Accurate measurements of gross vehicle

weight through bridge weigh-in-motion: a

case study

Karim Helmi, Baidar Bakht & Aftab

Mufti

Journal of Civil Structural Health

Monitoring

ISSN 2190-5452
Volume 4
Number 3

J Civil Struct Health Monit (2014)

4:195-208
DOI 10.1007/s13349-014-0076-5

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer-
Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
J Civil Struct Health Monit (2014) 4:195–208
DOI 10.1007/s13349-014-0076-5
ORIGINAL PAPER
Accurate measurements of gross vehicle weight through bridge
weigh-in-motion: a case study
Karim Helmi • Baidar Bakht • Aftab Mufti
Received: 18 December 2013 / Revised: 18 March 2014 / Accepted: 21 March 2014 / Published online: 3 April 2014
 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
Abstract In a bridge design code, the design live loads
should be based on actual traffic loads. In the past, the
information about the actual truck loads on highway
bridges was obtained from truck surveys, in which the
trucks are stopped for measurement and weighed on ‘static’
weighing scales. During the past few decades, however, the
information about truck loads is collected either by pave-
ment weigh-in-motion or bridge weigh-in-motion (BWIM)
systems. This paper provides details of three BWIM
methods, which were calibrated with extensive testing on a
slab-on-girder bridge in Winnipeg, Canada. The first two
methods are based on the assumption that truck loads could
be represented by an equivalent uniformly distributed load.
The first method uses the asymmetry in the shape of the
bending moment diagram to calculate the gross vehicle
weight (GVW), while the second method compares the
girder response at two instrumented transverse sections.
The third method calculates GVW using strain signal area
as proposed by Ojio and Yamada in 2002. The results show
that the first method was inconsistent in its accuracy; the
second method’s accuracy reduced with the length of the
vehicle. The third method proved consistent and accurate
to within 5 % for the test trucks provided that the vehicle
speeds could be estimated accurately. Accurate calcula-
tions of the truck speeds were achieved by using the time
delay in the peak responses of the straps that confine the
externally restrained deck slab of the bridge.
K. Helmi (&)  B. Bakht  A. Mufti
ISIS Canada Resource Centre, A250-96 Dafoe Rd, Winnipeg,
MB R3T 2N2, Canada
e-mail: Karim.helmi@ad.umanitoba.ca
Keywords Bridge weigh-in-motion  Externally
restrained deck slab  Gross vehicle weight 
Steel girder bridge  Strain gauge  Truck
1 Introduction
In a bridge design code, the design live loads should be based
on actual truck loads. In the past, information about the
actual traffic loads on highway bridges was obtained from
truck surveys, in which the trucks were stopped for mea-
surement and weighing on ‘static’ weighing scales. During
the past few decades, however, information about truck loads
is collected while the trucks move at normal speeds. Some of
the weigh-in-motion (WIM) scales are installed in the
pavement. In other WIM systems, a highway bridge is used
for the weigh-in-motion of the trucks; this latter system is
referred to herein as the bridge WIM (BWIM) system, and
the system installed in the pavement as simply the WIM
system. The WIM systems are significantly more expensive
and are not more accurate than the BWIM systems.
A number of BWIM systems, with varying degrees of
accuracy in predicting the axle and gross vehicle weights
(GVW) of the trucks, have been introduced. An interna-
tional society for weigh-in-motion (ISWIM) is already in
existence; this society deals with both the WIM and BWIM
systems. This paper introduces three BWIM systems for
determining the gross vehicle weights (GVWs). Two of the
methods were developed by the authors, while the third is
an application of an existing method.
2 Literature review
Moses [1] is the first researcher to introduce a BWIM
system; his method, determines the truck configuration,
123
 Author's personal copy
196
number and spacing of axles, and the vehicle speed through
tape switches that are installed on the top surface of the
bridge. The constant vehicle speed enables the transfor-
mation of the length scale on the response diagram into the
time scale and vice versa, thus leaving the axle weights to
be determined through the analysis of the observed bridge
response using the method of influence lines. The unknown
weights of N axles of a truck can be determined by N dif-
ferent measurements of the bridge response for different
positions of the truck along the bridge. However, since the
bridge response is measured almost continuously, there is
an abundance of ‘redundant’ data. By using the influence
lines of the bridge at the instrumented section and the truck
speed, the total static response of a girder under a truck
load is predicted in terms of the unknown axle weights and
a scalar error function obtained by summing the squares of
the differences in the predicted and calculated responses at
different intervals. Minimizing the error function leads to
N simultaneous equations to give N axle weights.
The method developed by Moses has been adopted by
several researchers, and many enhancements have been
introduced to it. Quilligan et al. [2] for example, extended
the algorithm to be two dimensional, i.e., to be able to
detect the lane position of the truck in addition to its
weight. However, the major drawback in the method is the
need for the identification of the number of axles and the
speed of the vehicle using external devices such as tape
switches [3].
A method was developed in Ontario, Canada, in the
early 1980s for obtaining truck weights through BWIM [4].
The method, which was used for vehicle weight surveys in
Ontario, idealized the axle weights of a truck as point
loads, and the set of point loads in turn were represented as
an equivalent uniformly distributed load (UDL) having the
same total load GVW as that of the set of point loads, but
having an equivalent base length Bm, which is larger than
the actual base length b (the distance between P1 and PN),
and is given by the following approximate equation:
( )2
4 X i¼N
2ð N  1Þ X
i¼N
Bm  j Pi x i j  ð Pi x i Þ ð1Þ
GVW i¼1 bNðGVWÞ2 i¼1
where, as shown in Fig. 1, N is the number of point loads,
P1 through PN are the magnitudes of successive N point
loads, and the distances xi are measured with respect to the
point load closest to the center of gravity of the set of point
loads. The significance of the equivalent UDL is that the
bending moments and shear forces induced by this load, in
beams of any span length in the region of maximum
responses, are nearly the same as those induced by the set
of point loads.
Equation (1) is independent of the span length of the
beam, giving only approximate values of Bm, which are
123
J Civil Struct Health Monit (2014) 4:195–208
Fig. 1 Notation for a set of point loads
accurate enough for all practical purposes. Equation (1)
was developed from the following exact expression, which
incorporates the span length (L) in the following equation:
( )2
4 X N
2 XN
Bm ¼ j Pi x i j  ð Pi x i Þ ð2Þ
GVW i¼1 LðGVWÞ2 i¼1
In the Ontario method, theoretical longitudinal strains
at the bottom flange located at the mid-span of the
girders of an instrumented simply supported bridge,
idealized as a simply supported beam, were calculated
for Bm varying between 1.22 and 30.5 m at intervals of
0.61 m; the distances were converted into the time scale
by using the speed of the vehicle, which was computed
from the response of tape switches installed on the top
surface of the bridge. The time–strain plots due to dif-
ferent theoretical UDLs were then used to find the best
fit for the sum of observed girder strains at the instru-
mented transverse section of the bridge, which was
always at the mid-span. The equivalent base length, Bm,
for which the discrepancy between the theoretical and
observed responses was the smallest was adopted as the
assumed value of Bm and the corresponding value of the
GVW of the truck [4].
The determination of actual axle weights requires the
identification of strain peaks in the observed strain–time
plots, which is made difficult by the fact that the influence
lines for longitudinal moments at transverse sections within
the middle-third length of the bridge are relatively insen-
sitive to individual axle weights because of which the
time–strain plots do not have distinct peaks associated with
the axle weights.
The problem of an influence line without well-defined
peaks corresponding to axle weights was solved by a
BWIM method developed in Australia, called CULWAY;
this method, which was introduced in late 1980s and early
1990s, measures axle weights of trucks by using small span
concrete box culverts, instrumented at the bottom surfaces
of the top slabs of the boxes by means of strain transducers
 Author's personal copy
J Civil Struct Health Monit (2014) 4:195–208
[5, 6]. The method depends upon the knowledge of the
transverse position of the truck on the culvert and cannot
measure spacing between axles without the help of tape
switches or other similar devices. It is also important to
note that the strain transducers used in the CULWAY
system were subject to large drifts, thus requiring frequent
calibration tests.
Znidaric et al. [3] developed a free-of-axle detector (FAD)
WIM method by observing the peak responses of multiple
strain gauges to estimate the number of axles. The speed of the
truck is estimated by calculating the time delay in the peak
responses of several sensors at different locations along the
span. The axle spacing is estimated by calculating the time
delay in the peak responses at the same sensor. The method,
however, is only applicable to short span concrete bridges.
A novel BWIM system was introduced in Japan by
Yamada and Ojio [7], in which the problem of the strain–
time curves with ill-defined peaks was overcome by a
method that the authors call a reaction force method; in this
method, the stiffeners in a support cross-frame at one end of
a simply supported girder bridge are instrumented to mea-
sure vertical strains, corresponding to the reactions at the
support. The influence lines for support reactions do indeed
have distinct peaks corresponding to each axle load. The
authors calibrated their BWIM system with the help of three
pre-weighed 3-axle trucks; from the data that they have
provided it was found that their BWIM system could predict
axle weights and GVW with accuracies of ±75 and ±15 %,
respectively. It is noted that the accuracy of prediction of
this BWIM system might have been poor, because only one
vertical member of the cross-frame was instrumented.
To test the efficiency of the reaction force method
developed by Yamada and Ojio [7], Bakht et al. [8]
instrumented a support diaphragm of a slab-on-girder
bridge in Manitoba. The instruments consisted of strain
gauges placed on the stiffeners of the diaphragm. The
strain–time plots for the diaphragms had distinct peaks and
permitted the calculation of axle loads of moving trucks;
however, the strains were found to be highly sensitive to
the transverse position of the vehicle on the bridge and,
thus, not very accurate in calculating the axle weights for
trucks in random transverse positions.
A BWIM method was recently developed in Connecti-
cut, USA, to predict GVWs, axle weights and axle spacing
of trucks through strains measured near the mid-span of a
simply supported steel girder bridge with a concrete deck
slab [9]. The unique aspect of this method is that it
determines the speed of a vehicle from only girder strains,
i.e., without resorting to ‘intrusive’ devices such as tape
switches. For calculating vehicle speeds, the authors used
the second derivative of recorded strain with respect to
time. For an idealized beam, these second derivatives are
pure spikes, each corresponding to an axle load, which is
197
idealized as a point loads. Positive spikes correspond to the
time when each axle load enters and leaves the span, and
the negative spikes represent the time when each axle load
is over the instrumented section, which was at the mid-span
for the bridge dealt with by Wall et al. [9]. Unlike the case
of the idealized beam, the spikes in the second derivative of
strains in an actual bridge are not so well defined, because
of which the calculation of speed by the Wall et al. method
is subject to considerable numerical errors. For their cali-
bration tests, they had used a test truck which was installed
with an accurate speed-measuring device. The differences
between the speeds measured with device and by the sec-
ond derivative method ranged between ?7.8 and -13.5 %.
Since the calculated speed of a vehicle has a direct influ-
ence on the accuracy of prediction of the GVW, it is not
surprising that the GVWs of the test truck predicted by this
method are subject to fairly large errors.
The methods mentioned earlier are based on the static
response of the bridge. Several methods were developed
using the dynamic response of the bridge, e.g., Leming and
Stalford [10], Deesomsk and Pinkeaw [11], and Law et al.
[12]. However these methods are fairly complicated, not
given to easy implementation. In addition, some of these
methods were developed using simulated data which often
involved simplified problems such as a two-axle vehicle.
Rowely et al. [13] implemented a BWIM method based on
the dynamic response at the Vransko Bridge in Slovenia.
The authors used an algorithm developed by Gonzeales
et al. [14] based on the moving load identification theory.
The algorithm, however, still needed extra axle detecting
equipment to be installed and the finite element modeling
of the instrumented bridge.
3 Proposed methods
The purpose of this paper is to provide an accurate free-of-
axle detector BWIM method. Three methods are investi-
gated and implemented on a bridge in Winnipeg, MB,
Canada. Two of the methods were developed by the
authors, while the third is an extension of an existing
method. The theoretical bases of the three methods are
provided in the following.
3.1 Asymmetry coefficient method
Similar to the Ontario method [4], this method also uses the
UDL as being representative of all the axle loads of a truck,
which are usually regarded as point loads in theoretical
calculations. It is assumed that the total load of a truck
GVW is distributed uniformly over a length nL, where L is
the span of the bridge and n is a fraction, so that the
intensity of the UDL is GVW/nL per unit length. The
123
 Author's personal copy
198
Fig. 2 Influence line for bending moments at the instrumented
section in the simply supported beam
method is based on the assumption that the BWIM system
is applied to a right simply supported slab-on-girder bridge
having a span length greater than the length of most trucks,
which is assumed to be a maximum of about 20 m. All
girders are assumed to be parallel to each other.
Consider a simply supported beam with span L, with an
instrumented section at a distance aL from the left-hand
support, where a is a fraction of the span length (Fig. 2). As
shown in Fig. 2, the influence line for bending moments at
the instrumented section is triangular, and the area under
the influence line is a(1 - a)L2/2. From the records of the
instrumented section, the objective is to determine n, from
which GVW can be determined as explained later.
Assuming that the UDL travels from left to right, the
complete record for a given truck has the length (1 ? n)L,
as it covers the leading edge of the UDL coming to the left-
hand support and leaving the beam when the trailing edge
of the load just leaves the right-hand support.
As shown in Fig. 3, the maximum moment at the
instrumented section, Mmax, occurs when the leading and
trailing edges of the UDL have the same height ordinate on
the influence line, so that a fraction a of the UDL is to the
left of the instrumented section and a fraction (1 - a) to
the right. Mmax for the UDL is given by the following
equation:
Fig. 3 Maximum bending
moment position
123
J Civil Struct Health Monit (2014) 4:195–208
Mmax ¼ WLað1  aÞð1  n=2Þ ð3Þ
An ideal beam is considered first, in which the time of
the UDL at entering and leaving the beam is known
exactly. When the leading edge of the UDL comes on the
left-hand support of the beam, its distance from the left-
hand support, x1, is equal to zero, and when its tailing end
leaves the right-hand support, its distance from the left-
hand support is x3, given by:
x3 ¼ ð1 þ nÞL ð4Þ
For the maximum moment, the leading edge of the UDL is a
distance x2 from the left-hand support; this distance is given by:
x2 ¼ Lfn þ að1  nÞg ð5Þ
The asymmetry coefficient a is the ratio of the distance
of the front end of the UDL inducing Mmax from the left-
hand support and the length of the moment–distance plot,
so that:
x2  x1 n þ ð1  nÞa
a¼ ¼ ð6Þ
x3  x1 ð 1 þ nÞ
The bridge response collected for BWIM systems is
usually in terms of strains plotted over time, which can be
converted into the distance scale only if the speed of the
vehicle is known. In the absence of the knowledge of the
vehicle speed, the asymmetry coefficient a can be calcu-
lated from the time records as follows:
t2  t1
a¼ ð7Þ
t3  t1
where t1 is the time when the leading edge of the load just
comes on the beam, t2 is the time at which Mmax occurs,
and t3 is the time when the trailing edge of the load just
leaves the bridge.
Real data contains noise and oscillations caused by
vibrations and it is difficult to establish the start and end
time of a truck event accurately. Instead, the start and end
time are determined by a threshold value that is a fraction
of the maximum moment.
 Author's personal copy
J Civil Struct Health Monit (2014) 4:195–208 199

Fig. 5 Notation for the two-station method

the truck is calculated from the following equation, which

Fig. 4 The girder response diagram for the instrumented section is a rewrite of Eq. (3):
showing curtailment at 2 % of the maximum moment level Mmax
GVW ¼ ð11Þ
aLð1  aÞð1  n=2Þ
For the procedure described herein, a threshold value of 3.2 Two-station method
2 % of the maximum moment was chosen. The 2 % value
was chosen based after observing the test data, as it was the In the two-station method, the estimate of GVW is
minimum value where the beginning and the end of an obtained from girder responses at two transverse sections,
event could be observed clearly. The equations for x1 and which as shown in Fig. 5 are designated as DD and CC,
x3 were modified to represent the distance at which a value with distances of a1L and a2L, respectively, from the left-
of 2 % of the maximum moment occurs due to the UDL hand support. Also, as shown in Fig. 5, the distance
instead a value of zero, resulting in the following between DD and CC is denoted as rL, where L is the span
equations: length. The total truck axle load, GVW, is again repre-
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sented as a uniformly distributed load over a length nL.
x1 ¼ L 0:04anð1  n=2Þ ð8Þ
h The total time interval for the leading edge of the UDL
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffii
x3 ¼ L ð1 þ nÞ  0:04nð1  aÞð1  n=2Þ ð9Þ to enter the span and for its trailing edge to leave the span
is denoted as T. If the load is traveling at speed V, T is
x2  x1 given by the following equation:
a¼
x3  x1
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð1 þ nÞL
n þ ð1  nÞa  0:04anð1  n=2Þ T¼ ð12Þ
¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi V
ð1  nÞ  0:04anð1  n=2Þ  0:04nð1  aÞð1  n=2Þ
The maximum response at an instrumented section
ð10Þ
occurs when the leading edge of the load has advanced a
From a known value of a, Eq. (10) can give the corre- distance x from the left support:
sponding value of n, but the calculation requires a time- x ¼ L½n þ ð1  nÞa ð13Þ
consuming iterative process. It is convenient to either
tabulate values of a and corresponding values of n, or to where aL is the distance of the instrumented section from
store the n–a relationship in a graphical format. It is worth the left support. Using x1 and x2 for Sections DD and CC,
noting that the curtailment of the response diagram at the respectively, Eq. 13 can be written as follows for the two
2 % level has negligible effect on the value of the asym- sections:
metry coefficient. x1 ¼ L½n þ ð1  nÞa1  ð14Þ
The proposed BWIM system requires four segments of
data for each truck event, these being Mmax, t1, t2 and t3, x2 ¼ L½n þ ð1  nÞa2  ð15Þ
which are identified in Fig. 4. By subtracting Eq. (14) from Eq. (15), and denoting
The equivalent length of the UDL representing a (a1 - a2) as r, the following equation can be written as:
weighed truck is equal to nL, where n is then obtained with
x2  x1 ¼ ð1  nÞrL ð16Þ
the help of Eq. (10).
Having found Mmax and n for a truck event at the Ideally, the responses at each of Sections DD and CC
instrumented transverse section, the value of the GVW of due to the moving UDL will have peaks at different times;

123
 Author's personal copy
200 J Civil Struct Health Monit (2014) 4:195–208

Fig. 6 Bending moments at the

reference section in a simply
supported beam due to a set of
three moving point loads

the time interval between the two peak responses is aLðL  aLÞ L aLðL  aLÞ
denoted as t. Since (x2 - x1) = Vt, Eq. (16) can be written A ¼ ðP1 þ P2 þ P3 Þ ¼ GVW
L 2 2
as: ð19Þ
Vt ¼ ð1  nÞrL ð17Þ
where GVW is the sum of all three loads.
Denoting t/T as s and dividing Eq. (12) by Eq. (17), the The total area A under a response diagram can be easily
following equation is obtained: obtained by numerical integration. The advantage of using
rs numerical integration is that A becomes relatively insen-
n¼ ð18Þ sitive to the smoothing process. By using Eq. (19), GVW is
rþs
given by the following equation:
After determining n from Eq. (18), GVW can be found
2Amoment
using Eq. (11). GVW ¼ ð20Þ
aLðL  aLÞ
3.3 Beta method The relation between the moment and strain below the
proportional limit is linear, so that:
This method was proposed by Ojio and Yamada [15], the basis
M
of which could be explained with the help of Fig. 6 which e¼ y ¼ CM ð21Þ
IE
shows bending moments at a reference point in a simply
supported beam due to a set of three moving point loads. If the strain area is used instead of the moment area, Eq.
It is well known that the influence line for each of the (20) could be rewritten as:
point loads has a triangular shape with maximum moment 2Astrain
being PaL(L - aL)/L, where P is the magnitude of the GVW ¼ C ð22Þ
aLðL  aLÞ
load, aL is the distance of the reference section from the
left support, and L is the span of the beam. Although the For practical application, the strain readings are recor-
moments due to P2 and P3 are offset from the left support ded in the time scale. To convert strain into the distance
by x1 and (x1 ? x2), respectively, the length of the bending scale, the strain is multiplied by velocity, v, so that Eq. (22)
moment diagram remains L for each load. It can be shown could be rewritten as:
that the total area, A, of the bending moment diagram under 2Astrain
GVW ¼ Cv ¼ bA ð23Þ
the three moving loads is given by: aLðL  aLÞ

123
 Author's personal copy
J Civil Struct Health Monit (2014) 4:195–208
Fig. 7 Plan and elevation of the South Perimeter Bridge
Although referred to as a ‘constant’, b is really a vari-
able that depends upon: (a) the speed of the vehicle, (b) the
direction of travel, (c) the location of the instrumented
transverse section, and (d) sometimes on the transverse
position of the vehicle.
4 Calibration tests
To apply the proposed BWIM system, a bridge in Manitoba
was instrumented and tested for calibration using two
vehicles of known configurations. The following sections
describe the bridge and the tests.
4.1 Details of bridge and calibration trucks
The bridge used in this study was the South Perimeter
Bridge in Winnipeg, Canada, having seven spans, of which
four are continuous and the remaining three simply sup-
ported. Figure 7, which identifies the span numbers, shows
that the simply supported span 2 was instrumented at two
transverse sections, DD and CC, in addition to the trans-
verse section AA over the third pier from the western end.
The bridge has both west-bound and east-bound traffic.
Sections CC and DD are located at a distance of 18.8 and
5.6 m from the west support of span 2, respectively.
As shown in Fig. 8, the bridge comprises an externally
restrained concrete deck slab designed according to the
Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (2006) [16] on
eight steel girders. At Section DD, which is closer to the
left-hand support of the bridge, electrical resistance strain
gauges measuring longitudinal strains were installed on the
upper side of the bottom flanges of all girders (Fig. 8b). At
Section CC (Fig. 8a), the girders also included electrical
201
resistance strain gauges on the underside of the top flanges,
as well as strain gauges on the external steel straps,
restraining the deck slab. Strain gauges at the girders are
identified by the letter ‘‘G’’, while strain gauges installed at
the straps are identified by the letter ‘‘S’’.
The steel straps of the externally restrained deck slab of
the bridge were instrumented at Sections AA and CC.
Figure 9 shows the locations of the electrical resistance
strain gauges on the straps and girders at Section AA.
The instrumented sections were calibrated for BWIM
under two trucks, one of which had a single steering axle
and two 2-axle groups; this truck, designated as truck A, is
shown in Fig. 10.
The other truck, designated as truck B, had a single
steering axle, followed by two 2-axle and 3-axle groups.
Details of truck B are shown in Fig. 11a and b. Figures 10
and 11 also show GVW and Bm values for the two test
trucks. As noted in previous sections, Bm is the length of the
equivalent uniformly distributed load that induces nearly
the same maximum moments and shears in a beam as the set
of idealized point loads. In the context of the asymmetry
coefficient and the two-station methods, Bm = nL.
The calibration tests were conducted under two sets of
loads. In the first set, truck A was made to travel at a
crawling speed in 14 different transverse positions, which
are identified in Fig. 12 as crawling speed load cases
(CSLC). The purpose of this series of tests was to deter-
mine the value of the constant C that relates the sum of
theoretical peak girder moments M to the corresponding
sum of observed girder strains, e, according to Eq. (21).
For the second series of tests, both trucks A and B were
made to travel at different speeds in the middle of the
normal and passing lanes. The purpose of the second series
of tests was to determine the accuracy of the various
BWIM methods described earlier. The load case numbers,
123
 Author's personal copy
202
Fig. 8 Cross sections of bridge: a at Section CC and b at Section DD
Fig. 9 Instrumentation at Section AA
Fig. 10 Details of truck A: (a)
a photo, b axle weights and
configurations
speeds of the trucks and other information are provided in
Table 1.
4.2 Calculation of bridge constant C
By using the observed data, smoothed using a low pass
filter, under crawling speed load cases 1 through 14
(Fig. 12) and Eq. (21), values of constant C were calculated
for both Sections CC and DD for truck A traveling in each
of east-bound and west-bound directions.
123
J Civil Struct Health Monit (2014) 4:195–208
(b)
The percentage difference from the average in the cal-
culated values of C is plotted in Fig. 13 against the trans-
verse positions of the center of truck A. It can be seen in
Fig. 13 that the magnitude of C is little affected by the
transverse position of the vehicle. The average value of
C for Section CC was found to be 11.307 9 1012N.mm for
the east-bound direction and 12.077 9 1012N.mm for the
west-bound direction, with a maximum variation of 1.5 %,
and the average value of C for Section DD was found to be
9.836 9 1012N.mm for the east-bound direction and
 Author's personal copy
J Civil Struct Health Monit (2014) 4:195–208 203

(a)

(b)

Fig. 11 Details of truck B: a photo, b axle weights and configurations

Fig. 12 Transverse positions of truck A, moving at crawling speed for calibration tests

4.3 Calculation of vehicle speed

Table 1 Details of tests with vehicles running at high speeds
Direction High-speed Lane
load case no.
East bound 1 Normal
2 Normal
3 Normal
4 Passing
West bound 5 Normal
6 Normal
7 Normal
8 Passing
10.239 9 1012N.mm for the west-bound direction, with a
maximum variation of 3 %. The average values of C were
used for calculating the bending moment from strain
readings.
Approximate The speed of the vehicle needed to convert the time scale to
speed (km/h) distance scale for the beta method was calculated from the
peak strains in the straps at Sections AA and CC. Figure 14
50
presents the strain–time plots for Strap 8 (at Section AA)
75
and Strap 2 (at Section CC) due to trucks A and B traveling
95
in high-speed test 2; the plots were smoothed by a low pass
95
filter at a cutoff frequency of 10 Hz. It can be seen in
50
Fig. 14 that the peak strains in both the straps are well
75
defined. The peak strains in Strap 8 are considerably
90
smaller than the corresponding peak strains in Strap 2; this
90 phenomenon is because of the proximity of Strap 8 to
support diaphragms above Pier 3.
Dividing the distance between Sections AA and CC by
the time interval between corresponding peaks at the two
sections directly gave the vehicle velocity V. This method
took advantage of a structural system that is not commonly
used in bridges, limiting its applicability. However other
measurements like strains in vertical stiffeners, shear

123
 Author's personal copy
204
Fig. 13 Percentage difference
from average C value
Fig. 14 Strains in straps due to trucks A and B during high-speed load case 2
strains calculated from strain rosettes, or even one inclined
strain gauge in the web could produce the same desired
effect of distinct sharp peaks that appears with the passing
of individual axle or axle groups, and the same procedure
could be used. The speeds were also calculated from the
two-station method using Eq. (12).
Table 2 compares the velocity calculated by the strap
and two-station methods with those reported by the truck
driver. It is noted that in the absence of an accurate mea-
suring device, the reported speeds can only be used as
guides. The table shows that the variation in the velocities
calculated by the strap method for trucks A and B is
smaller than that of the two-station method.
5 GVW estimations for high-speed tests
The three methods detailed in the previous sections were
implemented on the data that was obtained during the high-
speed tests for both trucks A and B. The data were filtered
using a Butterworth filter for the girder strains with the
cutoff frequency being the first natural frequency of the
bridge to eliminate all noise and dynamic effects. The
following is a summary of the results of each method.
123
J Civil Struct Health Monit (2014) 4:195–208
5.1 The asymmetry method
Table 3 presents the summary of the percentage of
deviation from the scale weighed GVW for trucks A and
B, using the asymmetry method while taking the start and
end times as 2 % of the maximum sum of strains for all
girders.
The results in Table 3 show that that the asymmetry
method produces inconsistent results and in many cases the
deviation from the measured GVW is quite large. In the
case of test 1 for truck B at Section CC, the value of a was
calculated as 0.59, which produced a value of n larger than
1, and therefore a negative value for the GVW which is
meaningless.
5.2 The two-station method
Table 4 presents the results of calculating the GVW using
the two-station method. The values of n and the average
percentage deviation shown in the table were calculated
from Eq. (18) using the average value for s, calculated
using both values of T obtained from the data at Sections
CC and DD.
 Author's personal copy
J Civil Struct Health Monit (2014) 4:195–208 205

Table 2 Reported and Test East-bound traffic West-bound traffic

calculated speeds of test trucks truck
in km/h by the strap method High-speed test no. High-speed test no.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Reported speed (approximate) A 50 75 95 95 50 75 90 90

B 50 75 95 95 50 75 90 90
Calculated speed (straps) A 45.2 71.2 83.1 87.8 50.9 68.7 89.4 91.4
B 45.2 72.1 83.8 85.9 51.0 66.1 89.1 89.6
Calculated speeds (2-station A 50.6 84.3 91.3 92.1 56.2 76.3 102.5 105.7
method) B 56.7 79.6 94.3 102.2 61.6 84.1 110.7 109.9

Table 3 GVW results Travel direction East bound West bound

calculated using the asymmetry
method Test number Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5 Test 6 Test 7 Test 8

Truck A % Deviation CC 18.89 78.46 71.55 119.61 -5.57 -9.65 -7.64 -15.78
% Deviation DD -9.84 -0.61 -3.90 -11.24 13.28 13.50 12.83 25.50
% Deviation Av. 4.52 38.93 33.83 54.19 3.86 1.93 2.59 4.86
Truck B % Deviation CC N/A -11.08 28.01 74.33 9.42 -32.87 -31.18 -30.95
% Deviation DD -6.21 -17.24 -0.30 24.61 24.31 34.74 24.83 29.44
% Deviation Av. N/A -14.16 13.86 49.47 16.86 0.93 -3.17 -0.75

Table 4 GVW results using the Travel direction East bound West bound
two-station method
Test no. Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test Test 6 Test 7 Test 8
5

Truck n 0.42 0.57 0.51 0.50 0.45 0.48 0.50 0.49

A % Deviation (T from -1.29 7.26 1.22 -1.98 0.89 0.18 0.13 -2.53
CC)
% Deviation (T from -5.14 1.81 -0.39 -1.66 2.85 0.40 2.58 8.64
DD)
% Deviation (T av.) -3.21 4.53 0.41 -1.82 1.87 0.29 1.35 3.05
Truck n 0.99 0.57 0.97 0.96 0.99 0.65 0.53 0.54
B % Deviation (T from 21.05 -19.01 22.64 17.95 15.92 -12.07 -11.46 -9.85
CC)
% Deviation (T from 22.06 -18.35 18.82 15.23 20.12 -13.01 -13.55 -9.69
DD)
% Deviation (T av.) 21.56 -18.68 20.73 16.59 18.02 -12.54 -12.51 -9.77

The values of percentage deviations for Sections CC and
DD were calculated using n, based on the values of T obtained
from the data at Sections CC and DD, respectively.
The percentage deviation in calculating the GVW for
truck A from the measured value, using the averages from
Sections CC and DD, was a maximum of about 4.5 %.
Deviations calculated using data from Sections CC and DD
were below 5 % in all but three cases, with once case
barely exceeding 5 % and the other two with a maximum
deviation of 8.6 %.
On the other hand for truck B, the average deviation
ranged from 9.8 to 21.5 %, with individual deviations
consistently above or slightly below 10 %.
5.3 The beta method
Figures 15 and 16 present the calibration of beta for the
east-bound and west-bound directions, respectively. It
could be shown that the speeds from straps give smaller
scatter for beta than the speeds calculated from the two-
station method, thus providing more accurate calibration
for the parameter beta. This could be demonstrated in
Table 5, which presents the percentage variation of GVW
from the measured value, calculated using the beta
parameters obtained from Figs. 15 and 16.
The results in Table 5 show that the percentage devia-
tion from the measured value in calculating the GVW for

123
 Author's personal copy
206 J Civil Struct Health Monit (2014) 4:195–208

Fig. 15 Calibration of beta for east-bound direction

Fig. 16 Calibration of beta for west-bound direction

truck A ranged from 0.23 to 8.9 % when using speeds
calculated with the two-station method, while the per-
centage deviation from the measured values ranged from
0.36 to 4.4 % when using the speeds calculated from the
straps.
The results also show that for truck B the percentage
deviation from the measured value ranged from 0.19 to
18.5 % when using the speeds calculated using the two-
station method, while the percentage deviation from the
measured values ranged from 0.6 to 4.4 % when using the
speeds calculated from the straps.
6 GVW estimate for permit trucks
A structural health monitoring (SHM) system has been installed
on the South Perimeter Bridge and the data are continuously
collected, to be used for identifying information about truck

123
 Author's personal copy
J Civil Struct Health Monit (2014) 4:195–208 207

Table 5 Percentage deviation Direction East bound West bound

from measured GVW using the
beta method Test number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Truck A Speed (two station) -6.87 4.65 0.23 -1.16 2.70 -7.71 -8.91 -8.89
Speed (straps) -0.97 0.36 0.58 -1.71 -1.27 -3.55 -4.44 -1.92
Truck B Speed (two station) 8.29 -15.03 0.12 5.70 1.19 -13.00 -18.26 -18.45
Speed (straps) 1.24 0.72 1.12 -0.60 -2.61 -4.38 -3.98 -1.89

Table 6 674 kN permit truck results summary • The asymmetry method gives large errors and is not
Calculation GVW GVW Average % reliable.
method calculated calculated GVW variation • The two-station method provides good prediction for
from from (kN) of average the GVW when the length of the truck is less than half
Section Section from
CC (kN) DD (kN) measured
the length of the bridge. Further investigation is needed
to estimate accurate limitations of the method.
Two-station 384 425 405 -40.0 • The beta method provides predictions with errors\5 %
method of the GVW, provided that accurate estimates of
Beta 382 382 382 -43.4 vehicle speeds could be obtained.
method(v from
2-station • Responses of the straps of the externally confined deck
method) slab provide reliable estimates of the truck speeds.
Beta method 723 723 723 7.2
(v from straps)
Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge the contri-
bution of the late Dr. Leslie Jaeger in formulating the two-station
weights. To test the BWIM methods against trucks under actual method.
traffic conditions, Manitoba Infrastructures and Transportation
(MIT) was asked for data about the permit trucks; the required
data included truck weights, speeds and the time of crossing the References
bridge. Two heavy trucks were identified with precise weight
1. Moses F (1979) Weigh-in-motion system using instrumented
measurement provided for only one truck, which had a steering
bridges. ASCE Trans Eng J 106:233–249
axle followed by two 2-axle, one 3-axle and one 2-axle groups 2. Quilligan M, Karoumi R, O’Brien EJ (2002) Development and
and a single axle. The total GVW was 674 kN and the speed testing of a 2-dimensional multi-vehicle Bridge-WIM algorithm.
provided by the driver was 40 km/h. Using the provided 3rd int.conf. on weigh-in-motion (ICWIM3)
3. Znidaric A, Kalin J, Lavric I (2002) Bridge weigh-in-motion
information, the strain data for the time period were extracted
measurements on short slab bridges without axle detectors. 3rd
and analyzed using the two-station and beta methods. The speed int.conf. on weigh-in-motion (ICWIM3)
calculated using the two-station method was 30 km/h, and the 4. Harman DJ (1984) A study of commercial vehicles and their
speed calculated using the strap data was 48.6 km/h. Table 6 multiple presence. OJTCRP Project No. 23141, U. of W. Ontario,
Faculty of Eng. Science, London, ON, Canada
provides a summary of the analysis results.
5. Scott, G. (1987) Weighing-in-motion technology—status CULWAY
The permit truck results show the same pattern as truck in Australia. Australian Research Board Seminar on Road Traffic
B. The beta method using speeds from straps provided data collection using weighing-in-motion, Melbourne, Australia
relatively accurate results, while the two-station method 6. Heywood RJ (1991) Bridge applications of WIM data. Proc, of
the AUSTROADS Bridges Conf., In: ed. Heywood RJ, (ed.),
and the beta method calculated using speeds from the two-
Austroads, Haymarket, Australia, p 139–150
station method provided large errors. It should be noted 7. Yamada K, Ojio T (2003) Bridge weigh-in-motion system using
that the errors were significantly larger than in the case of reaction force method. Proc. of the Int. Workshop on Structural
truck B. Although axle spacing was not provided consid- Health Monitoring of Bridges/Colloquium on Bridge Vibra-
tion’03. Japan Society of Civil Engineers, pp 269–276
ering the configuration, it could be concluded that the truck
8. Bakht B, Mufti AA, Tadros G, Eden R, Mourant G (2006)
was very long and that the accuracy of the two-station Weighing-in-motion of truck axle weights by Japanese reaction
method was reduced with the increase in the truck length. force method. 3rd Int. Conf. on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and
Management, Porto, Portugal, July 16–19, pp 981–982
7 Conclusions 9. Wall CJ, Christenson RE, McDonnell A, Jamalipour A (2009) A
non-intrusive bridge weigh-in-motion system for a single span
steel girder bridge using only strain measurements. Report no.
Based on the analysis of the test data and the results of CT-2251-03-09-5. Connecticut Dep. of Transportation
calculating the GVW using the three proposed methods, the 10. Leming Sarah K, Stalford Harold L (2003) Bridge weigh-in-
following conclusions could be made: motion system development using superposition of dynamic

123
 Author's personal copy
208
truck/static bridge interaction. American control conf., proc. of
the 2003IEEE. p 815
11. Deesomsuk T, Pinkaew T (2010) Evaluation of effectiveness of
vehicle weight estimations using bridge weigh-in-motion. IES J
Part A Civil Struct Eng 3(2):96–110
12. Law S, Bu J, Zhu X, Chan S (2004) Vehicle axle loads identi-
fication using finite element method. Eng Struct 26(8):1143–1153
13. Rowley CW, OBrien EJ, Gonzalez A, Žnidarič A (2009)
Experimental testing of a moving force identification bridge
weigh-in-motion algorithm. Exp Mech 49(5):743–746
123
J Civil Struct Health Monit (2014) 4:195–208
14. González A, Rowley C, OBrien EJ (2008) A general solution to
the identification of moving vehicle forces on a bridge. Int J
Numer Methods Eng 75(3):335–354
15. Ojio T, Yamada K (2002) Bridge weigh-in-motion systems using
stringers of plate girder bridges. 3rd int.conf. on weigh-in-motion
(ICWIM3)
16. Canadian Standards Association (2006)CAN/CSA-S6-06, Cana-
dian highway bridge design code