A Comparison of U.S.

and European
Bridge Loadings

Eugene J OBrien1&2, Cathal Leahy1 & Bernard Enright3

1 Roughan & O’Donovan
2 University College Dublin

3 Dublin Institute of Technology

 Introduction

1. We now have access to huge databases

of WIM data
2. Vehicles in the US and Europe are different
3. Separating standard from permit trucks
4. Statistics and assessing bridges for traffic
load
1a. WIM Data in Europe
We started with
data from 5
14
countries

Netherlands Poland

Czech Rep
Slovakia

Slovenia
1a. WIM Data in Europe
And are
adding
14
more Netherlands
UK

Ireland Poland

Czech Rep Slovakia

Slovenia
1b. LTPP WIM Data
• 75 million vehicle
records
• All to high QA
standard
• 19 sites
• Good
geographical
spread
2. Permit Trucks in US and Europe

(a) Mobile crane (109t, 9 axles) (b) Low loader (127t, 11 axles)

(c) Crane ballast truck (109t, 10 axles) (d) Five-axle mobile crane with three-axle dolly
Europe Only US Only
2. Permit Trucks in US and Europe

(a) Mobile crane (109t, 9 axles) (b) Low loader (127t, 11 axles)

(c) Crane ballast truck (109t,

(a)10 axles) crane:(d)109t
Mobile Five-axle
(240mobile
kip), crane with three-axle dolly
9 axles
Europe Only US Only
2. Permit Trucks in US and Europe

(a) Mobile crane (109t, 9 axles) (b) Low loader (127t, 11 axles)

(c) Crane ballast truck (109t, 10 axles) (d) Five-axle mobile crane with three-axle dolly
(b) Low
Europe Only loader: 127t (280 kip), 11 axles
US Only
2. Permit Trucks in US and Europe

(a) Mobile crane (109t, 9 axles) (b) Low loader (127t, 11 axles)

(c) Crane ballast truck: 109t (240 kip), 10 axles

Europe Only

(c) Crane ballast truck (109t, 10 axles) (d) Five-axle mobile crane with three-axle dolly
Europe Only US Only
2. Permit Trucks in US and Europe

(a) Mobile crane (109t, 9 axles) (b) Low loader (127t, 11 axles)

(d) Five-axle mobile crane with three-axle dolly

US Only

(c) Crane ballast truck (109t, 10 axles) (d) Five-axle mobile crane with three-axle dolly
Europe Only US Only
 2. Low Loaders
• In the US the weight is spread over a longer
wheelbase, which is more bridge friendly.

15
Weight (tonne)

10 European Low loader: 8

5 axles and 75t (165 kip)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Axle Location (m)

15
Weight (tonne)

10
US Low loader: 9 axles
5
and 79t (174 kip)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Axle Location (m)
 2. Mobile Cranes
• Mobile Cranes in the US often use a dolly at
the rear to support the boom and spread
their load over a greater wheelbase
 2. Mobile Cranes
• Mobile Cranes in the US often use a dolly at
the rear to support the boom and spread
their load over a greater wheelbase
15
Weight (tonne)

10 European 52 t (115 kip)

5
mobile crane, on 5 axles
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Axle Location (m)

15
Weight (tonne)

10 US 55 t (121 kip) mobile

5 crane with dolly, on 7 axles
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Axle Location (m)
3. Identifying Permit Trucks In WIM Data
• To examine these permit trucks in more
detail, a method is required to identify them
in WIM data from both regions
• Useful for:
o Load models (treat permit and standard
separately)
o Bridge assessment
o Enforcement of legal limits for permit and non-
permit trucks
3. Identifying Permit Trucks In WIM Data

• If we filter by weight, we do not allow for illegal

overloading
o In statistical studies, this is very misleading as there’s
an upper limit on what’s possible
• So we filtered by axle configuration
• We decided to make our ‘best guess’ at what
might have a permit
• Hence concept of ‘apparent permit’ vehicle
and ‘apparent standard’ vehicle
 3. Filtering Rules
• An ‘Apparent standard’ truck is one with the
axle configuration of a standard truck
o It may or may not have a permit (most will not have)
• An ‘Apparent permit’ truck has the axle
configuration of a permit truck
o They may or may not have permits (most will have)
• While this is an imperfect system, it allows us to
separate the data into two groups with different
statistical properties
 3. Filtering Low Loaders

• Uses rules based on axle configuration

1. > 9 axles
2. > legal length limit
3. Long truck length with ≥ 4 axles at the rear
4. Length >25.25 m (83 feet)
5. > 6 axles with a group ≥ 3 axles at back rear
 3. Filtering Crane Type Trucks

• Steps to identify Mobile Cranes (MCs), Mobile

Cranes with Dollies (MCWDs) & Crane Ballast
Trucks (CBTs)
1. Max spacing < 4.5 m (15 ft) and average spacing
< 2.5m (8 ft)
a. 3 & 4-axle trucks only if average axle weight is > 8t (18
kip)
2. CBT if the max spacing is 3.5 m - 4.5 m (11-15 ft)
3. MCWD if max spacing <7m & av. spacing <3m
4. All others are MCs
4. Assessing Bridge Traffic Loading

100%
% that are
less than

Max-per-day
weight/stress

Weight/Stress
Fit a statistical distribution to the data

100%
% that are
less than

Weight/stress
Fit a statistical distribution to the data

100%
Tends to be
inaccurate in the
% that are
less than

tail region which is

very ‘flat’

Weight/stress
So we normally plot to an inverse Gumbel scale
Acceptable level of
safety (e.g., 99.99%)
Φ-1 (% that are
less than)

Characteristic
value

Weight/stress
Maximum daily gross vehicle weight of apparent permit
and apparent standard trucks in Europe

75yr Permit - SK
Permit - CZ Permit trucks are
8 Permit - NL
Standard - SK already much
Standard - CZ heavier than
6 Standard - NL
-ln ( -ln (p) )

characteristic 75
4 year standard trucks

0 50 100 150
Gross Vehicle Weight (t)
Maximum daily gross vehicle weight of apparent permit
and apparent standard trucks in Europe

75yr Permit - SK
Permit - CZ Permit trucks are
8 Permit - NL
Standard - SK already much
Standard - CZ heavier than
6 Standard - NL
-ln ( -ln (p) )

characteristic 75
4 year standard trucks

0 50 100 150
Gross Vehicle Weight (t)
 Similar Results in the US

1000yr

75yr Netherlands (NL) and

Arizona (AZ) WIM sites
8
-ln ( -ln (p) )

6
Fitted
4 Weibull

2 Standard - AZ
Permit - AZ
0 Standard - NL
Permit - NL
0 50 100 150 200 250
Gross Vehicle Weight (t)
 US ‘Bridge Formula’
• W = the maximum axle weight (pounds)
that can be carried by the group/truck
• L = distance in feet between the outer
axles of the group/truck being considered
• N = number of axles in group being
considered

• All standard trucks in the US must comply

• Specifies the max allowable weight for an axle configuration.
• The overall axle configuration, as well as all possible groups
within the overall configuration
 % Non-compliance
Site
1. Arizona
Standard
4.6
Permit
42.6
Bridge
2. Arizona
3. Arkansas
4.9
4.8
37.4
67.2
Formula
4. California
5. Colorado
7.4
6.7
17.2
42.5
Compliance
6. Delaware 4.7 45.4
7. Illinois 3.7 60.6
8. Indiana 5.3 63.0 % Non-compliance
9. Kansas 5.4 42.6 Site Standard Permit
10. Louisiana 7.3 78.2 Netherlands 17.6 78.3
11. Maine 8.7 56.5 Slovakia 24.7 76.3
12. Maryland 5.0 59.0 Sweden 31.8 61.8
13. Minnesota 3.5 41.3 Czech Republic 20.2 51.0
14. New Mexico 4.2 30.6 Poland 12.9 92.2
15. New Mexico 10.4 50.8 Average 21.4 71.9
16. Pennsylvania 10.0 89.7
17. Tennessee 2.7 82.8
18. Virginia 5.2 57.1
19. Wisconsin 8.4 85.8
Average 5.9 55.3
 % Non-compliance
Site
1. Arizona
Standard
4.6
Permit
42.6
Bridge
2. Arizona
3. Arkansas
4.9
4.8
37.4
67.2
Formula
4. California
5. Colorado
7.4
6.7
17.2
42.5
Compliance
6. Delaware 4.7 45.4
7. Illinois 3.7 60.6
8. Indiana 5.3 63.0 % Non-compliance
9. Kansas 5.4 42.6 Site Standard Permit
10. Louisiana 7.3 78.2 Netherlands 17.6 78.3
11. Maine 8.7 56.5 Slovakia 24.7 76.3
12. Maryland 5.0 59.0 Sweden 31.8 61.8
13. Minnesota 3.5 41.3 Czech Republic 20.2 51.0
14. New Mexico 4.2 30.6 Poland 12.9 92.2
15. New Mexico 10.4 50.8 Average 21.4 71.9
16. Pennsylvania 10.0 89.7
17. Tennessee 2.7 82.8
18. Virginia 5.2 57.1
19. Wisconsin 8.4 85.8
Average 5.9 55.3
 % Non-compliance
Site
1. Arizona
Standard
4.6
Permit
42.6
Bridge
2. Arizona
3. Arkansas
4.9
4.8
37.4
67.2
Formula
4. California
5. Colorado
7.4
6.7
17.2
42.5
Compliance
6. Delaware 4.7 45.4
7. Illinois 3.7 60.6
8. Indiana 5.3 63.0 % Non-compliance
9. Kansas 5.4 42.6 Site Standard Permit
10. Louisiana 7.3 78.2 Netherlands 17.6 78.3
11. Maine 8.7 56.5 Slovakia 24.7 76.3
12. Maryland 5.0 59.0 Sweden 31.8 61.8
13. Minnesota 3.5 41.3 Czech Republic 20.2 51.0
14. New Mexico 4.2 30.6 Poland 12.9 92.2
15. New Mexico 10.4 50.8 Average 21.4 71.9
16. Pennsylvania 10.0 89.7
17. Tennessee 2.7 82.8
18. Virginia 5.2 57.1
19. Wisconsin 8.4 85.8
Average 5.9 55.3
 Load Intensity
95th percentile
Permit No. No. Wheelbase Load Conc.
Type Measured GVW (t) Axles (m) (t/m)
LL 10,538 75.4 9 25.7 3.91
EU MC 3,947 62.7 7 11.2 9.31
CBT 10,173 55.1 8 14.6 8.44
LL 88,172 83.1 11 35.0 2.92
US MC 163,559 36.3 5 8.4 5.83
MCWD 3,025 75.2 9 21.1 4.94

• Load concentrations are much greater in Europe

 Load Intensity
95th percentile
Permit No. No. Wheelbase Load Conc.
Type Measured GVW (t) Axles (m) (t/m)
LL 10,538 75.4 9 25.7 3.91
EU MC 3,947 62.7 7 11.2 9.31
CBT 10,173 55.1 8 14.6 8.44
LL 88,172 83.1 11 35.0 2.92
US MC 163,559 36.3 5 8.4 5.83
MCWD 3,025 75.2 9 21.1 4.94

• Load concentrations are much greater in Europe

 Load Intensity
95th percentile
Permit No. No. Wheelbase Load Conc.
Type Measured GVW (t) Axles (m) (t/m)
LL 10,538 75.4 9 25.7 3.91
EU MC 3,947 62.7 7 11.2 9.31
CBT 10,173 55.1 8 14.6 8.44
LL 88,172 83.1 11 35.0 2.92
US MC 163,559 36.3 5 8.4 5.83
MCWD 3,025 75.2 9 21.1 4.94

• Load concentrations are much greater in Europe

 Load Intensity
95th percentile
Permit No. No. Wheelbase Load Conc.
Type Measured GVW (t) Axles (m) (t/m)
LL 10,538 75.4 9 25.7 3.91
EU MC 3,947 62.7 7 11.2 9.31
CBT 10,173 55.1 8 14.6 8.44
LL 88,172 83.1 11 35.0 2.92
US MC 163,559 36.3 5 8.4 5.83
MCWD 3,025 75.2 9 21.1 4.94

• Load concentrations are much greater in Europe

 Bridge Stresses

95th percentile 95th Percentile Load Effect

Load
Permit No. GVW No. Wheelbase Conc. LE1 LE2 LE3
Type Measured (t) Axles (m) (t/m)f (kNm) (kN) (kNm)
LL 10,538 75.4 9 25.7 3.91 5,110 548 1,330
EU MC 3,947 62.7 7 11.2 9.31 5,450 552 1,090
CBT 10,173 55.1 8 14.6 8.44 4,646 467 923
LL 88,172 83.1 11 35.0 2.92 4,271 493 1,282
US MC 163,559 36.3 5 8.4 5.83 3,240 317 644
MCWD 3,025 75.2 9 21.1 4.94 5,361 559 1,113
 4. Assessing Bridges for
Traffic Load
• We have developed
algorithms to model US- and
EU-style traffic load on
bridges
• We calibrate the model with
WIM data
• We use the model to design
new (bigger) bridges or to
assess existing ones
 Measured vs Simulated Traffic
1000yr
SK
Results using CZ
75yr
simplified model
NL
Observed
8
calibrated with
-ln ( -ln (p) )
local data
6

-2
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Bending Moment (kNm)
30m simply supported span
 75yr LE / Fully Factored HL-93

4. Assessing Bridges 0.23

SITE:
0.34 0.46 0.57 0.69 0.8 0.91

for Traffic Load 1 

13 
11 
6 
• There is great 7 
8 
variability between 14 
sites and load effects 10 
9 
• This makes the 2 
15 
standards 17 
5  LE1
conservative for most 3  LE2
16 
sites/effects
LE3
4  20m
12  30m
40m
AVERAGE 
50m

0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

75yr LE / HL-93

Load effects, 17 US WIM sites,

normalised against AASHTO code
4. Assessing Bridges for
Traffic Load
• The conservatism in AASHTO
and Eurocode bridge load
models allows us to retain
many older bridges in
service
• Storstrom bridge in Denmark
(1937), 3.2 km (2 miles) long
• Badly deteriorated but very
expensive to replace
• And the Femern crossing will
supersede it, when built
 5. Conclusions
• Europe & US permit-truck types
o Some are similar & some are unique to their continent
• US apparent permit trucks have more
bridge-friendly axle configurations
o Despite the US having heavier permit trucks, these
trucks produce smaller bridge load effects
o Likely due to the influence of Bridge Formula
• Site-specific assessment of bridges can
prove that they are safe, even if they have
deteriorated a lot