## 3 Results
### Model Example 1  
The first example can be represented by a three five-axle vehicle combination with the same loads on the axles, and these combinations differ in their wheelbases between 2 and 3 axle, 3 and 4 axle, and between their 4 and 5 axle. The route is assessed for  
Figure 1: Sample of graphs of cumulative axle loads depending on the wheelbase for 15 vehicle combinations (VC).  
Figure 2: Parameters \(l_{ij}\) and \(m_{ij}\) of semi-trailer vehicle combinations used in model examples 1–3.  
combination 16. There is a question whether it is possible to substitute combination 16 with combination 17 or combination 18, in accordance with point 4.11 TP103 of the Technical Conditions. The parameters of the combinations are given in Table 2. Taking into account the cumulative axle load depending on the wheelbase in the graph in Figure 3, it can be seen that all the graph points of combination 17 show a lower or the same axle load than combination 16, which means that it is suitable from the replacing conditions' point of view. On the contrary, combination 18 exceeds the parameters of combination 16, which means that it cannot be substituted with combination 16 in accordance with point 4.11 TP 103 in the Technical Conditions.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline  & & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Order of Axles–\(j\)**} & \\  & **1** & **2** & **3** & **4** & **5** & **Sum** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{VC 16} & wheelbase16\({}_{\text{16}j}\) [m] & 0.00 & 3.70 & 5.90 & 1.31 & 1.41 & 12.32 \\  & axle loadm16\({}_{\text{16}j}\) [t] & 8.00 & 11.50 & 8.50 & 8.50 & 8.50 & 45.00 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{VC 17} & wheelbase17\({}_{\text{3}j}\) [m] & 0.00 & 3.70 & 6.00 & 1.41 & 1.41 & 12.52 \\  & axle loadm17\({}_{\text{17}j}\) [t] & 8.00 & 11.50 & 8.50 & 8.50 & 8.50 & 45.00 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{VC 18} & wheelbase18\({}_{\text{18}j}\) [m] & 0.00 & 3.70 & 5.50 & 1.31 & 1.31 & 11.82 \\  & axle loadm18\({}_{\text{18}j}\) [t] & 8.00 & 11.50 & 8.50 & 8.50 & 8.50 & 45.00 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{VC 19} & wheelbase19\({}_{\text{19}j}\) [m] & 0.00 & 3.70 & 5.90 & 1.31 & 1.41 & 12.32 \\  & axle loadm19\({}_{\text{19}j}\) [t] & 8.00 & 11.50 & 8.50 & 8.50 & 8.50 & 45.00 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{VC 20} & wheelbase120\({}_{\text{20}j}\) [m] & 0.00 & 3.70 & 5.90 & 1.31 & 1.41 & 12.32 \\  & axle loadm20\({}_{\text{20}j}\) [t] & 8.00 & 11.00 & 7.50 & 7.50 & 7.50 & 41.50 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{VC 21} & wheelbase121\({}_{\text{3}j}\) [m] & 0.00 & 3.70 & 5.90 & 1.31 & 1.41 & 12.32 \\  & axle loadm21\({}_{\text{21}j}\) [t] & 8.00 & 12.00 & 9.50 & 9.50 & 9.50 & 48.50 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{VC 22} & wheelbase122\({}_{\text{22}j}\) [m] & 0.00 & 3.70 & 5.90 & 1.31 & 1.41 & 12.32 \\  & axle loadm22\({}_{\text{22}j}\) [t] & 8.00 & 11.50 & 8.50 & 8.50 & 8.50 & 45.00 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{VC 23} & wheelbase123\({}_{\text{3}j}\) [m] & 0.00 & 3.70 & 5.50 & 1.31 & 1.31 & 11.82 \\  & axle loadm23\({}_{\text{3}j}\) [t] & 8.00 & 11.00 & 7.50 & 7.50 & 7.50 & 41.50 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{VC 24} & wheelbase124\({}_{\text{3}j}\) [m] & 0.00 & 3.70 & 6.00 & 1.41 & 1.41 & 12.52 \\  & axle loadm24\({}_{\text{4}j}\) [t] & 8.00 & 12.00 & 9.50 & 9.50 & 9.50 & 48.50 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Parameters of vehicle combinations (VC) assessed.  
Figure 3: Graphical comparison of cumulative load depending on the wheelbase at same axle loads.