Professional Documents
Culture Documents
7—2004
AP-G15.7/04
(Incorporating Amendment No. 1)
AS 5100.7—2004
Australian Standard®
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)
Bridge design
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 the public comment period.
Standards may also be withdrawn.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
Australian Standard®
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)
Bridge design
Originated as HB 77.7—1996.
Revised and redesignated as AS 5100.7—2004.
Reissued incorporating Amendment No. 1 (April 2010).
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
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.
This Standard incorporates Amendment No. 1 (April 2010). The changes required by the
Amendment are indicated in the text by a marginal bar and amendment number against the
clause, note, table, figure or part thereof affected.
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.
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)
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
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)
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.
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)
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.
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
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)
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
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.
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*
(b) ΣALF for road traffic bridges, that is, the accompanying lane factor
determined in accordance with AS 5100.2.
NOTE: The ΣALF effect is the sum of load effects of each loaded lane with
the relevant ALF.
(a) ultimate actions including moment, shear, torsion and combined effects; and
(b) serviceability actions including vibration, deflection, fatigue, and the like.
When rating a bridge for a specific load, the same rating process shall be carried out as for
general rating, with the capacity of the bridge calculated using capacity reduction factors
appropriate to the specific bridge being considered, and the effects of the rating loads shall
be determined using the loads and configuration specific to the nominated rating vehicle,
with an appropriate load factor (see Table 7.3). The selection of the load factor for the
specified loads shall be related to the accuracy of the load measurements and their
variability. A specific load shall either be a repeated load or the one-off pass of an
exceptional load. Where the load factors applied to the defined load are based on direct
measurements, all possible variations in the application of the specified live loads shall be
taken into account.
When rating a bridge for a specific load, it shall be permissible to impose restrictions on the
use of the bridge by that specific load. Where restrictions are imposed on one-off loads, the
passage of the load shall be strictly controlled, to ensure that the use of the bridge conforms
to the restrictions that have been imposed.
Where the rating for a specific bridge is assessed as being less than required for current
general access vehicles, consideration shall be given to applying a posted load limit on the
bridge.
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.
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
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)
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
rating of the bridge.
The adaptation of the results of load testing shall only be applied to bridges of similar
structural form, taking into consideration material properties and conditions.
Load testing involves static or dynamic load testing, or a combination of both. Dynamic
load testing may be used to provide information on the vehicles using a bridge as well as
information on the performance of the structure.
In order to protect the bridge and the testing personnel, proof test loadings shall be applied
incrementally from a base load of 50% of the theoretical rated ultimate capacity, and load
responses shall be continuously monitored to ensure that the bridge is behaving in an elastic
manner. Testing shall be terminated when non-elastic behaviour is observed.
A detailed engineering inspection shall be made of the bridge prior to load testing, in order
to assess its condition and suitability for load testing.
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
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)
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.
6.3.2 Non-destructive testing
Non-destructive load testing involves the monitoring and measurement of the response of a
bridge subjected to controlled and predetermined loadings within the linear-elastic range of
the structure. The principle of load testing is the comparison of the field response, for
example, load versus deflection or load versus strain, of critical members of a bridge with
their characteristic performance as predicted by theoretical analysis, in order to assess the
actual capacity of the bridge to carry live loads.
There are mainly two types of non-destructive static load tests. They are the static proof
load test (see Clause 6.3.3) and static performance load test (see Clause 6.3.4). Both types
of tests are based on gauging and measuring the bridge response to the vehicle loading. The
difference is in the magnitude of loading and the manner and level of confidence in which
the capacity of the bridge to carry live loads is determined from the test results.
6.3.3 Static proof load testing
Static proof load testing involves monitoring a structure whilst progressively loading it to
induce stresses approaching the elastic limit at one or more critical locations. This form of
testing is usually undertaken with vehicles loaded with kentledge to well beyond legal
limits. This approach makes it possible to load the bridge at multiple locations
longitudinally and transversely with a pattern similar to regular traffic loading.
The proof load on a bridge is the maximum load that can be applied to the structure without
inducing non-linear behaviour. Theoretical analyses shall be used to estimate the proof load
and this value shall be known as the target proof load. The bridge shall be carefully and
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)
incrementally loaded in the field to a pre-determined target proof load or until the bridge
approaches its elastic limit, whichever occurs first. The effects of these loads on critical
members of the bridge shall be measured by gauging these members and monitoring them in
real time, to ensure that the structure is still acting in a linearly elastic manner at all stages
of loading. The bridge foundations shall be gauged to monitor movements during testing
and the magnitude of permanent set, if any, of these foundations.
The target proof load shall be set at a value not greater than that corresponding to the
theoretically estimated elastic limit.
6.3.4 Static performance load testing
Static performance load testing is a serviceability limit state test.
In many instances, static performance load testing will be combined with dynamic
performance load testing, to provide a more comprehensive evaluation and understanding of
the performance of the bridge.
The effects of the applied loads on critical members of the bridge shall be measured by a
gauge attached to these members to enable load-deflection or load-strain behaviour to be
measured. These results shall be used when performing analytical assessments of the
capacity of the bridge.
Static performance load testing involves monitoring a structure using normal loaded road or
railway traffic, or specific vehicles loaded to pre-determined weights to determine specific
responses, such as vertical and horizontal forces, deflection and strains, to assist in
assessing load distribution, to identify weak or failed components and to understand the
structural performance. Static performance load testing may also be repeated at intervals of
time to monitor degradation of structural performance and assist in detecting defective
components, particularly for complex redundant structures.
In many instances, a bridge will exhibit greater stiffness than predicted theoretically. The
uncertainties about differences in structural behaviour approaching the ultimate limit state
cannot be resolved by performance load testing as compared to proof load testing. These
uncertainties mean that extrapolation of the results of performance load testing for the
assessment of ultimate failure load capacities requires a rational conservation prediction. A
more conservative approach to the determination of rated load capacity is necessary.
Performance tests on bridges are also suitable to complement and verify accurate analytical
information or to complement the adaptation of results from proof load tests of similar
bridges.
taken as a reduced percentage of the calculated rated load, as approved by the relevant
authority.
6.5 Dynamic load testing
6.5.1 Load testing to assess dynamic load allowance
Load testing to assess dynamic load allowance involves measuring the dynamic
amplification caused by vehicle-structure interaction for loading by a number of different
moving vehicles of known mass and configuration at various speeds. This type of response
depends upon a combination of many factors including vehicle speed, mass, configuration,
suspension type and condition, the road or rail profile on the structure and approaches, in
addition to the bridge type, configuration and condition. As such, this form of testing is
dependent upon the vehicles used, the road or rail profile and rail wheel profile, and the
characteristics and condition of the structure at the time of testing. Consequently, any
consideration to amend the dynamic load allowance from the results of such testing shall
not be permitted unless the authority can ensure control of the road or rail profile and other
critical variables.
6.5.2 Load testing to assess vehicles using a bridge
In addition to measuring the dynamic response of a bridge to determine an appropriate
dynamic load allowance, the bridge response to general traffic provides information about
the stresses and other effects induced in the bridge by the traffic. When the bridge response
is calibrated using test vehicles of known mass and configuration, more detailed
information can be obtained about the vehicles using the bridge. The amount and value of
the data collected is dependent upon the duration of monitoring. This form of data is
relevant to the reliability assessment of an individual bridge or a series of bridges along a
road.
The use of such data to justify the use of a reduced live load factor for load capacity rating
of a bridge using desktop assessment shall be subject to the approval of the relevant
authority.
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
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)
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.
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.
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)
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
Category 8.8/TF, shall be assigned a detail Category 56 as defined in AS 5100.6.
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)
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)
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.
A2.1 General
Information is provided for the design loads given in the—
(a) 1992 Austroads Bridge Design Code and reproduced in HB 77.2—1996 (T44);
(b) 1976 NAASRA (T44 with variations); and
(c) 1970 Highway Bridge Design Specification (Metric Addendum).
Paragraph A2 covers only the major vertical loads. For other load effects, reference should
be made to the actual codes.
A2.2 1992 Austroads Bridge Design Code and 1996 HB 77.2—Design live load
A2.2.1 General
The magnitude and positioning of loads described in Paragraph A2.2 produce effects in
structures that approximate the effects of real vehicles or groups of vehicles. Where
required by the authority, road traffic bridges may be designed for the effects of the T44
truck load and the appropriate fatigue load spectrum.
The heavy load platform (HLP) loads may be applied to road traffic bridges as described in
Paragraph A4.
The W7 wheel load may be considered in the design for localized load effects, as described
in Paragraph A7.
A2.2.2 T44 truck load
The T44 truck load consists of the load shown in Figure A1. The loads represent wheel
loads of a hypothetical truck. The tandem axle group spacing varies between the specified
limits to produce maximum effects in the structure.
The T44 truck load is positioned laterally within a 3.0 m standard design lane as shown in
Figure A1. Only one T44 truck load is applied per lane.
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;
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)
loads.
The modification factors should not be applied to HLP loads.
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.
The A14 standard vehicle load should consist of the loads from two wheels, together
occupying each 3 m design lane, with the axle normal to the direction of the traffic flow as
shown in Figure A5.
In continuous spans, for the calculation of maximum negative bending moment, the A14
load should consist of the axle shown in Figure A5. In addition, another axle of similar
weight and configuration should be placed in the design lane so that the axle spacing is
4.25 m.
These wheel loads should also be used to investigate local effects as specified in Section 3
of the 1976 NAASRA document.
A2.3.2.3 T44 standard vehicle load
The T44 standard vehicle load should consist of a tractor truck with semi-trailer or the lane
load occupying each 3 m design lane as shown in Figure A6. The tandem axle group
spacing varies between the specified limits to produce maximum stresses. The type of load
to be used should be the truck or the lane load whichever produce the maximum effects.
For continuous spans, the lane load should be continuous or discontinuous as may be
necessary to produce maximum effects, and the concentrated load should be placed in such
position as to produce maximum effects. Only one concentrated load should be used per
lane except that one additional concentrated load of equal force should be placed in one
other span in the series in such a position as to produce maximum negative moment. The
T44 lane load does not apply to spans less than 10 m.
The T44 design vehicle is based on the AASHTO HS20 (MS20) design load increased by
35% and with double axles. The AASHTO design load were based on—
(a) a real truck for short spans (HS20/MS18); and
(b) a military convoy of trucks on low bridges for longer spans (lane load).
A2.3.3 Abnormal load
Provision for overload in bridge structures resulting from infrequent heavy vehicles should
be made by applying to the structure one abnormal vehicle in the manner set out in this
Paragraph. The standard abnormal vehicle should be as shown in Figure A7. The total load
should be equally distributed amongst all wheels.
Additionally, or alternatively, each State Road Authority may designate a special abnormal
vehicle configuration and load.
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.
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)
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
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)
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.
A2.3.5 Standard design lanes
The standard design lane should be 3 m wide, measured normal to the direction of the
traffic flow. The number of standard design lanes (N) to be considered should be determines
as follows:
Wk
N= rounded down to the nearest whole number . . . A2.3.5
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.
www.standards.org.au © Standards Australia
AS 5100.7—2004 30
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.
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)
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.
A2.3.7.2 Impact percentages
Impact percentage for standard vehicle loading and abnormal loading should be determined
as follows:
(a) Impact for standard vehicle loading For the standard vehicle load, the percentage
increase in live load, to allow for impact, should be determined as follows:
1600
I= % . . . A2.3.7.2
L + 40
where
I = impact percentage
= 30% for culverts with cover less than or equal to 300 mm
= 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
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)
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
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)
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
Minimum loadings should be:
(a) Metropolitan bridges MS18-44 unless heavier loads are specified.
(b) Bridges on main roads and highways MS18-44 unless heavier loads are specified.
(c) Other bridges—
(i) through roads—MS18-44 unless MS13.5-44 is considered desirable; and
(ii) other than through roads (such as those serving small groups of settlers)—
lower classes of loading if considered desirable. On bridges of lower capacity
than MS13.5-44 loading, permanent load limit notices should be provided.
A2.4.7 Overload provision
The following provisions for overload should apply to all highway loadings:
(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.
A1
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)
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
A1
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)
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
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.
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
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)
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
A1
3 m width on a line normal to the centre-line of the lane. The MS series of trucks was
developed in 1944 by AASHTO. 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.
the stress a maximum. In this regard, due consideration should be given to the reduction in
stresses described in Paragraph A2.4.11 and to the additional concentrated load described in
Paragraph A2.4.10.3. The axle spacing for MS trucks varies between the specified limits to
produce maximum stresses.
The moment and shear tables given in Appendix B of the 1970 Highway Bridge Design
Specification (Metric Addendum) show which loading controls for simple spans.
Where continuous spans are designed for lane loading, the lane loading should be
continuous or discontinuous, as may be necessary to produce maximum stresses, and the
concentrated load or loads described in Paragraph A2.4.10.3 should be placed in such a
position as to produce maximum stresses.
Where continuous spans are designed for truck loading, only one standard M or MS truck
per lane should be considered on the structure.
A2.4.11 Reduction in load intensity
Where maximum stresses are produced in any member by loading a number of traffic lanes
simultaneously, the following percentages of the resultant live load stress should be used in
view of the improbability of coincident maximum loading 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 stresses in the girder.
A2.4.12 Moments, shears and reactions
Maximum moments, shears and reactions for M13.5, M18, MS13.5 and MS18 are given in
the Tables of Appendix B of the 1970 Highway Bridge Design Specification (Metric
Addendum). They are calculated for the standard truck or the lane loading applied to a
single lane on the basis of simple spans. It is indicated in the tables, whether the standard
truck or the lane loading produces the maximum value.
A2.4.13 Walkway loading
Walkways, their immediate supports and footbridges should be designed for a live load of
4 kPa of footway area except that where crowd loading is likely, a loading of 5 kPa should
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
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)
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.
A1
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.
A1
AS 5100.7—2004
CORRECTION
SUMMARY: This Amendment applies to Appendix A.
Published on 19 April 2010.
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)
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
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)
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.
Australian 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).