Anda di halaman 1dari 45

AS 5100.

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Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)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

Part 7: Rating of existing bridges


This Australian Standard® was prepared by Committee BD-090, Bridge Design. It was
approved on behalf of the Council of Standards Australia on 22 August 2003.
This Standard was published on 23 April 2004.

The following are represented on Committee BD-090:

• Association of Consulting Engineers Australia


• Australasian Railway Association
• Austroads
• Bureau of Steel Manufacturers of Australia
• Cement and Concrete Association of Australia
• Institution of Engineers Australia

Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

Queensland University of Technology


• Steel Reinforcement Institute of Australia
• University of Western Sydney

This Standard was issued in draft form for comment as DR 00380.

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.

Keeping Standards up-to-date


Australian Standards® are living documents that reflect progress in science, technology and
systems. To maintain their currency, all Standards are periodically reviewed, and new editions
are published. Between editions, amendments may be issued.

Standards may also be withdrawn. It is important that readers assure themselves they are
using a current Standard, which should include any amendments that may have been
published since the Standard was published.

Detailed information about Australian Standards, drafts, amendments and new projects can
be found by visiting www.standards.org.au

Standards Australia welcomes suggestions for improvements, and encourages readers to


notify us immediately of any apparent inaccuracies or ambiguities. Contact us via email at
mail@standards.org.au, or write to Standards Australia, GPO Box 476, Sydney, NSW 2001.
AS 5100.7—2004
AP-G15.7/04
(Incorporating Amendment No. 1)

Australian Standard®
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

Bridge design

Part 7: Rating of existing bridges

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

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.
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)

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.
Statements expressed in mandatory terms in Notes to Tables are deemed to be requirements
of this Standard.
The term ‘informative’ has been used in this Standard to define the application of the
appendix to which it applies. An ‘informative’ appendix is only for information and
guidance.
3 AS 5100.7—2004

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)

APPENDIX A ROAD AND RAIL TRAFFIC DESIGN LOADS FROM PREVIOUS


AUSTRALIAN BRIDGE DESIGN CODE, AUSTROADS CODES,
ANZRC AND AREA................................................................................ 18
AS 5100.7—2004 4

STANDARDS AUSTRALIA

Australian Standard
Bridge design

Part 7: Rating of existing bridges

1 SCOPE AND GENERAL


1.1 Scope
This Standard specifies procedures for rating the safe load capacity of a bridge for its
defined remaining service life. The initial rating of a bridge will be its nominal design load,
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

but it may subsequently be rated as a result of—


(a) a requirement for it to carry increased live or other loads;
(b) suffering physical damage from actions including vehicle overloading, accidental
impact, fire, flood or scour; or
(c) deterioration of its components, e.g., by chemical or physical weathering.
NOTE: For road and rail traffic design loads from previous Australian Bridge Design Code,
Austroads Codes, ANZRC and AREA, see Appendix A.
1.2 General
In assessing the load capacity of a bridge, all relevant components of the bridge, including
its foundation, shall be considered to ensure that all critical components are assessed and
that their interactive effect on the overall structure has been taken into account.
Whereas this Standard allows for normal uncertainties in the general design of bridges, in
the case of a specific existing bridge, by carrying out comprehensive inspections and
investigations, the factors causing uncertainty can be more precisely defined. As a
consequence, the levels of repeatable live loads that are permitted on a bridge may be able
to be increased without compromising the safety or service life of the bridge. Conversely, if
the condition of the bridge elements has deteriorated or the uncertainty of performance has
increased, the load rating may need to be reduced.
The methodology used to assess the load capacity of a bridge shall be based on ensuring the
same level of risk in the specific case as required for the general case. The capacity of a
bridge shall be assessed using the design procedures specified in other parts of the AS 5100
series and as specified in this Standard for more detailed methods of assessment.
A tiered approach involving the use of increasing levels of sophistication or broadened
scope may be justified, depending upon the costs involved and the importance of trying to
prove increased load capacity for a specific bridge.
The tiered approaches include—
(i) theoretical analysis based on the design parameters in this Standard taking the
condition of the bridge into consideration;
(ii) analysis using the results of field investigation of material properties, bridge
component dimensions, dead and live loads, foundation capacity and the like;
(iii) field or laboratory test loading; and
(iv) component condition assessment.

© Standards Australia www.standards.org.au


5 AS 5100.7—2004

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.

www.standards.org.au © Standards Australia


AS 5100.7—2004 6

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)

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
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.

© Standards Australia www.standards.org.au


7 AS 5100.7—2004

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:
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

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*

Available bridge capacity for live load effects


i.e., RF = . . . 4.2(3)
Live load effects of nominated rating vehicle
Therefore the rated load (L R) can be expressed as follows:
LR = (RF ) LRV . . . 4.2(4)
where
φ = capacity reduction factor
Ru = calculated ultimate capacity
γg = load factor for dead load

S g* = load effects due to dead load

γ gs = load factor for the superimposed dead load


*
S gs = load effects due to superimposed dead load

S p* = load effects due to parasitic effects or prestress

S s* = load effects due to differential settlement

S t* = load effects due to differential temperature

γL = load factor for live load


RF = rating factor
S L* = load effects due to the live load used for the assessment
W = a factor representing—
(a) MTF for railway traffic bridges, that is, the multiple track factor
determined in accordance with AS 5100.2; and

www.standards.org.au © Standards Australia


AS 5100.7—2004 8

(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.

α = dynamic load allowance as determined in accordance with AS 5100.2


LR = rated load
L RV = nominated rating vehicle
NOTE: S p*
and S t* may be ignored for ductile steel structures. For concrete structures, the
provisions of AS 5100.5 for moment redistribution may be applied to the moments in the above
formulae.
For rating heavy indivisible loads, the dynamic load allowance shall be determined in
accordance with Clause 7.1.
This method for determining the rated load (LR) may be used for—
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

(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.

5 ASSESSMENT OF LOAD CAPACITY


5.1 General
The assessment of the load capacities of a bridge shall be made under the control of an
experienced professional engineer, who shall verify that the actual structural condition of
the bridge has been taken into account for the assessment.
5.2 Desktop assessment
For a desktop assessment, bridges shall be assessed using—
(a) design material properties, geometry, articulation, applied prestress and other design
actions, where relevant, in the absence of more accurate information obtained by
direct measurement;
(b) design records and data;
(c) construction records and data;
(d) relevant material design Standards;

© Standards Australia www.standards.org.au


9 AS 5100.7—2004

(e) current condition; and


(f) the loads to which they are to be subjected.
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
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

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;

www.standards.org.au © Standards Australia


AS 5100.7—2004 10

(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.

© Standards Australia www.standards.org.au


11 AS 5100.7—2004

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.

www.standards.org.au © Standards Australia


AS 5100.7—2004 12

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.

© Standards Australia www.standards.org.au


13 AS 5100.7—2004

6.4 Evaluation of static load test results


6.4.1 General
For assessing the load capacity of a bridge from the result of static load testing,
consideration and engineering judgement shall be applied. Load capacity assessment shall
be carried out by an experienced professional engineer.
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.
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

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.
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

www.standards.org.au © Standards Australia


AS 5100.7—2004 14

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
6.4.4 Rated load from performance load testing
Where results from proof load tests from bridges of similar type, material, construction,
articulation and condition to a bridge to be rated are available, performance load testing
results may be used to compare and verify bridge response up to performance loads.
Where similar or better performance is observed, the results of proof load testing may be
adapted to rate the performance load tested bridge.
Where the procedure described in this Clause is used, the rated load to be used shall be
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

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.

7 ASSESSMENT OF THE ACTUAL LOADS


7.1 General
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.

© Standards Australia www.standards.org.au


15 AS 5100.7—2004

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.

7.3 Ultimate limit states


7.3.1 Dead and superimposed dead loads
When rating a bridge for ultimate limit states, the load factors given in AS 5100.2 shall be
used, except that the use of modified values shall be allowed if specific measurements or
other investigations are carried out to determine the appropriate loads more accurately.
Where load actions are directly measured, the use of the modified load factors given in
Table 7.3 shall be permitted. Where other measurements or assessments are undertaken, the
load factor to be used shall be determined on the basis of a comparison with the values
specified herein, and the accuracy of the measurements or investigations that have been
undertaken. Any modification of load factors shall require the approval of the relevant
authority.
7.3.2 Live load factors for tested bridges
Where appropriate, specific measurements may be undertaken to determine the actual loads
or to measure effects, such as the dynamic load amplification to which the bridge is being
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.

www.standards.org.au © Standards Australia


AS 5100.7—2004 16

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.

© Standards Australia www.standards.org.au


17 AS 5100.7—2004

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)

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
γL 1.6 1.6r m N/A N/A (5)
(rail traffic)
NOTES:
1 For balanced cantilever and anchor cantilever structures, a minimum value of 1.0 shall be used in
accordance with AS 5100.2.
2 Where superimposed loads are removable, the condition with those loads removed shall be considered.
3 These factors shall only apply when rating a bridge for general loads.
4 These factors shall only apply when rating a bridge for specific loads where the authority can exercise a
high degree of control over and monitor the passage of such loads.
5 For these loadings, it shall be acceptable to reduce the loads provided that a vehicle speed limit is
specified.
6 For direct measurement, the modification ratio (r m ) shall be determined as described in this Clause, and
may vary for different structural actions.

www.standards.org.au © Standards Australia


AS 5100.7—2004 18

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 ROAD TRAFFIC DESIGN LOAD


Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

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.

© Standards Australia www.standards.org.au


19 AS 5100.7—2004
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

FIGURE A1 T44 TRUCK LOAD

A2.2.3 L44 lane load


The L44 lane load consists of a uniformly distributed load as shown in Figure A2 together
with a concentrated load of 150 kN. The L44 lane load is to be considered as uniformly
distributed over the width of a 3 m standard design lane.
For continuous spans, the L44 lane load is to be continuous or discontinuous as may be
necessary, to produce maximum effects, and the concentrated load is to be placed in such a
position as to produce maximum effects. Only one concentrated load is to be used per lane
except that one additional concentrated load of equal force is to be placed in each lane in
one other span in the series in such a position as to produce maximum negative moment.
The L44 lane load does not apply to spans less than 10 m.

www.standards.org.au © Standards Australia


AS 5100.7—2004 20
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

FIGURE A2 L44 LANE LOAD


(Uniformly distributed part only)

A2.2.4 Heavy load platform load


The following heavy load platform (HLP) loads should be considered:
(a) For bridges on roads of Functional Class 1, 2, 3, 6 or 7 (see Table A1), the HLP 320
design load should be applied.
(b) For bridges on roads of Functional Class 4, 5, 8 or 9 (see Table A1), the authority
should determine whether the bridge should be designed for the effects of HLP loads.
(c) For bridges on special designated routes, as determined by the authority, the HLP 400
design load or a special heavy load configuration specified by the authority should be
applied.
The HLP loads should have the following configurations:
(i) Sixteen rows of axles.
(ii) The total load per axle should be 200 kN for the HLP 320 load, or 250 kN for the
HLP 400 load. The axle load should be equally distributed among all wheels.
(iii) Axles should be spaced at 1.8 m centres.
(iv) Eight tyres per axle row.
(v) The overall width of axles should be 3.6 m for the HLP 320 load, or 4.5 m for the
HLP 400 load. The lateral spacing of dual wheels along an axle is shown in
Figure A3.
(vi) For continuous bridges, the load may be separated into two groups of eight axles with
a central gap of between 6 m and 15 m, the gap being chosen to give the most adverse
effect.
(vii) The tyre contact area for each dual wheel should be assumed to be 500 × 200 mm.

© Standards Australia www.standards.org.au


21 AS 5100.7—2004

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)

(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

www.standards.org.au © Standards Australia


AS 5100.7—2004 22
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

FIGURE A3 LATERAL SPACING OF DUAL WHEELS


ALONG AN AXLE FOR HLP LOADS

A2.2.5 Number of lanes for design and lateral position of loads


A2.2.5.1 General
T44 truck and L44 lane loads should be assumed to occupy one standard design lane of 3 m
width.
When designing for the effects of T44 truck and L44 lane loads, the number and position of
standard design lanes should be as follows:
(a) For urban bridges and other bridges specified by the authority The number of
standard design lanes (n) should be as follows:
b
n= . . . A2.2.5.1
3.1
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.

© Standards Australia www.standards.org.au


23 AS 5100.7—2004

A2.2.5.2 Heavy load platform loads


The HLP 320 and HLP 400 loads should be assumed to centrally occupy two standard
design lanes.
The standard design lanes containing the HLP loads should be positioned laterally on a
bridge as specified by the authority. To account for errors in the positioning of actual
vehicles, bridges should be designed for the effects of the HLP loads positioned up to 1 m
laterally in either direction from the specified position.
If the two standard design lanes containing the HLP loads are positioned such that one or
more marked traffic lanes are unobstructed, then a load of half of either the T44 truck load
or L44 lane load, as appropriate, should be placed in those lanes, unless specified otherwise
by the authority.
A2.2.6 Modification factors for multiple lane bridges
When loading a number of standard design lanes simultaneously, the load modification
factors given in Table A2 should be applied to all loads of the T44 Truck and L44 Lane
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

Number of standard Load modification


design lanes loaded factor

1 1.0
2 0.9
3 0.8
4 0.7
5 0.6
6 or more 0.55

A2.2.7 Design for localized load effects—W7 wheel load


For bridge decks constructed from materials other than reinforced or prestressed concrete,
and for all structural elements (including reinforced and prestressed concrete) for which the
critical load is a single, dual-tyred wheel load, an additional load effect consisting of a
70 kN load over a contact area of 500 × 200 mm should be considered. The wheel load is
designated as the W7 wheel load.
A2.2.8 Fatigue load
The fatigue design traffic load should be the unfactored W7 wheel, T44 truck or L44 land
load, as applicable for the structural element under consideration, with the multiple lane
modification factor and dynamic load allowance added.
The number of stress cycles corresponding to the fatigue design traffic load to be used in
the assessment of fatigue should be a given in Table A3.

www.standards.org.au © Standards Australia


AS 5100.7—2004 24

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

A2.2.9 Load factors for design traffic loads


For serviceability limit state design loads, the load factors for W7, T44, L44 and HLP
loading is to be 1.0 with dynamic load allowance then added (see Note 2 of Table A4).
For ultimate limit state design loads, the load factors for W7, T44, L44 and HLP loading are
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

given in Table A4.

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.

A2.2.10 Dynamic load allowance


A2.2.10.1 General
The dynamic load allowance (α) set out herein specifies an increase in the traffic load
resulting from the interaction of moving vehicles and the bridge structure, and should be
described in terms of the static equivalent of the dynamic and vibratory effects. For design
purposes, α is specified as a proportion of the traffic load defined in Paragraphs A2.2.10.2,
A2.2.10.3 and A2.2.10.4 The dynamic load allowance applies to both the ultimate and
serviceability limit states.
The dynamic load allowance models the dynamic effects of vehicles moving over bridges
with typical road profile irregularities.
A2.2.10.2 Dynamic load allowance—T44 truck and L44 lane loads
The dynamic load allowance (α) is a function of the first longitudinal flexural frequency of
the superstructure as shown in Figure A4.

© Standards Australia www.standards.org.au


25 AS 5100.7—2004
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

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.

FIGURE A4 DYNAMIC LOAD ALLOWANCE FOR T44 TRUCK


AND L44 LANE LOADS (ONE LANE LOADED)

A2.2.10.3 Dynamic load allowance—HLP loads


The dynamic load allowance for HLP loads is to be taken as 0.1.
A2.2.10.4 Dynamic load allowance—Decks
The dynamic load allowance for reinforced and prestressed concrete deck slabs or slab
structures, whose design is governed by the local effects of the W7 wheel load, the T44
truck, HLP axle or wheel loads, should be not less than 0.25.
A2.2.10.5 Application of the dynamic load allowance
The dynamic load allowance should be applied to all parts of the structure extending down
to the ground line.
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.

www.standards.org.au © Standards Australia


AS 5100.7—2004 26

A2.3.2 Standard vehicle load


A2.3.2.1 General
Only one standard vehicle load should be assumed to occupy each standard design lane. The
size and maximum number of these lanes are specified in Paragraph A2.3.5. In calculating
the maximum effects due to Standard vehicle load, design lanes may be loaded
simultaneously, in any combination. A reduction of live load based on the improbability of
coincident load may be applied as specified in Paragraph A2.3.6.
The standard vehicle load A14 applies to spans less than or equal to 4 m. The standard
vehicle load T44 applies to spans greater than or equal to 5 m. The standard vehicle load
effects for spans between 4 and 5 m should be determined by an interpolation (see Note)
between the effects resulting from the A14 and T44 loads.
NOTE: For example, Design effect = A14 effect + [(T44 effect − A14 effect)(span − 4)].
A2.3.2.2 A14 standard vehicle load
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

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.

© Standards Australia www.standards.org.au


27 AS 5100.7—2004

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.

FIGURE A5 A14 STANDARD VEHICLE LOAD

www.standards.org.au © Standards Australia


AS 5100.7—2004 28
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

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.

DIMENSIONS IN MILLIMETRES UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE

FIGURE A6 T44 STANDARD VEHICLE LOAD

© Standards Australia www.standards.org.au


29 AS 5100.7—2004

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)

FIGURE A7 T44 STANDARD ABNORMAL VEHICLE (PLAN OF WHEEL POSITION)

A2.3.4 Minimum bridge loads


The minimum design loads on bridges should be based on the information given in
Table A5.

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

© Standards Australia www.standards.org.au


31 AS 5100.7—2004

= 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)

= 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
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.

www.standards.org.au © Standards Australia


AS 5100.7—2004 32

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:

© Standards Australia www.standards.org.au


33 AS 5100.7—2004

(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

FIGURE A8 STANDARD M TRUCKS

www.standards.org.au © Standards Australia


AS 5100.7—2004 34

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

FIGURE A9 STANDARD MS TRUCKS

© Standards Australia www.standards.org.au


35 AS 5100.7—2004
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

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.

FIGURE A10 M LANE AND MS LANE LOADINGS

A2.4.8 Design traffic lanes


The lane loading or standard trucks should occupy a lane width of 3 m. These loads should
be placed in design traffic lanes having a width of—
Wk
Wt = . . . A2.4.8
N
where
W t = width of the design traffic lane

www.standards.org.au © Standards Australia


AS 5100.7—2004 36

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.

© Standards Australia www.standards.org.au


37 AS 5100.7—2004

A2.4.10.2 Number and position of traffic lane units


The number and position of lane loadings or truck loadings should be as described in
A1 Paragraph A2.4.8 and Table A6.
A2.4.10.3 Lane loading—Continuous spans
The lane loadings shown in Figure A10 should be modified for the design of continuous
spans in that the lane loadings should consist of the loads shown in Figure A10, and in
addition there to, another concentrated load of equal weight should be placed in one other
span in the series in such a position as to produce maximum negative moment. For
maximum positive moment, only one concentrated load should be used per lane combined
with as many spans loaded uniformly as required to produce maximum moment.
A2.4.10.4 Loading for maximum stress
The type and arrangement of loading to be considered for any particular stress (including
the number and position of load lanes or traffic lanes, and whether the number of lanes to
be occupied by trucks or conventional lane loadings) should in all cases be such as to make
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

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.

www.standards.org.au © Standards Australia


AS 5100.7—2004 38

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.

A3 RAILWAY TRAFFIC—DESIGN LOAD


A3.1 General
Information is provided for the design loads given in the—
(a) 1996 Australian Bridge Design Code (Railway Supplement)(300-A-12); and
(b) 1974 Australian and New Zealand Railway Conferences, Railway Bridge Design
Manual.
Paragraph A3 covers only the major vertical loads. For other load effects, including
dynamic load allowance (impact), reference should be made to the actual codes. Note that
dynamic load allowance increases with older codes as older non-dynamically balanced
steam locomotives generated higher dynamic loads.
A3.2 1996 Australian Bridge Design Code
A1 The 300-A-12 loading consists of groups of four axles each having a load of 300 kN, and
having axle spacings of 1.7 m, 1.1 m and 1.7 m as shown in Figure A11. The spacing
between the centres of each axle group should be taken as 12 m (see Figure A12).
The position of the loads and the number of axle groups should be selected so as to give
maximum load effects in the member under consideration.
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.

© Standards Australia www.standards.org.au


39 AS 5100.7—2004

A1

DIMENSIONS IN METRES

FIGURE A11 300-A-12 RAILWAY TRAFFIC LOADINGS AXLE LOADS


Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

FIGURE A12 300-A-12 RAILWAY TRAFFIC LOADINGS AXLE GROUP SPACINGS

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

FIGURE A13 M250 LIVE LOAD

www.standards.org.au © Standards Australia


AS 5100.7—2004 40

AMENDMENT CONTROL SHEET

AS 5100.7—2004

Amendment No. 1 (2010)

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.

For further information visit www.standards.org.au

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).

Sales and Distribution


Australian Standards®, Handbooks and other documents developed by Standards Australia are printed and
distributed under license by SAI Global Limited.
Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

For information regarding the development of Standards contact:


Standards Australia Limited
GPO Box 476
Sydney NSW 2001
Phone: 02 9237 6000
Fax: 02 9237 6010
Email: mail@standards.org.au
Internet: www.standards.org.au

For information regarding the sale and distribution of Standards contact:


SAI Global Limited
Phone: 13 12 42
Fax: 1300 65 49 49
Email: sales@saiglobal.com

ISBN 0 7337 5500 3


Accessed by CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 23 May 2017 [SUPERSEDED] (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

This page has been left intentionally blank.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai