AUSTROADS BRIDGE DESIGN CODE - PROGRESS REPORT

R. WEDGWOOD, BE, MEngSc, MIEAust

Chief Bridge Engineer
Roads and Traffic Authority, NSW

SUMMARY

The AUSTROADS Limit States Bridge Design Code will provide the benefit of significant
economies and rationalities both for new bridges and for the assessment of existing bridges.
The strength of bridges will be determined on a consistent, rational basis for the applied
loadings and material properties. The serviceability requirements will minimise maintenance
resource requirements by ensuring the performance of new bridges throughout their life and
by identifying potential inadequacies in existing bridges at an early stage, allowing more
effective remedial treatment. The Code has a background in overseas bridge code
developments and also through links with complementary Australian Standards. Significant
variations in the Code provisions from the existing NAASRA 1976 Bridge Design
Specifications are described. The new Code will be a valuable resource to assist bridge
designers to provide even better solutions to the bridge engineering challenges of the future.

KEYWORDS

Bridge Design Code, Limit States Design, Design loads, Materials properties, Structural
analysis, Member strengths

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author acknowledges the permission of the Chief Executive of the Roads and Traffic
Authority of NSW to publish this paper. The author also wishes to acknowledge the
contributions of the many dedicated contributors to the AUSTROADS Bridge Design Code,
from both within the State Road Authorities and outside, in particular the Convenors of the
Working Groups for each section. Many of these contributors have devoted a considerable
amount of their own time to this work. Special acknowledgement is also due to Mr Gil
Marsh, former Director Design MRD, Western Australia, the original Project Manager for the
Code Working Group and currently Technical Editor, and Mr Albert Contessa, former Deputy
Chief Engineer (Structures), MRD, Queensland, Project Manager from 1985 to 1988.

R.1 Heywood (Editor) Bridges - Part of the Transport System Pages 77-88
Ray Wedgwood graduated from Sydney University in 1963. His twenty nine years
experience in bridge engineering with the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW has included
design, construction and maintenance activities on many of the State's bridges. He has been
involved in the preparation of design standards and construction specifications for bridges and
is currently the AUSTROADS Project Leader for the Bridge Design Project Group. He has
been the Chief Bridge Engineer of the Roads and Traffic Authority, NSW since 1987.

78 AUSTROADS Conference Brisbane 1991

 INTRODUCTION
The preparation of the Limit States AUSTROADS Bridge Design Code has been a
major undertaking for the AUSTROADS Bridge Engineers. The origins of the Code
are in the development world wide of the use of limits states design concepts in an
attempt to achieve more rational and consistent strength characteristics, as related to
the accuracy with which load effects (viz self weight, dead loads, live loads) and material
properties can be predicted, together with a recognition of the need to satisfy
seiviceability criteria, such as deflections, cracking, fatigue and vibration, which could
limit the performance of a structure over its design life.

Applied to the design of new bridges, limits states design offers potential economies in:
consistency in use of materials;
ii rationalisation of load effects, related to the confidence of prediction of
the load;
iii) the control of maintenance costs by ensuring serviceability and durability.

Limit states design concepts also offer the opportunity to assess existing bridges more
rationally to identify or confirm serviceability inadequacies and allow early remedial
action, and also to identify possible strength reserves, which is important in providing for
the continual demand for increases in vehicle load limits.
In this regard, it is important to recognise that the valuable reserves of strength available
in the majority of our older bridges, which have allowed our road system to keep
functioning under loadings well in excess of the original design loads, will not be
available in new bridges designed using limit states concepts. The realistic prediction of
maximum live loads into the future is therefore a very important consideration in the
implementation of this new design code.

BACKGROUND TO CODE
For prior editions of the NAASRA/AUSTROADS Bridge Design Code, most of the
information has been based on specifications issued by the American Association of
State Highway and Transport Officials (AASHTO). For the 1976 and the new edition
of the AUSTROADS Code, an effort has been made to relate the Code provisions to
Australian conditions. However, significant use has still been made of AASHTO
publications and research.

Much of the pioneering work in the development of a bridge design code in limit states
format has been carried out by the Ontario Ministry of Transport and Communications
and the influence of the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code is acknowledged.

Also, acknowledgement is made to the Standard Association of Australia, with which

AUSTROADS is developing a memorandum of understanding regarding the
development of standards. AUSTROADS representation on SAA design standard
committees has been aimed at developing consistency between the codes, and the
contributions of the SAA design standards to this Code have been most important.

FORMAT OF CODE AND PUBLICATION PROGRAM

The code is to be published as a series of separate but complementary Sections, the
provisions of which have to be applied consistently between Sections to determine
appropriate responses to the Design Loads. For each Section, a separate Commentary
is to be published.

RJ Heywood (Editor) Bridges - Part of the Transport System 79

The Sections making up the Code are:-

Section 1: General
Section 2: Design Loads
Section 3: Foundations
Section 4: Bearings and Deck Joints
Section 5: Concrete
Section 6: Steel
Section 7: Temporary Works

In order that the valuable effort put into the development of these sections can be
utilised as early as practicable, it is intended to publish Sections 1 to 5, together with
their commentaries, as soon as they are ready. This will be in early 1992. Sections 1 to 5
have sufficient coverage to provide for the major part of bridge design requirements in
Australia. The publication of Sections 6 and 7 will follow as soon as resources allow
their completion. In the interim, design of steel bridges can be to the existing rules or be
based on reference to the British Bridge Code BS 5400, at the discretion of the State
Road Authority, and the design of temporary works can be to relevant Australian
Standards.

CODE SECTIONS

Some comments on the sections of the code follow.

GENERAL

Section 1, General, outlines general principles for the use of the Code in Article 1.1.
This article is reproduced here, together with the Commentary for that article, in
Appendix A, as it provides good information for understanding the basis of the limit
states design process. The information provided also gives some comfort in that the
determination of the serviceability limit states will generally follow existing design
practices.

The Article on Waterways and Flood Design Principles introduces the requirement for
the need to ensure strength and stability under the design ultimate flood effects,
including debris. This article also introduces the concept of the need to ensure that the
total flooded cross section (i.e. the bridge and approach embankment system) does not
act as a dam for the design ultimate limit state flood (2000 year return period).

The article on traffic barriers defines four levels of service, with the Level 1 Barrier
being required where absolute containment of vehicles is required for the protection of
occupants and also for the protection of other persons or property. Level 2 barriers are
for an intermediate level of service, corresponding to the design requirements for traffic
barriers in the 1976 Bridge Design Specification. Level 3 barriers correspond to flexible
W-beam guard-rails and Level 4 is no barrier at all.

DESIGN LOADS

Section 2, Design Loads, sets out the design loads, forces and effects. Provision is made
for the design engineer to vary loads on the basis of engineering measurements and
calculations, provided the general principles of design in Section 1 are complied with.

This Section nominates the load factors to be used for design actions for both
serviceability and ultimate limit states.

AUSTROADS Conference Brisbane 1991

 In comparison with the 1976 Bridge Design Specification, the T44 Truck Loading
remains unchanged and the L44 lane loading is similar except that the associated
concentrated load has been set at 150 kN for both moment and shear effects. The A14
axle has been deleted and replaced by a W7 wheel load for localised effects.

The abnormal vehicle load has been replaced by a heavy load platform (HLP) which is
significantly heavier. A HLP gross weight of 320 tonne is applied as the general case for
principle routes. The 400 tonne HLP is applicable to special designated 'routes, as
determined by the Road Authority. The load factor applicable to the HLP loadings
depends on the degree of control over the actual mass of permit vehicles and their
passage exercised by the State Road Authority. The State Road Authority may vary the
load factor depending on the degree of control exercised.

In comparative designs carried out with the above design loads, in some structures the
HLP loading has been the controlling load.

The impact factor has been replaced by the dynamic load allowance, adapted from the
Ontario Code. The dynamic load allowance has a maximum value of 0.4, depending on
the natural frequency of the superstructure.

Braking forces are significantly increased on the 1976 values and are a function of that
length of the structure resisting the force. In addition, a minimum lateral restraint
requirement has been introduced to resist accidental lateral forces not catered for in the
design.

Loadings are introduced to account for collisions on bridge supports from road traffic,
rail traffic and shipping.

Earthquake loadings are at this stage unchanged from 1976 but these will be
reconsidered when the SAA revision of the Earthquake Code is complete. Earthquake
effects can be increased by upgrading the zone classification.
FOUNDATIONS

The major change in this Section is the development of a philosophy of emphasising the
nexus between the extent of foundation investigation and the confidence in the assessed
foundation capacity. By this means, the designer has the flexibility to balance the cost of
investigation work with the cost of the foundation, with an appropriate confidence in the
performance of the foundation. Such an approach takes advantage of improved
technology both in foundation investigation and also in the assessment of driven pile
capacities.

This approach will result in more responsibility on the designer in assessing the nature
of the site and the consequences of variations, rather than relying on the lowest common
denominator approach previously applied to standard piles. I believe a consequence of
the philosophy will be an increased use of 'test piles' to assess capacity at the pre-tender
stage.

BEARINGS AND DECK JOINTS

As well as a conversion to limit state format, Section 4 represents a major updating and
revision of the rules for the design of bridge bearings and deck joints.

The rules for elastomeric bearings have been completely revised. The shear deflection
capacity has been significantly increased. The vertical load capacity (rated load) for
'thin' bearings has been significantly increased. However for 'tall' bearings the rated
load has remained unchanged.

RI Heywood (Editor) Bridges - Part of the Transport System 81

The rotation capacity of elastomeric bearings has been increased. The NAASRA 1976
rules forced designers to select tall bearings to satisfy rotation limits, but this sometimes
caused other problems due to their low shear stiffness and relative instability.
The new rules should result in the selection of smaller, more economical bearings.
The design specifications for pot bearings and contact sliding surfaces have been
updated to reflect current practice and allow increased load capacities.
The loading and design requirements for deck joints have been clarified, particularly for
finger plate joints and other fabricated joints, where the distribution of load to the
anchorages has been more fully considered.
'The allowable open gap width for deck joints has been increased to conform to
international standards. This will permit, where large movement capability is required,
the selection of modular (multi-element) deck joints with a smaller number of elements.
CONCRETE
Section 5 of the new Code unifies design rules for reinforced concrete, 'partially
prestressed' concrete and 'fully prestressed' concrete. This Section is also compatible
and to a high degree uniform with the AS 3600 (1988), Concrete Structures
The emphasis on certain articles has been changed. Rules that were presented in a
fragmented way or where insufficient guidance was provided by the NAASRA 1976
Code, such as durability, materials properties and analysis of beams, slabs and columns,
are treated prominently in the new Section 5.
Durability
Rules for design for durability of concrete in the new Code will probably result in more
dramatic changes of design practice than any other provisions included in this
document. Since the publication of the 1976 NAASRA Bridge Design Specification
some 15 years ago, durability has become a major issue in the industry because of
problems associated with corrosion of reinforcement and tendons and degradation of
concrete surfaces, particularly in areas of high exposure, e.g. structures exposed to salt
water or salt spray.
All the durability provisions, previously scattered throughout various Articles of the
Code, are concentrated and placed at the beginning of the concrete design section to
signify the effect the new rules are expected to have on design. The durability
requirements can result in concrete strengths which in many cases will be higher than
would otherwise be required for consideration of strength alone. The strength required
for durability is therefore determined initially. It may then be appropriate to enter the
strength design calculations with the minimum acceptable concrete strength as
determined for durability.
Unlike the previous Code, the new provisions for durability are related to a wide range
of defined exposure classifications. In general the rules governing durability are tighter
than comparable rules in the previous Code; for higher exposure classifications the new
requirements are much more stringent. The new rules respond to the development of
the last 10-15 years related to the gradual changes in the composition of concrete mixes
which now, as a result of the much more finely ground cementitious materials used,
contain less cementitious materials by weight for concrete of a given strength, and
therefore do not provide the same degree of protection to reinforcement. For higher
exposure classifications it is now mandatory to specify minimum cement content and
maximum water/cement ratio. Although the latter is difficult to measure in the field, it

82 AUSTROADS Conference Brisbane 1991

 is still recognised as a reliable measure of the ability of concrete to protect
reinforcement.
Materials Properties
The new Code attempts to avoid the tendency of the previous Specification to give
precise values of material properties. This has been done to avoid misinterpretation by
less experienced users as to the accuracy of these values. The Code introduces a
concept of guaranteed minimum capacity to resist loads by linking the concept of
Strength Reduction Factors and Ultimate State Load Factors. For Serviceability Limit
States the emphasis is on materials test values or current local knowledge; the curves or
formulae are given with the emphasis of bands of uncertainty for all material properties.
The Code and the accompanying Commentary encourages the designer to examine the
sensitivity of possible variations in material properties. The information on creep and
shrinkage of concrete emphasizes the dependence, among other influences, on the type
of aggregate used.
Methods of Structural Analysis
The new Code requires that analysis must be carried out for all relevant limit states; the
difference is particularly obvious for reinforced concrete which, to satisfy the
requirement of NAASRA 1976, was analysed for working stresses only.
For reinforced concrete the new Code allows redistribution of moments at the Strength
Ultimate Limit State of up to 30% of design moment. The removal of the stress
limitation at serviceability limit states is expected to result in significant savings of
reinforcing steel.
Other provisions of the new Code include:
An increase of the limit of the stress increment in prestressing steel to 200 MPa
(The 1981 Addendum to NAASRA 19/b limited this increase to 120 WO
Design of reinforced concrete is completely different from NAASRA 1976 in
that is designed for the ultimate strength limit state and there are no particular
checks for stresses at the serviceability limit state. There are checks, however,
for other serviceability limit states, viz. cracking and deflection.

Design for shear, torsion and suspension reinforcement are very similar for both
prestressed and reinforced concrete. Truss analogy methgd is used and for shear
and torsion, a flatter truss angle is allowed than the 45 implied in NAASRA
1976. This should result in more economical design as a proportion of stirrups
may be replaced by additional longitudinal reinforcement which is more
economical to supply and fix.

Design of Columns

The working stress method of design in NAASRA 1976 had been abandoned by many
designers long before the drafting of the relevant parts of the new Code. The method
required by the new Code is similar but somewhat different to the one published in
AS 3600. The majority of framed structures will be analysed by first-order methods of
linear analysis, e.g. it will be assumed that changes of geometry under loading will have
negligible effect on bending moments, axial forces and shear forces. Second-order
method of analysis, of iterative nature, will be used for slender columns where changes
of geometry cannot be safely ignored.

RJ Heywood (Editor) Bridges - Part of the Transport Sysiem 83

Summary
Section 5 provides a basis for rational and economical design of concrete bridges. The
integration of design rules for reinforced, partially and fully prestressed concrete will
remove the remaining artificial barriers between 'partially and 'fully prestressed'
concrete.

STEEL
Section 6, Steel, is closely based on AS 4100, Steel Structures, although the tiered
approach of the Australian Standard has only been incorporated for bridge specific
design situations. The rules for composite design, which are relevant and necessary for
most modern steel bridges, have been taken from a number of sources, including
Eurocode 4 (Section 7), the British Bridge Code BS 5400, Part 5, and the
Recommendations of the European Convention on Constructional Steelwork (ECCS)
on Composite Structures. At this stage, there is no Australian Standard for limit states
design of composite structures.

General Design Requirements

The design conditions to be considered by the designer are specified, viz. stability,
strength, serviceability, brittle factor and fatigue, together with requirements for
corrosion resistance/protection and camber.
Materials capacity reduction factors are listed in separate tables for both the strength
and serviceability states.
The additional requirements for corrosion resistance and protection are based on
BS 5400.
Methods of Structural Analysis

Three methods of structural analysis are allowed: elastic analysis will be most commonly
used, with rigorous structural analysis and structural testing being adopted for special
situations.

Plastic analysis has been excluded because, in AS 4100, its application is limited to
compact doubly symmetric I-sections which are not subject to impact or fatigue loads.

Composite Beams

The calculation of the section moment capacity is different for positive and negative
moment regions. For positive moment regions a plastic section analysis is required,
whereas for negative moment regions, the section capacity is governed by the
compactness of the steel section.

CONCLUSION

The AUSTROADS Bridge Design Code has had a long gestation as a result of a
number of factors, including the need for harmonisation with SAA Codes, and the
fluctuations in resources available from member authorities to contribute to the Code.

It will he pleasing to see the results of the labours of many dedicated contributors come
to fruition in the Bridge Design Code which, used sensibly and with professional
judgement, will allow bridge designers to develop even better solutions to the bridge
engineering challenges of the future.

84 AUSTROADS Conference Brisbane 1991


APPENDIX A
ARTICLE 1.1 OF AUSTROADS BRIDGE DESIGN CODE
CODE REQUIREMENTS AND ASSOCIATED COMMENTARY
1.1 General Principles
1.1.1 Aim of Design
The aim of design shall be the achievement of acceptable
probabilities that the structure being designed will not
become unfit for use during its design life, having regard
to economic, physical, aesthetic and other relevant con-
straints.
Limit States Design is the procedure that has evolved to
enable the "aim of design" to be accomplished in a logical
manner, and has been adopted in this Code.
1.1.2 Bases of Design
The design shall be based on scientific theories, experi-
mental data and past experience, interpreted statistically as
far as possible. The safety and service performance of a
structure depends also on the quality control exercised in
fabrication, supervision on site, the control of unavoidable
imperfections and the qualifications, experience and skill
of all personnel involved. Adequate attention shall there-
fore be given to these factors. In addition adequate
management control and supervision by experienced engi-
neers shall be required at all stages of design and construc-
tion to prevent the occurrence of gross errors. Control over
the conditions of use of the structure during its life was
assumed in drafting this Code.
This Code shall be applied to the design of road traffic
bridges in Australia. For long spans (> 100 m) and unusual
structures, special conditions may apply to loading or
strength requirements. In general, restrictions and quali-
fications are noted in the relevant Sections of this Code.
RJ Heywood (Editor) Bridges - Part of the Transport System
1.1
General
1.1.3 Design Life
The basic design life of bridge structures shall be assumed
to be 100 years. The design life of elements such as
bearings and expansion joints shall be the same as the main
structure, but where experience has shown a shorter life
may occur in practice, provision shall be made for easy
replacement and any fixings shall be detailed to be reus-
able.
For the design of ancillary elements such as light poles and
sign structures a shorter design life may be assumed by the
Road Authority (refer to Section 2).
1.1.4 Limit State
A structure, or structural element, is considered unfit for
use when it reaches any one of a number of states at which
it no longer satisfies the criteria governing its performance
or use. All appropriate limit states shall be considered in
design. Limit states are classified as either
(a) ultimate limit states, or
(b) serviceability limit states.
1.1.5 Other Considerations
In general, bridge structures are not designed for all
possible loads and conditions, such as those arising in war.
However, accidental effects that can reasonably be fore-
seen shall be considered in the design.
1.1.6 Ultimate Limit States
The ultimate (safety-related) limit states can be both
strength and stability limit states, and include:
(a) loss of static equilibrium by sliding, overturning or
uplift of a part, or the whole of the structure;
85
 1.2 AUSTROAOS 13ndpe Design Code

(b) a post-elastic or post-buckling state in which the 1.1.10 Design Resistance or

collapse condition is reached at one or more sections
of the structure. Plastic or post-buckling redistribu-
tion of actions and resistance shall only be considered
when the design engineer has adequate knowledge of
the associated deformation characteristics of the
structure from theory and tests;
(c) failure of any foundation material causing excessive
movement in the structure, or failure of significant
pans of the structure;
Strength
The design resistance or strength (or capacity) R• is de-
fined in the various material sections of the Code and is
derived from the nominal strength of the element and a
material (or strength reduction or capacity) factor, #.
Where the resistance is derived from dead loads of pan or
all of a structure, the resisting dead load shall be reduced
by the appropriate load farim given in Section 2.

(d) sufficient deterioration of strength occurring due to
fatigue and/or corrosion such that the collapse
strength of the damaged section is reached. The
design engineer shall carefully consider the implica-
tions of fatigue damage or any other local failure
when die number of elements carrying the loading is
small, and failure of one element significantly in-
creases the loading of the remainder.
1.1.11 Verification of Limit States
For ultimate limit states, the following relationship must
be satisfied -R• 2 S•
For serviceability limit states, the stress, deflection,
cracking or vibration level must satisfy the limits set out in
the appropriate Sections of this Code.

1.1.7 Serviceability Limit States

The serviceability limit states to be considered include:
(a) permanent deformation of foundation material or a
major load carrying element, of sufficient magnitude
that the strucnire is unfit for use, or such that the
public would become concerned as to the safety of the
structure,

(b) permanent damage due to corrosion, cracking or

fatigue which significantly reduces structural
strength or useful service life;
(c) vibration leading to structural damage or public
concern;
(d) flooding of the road network and surrounding land
and scour damage to the channel bed, banks and road
embankments.

1.1.8 Analysis Methods

Analyiis for all limit states shall be based on linear elastic
assumptions except where non-linear methods are specifi-
cally implied elsewhere in this Code or approved by the
Road Authority.

1.1.9 Design Actions or Loads

An action is a system of:
(a) concentrated or distributed forces (direct actions), or
(b) imposed or constrained deformations (indirect ac-
tions)

applied to a structure due to a single cause.

The design actions S• arc spuified in Section 2 for serv-

iceability and ultimate limit stales.
A serviceability action is defined as one having a 5%
chance of exceedance per year.

An ultimate action isde fined as one which hasa5%chance

of exceedence during the design life.

A USTROA DS Conference Brisbane 1991


C1
C1.1 General Principles
C1.1.1 Aim of Design
Thc structure and all its components must be designed to
resist all loads, deformations and environmental condi-
tions likely to occur during construction and normal use,
and to have adequate durability. Design loads, actions and
strengths arc intended to product a very low probability of
failure during the design life.
C1.1.2 Bases of Design
This is a simple statement of current good practice in
design. Statistical analysis of design information is essen-
tial if consistent levels of safety and performance are to be
achieved. Much of the current design practice is explicitly
based on statistical analyses, eg concrete strengths, wind
loading, etc. This Code is intended to encourage the use of
statistical methods where practical and where data is
available.
Foundation investigations rarely yield sufficient data to
allow a full statistical treatment, and characteristic values
for design must be based on test results and the experience
and judgement of the geotechnical engineer.
In general, it is uneconomical to attempt to build structures
with no imperfections, and construction supervision is
aimed at controlling imperfections, so that they lie within
acceptable tolerances.
Experienced qualified persNns arc needed at all levels to
ensure the work conforms to current practice and to detect
gross errors, as the "safety factors" incorporated in this
Code arc not intended io protect against such mistakes. In
particular, the design check should be carried out by
personnel not involved in the original design, to avoid
repetition of incorrect assumptions, methods and data.
Construction must be supervised by experienced engi-
neers who can recognise major mistakes and have them
remedied.
It follows also that the conditions of use of bridges must be
controlled, particularly for traffic loads, in a manner
consistent with the design assumptions.
Limit States Design is not a new or radically different
design process. It is merely a logical statement of current
good practice, namely, identifying all the constraints of
loading, environment and service performance, and de-
signing logically to satisfy all those constraints.
This Code should be adequate for the design of spans up to
100 m. For unusual structural forms and spans longer than
100 m, the design engineer should also refer to overseas
codes and technical literature, and should carryout testing
where information is doubtful.
RJ Heywood (Editor) Bridges - Part of the Transport System
C1.1
General Commentary
C1.1.3 Design Lite
The selection of 100 years is somewhat arbitrary. BS 5400
selects 120 years, while buildings are often assumed to
have a 50 year design life. Historically, bridges have been
one of the more permanent types of structures and a useful
life far in excess of 100 years can be envisaged for most
bridges unless they are replaced for other reasons, such as
road realignment, width limitations or they are made of
less durable material such as timber.
This assumption of a "fixed" design life does not mean that
the bridge will no longer be fit for service when it reaches
that age, or that it will reach that age without adequate and
regular inspection and maintenance. Steel bridges require
regular maintenance of their corrosion protection and
concrete bridges often require repair of construction de-
fects which cause minor local deterioration or of defects
arising from carbonation or chloride ingress.
Common sense dictates that bridge elements which arc
subject to movement, impact and wear, such as bearings,
guardrails and expansion joints, should be easy to replace.
Bolted attachment is preferable to permanent fixing where
possible. Sockets or bolts cast into concrete should be
highly resistant to corrosion to ensure reuse.
Light poles and minor roadside sign structures arc seen as
less durable elements which arc more economically
manufactured with a shorter design life. Ease of replace-
ment is a major factor in determining a suitable design life.
Major sign gantries erected over roads should be designed
fora 100 year life.
C1.1.4 Limit States
The limit states specified in this Code arc analogous to the
working stress and ultimate strength and stability checks
used previously. In theory, a change in state occurs in the
structure when the "limit" is reached. Usually, the design
calculations arc based on the most "critical" limit state
(determined by experience) and other limit states are
checked. Simple "deemed to satisfy" requirements suffice
for some limit states.
C1.1.5 Other Considerations
It is uneconomical to design for every eventuality, such as
the use of high explosives in war. Accidents can be
foreseen to a certain extent, and provision is made for
various accidental collision forces. The design engineer
should also foresee other events such as gas or water
leakage in a closed cell, and either relocate, ventilate or
drain as necessary. The design engineer must ensure that
minor damage to a structural component or services car-
ried on the structure, does not lead to major damage out of
all proportion to the original cause.
57
 Cl.?

C1.1.6 Ultimate Limit States C1.1.9 Design Actions or Loads

Reaching an ultimate limit state can lead to catastrophic Since strains caused by creep, shrinkage etc. are not
failure which could endanger the lives of workmen and the actually "loads" but rather alter the distribution of stresses
public. Hcncc it is sometime referred 10 as a "safety" limit in a structure, the generic term "action" is used to include
sutc. The provisions of this Code arc similar to the both loads and imposed deformations.
previous (1976) edition. Regular inspection and mainte-
In some cases a "characteristic" value of the action or load
nance should prevent deterioration due to corrosion or
is specified, and then "load factors", to convert the charac-
fatigue tr,coming a cause of collapse. The design engineer
teristic value to the "design" serviceability or ultimate
should be careful to avoid situations where only a small
effect or load, arc given. However, some load factors can
number of elements carry the main load in a non-redundant
have regional variations if a constant "safety factor" is to
(single load path) structure and where fatigue fracture can
be maintained. In such cases the Code specifics the
cause a rapid and significant increase in the loads carried
"design" actions or loads directly.
by other elements, leading to a progressive collapse.
Based on the assumed 100 year design life, the definitions
Plastic redistribution, based on the formation of a collapse
of the limit states imply the conditions set out in Table
mechanism, is not allowed in calculating design resistance
C1.1.9 for transient loads.
unless adequate test information is available to ensure a
"plastic plateau" is achieved rather than a "brittle" failure.
It is essential that the structural Clement as a whole (eg Table C1.1.9 Definition of Limit States
beam. column or box girder) acts "plastically', not just its
Limit Return Probability of Probability of
material components (eg steel, concrete). Note that mo-
State Interval exceertance in exceedance in
ment redistribution implies a redistribution of shear forces
of load any 1 year 100 years
as well, and this must be checked.

C1.1.7 Serviceability Limit States Servicea- 20 years 0.05 0.99

bility
Loss of serviceability due to local yielding and deflection
Ultimate 2000 years 0.0005 0.05
of structural elements has been controlled by limiting the
"working** stresses, as in previous editions of this Code.
These limits arc intended to have the same effect on the
Such definitions are common in relation to natural phe-
design as a specified higher load being equated to achiev-
nomenon such as floods, wind, earthquake, etc. They are
ing "yield" stress in the member. Simple ratios of loads
not commonly used for traffic loads. However, traffic
and stresses arc valid as the structure is linear elastic under
loads arc defined so as to achieve the same probability of
such loads.
exceedance as for natural load effects.
Vibration is mainly of concern -when pedestrians use the
structure. C1.1.10 Design Resistance or
Strength
C1.1.8 Analysis Methods
The provisions of this Code are similar to ultimate strength
This requirement is based on the fact that simple analytic requirements in previous editions where the design resis-
tools arc adequate and conservative in most cases. More
tance or strength is assessed after considering:
complex techniques using non-linear analysis are allowed
(a) the variability of material properties,
when sufficient experimental proof of the method is avail-
able and the Road Authority approves. (b) the reliability of strength calculation methods,
"Working stress" design methods are considered appro- (c) a possible reduction in strength due to fabrication and
priate for limit state design as they describe the behaviour construction tolerances,
of the structure under service loads, and provide a margin the type of failure being considered, eg "ductile" or
(d)
against non-linear behaviour and permanent deforma-
"brittle".
tions. Consistency of design methods in the transition
between code editions is also desirable. C1.1.11 Verification of Limit States
Where flexural action controls, the ultimate limit state is
This equation is a simple statement that the design resis-
defined as the formation of the first moment hinge. Where
tance or strength should equal or exceed the design actions
the behaviour of a section is known from both theory and
or loads, and that the probability of this not being achieved
tests, an analysis including both moment and shear re-
is very small. Note that when the design ultimate load does
distribution maybe used in design.
occur, there is still only a small probability that the design
In general, a particular analytical method to derive a strength will be exceeded.
preliminary design concept which satisfies one set of limit
states will be chosen. This design will then be checked
against the other relevant limit states and modified as
necessary to reach a final design satisfying all require-
ments. Within the limits set out in this Code. the choice of
preliminary design method lies with the design engineer.

88 A UST ROA DS Conference Brisbane 1991