurich: IABSE.
Sivakumar, B., Ghosn, M., & Moses, F. (2011). Protocols for collecting and
using traffic data in bridge design (NCHRP Report No.683). Washington,
DC: Transport Research Board.
Skokandić, D. (2016). STSM Report – Application of B-WIM measurements
in assessment of existing road bridges. Zagreb.
Skokandić, D., Mandić Ivanković, A., & Džeba, I. (2016). Multi – level road
bridge assessment. In Proceedings of 19th IABSE Congress, Stockholm,
IABSE.
Sofistik. (2014). Sofistik software for structural analysis. Germany:
SOFISTIK AG.
Strauss, A., Bergmeister, K., & Mandić-Ivanković, A. (2016). Applied and
research based performance indicator database for highway bridges
across Europe. In IALCCE – Fifth International Symposium on Life-Cycle
Civil Engineering. Delft, The Netherlands.
Strauss, A., & Mandić-Ivanković, A. (2016). Performance indicators for
road bridges – Categorization overview. In Paper presented at the WG
meeting of COST Action TU1406 Quality Specifications for Roadway
Bridges, Standardization at a European Level. Belgrade, Serbia.
Strauss, A., Mandić-Ivanković, A., Matos, J. C., & Casas, J. R. (2016).
Performance Indicators for roadway bridges, technical report of the
working group 1: Performance indicators.
Strauss, A., Mandić-Ivanković, A., & Soussa, H. (2016). Performance
indicators for road bridges. In Factsheet presented at the 3rd workshop of
the COST Action TU 1402. Barcelona, Spain.
Sykora, M. (2008). Assessment of existing bridges using Bayesian updating.
In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference ‘Reliability, safety
and diagnostics of transport structures and means 2008’, University of
Pardubice, Czech Republic.
Wiśniewski, D. F., Casas, J. R., & Ghosn, M. (2012). Codes for safety
assessment of existing bridges – Current state and further development.
IABSE Structural Engineering International, 22(4), 552–561.
Woodward, R. J. (2001). Guidelines for assessing load carrying capacity –
Final report of BRIME project. Brussels.
Žnidarič, A. (2017). Influence of number and quality of weigh-in-motion
data on evaluation of load effects on bridges (Doctoral dissertation).
University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana.
Žnidarič, A., & Kreslin, M. (2012). Structures performance assessment,
HeROAD Report 2.1. Ljubljana: ERANET Road II. Retrieved from www.
eranetroad.org

Žnidarič, A., Kreslin, M., Lavrič, I., & Kalin, J. (2012). Simplified approach
to modelling traffic loads on bridges. Procedia – Social and Behavioural
Sciences, 48, 2887–2896.
Žnidarič, A., Herga, L., Pirman, B., Willenpart, T., Hevka, P., Močnik, C.,
et al. (2015). Management of bridges in Slovenia, national report. Seoul:
PIARC – World Road Congress.
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 07:29 22 December 2017
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING   13
Žnidarič, A., Kreslin, M., Leahy, C., O’Brien, E. J., Schmidt, F., & Pedersen,
C. (2015). Guidelines on collecting WIM data and forecasting of traffic
load effects on bridges. Re-GEN D3.1 Report.
Žnidarič, A., Kreslin, M., & Kalin, J. (2016). Weigh-in-motion and traffic
load monitoring. Fact Sheet WG, 2–9. COST Action TU 1402.