You are on page 1of 14

applied

sciences
Article
Vehicle Loads for Assessing the Required Load
Capacity Considering the Traffic Environment
Sang-Hyo Kim 1 , Won-Ho Heo 1 , Dong-woo You 2 and Jae-Gu Choi 1, *
1 School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul 03722, Korea;
sanghyo@yonsei.ac.kr (S.-H.K.); hoya1219@yonsei.ac.kr (W.-H.H.)
2 Smart Facilities Management Division, Korea Infrastructure, Safety and Technology Corporation, Jinju 52852,
Korea; ydw@kistec.or.kr
* Correspondence: cjg1204@yonsei.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-2-2123-2804

Academic Editors: Stefano Invernizzi and Giuseppe Lacidogna


Received: 1 December 2016; Accepted: 5 April 2017; Published: 6 April 2017

Abstract: The effects of traffic loads on existing bridges are quite different from those of design live
loads because of the various traffic environments. However, the bridge maintenance and safety
assessment of in-service bridges maintain the design load capacity without considering the current
traffic environment. The real traffic conditions on existing bridges may require a load capacity
that is considerably different from the design. Therefore, the required load capacity of an existing
highway bridge should be determined according to the extreme load effects that the bridge will
experience from the actual traffic environment during its remaining service life for more rational
maintenance of the infrastructure. A simulation process was developed to determine evaluation
vehicle loads for bridge safety assessment based on the extreme load effects that may occur during
the remaining service life. Realistic probabilistic traffic models were used to reflect the actual traffic
environment. The presented model was used to analyze the extreme load effect on pre-stressed
concrete (PSC) and steel box girder bridges, which are typical bridge types. The traffic environmental
conditions included the traffic volume (2000–40,000), the proportion of heavy vehicles (15–45%),
and the consecutive vehicle traveling patterns. The spans of the sample bridges were 30 m (PSC
bridge) and 45 or 60 m (steel box girder bridge). In the results, the extreme load effects tended to
increase with either the traffic volume or proportion of heavy vehicles. The evaluation vehicle loads
for bridge safety assessment may be adjusted with the traffic conditions, such as the traffic volume,
the proportion of heavy vehicles, and the consecutive vehicle traveling patterns.

Keywords: vehicle load; load capacity; traffic environment; maintenance; probabilistic traffic model

1. Introduction
Current bridge design is based on conservative assumptions regarding the intensity of applied
loads and the structural response of a bridge to these loads. Although these designs have served
the public very well by providing a network of safe and economical bridge infrastructure systems,
they may not offer the most optimum approach to assessing the safety of existing bridges. Due to
the nominal reduction in the required load capacities of bridges that have been in service for many
years, using the design criteria to assess their safety may indicate that many of them need upgrading.
However, the direct and user costs associated with upgrading a single existing bridge are generally
quite high, and the costs of upgrading a network of bridges are prohibitive. Therefore, some of the
conservatism that is normally incorporated into the design requirements for new bridges and in-service
bridges needs to be revisited and, if possible, reduced when assessing the required performance of
existing bridges [1].

Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 365; doi:10.3390/app7040365 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci


Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 365 2 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 365 2 of 15

There are approximately


There are approximately29,896
29,896bridges
bridgescurrently
currentlyinin service
service in in Korea
Korea as as of 2014.
of 2014. Figure
Figure 1 shows
1 shows the
the number of bridges according to the year of construction completion. According to the data, the
number of bridges according to the year of construction completion. According to the data, the number
number of newly-built
of newly-built bridgesincreased
bridges rapidly rapidly increased in the
in the 1990s, and 1990s, and the
the highest highest
number number
of new of new
bridges was
bridges was built in the 2000s. However, the number of newly-built bridges has been decreasing
built in the 2000s. However, the number of newly-built bridges has been decreasing rapidly since 2010.
rapidly since built
Bridges were 2010.inBridges
the 1990swere built the
to satisfy in the 1990sfor
demand to infrastructure
satisfy the demand for infrastructure
from active from
social development,
active
but thesocial
number development, butbridges
of newly-built the number
has beenofdecreasing
newly-built bridges
since has because
the 2000s been decreasing since the
of the expansion of
2000s because of the expansion of previously planned infrastructure [2].
previously planned infrastructure [2].

6000
Number of bridges

4000

2000

0
~ 1970 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011
~1975~1980~1985~1990~1995~2000~2005~2010~2015
Year

Figure
Figure 1.
1. The
The number
number of
of bridges
bridges in
in Korea
Korea according
according to
to the
the year
year of
of construction
construction completion.
completion.

Recently, extreme vehicle loads have been researched through methods such as the distribution
Recently, extreme vehicle loads have been researched through methods such as the distribution
model and simulation. González et al. [3] analyzed the critical load scenarios determined from a
model and simulation. González et al. [3] analyzed the critical load scenarios determined from a
Monte Carlo simulation. Gu et al. [4] presented a Bayesian distribution model of overloaded
Monte Carlo simulation. Gu et al. [4] presented a Bayesian distribution model of overloaded vehicles.
vehicles. O’Brien et al. developed traffic load models with various probabilistic methods [5–8]. They
O’Brien et al. developed traffic load models with various probabilistic methods [5–8]. They also
also considered the dynamic effects in addition to static effects [9]. The required performance of a
considered the dynamic effects in addition to static effects [9]. The required performance of a bridge
bridge structure may vary depending on the expected user level [10]. The effects of the traffic load
structure may vary depending on the expected user level [10]. The effects of the traffic load on existing
on existing bridges are quite different from those of live design loads owing to the various traffic
bridges are quite different from those of live design loads owing to the various traffic environments.
environments. However, the bridge maintenance and safety assessment of in-service bridges focus
However, the bridge maintenance and safety assessment of in-service bridges focus on maintaining
on maintaining the required load capacities that were determined in the design stage without
the required load capacities that were determined in the design stage without considering the actual
considering the actual traffic environment. The real traffic conditions on existing bridges may
traffic environment. The real traffic conditions on existing bridges may require load capacities that
require load capacities that are considerably different, either higher or lower, from the design load
are considerably different, either higher or lower, from the design load capacity. Therefore, the target
capacity. Therefore, the target required load capacity of an existing highway bridge should be
required load capacity of an existing highway bridge should be determined according to the extreme
determined according to the extreme load effects that the bridge will experience in the actual traffic
load effects that the bridge will experience in the actual traffic environment during its remaining
environment during its remaining service life to provide a more rational and economical
service life to provide a more rational and economical maintenance of the infrastructure.
maintenance of the infrastructure.
This paper presents a simple traffic model for estimating probabilities as a function of the traffic
This paper presents a simple traffic model for estimating probabilities as a function of the traffic
environment and proposes a rational maintenance procedure to determine the required load capacities
environment and proposes a rational maintenance procedure to determine the required load
of existing bridges by evaluating the required performance based on actual road traffic conditions.
capacities of existing bridges by evaluating the required performance based on actual road traffic
The aim is to achieve consistent safety levels for existing bridges through proper maintenance, even
conditions. The aim is to achieve consistent safety levels for existing bridges through proper
under quite different traffic load conditions, such as different traffic volumes (average daily traffic,
maintenance, even under quite different traffic load conditions, such as different traffic volumes
ADT) and heavy vehicle volumes (average daily truck traffic, ADTT). According to the proposed
(average daily traffic, ADT) and heavy vehicle volumes (average daily truck traffic, ADTT).
procedure, probabilistic vehicle weight models and consecutive traveling vehicle models are suggested
According to the proposed procedure, probabilistic vehicle weight models and consecutive traveling
based on the field data. In addition, traveling speed proportion models and headway models are
vehicle models are suggested based on the field data. In addition, traveling speed proportion models
proposed, as well as heavy vehicle distribution models for lanes on multi-lane roads.
and headway models are proposed, as well as heavy vehicle distribution models for lanes on
multi-lane roads.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 365 3 of 14

2. Concept of Probability-Based Assessment and Target Performance Levels


Among bridges currently in service, first-class bridges are designed by considering the target
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 365 3 of 15
performance of the current design load: the DB24 truck loading of the Korea Institute of Bridge and
Structural2. Engineers (KIBSE). A DB24
Concept of Probability-Based truckload
Assessment andis Target
approximately
Performance 1.3Levels
times heavier than the HS20
truckload specified in AASHTO LRFD [11]. However, bridges in actual service tend to experience higher
Among bridges currently in service, first-class bridges are designed by considering the target
or lower load effects than the existing target performance depending on the traffic volume in the relevant
performance of the current design load: the DB24 truck loading of the Korea Institute of Bridge and
area or traffic characteristics
Structural of heavy
Engineers (KIBSE). and consecutive
A DB24 vehicles. Current
truckload is approximately performance
1.3 times heavier thanevaluation
the HS20 and
truckload
maintenance of bridgesspecified in AASHTO
secure a uniformLRFD [11]. However,
performance bridges in to
level according actual serviceperformance
the target tend to experience
determined
higher
in the design or lower
phase. load effects
In some cases,than the existing
therefore, target are
budgets performance
allocateddepending
to secureona the traffic volume
superior level ofinbridge
the relevant
performance area or traffic
than required, which characteristics
indicates aofgeneral
heavy and lackconsecutive
of rationalityvehicles. Current
in bridge performance
maintenance.
evaluation and maintenance of bridges secure a uniform performance level according to the target
For example, Figure 2a shows the probability distribution of the load effect experienced by a
performance determined in the design phase. In some cases, therefore, budgets are allocated to
representative
secure abridgesuperiorwithlevela traffic
of bridgeenvironment
performance equivalent
than required, to which
the national
indicatesaverage.
a general The
lack hatched
of
areas represent
rationality theinprobability that the design load effect (Md ) will be exceeded. However, if there
bridge maintenance.
For example,
is an above-average Figure
traffic 2a shows
volume the area
or the probability
has adistribution
high proportionof the load effect experienced
of heavy by a
vehicles (Figure 2b,
representative bridge with a traffic environment equivalent to the national
the experienced load effect increases, and there is a greater probability that the design load effect average. The hatched
areas represent the probability that the design load effect (Md) will be exceeded. However, if there is
will be exceeded. In areas with a low traffic volume or heavy vehicle proportion (Figure 2c), there
an above-average traffic volume or the area has a high proportion of heavy vehicles (Figure 2b,
is a lower probability that the design load effect will be exceeded. Therefore, the efficiency of the
the experienced load effect increases, and there is a greater probability that the design load effect
current evaluation and maintenance
will be exceeded. In areas with aof lowbridges can be or
traffic volume increased by adequately
heavy vehicle adjusting
proportion (Figure the required
2c), there is
a lower probability that the design load effect will be exceeded. Therefore, the efficiency of
performance standard. In other words, adjusting the control level upward (Figure 2b) or the
downward
current
(Figure 2c) can evaluation
maintain and the maintenance
probability of bridges
that can be increased
the required by adequately
performance will beadjusting
exceeded theby the
required performance standard. In other words, adjusting the control
traffic vehicle load at a consistent level. This will also add consistency to damage progression level upward (Figure 2b) or and
downward (Figure 2c) can maintain the probability that the required performance will be exceeded
deterioration of a target bridge structure from the vehicle load due to the site environment. The efficient
by the traffic vehicle load at a consistent level. This will also add consistency to damage progression
distribution of bridge maintenance costs can also be realized by using this rational approach to the
and deterioration of a target bridge structure from the vehicle load due to the site environment. The
required efficient
performance.
distributionSince the budget
of bridge for road
maintenance costsand
can bridge maintenance
also be realized by usingisthis
expected to exceed 40%
rational approach
after 2020to[12],
the required
it seems performance.
necessarySince the budget
to improve for road
current and bridge
uniform maintenance
bridge is expected
maintenance to exceed
policies based on
the target40% after 2020 [12],
performance it seems
of the design necessary
phase. to improve current uniform bridge maintenance policies
based on the target performance of the design phase.

(M: Moment / Md: Design moment)

Normalized (M/Md)
M/Md
M/M
M/Md =d 1
=1
(maintenance perfomance)

(a)

(M: Moment / Md: Design moment)

upwardUpward
adjustment
adjustment

Normalized (M/Md)
M/Md
M/MM/M d = 1
d = 1

maintenance
Maintenance
perfomance

(b)

Figure 2. Cont.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 365 4 of 15

Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 365 4 of 14


Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 365 (M: Moment / Md: Design moment) 4 of 15

(M: Moment / Md: Design moment)


downwardDownward
adjustment adjustment

Normalized (M/M )
downwardDownward
adjustment adjustment
d

M/Md
M/Md =M/M
1 d=1 Normalized (M/Md)
M/Md
maintenanceM/Md =M/M
1 d=1
Maintenance
perfomance
maintenance
Maintenance
perfomance
(c)
(c)
Figure 2. Distributions of the load effect under different traffic conditions: (a) normal; (b) severe;
Figure 2. Distributions of the load effect under different traffic conditions: (a) normal; (b) severe;
and (c) mild.
Figure 2. Distributions of the load effect under different traffic conditions: (a) normal; (b) severe; and
and (c) mild.
(c) mild.
Based on Based
this perspective, the required
on this perspective, the requiredperformance
performanceconsidering
considering thethetraffic
traffic environments
environments was was
analyzed by considering
analyzed the extreme
by considering loadload
the extreme effect that
effect may
that mayoccur
occur on
on aa bridge
bridgereflecting
reflecting
the the regional
regional
Based on this perspective, the required performance considering the traffic environments was
traffic environment and structural
traffic environment characteristics,
and structural such
characteristics, suchasasthe
the average dailytraffic
average daily traffic volume,
volume, heavy
heavy
analyzed vehicle
by considering
proportion,
the extreme
heavy vehicle
load
traffic
effect
rate per
that may
lane, and
occur
girder
on a bridge reflecting the regional
type.
vehicle proportion, heavy vehicle traffic rate per lane, and girder type.
traffic environment and structural characteristics, such as the average daily traffic volume, heavy
3. Probabilistic
vehicle proportion, Vehicle
heavy Models
vehicle of Weights
traffic rate perand lane,Traveling Patterns
and girder type.
3. Probabilistic Vehicle Models of Weights and Traveling Patterns
The loads that constantly occur on highway bridges as a result of passing vehicles are generally
The loads
3. Probabilistic that
reflected byconstantly
Vehicle Models
the design occur
live of onThus,
highway
Weights
load. load bridges
a and Traveling as Patterns
a result
that influences of passing
the safety vehicles
of a highway bridgeare generally
is much
reflected by the
higher design
with a live load.
relatively Thus,
low a load
frequency. that influences
Vehicle loads canthe safety
generally
The loads that constantly occur on highway bridges as a result of passing vehicles are generallyof
be a highway
divided into bridge
cases is much
with
higher witha single overloaded
a relatively lowheavy vehicle
frequency. or with
Vehicleconsecutive vehicles. However, because a single heavy
reflected by the design live load. Thus, a load that loads can the
influences generally
safety of beadivided
highwayinto bridgecases with
is much
vehicle has a limited loading capacity, the consecutive traffic of heavy vehicles is classified as a
ahigher
singlewith
overloaded
a relatively heavy vehicle or with consecutive vehicles. However, because
low frequency. Vehicle loads can generally be divided into cases with a single a single heavy
higher risk.
vehicle
overloadedhas heavy
a The
limited
risk
loading
associated
vehicle or withcapacity,
with
the consecutive
consecutive vehicles.
consecutive heavy vehicles
traffic ofbecause
increases
However, heavy
when a
vehicles
the headway
single is classified
heavy vehicleashas
is narrow
a
higher risk.
a limited during traffic
loading congestion
capacity, with an extremely
the consecutive low
traffic oftravel
heavy speed, whichis
vehicles increases the number
classified of vehicles
as a higher risk.
The risk
on associated
the highway with
bridge. consecutive
Moreover, forheavy vehicles
consecutive increases
vehicles, there
The risk associated with consecutive heavy vehicles increases when the headway is narrow when
is a highthe headway
frequency is narrow
of certain during
during vehicle
traffic types (particularly
congestion anheavy vehicles) depending on thewhich
drivingincreases
or passing the
ability of the vehicle.
traffic congestion with anwith extremely extremely
low low
travel travel speed,
speed, which increases the number number
of of vehicles
vehicles on the
on the The safety
highway of highway
bridge. bridges for
Moreover, is most affected byvehicles,
consecutive heavy vehicles
there traveling
is a consecutively
high frequency at of
a lowcertain
highway bridge. Moreover, for consecutive vehicles, there is a high frequency of certain vehicle types
speed, as shown in Figure 3.
vehicle types heavy
(particularly (particularly
vehicles)heavy vehicles)
depending ondepending
the drivingonorthe driving
passing or passing
ability of the ability
vehicle.ofThe the safety
vehicle.
of
The safetybridges
highway of highway
is most bridges
affected is by
most
heavyaffected by heavy
vehicles travelingvehicles travelingatconsecutively
consecutively a low speed, as at shown
a low
speed, as shown
in Figure 3. in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Load effect of consecutive heavy vehicles.

Figure
Figure 3.
3. Load
Loadeffect
effectof
ofconsecutive
consecutive heavy
heavy vehicles.
vehicles.

3.1. Classification of Vehicles


To determine the extreme load effects of bridges, the maximum live load needs to be analyzed by
considering the probabilistic model of traveling vehicles. This section provides supplementary data
for modeling traveling vehicles and assumptions for extreme load effect analysis.
Appl.
Appl. Sci. Sci.
2017,2017, 7, 365
7, 365 5 of515of 15
Appl.
Appl. Sci. Sci.
2017,2017, 7, 365
7, 365 5 of 515of 15
Appl. Sci.
Appl. 2017,
Sci. 7,
2017,365
7, 365 55 of515of
3.1.3.1.
Appl. Sci.Classification
Classification
Sci.
Appl.
Appl.
Appl. 2017,
Sci.
2017,
Sci. 7,
2017,
2017, 7, of
7, 365
365
7, 365 of Vehicles
365Vehicles 5 of
of 515of 15
15of 15
3.1. Classification
3.1. 7, of
Sci.Classification Vehicles
of 5 of5515 15
Appl.
Appl.
3.1.3.1.
Appl.
Sci.
2017,2017,
7, 365
Sci.Classification
Classification
Appl. Sci.
2017,2017,
365
7, of
7, 365 of Vehicles
Vehicles
365Vehicles
of 15
5 of 515of 15
3.1.
3.1. Classification
ClassificationTo determine of of the
Vehicles Vehicles
extreme load effects of bridges,
3.1.
3.1. Classification
3.1.
ToClassification
Classification
3.1.
To determine
Classification
determine
To determine of
of Vehicles
the
the of
Vehicles
of the Vehicles
extreme
Vehicles
extreme
extreme load
load loadeffects
effects
effectsof bridges,
of bridges,
of bridges, thethe
the maximum
maximum
maximum
the maximum livelive
live load
load
live load
needs
needs
load needs
needsto be
to to
be
to be analyzed
analyzed
analyzed
be analyzed
3.1. Classification
3.1.
To
3.1.
3.1. Classification
To determine
determine
Classification
Classification of
of Vehicles
the of
of
Vehicles Vehicles
the extreme
extreme
Vehicles load load effects
effects of of bridges,
bridges, the the maximum
maximum livelive
load load
needs needsto to
be be analyzed
analyzed
by
by by
3.1.
by considering
To
3.1.
considering considering
To
Classification
Classification
considering the
determine
determine the of the the of the
Vehicles probabilistic
probabilistic
the extreme
extreme
Vehicles
probabilistic
probabilisticloadmodel
load
model model effects
effects
model of of
of traveling
of traveling
traveling
of bridges,
bridges,
traveling thevehicles.
vehicles.
the
vehicles. This
maximum
vehicles.This This
maximum section
section
live
section
This live
load
section provides
provides
load
needs
provides
provides to supplementary
supplementary
needs to analyzed
be be analyzed
supplementary
supplementary
by by To
To
considering determine
To
consideringdetermine
determine
To the
determine the extreme
extreme
probabilistic
extreme
probabilistic
the extreme load
load load
model
loadeffects
model effects
effectsof
effectsof
of bridges,
of bridges,
traveling
bridges,
traveling
of the
the
vehicles.
bridges, maximum
the
vehicles.maximum
maximum
the ThisThis
maximum live
live
section load
live
section
load
live needs
load
needs
provides
load needs
provides to
to be
to
be analyzed
be analyzed
supplementary
analyzed
supplementary
needs to be analyzed
by by To
data
data for
considering
To determine
To
for
considering
To determine
modeling
modeling the
determine
determine the
traveling
the extreme
the extreme
traveling
probabilistic
probabilistic
the extreme
extreme load load
vehicles
vehicles model
load loadeffects
and
model effects
and
of
effects
effects of
of
of bridges,
of bridges,
assumptions
assumptions
traveling
traveling
of bridges,
bridges, the
for
the maximum
the
for
vehicles.
vehicles.
the maximum
extreme
extreme
This load
This
maximum
maximum live
load load
live
effect
section
section
livelive
load needs
load
effect needs
analysis.
analysis.
provides
provides
load
needsneeds to be
to analyzed
be analyzed
supplementary
supplementary
to be analyzed
to supplementary
be
data
by
by by for
data
considering
To
data
dataconsidering
by
Appl. Sci. 2017,
by by for
7,
considering
modeling
for
considering
To
for
considering
365
considering
modeling
the
determine
determine
modeling
modeling the
the
traveling
the
traveling
the
the
traveling
probabilistic
traveling
probabilistic
vehicles
probabilistic
the extreme
extreme vehicles
model
load load
vehicles
vehicles
probabilistic
probabilistic
probabilistic model
model
and
model
effects
and
model
model
assumptions
and
of
and
of
of
of
effects assumptions
traveling
of traveling
of bridges,
bridges,
assumptions
traveling
assumptions
of traveling
traveling
of traveling
for
the extreme
for
vehicles.
for
vehicles.
for
extreme
vehicles.
the This
extreme
vehicles.
vehicles.
vehicles.This
extreme
This
load
This
maximum
maximum This
effect
load
section
section
live
load
section
load live
load analysis.
effect
provides
effect
provides
effect
section
section
This section
analysis.
provides
load
needs needs
analysis.
analysis.
provides
provides
provides to analyzed
supplementary
be analyzed
to supplementary
be analyzed
supplementary
supplementary
supplementary 5 of 14
by Overweight
data
data for
by data
considering
Overweight Overweight
for
consideringmodeling
modeling
Overweight the vehicles
traveling
the vehicles can
traveling can
probabilistic
probabilistic
vehicles vehicles can be
be
can be
vehicles
vehicles model increasingly
increasingly
and
model and
increasingly
be found
assumptions
ofassumptions
ofassumptions
increasingly found
traveling
traveling
foundfoundon
for
on on
roads
for roads
extreme
extreme
vehicles.
vehicles.
roads
on This because
because
load
This
because
roads load
effect
section
section
because of of
ofeffect developments
developments
analysis.
analysis.
provides
provides
developments
of developments in
in the
the
supplementary
supplementary
in in the
carcar
car
the car
data
by
databyfor
considering
for
Overweight
data modeling
for
consideringmodeling
Overweight
modeling
for the
modeling traveling
the
traveling
vehicles traveling vehicles
can
traveling vehicles
probabilistic
probabilistic
vehicles can
vehicles
be model
be and
model assumptions
and
of
increasingly
and
increasingly
vehicles of traveling
traveling
assumptions
and found
assumptionsfoundfor
for
on onextreme
for
roads
for extreme
vehicles.
vehicles. This
roads
extreme load
This
because
load
because
extreme effect
load
section
section
effect
load analysis.
effect analysis.
provides
provides
ofanalysis.
developments
ofselected
developments
effect analysis. supplementary
supplementary
inthein vehicle
the the car
carcar
data forOverweight
data
industry.
industry.
Overweight
data
data for modeling
for
for modeling
In In
this
modeling
modeling this traveling
study,
vehicles
traveling traveling
study,
vehicles vehicles
five
can
traveling vehicles
five
can
be be
vehicles
vehicles and assumptions
and
representative
representative
increasingly
increasingly
and and assumptions
found
assumptions
assumptions foundfor
vehicle
vehicle on
for onextreme
for
roads
for extreme
models
models roads
extreme
extreme load
werewere
because
because
load effect
load
selected
loadof of analysis.
effect
effect
effect analysis.
among among
developments
developments
analysis.
analysis. the
in vehicle
in
the the
car
industry.
industry.
data Overweight
data
for
industry. for In
Overweight this
In
modeling
modeling In this
this study,
vehicles
traveling study,
vehicles five
can
traveling
study, can representative
five
be
vehicles
vehicles
five representative
increasingly
be increasingly
and and
assumptions
representative vehicle
found vehicle
found
assumptions on
for
vehicle models
on
formodels
roadsroadswere
extreme
extreme
models were
because selected
because
loadload
were ofselected
effectof
effect among
developments among
developments
analysis.
analysis.
selected among the
in vehicle
the
the
in
the vehicle
car
the car
vehicle
Overweight
industry.
Overweight
classifications
classifications
industry.
industry. In
Overweight
Overweight
In this
Inof this
this the vehicles
of study,
vehicles
the
study, vehicles
vehicles can
five
can
Korean
Korean
study, five be
can
be
can increasingly
representative
be
Ministry
Ministry
five increasingly
increasingly
be increasingly
of
of Land,
Land,
representative
representative Land, found
vehicle
foundfound
foundon
on
Transport,
Transport,
vehicle
vehicle roads
models
on
roads
onand because
roads
roads
and were
because
because
because
Maritime
Maritime
models were of
of developments
selected
of
of
Affairs among
developments
developments
developments
Affairs
selected [13]: [13]: P,
P, B,
among B, in
the
in
B,
T, the
in
the
in
T,
TT,
the car
vehicle
the
car
the
TT,
and car
car
and
vehicle
Overweight
classifications
classifications
industry. Overweight
In of
this the vehicles
of the
study, vehicles
Korean can
Korean canbe
Ministry
five be
Ministry increasingly
increasingly
of
representative of Land, foundfound
Transport, onmodels
Transport,
vehicle on
roads
and roadswere
because
Maritime
and selected
because
Maritime ofselected
Affairs
Affairs among
of developments
developments
developments
[13]: P,
[13]: P,the
inthe
T,
B, vehicle
inin
the
TT,
T, the
car
and
inTT,
car
and
industry.
Overweight Overweight
classifications
industry.
classifications
industry.
industry.
industry. Overweight
In
In
In
vehicles
this
Inof
this
In
this
the
this
this vehicles
of the
study,
study,
study,
vehicles
can
Korean
study,
study, can
be
Korean
five
five
five
can
be
five
five
representative
be
increasingly
Ministry increasingly
increasingly
representative
Ministry of of
Land,
representative
representative
representative Land, found
found found
vehicle
Transport,onmodels
vehicle
on
Transport,
vehicle
vehicle
vehicle on models
roads
roads
models
and roads
and
models
models
models
were
werewere
because
because
Maritime
werewere
were
selected
because
Maritime ofselected
selected
Affairs
selected
selected
among
developments
of
Affairs among
[13]:
among
among
of developments
[13]:
P,
among
among P,
B,the
inthe
B,
the
T,
the
vehicle
the
T,
TT,
the vehicle
the
TT,car
vehicle
and car
the
and
vehicle
vehicle
vehicle
ST
ST industry.
industry.
ST representing
representing
classifications
classifications
representing
ST In
representing Inof
thisa athis
the of aathe
mobile
study,
mobile mobile car,
Korean
Korean
study,
mobile car,
five
car, bus,
five
bus,
car, bus,
Ministry
Ministry small-sized
small-sized
of of Land,
Land,
representative
representative
small-sized
bus, small-sized truck,
truck,
truck, vehicle
vehicle mid-sized
mid-sized
Transport,
Transport, and
mid-sized
truck, and
models
models
mid-sized truck,
truck,
were
truck, and
Maritime
Maritime
were
and
truck, and
heavyheavy
Affairs
Affairs
selected
selected
heavy
and [13]:
among
heavytruck,truck,
truck,
[13]:
P,
among B, respectively.
respectively.
P, B,
T,
the T,
TT,
the TT,
and and
vehicle
vehicle
respectively.
truck, respectively.
classifications
classifications
industry.
industry.
ST
classifications In
representing Inof
this
of the
thisof the
study,
a KoreanKorean
Korean
study,
mobile Ministry
five Ministry
five
car, bus, of Land,
of
representative
representative
small-sizedLand, Transport,
Transport,
vehicle
vehicle
truck, and Maritime
and
models
models
mid-sized Maritime
werewere
truck, Affairs
Affairs
selected
selected
and [13]:
among
heavy P,
[13]:
among B,
P,
truck, T,
B,
the TT,
T,
the and
TT, and
vehicle
vehicle
respectively.
ST Table
representing aaathe mobile Ministry
car,car,
bus, of
small-sizedLand, Transport,
truck, and
mid-sized Maritime
truck, andAffairs
heavy [13]:
truck,P,
P, B,
P, T, TT,
respectively.and
car industry. classificationsIn this study, of five representative vehicle models were selected among the vehicle
classifications
Table
ST ST 1representing
representing
classifications defines ofthese
11 defines the athe
these
mobile
of Korean
Koreanmodels.
models.
mobile car, Ministry
Ministry
The
bus, Theaxle
bus, axle ofloads
ofloads
Land,
small-sized
small-sized Land,
oftruck,
eachTransport,
Transport,
of each
model
truck, and
model and
were
mid-sized
mid-sized Maritime
Maritime
wereassumed
truck,
truck, and andAffairs
Affairs
assumed to
heavy to
be [13]:
heavybe [13]: B, B,
T,
concentrated
concentrated
truck,truck, T,loads.
TT, TT,
and and
loads.
respectively.
respectively.
classifications
Table
ST
ST
Table 1representing
representing
ST
classifications
classifications
Table
representing
Table 1
defines
1
defines
of
defines
defines a
the
ofthese
the
these of athe
these
mobile
these
mobile the
Korean
Korean
models.
mobilemodels.
car,
Korean
Korean car,
models.
Ministry
Ministry
The
bus,
car,
bus,
The
The
bus,axle
Ministry
Ministry
models. The
axle
of
axle
small-sized
axle
small-sized
of
Land,
ofloads
Land,
loads
Land,
ofloads
small-sized of
Land,
loadsof
ofTransport,
Transport,
each
truck, model
each
Transport,
of
truck,
each each
model
and
model
mid-sized
truck, and
were
mid-sized
Transport, and
model
mid-sized
were
and
werewere
Maritime
Maritime
assumed
truck, assumed
and
truck,
Maritime
Maritime
truck, andAffairs
Affairs
to
heavy
Affairs
assumed
and
assumed heavy
to
be
to[13]:
heavy
Affairs
to
be [13]:
be
[13]:
P, P,
B,
concentrated
be truck,
[13]: P,
P,P,B,
B,
T,
concentrated
truck, T,
TT, TT,
and
loads.
respectively.
respectively.
B,
T,
concentrated
truck, T,
TT, TT,
respectively.
concentrated and
and
loads.
and
loads.
loads.
ST ST
classificationsrepresenting
Table
Table
ST
ST Table
representingrepresenting
of the
221 gives
21representing
gives
defines
Korean
defines a
athe
thethese a
mobile
loadaload
these
mobile mobile
Ministry
mobile car, car,
models.
models.
car, bus,
distributions
distributions
The
car,
bus, bus,
of
The
bus, and
axle small-sized
Land,
small-sized
and
axle
Transport,
dimensions
loads loads
small-sized
small-sized of truck,
truck,
dimensions
each
truck, for
oftruck,
each mid-sized
and
mid-sized
for
each
modelmodel
mid-sized
Maritime
eachmodel.
were
mid-sized were truck,
truck,
model. and and
Affairs
assumed
assumed
truck,
truck, and heavy
andto
heavyheavy
[13]: truck,
truck,
to concentrated
be
heavybe
B, respectively.
concentrated
truck,
truck,
T, TT,
respectively. and
loads.
loads.
respectively.
respectively.
Table
ST 2 1 gives
defines
1 the
gives
defines
representing the
these load
these
acar, distributions
load distributions
models.
models.
mobilecar,car,The The and
axle and
axle dimensions
loads dimensions
loads of each
of for each
for
model
each each
model model.
were model.
wereassumed
assumed to be
to concentrated
be concentrated loads.
loads.
ST Table
representing
Table
Table
Table
ST representing
Table
Table 2221 11 gives
2 gives
defines
gives
defines defines
mobile
the
athe
thethese
21a gives these
the
mobile
load
these
load
load
models.
load models.
models.
bus, Thebus,
bus,
distributions
The
distributions axle
The and
axle
small-sized
distributions
distributions and
small-sized
small-sized
and
loads
axle
loads
and loadsof
dimensions
truck, oftruck,
oftruck,
dimensions
each
each
dimensions
dimensions model
for
each
model
mid-sized
for
mid-sized
mid-sized
for
eacheach
model
for
each were
were
each were
truck,truck,
truck,
model.
model.
model.
model.
andand
assumed
assumed
assumed
and to heavy
heavy
to
heavy be
to be
be be truck,
truck,
concentrated respectively.
respectively.
concentrated
concentrated
truck, loads.
respectively.loads.
loads.
Table
Table
Table 221 gives 211 gives
defines
defines
gives
defines
the these
defines
the the
these
these
load
these
load load models.
models.
distributionsThe
distributions
models.
models.
distributions
The
TheThe
axle
and
axle
and
axle
loads
and
axle
loads
loads of
dimensions
dimensions
loadsof
dimensions
of
each each
ofmodel
each
model
for
each
model
each
for
model
for each
were
each
model were
were
model.
model.
were
model.
assumed
assumed
assumed
assumed
to to
be
to be
be
concentrated
to concentrated
be concentrated
concentrated
loads.
loads.
loads.
loads.
Table
Table
Table 1 defines
Table
Table 2 gives 2
gives
these gives
2 gives the
thethe the
models. load
load load
load distributions
distributions
The axle
distributions
distributions and
Table
loads
and
Table
and
and of dimensions
dimensions
Table
1. 1.each
Classification
dimensions
dimensions
1. Classification
Table for
Classification for
each
of
forfor
1. Classification each
of
each
of
were
each model.
model.
vehicles.
vehicles. assumed
model.
model.
vehicles.
of vehicles. to concentrated loads.
Table
Table 2 gives 2 gives
thethe load load distributions
distributions and
Table and dimensions
dimensions
Table
1. Classification
Table
for
1. Classification
1. Classification
for
each
of each
of model.
model.
vehicles.
vehicles.
of vehicles.
Table 2 gives the loadVehicle
Vehicle
Vehicle
distributions
Vehicle and Tabledimensions
TableTable
1. Classification
1. for each
Classification
1.
of vehicles.
of model.
vehicles.
Vehicle
Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle Table
Table
Description
Description 1.
Table
Table 1. Classification
1. Classification
Classification
Classification
1. Classification of
of
of
of vehicles.
vehicles.
vehicles.
vehicles.
Feature
Feature
of vehicles. Tandem
Tandem Configuration
Configuration
ModelVehicle
Vehicle
Model Vehicle
Class Vehicle
Class * * Table
Description Table
Description 1. 1. Classification
Classification of of
Featurevehicles.
vehicles.
Feature Tandem
Tandem Configuration
Configuration
ModelVehicle
Vehicle
Model
Vehicle Vehicle
Class
Vehicle Vehicle
Class * * Table
Description
Description Table
1. 1. Classification
Classification of of vehicles.
vehicles.
Feature
Feature Tandem
Tandem Configuration
Configuration
Vehicle
Model Vehicle
Vehicle
ModelVehicle Class Vehicle
Class
Vehicle * ** TableDescription
Description 1. Classification of vehicles. Feature
Feature Tandem
Tandem Configuration
Configuration
Vehicle
ModelVehicle
Model
Vehicle
Vehicle Vehicle
Class
Vehicle Vehicle
Class
Vehicle * Description
Description
Description
Description Feature
Feature
Feature
Feature Tandem
Tandem
Tandem
Tandem Configuration
Configuration
Configuration
Configuration
Model
Model Model
PModel
Vehicle
Vehicle P Class
Vehicle
Class Class
1Class
Vehicle *
11** * * Description
Description
Mobile
Mobile
Description
Description carcar Feature
Feature
Feature
Feature Tandem
Tandem
Tandem
Tandem Configuration
Configuration
Configuration
Configuration
Model
ModelPModel
Model P
P Class
Class 1Class
Class 1* *
* MobileMobile
Description
Mobile car
Description car
car Feature
Feature Tandem
Tandem Configuration
Configuration
Model
Vehicle P
P Model
Model P Class 1
11Class
Vehicle 1* *Class * Mobile Mobile
Mobile car
car car
Description Feature Tandem Configuration
P
P P 11 1 1 MobileMobile
Mobile car
car car
P P
B Mobile
Mobile car
carcar
PB
B P
P
P B
P
B 2112 12221 1 MobileBusBus
Mobile
Bus
Mobile
Mobile
car
Bus
carcar car
Bus
B
B B 2
22 22 Bus
Bus
Mobile
Bus
B
B B
B 22 22 Bus
Bus Bus
Bus
B B
BB B 2 23 2 BusBus
Bus Bus
B B 3
32 332 Small
Small Small
Bus
Small trucktruck
Bus
truck truckA A
Bus
A A
3 Small Small trucktruckA A A
T T 33 33 Small
Small Small
Small truck
truck truck
truckA
A A
T T T 33 33 Small
Small Small truck
trucktruckA
A A
T
T T T 34 343 3 Small Small
Small truck truck
truckA A
A
TT 4 3 4 Small
Small Small
Small truck
trucktruck
Small
truckBtruck
A
B B
A
B
A
T
T T
T 4 4 SmallSmall trucktruckB B
T T 44 44 SmallSmall trucktruckB B
T T 44 4 4 Small
SmallSmall truck
trucktruckB
B B
45 454 Small
Small Small
Small truck
trucktruck
Small
truckBtruck
B B B
B
54 55 Mid-sized
Mid-sized
Small
Mid-sized Small
Mid-sized truck
truck
trucktruck
truck
BA
truck AB A A
Mid-sized truck A
555 55 Mid-sized
Mid-sized
Mid-sized
Mid-sized
Mid-sized
truck
truck
trucktruck
truckA
A
A A
A
55 55 5 Mid-sized Mid-sized
Mid-sized
Mid-sized truck
trucktruck
truckA
A A A
A
TT TT
TT TT 56 5665 Mid-sized
Mid-sized
Mid-sized truck
Mid-sized truck
truckA A
BtruckB
TT TT 6 5 6 Mid-sized
Mid-sized
Mid-sized trucktruck
truckAB AB
B
TT
TT TT 6
66 66 Mid-sized
Mid-sized
Mid-sized truck
trucktruck B
B B
TT
TT TT
TT 66 66 6 Mid-sized Mid-sized
Mid-sized truck
trucktruck B
B B
TT TT Mid-sized
Mid-sized
Mid-sized truck
Mid-sized truck
truck B B
truckB B
TT TT
TT TT 7667 67776 Mid-sized
Mid-sized
Mid-sized
Mid-sized
Mid-sized
truck
trucktruck
truck
truck
B C
C
C
B C
B
CB
7
77 77 Mid-sized
Mid-sized
Mid-sized truck
trucktruck C
C C
77 77 Mid-sized
Mid-sized
Mid-sized truck
trucktruck C C
Mid-sized AC
truck C C
7 Mid-sized truck
Mid-sized
Mid-sized trucktruck CAC C
8778 78887 Heavy
Heavy Heavy
Mid-sized
Mid-sized
Heavy
Mid-sized
Mid-sized
truck
trucktruck
trucktruck
truck
truck A
truck C A
AC
888 88 8 Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy truck
truck
truck
truckACA
A
889 898 Heavy
HeavyHeavy
Heavy truck
truck
Heavytruck
truckA
A A
truck
A A
98 8998 Heavy
HeavyHeavy
Heavy
Heavy truck
trucktruck
truckA
A
B
truckB A AB
B
8 HeavyHeavy trucktruckA AB
ST 999 99 9 Heavy
Heavy
HeavyHeavy
Heavy
truck
truck
Heavy
truck truck
truckBBtruck
B B
B B
ST ST 1099 10 9 HeavyHeavy trucktruckCB
B CB
ST ST ST 10 9 10 9 HeavyHeavy trucktruckCB C B
ST
ST ST 10 9 10 9 10 HeavyHeavy truck
HeavytruckCB C
truckB C
ST ST 10
10 10 Heavy
HeavyHeavy truck
trucktruckC
C C
ST
ST ST 10 1010
11 Heavy
Heavy truck
truckC C
C
D
ST ST ST 11
10
11 10
11 Heavy
Heavy Heavy truck
trucktruckD
C
D C
D
ST ST 11 10
10
10
11
11
10
11
11
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy
truck
truck
truck
truck
Ctruck
D
C D
D
C
DC
D
11
11 1111 12
12 Heavy
Heavy
HeavyHeavy truck
trucktruck
truckD
D D
DE
12 11
11
12 11
12 HeavyHeavy
Heavy
Heavy trucktruck
Heavy D
E
truck
truck Etruck
D
DE E
11
12 12
11 Heavy
HeavyHeavy truck
trucktruckDE DE
11
12 12 Heavy
HeavyHeavy truck
truck D
truck
E E
*12
12 12
*12
Vehicle
*12
* Vehicle
Vehicle
Vehicle
* Vehicle
Heavy
class
Heavy
classclass Heavy
class
Heavy
indicates truck
indicates
truck
indicates
class truck
indicates
thetruck
indicates
E
the
E
vehicle
the E
the
E vehicle
vehicle classifications
classifications
classifications
vehicle presented
classifications
presented
presented
by [13].
presented by
by [13].
by [13].
[13].
12 12
12 * Vehicle* VehicleHeavy
Heavy
class Heavy
Heavy
class truck
truck
indicates truck
truck
indicates E the
E
the E
E
the
vehicle
vehicle
vehicle
classifications
classifications
classifications
presented
presented
presented
by [13].
by [13].
by [13].
12 **12Vehicle * Vehicle
Vehicle Heavy
class
class
* Vehicle Heavy
class truck
indicates
indicates
class truck
indicates
indicates E
the E
the vehicle
vehicle
the the
vehicle
classifications
classifications
classifications
vehicle classifications
presented
presented
presented
by [13].
by [13].
by [13].
presented by [13].
** Vehicle
Vehicle class
* Vehicle
Vehicle
class indicates
class
indicates the
indicates vehicle
the
the the classifications
vehicle
vehicle presented
classifications
classifications by
by [13].
presented
presented by [13].
[13].
[13].
** Vehicle class indicates the vehicle classifications presented by
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 365 6 of 15
* Vehicle class
class indicates
indicates the vehicle
vehicle classifications
classifications presented
presented by by [13].
[13].
Table 2. Load distributions and dimensions of the vehicle models. [13].
* * Vehicle
Vehicle class
class indicates
indicates the the vehicle
vehicle classifications
classifications presented
presented by by
[13].
Table 2. Load distributions and dimensions of the vehicle models.

Axle
AxleConfiguration
Configuration

Vehicle model W1
Vehicle model W1W2 W2 W3 W3 Lff
L L1 L1 L2 L2Lr Lr
P P 50% 50%
50% 50% - - 1.0
1.0 mm 2.5 m -
2.5 m -1.0 m 1.0 m
B B 40% 60%
40% 60% - - 2.0
2.0 mm 5.5 m -
5.5 m -3.0 m 3.0 m
T T 30% 70%
30% 70% - - 1.5
1.5 mm 4.5 m -
4.5 m -2.0 m 2.0 m
TT TT 20% 80%
20% 80% - - 1.5
1.5 mm 5.0 m -
5.0 m -3.0 m 3.0 m
ST 10% 45% 45% 1.5 m 3.8 m 8.2 m 2.0 m
ST 10% 45% 45% 1.5 m 3.8 m 8.2 m 2.0 m

3.2. Vehicle
3.2. Proposed Proposed Weight
Vehicle Weight
ModelsModels
Table 3 lists the total weight distribution characteristics of the five representative vehicle
Table 3 lists the total weight distribution characteristics of the five representative vehicle models
models based on an analysis of the collected data on the probabilistic characteristics of loads in a
based on an analysis
previous studyof[14].
theThe
collected data
P type (i.e., on the
mobile car) probabilistic
has a complete characteristics of loads
unimodal distribution, whilein
thea previous
other types show a bimodal distribution, which agrees with data from a previous investigation [15].
This characteristic was clearly displayed in large heavy vehicles such as the TT and ST types.
The first mode for the vehicle weight distribution of each model generally reflects empty or
partially-loaded vehicles or light cargo carriers, and the second mode reflects vehicles with a full
load. The third mode models the top 1% portion of the second model to show the characteristics of
an overloaded vehicle.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 365 6 of 14

study [14]. The P type (i.e., mobile car) has a complete unimodal distribution, while the other
types show a bimodal distribution, which agrees with data from a previous investigation [15].
This characteristic was clearly displayed in large heavy vehicles such as the TT and ST types. The first
mode for the vehicle weight distribution of each model generally reflects empty or partially-loaded
vehicles or light cargo carriers, and the second mode reflects vehicles with a full load. The third mode
models the top 1% portion of the second model to show the characteristics of an overloaded vehicle.

Table 3. Probabilistic characteristics of the previous vehicle weight models [14].

Coefficients
Vehicle Minimum Maximum Correction
Mode Dist. Type µ (Normal) σ (Normal)
Model (tonf) (tonf) Coefficients
λ (L-N) ζ (L-N)
P 1 L-N 0.398 0.317 0.7 5.0 1.0
1 Normal 4.089 1.020 1.4 17.1 0.098
B
2 Normal 11.552 1.542 4.0 24.0 0.902
1 L-N 1.338 0.620 1.25 24.1 0.733
T 2 L-N 2.721 0.221 1.25 24.1 0.267
3 L-N 2.490 0.260 23.5 40.0 1.0
1 L-N 2.467 0.178 7.3 41.3 0.219
TT 2 L-N 3.253 0.203 7.3 41.3 0.781
3 L-N 3.240 0.210 41.3 65.0 1.0
1 Normal 18.541 3.000 11.3 63.4 0.260
ST 2 L-N 3.650 0.202 11.3 63.4 0.740
3 L-N 3.420 0.260 59.7 105.0 1.0
L-N: lognormal.

For Korean highway bridges, the vehicle weight is limited to less than 40 tons. The proposed
model and actual weigh-in-motion (WIM) data were compared to verify the proposed model. The WIM
data was recorded on Jungbu-Naeryuk highway in Korea [16]. There were 61,090 total vehicles
and 705 overloaded vehicles. The proportion of overloaded vehicles was estimated to be 1.2%.
The proposed model estimated the overloaded vehicle proportion to be 1.9%. Since bridge design is
conservative, the proposed vehicle weight model seems to perform well.
Table 4 presents the current status (from January 2011 to June 2013) of overloaded vehicle control
according to the National Road Management Offices in Korea. The population size was estimated by
using data from 5033 cases of overloaded vehicles that exceeded the total weight standard in seven regions.

Table 4. Overloaded vehicle data (2011–2013).

Region I Region II Region III Region IV Region V Region VI Region VII


40–50 tons 1410 611 302 220 1440 128 79
50–60 tons 176 28 72 52 141 3 4
60–70 tons 55 20 38 28 107 2 6
70–80 tons 16 9 11 15 32 0 3
80–90 tons 8 0 5 4 7 0 1
Sum 1665 668 428 319 1727 133 93
Maximum (tonf) 87.7 77.0 85.6 84.0 88.9 61.0 82.7

A field survey was performed to develop the probabilistic load models for each type of vehicle,
as given in Table 5 and Figure 4. The field survey was performed simultaneously on national highways
(Regions I–VII) in Korea, which have vehicle load weighing machines. The indices µ and σ are the
average and standard deviation, respectively, for a normal distribution. The indices λ and ζ represent
the average and standard deviation, respectively, for a log-normal distribution. The first mode
indicates the empty or lightly-loaded condition, and the second mode represents the heavily-loaded
condition. The minimum values in Table 5 indicate the minimum weights of the vehicle model, while
the maximum values indicate the summation of maximum loads on each vehicle axle. Correction
coefficients were used to calibrate the distribution curve by considering the maximum and minimum
values as a ratio of each mode. For the purpose of simplification, multiple tandems in each vehicle
Sum 1665 668 428 319 1727 133 93
Maximum (tonf) 87.7 77.0 85.6 84.0 88.9 61.0 82.7

A field survey was performed to develop the probabilistic load models for each type of vehicle,
as given in Table 5 and Figure 4. The field survey was performed simultaneously on national
highways
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 365 (Regions I–VII) in Korea, which have vehicle load weighing machines. The indices 𝜇𝜇 and 7 of 14
𝜎𝜎 are the average and standard deviation, respectively, for a normal distribution. The indices 𝜆𝜆 and
𝜁𝜁 represent the average and standard deviation, respectively, for a log-normal distribution. The first
mode indicates the empty or lightly-loaded condition, and the second mode represents the
model were modeled as a single tandem (i.e., P, B, T, and TT were modeled as two-axle vehicles, and
heavily-loaded condition. The minimum values in Table 5 indicate the minimum weights of the
ST has three axles).
vehicle model, while the maximum values indicate the summation of maximum loads on each
vehicle axle. Correction coefficients were used to calibrate the distribution curve by considering the
maximum and minimum
Table values characteristics
5. Probabilistic as a ratio of eachofmode. For the purpose
the proposed of weight
vehicle simplification,
models. multiple
tandems in each vehicle model were modeled as a single tandem (i.e., P, B, T, and TT were modeled
as two-axle vehicles, and ST has three axles).Coefficients
Vehicle Minimum Maximum Correction
Mode Dist. Type µ (Normal) σ (Normal)
Model Table 5. Probabilistic characteristics of the (tonf)
proposed vehicle (tonf)
weight models. Coefficients
λ (L-N) ζ (L-N)
P 1 L-N Coefficients 0.317
0.398 0.7 5.0 1.0
Vehicle Dist. Minimum Maximum Correction
Mode 𝝁𝝁 (Normal) 𝝈𝝈 (Normal)
Model 1 Type
Normal 4.089 1.020 (tonf)1.4 (tonf)
17.1 Coefficients
0.098
B
2 Normal 𝝀𝝀 (L-N)
11.552 𝜻𝜻 (L-N)
1.542 4.0 24.0 0.902
P 1 L-N 0.398 0.317 0.7 5.0 1.0
1
1 L-N
Normal
1.338
4.089
0.620
1.020 1.4
1.25 17.1
24.1 0.733
0.098
BT 2 L-N 2.721 0.221 1.25 24.1 0.267
2 Normal 11.552 1.542 4.0 24.0 0.902
11 L-N
L-N 1.338
2.467 0.620
0.178 1.25 7.3 24.141.3 0.733
0.219
T
TT
22 L-N
L-N 2.721
3.253 0.221
0.203 1.25 7.3 24.141.3 0.267
0.781
11 L-N
Normal 2.467
18.541 0.178
3.000 7.3 11.3 41.363.4 0.219
0.260
TT
ST 22 L-N
L-N 3.253
3.650 0.203
0.202 7.3 11.3 41.390.0 0.781
0.740
1 Normal 18.541 3.000 11.3 63.4 0.260
ST L-N: lognormal.
2 L-N 3.650 0.202 11.3 90.0 0.740
L-N: lognormal.
1 0.25
fx(x) : Probability density function
fx(x) : Probability density function

0.8 0.2

0.6 0.15

0.4 0.1

0.2 0.05

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 4 8 12 16 20
Vehicle Load(tonf) Vehicle Load(tonf)
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 365 8 of 15
(a) (b)
0.16 0.08
fx(x) : Probability density function

fx(x) : Probability density function

0.12 0.06

0.08 0.04

0.04 0.02

0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 40 50
Vehicle Load(tonf) Vehicle Load(tonf)
(c) (d)
0.05
fx(x) : Probability density function

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0 20 40 60 80
Vehicle Load(tonf)
(e)
Figure 4. Probabilistic characteristics of the proposed vehicle weight models: (a) P type; (b) B type;
Figure 4. Probabilistic
(c) T type; (d) TTcharacteristics of the proposed vehicle weight models: (a) P type; (b) B type;
type; and (e) ST type.
(c) T type; (d) TT type; and (e) ST type.
3.3. Traffic Flow Characteristics
Traveling patterns of vehicles vary according to the speed and daily traffic volume. In addition,
headway distances between vehicles should be determined rationally to model the traveling vehicles.
Table 6 presents the results of the field survey at five points on Korean national highways [17].
The locations of the field survey were selected according to the exceedance of the average heavy
vehicle proportion and traffic volume. The survey considered peak times. The traffic volumes at the
five locations were 3056, 4396, 3976, 3409, and 7814. To analyze the traffic characteristics of vehicles
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 365 8 of 14

3.3. Traffic Flow Characteristics


Traveling patterns of vehicles vary according to the speed and daily traffic volume. In addition,
headway distances between vehicles should be determined rationally to model the traveling vehicles.
Table 6 presents the results of the field survey at five points on Korean national highways [17].
The locations of the field survey were selected according to the exceedance of the average heavy
vehicle proportion and traffic volume. The survey considered peak times. The traffic volumes at
the five locations were 3056, 4396, 3976, 3409, and 7814. To analyze the traffic characteristics of
vehicles traveling over bridges, an observation location was selected on a representative national
road to consider the hourly traffic volume, influence of the commuting time, and driving hours of
heavy vehicles.

Table 6. Vehicle traffic volume of each lane and vehicle type per location.

Heavy Vehicle
Location Time Lane P Type B Type T, TT, ST Types Traffic Volume
Proportion
7–9 a.m., 1 915 9 388 1312 29.6%
1 2–6 p.m. 30.1%
2 1156 57 531 1744 30.4%
7–9 a.m., 1 1584 37 439 2060 21.3%
2 2–6 p.m. 34.3%
2 1239 27 1070 2336 45.8%
7–9 a.m., 1 1408 19 643 2070 31.1%
3 2–6 p.m. 45.7%
2 721 9 1176 1906 61.7%
7–9 a.m., 1 1329 5 446 1780 25.1%
4 1–3 p.m., 42.2%
5–7 p.m. 2 772 9 848 1629 52.1%
7–9 a.m., 1 3445 55 1122 4622 24.3%
5 1–3 p.m., 31.0%
5–7 p.m. 2 1740 148 1304 3192 40.9%

Based on the field survey, the proportion and mean headway distance were determined for each
vehicle speed, as given in Table 7. When the vehicle speed was above 50 km/h, then the headway
distance was set to 25 m. This is because larger headway distances would have a weak effect on
the bridge.

Table 7. Traveling patterns of vehicles.

Average Daily Traffic Volume (Two Lanes)


Speed Headway Distance
5000 10,000 20,000 40,000
Below 10 km/h 5% 10% 10% 15% 2m
10–30 km/h 10% 20% 30% 40% 5m
30–50 km/h 50% 50% 40% 30% 15 m
Above 50 km/h 35% 20% 20% 15% 25 m

3.4. Probabilistic Consecutive Models of Traveling Vehicles


The consecutive vehicle model in this study was previously developed in [14]. The probabilistic
matrix, which represents consecutive vehicles, can be determined from traffic data analyzed from
national roads in Korea. By using the vehicle models presented in the previous section, the matrix can
be written as:
 
p P,P p P,B p P,T p P,TT p P,ST
p p B,B p B,T p B,TT p B,ST 
 B,P 
P =  p T,P p T,B p T,T p T,TT p T,ST  (1)
 
 
 p TT,P p TT,B p TT,T p TT,TT p TT,ST 
pST,P pST,B pST,T pST,TT pST,ST
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 365 9 of 14

where pi,j is the probability of the vehicle type j following the vehicle type i. The probability of n
vehicles of the vehicle type m running consecutively is:

pm−n = pm (1) × [ pm,m ]n−1 , (2)

where pm (1) is the simple traffic composition rate of the vehicle type m.
Table 8 lists the consecutive traveling coefficients and proportions of single vehicles to heavy
vehicles. The heavy vehicle proportions of 15%, 25%, 35%, and 45% were established as basic
proportions. A consecutive traveling probability equivalent to 15% was applied to areas with a
proportion of 15% and below, whereas that equivalent to 45% was applied to areas with a proportion
of 45% and above. In areas with a heavy vehicle proportion ranging from 15% to 45%, the consecutive
traveling probability was estimated by assuming that the consecutive traveling coefficient varies
linearly between the representative models given in Table 8 according to the basic proportions of
heavy vehicles.

Table 8. Consecutive traveling vehicle model coefficients.

(a) Heavy vehicle proportion: 15%


Consecutive Traveling Coefficient
(Consecutive Traveling Probability: %) Simple Vehicle
Type
Proportion (%)
P B T TT ST
1.03 0.95 0.89 0.86 0.88
P 81.6
(83.68) (3.23) (6.64) (4.88) (1.58)
0.95 2.29 0.88 1.09 0.89
B 3.4
(77.74) (7.80) (6.62) (6.23) (1.61)
0.88 1.00 1.92 1.40 1.31
T 7.5
(71.87) (3.39) (14.42) (7.96) (2.37)
0.87 0.93 1.36 2.28 1.51
TT 5.7 15.0
(70.88) (3.17) (10.22) (13.00) (2.72)
0.85 1.03 1.42 1.67 3.92
ST 1.8
(69.27) (3.51) (10.67) (9.50) (7.05)
(b) Heavy vehicle proportion: 25%
Consecutive Traveling Coefficient
(Consecutive Traveling Probability: %) Simple Vehicle
Type
Proportion (%)
P B T TT ST
1.06 0.97 0.85 0.80 0.83
P 72.0
(76.36) (2.92) (10.59) (7.64) (2.49)
0.98 2.32 0.83 1.02 0.84
B 3.0
(70.40) (6.97) (10.43) (9.68) (2.52)
0.84 0.94 1.71 1.27 1.16
T 12.5
(60.33) (2.82) (21.32) (12.05) (3.48)
0.83 0.88 1.20 1.98 1.35
TT 9.5 25.0
(59.47) (2.63) (15.01) (18.84) (4.04)
0.80 0.97 1.25 1.45 3.43
ST 3.0
(57.39) (2.90) (15.66) (13.75) (10.30)
(c) Heavy vehicle proportion: 35%
Consecutive Traveling Coefficient
(Consecutive Traveling Probability: %) Simple Vehicle
Type
Proportion (%)
P B T TT ST
1.11 1.01 0.83 0.77 0.82
P 62.4
(69.10) (2.62) (14.58) (10.28) (3.43)
1.01 2.38 0.81 0.97 0.81
B 2.6
(63.31) (6.20) (14.19) (12.88) (3.42)
0.82 0.90 1.53 1.17 1.03
T 17.5
(51.02) (2.34) (26.79) (15.53) (4.31)
0.81 0.84 1.08 1.76 1.21
TT 13.3 35.0
(50.29) (2.18) (18.98) (23.47) (5.08)
0.77 0.93 1.12 1.28 3.08
ST 4.2
(48.06) (2.41) (19.62) (16.98) (12.94)
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 365 10 of 14

Table 8. Cont.

(d) Heavy vehicle proportion: 45%


Consecutive Traveling Coefficient
(Consecutive Traveling Probability: %) Simple Vehicle
Type
Proportion (%)
P B T TT ST
1.21 1.09 0.84 0.77 0.82
P 52.8
(62.02) (2.33) (18.45) (12.87) (4.33)
1.09 2.54 0.81 0.96 0.81
B 2.2
(56.37) (5.45) (17.85) (16.04) (4.29)
0.83 0.90 1.45 1.10 0.97
T 22.5
(42.59) (1.93) (31.96) (18.37) (5.14)
0.81 0.84 1.03 1.66 1.14
TT 17.1 45.0
(41.87) (1.80) (22.60) (27.70) (6.03)
0.77 0.92 1.06 1.19 2.90
ST 5.4
(39.67) (1.97) (23.19) (19.90) (15.27)

4. Evaluation of Extreme Load Effects

4.1. Data Processing for Extreme Load Effect Analysis


A large amount of traffic operates over a bridge during its service life. Predicting the extreme
load effect by analytical means is very complicated. Instead of all of the traffic over a bridge being
considered, the computational simulations in this study were performed with a unit traffic volume,
and the extreme load effect was analyzed by using an extreme value distribution. The extreme load
effects from the simulations were modeled as a Gumbel type-I distribution [18,19]. Since the axle
load distributions for all vehicle models had maximum and minimum values, the Gumbel type-III
distribution can also be considered. However, the occurrence of extreme values consisting of the
maximum axle loads of vehicle models is very uncommon, and such values are not of great interest in
determining the design load of bridges. Therefore, both the unit and annual extreme load effects were
modeled as Gumbel type-I distributions. The traveling patterns and traffic volume were assumed to
be similar for all days of a year. The annual extreme load effect was estimated from the simulation
results for various vehicle speeds. The coefficients for the Gumbel type-I distribution of the annual
extreme load effect are determined as follows:
  
1 1
un = u − ln − ln 1 − (3)
α n

an = n · f X (un )
(4)
= n · α · e−α(un −u) exp(−e−α(un −u) )
where un and an are the coefficients for the type-I distribution of the annual extreme load effect,
while u and α are the coefficients for the unit traffic maximum. The value n is the size of the sample.
If the results from various vehicle speeds and their proportions are introduced, the non-exceedance
probability of the annual extreme load effect is given by:
h i
P( X ≤ x ) = ∑ ri · exp − e − αi ( x − ui ) , (5)

where ui and αi are the coefficients for the type-I distribution of the annual extreme for various traffic
speeds. γi is the proportion of each traffic speed for a unit traffic volume.

4.2. Extreme Load Effect Due to Average Daily Traffic Volume and Heavy Vehicle Proportion
The extreme load effect on bridges of the same type is sensitive to changes in the average
daily traffic volume and heavy vehicle proportion. Table 9 presents the results of a simulation
analysis on the average daily traffic volume per lane of 30- and 60-m simply supported bridges with
2000–40,000 vehicles and heavy vehicle proportions of 15–45%. The extreme loads in Table 9 were
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 365 11 of 14

normalized against the current design vehicle load effects [20]. The annual extreme load effect was the
non-exceedance probability of 95%. This represents the probability that the annual extreme load effect
will be exceeded in any one year. This table indicates that the extreme load effect increased with the
average daily traffic volume.

Table 9. Comparison of simple and consecutive running models (95% annual maximum).

Heavy Vehicle Average Daily Traffic Volume


Span Model
Proportion 2000 5000 10,000 20,000 40,000
Simple 1.29 1.34 1.35 1.39 1.43
15% Consecutive 1.55 1.61 1.65 1.67 1.72
Consecutive
20.8% ↑ 20.2% ↑ 22.5% ↑ 20.2% ↑ 20.1% ↑
model effect
Simple 1.29 1.36 1.38 1.41 1.47
30 m 25% Consecutive 1.57 1.69 1.71 1.73 1.74
Consecutive
21.7% ↑ 24.9% ↑ 24.0% ↑ 22.2% ↑ 18.2% ↑
model effect
Simple 1.32 1.36 1.41 1.41 1.48
35% Consecutive 1.57 1.74 1.79 1.83 1.83
Consecutive
19.4% ↑ 27.7% ↑ 27.5% ↑ 29.4% ↑ 24.1% ↑
model effect
Simple 1.33 1.38 1.43 1.46 1.49
45% Consecutive 1.58 1.76 1.86 1.91 2.00
Consecutive
18.7% ↑ 27.8% ↑ 30.4% ↑ 30.9% ↑ 34.8% ↑
model effect
Simple 1.41 1.47 1.48 1.53 1.58
15% Consecutive 1.74 2.02 2.11 2.16 2.15
Consecutive
23.0% ↑ 37.1% ↑ 42.5% ↑ 41.2% ↑ 36.3% ↑
model effect
Simple 1.42 1.49 1.52 1.55 1.62
60 m 25% Consecutive 1.75 2.25 2.29 2.35 2.36
Consecutive
23.2% ↑ 50.7% ↑ 51.1% ↑ 51.4% ↑ 45.9% ↑
model effect
Simple 1.45 1.50 1.54 1.55 1.62
35% Consecutive 1.80 2.28 2.30 2.35 2.40
Consecutive
23.9% ↑ 52.1% ↑ 49.0% ↑ 51.4% ↑ 48.4% ↑
model effect
Simple 1.46 1.51 1.57 1.60 1.63
45% Consecutive 1.80 2.32 2.31 2.36 2.47
Consecutive
23.6% ↑ 53.5% ↑ 47.0% ↑ 47.7% ↑ 51.7% ↑
model effect

To verify the effect of consecutive traveling characteristics on the proportion of heavy vehicles,
models using the consecutive traveling coefficient and proportion of simple vehicles were compared, as
presented in Table 8. If the average daily traffic volume is low, the headway distance is long. Therefore,
the extreme load effect of consecutive traveling vehicles is minimal. However, if the average daily
traffic volume is high, the headway distance is short. Thus, the extreme load effect of consecutive
traveling vehicles is significant. This effect generally increased by 20–30% for the 30-m span. With a
longer span, this effect was greatly magnified. Depending on the average daily traffic volume and
proportion of heavy vehicles, this effect increased by as much as 50%.

4.3. Extreme Load Effects Due to Different Heavy Vehicle Proportion per Lane
When the differences in the heavy vehicle proportion per lane in the current design standard are
considered, the traffic rate per lane can be applied and calculated as shown in Equation (6) based on
the fatigue design of the limit state design code in the KIBSE LRFD [21]:

ADTTSL = p × ADTT, (6)

where ADTT is the average of the daily traffic volume of trucks during the design lifetime in one
direction, ADTTSL is the average of the daily traffic volume of trucks during the design lifetime in one
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 365 12 of 14

direction and one lane, and p is the rate of the traffic volume of trucks in one lane. The rate of the traffic
volume of trucks for one lane was set to 1.00 in Lane 1, 0.85 in Lane 2, and 0.80 in Lane 3 and above.
In this study, MIDAS (Civil 2012, MIDAS Information Technology, Seongnam-si, Korea) and
MATLAB (2012b, MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA) were used. MIDAS is a FEM (Finite Element
Method) program that was used to calculate the design load and transverse distribution coefficient [22].
MATLAB was used to perform various simulations. Table 10 summarizes the extreme vehicle load
effects simulated for various traffic environments and three different bridge types [22]: the 30-m-long
pre-stressed concrete (PSC) I-girder bridge (Figure 5a), 45-m-long steel box girder bridge (Figure 5b),
and 60-m-long steel box girder bridge with a plan view similar to that of the second type. Each bridge
type was 15 m wide, four lanes, two-way, and simply-supported single spans. The extreme values
in Table 10 were normalized with the current design vehicle load effects first and then renormalized
with a reference value for the case with an ADT of 20,000 vehicles on two lanes in one direction and an
ADTT of 25%; this was assumed to be the representative traffic environment for national highways
in Korea.

Table 10. Annual extreme load effects due to different traffic environments (95% annual maximum).

Annual Extreme Load Effects

Heavy Vehicle Heavy Vehicle Average Daily Traffic Volume (Two Lanes)
Girder Type
Distribution Proportion 2000 5000 10,000 20,000 40,000
15% 0.849 0.941 0.948 0.960 0.974
25% 0.876 0.983 0.993 1.000 1.024
50:50
35% 0.886 1.002 1.020 1.024 1.027
45% 0.893 1.034 1.041 1.046 1.060
PSC-I 30 m
15% 0.812 0.906 0.920 0.939 0.945
25% 0.835 0.934 0.982 0.986 0.996
15:85
35% 0.857 0.976 0.996 0.999 1.010
45% 0.868 1.011 1.016 1.029 1.046
15% 0.740 0.930 0.936 0.960 0.966
25% 0.756 0.970 0.983 1.000 1.020
50:50
35% 0.769 1.031 1.040 1.043 1.055
45% 0.781 1.048 1.059 1.082 1.094
STB 45 m
15% 0.725 0.872 0.905 0.913 0.927
25% 0.750 0.936 0.964 0.972 0.979
15:85
35% 0.761 0.987 0.993 1.010 1.010
45% 0.772 1.017 1.032 1.041 1.045
15% 0.672 0.932 0.943 0.949 0.965
25% 0.680 0.983 0.990 1.000 1.015
50:50
35% 0.689 1.036 1.072 1.077 1.083
45% 0.701 1.077 1.091 1.093 1.095
STB 60 m
15% 0.606 0.869 0.877 0.889 0.906
25% 0.626 0.957 0.974 0.977 0.980
15:85
35% 0.649 1.006 1.015 1.015 1.019
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 365 45% 0.680 1.034 1.045 1.047 1.055 13 of 15

15,000 15,000

300 300 3,300 3,300 300


300 300 3,300 3,300 300

300
450

300
450

210
210

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8
850 1,900
G1 G2 G3

(a) (b)

Figure
Figure 5. Target
5. Target bridge
bridge section
section propertiesatatthe
properties themid-span
mid-span (mm):
(mm): (a)
(a) PSC
PSCI-type
I-typegirder;
girder;and
and(b)
(b)steel
steel
box girder.
box girder.

Table 10. Annual extreme load effects due to different traffic environments (95% annual maximum).

Annual Extreme Load Effects


Girder Heavy Vehicle Heavy Vehicle Average Daily Traffic Volume (Two Lanes)
Type Distribution Proportion 2000 5000 10,000 20,000 40,000
15% 0.849 0.941 0.948 0.960 0.974
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 365 13 of 14

As presented in Table 10, two different heavy vehicle distribution models were simulated.
The distribution ratio is the heavy vehicle traffic volume ratio of the inner lane to the outer lane.
An even distribution of heavy vehicles in two lanes may cause a stronger load effect because of
the increased chance that two heavy vehicles run side-by-side for the short-span bridges. However,
long-span bridges, such as the 60-m-long bridge, may experience slightly higher load effects with
consecutive heavy vehicles in one lane. The extreme values ranged from 0.725 to 1.094 for the 45-m
span and from 0.606 to 1.095 for the 60-m span.

5. Conclusions
In this study, the girder type, vehicle type, vehicle weight, and consecutive vehicle characteristics
were analyzed by collecting data on vehicle loads and traffic characteristics for national highways, and
a rational probabilistic model was developed that reflects actual traffic characteristics. A simulation
technique is presented for analyzing the effects of extreme vehicle loads on the superstructures of
highway bridges based on the developed vehicle traffic models. Based on the presented technique,
a rational plan is proposed to estimate the vehicle load for assessing the required load capacity that
reflects the structural characteristics and traffic environment of the bridge based on the extreme
load effect over the expected service life and various vehicle traffic and structural characteristics.
The conclusions are as follows:
(1) A procedure is presented for determining the vehicle load for a required load capacity
assessment that rationally reflects the structural characteristics and traffic environment of a bridge
over its expected remaining service life. This will allow for economical maintenance while satisfying
the required performance of the target bridge.
(2) To verify the effect of consecutive traveling vehicle characteristics on the proportion of heavy
vehicles, models using the consecutive traveling coefficient and proportion of single vehicles were
compared regarding the average daily traffic volume per lane of 30- and 60-m-long simply supported
bridge with 2000–40,000 vehicles and a heavy vehicle proportion of 15–45%. The annual extreme load
effect was set to a non-exceedance probability of 95%. The results showed that the consecutive vehicle
effect generally increased by 20–30% for the 30-m span. When the span was longer, this effect was
greatly magnified. Depending on the average daily traffic volume and proportion of heavy vehicles,
this effect increased by as much as 50%.
(3) The analysis of the extreme load effect according to the traffic environment for three different
bridge types (30-m-long PSC I-type girder bridge, 45-m-long steel box girder bridge, and 60-m-long
steel box girder bridge) showed that the extreme load effect tended to increase in proportion to the
average daily traffic volume and heavy vehicle proportion. Even when the same bridge was analyzed,
the extreme value ranged from 0.725 to 1.094 for the 45-m span, and from 0.606 to 1.095 for the 60-m
span, depending on the traffic volume and heavy vehicle proportion. This indicates that bridges with
various traffic environments can adequately satisfy their target required performance, even if the
distribution of bridge maintenance is adjusted upwardly or downwardly for improved efficiency.

Acknowledgments: This study was supported by a Creative Human Resources Center for Resilient Infrastructure
grant funded by Yonsei University.
Author Contributions: Sang-Hyo Kim proposed the topic of this study and designed the process; Won-Ho Heo
and Dong-woo You performed the simulations; and Jae-Gu Choi performed the analysis and wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Wisniewski, D.F.; Cruz, P.J.S.; Henriques, A.A.R.; Simões, R.A. Probabilistic models for mechanical properties
of concrete, reinforcing steel and prestressing steel. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2012, 8, 111–123. [CrossRef]
2. Korea Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Road Bridge and Tunnel Statistics; Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure and Transport: Seoul, Korea, 2015.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 365 14 of 14

3. González, A.; Rattigan, P.; O’Brien, E.J.; Caprani, C. Determination of bridge lifetime dynamic amplification
factor using finite element analysis of critical loading scenarios. Eng. Struct. 2008, 30, 2330–2337. [CrossRef]
4. Gu, Y.; Li, S.; Li, H.; Guo, Z. A novel Bayesian extreme value distribution model of vehicle loads incorporating
de-correlated tail fitting: Theory and application to the Nanjing 3rd Yangtze River Bridge. Eng. Struct. 2014,
59, 386–392. [CrossRef]
5. O’Brien, E.J.; Schmidt, F.; Hajializadeh, D.; Zhou, X.Y.; Enright, B.; Caprani, C.C.; Sheils, E. A review of
probabilistic methods of assessment of load effects in bridges. Struct. Saf. 2015, 53, 44–56. [CrossRef]
6. O’Connor, A.; O’Brien, E.J. Traffic load modelling and factors influencing the accuracy of predicted extremes.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2005, 32, 270–278. [CrossRef]
7. O’Brien, E.J.; Hayrapetova, A.; Walsh, C. The use of micro-simulation for congested traffic load modeling of
medium- and long-span bridges. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2012, 8, 269–276. [CrossRef]
8. Getachew, A.; O’Brien, E.J. Simplified site-specific traffic load models for bridge assessment. Struct. Infrastruct.
Eng. 2007, 3, 303–311. [CrossRef]
9. O’Brien, E.J.; Rattigan, P.; Gonzalez, A.; Dowling, J.; Znidaric, A. Characteristic dynamic traffic load effects
in bridges. Eng. Struct. 2009, 31, 1607–1612. [CrossRef]
10. Fiorillo, G.; Ghosn, M. Application of influence lines for the ultimate capacity of beams under moving loads.
Eng. Struct. 2015, 103, 125–133. [CrossRef]
11. Nowak, A.S.; Park, C.-H.; Casas, J.R. Reliability analysis of prestressed concrete bridge girders: Comparison
of Eurocode, Spanish Norma IAP and AASHTO LRFD. Struct. Saf. 2001, 23, 331–344. [CrossRef]
12. Herrmann, A.W. ASCE 2013 report card for America’s infrastructure. IABSE Symp. Rep. 2013, 99, 9–10.
[CrossRef]
13. Korea Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. Road Traffic Survey Guide, Government Document
Registration; Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs: Seoul, Korea, 2015.
14. Kim, S.-H.; Park, H.-S. A study on bridge live loads and traffic modes. Korea Soc. Civ. Eng. 1992, 12, 107–116.
15. Bruls, J.M.; Sedlacek, G. Traffic data of the European countries 2nd draft. In Eurocode on Actions; European
Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 1989.
16. Kwon, S.-M.; Suh, Y.-C. Development and application of the high speed weigh-in-motion for overweight
enforcement. J. Korean Soc. Road Eng. 2009, 11, 69–78.
17. Korea Infrastructure Safety and Technology Corporation. Development of Bridge Maintenance Technique
Considering Performance Based on the Site Environment; Korea Infrastructure Safety and Technology
Corporation: Seoul, Korea, 2015.
18. Gumbel, E.J. Statistics of Extremes; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1958.
19. Enright, B.; O’Brien, E.J. Monte Carlo simulation of extreme traffic loading on short and medium span
bridges. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2013, 9, 1267–1282. [CrossRef]
20. Hwang, E.-S.; Nowak, A.S. Simulation of dynamic load for bridges. J. Struct. Eng. (ASCE) 1991, 117,
1413–1434. [CrossRef]
21. Korea Institute of Bridge and Structural Engineers. Korea Highway Bridge Specifications; Korea Institute of
Bridge and Structural Engineers: Seoul, Korea, 2015.
22. Kim, S.-H.; Choi, J.-G.; Ham, S.-M.; Heo, W.-H. Reliability evaluation of a PSC highway bridge based on
resistance capacity degradation due to corrosive environments. Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 423–439. [CrossRef]

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

You might also like