## 4 Evaluation of Test Results
### Static Deformation Data  
In the static load tests, a total of 28 static loading cases were considered, including 8 cases for span S1, 12 cases for span S2, and 8 cases for span S3. For each loading case, displacement results obtained from the 9 designated points along the cross-section and length of the deck were compared between the static vehicle load tests and the updated finite-element model analysis, as shown in Table 9.  
The uncertainty of the total station measurement device used in the static displacement tests was considered to be in the range of 1.0-1.5 mm, and the evaluations were conducted accordingly. Upon examining Table 9, it can be observed that the displacement values of the deck in the bridge spans are consistent with and very close to the results obtained from the finite-element analysis. However, when analyzing the column corresponding to point L23, located at the center of the spans, it was noted that the displacement values obtained from the static vehicle load tests are slightly smaller than those calculated from the finite-element analysis. This indicates that the actual stiffness of the deck is higher and could be considered safer compared to the finite-element model. This situation is similar to  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Mode No.**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**Updated**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Frequency Values for S1, S2, and S3 Spans (Hz)**} & \\ \cline{2-13}  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**S1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**S2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**S3**} & \\ \cline{2-13}  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Before**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**After**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Before**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**After**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Before**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**After**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**After**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**After**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Diff. (\%)**} \\ \cline{2-13}  & & **FEM** & **Loading** & **Loading** & **Loading** & **Loading** & **Loading** & **Loading** & **Loading** & **Loading** & **Loading** & **Loading** \\ \hline
8 & 4.70 & 4.28 & 4.25 & 4.28 & 4.25 & 4.25 & 4.25 & 4.25 & 4.25 & 9.57 \\
9 & 4.79 & 4.58 & 4.55 & 4.57 & 4.53 & 4.55 & 4.55 & 4.55 & 5.01 \\
10 & 5.50 & 5.26 & 5.23 & 5.25 & 5.23 & 5.23 & 5.28 & 5.23 & 4.91 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 8: _Cont._  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Bridge**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**Leading**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Displacement Results- Obtained from Test and FEM (ms)**} \\ \cline{3-13}  & & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**L11**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**L13**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**L15**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**L12**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**L13**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**L13**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**L13**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**L13**} \\  & & **FEM** & **FEM** & **FEM** & **FEM** & **F  
the comparison between the frequency values obtained from the OMA measurements and those derived from the finite-element model.  
Based on the results obtained, it is evident that under the 30 t and 50 t vehicle loads, the displacement values from the finite-element analysis and the static vehicle load tests (with a maximum displacement of 17 mm at the midspan for the 50 t vehicle) are close to each other and remain within acceptable limits.