Eurocode road traffic load models for weight restricted bridges

D. Proske
University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria
S. Loos
Ingenieurbüro Lopp, Weimar, Germany

ABSTRACT: Road traffic weight restricted historical bridges are common in Germany. However often it is
unclear how many road users follow these restrictions and what the road weight distributions looks like.
Therefore in the German city of Dresden a weight by motion, for road traffic was installed on a weight re-
stricted bridge. This weighting machine included a software package for identification of single vehicles
based on their measured axle loads. This package ran for several months/years, over which time data was col-
lected. The data collected has been used to extend the current road traffic load concept of the Eurocode and
the German DIN-reports, to weight restricted bridges. This has been achieved by carrying out Monte Carlo
Simulation and estimating internal forces due to road loading. The load calibration factor α has then been de-
termined for weight restricted bridges. Furthermore load calibration factors for other weight restrictions have
been estimated based on a mixture of measured and estimated load distributions. Finally a comparison with
the unrestricted Eurocode road traffic model and the Auxerre load has been carried out.

1 INTRODUCTION special Lorries, has not been considered in the Ger-

man DIN-report 101.
1.1 Current state
Table 1 gives characteristic traffic load values for
Civil engineers have to forecast road traffic for fu- load model 1 and Table 2 shows the distribution of
ture decades during the planning and design of road the loads on a roadway according to the current
bridges. To simplify this task, different traffic load DIN-report 101 and the historical DIN 1072.
models are included in codes of practice. Load mod-
els try to model traffic loads on bridges, on the one Table 1. Characteristic loads for load model 1 according to the
DIN-report 101.
hand precisely and on the other hand with a limited _________________________________________________
amount of work required by engineers. Good models Load position Twin axle
__________________ Uniform distributed load
_____________________
fulfill both requirements at the same time. The last Axle load Red. factor Red. Factor
requirement especially, is often questioned when Qik in kN αQk Qik × αQk qik αqk
______________________________________________
Eurocode 1 traffic load models consider many dif- Lane 1 300 0.8 240 9.0 1.0"
ferent load combinations. Independent from this Lane 2 200 0.8 160 2.5 1.0"
criticism, the intensive scientific work behind the Lane 3 100 0.0 2.5 1.0"
models is appreciated. Here only exemplarily the Further lanes 0 - 2.5 1.0"
works by Merzenich & Sedlacek (1995) are men- Rem. areas 0 - 2.5
_________________________________________________ 1.0"
2
tioned. Qik in kN, qik in kN/m
The road traffic model of the current German
DIN-reports 101 is heavily based on the Eurocode 1 1.2 Former road traffic load models (DIN 1072)
model, especially ENV 1991-3. This road traffic
model is valid for bridges with a maximum overall The road traffic model of the historical DIN 1072
span of 200 m and a maximum width of 42 m. A dy- includes two bridge standard classes: the bridge
namic load factor is already considered in the char- class 60/30, which is used for new motorways, high-
acteristic loads if necessary. In contrast to the ENV ways, city roads (most roads) and the bridge class
1991-3 the German DIN-report 101 considers only 30/30, which is used for secondary roads. The bridge
three road traffic load models: load model 1 for twin class 60/30 includes, just like the load model 1 a
axle and uniformly distributed loads; load model 2 main, a secondary lane and remaining areas. The
for single axle with short structural elements and main lane is exposed to a uniform load of 5 kN/m2
load model 4 to describe the human scrum. A further (p1) and six
load model found in the ENV 1991-3 considering
Table 2. Characteristic loads for load model 1 according to the DIN-report 101 and DIN 1072 (60/30).
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
DIN-report 101 DIN 1072
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Characteristic loads for load model 1 in the area of the twin axle Characteristic loads for load model 1 in the area of the SLW
(Heavy Load Vehicle)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Characteristic loads for load model 1 outside the area Characteristic loads for load model 1 outside the
of the twin axle area of the SLW (Heavy Load Vehicle)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Geometry of twin axle Geometry of SLW (Heavy Load Vehicle)

Table 3. Characteristic loads for re-calibration classes of DIN 1072 including the figure of the load vehicle (bottom).
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Bride class 16/16 12/12 9/9 6/6 3/3
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Overall load in kN for the lorry 160.00 120.00 90.00 60.00 30.00
Front wheels Wheel load in kN 30.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00
Contact width in m 0.26 0.20 0.18 0.14 0.14
Back wheels Wheel load in kN 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00
Contact width in m 0.40 0.30 0.26 0.20 0.20
Single axle Wheel load in kN 110.00 110.00 90 60.00 30.00
Contact width in m 0.40 0.40 0.30 0.26 0.20
Uniform distributed load p1 in kN/m2 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00
Uniform distributed load p2 in kN/m2 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00

_________________________________________________________________________________________
single loads of the SLW 60 (Heavy Load Vehicle).
Furthermore in the DIN 1072 the loads are depend-
ent on the span and the coverage, which are in-
creased by a dynamic load factor. The secondary
lane is exposed to a uniform distributed load of 3
kN/m2 and single loads of the SLW 30. No dynamic
load factor is applied to the secondary lane or to the
remaining areas. The remaining areas are though,
also exposed to a uniform distributed load of 3
kN/m2. In contrast to the Eurocode or DIN-report
101 load model, the uniform distributed loads do not
continue in the area of the SLW. Table 2 permits the
comparison of the different load patterns according
to the DIN-report 101 and the DIN 1072.
Beside the two standard bridge classes the DIN
1072 has introduced further bridge classes (BK
16/16, BK 12/12, BK 9/9, BK 6/6, BK 3/3) for
checking or re-calibration. Additionally historical
load models for standard 20 tonne and 8 tonne Lor-
ries can be found in literature (Leliasky 1982).
The DIN 1072 has offered a wide range of differ-
ent characteristic road traffic loads and therefore
permitted a fine gradation for the usage of historical
bridges. This gradation cannot be found either in the
Eurocode or in the German DIN-report 101. If the
codes of practice no longer offer special load pat-
terns for weight restricted historical bridges, it
would be helpful to develop different characteristic
road traffic loads for them. This is because historical
bridges still contribute heavily to the bridge stock in
industrialized countries (Proske & van Gelder 2009).
As a basis for such a development many different
theoretical scientific works about road traffic models
can be used. Relevant work has been carried out by
König & Gerhardt (1985), Spaethe (1977), Schütz
(1991), Krämer & Pohl (1984), Pohl (1993), Puche
& Gerhardt (1986), Bogath (1997), Bogath & Berg-
meister (1999), Ablinger (1996), Crespo-Minguillón
& Casas (1997), COST-345 (2004), Allaix et al.
(2007), Vrouwenvelder & Waarts (1993) and Prat
(2001).
Different road models are used besides the Euro-
code load model, in other countries, for example the
HA-KEL and HB load model in Great Britain, the
HB-17 load model in the US or the load model T 44
and L 44 in Australia. These models will not be con-
sidered here.
1.3 Preliminary considerations
The great diversity of load models is partially caused
by the high number of influencing parameters on the
traffic load prediction models. The development of
traffic load models is, of course, strongly related to
the essential properties of road traffic. Road traffic is
and will be for an indefinite period the most impor-
tant means of traffic: it offers high speed, high us-
ability by the masses, all usability and omnipres-
ence. On roads, every non-rail-tied vehicle can
always reach, every road developed goal. And the
number of road developed goals is immense com-
pared to all other means of traffic. These advantages
of roads cause major drawbacks for the road traffic
models, since the numbers of influencing parameters
is extremely high. To develop models which can be
used by engineers under practical conditions re-
quires the number of input parameters to be strongly
restricted. Table 4 shows some load influencing fac-
tors classified in to four groups.
Table 4. Load influencing factors for the estimation of the
characteristic road traffic loads according to Schütz (1991).
_________________________________________________
Traffic intensity Traffic flow Vehicle group Single vehi-
cle
_________________________________________________
Average daily Vehicle Frequency Number of
traffic intensity distance of single axles
Average daily Lane vehicle types Axle load
heavy traffic distribution Axle distance
intensity Velocity Vibration
Maximum properties
hourly
traffic intensity
_________________________________________________
Additionally to traffic parameters, further pa-
rameters describing the structural conditions of
bridges have to be considered. Such parameters are
the statical system or the quality of the roadway. The
quality of the roadway can be considered in terms of
local, regular and irregular bumpiness. A classifica-
tion of the quality of the roadway in terms of the
road class is given in Table 5.
Table 5. Roadway quality based on road classes (Merzenich &
Sedlacek 1995).
______________________________________________
Road class Roadway quality
______________________________________________
Highway Excellent
Federal Highway Good up to very good
State road Good
Country road Average
_______________________________________________
After the identification of significant input pa-
rameters, realistic values for these parameters have
to be found. These values are usually identified by
traffic measurements. However, although many
measurement stations on highways exist, the number
on country roads, where historical arch bridges usu-
ally are, is rather limited. In Germany in 1991, about
300 measurement stations were placed on highways
and federal highways, but only 15 measurement sta-
tions could be found on country roads. Table 6
shows some state road measurement locations in the
German federal state of Saxony.
On the European level the majority of traffic
measurements are also carried out on highways. This
is especially true with regards to the planning and
completion of the development of an international
European traffic load model which focused heavily
on high lorry traffic density measurements of long
Table 6. Automatic permanent road traffic counting devices in the German federal state of Saxony. Average traffic numbers
from the years 1998 to 2003. Only state roads, higher roads are excluded and on communal roads are no devices installed.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Road Nr. Location Number of vehicles Number of heavy Ratio of heavy vehicles to overall
per 24 hours vehicles per 24 hours number of vehicles in %*
___________________________________________________________________________________
242 Hartmannsdorf 9356 736 7.9
302 Arnoldsgrün 3322 188 5.7
309 Tiefenbrunn 1869 52 2.8
100 Prischwitz 2942 243 8.3
165 Kimitzschtal 1831 102 5.6
95 Wittichenau 3920 240 6.1
87 Riesa 3979 167 4.2
36 Minkwitz 5064 360 7.1
38 Liebertwolkwitz 17869 1136 6.4
24 Sitzenroda 3426 309 9.0
___________________________________________________________________________________
*The heavy vehicle ratio has decreased in the last years. Here it is assumed, that the heavy trucks are using more the
highways instead of the state roads. However this depends also very much on the road fees charged.

Table 7. Lorry classes according to Merzenich & Sedlacek (1995)

___________________________________________________________________________
Class Description of lorry Representative lorry
___________________________________________________________________________
Class 1 Lorry with two axes Two-axle vehicle
Class 2 Lorry with more then two axes Three-axle vehicle
Class 3 Semi-trailer track Two axle track with three axle semi-trailer
Class 4 Tractive units Three-axle vehicle with two axle with trailer

Examples
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4

___________________________________________________________________________

distance traffic. These measurements were used to

define classes of Lorries. Merzenich & Sedlacek
(1995) have proposed four different lorry classes
(Table 7).
Within the classes a bi-modal random distribution
of the mass of vehicles is observed as Fig. 1 shows
(Geißler 1995, Quan 2004). This distribution con-
sists of a distribution for the weight of the unloaded
lorry and a distribution for the loaded lorry. Pohl
(1993) considers in his model this distribution of the
weight of loaded and unloaded lorries whereas other
authors consider the axle loads as randomly distrib-
uted variables (Fig. 2). An overview regarding these
different models can be found in Geißler (1995).
Figure 1. General bimodal random distribution of the overall
vehicle weight (Geißler 1995, Quan 2004).
Figure 2. General bimodal random distribution of the axle load
(Geißler 1995).
Based on the limitation of the current Eurocode
or DIN-report (i.e. neglecting models for weight re-
stricted bridges), an extension of the Eurocode road
traffic model should be introduced. However, the
general procedure outlined in the Eurocode for the
development of traffic models should continue to be
used. The goal of the following presented research is
the development of α-factors which can be applied
to the Eurocode traffic model 1 to permit the re-
computation of load restricted bridges.
To develop such a model, as suggested earlier,
measurement data is required. Traffic measurements
were therefore carried out for the Dresden weight re-
stricted (15 tonnes) “Blue wonder” bridge. The axle
weight measurement was processed (including iden-
tification of vehicle types) through use of software.
Such identification is mainly based on axle dis-
tances, but also on the correlation between axle
loads,
Figure 3. The relative frequency of the measured overall vehicle weight and adjusted multi-modal
normal distribution of heavy weight vehicles in October 2001, forthe “Blue wonder” bridge, Dresden.
as suggested by Cooper (2002). Results of the
weight-in-motion measurements of heavy weight
vehicles are shown in Fig. 3.
2 DEVELOPMENT OF NEW LOAD CLASSES
2.1 Methods applied
The factors to be developed should deliver traffic
models, which are comparable to the re-calibration
classes of the DIN 1072. The number inside the
class of the DIN 1072 gave the weight restriction for
the lane, such as bridge class 30/30, 16/16 and
12/12.
Besides the input data from measurement, a
Monte-Carlo-Simulation is required. The input for
the simulation is the breakdown of the heavy vehicle
measured data into four lorry types (standard lorry
or truck, truck with trailer, semi-trailer and busses).
Since the measurement data from the “Blue wonder”
did not include all relevant information, further data
was taken from Merzenich & Sedlacek (1995). The
approximation of the axle load distribution was cal-
culated using a bi-modal distribution.
In general, the α-factors were determined by the
following steps:
• Simulation of the vehicle type based on the traf-
fic contribution of the “Blue wonder” bride data.
• Simulation of the overall vehicle weight based
on the vehicle weights calculated/measured for the
“Blue wonder” bridge data.
• Simulation of the axle load contributions to the
overall vehicle weight, based on the work by Mer-
zenich & Sedlacek (1995).
• Computation of the axle loads, based on the
overall vehicle weight and the axle load contribu-
tion.
• Simulation of the axle distances, based on Mer-
zenich & Sedlacek (1995).
• Computation of the maximum bending moment
for a single span beam.
There are some simplifications included in the
simulation process. For example five-axled-vehicles
are simplified, so that the fifth axle has the same
weight as the forth axle. Also, the decisive load pat-
tern was identified by iteration. The simulation itself
was repeated 5000-times for one length of a single
span beam. Of course, the length of the single span
beam was varied. The simulation yielded to a fre-
quency distribution for the maximum bending mo-
ment of a single-span beam of a certain length. Par-
allel to the approximation of the frequency data by a
normal distribution, a log-normal distribution was
also applied. The characteristic traffic load value is
assumed as a value with a 1000-year return period of
this distribution (Merzenich & Sedlacek 1995).
Following the computation of the maximum
bending moment by the simulation process, the α-
factor was computed by the required adaptation of
the standard traffic model 1, according to the Euro-
code 1 and the DIN-report 101. The standard traffic
model 1, including the α-factor, should give compa-
rable results in terms of moments as the simulated
computation.
Besides flowing traffic conditions, traffic jam
conditions also have to be considered. Traffic jam
conditions are mainly relevant for long-span condi-
tions and have to be considered in the computation
of the factors.
The described procedure was applied for the
bridge class 16/16 (the class of the “Blue wonder”).
However for the bridge class 12/12 and 30/30 the 2.2 Extension
procedure had to be changed slightly, since meas-
To provide further control of the suggested factors
urements were only based on the bridge class 16/16.
the results should also be compared with the road
For the bridge class 12/12 the mean value of the
traffic model by Pohl (1993). Pohl distinguishes be-
measurement data from the “Blue wonder” bridge
tween long distance, average distance and short dis-
was multiplied by 12/16=0.75. The standard devia-
tance traffic. Long distance traffic represents more
tion and the contribution of the different vehicle
or less heavy vehicle traffic on German highways.
types of the traffic were kept constant. For the adap-
Average traffic can be found on federal highways
tation of the bridge class 30/30 this procedure was
and on country roads; and short distance traffic can
again extended. Based on measurements from the
be found on weight restricted routes. Therefore the
“Blue wonder” and “Auxerre-traffic” (Fig. 4), a new
simulation procedure using the model of Pohl is
overall traffic weight distribution was constructed,
slightly different to the simulation procedure ex-
changing mean values, standard deviation and the
plained above. Furthermore in our simulation the
contribution of different vehicle types to the traffic short distance traffic is separated into two types
from the “Blue wonder” bridge traffic (Fig. 5). Then
(Lorry type 1 through 4 or type 1 and 2 according to
again the simulation was repeated.
Table 7).
To prove the adopted approach, the α-factor of
Fig. 6 shows the characteristic maximum bending
1.0 for unified traffic loads (used in the traffic model
moment of a single span beam for different spans
1 of the Eurocode) was verified for “Auxerre-traffic”
and different load models. It permits a direct com-
(Fig. 6). For the axle load a value of 0.9 was found.
parison of the load model by Pohl, the Eurocode
This slight difference can be interpreted as an addi-
tional safety element. The computed α-factors are
summarized in Table 8.

Figure 4. Comparison of overall vehicle weights measured at the “Blue wonder” bridge in Dresden and
at the “Auxerre-traffic” in France. The later was mainly used for the development of the Eurocode traffic model 1.

Figure 5. Development of an synthetically traffic distribution for the bridge class 30/30 based on
measurements from the „Blue wonder“ in Dresden and from the „Auxerre-traffic“ in France.
Figure 6. Maximum bending moments caused by characteristic traffic loads including dynamic load factor. The bridge classes here
are equivalents of the former DIN 1072 bridge classes in terms of the DIN 101-report or Eurocode 1 traffic models.

Table 8. Characteristic loads for recalibration classes of DIN 1072.

___________________________________________________________________________
Bridge class Roadway quality Lane 1
____________ Lane 2
_____________
αQ1 αq1 αQ2 αq2
___________________________________________________________________________
3/3* Average 0.10 0.22
6/6* Average 0.20 0.24
9/9* Average 0.25 0.26
12/12 Good 0.30 0.28 0.20 1.00
Average 0.30 0.30 0.25 1.00
16/16 Good 0.35 0.30 0.35 1.00
Average 0.35 0.40 0.45 1.00
30/30 Good 0.55 0.70 0.50 1.00
Average 0.60 0.70 0.80 1.00
Simulation Auxerre Good 1.0 0.90 1.00 1.00
Load model 1 DIN 101 0.80 1.00 0.80 1.00
___________________________________________________________________________
* First drafts

Eurocode load model 1 (of 0.9, 0.8, 0.7…) as has

model and the suggested variation of the Eurocode
model.
The factors given in Table 8 depend on the road-
way quality. Usually this property is not given in
codes, however, here it is assumed that for country
roads lower roadway quality can be found and this
has significant impact on the chosen α-factor due to
the dynamic properties. Here the model from Mer-
zenich & Sedlacek (1995) has been applied. In gen-
eral, different roadway qualities have a greater influ-
ence on the second lane than the main lane.
3 CONCLUSION
It should be stated here, that the factors applied in
this study are a much more appropriate method for
the re-computation of historical bridges than the
some-times found simple diminishing factors of the
been suggested, for example, in Vockrodt (2005).
Applying these factors of 0.9, 0.8 or 0.7 to the Euro-
code model 1 violates general assumptions of the
statistical properties of the model 1.
Besides the presented schema further adaptations
of the Eurocode model 1 are known. Such an addi-
tional adaptation has been presented by Novák et al.
(2007).
A different proposal for the consideration of local
traffic conditions for the load traffic models has
been shown by Bailey & Hirt (1996). This method
shows the corresponding stochastic basis much
stronger than the Eurocode model 1. The major
problem of this schema is probably the capturing of
the data and, as stated in the beginning, the simple
and practical application of the traffic model. The
authors assume that their presented model fulfills
both, an accurate modeling and a simple application
for the engineer.
4 AKNOWLEDGEMENT Brücken, Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 102, Heft 5, pp 271-
279
O’Connor A & O’Brien EJ 2005 Traffic load modelling and
The authors want to express there thanks to the Aus- factors influencing the accuracy of predicted extremes. Ca-
trian Research Foundation (FWF) for the support of nadian Journal of Civil Engineering 32, pp 270-278
the study about indeterminacy. Pohl S 1993 Definition von charakteristischen Werten für Stra-
ßenverkehrsmodelle auf der Basis der Fahrzeuge sowie
Fraktilwerte der Lasten des Eurocode 1-Modells; For-
5 PREFERENCES schungsbericht Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen
Prat M 2001 Traffic load models for bridge design: recent de-
velopments and re-search. Progress in Structural Engineer-
Ablinger W. 1996 Einwirkungen auf Brückentragwerke – ing and Materials 3, pp 326-334
Achslastmessungen und stochastische Modelle, Diplomar- Proske D. & van Gelder P 2009 Safety of historical arch
beit, Institut für konstruktiven Ingenieurbau, Universität für bridges, Berlin: Springer
Bodenkultur Puche M & Gerhardt HC 1986 Absicherung eines Verkehrs-
Allaix DL, Vrouwenvelder ACWM & Courage, WMG. 2007 lastmodells durch Messungen von Spannstahlspannungen.
Traffic load effects in prestressed concrete bridges. 5th In- Bauingenieur 61, pp 79-81
ternational Probabilistic Workshop, L Taerwe & D Proske Quan Q 2004 Modeling current traffic load, safety evaluation
(Eds), Ghent, pp. 97-110 and SFE analysis of four bridges in China. Risk Analysis
Bailey SF & Hirt AH 1996 Site specific models of traffic ac- IV, C.A. Brebbia (Edr.) Wessex Institute of Technology
tion effects for bridge evaluation. JR Casas, FW Klaiber & Press, Southampton
AR Marí (Eds): Recent Advances in Bridge Engineering. Schütz KG 1991 Verkehrslasten für die Bemessung von Stra-
Evaluation, management and repair. Proceedings of the US- ßenbrücken, Bauingenieur 66, pp 363-373
Europe Workshop on Bridge Engineering, organized by the Spaethe G 1977 Beanspruchungskollektive von Straßenbrü-
Technical University of Catalonia and the Iowa State Uni- cken, Die Straße 17, Heft 4, pp 241-246
versity, Barcelona, 15-17 July 1996, International Center Vockrodt H-J 2005 Instandsetzung historischer Bogenbrücken
for Numerical Methods in Engineering CIMNE, pp 405- im Spannungsfeld von Denkmalschutz und modernen histo-
425 rischen Anforderungen. 15. Dresdner Brückenbausymposi-
Bogath J & Bergmeister K 1999 Neues Lastmodell für Stra- um, Technische Universität Dresden, pp 221-241
ßenbrücken. Bauingenieur 6, pp 270-277 Vrouwenvelder ACWM & Waarts PH 1993 Traffic loads on
Bogath J 1997 Verkehrslastmodelle für Straßenbrücken. Dis- bridges. Structural Engineering International 3, pp 169-
sertation, Institut für konstruktiven Ingenieurbau, Universi- 177
tät für Bodenkultur
Cooper D 2002 Traffic and moving loads on bridges. Dynamic
loading and de-sign of structures, AJ Kappos (Edr), Chap-
ter 8, Spon Press, London, pp 307-322
COST 345 2004 European Commission Directorate General
Transport and Energy: Procedures Required for the As-
sessment of Highway Structures: Numerical Techniques for
Safety and Serviceability Assessment – Report of Working
Groups 4 and 5
Crespo-Minguillón C & Casas JR 1997 A comprehensive traf-
fic load model for bridge safety checking. Structural Safety,
19 (4), pp 339-359
DIN 1072: Straßen und Wegbrücken, Lastannahmen. Dezem-
ber 1985
DIN-report 101: Einwirkungen auf Brücken. Berlin: Beuth
Verlag, 2001
Eurocode 1: Basis of actions
ENV 1991-3 Eurocode 1: Grundlagen der Tragwerksplanung
und Einwirkungen auf Tragwerke, Teil 3: Verkehrslasten
auf Brücken, 1995
Geißler K 1999 Beitrag zur probabilistischen Berechnung der
Restnutzungsdauer stählerner Brücken. Dissertation, Heft 2
der Schriftenreiche des Institutes für Tragwerke und Bau-
stoffe an der Technischen Universität Dresden
König G & Gerhardt HC 1985 Verkehrslastmodell für Stra-
ßenbrücken. Bauingenieur 60, pp 405-409
Krämer W & Pohl S 1984 Der Ermüdungsnachweis in dem
Standard TGL 13460/01. Ausgabe 1984 – Grundlagen und
Erläuterungen. Die Straße 24, Heft 9, pp 257-263
Leliavsky S 1982 Arches and short span bridges. Design Text-
book in Civil Engineering: Volume VII, Chapman and Hall,
London
Merzenich G & Sedlacek G 1995 Hintergrundbericht zum Eu-
rocode 1 - Teil 3.2: Verkehrslasten auf Straßenbrücken.
Forschung Straßenbau und Straßenverkehrstechnik. Bun-
desministerium für Verkehr, Heft 711
Novák B, Brosge B, Barthel K & Pfisterer W 2007 Anpassung
des Verkehrslastmodells des DIN FB-101 für kommunale