Comparison of Australian light rail and heavy vehicle loads on bridges

Binh Pham1, Andy Ng2 and Armando Guifre3

1
Principal Engineer, SMEC Australia
2
Manager – Bridge Assessment, VicRoads
3
Bridge Operations Engineer, VicRoads

Abstract: This paper reports an independent study on the effects of Melbourne trams and Sydney light
rail, and the heavy vehicle configurations defined in the draft AS5100.7 code on short to medium span
bridges.

Existing bridges are often required to accommodate new light rails and/or new vehicles. A full
assessment of these bridges for the new loads requires detailed investigation including inspection and
load rating. In some instances where time and budget do not allow a detailed assessment, a preliminary
assessment can be carried out by load comparison.

In this paper the results from a study where the effects of a variety of light rail, heavy vehicles, train design
loads and traffic design loads are compared. The comparison of these loads is carried out for a number of
span configurations and lengths. The results would help the rail and road authorities as well as bridge
assessors to have an understanding of the different loads and their effects on their bridges.

A real example is also provided at the end of the paper where a bridge with two different span lengths was
load rated. This example illustrates the use of the results of the comparison study.

Keywords: Bridge assessment, trams, light rails, heavy vehicles, load comparison.

1. Introduction
There has been a growing demand to assess existing bridges to determine if they can accommodate new
light rail loadings and/or new road vehicles. These new light rail and vehicles can have a very different
loading configuration to the bridge original design loads. A full assessment of these bridges for the new
loads often requires detailed investigation including inspection and load rating. Inspection can involve
close up visual inspection and material testing. Load rating often involves detailed structural analyses
using three-dimensional grillages or finite element models, and detailed strength checks. In some
instances where time and budget do not allow a detailed assessment, a preliminary assessment by load
comparison can be useful.
In this paper the results from a study where a variety of light rail (Melbourne trams and Sydney light rails),
heavy vehicles (semi-trailers to B triples), rail design loads (300LA) and traffic design loads (T44/L44 and
75%SM1600) are compared. The comparison of these loads is carried out for two span configurations
(simply supported and two equal span continuous) and spans ranging from 5 to 60m. The results from this
study could help the rail and road authorities as well as bridge assessors to have a high level of
understanding of the different loads and their effects on their bridges.
An example is also provided to illustrate the use of the results of the comparison study.

2. Light rails loads

Melbourne has the largest urban tramway network in the world dating back to early 20th century. Its
electric tram era started since 1906 and over the years the tram fleet has evolved significantly. Older tram
configurations include W7, Z1, Z2, Z3, A1, A2, B1 and B2 tram classes. Newer tram classes include C1,
C2, D1, D2 and E1. These trams are illustrated below in Figures 1 and 2.
a) W7 b) Z1 and Z2

c) Z3 d) A1 and A2

e) B1 f) B2
Figure 1: Older tram configuratio
ons (from Ya
arra Trams)
 Figure 2: Newer tram configurations (From Yarra Trams)
The tram axle loads and spacing are summarised below (Table 1). There has been significant increase in
tram total mass and axle weights over the years. It is also worth noting that while the latest tram model E
class has the heaviest total mass, its axle weights are less than that of other older tram classes.
Table 1: Tram axle loads and spacing
     
#  Axle  Highest  Highest 
Class 
axles  spacing  Weight  Axle 
mm  kN  load  kN 
W7  4  1575 28900 7225
Z1/2  4  1800  27210 6803
Z3  4  1800  30550 7638
A  4  1800 30390 7598
B  6  1800  47400 8094
C1  4  1850  42918 10868
C2  6  1600  61355 10540
D1  4  1800  37650 9465
D2  6  1800  54550 11104
E1  8  1850  66635 8713
These Victorian tram loads are often increased by 20% to allow for uncertainty.
Sydney light rail loadings typically comprises 3 groups of 2 No. 140 kN axles at 10m spacing. It appears
that the 20% increase is not required for this load.
There have also been discussions about increasing these loads (Melbourne and Sydney light rails) by
another 30% to allow for future loads. However, for current access assessments in Victoria, no allowance
has been considered for future tram loads.
Trams and light rails loads are not defined in the current version of AS5100.2. This standard however
defines train loads or railway traffic loads. The design railway traffic load is 300LA which is basically a
group of four axles each having a load of 300 kN. This load is significantly higher than the light rail loads.
The current approach is to define light rail loads as a proportion of 300LA railway traffic load.
3. Road vehicle loads
Road traffic loads that are often adopted for bridge assessment are T44/L44 and 75% of SM1600 (as
defined in AS5100). The following vehicles are also often considered.
• Legal: 42.5t semi-trailer and 62.5t B-double (ST-GML and ST-HML)
• HML: 45.5t semi-trailer and 68.0t B-double (BD-GML and BD-HML)
For bridges built in 1960s and 1970s, the design load was typically H20-S16. This load is approximately
75% of T44 loading and does not often control the load ratings.
There has been much discussion on heavy vehicle loads. There are a series of different vehicles
nominated by different road authorities. The current draft version of AS5100.7-2015 provides an
exhaustive list of heavy vehicles ranging from 42.5 t semi-trailer to 90.5 t B-triple (Figure 3). While this
draft code is subjected to changes and cannot be used as the basis of design or assessment, this is still a
very useful list which would help consolidate much discussion so far on heavy vehicle configurations.

Figure 3: Heavy vehicles as defined in Draft AS5100.7-2015

4. Comparison of light rail loads
Load effects (mainly moments) for structures spanning from 5 to 60m, for both simply supported and
continuous arrangements were evaluated and compared for the following cases:
• Case 4.1 Comparison of light rails loads to 300LA for simply supported girders
• Case 4.2 Comparison of light rails loads to 300LA for two span continuous girders
• Case 5.1 Comparison of heavy road vehicles to T44/L44 and 75%SM1600 for simply supported
girders
• Case 5.2 Comparison of heavy road vehicles to T44/L44 and 75%SM1600 for 2 span continuous
girders
• Case 6.1 Comparison of light rail loads to T44/L44 for simply supported girders
• Case 6.2 Comparison of light rail loads to T44/L44 for two span continuous girders
Comparisons were carried out using a specialised software developed and verified by one of the authors.
The results and observations are shown below.

4.1 Comparison of light rails loads to 300LA for simply supported girders
Moments induced by different light rails on simply supported girders with different span lengths are
compared in Figure 4 below. Queuing of light rails have been considered in the comparison. For short
span bridges (up to 12m), Tram Classes C1, C2 and D2 produce the highest moments. For longer span
bridges, Tram Class E1 produces the highest moments. Sydney light rail appears to be lighter than many
Melbourne trams.

Comparison to 300LA
0.35

0.3
Tram E1
Tram W7
M LL / M 300LA

0.25 Tram Z1
Tram B
0.2 Tram C1
Tram C2
Tram D1
0.15
Tram D2
Sydney light rail
0.1
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Span length (m)

Figure 4: Comparison of light rails loads to 300 LA for simply supported girders - moments
The comparison charts for shear forces follow similar patterns.
As shown in Figure 4, all considered light rails produce less than 33% of 300LA actions. If a 30% increase
in light rail loads is included for future loading, all considered light rails would produce less than 45% of
300LA actions. As a result, light rails loads can be defined as 45-50% of 300LA loading.

4.2 Comparison of light rails loads to 300LA for two span continuous girders

Moments induced by different light rails on two span continuous girders (two spans are of equal length)
with different span lengths are compared in Figure 5 below. The observations as for the simply supported
case also apply for this case.
 Comparison to 300LA Comparison to 300LA
0.35 0.35

0.3 0.3
Tram E1 Tram E1
Tram W7 Tram W7
M LL / M 300LA

M LL / M 300LA
0.25 Tram Z1 0.25 Tram Z1
Tram B Tram B
0.2 Tram C1 Tram C1
0.2
Tram C2 Tram C2
Tram D1 Tram D1
0.15 0.15
Tram D2 Tram D2
Sydney light rail Sydney light rail
0.1 0.1
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Span length (m)
Span length (m)

a) Sagging moments b) Hogging moment

Figure 5: Comparison of light rails loads to 300 LA for two span continuous girders - moments

5. Comparison of heavy loads

5.1 Comparison of heavy road vehicles to T44/L44 and 75%SM1600 for simply supported
girders
Moments induced by heavy vehicle configurations on a simply supported girder are compared in Figure 6
below. Queuing of vehicles have been considered in the comparison. For short to medium span bridges
(up to 25m), T44/L44 produces higher moments than most heavy vehicles. For longer span bridges,
longer B-Triple vehicles tend to control. For all spans, semi-trailers do not produce higher actions than
T44/L44.
It is interesting to note that all listed heavy vehicles produce smaller actions than 75%SM1600 for simply
supported spans. For longer simply supported span bridges (longer than 25m), designing for 60%SM1600
would cover all of the heavy vehicles considered herein.
Comparison with T44/L44 Comparison with 75%SM1600
1.4 1

1.3 0.95

ST GML 0.9 ST GML

1.2
ST CML 0.85 ST CML
1.1 ST HML ST HML
M LL / M T44

M LL / M T44

0.8
QA ST HML QA ST HML
1 0.75
BD GML BD GML
0.9 BD CML 0.7 BD CML
BD HML 0.65 BD HML
0.8
BT GML BT GML
0.6
0.7 BT CML BT CML
0.55
BT HML BT HML
0.6 0.5
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Span length (m) Span length (m)

a) Comparison to T44 b) Comparison to 75%SM1600

Figure 6: Comparison of heavy vehicles to T44/L44 or 75%SM1600 for simply supported girders -
moments

5.2 Comparison of heavy road vehicles to T44/L44 and 75%SM1600 for 2 span continuous
girders
Moments induced by heavy vehicle configurations on a two span continuous girder are compared in
Figures 7 and 8 below. For short to medium span bridges (up to 25m), T44/L44 produces higher sagging
moments than most heavy vehicles. For longer span bridges, longer B-Triple vehicles tend to control the
design. For all spans up to 55m, semi-trailers do not produce higher actions than T44/L44.
For hogging moments, the heavy vehicles can produce 30 to 60% higher action than T44/L44. The heavy
vehicles can also produce up to 10% higher hogging moment than 75% SM1600.

Comparison with T44/L44 Comparison with 75%SM1600
1.4 1
1.3
0.9
1.2 ST GML ST GML
1.1 ST CML ST CML
0.8
ST HML ST HML
M LL / M T44

M LL / M T44
1
QA ST HML QA ST HML
0.9 0.7
BD GML BD GML
0.8 BD CML BD CML
0.6
0.7 BD HML BD HML
0.6 BT GML BT GML
0.5
BT CML BT CML
0.5
BT HML BT HML
0.4 0.4
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Span length (m) Span length (m)

a) Comparison to T44 b) Comparison to 75%SM1600

Figure 7: Comparison of heavy vehicles to T44/L44 and 75%SM1600 for two span continuous
girders – sagging moments

Comparison with T44/L44 Comparison with 75%SM1600
1.6 1.2

1.1
1.4
ST GML 1 ST GML
ST CML ST CML
1.2 0.9
ST HML ST HML
M LL / M T44
M LL / M T44

QA ST HML 0.8 QA ST HML

1
BD GML 0.7 BD GML
BD CML BD CML
0.8 0.6
BD HML BD HML
BT GML 0.5 BT GML
0.6 BT CML
BT CML 0.4
BT HML BT HML
0.4 0.3
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Span length (m) Span length (m)

a) Comparison to T44 b) Comparison to 75%SM1600

Figure 8: Comparison of heavy vehicles to T44/L44 and 75%SM1600 for two span continuous
girders – hogging moments

6. Comparison of trams/light rails to T44/L44

6.1 Comparison of light rail loads to T44/L44 for simply supported girders
For bridges where road traffics are allowed on the rail tracks (this is common in Melbourne), it would be
useful to compare light rail loads to road design loads. T44/L44 is used for this comparison as it is a
common design load for existing road bridges.
To compare light rail loads to T44/L44, other factors such as ultimate load factors and dynamic load
allowance factors have been taken into account. The charts below are for open deck spans and spans
with direct rail fixation. Effects due to other accompanying lanes (adjacent to tram/light rail tracks) have
not been accounted for.
The comparison on a simply supported girder is illustrated in Figure 9 below.
 Comparison to T44/L44
1.5

1.3
Tram E1
1.1
Tram W7
M LL / M T44/L44

0.9 Tram Z1
Tram B
0.7 Tram C1
Tram C2
0.5
Tram D1
0.3 Tram D2
Sydney light rail
0.1
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Span length (m)

Figure 9: Comparison of light rail loads to T44/L44 for simply supported girders - moments
It is clear from Figure 9 that a simply supported bridge with a span greater than 8m with shared road traffic
and rail traffic carriageway and rated adequately for T44/L44 would likely have adequate capacity for
trams/light rails.

6.2 Comparison of light rail loads to T44/L44 for two span continuous girders
The comparison on two span continuous supported girder is illustrated in Figure 10 below. For bridges
with spans greater than 20m, the light rail loads would not control the design.

Comparison to T44/L44 Comparison to T44/L44
1.5 1.5

1.3 1.3
Tram E1 Tram E1
1.1 1.1
Tram W7
M LL / M  T44/L44

Tram W7
M LL / M T44/L44

0.9 Tram Z1 Tram Z1

0.9
Tram B Tram B
0.7 Tram C1 0.7 Tram C1
Tram C2 Tram C2
0.5 0.5
Tram D1 Tram D1
0.3 Tram D2
0.3 Tram D2
Sydney light rail
Sydney light rail
0.1
0.1
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Span length (m)
Span length (m)

a) Sagging moment b) Hogging moment

Figure 10: Comparison of light rail loads to T44/L44 for two span continuous girders - moments

7. Case studies - St Georges Road Bridge over Marri Creek (Melbourne)

The St Georges Road Bridge was built in 1916 to replace an older and narrower bridge. The 1916
superstructure consisted of 3 spans. The central span consisted of 4 box girders whereas each side
consisted of 8 rolled steel girders.
The design loads for the original bridge and the bridge widening are unknown. The bridge widening would
have been designed for H20-S16-44 which was the design load of the day, and W class trams that were
the tram loads of the day.
North Pier 2 Pier 1 South
Abutment Abutment

10m 17m 10m

Figure 11: St Georges Road Bridge

A detailed structural assessment was carried out for this bridge using 3D grillage models. Comparison of
trams and trucks loads to T44 and 75%SM1600 is illustrated in the table below.
Table 2: Comparison of tram loads and heavy vehicles to T44 and 75%SM1600

Tram Tram Tram Tram Tram Tram Tram Tram T44/ 42.5t 45.5t 62.5t B- 68t B- 75%
Structural component E1 W7 Z1/2 B1/2 C1 C2 D1 D2 L44 Semi Semi Double Double SM1600

10m Span
Compared to T44 0.55 0.48 0.44 0.52 0.69 0.69 0.61 0.71 1.00 0.75 0.77 0.75 0.77 1.07
Compared to 75%SM 0.93 0.70 0.72 0.70 0.72 1.00
17m Span
Compared to T44 0.62 0.41 0.39 0.46 0.56 0.55 0.49 0.58 1.00 0.81 0.86 0.69 0.78 1.18
Compared to 75%SM 0.85 0.69 0.73 0.59 0.66 1.00

As shown in the table, actions due to tram loads are from 39% to 71% of those due to T44/L44. This is in
agreement with Figure 9. Actions due to truck loads are from 69% to 81% of those due T44/L44, and 59%
to 93% of those due 75%SM1600. This is again in agreement with what shown in Figure 6.
For the assessment of an existing bridge, a detailed analysis is recommended as it will provide the most
accurate results. However, when time and budget preclude a detailed assessment, this example has
illustrated that a comparative analysis can produce reasonable results. The charts included in the
previous section are examples of such analyses and illustrate the generic relationship between these
loadings but care and professional expertise are required in applying it to real life applications.

8. Conclusions
This paper summarises the results from a study where a variety of light rails, heavy vehicles, train design
loads and traffic design loads are compared. The comparison is done for two span configurations (simply
supported and two span continuous) and spans ranging from 5 to 60m. Some general findings from this
study are described below. It is also noting that individual site specific parameters may preclude some of
the below.
• For short span bridges (up to 12m), Tram Classes C1, C2 and D2 produce the highest moments.
For longer span bridges, Tram Class E1 tend to produce the highest moments.
• 50% 300LA would be a suitable design load for the current fleet of Melbourne and Sydney light
rail.
• For simply supported bridge girders with a span greater than 8m and for continuous bridge girders
with a span greater than 20m, T44/L44 loads would produce higher actions compared to light rail.
• For simply supported bridge girders, 75%SM1600 design load would cover for all heavy vehicles
listed in the draft AS5100.2.
• For continuous bridge girders, 85%SM1600 design load would cover for all heavy vehicles listed
in the draft AS5100.2.
 • Comparative assessment is a reasonable first stage technique to assess light rail loadings and the
graphs and general findings are a good guide for this assessment. However, professional
expertise and great care are required in applying such general rules to real life applications.
9. Acknowledgement and disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors only, and they do not necessarily reflect in
any way those of the authorities or other organisations referred to herein.

10. References
DR AS5100.2-2015, “Bridge design Part 2: Design loads – Draft for public comment”, Standard
Australia, 2015.