Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AS 5100.7-2004 Rating of Existing Bridges
AS 5100.7-2004 Rating of Existing Bridges
7—2004
AP-G15.7/04
AS 5100.7
Australian Standard™
Bridge design
Australian Standard™
Bridge design
Originated as HB 77.7—1996.
Revised and redesignated as AS 5100.7—2004.
Accessed by SMEC AUSTRALIA on 18 Sep 2008
COPYRIGHT
© Standards Australia International
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 International Ltd
GPO Box 5420, Sydney, NSW 2001, Australia
ISBN 0 7337 5500 3
AS 5100.7—2004 2
PREFACE
This Standard was prepared by the Standards Australia Committee BD-090, Bridge Design,
to supersede HB 77.7—1996, Australian Bridge Design Code, Section 7: Rating.
The AS 5100 series represents a revision of the 1996 HB 77 series, Australian Bridge
Design Code, which contained a separate Railway Supplement to Sections 1 to 5, together
with new Section 6, Steel and composite construction, and Section 7, Rating. AS 5100 takes
the requirements of the Railway Supplement and incorporates them into Parts 1 to 5 of the
present series, to form integrated documents covering requirements for both road and rail
bridges. In addition, technical material has been updated.
This Standard is also designated as AUSTROADS publication AP-G15.7/04.
The objectives of AS 5100 are to provide nationally acceptable requirements for—
(a) the design of road, rail, pedestrian and bicycle-path bridges;
(b) the specific application of concrete, steel and composite steel/concrete construction
method, which embody principles that may be applied to other materials in
association with relevant Standards; and
(c) the assessment of the load capacity of existing bridges.
These requirements are based on the principles of structural mechanics and knowledge of
material properties, for both the conceptual and detailed design, to achieve acceptable
probabilities that the bridge or associated structure being designed will not become unfit for
use during its design life.
Whereas earlier editions of the Australian Bridge Design Code were essentially
administered by the infrastructure owners and applied to their own inventory, an increasing
number of bridges are being built under the design-construct-operate principle and being
handed over to the relevant statutory authority after several years of operation. This
Standard includes clauses intended to facilitate the specification to the designer of the
functional requirements of the owner, to ensure the long-term performance and
serviceability of the bridge and associated structure.
Significant changes have been made to HB 77.7—1996 following recent research and
experience in Australia. Load testing to supplement theoretical assessment of the load
capacity of the structure has been included.
In line with Standards Australia policy, the words ‘shall’ and ‘may’ are used consistently
throughout this Standard to indicate respectively, a mandatory provision and an acceptable
or permissible alternative.
Accessed by SMEC AUSTRALIA on 18 Sep 2008
CONTENTS
Page
1 SCOPE AND GENERAL ........................................................................................... 4
2 REFERENCED DOCUMENTS.................................................................................. 5
3 NOTATION................................................................................................................ 5
4 RATING PHILOSOPHY ............................................................................................ 6
5 ASSESSMENT OF LOAD CAPACITY ..................................................................... 8
6 LOAD TESTING ...................................................................................................... 10
7 ASSESSMENT OF THE ACTUAL LOADS ............................................................ 14
8 FATIGUE ................................................................................................................. 16
STANDARDS AUSTRALIA
Australian Standard
Bridge design
A bridge rating shall confirm that the bridge is able to carry its rated capacity, including the
impact effects of an appropriate dynamic load allowance. This dynamic load allowance
shall be in accordance with this Standard or an appropriate modified value based on
measurement, detailed assessment, or controlled by the imposition of a speed restriction or
other methods of control. Where specific measurements so indicate, an increased dynamic
load allowance shall be considered. The dynamic load allowance is sensitive to the road
profiles on the bridge and its approaches as well as the characteristics, speed and mass of
the vehicle(s) inducing the dynamic effects.
Rating shall be based on confirmed details of the structure, including design and as
constructed records. All assumptions relevant to the rating shall be recorded.
NOTES:
1 Unless road approaches to bridges are carefully maintained, road profiles may vary with time,
potentially leading to increased dynamic loading on bridges.
2 When making an assessment of a metal structure or component, care should be taken to
identify whether the material is cast iron, wrought iron or steel.
2 REFERENCED DOCUMENTS
The following documents are referred to in this Standard:
AS
5100 Bridge design
5100.2 Part 2: Design loads
5100.3 Part 3: Foundations and soil-supporting structures
5100.5 Part 5: Concrete
5100.6 Part 6: Steel and composite construction
HB 77.2 Australian Bridge Design Code—Design loads
Austroads Bridge Design Code
Highway Bridge Design Specification
NAASRA
3 NOTATION
The symbols used in this Standard are listed in Table 3.
Where non-dimensional ratios are involved, both the numerator and denominator are
expressed in identical units.
The units for length and stress in all expressions or equations are to be taken as millimetres
(mm) and megapascals (MPa) respectively, unless specifically noted otherwise.
Accessed by SMEC AUSTRALIA on 18 Sep 2008
TABLE 3
NOTATION
Symbols Description Clause reference
ALF accompanying lane factor 4.2
k adjustment factor taking into account any distress level reached during 6.4.3
load testing
LR rated load 4.2, 6.4.3
L RV nominated rating vehicle 4.1
MTF multiple track factor 4.2
PL max. maximum applied test load 6.4.3
RF rating factor 4.2
Ru calculated ultimate capacity 4.2
rm modification ratio Table 7.3
Sg* load effects due to dead load 4.2
*
Sgs load effects due to superimposed dead load 4.2
SL* load effects due to the live load used for the assessment 4.2
Sp* load effects due to parasitic effects of prestress 4.2
Ss* load effects due to differential settlement 4.2
St* load effects due to differential temperature 4.2
α dynamic load allowance 4.2
α HL dynamic load allowance for a heavy load platform or other specific loads 7.1
γg load factor for dead load Table 7.3
γ gs load factor for superimposed dead load Table 7.3
γL live load factor 6.4.3
γ LRA load factor for specific loads Table 7.3
φ capacity reduction factor 4.2
4 RATING PHILOSOPHY
4.1 General
The concept of rating is based on the limit states design principle that the assessed
minimum strength capacity of the bridge shall be greater than the assessed maximum load
applied. Both serviceability and ultimate limit state capacities shall be considered. Rating
relates primarily to the live load condition, including dynamic effects. The procedure shall
Accessed by SMEC AUSTRALIA on 18 Sep 2008
be to rate the available live load capacity of the bridge compared with the effects of a
nominated rating vehicle (LRV), that is—
(a) the SM1600 loading for general capacity rating;
(b) a specific live load configuration for general access vehicles, for example, a legal
limit loading; or
(c) a specific live load configuration for restricted access vehicles, for example, an
indivisible heavy loading operating under nominated conditions.
4.2 Rating equation
The rating of a bridge is carried out by comparing the factored live load effects of the
nominated rating vehicle with the factored strength of the bridge after subtracting the
strength capacities required to meet the factored dead and superimposed dead load effects
and parasitic, differential temperature and differential settlement effects.
The ability of a bridge to carry repeated general access live loads is assessed as a proportion
of a nominated general access rating vehicle. Similarly, the ability of a bridge to carry a
specific vehicle for a single pass or a small number of passes is assessed as a proportion of
a nominated restricted access vehicle, operating under nominated conditions, e.g., speed
restriction, location on bridge deck.
The rating procedure is carried out for all strength checks, e.g., moment, shear and the like,
at all potentially critical sections, with the lowest rating factor determined being the rating
factor for the bridge.
For the purpose of rating, the general strength equation for bridges is expressed as follows:
φR u ≥ γ g S g* + γ gs S gs
*
+ S p* + S s* + S t* + γ L (RF ) S L* W (1 + α ) . . . 4.2(1)
The general equation to determine the rating factor (RF) for bridges is therefore—
RF ≤
(
φR u − γ g S g* + γ gs S gs
*
+ S p* + S s* + S t* ) . . . 4.2(2)
γ L (1 + α ) W S L*
Design and construction conditions shall be assessed to determine the basis of the design,
and the background for the detailing that has been adopted and the reliability of the
construction process.
5.3 Field measurement
When a more accurate rating of a bridge is justified, the calculation of structural resistance
shall consider the actual current geometry and dimensions, section properties and material
properties of the bridge and its components, including the foundations. The assessment of
structural resistance shall allow for all geometric imperfections and eccentricities caused by
inaccurate construction, damage, or any other cause.
Assessments of section properties shall consider—
(a) the actual size of the member and internal components including any variations
caused by corrosion;
(b) other deterioration causing loss of section, such as wear; and
(c) the uncertainties of the position of internal components, such as prestressed and non-
prestressed components.
Where Items (a), (b) and (c) are taken into consideration, the variation in the capacity
reduction factor specified in Clause 5.6 may be used.
The material properties shall take due account of the possible variations in those properties
as well as any possible material deterioration or decay that may have occurred. The effects
of residual, thermal, creep and shrinkage stresses, and foundation settlement shall also be
considered.
The same approach shall be used for foundations, taking into consideration the existing
properties of the foundation materials, and allowing deterioration, such as scour and loss of
strength, or improvement as a result of consolidation over time.
The loads, other than vehicle loads, to which the bridge and its components will be
subjected, shall be considered, including the actual dead and superimposed dead loads,
including all services, and the eccentricity of load in the bridge overall and on components
and details of the bridge.
5.4 Characteristic strengths
It shall be permissible to measure by testing the properties of materials in the bridge and
assess the bridge on the basis of characteristic strengths or other properties, calculated from
these test results. Tests and calculations of characteristic strengths or other properties shall
be carried out in accordance with the relevant Standards, and shall take into account the
variability of the material property under consideration, using an appropriate statistical
technique.
Accessed by SMEC AUSTRALIA on 18 Sep 2008
5.5 Condition
The condition of the bridge shall be assessed to determine the current capacity of the
components of the structure and its foundations. Included in this assessment shall be—
(a) the extent of any loss of section, for example, as a result of corrosion or accidental
damage;
(b) eccentricities of loads in members and details, for example, by bends, kinks or
incorrect alignment;
(c) longitudinal loads caused by impairment of the design articulation and thermal
movement of the bridge, for example, seized bearings and unstable abutments;
(d) foundation and ground movements or changes to earth loads on the structure; and
(e) scour of the foundation or of any adjacent river banks.
An assessment shall be made of the reduction in load capacity resulting from the
consideration of the condition of the bridge.
5.6 Assessment of capacity reduction factors
In the absence of information to the contrary, it shall be permissible to assume that the
bridge and its components are in their ‘as constructed’ condition. Where inspection of the
bridge confirms that the bridge is in sound condition, the design values for the capacity
reduction factors shall be used.
For the determination of appropriate capacity reduction factors, it shall be permissible to
assume that the capacity reduction factors incorporate a factor of 0.95, to allow for member
size and geometric deficiencies. If accurate assessments are made of member sizes and
geometric deficiencies and the results included in the assessment of structural strength, the
capacity reduction factor may be divided by 0.95, thereby increasing the load rating of the
bridge.
Bridge foundations shall be rated using a similar approach, in which actual foundation
material properties are used, with capacity reduction factors being taken as the material
factors specified in AS 5100.3.
Where the capacity of a bridge similar to the bridge being rated has been assessed by load
testing, consideration may be given to adapting that rating. It may be necessary to use lower
capacity reduction factors depending upon the level of loading used and the similarity
between the two bridges. In the adaptation of the rating, use shall be made of the computer
models that have been developed for the load-tested bridge and which have been calibrated
against test results.
6 LOAD TESTING
6.1 General
The objectives of non-destructive load testing are to quantify in a scientific manner the load
capacity that can be reliably used to establish a more realistic load rating of the bridge.
Ultimate (destructive) testing may be of either bridges no longer required for service or
specially prepared models or prototypes. The objectives of such testing are to quantify in a
scientific manner the ultimate load capacity of a bridge or bridge type and to enable an
understanding of post-elastic behaviour. This test result is then used to establish a more
realistic load rating for a similar bridge or bridge type.
Load testing is an effective method of evaluating the performance and structural capacity of
a bridge or bridge type. Where actual strains or structural actions are measured to
accurately determine the response to the loads to which the bridge and its components are
being subjected, the results shall be taken into consideration in the determination of the
Accessed by SMEC AUSTRALIA on 18 Sep 2008
For both, ultimate (destructive) and proof load tests, a numerical model of the structure
shall first be developed to assess the ultimate capacities, failure modes and elastic limits
under different loading configurations. This model will provide the basis for determining
maximum applied loads and locations for monitoring the response of the structure during
the progressive application of the test loads.
Quality-based safety procedures shall be followed for all load testing. Assessment of load
capacity from a static load test shall be factored for dynamic effects by using the value of α
from AS 5100.2, unless other specific dynamic response information is available, as
outlined in Clause 6.5. As dynamic and fatigue effects are likely to be critical for railway
bridges, the appropriate values of α and stress increments to be used in conjunction with
static load test shall generally be determined by field testing.
6.2 Static load testing options
The choice of a test load option shall be based upon the following considerations:
(a) The condition of the bridge.
(b) The type of bridge.
(c) The availability of design details and as-constructed drawings.
(d) The results of analytical evaluation.
(e) The availability of funds and equipment.
(f) The level of assessment accuracy required.
(g) The potential applicability of test results to other bridges.
6.3 Static load testing to assess the capacity
6.3.1 Destructive testing
Destructive testing involves progressively loading and monitoring a structure or parts of a
structure until ultimate failure is achieved at one or more locations. The testing provides
information about—
(a) load distribution at serviceability and ultimate failure loads;
(b) load levels at which serviceability failure modes such as significant cracking and
excessive deflection occur;
(c) loads at which ultimate failure occurs at one or more locations together with the
ductility and warning signs associated with such failures; and
(d) the magnitude of the load that a bridge could be subjected to repeatedly or on a
limited number of occasions.
Disused bridges and laboratory models of bridges are suitable for this form of testing.
Accessed by SMEC AUSTRALIA on 18 Sep 2008
The reliability of the load test results shall be evaluated at each stage of the load test and
prior to using the load test results, to determine a load rating for the bridge.
The reason for the differences between measured load effects and those predicted by
theoretical analysis shall be established.
The load testing specified in Clauses 6.2.1 and 6.2.4 will provide information about the
current capacity of the bridge. It also provides an indication of the long-term ultimate
capacity and serviceability performance of the bridge. The actual performance will depend
on how the condition of the bridge changes as a result of loading and environment effects,
and the level of control exerted over these changes by regular inspection and maintenance.
6.4.2 Destructive testing
When determining the applicability of the results from the destructive testing of a bridge or
laboratory model to develop load ratings for similar bridges, aspects to be considered shall
include the following:
(a) The condition of the tested bridge and the bridge to be load rated.
(b) The method and configuration of the test load compared to loading patterns from
vehicles covered by the rating.
(c) The ductility of the failure.
(d) The degree of indeterminacy of the structure tested and the structure to be rated.
Such testing shall be used to improve the calibration of theoretical ratings of similar bridges
and to improve the confidence of establishing target proof loads and maximum applied
loads.
Such testing may also be used to improve the selection of capacity reduction factors to
better reflect the ductility of the bridge and take into account the likelihood and
manifestation of signs of structural distress being evident prior to ultimate collapse.
6.4.3 Rated load from proof load testing
The rated load for a bridge from a proof load test shall be determined by factoring the
maximum applied load (PLmax. ) taking into account the following:
(a) The distress level reached during load testing.
(b) The multiple lane load effects.
(c) The live load factor.
(d) The dynamic load allowance.
The rated load (LR ) shall be evaluated using the following equation:
k PLmax.
Accessed by SMEC AUSTRALIA on 18 Sep 2008
LR = . . . 6.4.3
m L γ L (1 + α )
where
k = 1, if no distress is observed during testing
= 0.8, if minor distress level is observed
m L = 1, if ultimate failure caused by single loaded lane
= 0.9, if ultimate failure is caused by two loaded lanes
If more than two lanes are loaded, the ALF procedure determined in
accordance with AS 5100.2 shall be used.
γL = as given in Table 7.3
When rating a bridge, the actual loads to which the bridge and its components will be
subjected shall be considered, including the actual dead and superimposed dead loads which
may have been added to the structure, as specified in AS 5100.2. Careful consideration shall
also be given to the actual location and eccentricity caused by the applied loads or
structural imperfections of any kind, of any live or other applied loads, both in relation to
the overall structure and to its components.
The load factor to be used for any component of loads shall be determined on the basis of
the uncertainty associated with its nominal magnitude, allowing for the degree to which it
has been the subject of direct measurement. The load factors to be used shall be in
accordance with Clauses 7.2 and 7.3, unless determined otherwise by the authority.
The effect of speed shall also be taken into consideration. The minimum value of α shall be
not less than 10% for either the serviceability or strength limit state.
When rating a road bridge for a heavy load platform or other specific loads, a dynamic load
allowance of not less than 10% shall be assumed, unless specified by the relevant authority,
and provided that the vehicle speed is limited to 10 km/h, and the location of the load is
strictly controlled.
7.2 Serviceability limit states
When rating a bridge for serviceability limit states, the load factors given in AS 5100.2
shall be used, except that the use of modified values shall be permitted if specific
measurements or other assessments are carried out to determine the actual loads more
accurately. Any modification of load factors shall require the approval of the relevant
authority. Where superimposed dead load effects are directly measured, the load factors
given in Table 7.2 or intermediate values shall be used.
TABLE 7.2
LOAD FACTORS FOR
SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES
Direct
Load effect Design case
measurement
Superimposed dead load (general loads) 1.3 1.1
(see Note)
Superimposed dead load (controlled cases) 1.0 1.0
NOTE: Where a load factor of 1.1 is used for superimposed dead load, the
actual superimposed dead load shall be subsequently controlled and monitored
by the relevant authority.
subjected, for comparison with the design value of dynamic load allowance. Where the
effects of given loads on a bridge are assessed by direct measurement of the structural
actions induced in the bridge or by other investigations, the use of a modified load factor, as
given in Table 7.3 shall be permitted. For any given effect and load, the design load factor
may be modified by the modification ratio (r m ), which is the ratio of the measured action to
the action determined analytically for each given load. The value of r m may be less than
unity.
Due allowance shall be made for the possibility that certain load situations may produce
larger actions than those that have been measured.
Before selecting and using any modified load factor, it shall be ensured that the load is not
being carried by some unreliable load path such as the composite action of concrete slabs
not detailed for composite action, frozen bearings and the like. The ductility and
redundancy of the structure shall also be considered.
The use of any live load factor that is less than the design value shall be approved by the
relevant authority.
7.3.3 Modification of live load factors based on probability of overloading
Where the relevant authority has determined by direct measurement, or other means, that
the probability of overloading for a specific vehicle or class of vehicle is different from that
used as the basis for the relevant design live load factor, it is permitted for that authority to
use a modified live load factor based on the change in probability of overloading, as given
in Table 7.3.
8 FATIGUE
Rating of bridges in terms of fatigue shall consist of determining the cumulative fatigue
damage of the critical details of a bridge, and of determining the nominal fatigue life of the
bridge. The rating shall be done by using the procedures for fatigue specified in AS 5100.6,
together with other relevant information. For the purposes of rating, the cumulative fatigue
damage shall be the sum of the damage in all previous years. The nominal fatigue life shall
be considered to have been reached when the cumulative damage sums to unity.
If a bridge has reached its nominal fatigue life, a program of inspection shall be instigated
to ensure that fatigue cracks are detected and, where appropriate, the bridge shall be
suitably repaired before the cracks have grown to the extent that the bridge’s ability to carry
its applied loads is endangered. In determining the program of inspection, it shall be
permissible to take into account the ability of the bridge to carry its applied loads with the
particular detail in a cracked condition.
In rating a bridge for fatigue, it is permissible to measure actual strains at critical details,
and to use these strains to deduce stresses and so determine the dynamic load allowance
used for the rating assessment. The stress pattern due to a defined load shall be assessed to
determine the effective number of load cycles applied to the structure, or the detail being
considered, by the passage of one loading sequence. For railway bridges, the effect of worn
wheels on the increase in the number of cycles, the amplitude and rate of strain shall be
considered. The frequency of worn wheels shall also be considered.
When rating a road bridge, an assessment of the actual loads and related number of stress
cycles shall be made in accordance with AS 5100.2.
When rating a rail underbridge, the actual loads shall be considered and the effective
number of load cycles (n) specified in AS 5100.2 shall only be used if the assumptions
detailed in the commentary on that clause are known to be appropriate.
For the purposes of fatigue calculations, tight rivets in mechanically fastened connections
may be treated as bolts of Category 8.8/TF. Connections with loose rivets, or connections
that are made of bolts not tightened in accordance with the requirements for
Accessed by SMEC AUSTRALIA on 18 Sep 2008
TABLE 7.3
MODIFIED LOAD FACTORS FOR THE ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE
Where load reduces Where load increases
Load safety safety
Type of load Note
factor Design Direct Design Direct
case measurement case measurement
Dead load (steel) γg 1.1 1.05 0.9 0.95 (1)
Dead load (concrete) γg 1.2 1.1 0.85 0.9 (1)
Dead load (timber) γg 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.9 (1)
Superimposed dead load
γ gs 2.0 1.4 0.7 0.85 (2)
(general loads)
Superimposed dead load
γ gs 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.9 (2)
(controlled case)
Live load (SM1600 road traffic
and pedestrian loads including γL 1.8 1.8r m N/A N/A (3), (6)
specific loads for general access)
Live load (other road traffic and
γL 2.0 2.0r m N/A N/A (3), (6)
pedestrian loads)
Live load (road traffic)
γL 1.5 1.5r m N/A N/A (4), (6)
(specific loads)
Live load (road traffic) (specific
γ LRA 1.5 1.5r m N/A N/A (4), (6)
loads for restricted access)
Centrifugal forces (SM1600 road
traffic, including specific loads for γL 1.8 1.8r m N/A N/A —
general access)
Centrifugal forces
γL 2.0 2.0r m N/A N/A (5), (6)
(other road traffic)
Braking forces (SM1600 road
traffic, including specific loads for γL 1.8 1.8r m N/A N/A (5), (6)
general access)
Braking forces (other road traffic) γL 1.5 1.5r m N/A N/A (5), (6)
Live load (rail traffic) γL 1.6 1.6r m N/A N/A (3)
Live load (rail traffic)
γL 1.4 1.4r m N/A N/A (4), (6)
(specific loads)
Centrifugal and nosing forces
γL 1.6 1.6r m N/A N/A (5)
(rail traffic)
Braking and traction forces
Accessed by SMEC AUSTRALIA on 18 Sep 2008
APPENDIX A
ROAD AND RAIL TRAFFIC DESIGN LOADS FROM PREVIOUS AUSTRALIAN
BRIDGE DESIGN CODE, AUSTROADS CODES, ANZRC AND AREA
(Informative)
A1 GENERAL
To assist the rating procedure for road and rail traffic bridges, the design loads given in the
previous Australian Bridge Design Code (HB 77.2—1996) and some earlier codes are
included in this Appendix.
TABLE A1
FUNCTIONAL CLASSES OF ROADS
Rural areas
Class 1 Roads that form the principal avenue for communications between major regions of
Australia, including direct connections between capital cities
Class 2 Those roads, not being Class 1, whose main function is to form the principal avenue of
communication for movements between—
(a) a capital city and adjoining states and their capital cities;
(b) a capital city and key towns; or
(c) key towns
Class 3 Roads, not being Class 1 or 2, whose main function is to form an avenue of communication
for movements—
(a) between important centres and the Class 1 and Class 2 roads or key towns, or both;
(b) between important centres; or
(c) of an arterial nature within a town in a rural area
Class 4 Roads, not being Class 1, 2 or 3, whose main function is to provide access to abutting
property, including property within a town in a rural area
Class 5 Roads that provide almost exclusively for one activity or function which cannot be assigned
to Class 1, 2, 3 or 4
Urban areas
Class 6 Roads whose main function is to perform the principal avenue of communication for massive
traffic movements
Class 7 Roads, not being Class 6, whose main function is to supplement Class 6 roads in providing
for traffic movements or which distribute traffic to local street systems
Class 8 Roads, not being Class 6 or 7, whose main function is to provide access to abutting property
Class 9 Roads that provide almost exclusively for one activity or function and which cannot be
assigned to Class 6, 7 or 8
Accessed by SMEC AUSTRALIA on 18 Sep 2008
where
b = carriageway width between kerbs or traffic barriers, whichever is lesser,
in metres
These standard design lanes should be positioned laterally on the bridge to produce
the most adverse effects.
(b) For rural bridges other than those specified in Item (a) For one lane loaded, the
standard design lane should be positioned laterally in any location within the
carriageway.
For two or more lanes loaded, the standard design lanes should be positioned within
the marked traffic lanes. The centre of each standard design lane should be laterally
positioned up to 500 mm from the centre of the appropriate marked traffic lane in
order to give the most adverse effects.
TABLE A2
MULTIPLE LANE
MODIFICATION FACTORS
1 1.0
2 0.9
3 0.8
4 0.7
5 0.6
6 or more 0.55
TABLE A3
MODIFIED LOAD FACTORS FOR THE ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE
Number of fatigue stress cycles for bridges on roads
Fatigue design traffic load of functional class
1, 2, 3, 6 or 7 4, 5, 8 or 9
W7 wheel load 2 000 000 500 000
T44 truck load 500 000 100 000
L44 lane load 100 000 100 000
TABLE A4
LOAD FACTORS FOR ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE
DESIGN TRAFFIC LOADS
Design traffic load Load factor
W7 wheel load (see Note 1) 2.0
T44 truck load (see Note 1) 2.0
L44 lane load (see Note 1) 2.0
HLP load (see Note 1) 1.5 (see Note 2)
NOTES:
1 With dynamic load allowance then added.
2 The authority may elect to reduce the serviceability and
ultimate limit state load factors for HLP load where it considers
it can exercise a high degree of control over and can monitor
the passage of the actual HLP loads on a bridge. In such cases,
the authority should determine the HLP load factors.
NOTE: A range of first flexural frequencies from 0.9 to 1.1 times the calculated superstructure frequency should be
considered. The dynamic load allowance adopted should be the maximum value obtained from Figure A4 for this
frequency range.
For parts of the structure below the ground line, the dynamic load allowance should be
linearly transitioned from the ground line value to zero at a cover depth of 2 m.
For buried structures such as culverts and soil-steel structures, the dynamic load allowance
should not be less than 0.4 for a cover depth of zero and not less than 0.1 for a cover depth
of 2 m or more, with a linear interpolation in between. The dynamic load allowance
established for the appropriate cover depth applies to the entire structure.
A2.3 1976 NAASRA—Design live load
A2.3.1 General
The live load consists of the weight of the applied moving load, such as the standard
vehicle load A14 or T44, the standard abnormal or special abnormal vehicle load and the
walkway load, where applicable. The minimum values of these loads are specified in
Paragraph A2.3.4.
The standard or special abnormal vehicle should be so positioned in the spans as to produce
maximum stresses. The standard or special abnormal vehicle should generally be placed
centrally between kerbs except where the State road authority specifies otherwise. Where
the standard or special abnormal load is placed so that other bridge lanes remain in use, a
maximum of one third of the standard vehicle load may be placed in those lanes unless the
road authority specifies otherwise. The standard abnormal vehicle may be assumed to
occupy the width of two standard design lanes. The width of the special abnormal vehicle
should be designated by the State road authority.
NOTES:
1 Total mass on axle is 14.3 tonnes.
2 In designing the deck system for local load effects, the wheel nearest to the kerb may be placed with its
centre 0.3 m from the kerb face.
3 For load of continuous spans, see Paragraph A2.3.2.2.
NOTES:
1 Total mass on axle is 44 tonnes (= 432 kN).
2 For load of continuous spans involving lane load, see Paragraph A2.3.2.3.
3 The T44 lane load should be considered as uniformly distributed over the width of the standard design
lane.
NOTES:
1 Load per wheel: 60 kN.
2 Load per axle: 240 kN.
3 Total mass of vehicle: 196 tonnes (approximately).
DIMENSIONS IN METRES
TABLE A5
MINIMUM BRIDGE LOADS
Road class Standard load Abnormal load
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 100% of standard vehicle load As specified by the
State road authority
4, 5, 8, 9 75% of standard vehicle load Nil
NOTE: The road classes referred to in the Table are the functional
classifications adopted by the 44th (December 1970) NAASRA
meeting. See ‘Guide to the Publications and Policies of NAASRA’,
1975. This information is given in Table A1.
3.1
where
W k = carriageway width, in metres, between kerbs exclusive of median strip (only
when delineated by permanent kerbs). If kerbs are not used at the edges of the
carriageway, the carriageway width is measured between the inside faces of
the vehicle barriers
For the purposes of calculating maximum forces in structures, the standard design lanes
may occupy any position within the carriageway.
Where the bridge roadway width between kerbs varies over the length of the structure, the
number of standard design lanes in any span should be calculated from the average width in
that span. In considering effects at piers, where the load of two adjacent spans is involved,
the number of standard design lanes over both spans should be taken as the greater of those
calculated in the spans.
Where bifurcation occurs within a span, the number of standard design lanes prior to and
after the bifurcation should be calculated separately.
A2.3.6 Reduction in load intensity in multiple lane bridges under standard vehicle load
When loading a number of standard design lanes simultaneously with the standard vehicle
load, the following percentages of the resultant live load should be applied, in view of the
improbability of coincident maximum load in all lanes:
(a) One or two lanes.............................................................................................. 100%.
(b) Three lanes........................................................................................................ 90%.
(c) Four lanes or more............................................................................................. 75%.
The reduction in intensity of cross-girder loads should be determined as in the case of main
trusses or girders, using the width of the roadway, which should be loaded to produce
maximum effects in the cross-girder.
The reductions in load intensity should not be used in conjunction with the empirical
distribution factors nor in any of the load cases described in Paragraph A2.3.3.
A2.3.7 Impact effects
A2.3.7.1 General
Live load effects produced by the standard vehicle loading and the abnormal vehicle should
be increased for structures in Group A by the allowance described herein for dynamic,
vibratory and impact effects. Impact should not be applied to structures in Group B.
(a) Group A:
(i) Superstructure, including bearings, supporting columns, towers, leg of rigid
frames and generally those portions of the structure that extend down to the
main foundation.
(ii) That portion above the ground line of concrete or steel piles.
(iii) Culverts and structures having 1 m or less of cover.
(b) Group B:
(i) Abutments, retaining walls, piles (except as covered in Group A), foundations
and footings.
(ii) Timber structures and footway loading.
(iii) Culverts and structures having more than 1 m of cover.
Accessed by SMEC AUSTRALIA on 18 Sep 2008
= 20% for culverts with cover greater than 300 mm and less than or equal
to 600 mm
= 10% for culverts with cover greater than 600 mm and less than or equal
to 1 m
= 30% for cantilevers
L = length, in metres
= span length containing the point under For positive moments
consideration
= average of the lengths of the two adjacent loaded For negative moments
spans
= length from the point under consideration to the For negative moments
far end of the load at cantilevers
= length of the loaded span from the point under For shear
consideration to the far reaction
= length of the end span For end reactions
= average of the lengths of the two adjacent loaded For inner reactions
spans
(b) Impact for abnormal loading For abnormal vehicle loading, the allowance for
impact should be 10%.
A2.3.8 Footway loading
Footbridges and the main members supporting footways should be designed for the
following live loads applied to the footway area:
(a) For spans up to 8 m ......................................................................................... 4 kPa.
(b) For spans greater than 8 m and up to 30 m........................................................ 3 kPa.
(c) For spans greater than 30 m—
45 16 − W
P = 1.5 + . . . A2.3.8
L 15
where
P = live load (max. 3 kPa)
L = loaded length of the footway, in metres
W = width of the footway, in metres
Accessed by SMEC AUSTRALIA on 18 Sep 2008
In situations when crowd loading is likely, the footway loading should be increased to
5 kPa. Where bridges have footways on both sides, the effects, resulting from one side only
or both sides being fully loaded, should be investigated.
Footway floors and floor members and their individual supports should be designed to carry
a footway loading of 5 kPa. Where it is possible for a vehicle to mount the footway or for
light vehicles such as park tractors or for livestock to use the pedestrian facility, the
footway should be designed to carry an isolated concentrated load of 20 kN.
A2.4 1970 Bridge design specification (metric version, 1973)—Design live load
A2.4.1 General
The highway live loadings on the roadway of bridges or culverts should consist of standard
trucks or lane loads that correspond to truck trains. Two systems of loadings are specified,
the M loadings and the MS loadings, the corresponding MS loadings being heavier than the
M loadings. Only one standard M or MS truck per lane should be considered.
The live load consists of the weight of the applied moving load, such as vehicles and
pedestrians.
A2.4.2 Designation of loadings
The loading symbols are followed by a number showing the year of adoption by the
American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO).
The affix remains unchanged until such time as the loading specification is revised. The
same policy or identification should be applied, for future reference, to loadings previously
adopted by AASHO.
A2.4.3 M loadings
The M loadings are shown in Figure A8 and A10. They consist of a two-axle truck or of the
corresponding lane loading. The M loadings are designated M followed by a number
indicating the gross weight in tons of the standard truck.
A2.4.4 MS loadings
The MS loadings are shown in Figures A9 and A10. They consist of a tractor truck with
semi-trailer or the corresponding lane loading. The MS loadings are designated by the
letters MS followed by a number indicating the gross weight in tons of the tractor truck.
The variable axis spacing has been introduced in order that the axle spacing used may
approximate more closely the tractor trailers now in use. The variable spacing also provides
a more satisfactory loading for continuous spans, in that heavy axle loads may be placed on
adjoining spans to produce maximum negative moment.
A2.4.5 Classes of loadings
Standard highway loadings should be of the following classes:
(a) M18.
(b) M13.5 (75% of M18).
(c) M9 (50% of M18).
(d) MS18.
(e) MS13.5 (75% of MS18).
If loadings other than those designated are desired, they should be obtained by
proportionately changing the weights shown for both, the standard truck and the
corresponding lane loads.
A2.4.6 Minimum loadings
Accessed by SMEC AUSTRALIA on 18 Sep 2008
(a) Provision for infrequent heavy loads should be made by applying in any single lane
an M or MS truck as specified, increased 100% and without concurrent loading of any
other lanes.
(b) Combined dead, live and impact stresses resulting from such loading should not be
greater than 150% of the allowable stresses allowed herein.
(c) The overload should apply to all parts of the structure affected, including stringers,
but excepting portions of the structure affected by individual wheel load only.
Accessed by SMEC AUSTRALIA on 18 Sep 2008
NOTE: In the design of steel grid and timber decks only, for M18 loading, one axle load of 108 kN or two axle loads of
72 kN each spaced 1.2 m apart shall be used, whichever produces the greater stress, instead of the 144 kN axle shown.
All other deck systems shall be designed for the 144 kN axle. (The reason for the use of reduced loading on timber and
steel grid decks is the ease and relative economy with which they can be replaced.)
DIMENSIONS IN METRES
NOTE: In the design of steel grid and timber decks only, for MS18 loading, one axle load of 108 kN or two axle loads
of 72 kN each spaced 1.2 m apart shall be used, whichever produces the greater stress, instead of the 144 kN axle
shown. All other deck systems should be designed for the 144 kN axle. (A reason for the use of reduced loading on
Accessed by SMEC AUSTRALIA on 18 Sep 2008
timber and steel grid decks is the ease and relative economy with which they can be replaced.)
DIMENSIONS IN METRES
NOTES:
1 For the loading of continuous spans involving lane loading, refer to Paragraph A2.4.10.3, which provides
for an additional concentrated load.
2 Uniform load to follow or precede, or be on both sides of the concentrated loads to produce the maximum
stress.
Accessed by SMEC AUSTRALIA on 18 Sep 2008
W k = roadway width between kerbs exclusive of median strip and widening for
curvature. If kerbs are not used, the roadway width is between faces of bridge
railing
N = number of the design traffic lanes as given in Table A6
TABLE A6
NUMBER OF DESIGN TRAFFIC LANES (N)
Wk
N
m
6 ≤ Wk ≤ 9 2
9 ≤ W k ≤ 12.7 3
12.7 ≤ W k ≤ 16.4 4
16.4 ≤ W k ≤ 20.1 5
20.1 ≤ W k ≤ 23.8 6
23.8 ≤ W k ≤ 27.5 7
27.5 ≤ W k ≤ 31.2 8
31.2 ≤ W k ≤ 34.9 9
34.9 ≤ W k ≤ 38.6 10
The lane loadings or standard trucks should be assumed to occupy any position within their
individual design traffic lanes (W t ), which will produce the maximum stress, but wheel
loads of standard trucks should not be moved relative to their (load) lane (3 m), except that
for the design of concrete deck slabs, steel grid or timber decks, a single large truck wheel
may be placed with its centre only 300 mm from the kerb face.
A2.4.9 Standard trucks and lane loads
The wheel spacing, weight distribution, and the clearance of the standard M and MS trucks
should be as shown in Figures A8 and A9, and the corresponding lane loads should be as
shown in Figure A10. The system of lane loads here defined and shown in Figure A10 was
developed in order to give a simpler method of calculating moments and shears than that
based on wheel loads of the trucks.
Each lane loading should consist of a uniform load per metre of traffic lane, combined with
a single concentrated load or two concentrated loads in the case of continuous spans (see
Paragraph A2.4.10.3), so placed on the span as to produce maximum stress. The
concentrated load and uniform load should be considered as uniformly distributed over a
3 m width on a line normal to the centre-line of the lane. The MS series of trucks was
Accessed by SMEC AUSTRALIA on 18 Sep 2008
developed in 1944 by AASHO. This series approximates to the effect of the corresponding
1935 truck preceded and followed by a train of trucks weighing three-quarters as much as
the basic truck.
For the computation of moments and shears, different concentrated loads should be used as
shown in Figure A10. The lighter concentrated loads should be used when calculating
bending moments and the heavier concentrated loads should be used when calculating
shears.
A2.4.10 Application of loadings
A2.4.10.1 Traffic lane units
In computing stresses, each 3 m lane loading or single standard truck should be considered
as a unit, and fractional load lane widths or fractional trucks should not be used.
Members of the main structure should be designed for the following footway live loads on
the footway area:
(a) Spans up to 8 m ............................................................................................... 4 kPa.
(b) Spans over 8 m and up to 30 m ........................................................................ 3 kPa.
(c) Spans over 30 m—
43.75 16.75 − W
P = 1.45 + . . . A4.13
L 15.25
where
P = live load (max. 3 kPa)
L = loaded length of the footway, in metres
W = width of the footway, in metres
Where it is possible for a vehicle to mount the footway, footways should be designed to
carry an isolated concentrated load of 18 kN.
In calculating stresses, the footway on only one side of the structure should be considered
as fully loaded if this condition produces maximum stresses.
The 300-A-12 also includes a single axle load of 360 kN. The single axle load is not applied
concurrently with other vertical railway live loading.
DIMENSIONS IN METRES
A3.3 1974 Australian and New Zealand Railway Conferences, Railway Bridge Design
Manual
A3.3.1 General
The ANZRC Metric Cooper M loading is an approximate metrication of the American
Railway Engineering Association, Iron and Steel Structures, Concrete Structures and
Foundations, Cooper E loading, which was imperial. The maximum design live load in the
state railway systems was AREA E 60. This was approximately metricated to
ANZRC M 267 that was usually rounded off to M 270. The ANZRC gave the recommended
design load as M 250, as given in Paragraph A3.3.2.
A3.3.2 ANZRC Metric Cooper M250
The recommended live load for each track is the Metric Cooper M250 shown in Figure A13.
The Engineer should specify the live load to be used, such load to be proportional to the
recommended load, with the same axle spacing.
Accessed by SMEC AUSTRALIA on 18 Sep 2008
AS 5100.7—2004
40
NOTES
Standards Australia
Standards Australia is an independent company, limited by guarantee, which prepares and publishes
most of the voluntary technical and commercial standards used in Australia. 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 national standards body. For further information
on Standards Australia visit us at
www.standards.org.au
Australian Standards
Australian Standards are prepared by committees of experts from industry, governments, consumers
and other relevant sectors. 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 that 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 ISO (The International Organization
for Standardization) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).
Accessed by SMEC AUSTRALIA on 18 Sep 2008
Electronic Standards
All Australian Standards are available in electronic editions, either downloaded individually from our web
site, or via On-Line and DVD subscription services. For more information phone 1300 65 46 46 or visit
Standards Web Shop at
www.standards.com.au
Accessed by SMEC AUSTRALIA on 18 Sep 2008