Application of the Weigh-In-Motion (WIM) to Assess Live Load on a Bridge Abstract

Every bridge has its distinctive features and with respect to the deterioration it is not possible to recognize identical bridges. Even identical design of construction does not guarantee the same path to deterioration because of various external impacts. Vehicular loads are one of external factors, so they can represent change and variation of live load on a bridge. Verifying the mechanism of assessing load variations is the main contribution to create reflective probability density functions. The method is appropriate due to the development and implementation of Weigh-In-Motion technology on the highway. The purpose of this article is to present initial needs and demonstrate how to use WIM to evaluate live load on a target bridge. The estimated live load becomes one component of Factor of Safety associated with Rating Factor.

Introduction The bridge collapse on I-35W in Minnesota occurred in August, 2007 as it was initially diagnosed as structurally deficient and caused victim as well as economic loss. External and internal factors generated the uncertainties of assessing bridge reliability. The external factors are input variables outside of bridge systems that include traffic flow, environmental effects of rain, snow, wind, and temperature, and seismic impact. The second factors are input factors from the system of a bridge indicating the evolution of load capacity, material strength, and structural resilience as time goes on. External factors addressed above are expected to change drastically.

The internal factors are well documented while some external factors can be referred to the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) that enlists various bridge information including external aspects of traffic flow such as average daily traffic (ADT) and average daily truck traffic (ADTT). It can be regarded not only as the representative and trusted information source but also as the one involving uncertainties. In some cases, ADT and ADTT do not guarantee typical traffic flow due to time difference between documentation and real-time practice. Information from Weigh-in-Motion (WIM) is used to evaluate bridge reliability along with NBI in order to resolve uncertainties involving in reliability analysis and provide systematic insight. The combination of WIM data and NBI can add more explanations and empirical data to the analysis of reliability associated with bridge maintenances. It can also produce different cases that have been rarely considered but affected by external aspects from truck flow. In considering the cases, the integration of two separate databases generates a series 1

of valuable information of live loads. In addition, truck headway simulation on a specified bridge helps us to establish differentiated live-load distributions to be compared and analyzed. Calculation of rating factors in the NBI uses a representative truck of HS20 that can be considered to display the current level, but rating factors are limited not to describe current dynamic loads and their impacts. Another crucial reason of utilizing current WIM technology to evaluate live loads corresponds to minimization of expense based on limited financial resources. Some European countries have developed and tested technology of Bridge WIM (B-WIM), and its operation displays a respectable and robust estimation of a single bridge. However, as the number of installations increases associated with the number of bridge, the cost of equipments and management involving maintenance and scheduling will also increase regardless of time spent in installment and control incurring additional human resources.

With respect to green engineering perspective, we observe a series of waiting trucks in a truck weigh station. Strict enforcement generates unnecessary stopping and waiting to examine their loadings. They create more emissions and excess fuel consumption of targeted trucks while fully utilizing existing truck weigh stations for 24 hours. Thus WIM is the best choice without consuming financial sources and time, and it still provides reliable information with guaranteeing minimal enforcement.

The explanatory usage follows with the modification of the current metric of Factor of Safety (FoS) in the proceeding part. FoS is supposed to be computed and fixed on the design-base. In assessing bridge reliability via the modified notion of FoS, the empirical probability distribution of moments caused by live loads plays a pivotal role in explaining uncertainties, and constructing the distribution is an essential part of bridge reliability analysis. By construction, the modified FoS can be represented as a reciprocal of factored computing moments. We need to pay attention to this application in using the current WIM technology and implementing simulation of truck headways.

What is WIM?

Before combining methods and looking into the fundamental relationship, addressing the history of WIM technology is necessary. It was originally developed in U.S., but many countries over the world adopted its technology to calculate truck loads. After WIM technology was initiated in the 1950, related equipments including mass sensors and data processing systems did not follow the basic concepts and deterred full utilization of WIM. The United States Bureau of Public Road developed one of prototype of WIM in 1952, and the Mississippi State College and the Transport and Road Research laboratory made other developments in 1955 and 1957 respectively (Clyde 1985).

There are numerous stakeholders benefited by using WIM: Drivers, American Trucking Association, State Departments of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, State highway patrols, Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) (AASHTO, 2007). We can include other entities like system providers covering from software to hardware, environmental nongovernmental agencies, and any other interest groups to be affected by or modify WIM. Thus, this single technology can affect many interest groups.

Policy makers at state DOT are interested in effective truck traffic flow minimizing congestion of traffic flow as well as supplementary assistance to monitor illegal, heavy trucks. This trend is based on how to stimulate commerce, but a genuine purpose of WIM is closely related to road infrastructure maintenance and prevention. WIM data provide more realistic and forecasted traffic load on road infrastructures. ESAL (Equivalent Single Axle Loads) is an excellent example, but we can develop further to achieve the concept of several truck headways on a bridge span. Another issue is how to accommodate data sharing between states. Each state has its own preference and priority to use WIM data, so they have developed and used different technologies to meet their demanding purposes in states, which are located adjacently. It is difficult to make the technology unified or coordinated since initial investments were already made. Each state has its own right to stand alone, but the data sharing between or among states where

highway roads passed will provide valuable knowledge and information. This will promote balanced resource utilization.

By examples of Florida, California, and Nevada, the current development and implementation of WIM can be fully understood (AASHTO 2005). Florida has 41 WIM deployed that using virtual WIM and 3-D Scanning are distinct. Usefulness of 3-D scanning prevents improper loadings on a trailer from damaging road infrastructures including bridge systems. California has 110 WIM sites, implements a virtual weigh station prototype, and considers WIM installation as one component of new construction projects. Shortage of funding, however, will be an obstacle to utilize WIM technology though the state tried to implement more WIM stations. Nevada is famous for an early adopter because it installed semi-portable WIM equipments in 1979. The combination of usages of portable WIMs with those of permanent WIMs has complemented their disadvantages. General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) is also used to replace landlines or cellular phones and guarantee more reliable data connections. Newly introduced parts in WIM technology are wireless software for database management and analysis providing real-time management system, sophisticated camera systems, and remote sensing but their usages have not been actively deployed yet. Current practices are primarily related to pavement prevention or truck weight enforcement, but the utilization of data set is based on an estimation of a single truck only, so how to incorporate a series of trucks will improve maintenance condition of bridge systems and asset management.

As mentioned, WIM has been developed a few decades ago and then the usages of it become more diversified. The principal goal of WIM is to record dynamic vehicular axles loads into static values of matching truck axle loads. Even different WIM systems have common components: weight sensor, vehicle classification and/or identification sensor, database management unit, and user communication unit (Koniditsiotis, 2000). Figure 1 illustrates the structure of a typical WIM.

Figure 1 Component and layout of a representative WIM system The accuracy of WIM technology depends on which sensors are used for the relevant purpose, but its improved accuracy has satisfied the minimum requirement of weighing vehicular load. In turning current attention out of U.S., Australia has developed WIM technology and its research collected data and consensus about WIM and released three priorities of WIM (Tritt 1976): A screening tool at static weighbridges. All to be weighed in motion and only those near or above legal limits to be directed to the weighbridge, A portable, static weighing device as an alternative to load odometers, and A framework for weighing vehicles at highway speeds to the information for pavement and bridge design and transport economics studies to be collected.

Australia categorized applications of WIM technology into three primary groups: design and management of infrastructure, tax planning, and overweight detection and enforcement (Koniditsiotis 2000) and this classification nearly matched U.S. purposes. Australian WIM technology has eight different WIM system types, but one supplier installed most of the WIM systems. This consistency provides efficiency of installation and management including measurement calibration. Because Australia has vast territory and geographic variation, environmental impact should be considered. Thus, other systems were to be further introduced and implemented.

European countries also developed WIM and applied their development to road infrastructure. One of noteworthy works to be noticed was to verify and set up the standards of the accuracies according to different requirements and purposes. De Henau (1995) represented the desired levels of accuracy as requirements are differentiated (Table I). This information will be another reference to create a variation for derived probability distribution. For instance, the measurement of truck weight is biased toward underweight and the live load from the truck will also be calculated reflecting fewer moments. Following the accuracy requirement of infrastructure and presentation would cause 15% variations associated with a computed distribution. The strictest WIM requirement was based on the error that is less than 5%. It meant that measurement error would be inevitable, and we need to propose reasonable variation from the error.

Table 1 Typical European WIM Accuracy Requirements Requirement Statistics Typical Applications Economic Analysis Transport Studies Classification of Vehicles Infrastructure and Presentation Road and Bridge Management Overload Warning Threshold Presentation for Static Weighing Road Safety Control Enforcement Regulation Trade Industry Needs Less than 5% Less than 15% WIM Accuracy (GVW for 95% of Vehicles) Less than 20%

European countries studied truck weight control over bridges in the name of the task of Weighing-in-motion of Axles and Vehicles for Europe (WAVE). They tried to take advantage of portable WIM technology for a bridge. Bridge WIM was developed and implemented to collect and control strain and live load on the bridge.

As for Asia regions, countries have adopted WIM technology recently and main focuses are on how to implement the system and calibrate truck loads for better accuracy (Kim et al 2005 and KAWANISHI et al 2001). It means that system specification and requirement are of main interests in Korea and Japan, so its usage is limited to an initial stage compared to other regions. However, Hong Kong utilized WIM systems fully due to the impact from U.K.

A number of places illustrated developments and implementation of WIM to manage highway infrastructure. That indicates their variations reflecting the notion of resource utilization and effective damage prevention. In other words, the highest priority from each DOT is to achieve effective cost saving and meet the expected maintenance level of stakeholder.

Justification of why to use WIM Truck weight data through WIM can be applied to different cases that include: pavement design and maintenance, bridge design, pavement and bridge loading restrictions, development and implementation of equitable fee structures, determination of the need for and success of weight law enforcement action, geometric improvements related to vehicle size, weight, and speed, the economic value of freight being moved on roadways and appropriate safety [FHWA, 2001]. WIM data consists of information from passing trucks on a sensor. The data lists sensor ID number, location of the WIM sensor, date and time and gross weight, speed, and data pertinent to axles including numbers, distances and weights.

Yannis and Antonious (2005) emphasized the importance of WIM practice in road management, and WIM applications covered data collection, selection of weigh station, strategies of the toll system, and safety and environmental concerns. Piezoelectric Systems, Capacitive Mats, Bending Plates, Load Cells, and Optical WIM were developed to determine truck information. They initiated WIM usages to different purposes but did not describe how to apply the technology and statistics for a real and practical example.

It is extremely difficult to install a number of sensors to calculate truck weight on decks of every bridge. It is also infeasible to enforce every truck to be weighed before they move on roadways. Current Bridge-WIM helps to estimate live loads on highway bridges and has shown robust estimation of strains on an instrumented bridge (nidari, 2006). Repeated installation of a single WIM equipment on each bridge is required if a bridge engineer wants to analyze reliabilities of other bridges. This approach will offset the primary benefit from Bridge-WIM.

Miao and Chan (2002) estimated maximum moments of bridges based on WIM data collected from different WIM stations in Hong Kong by using Monte Carlo simulations. As they only considered a series of single truck information, they calculated a moment from one truck and recorded a number of moments. Thus, they did not include the combination of recorded trucks. The main purpose of WIM data in their work was to determine moments through statistical methods. They did not consider proper application to bridges or truck-passing conditions on a bridge.

A right vehicle to come up with information from WIM: Among a number of candidates, Factor of Safety (FoS) is selected to assess bridge reliability while incorporating live loads. The reason is that it is easy to understand the concept of FoS and then induce reasonable interpretations from it. FoS is a basic, static and traditional metric to evaluate bridge reliability taking into consideration the design and material properties of structures. The generated and modified information from WIM becomes a critical facilitator reflecting dynamics of live loads and resolving uncertainty on the bridge in analyzing a modified FoS. The modified FoS with rating factors replaces the use of HS-20 truck with real-time truck data, and we simulate a number of cases representing extreme scenarios.

This method can oversee how to prioritize bridges with the same numeric Sufficiency Ratings in NBI or the bridges in the network though PONTIS. It is apparent for a longer span bridge to be repaired first because the span can hold more trucks and generate less

dynamic and probabilistic FoS. This hypothesis can be verified by the metric proposed in this article.

NBI and PONTIS are useful and comprehensive databases and tools, but they cannot guarantee absolute, comprehensive coverage to explain dynamics of bridge systems from traffic variation. Using average estimate of daily traffic is expected to be a limited source when addressing risk-based bridge maintenance plan. The expected loss associated with ADT will be different from the one associated with the extreme case considering traffic congestion or permitted trucks in a row. While WIM data prevails, this approach will benefit stakeholders to determine the maintenance condition. The methodology can be considered as a complementary instruments to facilitate accurate decision making.

In this article, the numeric value of Rating Factors in NBI is the foundation for calculating FoS, and we assume that capacity and dead load from a bridge plan are constant first. To come up with the concept of Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD), capacity, dead load, and live load require the factors of each variable respectively. However, most bridges in Virginia were built based on Allowable Stress Design (ASD) and the current practice cannot be easily factored down or up according to any literatures. FHWA recommended that State DOT should follow LRFD of new construction. Therefore, the method used in this paper will be still valid and acceptable to evaluate the maintenance condition or bridge deterioration level.

WIM data from the roadway but apart from the bridge will be valuable assets to become feed to the live load computations. Furthermore, the outcome considering WIM data calibration will be more attractive to current research on risk assessments, especially extreme event analysis as it gives the range of estimates of live loads.

Data Source comprising NBI, WIM and a Bridge Plan State wise bridge information can be found in Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and information for Virginia bridges is of primary importance because it matches the WIM data obtained in terms of a geographic location. To remind complete, current bridge maintenance conditions as of Dec. 2008, Virginia has the ownership of 13,447 bridges according to NBI and 1,231 bridges among them can be classified into a set of structurally deficient bridges that represent approximately 9% of total bridges in Virginia. In addition, 17% of functionally obsolete bridges exist in the inventory of Virginia bridges. Table 2 shows the detail of Virginia bridges condition.

Table 2 Count of Bridges by Condition in Virginia and U.S.

Structurally Deficient (number) 1,231 71,469 Functionally Obsolete (number) 2,259 79,922 Percent of State Bridges Structurally Functionally Deficient Obsolete (percent) (percent) 9% 17% 12% 13%

State VIRGINIA UNITED STATES TOTAL*

All Bridges (number) 13,447 601,411

(Source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/defbr08.cfm ) Note) * includes the number of Puerto Rico.

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) provided WIM data and the WIM station in located on I-81 northeast from Roanoke, VA, and truck traffic flow data were sampled from Jun. 15, 2008 to Jun. 21, 2008 for the one-week period to represent southbound truck traffic in Jun. 2008 and an example is shown to in Table 3. It is apparently true that seasonal variations exit but for the time being, the variances from time domain are assumed to be negligible. As mentioned in the previous section, the actual distance between the WIM station and a bridge is inevitable and the speed estimated on trucks at the WIM station is appropriate to discover their trajectory points with the assumption that the trucks keep their speed constant. This procedure will help to locate trucks between WIM stations. If exits are located between WIM stations, we can compare the ADTTs between relevant bridges and adjust the WIM data with the difference. When the difference is insignificant, the WIM data can be regarded as a representative source for the designated range since it would exhibit more realistic situations and conditions.

10

Table 3 Example of WIM data from Jun. 15, 2008 to Jun. 21, 2008
LinkID Vehicle No. Lane Date Time Vehicle Class Speed, mph GVW, kips ESAL Axles axle 1, ft axle 2, ft axle 3, ft axle 4, ft 820004 7818344 1 6/15/2008 00:00:43 9 58 44.6 0.229 5 17.2 4.3 35.6 4 820004 7818345 1 6/15/2008 00:02:20 11 62 53.2 0.727 5 12.8 21.4 9.6 22 820004 7818346 1 6/15/2008 00:03:35 9 62 41.7 0.218 5 16.7 4.3 36.2 4.1 axle 13, ft axle 1, kips axle 2, kips axle 3, kips axle 4, kips axle 5, kips axle 6, kips 10.4 9.7 8.6 8.1 7.9 8.9 14.3 11 8.3 10.7 10.1 10.2 9.7 4.8 6.8 axle 14, kips

VDOT also provided one bridge plan drawn in 1960 in order to support research on a valid bridge over the James River. The bridge is a conventional, steel girder bridge, and it has five spans and four piers. As live load moment is of primary concern for all bridge (steel, concrete, or any other materials), we used live load moment to analyze and evaluate the reliability of the bridge. Five separate girders support each span to produce seemingly sufficient redundancy. The simplified bridge is illustrated in Figure 2.
543 - 0

Span 1

Span 2

Span 3

Span 4

Span 5

Abutment A

Abutment B

Pier 1

Pier 2

Pier 4 Pier 3

Figure 2 James River Bridge (Southbound)

As mentioned, the data collected from NBI, WIM and a bridge plan are already documented and stored in different physical locations. It is necessary to connect one with another and modify them into a primary goal of evaluating bridge reliability with respect to the modified FoS. While we do not require additional financial resources, this approach will undertake the best solution in terms of economic cost, but provide a comprehensive analysis of bridge reliability.

How to relate Rating Factors and Factor of Safety The bridge information elicited from NBI and the bridge plan is for analysis of bridge reliability. Rating Factor (RF), one of condition assessment ratings in NBI, can be calculated in either Inventory Rating Factor (IR) or Operating Rating Factor (OR)

11

(AASHTO, 1994). According to Federal Highway Administration, IR in Equation (1) represents a level of load that can be safely used on a current bridge structure during indefinite period.
RFIR C A1 D X A2 L(1 I ) 2.17 Y

(1)

where C, D, L, I, X, and Y denote Capacity, Dead Load, Live Load, Impact, C- A1D and L(1+I)

OR indicates the absolute, maximum, permissible load associated with the trucks passing on a bridge.
RFOR C A1D X A2 L(1 I ) 1.3 Y

(2)

In computing both RFs, every factor value is the same except A2, so the evaluation of IR is always smaller than that of OR by definition. Thus, the relationship between the OR and the IR reveals that IR is equal to 0.6OR, and Equation (3) verifies the relationship.

RFIR

X X 1.3 X 0.6 RFOR 1.3 )2.17 Y 2.17 1.3 Y 2.17 Y ( 1.3

(3)

To calculate the FoS, we can use either metric, and the values of FoS are identical in calculating them from each rating factor. The estimated value of the FoS is usually located between the OR and the IR. The application of using FoS estimate is a more conservative measure than the OR. The method demonstrates a more aggressive indication than the IR does. Introducing the Extreme Event analysis will help us to evaluate the worst-case scenario resulting from vehicular live loads. Equations (4) and (5) display how to derive the FoS from RFs.
RF C Z DL Z LL I

RF Z LL I C Z DL C RF Z LL I Z DL

(4)

12

where C = Capacity, ZDL = Dead load (A1D), and ZLL+I = Live load and impact.

FoS

Capacity RF Z LL I Z DL Load Z LL I Z DL f ( Z LL I , Z DL , RF ) g ( Z LL I , Z DL )
(5)

( Z LL I , Z DL , RF )

Given the RFs, we already know the capacity of a bridge but Equation (5) is the function of three variables, a dead load, a live load and a rating factor without mentioning a capacity value explicitly. Among three variables, the live loads are more likely to change even in a short-term period and these can be considered as the external influence addressed in Introduction.
Variation of FoS
Normal, StDev=0.05 9 8 7 6
Density
Mean 1.25 1.3 1.35

5 4 3 2 1 0 1.0 1.1 1.2 X 1.3 1.4 1.5

Figure 3 Variation of FoS The reason why live load becomes a critical factor is that it varies the estimation of modified FoS. A clear example is illustrated in Figure 3 in varying live loads. Given an initial FoS reflecting HS-20 Load, the value of FoS would be estimated as 1.3. The

13

lighter-truck weight shifts in a right direction, whereas the heavier weight causes moving toward a left side.

Data Analysis via WIM Incorporating one week WIM data from June 15 to June 21, 2008 into Eq. (5) by substituting its related live loads to ZLL+I constitutes a number of various FoS values for the bridge over the James River and helps us to build its empirical probability density function upon the generated set of FoS values. Understanding the code of vehicle categories in the WIM data is evident for complementing the set of FoS with the WIM data. FHWA classifies automobiles into 13 categories, and their attributes are illustrated in Table 4. In practice, Class 15 represents unidentified vehicle types. During the period, trucks in Class 9 mainly contributed to the variations of the gross vehicle weight (GVW) distribution, and the frequency showed the highest rank among the recorded classes. Figure 4 indicates how to restrict truck overweight of Class 9 necessary. The policy controlling the group is critical because the impact from trucks in Class 9 is more serious than other class trucks. Aggregating different classes into the one distribution, however, is more valuable to calculate live load effects from traffic flow in simulating truck headways. Table 4 FHWA Vehicle Classification
Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Description Motorcycles Passenger Cars 2 Axle, 4 Tire Single Unit Vehicles Buses 2 Axle, 6 Tire Single Unit Trucks 3 Axle Single Unit Trucks 4 or More Axle Single Unit Trucks 4 Axle or Fewer Single Trailers 5 Axle Single Trailers 6 or More Axle Single Trailers 5 Axle or Fewer Multi-Trailers 6 Axle Multi-Trailers 7 or More Axle Multi-Trailers

(Source: www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/vehclass.htm)

14

2500

2000

Frequency

1500

1000

Vehicle C lass 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15

500

32

64

96 128 160 Gross Vehicle Weight, kips

192

224

Figure 4 Histogram of Gross Vehicle Weight by Vehicle Class from the WIM data (6/15/08 6/21/08) To do accurate analysis, the weight by axle passing on the bridge is essential in calculating live load and the results are summarized in Table 5 and Figure 5. Each axle weight is estimated above 10 kips. The remarkably decreasing number of counts in Axle 6 matches the notion that the Class 9 is a dominant class of truck on roadway. Figure 4 and Figure 5 explicitly state that two types of goods carried by trucks in Class 9 because bimodality is apparently shown; hence it is critical to emphasize strict enforcement and monitor the group transporting heavier goods among Class 9 trucks while analyzing live loads with respect to weight control. In addition, tandem axles consist of a pair of Axle 2 and Axle 3 or a pair of Axle 4 and 5 as observing a conventional trailer and their impact generates much larger than the effect of a single axle does.

Table 5 Weight by Axle from the WIM data (6/15/08 6/21/08)

Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 Mean 10.51 12.04 11.32 10.88 10.96 11.18 S.D. 1.767 3.944 3.953 4.749 4.523 4.372 Count 35,664 36,136 34,427 33,015 32,085 1,457

15

Axle 1
3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1400 1200 1000
F requency

Axle 2

F requency

800 600 400 200

2.6

5.2

7.8

10.4 13.0 axle1_k ips

15.6

18.2

20.8

3.5

7.0

10.5 14.0 17.5 ax 2_k le ips

21.0

24.5

Axle 3
1400 1200 1000
F requency

Axle 4
1000 800
Frequency

800 600 400 200 0 0.0 3.5 7.0 10.5 14.0 17.5 axle3_k ips 21.0 24.5

600 400 200 0

0.00

3.75

7.50

11.25 15.00 18.75 ax 4_k le ips

22.50

26.25

Axle 5
1000 800
F requency

Axle 6
80 70 60
F requency

600 400 200 0 0.0

50 40 30 20 10

3.5

7.0

10.5 14.0 axle5_k ips

17.5

21.0

24.5

12 axle6_k ips

15

18

21

Figure 5 Weight Histogram by Axle from the WIM Data (6/15/08 6/21/08)

Result through WIM The computation of live loads from various conceived cases is dependent upon data from the WIM. To be concise, the WIM provides us with essential information to reconfigure the truck headway on the bridge (e.g., it has truck information that lists the time, the weight, the number of axles, the gaps between axles, the weight for each axle, and the 16

speed). According to the data, trucks from Class 9 were prominent and in order to assess the live load of the one truck on the longest span, a subsequent analysis is required for the case of Class 9 trucks. However, a more sophisticated analysis can be implemented to calculate live loads for the cases of several trucks on the span. Upon the time recording a truck, the speed is another piece to calculate the time lapse to reach the span, and we could reorder passing trucks taking into account that truck speeds varied. The steps of generating pertinent, ordered index is introduced as follows: The starting point corresponds to 00:00:00 AM on Jun. 15, 2008. This corresponds to an index of 0 and any recording times are converted to a unit of seconds. Given the distance between the WIM station and the bridge, and speeds of trucks, we can calculate elapsed times and add them to an index of the initially converted seconds. Sorting index calculated in the unit of the seconds changes the order of truck arrivals on the bridge, which is designated with an index. One main reiterated assumption to be applied here is that trucks do not change their speeds from the WIM station to the bridge. As long as a distance is not too long, this assumption would be vindicated and acceptable. Selecting the groups of three trucks or more is appropriate when the difference between or among index is less than 2 in the case of multiple trucks on a span. The selected trucks are then re-examined whether they can be located on the span simultaneously. This process considers the time index difference and their speeds, which, we assume, is consistent from the position where the WIM station exists. With the reordered truck data, we analyzed different scenarios (i.e., representing two, three, and a congestion case) to compute a resultant point and subsequently a maximum moment from the set.

Given the dead load of the bridge, live loads from vehicular flows are critical to make rating factors fluctuated and time series plots in Figure 6 indicate that Class 10 and 15 could draw stakeholder's attention because they cause notable variances. However, trucks of Class 9 display the most frequencies, so we need to pay attention to this group first.

17

Time Series Plot of GVW, kips

1 4 200 100 0 14466 5 28932 6 1 14466 7 28932

10

11 200 100 0

GVW, kips

12 200 100 0 1 14466 28932

13

15

14466

28932

Index Panel variable: Vehicle Class

Figure 6 Time Series Plot of Gross Vehicle Weight

For one week from Jun. 15 to Jun.21, 2008, variations of live loads caused by truck traffics on the I-81 generate comparable analysis and meaningful insight. With respect to frequency, we can reiterate that Class 9 trucks are dominant on the traffic flow and samples of trucks from Class 9 have only 5 axles. The maximum moment of a sample truck would be expected to exist among inner axles of the truck. The rationale behind calculation is summarized:

Record the weight on each axle by WIM Determine the position of total resultant force (closely related to gross vehicle weight)

Find the position of a truck where maximum of bending moment will generate. Using static equilibrium equations, for the designated truck position.

F 0 and M 0 compute reaction forces

Compute the bending moments at all axles and choose the maximum one. o For simplicity of the calculation, moment calculations for the first and the last axle could be omitted.

Figure 7 shows the case of Class 9 only in terms of the bending moment from live load and the Factor of Safety (FoS). By definition, the shapes between two graphs are a set of

18

mirror image because the inputs of the moment from live load affect the denominator of FoS.
Histogram of Moment from Live Load
Normal 1400 1200 1000
Mean StDev N 1226 364.2 28942

Frequency

800 600 400 200 0

350

700

1050 1400 1750 2100 Moment from Live Load (ft-k)

2450

Histogram of FoS
Normal 1600 1400 1200
Frequency
Mean StDev N 1.409 0.03596 28942

1000 800 600 400 200 0 1.3000 1.3325 1.3650 1.3975 1.4300 1.4625 1.4950 FoS

Figure 7 Moment from Live Load and factor of Safety for One truck from Class 9 When varying the scenarios of trucks passing on the span, we can obtain the different distributions of FoS. They displayed the tendency of decreasing means for FoS distributions according to different cases as the number of trucks on the span is different in Figure 8. As a matter of fact, shifting toward unity corresponds to intuition that the more loads, the less FoS and the lower reliability. The results are illustrated in Figure 8 and justify the vulnerability of bridge from variation of external impacts [Haimes, 2009].

19

DPFoS by Live load 12 Single Two Three Congestion

10

0.8

1.2 FoS

1.4

1.6

1.8

Figure 8 Factor of Safety Variation by Live Load

Table 6 Summary of FoS Simulations

Variable FoS FoS_two Fos_three Congestion N 28942 3540 179 7 Mean 1.4092 1.3533 1.2863 1.179 StDev Minimum 0.036 1.2749 0.0602 1.1855 0.0672 1.1279 0.0672 Q1 1.3766 1.3077 1.2352 Median 1.4069 1.3541 1.2814 Q3 Maximum 1.4413 1.5225 1.3981 1.5309 1.3265 1.459

Note) for the worst case of heavy loadings, the estimated mean is 1.05 point-wise, and the vertical line indicates the average in Figure 8.

The estimated FoS values are in the middle of OR and IR when comparing them with the rating factors. We can conclude it is evident that estimated FoS converges to IR as the magnitude of loading increases.

Conclusion and Future Work Even though the numbers of sample sizes are different, the result in Table 6 can be regarded as a solid foundation to evaluate bridge live load and reliability variations from that. The more trucks, the less FoS that matches the perceived thought again but it has been verified with real truck information on I-81 in Virginia. According to the data, the

20

maintenance level of the target bridge is well enough to carry traffic flow and it can be regarded as a sustainable bridge. The comparisons with respect to mean values from different cases and extreme analysis can provide another interpretation from live load and reliability in the future.

The procedures to calculate the dynamic values of the FoS through WIM are based on the two notions. The values of capacity and dead loads from structures of a bridge are expected to be static or fixed. On the other hand, live loads from vehicular loading create a number of live loads and cause uncertainty. Therefore, uncertainty from live load can be assessed by the information of WIM but the magnitude of variation in FoS will be differentiated more significantly in considering deterioration of structure capacity and strength that would match the concept of LRFD. Thus, applying deterioration of structure to FoS will be necessary for the following research to establish compelling distributions. Though WIM calibration is another issue to evaluate individual truck weight information, the set of WIM data will present the realistic distribution of live load on the bridge span. When the capacity is deteriorated more rapidly than the deduction of dead loads occurs (natural wear-off), it is obvious to recalculate FoS. The estimated FoS becomes worse than the current simulations reflecting constant capacity. This fact suggests that timely, appropriate maintenance plan should be implemented. The plan needs to contemplate real-time based live loads and the historically expected deduction of capacity.

Furthermore, because it is difficult to prevent congestion on bridges, in order to avoid the simulated congestion cases, and alleviate maximal live loads, we can advise that strict enforcement to regulate the usage of either one lane on the bridge or adaptive traffic flow device, or proactive speed-posting system prior to passing the bridge is developed and implemented. The risk assessment of traffic flow control will be of another interest to enhance the findings from WIM because it can affect the variation of live loads. The result and analysis are based on current maintenance plan, so the newly designed and initiated maintenance policy can result in a different outcome. However, given a tightened budget constraint, the trade-off analysis needs to be added to evaluate incompatible metrics (objectives).

21

This article can become another motivation to lead to risk assessment and management of public-road infrastructure. It is imperative that we explain causality of bridge deterioration in the future and develop indicative metrics of bridge reliability based on it.

22

Reference

AASHTO, 1994, Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges AASHTO, 2007, Virtual Weigh in Motion Beer, F. P., E. R. Johnson, Jr., and J. T. Dewolf, 2006, Mechanics of Materials, 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York. A. nidari, 2006, Bridge Weigh-in-Motion accessed from http://wim.zag.si/general_WIM/bwim.html DE HENAU, A., 1995, Requirements and Policies for WIM in Europe. Proc. 1st European Conference on Weigh-in-Motion of Road Vehicles. 33. FHWA, 2001, Traffic Monitoring Guide accessed from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tmguide/tmg5.htm#chap1 FHWA Memorandum, 2007, Public Disclosure of National Bridge Inventory (NBI) Data, accessed from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/20070517.cfm FHWA Vehicle Classification, access from

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/vehclass.htm Haimes, Y.Y., 2006, On the Definition of Vulnerabilities in Measuring Risks to Infrastructures, Risk Analysis 26, (2), 293-296 KAWANISHI. H., K. TANIGUCHI, and M. OYAMA, 2001, Development of

WIN(Weigh-In-Motion)system, Denki Gakkai Doro Kotsu Kenkyukai Shiryo, 51-56 Kim, B., J. Im, and Y. Son, 2005, A Study of Representative Vehicle for Calibration of WIM (Weigh-In-Motion), Korean Society of Road Engineers, 179-184 Koniditsiotis. C, 2000, Weigh-In-Motion Technology, Australia Miao, T.J. and T.H.T. Chan, 2002, Bridge live load models from WIM data, Engineering Structures, 24 (2002) 1071- 1084 Tritt, B.H., 1976, ARRB research into methods of weighing vehicles, Australian Road Research Board Internal Report AIR 121-1. Yanis, G. and G. Anoniou, 2005, Integration of Weigh-in-Motion Technologies in Road Infarstructure management, ITE Journal, January, 39 - 43

23