PSI - Issue 64

Robby Weiser et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 64 (2024) 492–499 Robby Weiser / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

495

4

Figure 3. Exemplary one-minute excerpt of the measurement data.

Vehicle crossings result in an abrupt opening of the crack gap and can be recognized in the measurement data by the individual peaks. A closer look at the peaks shows that individual vehicle axles can be recognized in the measurement data in high resolution. This could be confirmed by comparing the data with the temporary traffic recordings. It should be emphasized that the vehicles drive in different lanes and therefore do not have a constant influence on the gap opening. The gap openings shown here result from the vehicles in the outer lane of the trucks. At the time of the measurements, a weight in motion weighing system was installed on the Rhine bridge so that vehicles that exceeded the total weight of 40 tons or an axle load of 11.5 tons could be identified and prevented from crossing, according to a traffic report by the Polizeipräsidium Duisburg (2021). By comparing the maximum gap opening with the maximum permissible axle load of 11.5 tons, conclusions can be drawn about the relationship between axle load and occurring gap openings. This makes it possible to differentiate between class 0a and 1a, although both classes have two axles. The eight classes from the grouping of the vehicles are shown in Figure 4. In the following, the procedure for the automatic class identification of the measurement data is explained.

Figure 4. Exemplary vehicle types of the eight vehicle classes.