AS 5100.1 Commentary - 2006 Scope and General Principles

AS 5100.
1 Supp 1—2006
AP-G15.1C/06
AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006
AS 5100.1 Supplement 1—2006
Bridge design—Scope and general

principles—Commentary
(Supplement to AS 5100.1—2004)
Accessed by SMEC AUSTRALIA on 18 Sep 2008
This Australian Standard Supplement was prepared by Committee BD-090, Bridge Design. It
was approved on behalf of the Council of Standards Australia on 8 May 2006.
This Supplement was published on 6 July 2006.
The following are represented on Committee BD-090:
• Austroads
• Association of Consulting Engineers Australia
• Australasian Railway Association
• Bureau of Steel Manufacturers of Australia
• Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia—Concrete
• Engineers Australia
• Queensland University of Technology
• Steel Reinforcement Institute of Australia
• University of Western Australia
Standards Australia wishes to acknowledge the participation of the expert individuals that
contributed to the development of this Standard through their representation on the
Committee and through public comment period.
Keeping Standard
Standardss up-
up-to-
to- date
Australian Standards® are living documents that reflect progress in science, technology and
systems. To maintain their currency, all Standards are periodically reviewed, and new editions
are published. Between editions, amendments may be issued.
Standards may also be withdrawn. It is important that readers assure themselves they are
using a current Standard, which should include any amendments that may have been
published since the Standard was published.
Detailed information about Australian Standards, drafts, amendments and new projects can
be found by visiting www.standards.org.au
Standards Australia welcomes suggestions for improvements, and encourages readers to

notify us immediately of any apparent inaccuracies or ambiguities. Contact us via email at
mail@standards.org.au,
mail@standards.org.au or write to Standards Australia, GPO Box 476, Sydney, NSW 2001.
AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006
AS 5100.1 Supplement 1—2006
Bridge design—Scope and general

principles—Commentary
First published as HB 77.1 Supp 1—1996.

Revised and redesignated as AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006.
COPYRIGHT
© Standards Australia
All rights are reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or copied in any form or by
any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without the written
permission of the publisher.
Published by Standards Australia, GPO Box 476, Sydney, NSW 2001, Australia
ISBN 0 7337 7503 9
AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006 2
PREFACE
This Commentary was prepared by the Standards Australia Committee BD-090, Bridge
Design to supersede HB 77.1 Supp 1, Australian Bridge Design Code—General—
Commentary (Supplement to SAA HB 77.1—1996).
The objective of this Commentary is to provide users with background information and
guidance to AS 5100.1—2004.
The Standard and Commentary are intended for use by bridge design professionals with
demonstrated engineering competence in their field.
In this Commentary, AS 5100.1—2004 is referred as ‘the Standard’.
The clause numbers and titles used in this Commentary are the same as those in AS 5100.1,
except that they are prefixed by the letter ‘C’. To avoid possible confusion between the
Commentary and the Standard, a Commentary clause is referred to as ‘Clause C…..’ in
accordance with Standards Australia policy.
3 AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006
CONTENTS
Page
C1 SCOPE........................................................................................................................ 4
C2 APPLICATION .......................................................................................................... 4
C3 REFERENCED DOCUMENTS.................................................................................. 4
C4 DEFINITIONS............................................................................................................ 4
C5 NOTATION................................................................................................................ 4
C6 DESIGN PHILOSOPHY ............................................................................................ 5
C7 WATERWAYS AND FLOOD DESIGN .................................................................... 8
C8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT................................................................................... 9
C9 GEOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................. 9
C10 ROAD TRAFFIC BARRIERS .................................................................................. 11
C11 COLLISION PROTECTION .................................................................................... 16
C12 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE-PATH BARRIERS................................................ 19
C13 NOISE BARRIERS .................................................................................................. 19
C14 DRAINAGE.............................................................................................................. 19
C15 ACCESS FOR INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE ............................................ 19
C16 UTILITIES ............................................................................................................... 20
C17 SKEW RAILWAY BRIDGES .................................................................................. 20
C18 CAMBER ON RAILWAY BRIDGES ...................................................................... 20
APPENDICES
CA MATTERS FOR RESOLUTION BEFORE DESIGN COMMENCES ...................... 23
CB ROAD BARRIER PERFORMANCE LEVEL SELECTION METHOD ................... 24
AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006 4
STANDARDS AUSTRALIA
Australian Standard
Bridge design—Scope and general principles—Commentary
C1 SCOPE
AS 5100.1 scope lists the type of structures to which the Standard applies. The list is not
exhaustive and the relevant authority may specify the use of the Standard for other road-,
rail- or pedestrian-related structures.
C2 APPLICATION
In order to promote uniformity of practice in design of road, rail and pedestrian bridges, the
Standard has been prepared for use by all authorities and organizations with jurisdiction
over the provision of road, rail and pedestrian bridges in Australia, including Austroads
Member Authorities, the Australasian Railway Association Member Authorities, Local
Government Authorities and other authorities and organizations (e.g., port, rail, park,
electricity supply, water supply, private sector organizations, and the like).
The Standard specifies the minimum standards required for public safety and the relevant
authority or designer may determine that higher standards are required for the structure.
The Standard is for the design of road, railway and pedestrian bridges in Australia, of
conventional form and with spans up to approximately 100 m.
The Standard also defines loadings, particularly road and railway impact loadings that apply
to major structures over or adjacent to roadways and railways.
For trains with speeds greater than 160 km/h, the stiffness of the bridge structure is of
particular importance in order to achieve satisfactory riding characteristics. Additional
specifications are required for bridges for very fast trains.
The Standard also defines loadings, particularly railway collision loadings which apply to
major structures over or adjacent to railways. These include major buildings, but not signal
structures, electrification structures and the like.
C3 REFERENCED DOCUMENTS
The Standards listed in Clause 3 are subject to revision from time to time and the current
edition should always be used. The currency of any Standard may be checked with
Standards Australia.
C4 DEFINITIONS
(No Commentary)
C5 NOTATION
The basis of the notation is generally in accordance with ISO 3898, Bases for design of
structures—Notations—General symbols. Standards Australia’s policy is to use ISO
recommendations on notation, wherever practicable, in structural design Standards such as
AS/NZS 1170 series, AS 2327 series, AS 3600, AS 4100, AS/NZS 4600 and AS 5100
series.
 Standards Australia www.standards.org.au

5 AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006
C6 DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
C6.1 General
The design philosophy is a simple statement of current good practice in design. Statistical
analysis of design information is essential if consistent levels of safety and performance are
to be achieved. Much of the current design practice is explicitly based on statistical
analyses, e.g., concrete strengths, wind load and the like.
The Standard is intended to encourage the use of statistical methods where practicable and
where data is available.
Foundation investigations rarely yield sufficient data to allow a full statistical treatment,
and characteristic values for design should 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 persons are needed at all levels to ensure that the work conforms to
current practice and to detect gross errors, as the safety factors incorporated in the Standard
are not intended to 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 should be supervised by experienced design engineers who can recognize
major mistakes and have them remedied.
It follows also that the conditions of use of bridges should be controlled, particularly for
traffic loads, in a manner consistent with the design assumptions.
Limit states design is a logical statement of current good practice, namely, identifying all
the constraints of loading, environment and service performance and designing logically to
satisfy all those constraints.
C6.2 Design life
The selection of 100 years is somewhat arbitrary. BS 5400.1 (Ref. 1) selects 120 years,
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2004) (Ref. 2) the Canadian Highway
Bridge Design Code (2000) (Ref. 3) selects 75 years, while buildings are often assumed to
have a 50 year design life. Historically, bridges have been one of the more permanent types
of structure 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 nominated 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 defects that
cause minor local deterioration, or of defects arising from carbonation or chloride ingress.
It may not be practical to ensure that certain components of the bridge will last for the full
design life of the bridge. Designers should ensure that bridge components that are subject to
movement, impact and wear, such as bearings, guardrails and expansion joints, can be
readily replaced. Where possible, bolted attachment is preferable to permanent fixing.
Sockets or bolts cast into concrete should be highly resistant to corrosion to ensure re-use.
Provision should be made for jacking or similar to replace bearings and the practice of
locating bearings in step joints beneath continuous deck sections should be avoided.
www.standards.org.au  Standards Australia

AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006 6
Light poles, minor roadside sign structures and noise walls may be manufactured more
economically with a shorter design life. Ease of replacement, public safety and consequence
of failure are major factors in determining a suitable design life.
Major sign gantries erected over roads should be designed for a 100 year life.
C6.3 Limit states
C6.3.1 General
The limit state approach to design and assessment of structures is based on reliability
theory, using current statistical knowledge of loads and structure performance. In theory, a
change in state occurs in the structure when the limit is reached. Usually, the design
calculations are 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.
C6.3.2 Ultimate limit states
Ultimate limit states are conditions beyond which the risk of failure becomes unacceptable.
The intent is that, at the ultimate limit state, the structure should not collapse though it may
suffer significant damage.
The designer should take account of the increased risk of having only a small number of
elements carrying the main load in a non-redundant (single load path) structure and where
fatigue fracture can cause a rapid and significant increase in the loads carried by other
elements, leading to a progressive collapse.
Plastic redistribution, based on the formation of a collapse mechanism, is not permitted in
calculating design resistance unless adequate test information is available to ensure a plastic
plateau is achieved rather than a brittle failure. It is essential that the structural element as a
whole, e.g., beam, column or box girder, acts plastically, not just its material components,
e.g., steel, concrete.
Note that moment redistribution implies a redistribution of shear forces as well and this
should be checked.
C6.3.3 Serviceability limit states
Loss of serviceability due to local yielding, deflection and vibration of structural elements
has been included in AS 5100.2, AS 5100.5 and AS 5100.6.
Simple ratios of loads and stresses may be assumed, as the structure is linearly elastic under
serviceability loads.
Fatigue and scour may be considered to be serviceability limit states provided the
occurrence is detected and repaired before major deterioration, potentially leading to
ultimate limit state failure, occurs.
Vibration of slender members in railway bridges resulting from dynamic load effects may
cause accelerated fatigue.
Vibration can be of concern to pedestrians and occupants of stationary vehicles.
Excessive vibration and deflection may also cause uncoupling of railway wagons.
C6.4 Analysis methods
Clause 6.4 is based on the fact that simple analytical tools are adequate and conservative in
most cases. More complex techniques, using non-linear analysis, are permitted as specified
in the Standard. Where flexural action controls, the ultimate limit state is defined as the
formation of the first moment hinge. Where the behaviour of a section is known from both
theory and tests, an analysis including both moment and shear redistribution may be used in
the design.

7 AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006
In general, a particular analytical method to derive a preliminary design concept that

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
requirements. Within the limits set out in the Standard, the choice of preliminary design
method lies with the design engineer.
C6.5 Design actions or loads
Since strains caused by effects, including creep, shrinkage, foundation movements and
temperature are not actually loads but rather alter the distribution of stresses in a structure,
the generic term ‘action’ is used to include both loads and imposed deformations.
In some cases, a characteristic value of the action or load is specified, and the load factors
to convert the characteristic value to the design serviceability or ultimate effect or load, are
given.
Some load factors can have regional variations if a constant ‘safety factor’ is to be
maintained. In such cases, the Standard specifies the design actions or loads directly.
Based on the assumed 100 year design life, the definitions of the limit states imply the
conditions given in Table C6.5 for transient load effects.
Such definitions are common in relation to natural phenomenon such as floods, wind,
earthquake and the like. They are not commonly used for traffic loads; however, traffic
loads are defined so as to achieve the same probability of being exceeded as for natural load
effects.
TABLE C6.5
IMPLIED AVERAGE RETURN INTERVAL FOR TRANSIENT LOAD EFFECTS
Probability of being Probability of being Implied average return interval
Limit state
exceeded in any 1 year exceeded in 100 years for transient load effects
Serviceability 0.05 0.99 20 years
Ultimate 0.0005 0.05 2000 years
C6.6 Capacity or strength

The design resistance or strength is assessed after considering—
(a) the variability of material properties;
(b) the reliability of strength calculation methods;
(c) a possible reduction in strength due to fabrication and construction tolerances; and
(d) the type of failure being considered, e.g., ductile or brittle.
C6.7 Verification of limit states

The design resistance or strength should be greater than or equal to the design actions or
loads, provided that φR u ≥ S * is satisfied, and the probability of failure is still finite but
acceptably small. If the design ultimate load does occur, there is still only a small
probability that the design strength will be exceeded.
C6.8 Other considerations
It is not practical to design for every eventuality, such as the use of high explosives in war
or terrorist attacks. Accidents can be foreseen to a certain extent, and provision is made for
various accidental collision forces. The designer should also foresee other events such as
gas or water leakage in a closed cell, and either relocate, ventilate or drain as necessary.
The authority should take special consideration to strategic important bridges to ensure that
minor damage to a structural component or services carried on the structure, does not lead
to major damage out of all proportion to the original cause.

AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006 8
The relevant authority should give special consideration to strategically important bridges.
The design should also take into consideration the relevant legislation and regulations for
compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety requirements.
C7 WATERWAYS AND FLOOD DESIGN

C7.1 General
Relevant authorities may include local authorities, environmental protection authorities and
those responsible for navigation and flood control.
In assessing serviceability criteria, the acceptable frequency of submersion and the
acceptable annual average time of submersion depend on community usage and available
alternatives. Some sections of road and rail networks do not require the same levels of
immunity as links between major towns, access to major mining operations or links from
towns to airports, which may be required in flood relief operations.
In general, the serviceability of a road or railway system during floods will be controlled by
its weakest link, the point at which the provision of higher flood immunity has the greatest
marginal cost. The design of this link will define the level of serviceability of the whole
system. A series of low flood immunity crossings should be avoided as this can lead to
motorists becoming stranded between flooded crossings in isolated areas.
Modern bridges have a long life and high capital cost. Hence, the long-term requirements of
the road or railway should be assessed when selecting design criteria.
The permissible level of afflux during flooding will depend on land usage of the
surrounding area.
Urban development on flood plains will place severe restrictions on design permissible
afflux levels.
Intensive agriculture, such as cane farming, also requires minimum afflux. In remote, arid
or undeveloped regions afflux may not be a design constraint.
Natural waterways are usually subjected to scour during flooding. The design of the bridge
opening should not significantly increase the level of scour on the banks due to increased
stream velocity.
Any foundation or abutment protection should withstand the effects of any increase in
stream bed scour around piers. Suitable protection methods include deep foundations,
curtain or cut-off walls, rip-rap, stream-bed paving and sheet piling. Redirection of water
along embankments usually increases scour around abutments.
The bridge and approach embankment system should not act as a dam under the design
ultimate limit state flood. Allowance for overtopping, relief structures or selective bridging
of the approach embankments, or both, may need to be considered.

C7.2 Estimation of design floods
Some appropriate methods of estimating floods are included in the references (see Refs 4, 5
and 6).
C7.3 Debris
Depending on the span, flood height relative to the superstructure and drag factors, the
greatest flood forces may be caused by either drag on a debris mat or drag on the
superstructure alone.
Short spans (less than 10 m) are highly likely to be blocked when tree debris is common in
the catchment. Blockage usually leads to loss of the embankment behind the abutments.

9 AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006
C7.4 Stream improvement works

In most situations, the natural stream will be stable if vegetation is not disturbed during
bridge construction.
Alterations to the stream should only be made after careful study of the consequences.
Where stream banks are susceptible to erosion, every effort should be made to protect the
natural vegetation.
C7.5 Piers and abutments
The shape of a pier has a major effect on the hydrodynamic forces acting on it during
floods. Where a variation in flow direction is possible, consideration should be given to
choose the column shape that limits the forces normal to the direction of flow.
Abutment embankment protection should be suitable for the expected flow velocity, and
protected against undermining if the toe scours.
In susceptible soils, the possibility of rapid draw down of water levels after a flood, causing
failure of the embankment fill material, may require investigation.
C7.6 Secondary structures
The bridge opening and adjacent culverts and floodways should cause as little disturbance
as possible to the natural flood patterns. Redirection of water to the main opening increases
afflux and can cause scour along the approach embankments. Both upstream and
downstream land use needs to be considered when assessing flood patterns and effects.
C8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The provision of bridge crossings and stream improvement works can cause changes in
stream flow patterns during flooding. This can lead to altered erosion patterns causing loss
of vegetation and scour of embankments. The relevant Environmental Protection
Authorities should be consulted.
Consideration needs to be given to preserving natural flora and wildlife. Structures located
on fish-bearing streams should be designed to enable the passage of fish under the structure.
The design should also include the identification and preservation of features of
archaeological, historical and cultural significance, wherever possible.
In many instances, statutory regulations exist in regard to the above considerations.
Relevant authorities and other organizations need to be considered at early stages of the
design.
The restrictions may have a major impact on the type of structure and other details
including alignment, foundation locations and type, span lengths, construction methods and
other wide ranging issues (see Austroads ‘Guide to Heritage Bridge Management’ (2001)
(Ref. 7)).
C9 GEOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS
C9.1 General
(No Commentary)
C9.2 Railway bridges
(No Commentary)
C9.3 Bridges over navigable waterways
(No Commentary)

AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006 10
C9.4 Road bridge carriageway widths

It is the responsibility of the authority to determine its bridge carriageway width
requirements, ensuring safety of road users and accounting for economic considerations.
It is a desirable aim that the bridge carriageway width be sufficient to carry the full
carriageway width of the approach roadway; however, the provision of such width should
be balanced against the need to expend funds effectively to provide the best total result for
road users.
Table 9.4(A) of the Standard gives minimum clear widths for bridges on National Highways
with different total lengths and AADT volumes. Table 9.4(B) gives the length of a bridge
requiring a full carriageway width deck. In certain circumstances, the authority may elect to
make longer structures full carriageway width to ensure safety, such as for bridges on
curves, bridges with downhill approach grades, or where accident studies indicate
community benefits will result from a reduction in accident cost.
Single lane bridges should be clearly signed. Bridge widths between 4.5 and 6.6 m are not
generally recommended. However, in special circumstances where the authority considers it
to be warranted, widths within this range may be used with appropriate traffic management
devices provided to ensure that vehicles are warned of the hazard and advised that passing
is dangerous. Even a 6.6 m wide bridge may be considered unsafe for passing where
visibility is poor or on curves, even where traffic volumes are low.
For guidance on traffic lane widths on urban roads, see Austroads (2002) (Ref. 8) and for
rural roads see Austroads (2003) (Ref. 9).
C9.5 Edge clearances for bridges without walkways
(No Commentary)
C9.6 Horizontal clearance to substructure components of bridges over roadways
Austroads ‘Review of Austroads Road Safety Barriers (Roadside Safety Guide) Publication
(2005), (Ref. 10) provides recommendations on minimum lateral clearances.
Horizontal clearances should be adequate for safety, to protect both the road user and the
bridge piers from impact. (See also Clause C11.)
C9.7 Vertical clearance over roadways
The Standard gives minimum vertical clearances for bridges over roads, and the
requirements of the road authority should be followed. For railway bridges, consideration
should however be given to stipulating clearances greater than the minimum and providing
bridge protection devices since vehicle impact on a railway bridge can have extremely
severe consequences. (See also Clause C11.)
C9.8 Bridges over railways
The clearance over any particular railway line is a function of a number of specific
variables, for example—
(a) whether or not the line is electrified;
(b) whether double stacked container traffic is to be allowed for;
(c) the need to allow for railway infrastructure, such as signalling and the like; and
(d) provision for any future requirements.
The variables can make a significant difference to the clearance requirements. Early advice
should be sought from the railway authority on the actual clearances required at any
particular location.
For load requirements for piers adjacent to railways, see AS 5100.2.

11 AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006
C9.9 Superelevation and cross-fall

Where superelevation is not required, the cross-fall should be adequate to drain the deck
surface. Cross-falls less than 1.5% may not be adequate for drainage. For bridges with more
than 2 lanes and one cross-fall, a cross-fall greater than usual may be necessary to improve
drainage. Where the superelevation changes on the bridge or in the approaches, care should
be taken to avoid large relatively level areas on the bridge.
C9.10 Walkway width on road bridges
(No Commentary)
C9.11 Pedestrian bridges
Pedestrian bridges usually cater for higher volumes of pedestrian traffic than road bridge
walkways and thus require greater width between handrails.
Gradients of 1 in 8 are acceptable for able-bodied pedestrians, but may be unacceptably
steep for aged or handicapped pedestrians. Where aged or physically handicapped
pedestrians are likely users of a bridge, the maximum recommended gradient is 1 in 14.
Consideration should also be given to the provision of landings and adequate clearances for
turning wheelchairs at changes in direction on ramps, in accordance with AS 1428.1
(Ref. 11).
Stairway slopes greater than 1 in 1.6 are too steep to use safely without a handrail. In
general, stairways with tread widths less than 300 mm should be avoided. This is
particularly important for railway station access and other situations where crowd access is
anticipated. Landings should be provided in accordance with AS 1657 (Ref. 12).
Vertical clearances to pedestrian bridges over roadways should be greater than for other
bridges over roads as they are usually light structures susceptible to severe damage if hit by
high loads. Sufficient protection will generally be provided by lower road bridges which are
adjacent to or over the same continuous route (which cannot be bypassed in the future) or
by placing the pedestrian bridge above road bridge clearances.
C9.12 Pedestrian subways
The widths specified are generally comfortable for up to 300 persons per hour. Wherever
practicable, subways should be straight so that a person can see the whole tunnel from
either entrance. Provision for lighting should be made whenever possible. Maximum
recommended gradients are similar to those for pedestrian bridges.
C9.13 Bicycle paths
The requirements specified for bicycle-path widths, gradients and vertical clearances are for
common situations and are based on the recommendations of Austroads/SA Bicycles
(Ref. 13). Additional information and recommendations for other situations are also given
in this reference.
C10 ROAD TRAFFIC BARRIERS

C10.1 Scope
Road traffic bridge barriers have been the subject of extensive worldwide investigations in
recent years as emphasis on road safety has increased. Vehicle fleets are changing in
character. In recent years, there have been shifts towards smaller passenger vehicles and
heavier trucks in conjunction with an increased percentage of trucks in the traffic mix. Road
traffic bridge barrier systems should therefore be designed to cater for both ends of the
spectrum, from small light cars to long and heavy trucks.
Road traffic bridge barrier systems should meet site-specific needs leading to a multiple
performance level concept.

AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006 12
C10.2 General
Requirements for road traffic bridge barriers differ from those of pedestrian bridge barriers.
The designer should consider whether a combined bridge barrier can be detailed to satisfy
the major functional requirements or whether to provide separate road traffic bridge barriers
and pedestrian bridge barriers.
Separate pedestrian bridge barriers and road traffic bridge barriers should be considered for
bridges with high volumes of pedestrian and road traffic, particularly for high speed roads.
On such bridges, the combination barrier separating the pedestrian and road traffic should
satisfy bridge barrier requirements on the road side and pedestrian or bicycle requirements
on the walkway side.
The introduction of a combined road traffic bridge and pedestrian bridge barrier between
the walkway and the roadway requires careful consideration of its termination treatment.
The ends of such barriers should generally be flared away from oncoming traffic or be fitted
with an impact attenuation device, or both. In most instances, the probability and cost of a
vehicle impacting the end of such a barrier is greater than mounting the walkway, hitting
and injuring a pedestrian.
Separate pedestrian bridges should be considered where the amount of pedestrian traffic or
other risk factors so dictate.
C10.3 Traffic barrier properties
Road traffic bridge barrier properties should be as follows:
(a) Bridge barriers in themselves may be considered as potential hazards to traffic,
therefore they need to be detailed and positioned to minimize the severity of vehicle
impacts.
(b) For minimum deceleration and smooth redirection, bridge barriers should have
uninterrupted continuous faces with adequate connection between all parts to ensure
compatible deflections under impact.
(c) The strength of joints between longitudinal rails should provide vehicle containment
continuity and prevent separation during impact.
(d) The form of the barrier and the external shape of concrete barriers should be carefully
detailed to aesthetically harmonize with the rest of the structure. Where sight distance
is a problem, consideration should be given to widening the bridge structure or
adopting an alternative see-through barrier design such as a post and rail barrier or
combination steel and concrete barrier.
C10.4 Acceptance criteria for bridge traffic barriers
Variations in traffic volume, speed, vehicle mix, roadway alignment, activities and
conditions beneath a structure and other factors combine to produce a large variation in
road traffic bridge barrier performance requirements.
The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification (1994) (Ref. 14) adopted essentially
three basic levels of performance, PL-1, PL-2 and PL-3, similar to the provisions in the
earlier AASHTO Guide Specification for Bridge Railings (1989) (Ref. 15). The Standard
specifies similar performance levels, low, regular and medium respectively, which are
matched to similar ultimate design loads and the same performance tests (test levels 4, 5
and 6 of the NCHRP TRB Report 350) (1993) (Ref. 16), as the AASHTO performance
levels.

13 AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006
The controlling strength test vehicle for the special performance level depends upon the
level specified by the authority (see Appendix B of the Standard). Where the performance
level corresponds to test level 6 of NCHRP TRB Report 350 (1993) (Ref. 16), the
controlling strength test vehicle is a 36 tonne medium mass tanker. Where a higher
performance level is required, the controlling strength test vehicle may be, for example, a
44 tonne semi-trailer. Such a performance level is not tied directly to a NCHRP TRB 350
(1993) (Ref. 16) test level. Road bridge barriers that have satisfied the test level 6
requirements could, with minor modifications, fulfil the requirements of the 44 tonne semi-
trailer test vehicle and the Clause for this higher performance level.
Current international practice for acceptance of bridge and roadside traffic barriers is to
generally only allow the use of fully crash tested systems or systems that can be shown to
be geometrically and structurally equivalent to a crash tested system.
The Federal Highway Administration of the United States of America (Ref. 17) maintains
an official register of approved tested barrier systems. Reference is made to their website
for their current list of approved barrier systems, test vehicles restrained by these systems,
test reports, current research activities and similar Bridge barrier systems tested
successfully for all the requirements of the equivalent performance level tests in the
NCHRP TRB (1993) Report 350 (Ref. 16), are considered satisfactory and can form the
basis for acceptance of existing road bridge barrier systems and the development of new
systems.
Some bridge barrier and bridge approach barrier systems have been tested in accordance
with requirements other than those of NCHRP TRB Report 350 (1993) (Ref. 16) such as
ENV 1317.2 (1998) (Ref. 18). The relevant authority may determine that such systems
satisfy one of the performance levels specified in the Standard based on considerations of
equivalent energy dissipation, geometry, structural detailing and similar.
When a minor detail is changed, or an improvement is made to a bridge barrier system that
has already been tested to an acceptable performance level, engineering judgement and
analysis should be used when determining the need for additional testing.
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification (2004) (Ref. 2) provides methodology for
designing prototype concrete parapet barrier, steel post and rail barrier and combination
concrete plus steel post and rail barrier systems. This methodology provides a reasonable
basis for developing or evaluating minor modifications to tested systems. This methodology
also provides a basis for the development of special performance level barrier systems for
which very few tested systems currently exist. The special performance level covers other
situations including providing a non-penetrable vehicle containment well in excess of the
medium (NCHRP TRB Report 350 (1993), test level 5 (Ref. 16)), such as the optional PL-4
and PL-4T of the AASHTO Guide Specifications (1989) (Ref. 15) with a lateral barrier
containment of approximately 1000 kN. These barriers should be based on systems that
have been tested preferably in accordance with NCHRP TRB Report 350 (1993) (Ref. 16)
test level 6, the 44 tonne semi-trailer test vehicle or heavier test vehicles as specified by the
authority. The acceptance of special performance level barrier systems should be in
accordance with the requirements of the relevant authority.
Currently significant advances are being made with the development of computer software
for the simulation of dynamic interaction of vehicles and barrier systems, which potentially
offers improved ability to design prototype systems for testing or modifications to tested
systems.
C10.5 Performance levels
C10.5.1 General
The multiple performance levels for road bridge traffic barriers set out in the Standard
represent a graded response to a range of hazards and recognize the various levels of risk to
the occupants of the impacting vehicle, and other persons and property.

AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006 14
The assessment of alternative performance levels requires the consideration of the

interaction of a number of factors relating to the site, the road and the vehicles. Benefit cost
assessment should be used as the basis for performance level selection. This has formed the
basis for Appendix B of the Standard.
C10.5.2 No barrier
In the case of submersible bridges, traffic barriers may often be damaged, prevent the
passage of debris or cause an increase in the level of afflux during flooding. Where such a
bridge complies with the criteria specified, kerbs may be provided in lieu of traffic barriers.
Continuous kerbs, at least 250 mm high, are preferable; however, where the authority
permits, castellated kerbs may be used. Where possible a steel channel with a tyre-safe
rubbing strip should be incorporated on the top of the castellated kerbs.
C10.5.3 Low performance level
A typical form of road bridge barrier could be a roadside barrier, such as a guard fence,
modified in stiffness for bridge use. The minimum performance for this type of barrier
would be the test level 2 of the NCHRP Report 350 (1993) (Ref. 16) suitably splayed and
terminated on the bridge approaches.
C10.5.4 Regular performance level
Regular performance level corresponds approximately to the Australian Bridge Design
Code-ABDC 1992 (HB 77—1996) (Ref. 19) level 2 steel, concrete and combination steel
and concrete barrier systems in strength and marginally higher in effective height. The
recommended typical arrangement for highways and most main roads would comprise a
barrier complying with NCHRP TRB Report 350 (1993) (Ref. 16) test level 4 on the bridge
and approach, followed by a lower performance roadside barrier where the risk is lower.
C10.5.5 Medium performance level
Medium performance level can be provided at a relatively small additional cost over the
regular performance level and will provide safe containment for most medium mass
vehicles including buses and average mass semi-trailers. It will also provide safe
containment of maximum mass semi-trailers at reduced speeds or reduced angles of impact.
C10.5.6 Special performance level
The requirement for a special performance level barrier will be determined by the authority
based on site-specific risk assessment, cost considerations and engineering judgement.
This performance level covers the following situations in the Standard:
(a) One or two higher performance levels than the medium performance level.
(b) A performance level for special high risk sites, where the potential hazards should be
assessed and the vehicles to be contained identified. These barriers should be used
where penetration of the barrier by these identified vehicles represents an

unacceptably high risk to the occupants or to other persons or property.
The selection procedure provided in Appendix B of the Standard for the low, regular and
medium performance levels is based on a typical spectrum of vehicles, which at the upper
mass end, is based on the 36 tonne test level 5 articulated van vehicle which is similar in
effect to the 33 tonne design vehicle in the NAASRA Highway Bridge Design Specification
(1970) (Ref. 20).
Australia moved to the 44 tonne semi-trailer design vehicle in 1976 (Ref. 21) and as a
consequence, the mass of Australia’s fleet of semi-trailers is significantly higher than that
covered by the selection procedure referred to in the Clause. Current typical vehicles
include articulated vehicles of up to 50 tonne gross mass and 70 tonne B-Doubles. This
trend for heavier vehicles has been considered when including this performance level.

15 AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006
Appendix B of the Standard nominates two higher performance levels. These levels have
been introduced to provide for safe containment of typical fully or partly laden Australian
tray type semi-trailers.
A limited number of barriers have already been designed and constructed on very heavily
trafficked urban and interstate freeways at maximum risk sites with the intention of
containing errant, high speed 44 t semi-trailers.
C10.6 Barrier geometry
C10.6.1 Parapet type barriers
For parapet type barrier systems, the Type F safety shape is specified rather than the
traditional more pronounced New Jersey profile to minimize reverse roll of small light
vehicles.
In the case of single slope concrete barriers, greater energy dissipation is achieved by
crushing of the vehicle and barrier than with the Type F profile but there is minimal
tendency for small vehicles to ride up the barrier and rollover. These barriers facilitate
resurfacing because their performance is insensitive to the thickness of asphalt overlay.
Like the Type F safety shape, they have been shown to perform acceptably in crash tests
(Mc Devitt) (2000) (Ref. 22), and Bronstad and Kimball (1976) (Ref. 23).
C10.6.2 Post and rail type barrier
Post and rail type barrier systems provide a visually open form of barrier and can be
constructed in a variety of architectural designs.
Steel post and rail or steel parapet barriers are also lighter than concrete parapet barriers,
which is frequently an important consideration when upgrading barriers on older structures.
However, they are generally more expensive to construct and more vulnerable to
intermittent damage resulting from minor incidents.
Steel post and rail systems are more flexible than their concrete counterparts, which offers
some advantages in energy absorption, but also requires them to be higher to achieve the
same effective height.
Combination concrete parapet plus steel post and rail barrier systems potentially offer a
good compromise.
The geometric constraints specified in the Standard are based on the results of crash testing
and in-field performance of barrier systems (Ref. 15). Post setback is critical to providing a
smooth surface for the errant vehicle to slide along without snagging. Longitudinal rail
locations are also important in ensuring that wheels and other components of all vehicle
types are contained without snagging and that loads are distributed appropriately between
these rails.
Commercial vehicles generally have wheels that are approximately 1100 mm high, tray
heights that are about 1200 to 1500 mm high and tanker barrels are higher again. Hence, the
location of rails in post and rail systems represents a compromise in trying to constrain all
vehicles, with particular emphasis on test vehicles.
The actual height of the longitudinal rails should be based on the geometric requirements of
the test vehicles taking into account the geometry of local vehicles that are statistically
chosen for prototype tests to simulate the test vehicle properties. In addition, the ‘lying
down potential’ of the barrier under strength test vehicle impacts should be considered in
adopting the final overall barrier height.
Figure C10.6.2 shows the definition of clear vertical opening referred to in the Standard.
Where barriers are combined vehicle pedestrian systems, geometric constraints relevant to
pedestrians also have to be satisfied.

AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006 16
Opening
Opening
Opening
FIGURE C10.6.2 CLEAR VERTICAL OPENINGS
C10.6.3 Bridge approaches

In most situations, a flexible road side barrier system suitably transitioned to a more rigid
bridge barrier system provides a reasonable system of containment and redirection.
In situations where a higher level of risk exists along the approach to the bridge, a more
rigid approach barrier and foundation system will be required.
In limited high risk situations, consideration may be given to providing a two tiered system
on the bridge approach with a flexible, primary, low performance level system to safely
redirect light vehicles on the road approach backed up by a rigid, secondary, higher
performance system to contain errant heavy vehicles. The rigid secondary system should be
flared away from the carriageway on the approach to reduce the probability and severity of
impact with the end of the system by heavy vehicles.
C10.6.4 End treatment
Refer to specialist literature.
C11 COLLISION PROTECTION

C11.1 General
Bridge supports include columns or piers, including trestles and rigid frame support legs.
For bridge superstructures such as trusses, cable supported structures and the like, where
failure may result from collision with superstructure members by traffic crossing the bridge,
one or more of the following measures, as appropriate, should be applied to minimize the
possibility of collapse:
(a) Members should be designed to absorb the relevant collision loads specified in
AS 5100.2 without collapse of the superstructure.
(b) Sufficient redundancies and alternative load paths should be provided to prevent
collapse upon removal of critical members.
(c) Suitable barriers should be provided to minimize the possibility of collision with
superstructure members.
(d) Critical members should be located at positions where collision cannot occur.
It is recognized that members may be damaged, and in extreme cases, particularly with
railway loadings, the superstructure may be rendered unserviceable, requiring substantial
repair.

17 AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006
The intent of the Standard is that the superstructure should not collapse under the loads
being carried at the time of the collision (Ref. 24).
C11.2 Collision from road traffic
Accidental impact from road vehicles commonly occurs as a consequence of over-height
vehicles, out-of-control vehicles, load-shift/loss and similar.
Provision for such impacts may be addressed by such measures as—
(a) overheight detection and prevention;
(b) overhead protection beams, height warning gantries and similar;
(c) roadside barriers;
(d) construction of clear span structures; and
(e) construction of robust piers and abutments and strengthening of existing multi-
column piers and abutments by construction of infill walls.
Impacts on bridge superstructures frequently occur as a result of vehicles transporting
equipment such as backhoes and similar with hydraulic arms that have not been lowered or
that have sprung up during transport.
Pedestrian bridges are particularly vulnerable to vehicle impact and should be constructed
as clear span structures and have increased vertical clearances as specified in Clause 9.11 of
the Standard.
Care should be taken with the construction of protection beams to protect bridge
superstructures. Where possible, they should only be constructed on the approach side to
bridges as beams on departure sides can be snagged by over-height loads and fall on the
carriageway and potentially lead to catastrophic consequences for other road users.
Similarly, to reduce the risk of loads being dislodged onto the carriageway, these beams
should be constructed perpendicular to the carriageway.
Allowance should be made for load shift and lateral tilt of loads on commercial vehicles
when determining appropriate lateral clearances to bridge piers and other roadside
structures. The angle of tilt for commercial vehicles depends upon a number of variables
including vehicle speed and suspension dynamics, pavement cross-fall and curvature and
similar. Austroads, Review of Austroads Road Safety Barriers (Roadside Safety Guide)
(2005) (Ref. 10) provides recommendations on lateral clearances.
C11.3 Collision from railway traffic
C11.3.1 General
The intention is to have a tiered approach to the design of railway bridges and structures
over railways, from the most desirable to the least desirable as follows (Refs 25 and 26):
(a) Provide a clear span between abutments.

(b) Provide frangible piers with alternative load paths.
(c) Provide support with heavy construction.
Abutments should be designed with wing walls close to parallel to the track and flush with
the abutment, to act to deflect a derailed train past the abutment. Wing walls perpendicular
to rail tracks are most undesirable.
In general, unprotected piers near railway tracks should be avoided; however, when this is
not possible, the provisions of AS 5100.2 apply.
The aim is to design bridges and structures with adequate alternative load paths to permit a
derailed train to demolish supports without collapse of the superstructure onto the train.
This was the recommendation of the Granville Investigation (Ref. 24).

AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006 18
Collisions of railway traffic with heavy support structures may lead to loss of life to train
occupants or third parties due to carriages becoming air borne, telescoping and jack knifing.
The designer should consider whether the emergency authorities should be advised on
recommended traffic control on the bridge once a support is damaged or removed, or if an
electronic system to detect large displacements of the supports coupled with traffic control
devices should be installed.
The provision of alternative load paths should increase the structures’ ability to resist
damage from explosions.
C11.3.2 Bridges and structures with piers and columns of heavy construction and
deflection walls
Supports and walls designed for the minimum collision load given in AS 5100.2 can only be
expected to deflect a train when the collision is a glancing blow, not a head on collision,
such as the locomotive collision with the trestle in the Granville disaster. In a head-on
collision, the pier, column or wall may fail, resulting in support failure, or the train may
telescope, concertina or become partly air borne, in which case the support and or
superstructure may be impacted and fail.
Continuous walls are required in order to deflect a derailed train and prevent the demolition
of bridge piers or structure supports.
Deflection walls significantly improve the performance of supports of heavy construction in
a derailment. They perform more effectively the more they can deflect in a derailment
before loading the support.
Where piers, columns or walls are located between 7.5 m and 20.0 m from a designated
main line, a risk analysis in consultation with the relevant authority should determine the
level of protection required, but not less than the provision of AS 5100.2.
The wall geometry should be selected so that a derailed locomotive is maintained in an
upright position if possible.
Where the dimension impinges on railway safety clearances, the relevant authority may
specify an alternative set of requirements.
In some circumstances, it may be impractical to design for the loads specified in AS 5100.2
and the relevant authority may specify an alternative load condition.
C11.3.3 Underground railways, air space developments and similar situations
The Clause applies to underground railways in cut and cover construction or tunnels. It
applies to air space developments, developments adjacent to railways, and equivalent
structures in underground railways. It applies to underground stations and concourses.
C11.3.4 Upgrading of existing installations
(No Commentary)
C11.4 Ship collision with bridge piers
Specialist literature should be consulted. See also Refs 27 to 33.
Piers may be protected by designing them with sufficient mass and strength to resist
collisions with vessels of limited size. This is possible with long span heavy concrete
bridges requiring substantial piers.
For large ships in navigable waterways, it may be necessary to protect piers in deeper water
by building energy absorbing structures adjacent to the piers with sufficient capacity to stop
a ship before pier impact occurs. All piers in deep water may need protection, not only
those adjacent to the main navigation span.

19 AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006
Bridge piers may be designed without pier protection provided the authority makes a
specific decision that the risk of pier and superstructure collapse is acceptable compared
with the high cost of ensuring pier protection.
C12 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE-PATH BARRIERS

C12.1 Geometric requirements
The baluster spacing of 130 mm clear is based on the ability of a child to squeeze between
the balusters. It is assumed that very small, young children would not be on a public road or
walkway without parental supervision.
Pedestrian barriers should not present rail positions that allow children to easily climb or
walk on or behind the barrier; however, complete prevention of such behaviour by barrier
detailing alone may be impractical. Vertical balusters without climbing footholds should be
provided in preference to horizontal rails.
C12.2 Pedestrian protection barriers for bridges over electrified railways
Railway authorities have standard protection barriers which are suitable for use on most
bridges. In some cases, the authority may also require the pedestrian barrier to be
electrically isolated from the rest of the bridge to avoid the possibility of it becoming
charged.
C12.3 Protection screens for objects falling or being thrown from bridges
The requirement for provision of protection screens should be determined by the relevant
authority using a risk assessment and benefit-cost approach based on history of incidents
and other local knowledge relevant to the specific site. A safety toe-board or kerb should be
provided to reduce the possibility of objects falling from the bridge.
C13 NOISE BARRIERS

The requirement for noise barriers should be determined by the authority in accordance
with appropriate standards taking into consideration the effectiveness, cost and visual
intrusion of such barriers.
C14 DRAINAGE
C14.1 Drainage of the carriageway
Minimum scupper dimensions are specified to avoid blockage by the ubiquitous drink can
and paper or plastic bags.
Railway Authorities may have particular requirements or restrictions for deck drainage over
railway carriageways. Early advice should be sought from the Railway Authority regarding
any such requirement.
C14.2 Detailing for drainage

Drainage should be provided to prevent additional build-up of dead load. Drainage pipes
inside cells should be constructed of a durable material to prevent leaking of flammable and
corrosive materials into the cell.
C14.3 Drainage of ballast topped bridges
Where waterproofing is required and is subject to possible injury from abrasion, puncture or
otherwise, a protection course or mat is essential.
C15 ACCESS FOR INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE

Provision should be made for access to all parts of a structure for inspection. Openings
should be large enough for any anticipated maintenance equipment.

AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006 20
The requirements for working in confined spaces should also be considered.

Lighting and power outlets should be installed where necessary to facilitate inspection and
maintenance work in closed cells.
Where required, fixed ladders and walkways should be installed, conforming to the
requirements of AS 1657 (Ref. 12). Additional anchor points for handrails and safety
harnesses may be required.
C16 UTILITIES
Authorities should inform Public Utility Authorities of bridge schemes early in the planning
process so that any requirements of these authorities can be incorporated in the design.
Sockets and fixings cast into the bridge should be made from stainless steel in coastal areas
and galvanized steel elsewhere. Brackets, hangers, bolts and the like should be galvanized.
Utilities carried inside closed cells of box girders can form a hazard. For water and sewer
pipes adequate drainage should be provided in case of leaking or bursting of the pipes. Gas
mains should not be located in closed cells due to the risk of explosion if leakage occurs.
High pressure gas mains present a serious explosion hazard if ruptured and should not be
placed on bridges without special precautions.
High voltage electrical cables may have a significant heat output and may require
ventilation.
Utility authorities may have restrictions on the location of their services in relation to other
utilities.
C17 SKEW RAILWAY BRIDGES

The articulation at the ends of bridges should take consideration of the track support
system.
C18 CAMBER ON RAILWAY BRIDGES

In order to maintain the required rail vertical alignment under load, camber may be required
for bridges without ballasted track. In the determination of the degree of camber, the
designer should consider the effect of the camber on the operation of rolling stock.
Reference should also be made to the relevant rail authority for additional considerations,
such as track maintenance.

21 AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006
REFERENCES
1 BS 5400.1, 1988, Steel, concrete and composite bridges, General statement.
2 AASHTO ‘LRFD Bridge Design Specification’, 2004.
3 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, 2000.
4 Austroads, ‘Waterway Design, A Guide to the Hydraulic Design of Bridges, Culverts
and Floodways’, 1994.
5 Engineers Australia, ‘Australian Rainfall and Runoff’, 2001.
6 U.S. Department of Transport, Federal Highway Administration, Hydraulics of
Bridge Waterways, 1973.
7 Austroads, ‘Guide to Heritage Bridge Management’, 2001.
8 Austroads, ‘Urban Road Design, Guide to the Geometric Design of Major Urban
Roads’, 2002.
9 Austroads, ‘Rural Road Design, A Guide to the Geometric Design of Rural Roads’,
2003.
10 Austroads, ‘Review of Austroads Road Safety Barriers (Roadside Safety Guide)
Publication’, Project Report RS.SS.C.002, March 2005.
11 Standards Australia, AS 1428.1, ‘Design for access and mobility, Part 1: General
requirements for access buildings’.
12 Standards Australia, AS 1657, ‘Fixed platforms, walkways, stairways and ladders’.
13 Austroads/SAA ‘Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Part 14: Bicycles’.
14 AASHTO ‘LRFD Bridge Design Specifications’, 1994.
15 AASHTO ‘Guide Specification for Bridge Railings’, 1989.
16 NCHRP TRB Report 350, ‘Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance
Evaluation of Highway Features’, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C. 1993.
17 FHWA—U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highways Administration,
website: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/road_hardware/barriers
18 EN 1317.2, ‘Road restraint system, Part 2: Performance classes, impact test
acceptance criteria and test methods for safety barriers’, July 1998.
19 Austroads, ‘Australian Bridge Design Code’, 1992 (HB 77—1996).
20 NAASRA, ‘Highway Bridge Design Specification’, 1970.
21 NAASRA, ‘Highway Bridge Design Specification’, 1976.

22 Mc Devitt, C. F., ‘Basics of Concrete Barriers’, FHWA, Public Roads, No. 5,
Vol. 63, Mar/Apr 2000.
23 Bronstad, M. E. and Kimball, C. E, ‘Concrete Safety Shape Research’,
Transportation Research Record 594, 1976.
24 ‘Report on the Formal Investigation of an Accident on or about the Main Western
Railway Line at Granville on 18th January 1977’, by His Honour Judge J H Staunton,
Q C, Chief Judge of the District Court, 11th May 1977.
25 Marcer, J. R., ‘Revised Railway Provisions of the New Bridge Design Standard’,
Conference on Railway Engineering, Wollongong, 10-13 Nov 2002.
26 Rapattoni F, ‘Safety First for Bridges—by Design’, Austroads 5 th Bridge Conference,
Tasmania, 2004.

AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006 22
27 AASHTO, ‘Guide Specification and Commentary for Vessel Collision, Design of

Highway Bridges’, 1991.
28 IABSE Colloquium, ‘Ship Collision with Bridges and Offshore Structures’, 3 Vols.
Copenhagen, Denmark, 1983.
29 Knott, J., Wood, D. and Bonyun, D., ‘Risk Analysis for Ship-Bridge Collisions’,
Fourth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Baltimore, MD, 1985.
30 Leslie, J.A., ‘Ships and Bridges’, International Conference on Application of
Statistics and Probability in Soil and Structural Engineering, Sydney, Proceedings,
1979.
31 Prucz, Z. and Conway W.B., ‘Design of Bridge Piers Against Ship Collision’, Bridges
and Transmission Line Structures, Tall L. ed, American Society of Civil Engineers,
New York, pp 209-223, 1987.
32 Saul, R. and Svensson, H., ‘On the Theory of Ship Collision Against Bridge Piers’, In
IABSE Proceedings, Feb 1980.
33 Connal, J. and Rapattoni, F., ‘Pier Redundancy on Hindmarsh Island Bridge, South
Australia’, Journal of the International Association for Bridge and Structural
Engineering (IABSE), SEI, Vol. 12-1, Feb 2002.

23 AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006
APPENDIX CA
MATTERS FOR RESOLUTION BEFORE DESIGN COMMENCES
(No Commentary)

AS 5100.1 Supp 1—2006 24
APPENDIX CB
ROAD BARRIER PERFORMANCE LEVEL SELECTION METHOD
(No Commentary)

Standards Australia
Standards Australia develops Australian Standards® and other documents of public benefit and national interest.
These Standards are developed through an open process of consultation and consensus, in which all interested
parties are invited to participate. Through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Commonwealth Government,
Standards Australia is recognized as Australia’s peak non-government national standards body. Standards Australia
also supports excellence in design and innovation through the Australian Design Awards.
For further information visit www.standards.org.au
Australian
Australian Standards®
Standards®
Committees of experts from industry, governments, consumers and other relevant sectors prepare Australian
Standards. The requirements or recommendations contained in published Standards are a consensus of the views
of representative interests and also take account of comments received from other sources. They reflect the latest
scientific and industry experience. Australian Standards are kept under continuous review after publication and are
updated regularly to take account of changing technology.
International Involvement
Standards Australia is responsible for ensuring the Australian viewpoint is considered in the formulation of
International Standards and that the latest international experience is incorporated in national Standards. This role is
vital in assisting local industry to compete in international markets. Standards Australia represents Australia at both
the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).
Sales and Distribution

Australian Standards®, Handbooks and other documents developed by Standards Australia are printed and
distributed under license by SAI Global Limited.
For information regarding the development of Standards contact:
Standards Australia Limited
GPO Box 476
Sydney NSW 2001
Phone: 02 8206 6000
Fax: 02 8206 6001
Email: mail@standards.org.au
Internet: www.standards.org.au
For information regarding the sale and distribution of Standards contact:

SAI Global Limited
Phone: 13 12 42
Fax: 1300 65 49 49
Email: sales@sai-global.com
ISBN 0 7337 7503 9

This page has been left intentionally blank.

AS 5100.1 Commentary - 2006 Scope and General Principles

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AS 5100.1 Commentary - 2006 Scope and General Principles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AS 5100.

AS 5100.1 Supplement 1—2006

Bridge design—Scope and general

The following are represented on Committee BD-090:

Standards Australia welcomes suggestions for improvements, and encourages readers to

AS 5100.1 Supplement 1—2006

Bridge design—Scope and general

First published as HB 77.1 Supp 1—1996.

 Standards Australia www.standards.org.au

www.standards.org.au  Standards Australia

 Standards Australia www.standards.org.au

In general, a particular analytical method to derive a preliminary design concept that

C6.6 Capacity or strength

C6.7 Verification of limit states

www.standards.org.au  Standards Australia

C7 WATERWAYS AND FLOOD DESIGN

of the approach embankments, or both, may need to be considered.

 Standards Australia www.standards.org.au

C7.4 Stream improvement works

www.standards.org.au  Standards Australia

C9.4 Road bridge carriageway widths

 Standards Australia www.standards.org.au

C9.9 Superelevation and cross-fall

C10 ROAD TRAFFIC BARRIERS

www.standards.org.au  Standards Australia

 Standards Australia www.standards.org.au

www.standards.org.au  Standards Australia

The assessment of alternative performance levels requires the consideration of the

where penetration of the barrier by these identified vehicles represents an

 Standards Australia www.standards.org.au

www.standards.org.au  Standards Australia

FIGURE C10.6.2 CLEAR VERTICAL OPENINGS

C10.6.3 Bridge approaches

C11 COLLISION PROTECTION

 Standards Australia www.standards.org.au

(a) Provide a clear span between abutments.

www.standards.org.au  Standards Australia

 Standards Australia www.standards.org.au

C12 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE-PATH BARRIERS

C13 NOISE BARRIERS

C14.2 Detailing for drainage

C15 ACCESS FOR INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE

www.standards.org.au  Standards Australia

The requirements for working in confined spaces should also be considered.

C17 SKEW RAILWAY BRIDGES

C18 CAMBER ON RAILWAY BRIDGES

 Standards Australia www.standards.org.au

21 NAASRA, ‘Highway Bridge Design Specification’, 1976.

www.standards.org.au  Standards Australia

27 AASHTO, ‘Guide Specification and Commentary for Vessel Collision, Design of

 Standards Australia www.standards.org.au

www.standards.org.au  Standards Australia

 Standards Australia www.standards.org.au

For further information visit www.standards.org.au

Sales and Distribution

For information regarding the sale and distribution of Standards contact:

ISBN 0 7337 7503 9

You might also like