Tier 1 Bridge Heavy Load Assessment Criteria

Criteria
Tier 1 Bridge Heavy Load Assessment Criteria

August 2013
Copyright
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/
State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) 2013
Feedback: Please send your feedback regarding this document to: mr.techdocs@tmr.qld.gov.au
Tier 1 Bridge Heavy Load Assessment Criteria, Transport and Main Roads, August 2013
Amendment Register
Issue / Reference
Description of revision Authorised by Date
Rev no. section
Editorial changes to reflect new
3.10 All DCE (Structures) August 2013
corporate editing requirements
Amendment Register History (prior to August 2013)

Version 3.09 May 2013
Version 3.09 includes the following changes:
1. the addition of Reference Vehicle 6 to the vehicles to be assessed on BD routes
2. provisions regarding the interpretation of drawings and inspection reports added
3. provisions regarding step size and stagger of vehicles added
4. removal of an inconsistency in the assessment requirements for bridges where the condition
influences the structural capacity
5. update to Annexure S03 (Version 1.03 ) diagram regarding interpretation of Asv/S added
6. editorial changes.
Version 3.08 April 2013
1. renaming of Assessment Vehicle 5 to remove the reference to HLP320 as Reference Vehicle

5 differs from the AS 5100 HLP320
2. material properties for reinforced concrete hollow spun piles added
3. assessment ratios for components with a SAR >3 are to be reported in the Assessment
Spreadsheet as having an assessment ratio (ERB, ERT & SAR) of >3.
Version 3.07 April 2013
1. selection of Reference Vehicles and Accompanying Vehicles for various routes types and
loading levels amended
2. Extent of assessment added to Bridge Parameters
Version 3.06 March 2013
1. Assessment Vehicle 7G and 7H amended to a vehicle that approximates both semi-trailers

and B-Double effects in simply supported bridges
2. Reference Vehicles for General Access amended to 1G/1H, 3 and 5
3. crane reference Vehicle selection based on bridge span
Tier 1 Bridge Heavy Load Assessment Criteria, Transport and Main Roads, August 2013 i
4. reduction in the number of travel restrictions for road train and general access routes
5. provisions for combined shear and torsion in concrete box girders added
6. a Summary of Potentially Structurally Deficient Components for unrestricted travel by MCVs

tabulation added to the results presentation
7. the Assessment Ratios required to be included in the Assessment Spreadsheet altered from
all elements to all components
8. the Assessment Spreadsheet now includes columns for element redundancy and whether the
loading of an element is consistent with a simply supported bridge or otherwise
9. the inconsistency in the formulae for SAR in the table Sample from an Assessment
Spreadsheet corrected (i.e. AL=A/AF replaced with AL=A/AG)
10. the reporting requirements for deteriorated bridges were altered to require assessment ratios
for the bridge in its as new condition and discussion of the sensitivity of the assessments to
condition
11. Flagged Items altered
12. reporting requirements altered to include the Bridge Parameters, Summary of Potentially
Structurally Deficient Components for unrestricted travel by MCVs, and the General
Arrangement drawing/s
13. the file structure for the CD of data altered
14. the naming convention for SpaceGass files altered
15. a blank copy of the current Bridge Parameters included in Appendix C
16. update to Annexure S02 (Version 1.03 ) stiffness used to model kerb unit altered so that the
deck unit and the kerb unit reach their ultimate bending strength at the same curvature
Version 3.05 Jan 2013
1. updated purpose
2. changes to the loads that need to be considered additions of secondary effects
3. reduced the number of Reference Vehicles and Accompanying Vehicles required for
assessment in some routes
4. increased the width of the assessment lane for cranes
5. reduced the required number of Travel Restrictions on B-Double routes to Travel Restriction 1
only
6. addition of geotechnical, rolled steel beam and prestressing bar material properties
7. altering of the file and folder naming conventions to include the BIS ID
8. updates to headings in Assessment Spreadsheet and Summary of Results
9. updates to Flagged Items listing
Tier 1 Bridge Heavy Load Assessment Criteria, Transport and Main Roads, August 2013 ii
10. updates to Annexure S02 (Version 1.02 ) modelling an positioning wheel loads on deck unit
models.
11. updates to Annexure S03 (Version 1.02 ) and S03 (clarifications regarding shear in deck
units and prestressed concrete girders)
12. addition of a brief description of the bridge in the reporting requirements
Version 3.04 28 November 2012
1. amendments to the provisions for the number of Accompanying Vehicles travelling with cranes
on narrow bridges
2. amendments to the provisions for the minimum headway between vehicles
1. an amendment to the provisions should the number of assessment lanes be greater than the
number of marked lanes
2. updated versions of the following:
a. Annexure S01: Frame Models of Complete Bridge Structures for Tier 1 Assessments
(Version 1.03 Nov 2012)
1. the incorporation of initial provisions relating to B-Doubles (Reference Vehicles 7G and 7H)
a. Annexure S04: Tier 2 Assessment of Shear in Concrete Short Span Bridges (Version 1.00
Nov 2012)
1. the addition of initial provisions relating to low ductility bridges
2. the addition of modelling validation, and the application of wheel loads to superstructures
3. editorial changes
(Version 1.02 Nov 2012)
Tier 1 Bridge Heavy Load Assessment Criteria, Transport and Main Roads, August 2013 iii
b. Annexure S02: Modelling Deck Unit Superstructures for Tier 1 Assessments (Version 1.01
Nov 2012)
Version 3.00 is a general update to the criteria. Changes include:
1. a name change
2. rearrangement of material and formatting changes
3. the inclusion of as-of-right vehicles as well as permit vehicles
4. the inclusion of B-Double and General Access routes as well as Road Train routes
5. alignment with the departments Structural Assessment of Existing Road Bridges

Organisational Policy
6. the incorporation of:
(Version 1.01 Nov 2012) to assist in the generation of simple, reliable bridge analysis
models
b. Annexure S02: Modelling Deck Unit Superstructures for Tier 1 Assessments (Version 1.0
Oct 2012), which updates the analysis of deck unit bridges so as to avoid the overloading
of transverse members and load balancing of kerb and deck units
c. Annexure S03: Tier 1 Assessment of Shear in Concrete Short Span Bridges to AS 5100 &
AS 3600 (Version 1.01 Nov 2012) to assist in the interpretation of shear strength
calculation provisions
7. the introduction of the collective term Assessment Ratios and two new assessment ratios:
Tier 1 Bridge Heavy Load Assessment Criteria, Transport and Main Roads, August 2013 iv
ERB Equivalence Ratio Bridge
a. Available ULS bridge capacity for Reference Vehicle effects
ERB
ULS loading applied by Reference Vehicle
an existing Assessment Ratio for permit vehicle assessment
ERT Equivalence Ratio Traffic

b. Available ULS bridge capacity for live load effects
ERT
ULS loading applied by Reference and Accompanying Vehicles
a new Assessment Ratio for as-of-right traffic assessment
SAR Strength Assessment Ratio

c. ULS capacity
SAR
Total ULS load effects
inclusion of an existing Assessment Ratio for bridge risk assessment
8. the introduction of the collective term Assessment Vehicles for Reference Vehicles and
Accompanying Vehicles (previously co-existing vehicles)
9. the requirement to assess each bridge based on its Route Type (Road Train, B-Double or
General Access) and the Loading level (General Mass Limits (GML) or Higher Mass Limits
(HML))
10. the introduction of GML and HML variants of Assessment Vehicles 1, 2 and 6 Reference
Vehicles 1G, 2G and 6G for GML routes and Assessment Vehicles 1H, 2H and 6H for HML
routes
11. the introduction of assessment lanes whose lane widths increase as the width of the
carriageway increases (this will require 6m wide bridges to be assessed as two lane bridges)
and the associated changes for lateral positioning of vehicles
12. revised lateral positioning, Accompanying Vehicle, and Travel Restriction requirements for
Heavy Load Platforms (HLPs)
13. the adoption of AS 5100 / AS 1170 terminology where appropriate
14. an adjustment of the speed of travel for the Dynamic Load Allowance and various Travel
Restrictions to be either < 10 km/h or > 10km/h
15. a change to Travel Restriction 2 for Multi-Combination Vehicles (MCVs) that requires the
speed of the Reference Vehicles and the Accompanying Vehicles to be the same on the same
carriageway this is not the case for cranes and HLPs
16. the introduction of loading provisions to allow for the assessment of multi-lane multi
carriageway bridges and for Accompanying Vehicles in the same lane as the Reference
Vehicle
Tier 1 Bridge Heavy Load Assessment Criteria, Transport and Main Roads, August 2013 v
17. adjustments to the reporting requirements for geotechnical assessments - geotechnical
assessments with Assessment Ratios < 1.0 are to be identified and treated as a serviceability
issue but the Assessment Ratios are not included in the Summary of Results
18. expansion of the detailed assessment reporting requirements (Assessment Spreadsheet) to

include the three Assessment Ratios (ERB, ERT & SAR) and the intermediate results used to
calculate the Assessment Ratios as well as details of the Route Type, Loading Level, Criteria
Version and RPEQ details
19. amendments to the names and descriptions of parameters (e.g. Grouping, Component, Load
Effect) used to identify the location of effects corresponding to the Assessment Ratios
20. the amendment of the format of the Summary of Results to be consistent with the Assessment
Spreadsheet, the three Assessment Ratios and the revised geotechnical reporting
requirements
21. the introduction of specific requirements to report the RPEQ details of the engineers
supervising and verifying the assessment.
Tier 1 Bridge Heavy Load Assessment Criteria, Transport and Main Roads, August 2013 vi
Transport and Main Roads documents related to Bridge Assessment
The following is a list of documents prepared by the Department of Transport and Main Roads in
relation to the assessment of existing road bridges.
Policy documents:
Structural Assessment of Existing Road Bridges Organisational Policy (Version 1.0 Aug 2012)
Vehicle Limits Manual (Version 2 Feb 2011)
Bridge Inspection Manual (Second edition June 2004)
Project criteria:
Tier 1 Bridge Heavy Load Assessment Criteria (Version 3.10 Aug 2013 this document)
Annexures:
Annexure S01: Frame Models of Complete Bridge Structures for Tier 1 Assessments (Version
Aug 2013)
Annexure S02: Modelling Deck Unit Superstructures for Tier 1 Assessments (Version 1.04
Aug 2013)
Annexure S03: Tier 1 Assessment of Shear in Concrete Short Span Bridges to AS 5100 &
AS 3600 (Version 1.04 Aug 2013)
Annexure S04: Tier 2 Assessment of Shear in Concrete Short Span Bridges (Version 1.02
Aug 2013)
Tier 1 Bridge Heavy Load Assessment Criteria, Transport and Main Roads, August 2013 vii
Contents
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Qualification and quality.................................................................................................................. 1
2 Background ....................................................................................................................................2
2.1 Departmental bridge inspection ...................................................................................................... 3
2.2 The departments assessment policy ............................................................................................. 3
2.2.1 Tier 1 assessment ..........................................................................................................3
2.2.2 Tier 2 assessment ..........................................................................................................4
3 Document hierarchy ......................................................................................................................6
4 Definitions and notation................................................................................................................7
4.1 Definitions and abbreviations.......................................................................................................... 7
4.2 Notation......................................................................................................................................... 10
5 Scope ............................................................................................................................................13
5.1 Project scope ................................................................................................................................ 13
5.2 Limitations of this criteria .............................................................................................................. 13
5.2.1 Within the limits of the criteria ......................................................................................13
5.2.2 Beyond the limits of the criteria ....................................................................................14
5.3 Software requirements.................................................................................................................. 14
6 Principal supplied material .........................................................................................................15
6.1 Interpretation of Drawings............................................................................................................. 16
6.2 Interpretation of inspection reports ............................................................................................... 16
7 Loads ............................................................................................................................................17
7.1 Limit states to be considered ........................................................................................................ 17
7.2 Loads to be considered ................................................................................................................ 17
7.3 Loads not to be considered .......................................................................................................... 17
7.4 Permanent loads........................................................................................................................... 17
7.4.1 General.........................................................................................................................17
7.4.2 Dead loads ...................................................................................................................18
7.4.3 Superimposed dead load .............................................................................................18
7.5 Vehicle loads................................................................................................................................. 18
7.5.1 Assessment Vehicles ...................................................................................................18
7.5.2 Reference and Accompanying Vehicles ......................................................................23
7.5.3 Width and number of assessment lanes ......................................................................24
7.5.4 Lateral position of assessment lanes ...........................................................................25
7.5.5 Positioning of Assessment Vehicles within assessment lanes ....................................27
7.5.6 Stationary queues of heavy vehicles............................................................................27
7.5.7 Positioning of Heavy Load Platforms and Accompanying Vehicles.............................27
7.5.8 Travel Restrictions........................................................................................................28
7.5.9 Dynamic Load Allowance .............................................................................................31
7.5.10 Accompanying vehicle factors......................................................................................32
7.6 Load factors .................................................................................................................................. 32
7.6.1 Serviceability Limit State load factors...........................................................................32
7.6.2 Ultimate Limit State load factors...................................................................................33
7.6.3 Ultimate Limit State load effect.....................................................................................35
Tier 1 Bridge Heavy Load Assessment Criteria, Transport and Main Roads, August 2013 viii
8 Material Properties ......................................................................................................................36
8.1 General ......................................................................................................................................... 36
8.2 Concrete ....................................................................................................................................... 36
8.3 Steel reinforcement....................................................................................................................... 36
8.4 Hot rolled steel sections................................................................................................................ 37
8.5 Prestressing reinforcement........................................................................................................... 38
8.6 Geotechnical ................................................................................................................................. 40
8.7 Material properties for reinforced concrete hollow spun piles ...................................................... 41
9 Analysis ........................................................................................................................................42
9.1 General ......................................................................................................................................... 42
9.2 Staged construction of continuous bridges................................................................................... 43
9.3 Moving vehicle step size............................................................................................................... 43
9.4 Transversely stressed deck unit bridge ........................................................................................ 43
9.5 Deck unit bridge with composite concrete deck ........................................................................... 43
9.6 Girders (steel or concrete) with composite concrete deck ........................................................... 43
9.7 Concrete deck slabs ..................................................................................................................... 44
9.8 Section properties......................................................................................................................... 44
9.9 Scour............................................................................................................................................. 44
9.10 Load cases.................................................................................................................................... 44
10 Element capacities ......................................................................................................................45
10.1 Condition of structure.................................................................................................................... 45
10.2 Concrete elements........................................................................................................................ 45
10.3 Combined shear and torsion in concrete box girder..................................................................... 46
10.4 Cross-girders ................................................................................................................................ 46
10.5 Steel beams and composite deck slab ......................................................................................... 46
10.6 Deck slabs on girder bridges ........................................................................................................ 47
10.7 T-roff girders ................................................................................................................................. 48
10.8 Abutment and pier headstocks ..................................................................................................... 48
10.9 Columns and piles ........................................................................................................................ 48
10.10 Abutment and pier foundation bearing pressure and pile capacity...................................... 49
11 Assessment ratios .......................................................................................................................51
11.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 51
11.2 Definition of assessment ratios..................................................................................................... 51
11.3 Determination of assessment ratios ............................................................................................. 53
11.3.1 Geotechnical.................................................................................................................57
11.4 Critical elements ........................................................................................................................... 57
11.5 Results presentation ..................................................................................................................... 58
11.5.1 Assessment Spreadsheet ............................................................................................58
11.5.2 Summary of Potentially Structurally Deficient Components for unrestricted travel by
MCVs 61
Tier 1 Bridge Heavy Load Assessment Criteria, Transport and Main Roads, August 2013 ix
11.5.3 Summary of Results .....................................................................................................62
11.5.4 Flagged Items...............................................................................................................63
11.5.5 Condition ......................................................................................................................64
12 Deliverables..................................................................................................................................65
13 Additional work ............................................................................................................................66
14 Communication............................................................................................................................66
15 Timing ...........................................................................................................................................66
Appendix A Modelling.....................................................................................................................67
A.1 SpaceGass files ............................................................................................................................ 67
A.2 Load Cases................................................................................................................................... 67
A.3 Travel paths for skew bridges....................................................................................................... 67
A.4 Application of wheel loads to superstructures .............................................................................. 67
Appendix B Dimensions and properties of selected rolled steel members..............................68
B.1 British Joists (Redpath and Brown, page 8 and 9, 1950) ............................................................. 68
B.2 British Joists (Redpath and Brown, page 10 and 11, 1950) ......................................................... 69
B.3 Australian RSJs (BHP Handbook, 1961)...................................................................................... 70
Appendix C Bridge parameters......................................................................................................71
Tables
Table 2.1: Comparison of historical design vehicles ............................................................................... 2
Table 7.1: Typical weights for calculating nominal dead loads ............................................................. 18
Table 7.2: Description of Assessment Vehicles .................................................................................... 19
Table 7.3: Selection of Reference Vehicles (RV) and Accompanying Vehicles (AV) for various route
types and loading levels ........................................................................................................................ 24
Table 7.4: Number of assessment lanes in a carriageway ................................................................... 25
Table 7.5: Lateral position of assessment lanes ................................................................................... 26
Table 7.6: Travel restrictions for MCVs (RV 1G&H, 2G&H, 6G&H & 7G&H)....................................... 29
Table 7.7: Travel restrictions for cranes (RV 3 and 4) .......................................................................... 30
Table 7.8: Travel restrictions for Heavy Load Platforms (RV 5)............................................................ 30
Table 7.9: Dynamic Load Allowance () for Assessment Vehicles operating at various travel speeds 31
Table 7.10: Accompanying Vehicle Factors (AVF) ............................................................................... 32
Table 7.11: Ultimate Limit State load factors for Assessment Vehicles (Q) for high redundancy bridges
............................................................................................................................................................... 34
Table 7.12: Ultimate Limit State load factors for Assessment Vehicles (Q) for low redundancy bridges
............................................................................................................................................................... 34
Table 8.1: Historical concrete strengths ................................................................................................ 36
Table 8.2: Historical steel strengths (derived from The Smorgan ARC Reinforcement Handbook) ..... 37
Tier 1 Bridge Heavy Load Assessment Criteria, Transport and Main Roads, August 2013 x
Table 8.3: Historical Australian Standards for stressing strands and bars ........................................... 38
Table 8.4: Selected historical 7-wire stress relieved strand properties................................................. 39
Table 8.5: Historical prestressing bar properties................................................................................... 40
Table 8.6: Material properties for reinforced concrete hollow spun piles.............................................. 41
Table 10.1: Cross section area of Imperial and Metric Reinforcement (AS.92-1958 Table II & ARC
Reinforcement Handbook Your Guide to Steel Reinforcement, Sixth Edition) .................................. 46
Table 11.1: Groupings ........................................................................................................................... 54
Table 11.2: Components ....................................................................................................................... 55
Table 11.3: Load effects ........................................................................................................................ 56
Table 11.4: Sample from an Assessment Spreadsheet (2 assessment lanes) .................................... 59
Table 11.5: Route type .......................................................................................................................... 60
Table 11.6: Loading level ...................................................................................................................... 60
Table 11.7: Calculation method............................................................................................................. 60
Table 11.8: Below / above ground......................................................................................................... 60
Table 11.9 Example of summary of potentially structurally deficient components for unrestricted travel
by MCVs (partially filled)........................................................................................................................ 61
Table 11.10: Example Summary of Results (partially filled).................................................................. 63
Figures
Figure 1: Flowchart for structural assessment of existing road bridges.................................................. 5
Figure 2: Lateral position of assessment lanes for 2 and 3 lane bridges.............................................. 26
Figure 3: Minimum headway dimension z........................................................................................... 27
Figure 4: Effective load resisting width of slabs in girder bridges for axle groups ................................ 48
Figure 5: Interaction diagram showing loading lines for short and slender concrete columns ............. 49
Tier 1 Bridge Heavy Load Assessment Criteria, Transport and Main Roads, August 2013 xi
Chapter 1: Introduction
1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
The Department of Transport and Main Roads requires analyses and assessments of the capacities of
specific bridges to support heavy vehicles on Road Train, B-Double and General Access routes. The
analyses and assessments will principally be used for the purpose of reviewing applications for heavy
load permits, reviewing possible changes in the operation of as-of-right vehicles and identifying
appropriate traffic restrictions.
This criteria sets out the requirements for analysing bridges and assessing their capacities to carry
specific load cases. The aim is to achieve initial, conservative assessments that can be replicated by
others and are uniform across the bridge network.
1.2 Qualification and quality
All assessment works shall be undertaken by qualified engineers in accordance with this criteria.
All assessment works shall be undertaken by or directly supervised by a responsible Registered

Professional Engineer of Queensland (RPEQ). The responsible assessing RPEQ shall be nominated
prior to work commencing.
All assessment works shall be independently verified by qualified engineers who are independent of
the assessing engineers.
All independent verifying works shall be undertaken by or directly supervised by a RPEQ. The
responsible verifying RPEQ shall be nominated prior to work commencing.
The assessing RPEQ and the verifying RPEQ are to be different engineers who are independent of
each other.
The name and RPEQ number of both the assessing RPEQ and the verifying RPEQ are to be included
in the Assessment Spreadsheet (refer Section 11.5).
A signature block is to be incorporated at the front of each bridge report. The signature block is to
include:
date, name, RPEQ number and signature of the RPEQ responsible for the assessment
date, name and signature of the assessing engineer
date, name, RPEQ number and signature of the RPEQ responsible for verifying the
assessment
date, name and signature of the engineer verifying the assessment.
Tier 1 Bridge Heavy Load Assessment Criteria, Transport and Main Roads, August 2013 1
Chapter 2: Background
2 Background
Industrial developments often necessitate the movement of large indivisible loads that exceed legal
load or dimension limits. A permit system, administered by the department, provides a mechanism for
the safe movement of such loads while preserving the serviceability of road infrastructure assets.
Likewise, the department manages its bridge asset in an environment where there is a continuing
increase in the axle loads and the gross weight of heavy vehicles that access the road and bridge
network.
The road network built over the last century, has not been constructed, or maintained, to a uniform
standard and bridge capacities are governed by age, the design standard prevailing at the time of
design, strength of materials used, quality of construction, aggressive environments, loading spectrum
and standard of maintenance. The gross replacement value of state controlled bridges and major
culverts exceeds $11 billion, so replacement of the weaker components takes many decades.
As such, prescriptive controls are required to protect assets operating at the lower end of the
performance spectrum. Accordingly, the maximum permissible load on a particular road link will
generally be determined by the capacity of the weakest structures.
The department is responsible for the management of approximately 2,900 bridges and 4,000 major
culverts that have to be considered when assessing the movement of heavy loads. The various bridge
design classes, their respective frequencies of occurrence and comparisons with current design
standards are itemised in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Comparison of historical design vehicles
Period Class Percentage

2004 Present SM1600 5%
1976 2004 T44 (44t semi) 44%
1954 1976 H20S16 (76% T44) 33%
1922 1954 A-Class (62% T44) 14%
1922 1954 B-Class (33% T44) 3%
Other Other 1%
The permit system is based on risk management principles and is documented in Transport and Main
Roads Vehicle Limits Manual. This document makes provision for the award of single trip and
period permits within defined limits; provided that bridges on the planned routes are found to be
structurally adequate, taking into account their conditions. Additionally, loads in excess of the limits
prescribed in the manual may be submitted for assessment by structural and pavement engineers in
the department.
The departments Structures Sections role in the permit process is to carry out the assessments of all
Transport and Main Roads controlled bridges along a requested route for a proposed vehicle. A
similar process is necessary to assess proposals to change as-of-right vehicles. This can involve the
assessment of various load configurations over hundreds of structures. Scarce and skilled resources
are required to undertake the structural analysis and assessment. It has thus become apparent over
the last few years that, in order to meet the ever increasing demands of the transport industry to move
heavier and larger vehicles and loads, a more efficient means of assessing structures is required;
hence the development of a Bridge Load Rating program. By predetermining the load effects of the
Reference Vehicles on bridges within the network, the time associated with assessing permit
applications or proposals for a change to the as-of-right vehicles accessing a bridge, can vastly be
reduced.
2.1 Departmental bridge inspection
The department undertakes a program of routine and non-routine of structural inspection as defined in
the Bridge Inspection Manual (BIS). The frequency and level of inspection is defined in the BIS and is
dependent on the previously determined condition of the bridge.
Level 2 inspections provided detailed condition state information for each visible component of the
bridge as well as supporting pictures and scour records.
2.2 The departments assessment policy
The departments bridge assessment policy is set out in the following document: Structural
Assessment of Existing Road Bridges Organisational Policy. This policy, in part, states:
Transport and Main Roads (TMR) is committed to providing structurally safe, sustainable access to all
bridges on the road network. TMR recognises bridges form part of the transport network facilitating
economic growth and social connection.
TMR will assess bridges based on Australian and international practice to manage risk. This risk is
managed through the process depicted in Figure 1. This process consists of an initial assessment
(Tier 1) based on Australian Standard AS 5100 bridge assessment criteria (as distinct from bridge
design criteria). If a bridge inspection confirms this defect consistent with a calculated deficiency, there
will be immediate intervention managed by a Structure Management Plan (SMP).
If a Tier 1 calculated deficiency is not confirmed by a bridge inspection, an additional higher-level

assessment (Tier 2) based on advanced analyses, overseas codes and other Australian codes, will be
undertaken. If a deficiency is confirmed by Tier 2 assessment, a SMP will be implemented.
A criteria overview of Tier 1 and Tier 2 assessments follow.
2.2.1 Tier 1 assessment
Tier 1 bridge assessment is based on AS 5100 using numerical modelling methods for the type of
structure under consideration. Bridge assessment criteria shall remove any conservatism due to
simplifications in the bridge design criteria of AS 5100. Tier 1 assessment is based on AS 5100.7,
AS/ISO 13822 and other criteria as specified by the department.
A Tier 1 bridge assessment typically includes:
review of supplied drawings and Level 2 inspection reports
preparation of analytical models of the bridge
determination of load effects for a range of predetermined Assessment Vehicles and Travel
Restrictions
determination of bridge capacities
calculation of Assessment Ratios
tabulation of the Assessment Ratios and the data used in the derivation of the Assessment
Ratios for each loading scenario considered. These summary tabulations are in a standard
format to facilitate their application in the ongoing management of the departments bridge
infrastructure
preparation of a Tier 1 assessment report.
2.2.2 Tier 2 assessment
Tier 2 assessment is an advanced assessment process undertaken when a Tier 1 assessment

indicates that a bridge has a theoretical structural deficiency and the calculated deficiency is not
confirmed by a bridge inspection. It utilises:
higher level advanced analyses including non-linear and plastic analyses, and
methods based on overseas standards, other Australian Standards and other recognized
methods.
It is essential the Tier 2 method is robust and based on good engineering principles. Generally, a peer
review process would be undertaken to confirm that Tier 2 methodology is technically sound. The use
of overseas codes requires an understanding of the appropriate ultimate load factors and capacity
reduction factors when alternative methods are compared to other jurisdictions codes.
It is anticipated that Tier 2 assessment will be used in a limited number of bridge assessments.
A Tier 2 bridge assessment typically includes:
review of Tier 1 assessment as required
site inspection, if required
preparation of numerical modelling as required
determination of bridge capacities
revision and updating of the tabulated Assessment Ratios and supporting data
preparation of a Tier 2 assessment report.
Figure 1: Flowchart for structural assessment of existing road bridges
START
Assess theoretical load capacity and review of

Level 2 Inspection (Tier 1)
Confirm validity of assessment output including independent check if

required
NO
SAR <1.00
YES
Potentially Structurally Deficient Bridge

Level 3 Bridge Inspection required promptly to
detemine if defect same as calculations
Immediate Risk
Does the bridge inspection YES Structurally Deficient
confirm calculated Bridge
deficiency? Condition issues require
immediate action
NO
Review initial / theoretical results & undertake further
higher level analysis and reduce plausibility gap
(Tier 2)
Structurally NO
SAR <1.00
adequate bridge
YES
What is the worst failure mode?
Foundation Issues Only Immediate Risk

Structurally Deficient
(All SAR<1.0 must be Structurally Deficient
Bridge
foundation) Bridge
Immediately implement SMP

Risk Management Strategy
Identify risk. and monitor critical
Implement monitoring and components
Implement SMP, risk
SMP as appropriate.
management strategy and
If significant settlement
monitoring plan
occurs, manage as
Structurally Deficient Bridge Review/update SMP and Risk
Management Strategy
END END
Chapter 3: Document hierarchy
3 Document hierarchy
The following order of priority shall be used in resolving technical ambiguities in this criteria:
a) Project Specific Technical Criteria and Bridge Parameters (if provided)
b) Tier 1 Bridge Heavy Load Assessment Criteria (this document)
c) Annexures
b. Annexure S02: Modelling Deck Unit Superstructures for Tier 1 Assessments
c. Annexure S03: Tier 1 Assessment of Shear in Concrete Short Span Bridges to AS 5100
and AS 3600
d. Annexure S04: Tier 2 Assessment of Shear in Concrete Short Span Bridges.
d) Procedure for Structural Assessment of Existing Road Bridges
e) The following extracts from Transport and Main Roads Design Criteria for Bridges and Other
Structures
a. Clause 6 Additional Requirements to AS 5100 excluding AS 5100.2 Clause 6.3
b. Clause 7 Matters for Resolution.
f) AS 5100 Bridge Design
Chapter 4: Definitions and notation
4 Definitions and notation

4.1 Definitions and abbreviations
An Assessment Vehicle (AV) that is on the bridge at the same

Accompanying Vehicle (AV)
time as the Reference Vehicle (RV) (refer Section 7.5)
As-of-right vehicles Vehicles that can operate on a route without a permit
The width a lane used in an assessment. Assessment

Assessment Lane Vehicles (except HLPs) travel in the centre of Assessment
Lanes
Assessment Ratios Ratios used in bridge assessment (refer ERB, ERT and SAR)
Detailed assessment information reported as an excel

Assessment Spreadsheet
spreadsheet to a prescribed format (refer Section 11.5.1)
Reference Vehicles and Accompanying Vehicles (refer

Assessment Vehicles
Section 7.5)
Works conducted by qualified engineers to determine loads,

Assessment Works capacities, and assessment ratios in accordance with this
criteria and consistent with accepted professional practice
A highway designated as acceptable for utilisation by B-

B-Double route (BD)
Doubles (i.e. excludes road trains)
A unique bridge identification number assigned to each bridge

BIS ID
the BIS ID is essential for all naming and filing systems
In the context of this document a complete bridge model

means that the model includes sufficient of the superstructure
Complete bridge model and the substructure to model all actions. The boundary
conditions at the remote ends of supporting elements such as
columns and piles may be simplified
The critical element is the element with the minimum SAR for
Critical Element the loading scenario and component grouping under
consideration
Items that have been flagged and reported in the Flagged

Flagged Items
Items listing and the Assessment Spreadsheet
Flagged Items listing A listing, in a prescribed format, of the Flagged Items
Frame models Models consisting of beam elements
A highway designated as acceptable for General Access

General Access route (GA)
Traffic (i.e. excludes B-Doubles and Road Trains)
A code used to identify if the component is part of an

Grouping
abutment, pier or span
GML General Mass Limits
High redundancy bridges Bridges where the failure of an element does not lead to total
collapse
HLP Heavy Load Platform
HML Higher Mass Limits
Works conducted by qualified engineers, who are independent

of the assessing engineers, to verify that the loads, capacities,
Independent verifying works and assessment ratios are technically correct in accordance
with this criteria and consistent with accepted professional
practice
The direction on a bridge generally parallel with the road

Longitudinal direction
centre line
Bridges where the failure of an element leads to total collapse

Low redundancy bridges
(e.g. a bridge with two girders)
Multi-combination vehicle including Road Trains, B-Doubles,

and BAB-quads (refer Transport and Main Roads Guideline
MCV
for Multi-combination Vehicles in Queensland). Refer
Table 7.2 for a list of vehicles defined as MCVs for this criteria
A highway designated as acceptable for Road Trains (i.e.

Road Train route includes General Access vehicles, B-Doubles and Type 1 or
Type 2 Road Trains)
An Assessment Vehicle that the bridge is being assessed for

Reference Vehicle (RV)
(refer Section 7.5)
RPEQ Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland
Reference Vehicle where # represents the Reference Vehicle

RV#
number (refer Section 7.5)
In the context of this document, this means that the bridge is

represented by two models. The superstructure is modelled
Separate superstructure and
separately with supported nodes at the pier locations. The
substructure models
reactions from the superstructure model are then transferred
to separate models of the substructures for analysis.
SLS Serviceability Limit State
SMP Structure Management Plan
A summary to a prescribed format of the minimum

Assessment Ratios for the bridge and the corresponding
Summary of Results
critical elements for each Reference Vehicle and Travel
Restriction (excel and hard copy). Refer Section 11.5.
The direction on a bridge generally perpendicular to the road

Transverse direction
centre line
Travel Restriction (TR) a Travel Restriction that applies to the operation of Reference
Vehicles and Accompanying Vehicles (refer Section 7.5.8)
ULS Ultimate Limit State
The distance from the centreline of the leading axle to the

Vehicle length
centreline of the trailing axle
4.2 Notation
AV Assessment Vehicle
AVF Accompanying Vehicle Factors
AVFAV_i Accompanying vehicle factors for the i th Accompanying Vehicle
BF Bearing force [kN]
c Soil cohesion [kPa]
cL Centreline of carriageway
ERB Equivalence Ratio Bridge (refer Section 11)
ERT Equivalence Ratio Traffic (refer Section 11)
G Nominal dead load effects (i.e. unfactored)
Gs Nominal superimposed dead load effects (i.e. unfactored)
GSLS = g_SLSG + gs_SLSGs = SLS effects due to dead load and superimposed dead load
G* = gG + gsGs = ULS effects due to dead load and superimposed dead load
M* Ultimate limit state bending moment effect [kNm or kNm/m]
M Bending moment (non-horizontal element) [kNm or kNm/m]
Mhog Bending moments causing hogging effects in horizontal elements [kNm or kNm/m]
Msag Bending moments causing sagging effects in horizontal elements [kNm or kNm/m]
M(Nmax) Bending corresponding to max axial load [kNm or kNm/m]
n Number of assessment lanes on a bridge
N Axial force (tension +ve) [kN or kN/m]
nc Number of assessment lanes on a carriageway
N(Mmax) Axial Load corresponding to max bending [kN or kN/m]
N* Ultimate limit state axial load effect [kN or kN/m]
Pressure Geotechnical [kPa]
QAV_i Unfactored live load effects due to the i th Accompanying Vehicle
QRV Unfactored live load effects due to a Reference Vehicle
QRV_SLS = Q_RV_SLS(1+RV)QRV = SLS loading due to the Reference Vehicle
= Q_AV_SLSAVFAV_i(1+AV_i)QAV_i }= SLS loading due to all of the Accompanying

QAV_SLS
Vehicles
Q*AV = Q_AVAVFAV_i(1+AV_i)QAV_i }= ULS loading due to all of the Accompanying Vehicles
Q*AV_i = Q_AVAVFAV_i(1+AV_i)QAV_i = ULS loading due to the i th Accompanying Vehicles
Q*RV = Q_RV(1+RV)QRV = ULS loading due to the Reference Vehicle
R SLS strength of a component (geotechnical only)
Ru ULS strength of a component
RUG ULS strength of a geotechnical component
RV Reference Vehicle
RWL SLS strength of a geotechnical component (could be either load or pressure)
SAR Strength Assessment Ratio (refer Section 11)
S&T(C) Strut-and-tie concrete capacity (strut and node) [kN]
S&T(T) Strut-and-tie reinforcement capacity (tension) [kN]
V Shear force (includes torsion) [kN]
V(Anch) Anchorage shear [kN]
V(Long) Longitudinal shear [kN/m]
V(punch) Punching shear [kN]
V@# Shear at a distance # from face of support [kN]
wal Width of an assessment lane for MCV vehicles
wal_RV3 Width of an assessment lane for Reference Vehicle RV3
wal_RV4 Width of an assessment lane for Reference Vehicle RV4
wal_crane Width of an assessment lane for a crane
wc Width between kerbs or the width between kerb and a median barrier as appropriate
Minimum headway distance between trailing axle of a leading vehicle and the leading
z
axle of the trailing vehicle (refer Figure 3)
Dynamic load allowance (DLA)
RV Dynamic load allowance for the Reference Vehicle
AV_i Dynamic load allowance for the i th Accompanying Vehicle
Capacity reduction factor
soil Friction angle for soil [degrees]
g Ultimate limit state load factor for dead load
g_SLS Serviceability limit state load factor for dead load
ge Ultimate limit state load factor for soils and ground water
ge_SLS Serviceability limit state load factor for soils and ground water
gs Ultimate limit state load factor for superimposed dead load
gs_SLS Serviceability limit state load factor for superimposed dead load
Q Ultimate limit state load factor for live load
Q_SLS Serviceability limit state load factor for live load
Q_AV Ultimate limit state load factor for an Accompanying Vehicle
Q_RV Ultimate limit state load factor for a Reference Vehicle
SLS Serviceability limit state load factor

3
soil Weight per unit volume [kN/m ]
Chapter 5: Scope
5 Scope
5.1 Project scope
The project scope for each Tier 1 bridge assessment includes the following, except as modified by the
Project Specific Technical Criteria and Bridge Parameters:
preparation of SpaceGass frame models of sufficient of the superstructure and the

substructure to model all actions in accordance with this criteria (refer Annexures S01 and
S02)
determination of load effects for reference load cases
determination of the capacities of bridge components
preparation of an Assessment Spreadsheet and Summary of Results spreadsheet in a

prescribed format for both the as new condition state and the as is deteriorated condition
state where applicable (refer Section 10.1 and Section 11.5.1 for further detail)
preparation of a report for each bridge.
The project scope for each Tier 1 bridge assessment does not includes the following:
site visits, bridge inspections, material testing or other investigations (except as specifically
requested and approved in writing by the departments Structures Section)
preparation of Structure Management Plans (SMPs).
The bridge shall be assessed in accordance with AS 5100-2004 Bridge Design using the assumptions
contained within this methodology and as clarified or modified by this criteria and other principal
supplied material (refer Section 6). Any assumptions in addition to or which deviate from the standard
assumptions shall be recorded in the report.
Unless inspection reports or other information indicates that they are not appropriate, assume the
bridge was constructed in accordance with the supplied drawings.
All assumptions, methodology and advice presented within this criteria should be examined on a case-
by-case basis to ensure its relevance to an individual structure. Each bridge is unique and as such
there will always be exceptions to a rule. Any deviations from provided assumptions should be
discussed with the departments Structures Section and the reasoning recorded in the final report.
5.2 Limitations of this criteria
5.2.1 Within the limits of the criteria
This criteria is applicable to:
typical steel and concrete bridges with spans less than 50 metres
superstructure types consisting of box girders, beams with a deck or deck units (with/without a
deck slabs)
piled foundations and spread footings with/without columns and vertical retaining abutments
permanent vertical dead load and live load vertical effects are considered, except for vertical
retaining abutments where vertical and horizontal load effects shall be considered
Chapter 5: Scope
road bridges, but could be extended to other types of bridges
assessment of current cranes and HLPs
assessment of current MCV legal loads (i.e. there is no provision for increases in legal loads
of MCVs).
The provisions of this document shall be supplemented by other appropriate standards and specialist
technical literature.
5.2.2 Beyond the limits of the criteria
This criteria is not applicable to:
timber bridges
atypical bridges
bridges with a span longer than 50 metres
future increases in load of legal vehicles
transient load effects and non permanent load effects
horizontal load effects except for vertical retaining abutments
rail bridges
future deterioration in the structure, including (but not limited to) flood damage events
structural loads other than those considered (e.g. flood, braking forces).
5.3 Software requirements
The following software will be used for analysis and presentation of results:
SpaceGass 10.81b or later. Please note that prior to SpaceGass 10.87 there was a known
limitation when using the moving load function on skew bridges that requires careful
consideration. SpaceGass 10.87 or later provides improved facilities for generating moving
loads on skew bridges
Microsoft Office 2003
PDF files compatible with Adobe Reader 9.
Chapter 6: Principal supplied material
6 Principal supplied material

Transport and Main Roads will provide:
the following criterias1:
Project Specific Technical Criteria (if required)
Tier 1 Bridge Heavy Load Assessment Criteria (this document)
Bridge Parameters to the Tier 1 Bridge Heavy Load Assessment Criteria for each bridge
showing:
route type (Road Train, B-Double or General Access)
loading level (GML or HML)
any variations from this criteria
the following Annexures 1:
Annexure S01: Frame Models of Complete Bridge Structures for Tier 1 Assessments
Annexure S02: Modelling Deck Unit Superstructures for Tier 1 Assessments
Annexure S03: Tier 1 Assessment of Shear in Concrete Short Span Bridges to AS 5100
and AS 3600
Annexure S04: Tier 2 Assessment of Shear in Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Short
Span Bridges (if required).
the following extracts from Transport and Main Roads Design Criteria for Bridges and Other
Structures
Clause 6 Additional Requirements to AS 5100 excluding AS 5100.2 Clause 6.3
Clause 7 Matters for Resolution
project drawings for each bridge (unless previously supplied)
relevant standard drawings (unless previously supplied)
Level 2 bridge inspection reports including photographs (unless previously supplied)
inventory photographs (unless previously supplied)
assistance in the interpretation of drawings provided a reasonable attempt at interpretation

has been made prior to seeking assistance
an excel file demonstrating the required data reporting formats for the Assessment
Spreadsheet, the Summary of Results, and the Flagged Items listing.
1
the version and release date of the principal supplied documents is as listed in under Transport and
Main Roads Documents related to Bridge Assessment
Chapter 6: Principal supplied material
6.1 Interpretation of Drawings
Drawings shall be interpreted in conjunction with the particular Standard Drawing identified on the
Drawing itself. The relevance of the Standard Drawing shall be further confirmed by comparing the
year of issue of both the Drawing and the Standard Drawing.
6.2 Interpretation of inspection reports
The Bridge Inspection Reports are to be read in accordance with the Bridge Inspection Manual (2nd
Edition, June 2004).
Particular attention shall be paid to:
a) Part 3: Procedures
a. Figure 1.0 Standard Component Matrix
b. Table 1.3 Standard Component Schedule
c. Figure 1.3 Bridge Component Designation
d. Figure 1.5 General Terminology for Bridges
b) Appendix D: Standard Component Condition State Guidelines
Chapter 7: Loads
7 Loads
7.1 Limit states to be considered
Bridges are to be assessed for Ultimate Limit State (ULS) loads.
Bridges are generally not to be assessed for Serviceability Limit State (SLS) loads, except for
geotechnical loads.
Both the SLS loads and the ultimate limit state loads are to be reported.
7.2 Loads to be considered
The following loads are to be considered:
permanent loads:
dead loads
superimposed dead loads
earth pressure and hydrostatic pressure considered as permanent soil loads, where
significant (e.g. soil loads applied to box abutments)
the effects of staged construction in continuous bridges
secondary effects from prestressing
for non-ductile behaviour: shrinkage, creep, secondary effects (excluding prestressing),

differential or foundation settlement and bearing friction, as agreed with the department
prior to assessment. (Not required for Tier 1 Assessments unless invoked. Refer Section
13)
vertical traffic loads.
7.3 Loads not to be considered
The following loads need not be considered:
braking and centrifugal forces
creep and shrinkage
temperature and differential temperature
flood or wind loads
collision loads against the structure externally or applied to elements of the structure such as
barriers
for ductile behaviour: shrinkage, creep, secondary effects (excluding prestressing), differential
or foundation settlement and bearing friction.
7.4 Permanent loads
7.4.1 General
Permanent loads shall be determined in accordance with AS 5100 and the information included in this
Section (Section 7.4).
Chapter 7: Loads
7.4.2 Dead loads
The weights per unit volume of materials are to be in accordance with the values provided in
AS 5100.2 Supp 1-2007. Some typical weights for calculating nominal dead loads are included in
Table 7.1. Dead loads calculated from the density of materials are to adopt g = 9.81m/s2 (rather than
the SpaceGass default of 10.0m/s2).
Table 7.1: Typical weights for calculating nominal dead loads
Weight per unit

Material 3
volume (kN/m )
Reinforced Concrete 25.0
Precast Prestressed Concrete 26.0
Steel 77.0
Deck Wearing Surface 22.0
7.4.3 Superimposed dead load
The superimposed dead load is to be applied to the structural model and distributed by the model. The
depth of the Deck Wearing Surface (DWS) is to be the greater of:
the depth specified on the drawings
for superelevated bridges, a nominal depth of 40mm for the full width
for two-way crossfall bridges: a minimum depth of 40mm at the kerbs with crossfall of 1.5% for
Road Trains and General Access routes and 2% on B-Double routes.
7.5 Vehicle loads
The requirements for Assessment Vehicle loads are described in this section. This includes:
a) dimensions of vehicles
b) number, size and positioning of assessment lanes
c) positioning of Assessment Vehicles to generate the most adverse effect
d) definition of Accompanying Vehicle Factors and dynamic load allowances
e) definition of load factors.
7.5.1 Assessment Vehicles
7.5.1.1 Introduction
The Assessment Vehicles are listed in Table 7.2 and detailed in this Section. The Reference Vehicles
and Accompanying Vehicles used in the assessment depend on the route type and the loading level
(refer Table 7.3).
Chapter 7: Loads
Table 7.2: Description of Assessment Vehicles
Assessment
Description Vehicle Type
Vehicle
1G GML Semi trailer MCV
1H HML Semi trailer MCV
2G GML Road Train MCV
2H HML Road Train MCV
3 48 tonne crane Crane
4 79.5 tonne crane Crane
5 Heavy Load Platform (HLP) HLP
6G GML AAB Quad Road Train MCV
6H HML AAB Quad Road Train MCV
7G GML B-Double MCV
7H HML B-Double MCV
8G GML 19m B-Double MCV
8H HML 19m B-Double MCV
These Assessment Vehicles include a range of as-of-right vehicles, cranes and a heavy load platform.
The as-of-right vehicles range from relatively short semi-trailers to very long road trains. A range of as-
of-right vehicles is included to ensure an Assessment Vehicle is available that is appropriate for the
combination of the bridge and type of vehicles that use the bridge or that may request a permit to use
the bridge.
7.5.1.2 Assessment Vehicle 1G GML Semi Trailer (42.5t)
axle spacing, track and tyre patch dimensions as shown below
all axles except 6 tonne axle are 4 tyred axles.
loads 6t 16.5t on group 20.0t on group = 42.5t total

58.9kN 161.9kN 196.2kN = 417kN
200
400mm
200 200 1800mm
spacing 3.0m 1.2m 4.4m 1.2m 1.2m = 11.0m
7.5.1.3 Assessment Vehicle 1H HML Semi Trailer (45.5t)
axle spacing and track dimensions as shown below
tyre patch dimensions as per Assessment Vehicle 1G
all axles except 6 tonne axle are 4 tyred axles.
Chapter 7: Loads
loads 6t 17t on group 22.5t on group = 45.5t total

58.9kN 166.8kN 220.7kN = 446kN
1800mm
spacing 3.0m 1.2m 4.4m 1.2m 1.2m = 11.0m
7.5.1.4 Assessment Vehicle 2G GML Road Train (95.5t)
all axles except 6t axle are 4 tyred axles.
loads 6t 16.5t on group 16.5t on group 20t on group 16.5t on group 20t on group = 95.5t total
58.9kN 161.9kN 161.9kN 196.2kN 161.9kN 196.2kN = 937kN
400mm 1800mm
spacing 3.0m 1.2m 4.4m 1.2m 4.4m 1.2m 1.2m 4.4m 1.2m 4.4m 1.2m 1.2m = 29.0m
7.5.1.5 Assessment Vehicle 2H HML Road Train (102t)
loads 6t 17t on group 17t on group 22.5t on group 17t on group 22.5t on group = 102t total
58.9kN 166.8kN 166.8kN 220.7kN 166.8kN 220.7kN = 1001kN
1800mm
400mm
spacing 3.0m 1.2m 4.4m 1.2m 4.4m 1.2m 1.2m 4.4m 1.2m 4.4m 1.2m 1.2m = 29.0m
7.5.1.6 Assessment Vehicle 3 48t crane configuration
overall width (outside of tyres): 2700mm
width of tyres (all single tyres): 525mm.
Chapter 7: Loads
loads 12t 12t 12t 12t = 48t total

117.7kN 117.7kN 117.7kN 117.7kN = 471kN total
525
200 2175mm
spacing 1.65m 2.35m 1.65m = 5.65m
7.5.1.7 Assessment Vehicle 4 79.5t crane configuration
Overall width (outside of tyres):
front axle 3000mm
other axles 2600mm
Width of tyres:
all 10 tonne axles with single tyres: 525mm
all 6.5 tonne axles with dual tyres: 500mm
loads 10t 10t 10t 10t 10t 10t 6.5t 6.5t 6.5t =79.5t total
98.1kN 98.1kN 98.1kN 98.1kN 98.1kN 98.1kN 63.8kN 63.8kN 63.8kN =780kN
2475mm 2100mm
200
spacing 3.88m 1.70m 2.02m 1.72m 1.72m 6.0m 1.80m 1.80m = 20.64m
7.5.1.8 Assessment Vehicle 5 HLP
All 20 tonne axles with single tyres of width: 225mm

axle loads 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 = 320t total
196.2 196.2 196.2 196.2 196.2 196.2 196.2 196.2 196.2 196.2 196.2 196.2 196.2 196.2 196.2 196.2 = 3,139kN
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
spacing 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 = 27.0m
1200mm 1600mm 1200mm
500mm
700mm 2100mm 700mm
Note: Assessment Vehicle 5 differs from the HLP320 loading specified in AS 5100.2. The axle loads
are different, the width of the vehicle is different, and Assessment Vehicle 5 is not divided in two for
continuous bridges.
Chapter 7: Loads
7.5.1.9 Assessment Vehicle 6G GML AABQuad (142.5t)
axle loads
6t 16.5t on group 20t on group 20t on group 20t on group 20t on group 20t on group 20t on group =142.5t total
58.9kN 161.9kN 196.2kN 196.2kN 196.2kN 196.2kN 196.2kN 196.2kN =1,398kN
400mm
1.8m
3.0m 1.2m 4.4m 1.2m 1.2m 4.4m 1.2m 1.2m 4.4m 1.2m 1.2m 4.4m 1.2m 1.2m 4.4m 1.2m 1.2m 4.4m 1.2m 1.2m
spacing = 45.0m
7.5.1.10 Assessment Vehicle 6H HML AABQuad (158t)

axle loads
6t 17t on group 22.5t on group 22.5t on group 22.5t on group 22.5t on group 22.5t on group 22.5t on group =158t total
58.9kN 166.8kN 220.7kN 220.7kN 220.7kN 220.7kN 220.7kN 220.7kN =1550kN
400mm
1.8m
3.0m 1.2m 4.4m 1.2m 1.2m 4.4m 1.2m 1.2m 4.4m 1.2m 1.2m 4.4m 1.2m 1.2m 4.4m 1.2m 1.2m 4.4m 1.2m 1.2m = 45.0m
spacing
7.5.1.11 Assessment Vehicle 7G GML B-Double (62.5t)
Chapter 7: Loads
axle loads
6t 16.5t on group 20t on group 20t on group = 62.5t total
58.9kN 161.9kN 196.2kN 196.2kN = 613kN
400mm 1800mm
3.0m 1.2m 4.4m 1.2m 1.2m 7.0m 1.2m 1.2m = 20.4m

spacing
Note: This Assessment Vehicle approximates the maximum effects induced in simply supported
bridges by GML as-of-right semi-trailers and B-Doubles with all axle groups loaded to their legal limit.
This is a synthetic vehicle that has been developed for assessment. It does not comply with the B-
Double requirements of the Guideline for Multi-combination Vehicles in Queensland.
7.5.1.12 Assessment Vehicle 7H HML B-Double (68t)
axle loads
6t 17t on group 22.5t on group 22.5t on group = 68.0t total
58.9kN 166.8kN 220.7kN 220.7kN = 667kN
400mm 1800mm
3.0m 1.2m 4.4m 1.2m 1.2m 7.0m 1.2m 1.2m = 20.4m

spacing
Note: This Assessment Vehicle approximates the maximum effects induced in simply supported
bridges by HML as-of-right semi-trailers and B-Doubles with all axle groups loaded to their legal limit.
This is a synthetic vehicle that has been developed for assessment. It does not comply with the B-
Double requirements of the Guideline for Multi-combination Vehicles in Queensland.
7.5.1.13 Assessment Vehicle 8G GML 19m B-Double (50t)
This will be provided on a bridge specific basis.
7.5.1.14 Assessment Vehicle 8H HML 19m B-Double (55t)
This will be provided on a bridge specific basis.
7.5.2 Reference and Accompanying Vehicles
The Reference Vehicles and Accompanying Vehicles to be used in the assessment are defined in
Table 7.3 for the route type (e.g. road trains) and the loading levels (i.e. GML or HML) of the route.
Structures on routes that have been approved for vehicles to operate at Higher Mass Limits (HML)
must be assessed using HML Assessment Vehicles. All other cases are to be assessed for General
Mass Limits (GML) Assessment Vehicles. The departments Structures Section will advise if the route
has been approved for HML or GML.
Chapter 7: Loads
Table 7.3: Selection of Reference Vehicles (RV) and Accompanying Vehicles (AV) for various
route types and loading levels
GML HML
Route
RV AV RV AV
3 for spans 12m 1G 3 for spans 12m 1H
Road Train
4 for spans >12m 1G 4 for spans >12m 1H
5 1G 5 1H
6G 1G 6H 1H

B-Double
5 7G 5 7H
6G 6G 6H 6H
7G 7G 7H 7H
General Access 1G 1G 1H 1H
5 1G 5 1H
7.5.3 Width and number of assessment lanes
The width and number of assessment lanes in a carriageway (nc) is defined in Table 7.4.
Chapter 7: Loads
Table 7.4: Number of assessment lanes in a carriageway
Width of assessment Number of assessment lanes on

Width of carriageway (wc)
lane (wal) carriageway (nc)
MCVs in all lanes
wc < 6.2m wal = 3.0m wc
nc =
wal
6.2m wc wal = 3.1m
(rounded down to next integer)
A crane in one lane and MCVs in other lanes
wal_RV3 = 3.3m wal_crane = wal_RV3 for RV3
All
wal_RV4 = 3.6m wal_crane = wal_RV4 for RV4
wal_RV3 wc 6.3m wc wal _ crane
wal = 3.0m nc = 1+
wal_RV4 wc 6.6m wal
6.6m wc wal = 3.1m (rounded down to next integer)
Where a bridge supports multiple carriageways, the number of assessment lanes on the bridge (n) will
be the sum of the number of assessment lanes in each carriageway (nc).
Should the number of marked lanes on a carriageway (evident from the Level 2 inspection and/or
photographs) be less than the number of assessment lanes (nc) then:
a) the number of assessment lanes is to be the calculated number of assessment lanes (nc) not
the number of marked lanes, and
b) this is to be flagged and included in the flagged items in the report and noted in the Comments
/ Flag column of the Assessment Spreadsheet.
7.5.4 Lateral position of assessment lanes
The assessment lanes shall be positioned laterally in accordance with the cases summarised in
Table 7.5 and illustrated in Figure 2, in order to produce the most adverse effects.
Chapter 7: Loads
Table 7.5: Lateral position of assessment lanes
Case Location of assessment lanes Notes

1 One lane centred on carriageway cL Only required if Travel Restrictions 5 and 6 are
specified
2 Up to nc lanes adjacent to the kerb or Can be positioned adjacent to either kerb in
median barrier on each carriageway order to achieve the most adverse effects.
For bridges with 2 assessment lanes, one
assessment lane is to be positioned adjacent to
the kerb and the second assessment lane is to
be positioned adjacent to the carriageway
centreline.
3 Up to nc lanes centred on each
carriageway cL
Figure 2: Lateral position of assessment lanes for 2 and 3 lane bridges

Standard
Assessment Lane
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
wc wc
n = 2 lanes n = 3 lanes
Chapter 7: Loads
7.5.5 Positioning of Assessment Vehicles within assessment lanes
Reference Vehicles, other than HLPs, and Accompanying Vehicles shall be centred within an
assessment lane. For further information regarding positioning HLPs, refer to Section 7.5.7.
One Reference Vehicle and a number of Accompanying Vehicles shall be located on a bridge to
produce the worst total load effect on the bridge element under consideration.
The number of Accompanying Vehicles and their associated assessment lanes are as follows:
One Accompanying Vehicle in each lane other than the assessment lane occupied by the
Reference Vehicle.
Up to one Accompanying Vehicle in the same assessment lane as the Reference Vehicle on
non-road train routes. Zero Accompanying Vehicles in the same assessment lane as the
Reference Vehicle on Road Train routes. This requirement applies for both simply supported
and continuous bridges.
Thus, except for HLP Reference Vehicles, the number of Accompanying Vehicles can be up to the number of
standard assessment lanes (n) except on road train routes where the number of Accompanying Vehicles can be up to
the number of standard assessment lanes minus one (n-1).
Where Accompanying Vehicles are located in the same lane as the Reference Vehicle, the minimum
headway distance (z refer Figure 3) shall be as follows:
For stationary heavy vehicles, adopt a minimum distance "z" = 3.0m.
For moving heavy vehicles, adopt a minimum distance "z" = 6.0m.
Figure 3: Minimum headway dimension z
For details of Accompanying Vehicles when the Reference Vehicle is a HLP refer Section 7.5.7.
7.5.6 Stationary queues of heavy vehicles
Should stationary queues of heavy vehicles be required in an assessment, a project specific criteria
shall be provided to address specific issues.
7.5.7 Positioning of Heavy Load Platforms and Accompanying Vehicles
The lateral placement of the HLP Reference Vehicle is defined as follows:
a) Bridges too narrow for a marked centreline (wc < 6m, say):
1.0 m either side of centreline of the bridge but the outside of the tyre shall be no closer than
300mm from the face of a kerb or barrier
Chapter 7: Loads
b) Two marked-lane bridge, 2 way traffic rural bridge:
1.0 m either side of marked centreline of the bridge but the outside of the tyre shall not be
closer than 600mm from the face of the kerb or barrier
c) One lane ramp:
Shall be positioned on a one lane ramp as agreed and documented with the departments
Structures Section. The lateral position and tolerance shall be specified in the report. The
minimum lateral tolerance shall be 1.0 m. Consideration shall be given to the most likely path
of the vehicle.
d) All other situations, excluding (a), (b) and (c) above (for example, three or more marked lanes,
2 way traffic, and two or more lanes, one way traffic, non-rural roads):
The HLP shall be placed 1.0 m either side of the centre of the two leftmost adjacent marked
lanes.
In order to provide safe traffic movement of load platforms in areas with high traffic volumes, the
lateral position of the HLP within the carriageway must be considered in the context of road user
safety. A HLP will generally travel in the outmost left-hand lanes, except at merges and departures.
However, a HLP cannot easily change lanes in heavy traffic without endangering the safety of the
driver and the escort of the HLP, as well as, other motorists. As such, consideration shall be given to
the most likely path of the vehicle.
On some bridges (e.g. bridges that have been widened or curved ramps), it may be appropriate to
adopt an alternative driveline for the Heavy Load Platform, as agreed and documented with the
departments Structures Section.
Where the locations of the marked lanes are not known, their location is to be agreed and documented
with the departments Structures Section. It may be appropriate to assume the marked lanes are 3.5m
wide (unless shown otherwise on the drawings) and located on the bridges so that the widths of the
shoulders are equal.
The number of Accompanying Vehicles and their associated drive lanes are as follows:
one Accompanying Vehicle in each marked lane other than the two marked lanes occupied by
the HLP Reference Vehicle
zero Accompanying Vehicles in the same marked lanes as the HLP Reference Vehicle on all
routes.
The Accompanying Vehicles, all travelling at a speed greater than 10km/h, shall be applied in
conjunction with the HLP Reference Vehicle to create the worst effect. The Accompanying Vehicles
are defined in Table 7.3 where the HLP is Reference Vehicle 5. The Accompanying Vehicle Factors
are defined in Table 7.10. The Dynamic Load Allowance for the HLP and the Accompanying Vehicles
are defined in Table 7.9.
7.5.8 Travel Restrictions
Travel Restrictions shall be applied to the Reference Vehicles and Accompanying Vehicles to
generate the load scenarios presented in Table 7.6 for MCVs, Table 7.7 for cranes and Table 7.8 for
Heavy Load Platforms. The Travel Restrictions vary with the route type, as defined in Table 7.6,
Table 7.7 and Table 7.8.
Chapter 7: Loads
Table 7.6: Travel restrictions for MCVs (RV 1G&H, 2G&H, 6G&H & 7G&H)
Reference Accompanying Is this travel

Travel Reference
Vehicle (RV) Vehicles (AV) restriction
Restriction Vehicle drive line
Travel Speed Travel Speed required*?
Road Train Routes:
1 In lane > 10km/h > 10km/h Yes
2* In lane < 10km/h < 10km/h #1 No*
3 In lane > 10km/h No AV Yes
4* In lane < 10km/h No AV No*
5 Carriageway cL > 10km/h No AV Yes
6* Carriageway cL < 10km/h No AV No*
B-Double Routes:
General Access Routes:
#1
2* In lane < 10km/h < 10km/h No*
* Not required unless specified otherwise in Bridge Parameters

#1
For bridges where there is a median barrier, the Accompanying Vehicles in the carriageway not carrying the Reference
Vehicle are to be considered as travelling at a speed greater than 10 km/h.
Chapter 7: Loads
Table 7.7: Travel restrictions for cranes (RV 3 and 4)
Reference Accompanying Is this travel

Travel Reference
Vehicle (RV 3 & Vehicles (AV) restriction
Restriction Vehicle drive line
4) Travel Speed Travel Speed required*?
Road Train Routes:
#2
2* In lane < 10km/h > 10km/h No*
B-Double routes:
General Access Routes:
#2
2* In lane < 10km/h > 10km/h No*
* Not required unless specified otherwise in Bridge Parameters

#2
Where the Accompanying Vehicles are in the same lane as the Reference Vehicle, the Accompanying Vehicles are to
be assumed to travel at the same speed as the Reference Vehicle.
Table 7.8: Travel restrictions for Heavy Load Platforms (RV 5)
Accompanying
Reference Vehicle Reference Vehicle
Travel Restriction Vehicles (AV) Travel
drive line (RV 5) Travel Speed
Speed
Road Train, B-Double and General Access Routes:
> 10km/h for both AV
on the same
7 Refer Section 7.5.7 < 10km/h carriageway as HLP
and on a different
carriageway to HLP
Notes:
1. Should the assessment process (refer Figure 1) require the development of a Structure
Management Plan (SMP), then additional considerations such as road safety must be
addressed in the SMP.
2. Road safety issues may preclude the adoption of some Travel Restrictions; however, the
Travel Restrictions will provide the base information required for the development of the SMP.
Chapter 7: Loads
3. It is preferable that Reference Vehicles are allowed to traffic a structure unrestricted

(Restriction 1) in order that costs resulting from imposed restrictions are minimised; however
the capacity of the structure will ultimately dictate the required level of restriction. Typically,
with each increasing level of restriction, the load effect on the structure decreases and thus
the ability of the structure to carry a particular vehicle configuration increases. Thus, it is
necessary when carrying out a simplified analysis to determine the Assessment Ratios (refer
Section 11 Assessment Ratios) for each Reference Vehicle and for each specified Travel
Restriction.
4. For Road Train and General Access routes, Travel Restrictions shall be considered ranging
from unrestricted travel that allows the Reference Vehicle and the Accompanying Vehicles to
travel over the bridge at the local speed limit or the maximum speed permitted for the vehicle
to restricted travel involving the Reference Vehicle travelling at 10km/h along the bridge
centreline without other traffic on the bridge. The underlying premise of these restrictions is to
determine the least restrictive travel conditions for a vehicle to use a structure.
7.5.9 Dynamic Load Allowance
The Dynamic Load Allowance () shall be applied to both the Reference Vehicle and the
Accompanying Vehicles as prescribed in Table 7.9 for various travel speeds of the Assessment
Vehicles.
Table 7.9: Dynamic Load Allowance () for Assessment Vehicles operating at various travel
speeds
Dynamic Load Allowance ()

Assessment
Description Speed of Assessment Vehicle
Vehicle
Stationary 10km/h > 10km/h
1G&H Semi trailer 0.0 0.1 0.4
2G&H Road Train 0.0 0.1 0.4
3 48 tonne crane 0.0 0.1 0.4
4 79.5 tonne crane 0.0 0.1 0.4
5 Heavy Load Platform (HLP) 0.0 0.1 n/a
6G&H AAB Quad Road Train 0.0 0.1 0.4
7G&H B-Double 0.0 0.1 0.4
Notes:
1. The travel speeds are defined for each Travel Restriction in Section 7.5.8.
2. The Dynamic Load Allowance is applied to both the Reference Vehicle and the Accompanying
Vehicles in accordance with the speed of travel for each Travel Restriction.
3. The speed of travel of the Accompanying Vehicles varies with Reference Vehicle type in
Travel Restriction 2.
4. For bridges where there is a median barrier, the Accompanying Vehicles in the carriageway
not carrying the Reference Vehicle are to be considered as travelling at a speed greater than
10km/h, irrespective of the Travel Restriction.
Chapter 7: Loads
5. Where an Accompanying Vehicle is in the same lane as the Reference Vehicle, the
Accompanying Vehicle is to be assumed to travel at the same speed as the Reference
Vehicle.
The Dynamic Load Allowance shall be applied to all parts of the structure extending down to the
ground level. For parts of the structure below the ground level, the Dynamic Load Allowance to be
applied to each part shall be:
a) the ground level value for a cover depth of zero
b) zero for a cover depth of 2m or more
c) a linear interpolation between depths of zero and 2m.
The Dynamic Load Allowance shall take into account the expected scour level for a stream as set out
in Section 9.9.
7.5.10 Accompanying vehicle factors
The Accompanying Vehicle loads shall be multiplied by the Accompanying Vehicle Factors (AVF)
given in Table 7.10.
Table 7.10: Accompanying Vehicle Factors (AVF)
Number of
Assessment Accompanying Vehicle Factor, AVF
Vehicles
1 1.0 for Reference Vehicle
2 1.0 for Reference Vehicle
0.8 for first Accompanying Vehicle
3 or more 1.0 for Reference Vehicle
0.8 for first Accompanying Vehicle, and
0.4 for other Accompanying Vehicles
Notes:
First Accompanying Vehicle the Accompanying Vehicle giving the largest effect from the Accompanying
Vehicles and located either in the same lane as the Reference Vehicle or in other
lanes
Other Accompanying Vehicles the Accompanying Vehicles giving effects smaller than the first Accompanying
Vehicle and located either in the same lane as the Reference Vehicle or in other
lanes
7.6 Load factors
7.6.1 Serviceability Limit State load factors
Serviceability Limit State (SLS) factors are only required for SLS geotechnical assessments.
The SLS dead load factors (g_SLS) for the dead load (G) of the bridge shall be as per AS 5100.2
Table 5.2. The dead load factors applied for materials other than steel and concrete shall be as
agreed with the departments Structures Section.
Chapter 7: Loads
The SLS dead load factors (gs_SLS) for the superimposed dead load (GS) of the bridge shall be as per
AS 5100.2 Table 5.3.
The SLS dead load factors (ge_SLS) for the density of soils and groundwater of the bridge shall be as
per AS 5100.2 Table 5.4.
The SLS load factors (SLS) shall be taken as 1.0. This is only applicable to some geotechnical
assessments.
The SLS live load factors (Q_SLS) for the Assessment Vehicles (Q) shall be equal to 1.0.
7.6.2 Ultimate Limit State load factors
The Ultimate Limit State (ULS) load factors for the assessment of bridges shall depend on the level of
redundancy in the bridges.
Low redundancy bridges are bridges where element failure leads to total collapse. This includes failure
of main members with no benefit from continuity or multiple-load paths (e.g. a simply supported girder
in a two girder system). The following bridges are to be considered as low redundancy bridges:
two (2) girder/truss bridges that are structurally determinate
bridges where the width of the concrete deck between girders exceeds:
4.5m, or
20 x Deck thickness.
The ULS load factors for low redundancy bridges shall be as defined in Section 7.6.2.2. The low
redundancy ultimate limit state load factors shall only be applied to those elements that exhibit the low
redundancy (e.g. the low redundancy load factors shall be applied to the girders in a two girder bridge
but the high redundancy load factors shall be applied to the substructure).
High redundancy bridges are bridges where element failure probably will not lead to total collapse.
This includes failure of main load-carrying members in a multi-girder system or continuous main
members in bending (i.e. not low redundancy bridges). The ULS load factors for high redundancy
bridges shall be as defined in Section 7.6.2.1.
7.6.2.1 High redundancy bridges
The ULS dead load factors (g) for the dead load (G) of the bridge shall be as per AS 5100.2 Table
5.2. The dead load factors applied for materials other than steel and concrete shall be as agreed with
the departments Structures Section.
The ultimate limit state dead load factors (gs) for the superimposed dead load (GS) of the bridge shall
be as per AS 5100.2 Table 5.3.
The ultimate limit state dead load factors (ge) for the density of soils and groundwater of the bridge
shall be as per AS 5100.2 Table 5.4.
The ultimate limit state live load factors (Q) for the Assessment Vehicles (Q) of the bridge shall be as
per Table 7.11. These load factors are applied to both the Reference Vehicles and the Accompanying
Vehicle/s regardless of the Travel Restriction.
Chapter 7: Loads
Table 7.11: Ultimate Limit State load factors for Assessment Vehicles (Q) for high redundancy
bridges
Assessment
Description Q
Vehicle
1G&H Semi trailer 2.0
2G&H Road Train 2.0
3 48 tonne crane 1.8
4 79.5 tonne crane 1.8
5 Heavy Load Platform (HLP) 1.5
6G&H AAB Quad Road Train 2.0
7G&H B-Double 2.0
7.6.2.2 Low redundancy bridges
This section is subject to review of factors.
The ultimate limit state dead load factors (g) for the dead load (G) of the bridge shall be as per
AS 5100.2 Table 5.2 multiplied by 1.1. The dead load factors applied for materials other than steel and
concrete shall be as agreed with the departments Structures Section.
The ultimate limit state dead load factors (gs) for the superimposed dead load (GS) of the bridge shall
be as per AS 5100.2 Table 5.3 multiplied by 1.25.
The ultimate limit state live load factors (Q) for the Assessment Vehicles (Q) of the bridge shall be as
per Table 7.12. These load factors are applied to both the Reference Vehicles and the Accompanying
Vehicle/s regardless of the Travel Restriction.
Table 7.12: Ultimate Limit State load factors for Assessment Vehicles (Q) for low redundancy
bridges
Assessment
Description Q
Vehicle
1G&H Semi trailer 2.5
2G&H Road Train 2.5
3 48 tonne crane 2.2
4 79.5 tonne crane 2.2
5 Heavy Load Platform (HLP) 1.9
6G&H AAB Quad Road Train 2.5
7G&H B-Double 2.5
Chapter 7: Loads
7.6.3 Ultimate Limit State load effect
The ultimate limit state load effect shall be calculated after consideration of the dead loads (G),
superimposed dead loads (GS), Reference Vehicles (QRV), Accompanying Vehicles (QAV) and the
appropriate load factors, dynamic load allowances () and Accompanying Vehicle factors (AVF). For
example, for the ultimate limit state moment (M*):
n
M * G G GS G S Q _ RV (1 RV )QRV Q _ AV (1 AV _ i ) AVFAV _ i Q AV _ i
i 1
Chapter 8: Material properties
8 Material Properties
8.1 General
The material strengths used in the analysis will be those obtained from drawing notes, in conjunction
with this criteria. In the absence of notes on drawings, historical strengths appropriate for the period of
construction shall be used.
8.2 Concrete
Where the compressive strength of the concrete is not noted on the drawings, the strengths used for
historical strength classes shall be taken from Table 8.1. Where there is no concrete strength
information contained on the drawings, 14MPa shall be assumed.
Table 8.1: Historical concrete strengths
Alternative Alternative Specified 28 day

Class of Compressive Strength
Class Class
Concrete
Designation Designation psi MPa
6K 6000 41
5.5K 5500 38
5K 5000 35
4.5K 4500 31
4K 4000 28
3.5K 3500 24
3K Class AA 1 : 3 3000 21
2.5K Class A 1:4 2500 17
2K Class B 1:5 2000 14
No information 14
8.3 Steel reinforcement
Where the grade of steel reinforcement is not noted on the drawings, typical steel properties shall be
determined using Table 8.2. The steel grades used in the analysis shall be recorded in the report.
Table 8.2: Historical steel strengths (derived from The Smorgan ARC Reinforcement
Handbook)
Year of Probable Yield Stress, fsy

Description
Construction MPa psi
Rectangular mesh reinforcement Before 1914 to 1995 450 65,000
Rectangular mesh reinforcement 1995 to now 500 -
Plain round (R), structural deformed
bars (S) or any unidentifiable Before 1914 to 1990 230 33,600
deformed bars or other steels
Twisted square bars 1957 to 1963 410 60,000
Intermediate grade deformed 1960 to 1968 275 40,000
Hard grade deformed, Grade 50 1960 to 1968 345 50,000
Twisted deformed (C) and CW.60 1962 to 1983 410 60,000
Hot rolled deformed, Grade 410Y 1983 to 1988 410 -
Hot rolled deformed, Grade 400Y 1988 to 2000 400 -
Hot rolled deformed, Grade 500N 2000 to now 500 -
Where the bar grade is not noted on the drawings, assume fsy = 230 MPa.
Historical bridge drawings often use the following method to specify reinforcement:
31 / 6 B88 CW (or C)
where: 31 = Number of bars
6 = Diameter of the bar in 1/8ths of an inch
B88 = Designates bar shape and identifier number (See bar schedule drawing if
available)
CW or C = Cold Worked. Non cold worked bars may have no designation or a S or R

designation.
8.4 Hot rolled steel sections
The BHP Handbook (1961) refers to British Standard (BS) BS15 and the specified yield strengths of
16tons/in2 (247MPa) for thicknesses up to , 15 tons/in2 (232MPa) for sections between : to 1.5
and 14.75tons/in2 (228MPa) for thicknesses greater than 1.5. A UK Handbook (Bates, 1991) 2 states
that BS15 introduced the above yield strengths in 1948 and that it corresponds to ultimate strengths
between 28 to 33 tons/in2 (432 to 510MPa). Prior to 1948 yield strengths were not specified. The same
handbook indicates that the steel physical properties were essentially unchanged right back to 1912
2
Refer: Bates W, 1991, Handbook Structural Steelwork handbook Properties of UK and European Cast Iron,
Wrought Iron and Stress Data since the Mid 19th Century, The British Constructional, 4th Impression Steelwork
Associations Limited, Chameleon Press Limited
with the exception of elements in the steel composition; particularly around the war years (BS15 1941
ed) (Bates, 1991)
8.5 Prestressing reinforcement
The stressing force used for prestressed girders shall be taken from the drawings. The properties of
prestressing strands shall be taken from the relevant historic Australian Standards for stressing strand
as shown in Table 8.3.
Table 8.3: Historical Australian Standards for stressing strands and bars
Year of Construction Applicable Stressing Strand Standard Probable strand grade

1957 1963 MP13 Regular grade
Regular grade, normal
1963 1972 AS CA35 and AS 141, 142, 143, 144
relaxation
Transition phase from Regular
1972 1987 AS 1310, 1311, 1312, 1313 grade, normal relaxation to
Super grade, low relaxation
1987 2007 AS 1310, 1311, 1312, 1313 Super grade, low relaxation
2007 onwards AS 4672 7-wire ordinary, Relax 2
The properties of Australian Standard 7-wire stress relieved steel stressing strand are summarized in
Table 8.4.
Table 8.4: Selected historical 7-wire stress relieved strand properties
Diameter Min Tensile

Code Grade Area (mm2) Breaking Strength
inches mm Load (kN) (MPa)
ASA141-144 (1963)
1/4 6.4 25.2 44 1746
5/16 7.9 37.4 69 1845
3/8 9.3 51.6 93 1802

Regular
7/16 10.9 70.3 125 1778
1/2 12.7 92.9 165 1776
0.6 15.2 138.7 227 1637

AS1310-1313 (1972)
Regular 12.7 94.3 165 1750
Super 12.7 100.1 184 1838

AS1310-1313 (1987)
12.7 100 184 1838
Super
15.2 143 250 1745
AS4672.1 (2007)
12.7 99 184 1870
7-wire ordinary
15.2 143 250 1750
The properties of Australian Standard prestressing bars are summarized in Table 8.5.
The minimum breaking load of the end portion of a bar carrying the rolled thread can be at 0.95 times
the value in Table 8.5.
Table 8.5: Historical prestressing bar properties
Diameter Min Tensile

Area
Code Grade Breaking Strength
inches mm (mm2)
Load (kN) (MPa)
(1957)
MP 13
AS A144
(1963)
Alloy Steel Bars 989
23 415 410
26 530 525
29 660 655
Regular
32 804 800
AS1310-1313 (1972)
35 962 950
38 1140 1130
23 415 450
26 530 570
29 660 710
Super
32 804 870
35 962 1040
38 1140 1230
Characteristic
min breaking
force (kN)
AS4672.1 (2007)
20 315 325 1030

23 415 450 1030
Hot-Rolled Bars 26 562 579 1030
29 693 714 1030
32 840 865 1030
8.6 Geotechnical
The geotechnical strength of the soil shall be assumed to be adequate for noted foundation bearing
pressures.
The following geotechnical properties of soils loading substructures (e.g. box abutments) shall be
adopted unless more detailed reliable is available:
3
soil = 20 kN/m
soil = 30
c = 0.0 kPa
8.7 Material properties for reinforced concrete hollow spun piles
The material properties of reinforced concrete hollow spun piles are presented in Table 8.6.
Table 8.6: Material properties for reinforced concrete hollow spun piles
Material Property Notes

Concrete fc = 40 MPa This is based on fc = 0.4Fc, and F'c = 2400 psi
This is consistent with test results
HD wire fsy = 450 MPa This is based on AS A82 1963, where:
ultimate tensile strength = 80,000psi
minimum elongation of 7.5%

0.25 percent proof stress of 70,000 psi
Other details can be found on the Standard Drawings for reinforced concrete hollow spun piles.
Chapter 9: Analysis
9 Analysis
9.1 General
To promote consistency between models and easier reuse in the future, the following generic
analytical modelling requirements for Tier 1 assessments shall be applied:
Structural analyses are to be undertaken using SpaceGass. SpaceGass Models will form part
of the project deliverables.
Both separate superstructure and substructure models and complete bridge models may
be used.
The recommendations set out in Annexure S01: Frame Models of Complete Bridge Structures
for Tier 1 Assessments and Annexure S02: Modelling Deck Unit Superstructures for Tier 1
Assessments.
The centre-to-centre spacing of transverse members shall not exceed the smaller of:
2.0 times the typical spacing of the longitudinal members
span/10.
If the bridge has equal spans and is not continuous, a single span frame/grillage model is
acceptable for determining load effects in the superstructure. If pier loads are to be obtained
directly from the frame/grillage model, multiple spans shall be modelled.
Decks and grillage support lines shall be modelled on the same skew angle as shown on the
drawings. Any departure from this should be agreed with the departments Structures Section
prior to starting the analysis.
The stiffness of kerbs and barriers is to be included in the analytical model. When the bridge
has a cast in place parapet incorporating vertical slots, the section properties adopted are as
for a kerb of width equal to the width of the barrier and a height of 300mm.
In simply supported bridges, the effects of dead load on structures can be analysed separately
with no distribution between members (i.e. staged construction) or by applying the dead load
to the analytical model of the structure. For further information on the distribution of dead load
in deck unit bridges refer to Annexure S01: Frame Models of Complete Bridge Structures for
Tier 1 Assessments.
Each model and its loading system require validation. Useful checks include:
ensuring deflected shapes are appropriate (magnitude and shape)
ensuring reactions are correct and that the restraints are appropriate
ensuring the bending moment, shear force, torsion and axial forces are appropriate
ensuring there is no unintended composite action between members (e.g. a headstock

acting compositely with the superstructure is generally inappropriate)
ensuring the loads, including wheel loads, have been applied appropriately.
In addition to the generic modelling requirements, the following structure specific rules shall also be
followed.
Chapter 9: Analysis
9.2 Staged construction of continuous bridges
Where the drawings detail a construction sequence then this should be considered as deemed
appropriate in carrying out the assessment.
9.3 Moving vehicle step size
The SpaceGass moving load generator can be used to step the Assessment Vehicles across the
bridge. Care must be taken to ensure that the Reference and Accompanying Vehicles are located so
as to cause the most adverse effects in each bridge element.
The default step size adopted in SpaceGass is 1m. This is too large to give accurate results for most
short span bridges. Sub-optimal positioning of vehicles will underestimate the load effect and therefore
overestimate the ability of the bridge to support load (i.e. it is a non-conservative approximation).
Shear forces in deck members and abutment reactions are particularly sensitive to the position of the
Reference and Assessment Vehicles.
Procedures shall be adopted to ensure the peak effects obtained from the analysis are within 2% of
the theoretical maximum effects. Step sizes less than Span/50 are necessary to achieve a shear
forces and abutment reactions within 2% of the theoretical maximum.
In order to induce peak effects in bridges, Reference and Accompanying Vehicles may need to be
staggered (i.e. not have steer axles aligned) in order to induce the peak effects in an element. This is
particularly the case when the bridge has a skew on when the Reference and Accompanying Vehicles
are not identical. The stagger distance may vary for different actions.
For related information refer to Appendix A.3 Travel Paths for Skew Bridges and Appendix A.4
Application of Wheel Loads to Superstructures.
9.4 Transversely stressed deck unit bridge
The modelling of transversely post-tensioned deck unit superstructures shall comply with Annexure
S02: Modelling Deck Unit Superstructures for Tier 1 Assessments.
9.5 Deck unit bridge with composite concrete deck
The transverse members will be aligned in the same direction as the transverse slab
reinforcement. In most instances these would be aligned perpendicular to the longitudinal
members to coincide with the direction of the principal bending.
The longitudinal members shall be modelled as the full composite section.
The transverse members shall have dimensions equal to the depth of the in-situ deck and
shall have a width equal to the spacing of the transverse members.
The transverse members shall be modelled with rigid offsets (or appropriately stiff members)
so as to exhibit flexible span distance equal to the nominal gap between deck units plus the
depth of the slab.
9.6 Girders (steel or concrete) with composite concrete deck
The transverse members will be aligned in the same directions as the transverse slab
reinforcement or in the direction of the diaphragm.
The longitudinal members shall be modelled as the full composite section.
Chapter 9: Analysis
The transverse members shall have dimensions equal to the depth of the in-situ deck and
shall have a width equal to the spacing of the transverse members.
Assume cracked section properties for reinforced concrete diaphragms. The section
properties are to be calculated as per Section 9.8.
9.7 Concrete deck slabs
The grillage model will not be used to determine the deck slab assessment. A continuous 2D
line model will be used and the axle load will be placed at mid-span to induce the worst
bending moments.
9.8 Section properties
Section properties to be used in linear elastic analytical models are to be calculated using elastic
section properties corresponding to uncracked members in accordance with engineering theory and
AS 5100 with the following clarifications or modifications:
a) for steel and concrete beams with concrete decks, assume full composite action
b) for transversely post-tensioned deck unit bridges, refer to Annexure S02: Modelling Deck Unit
Superstructures for Tier 1 Assessments
c) for reinforced concrete diaphragms in girder bridges, assume the elastic cracked second
moment of area (Icr) where the reinforcement transformed to an equivalent area of concrete
(refer AS 5100.5 Cl 8.5.3.1). Icr is to be calculated, rather than using the approximations
nominated in AS 5100.5 Cl 8.5.3.1.
Section properties for some steel girder sections are provided in Appendix B.
9.9 Scour
Assume that bridges across waterways have experienced scour. For the purpose of a Tier 1
assessment, the depth of scour can be taken as the greater of:
a) The depth of scour as reported on the Level 2 Inspection Scour Report
b) The smaller of:
a. a depth of 2m below the natural surface levels, and
b. the depth to scour resistant rock.
9.10 Load cases
Appendix A gives further explanation of the load cases with respect to modelling, to provide greater
consistency between assessments.
Chapter 10: Element capacities
10 Element capacities
The ultimate limit state capacity (e.g. Mu) of a member shall be checked at the critical section for the
failure mechanism under consideration. The critical section may not be located at the point of
maximum effect.
The capacity of all the structural elements that contribute to supporting the weight of vehicles shall be
calculated. These values can be compared to the loading caused by the Reference and
Accompanying Vehicles. Guidance for calculating capacities for specific elements follows.
10.1 Condition of structure
The capacity of the bridge shall be determined assuming the structure is of sound condition.
Where the inspection reports indicate the existence of defects, which may impact upon the load
carrying capacity of any component of the structure, then the influence on the capacity shall be
estimated, as derived from the inspection reports.
Generally a Condition State of 1 (good) or 2 (fair) indicates that there are no defects or deterioration
that would reduce the structural performance or integrity of the bridge.
Refer to Section 11.5.5 and Section 12 for further information regarding the calculation of Assessment
Ratios, Flagged Items and reporting requirements.
10.2 Concrete elements
The ULS capacity of a precast beam with a castin-situ deck shall be calculated assuming full
composite action.
Moment capacity: Use rectangular stress blocks as defined in Clause 8.1 of AS 5100.5-2004. Over-
reinforced sections (i.e. ku > 0.4) are to be assessed in accordance with AS 5100.5 Cl 8.1.3 are to be
flagged, included in the flagged items in the report and noted in the Comments / Flag column of the
Assessment Spreadsheet.
Shear capacity: As set out in Annexure S03: Tier 1 Assessment of Shear in Reinforced and
Prestressed Concrete Short Span Bridges to AS 5100 & AS 3600.
The cross-sectional areas of imperial and metric reinforcing bars to be adopted in the assessment of
the strength of concrete members are summarised in Table 10.1.
Table 10.1: Cross section area of Imperial and Metric Reinforcement (AS.92-1958 Table II &
ARC Reinforcement Handbook Your Guide to Steel Reinforcement, Sixth Edition)
Imperial Reinforcing Bars Metric Reinforcing Bars

Deformed Bar Effective Cross Cross
Bar Size
Designation Diameter section area section
(mm)
Number (mm) (mm2) area (mm2)
3 9.5 70 R6.5 30
4 12.7 125 R10 80
5 15.9 200 N12 110
6 19.0 285 N16 200
7 22.2 390 N20 310
8 25.4 505 N24 450
9 28.6 640 N28 620
10 31.7 790 N32 800
11 34.9 960 N36 1020
Moment redistribution in accordance with AS 5100.5 Cl 7.2.8 is acceptable, provided the member
complies with the requirements of the Standard. This is beyond the scope of a Tier 1 assessment
unless agreed otherwise with the departments Structures Section.
10.3 Combined shear and torsion in concrete box girder
AS 5100:2004 does not address combined shear and torsion in a concrete box girder. The proposed
assessment method shall be in accordance with current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification.
10.4 Cross-girders
Moment capacity: The moment capacity of transverse cross-girders/diaphragms shall be calculated as

per beams. The effective width of the slab acting as a flange shall be determined in accordance with
AS 5100.5-2004 Cl. 8.8.
Shear capacity: The shear capacity shall be calculated as per beam methods.
Cross-girders (diaphragms) may not necessarily be considered critical elements if the remaining
elements can support the required loads assuming no contribution from the cross-girders, however all
capacity issues shall be reported. Load re-distribution of overloaded cross-girders is not required as a
Tier 1 assessment unless agreed otherwise with the departments Structures Section.
10.5 Steel beams and composite deck slab
The plastic methods outlined in AS 5100.6 for determining the capacity of composite members
produce much higher section capacities than historical standards which determined the moment
capacities using elastic methods. This means that the capacities of composite members are likely to
have increased in comparison to other elements.
This may result in the bridge deck producing the critical load effect in some cases. In this case, the
analysis of the deck slab as a continuous member spanning across the main beams can utilize
moment redistribution as per Cl 7.2.8. If the deck slab still exhibits the lowest SAR value, it still may
not be considered the critical element. In practical terms, if the bridge deck becomes overloaded, the
moments will redistribute. The consequences of further load will be the yielding of the tensile steel
causing cracking of the slab.
Engineering judgement will have to be applied as to whether the deck is critical or not. A deck could
still be considered critical if it exhibits a SAR significantly lower than the composite section.
Moment capacity: The composite concrete deck and steel girder capacity can be determined
using AS 5100.6-2004, Clause 6.3 Composite Beams. This should be read in conjunction with
Appendix E which gives expressions for determining the moment capacity by plastic analysis
in sagging moment regions. This capacity is only valid if the shear connection has adequate
longitudinal shear capacity.
Vertical shear capacity: As stated in Cl. 6.5 AS 5100.6-2004 the vertical shear capacity of a
composite section shall be assumed to be resisted by the steel section alone and determined
in accordance with Cl. 5.8 to 5.11, where the shear capacity is given in Cl. 5.10.
Longitudinal shear capacity:
The longitudinal shear capacity (for shear studs) shall be calculated following Cl. 6.6 of
AS 5100.6-2004.
The longitudinal shear capacity of shear connectors comprising bars or hot rolled sections
welded to the steel flange are to be assumed to be adequate and calculations of the
longitudinal shear capacity is not necessary. This is to be flagged, included in the flagged
items in the report and noted in the Comments / Flag column of the Assessment
Spreadsheet.
The maximum transverse shear near a support is given by Cl. 8.2.4.
The shear force per unit length for simply supported or continuous composite beams is given
by Cl. 4.8 AS 5100.6-2004.
For analysis of composite beams, girders and columns reference should be made to Cl. 4.4 of
AS 5100.6-2004.
10.6 Deck slabs on girder bridges
The moment capacity of one-way slabs shall be calculated as per AS 5100.5 Clauses 9.1.1
and 9.6 using an effective load resisting width of the slab. If the effective width (bef) for a single
axle is more than the spacing of the axle loads, then bef per axle shall be limited to the axle
spacing (refer Figure 4). A patch load with the dimensions of the design wheel footprint shall
be used to determine the design actions in the slab.
Figure 4: Effective load resisting width of slabs in girder bridges for axle groups
s girders
bef per axle s

s
Wheel / axle
loads
Shear is unlikely to be critical on a bridge deck slab and shall not be checked.
10.7 T-roff girders
Refer to bridge specific criteria.
10.8 Abutment and pier headstocks
The assessment of concrete headstocks can utilise beam theory or strut-tie theory as appropriate. For
further details refer Annexure S03: Tier 1 Assessment of Shear in Concrete Short Span Bridges to
AS 5100 and AS 3600, and where appropriate Annexure S04: Tier 2 Assessment of Shear in
Concrete Short Span Bridges.
10.9 Columns and piles
Piers, columns, piles and other axially loaded structural elements are to be checked including the
effects of moments caused by eccentric vertical loads or moment connections.
Compression capacity shall be determined using rectangular stress blocks (elastic analysis)
as defined in Cl. 10.6.2 based on assumptions in 10.6.3 of AS 5100.5-2004.
Buckling in piles (both for steel and concrete) due to long unsupported length (e.g. due to
scour) is to be considered as part of a Tier 1 Assessment.
For a particular ULS loading scenario (M*, N*) there is an ultimate capacity (Mu, Nu ) for the particular
M*/N* ratio and any associated slenderness effects (refer Figure 5). In structures where there are
3
slenderness effects, the loads, capacities and Assessment Ratios are to be reported in terms of the
axial loads and the axial capacity. For structures where there are no slenderness effects, the results
can be reported as either moment or axial capacity.
3
Iteration may be required to determine the capacity of slender columns
Figure 5: Interaction diagram showing loading lines for short and slender concrete columns
( M u ,N u )short
( M u ,Nu )slender
Interaction diagrams are to be provided for each column section as part of the calculations. The
loading scenarios considered are to be plotted on the interaction diagrams, including: the maximum
factored bending moment with corresponding factored axial load and maximum factored axial load
with corresponding factored bending moment for each of the Travel Restrictions load case. The
loading lines and associated capacities should also be shown for the controlling cases (i.e. those
where N*/(Nu) is smallest).
In cases where the column is dominated by bending, there are no slenderness effects and the column
is not the critical element, then the section can be assessed for bending alone, provided the bending
capacity adopted has made appropriate adjustments for the axial load.
10.10 Abutment and pier foundation bearing pressure and pile capacity
Foundation Assessment Ratios (refer Section 11) are to be assessed for both the ULS and SLS using
the foundation design information shown on the drawings.
The following definitions of commonly used foundation design terms specified on drawings is provided
to assist in the interpretation of the drawings.
Design pile load or foundation bearing pressure (RWL): Pile capacity based on dead load and live
loads where ultimate limit state dead load factors and live load factors have not been applied.
Ultimate pile capacity (RUG): Pile capacity based on dead load and live loads where ultimate limit
state dead load factor and live load factors have been applied.
Geotechnical design parameters OR Description of soil layer characteristic and thickness: In

some instances the drawings provided may show geotechnical details of the strata which exists at a
particular site. For the purpose of determining Assessment Ratios, this information can be disregarded
(i.e. no geotechnical assessment is to be undertaken.)
The ULS capacity of the foundation (Ru ) shall be taken as follows:
Ru 3 RWL when RWL is provided
Ru RUG when RUG is provided
= appropriate capacity reduction factor from AS 5100 (typically 0.5)
The SLS capacity of the foundation (R) shall be taken as follows:
3 RWL
R when RWL is provided:
2.5
RUG
R when RUG is provided
2.5
Chapter 11: Assessment ratios
11 Assessment ratios
11.1 Introduction
Assessment ratios provide a powerful tool for bridge assessment and risk management:
Assessment ratios greater than 1.0 correspond to structurally adequate bridges for a particular
loading scenario.
Assessment ratios less than 1.0 correspond to structurally deficient bridges for a particular
loading scenario (refer Figure 1).
Three Assessment Ratios are defined in the following section:
a) Strength Assessment Ratio (SAR)
b) Equivalence Ratio Traffic (ERT)
c) Equivalence Ratio Bridge (ERB)
These Assessment ratios facilitate the rapid assessment of individual bridges or networks of bridges to
achieve objectives such as:
Quantifying the risk associated with as-of-right vehicles, permit vehicles, cranes and heavy
load platforms (SAR).
Determining the acceptability of a permit application for vehicles such as cranes and heavy
load platforms (ERB) sharing a route with as-of-right vehicles. The ERB can be readily scaled
for a range of permit vehicles and the value of the ERB is the proportion of the permit vehicle
that can safely traverse the bridge under the particular Travel Restriction.
Determining the traffic management requirements to allow permit or as-of-right heavy vehicles
to utilise bridges (ERB or ERT).
Determining the acceptability of a change in the as-of-right vehicles (e.g. changing a route
from GML to HML) using a route (ERT). As for the ERB, the ERT can be scaled for as-of-right
vehicles travelling in all lanes.
11.2 Definition of assessment ratios
For the purposes of Tier 1 assessments in accordance with this criteria, the general strength equation
for bridges is expressed as follows:
n
Ru G G GS GS Q _ RV (1 RV )QRV Q _ AV (1 AV _ i ) AVFAV _ i Q AV _ i
i 1
The general strength equation can be rearranged to define the following assessment ratios:
a) Strength Assessment Ratio (SAR)

Ru
SAR n
G G GS GS Q _ RV (1 RV )QRV Q _ AV (1 AV _ i ) AVFAV _ i QAV _ i
i 1
Ru

G QRV
* *
Q AV
*
ULS capacity

Total ULS load effects
b) Equivalence Ratio Traffic (ERT)
Ru G G GS GS
ERT n
Q _ RV (1 RV )QRV Q _ AV (1 AV _ i ) AVFAV _ i QAV _ i
i 1
Ru G *
*
QRV QAV
*
Available ULS bridge capacity for live load effects

ULS loading applied by Reference and Accompanying Vehicles
c) Equivalence Ratio Bridge (ERB)

n
Ru G G GS GS Q _ AV (1 AV _ i ) AVFAV _ i QAV _ i
ERB i 1
Q _ RV (1 RV )QRV
Ru G * QAV
*
*
QRV
Available ULS bridge capacity for Reference Vehicle effects

ULS loading applied by Reference Vehicle
The assessment ratios are calculated at the component level for a given loading scenario. The
minimum values of the assessment ratios correspond to the weakest link in the bridge and are
therefore of prime interest.
Assessment ratios can be recorded for both a particular location and effect of interest or for groups of
components incorporating data from a range of locations, components and effects. The assessment
ratio reported for groups of components are the minimum assessment ratios for the grouping.
Assessment ratios for geotechnical assessments are to be calculated both as an ULS method and as
a SLS method. The ULS method is as defined above. The SLS method is similar to above and is
summarised below:
R
SARSLS
G _ SLS G GS _ SLS GS Q _ RV _ SLS (1 RV )QRV Q _ AV _ SLS (1 AV _ i ) AVFAV _ i Q AV _ i
n
i 1
R

GSLS QRV _ SLS QAV _ SLS
SLS capacity

Total SLS load effects
R G _ SLS G GS _ SLS GS
ERTSLS n
Q _ RV _ SLS (1 RV )QRV Q _ AV _ SLS (1 AV _ i ) AVFAV _ i QAV _ i
i 1
R GSLS

QRV _ SLS QAV _ SLS
Available SLS bridge capacity for live load effects

SLS loading applied by Reference and Accompanying Vehicles
R G _ SLS G GS _ SLS GS Q _ AV _ SLS (1 AV _ i ) AVFAV _ i QAV _ i

n
ERBSLS i 1
Q _ RV _ SLS (1 RV )QRV
R GSLS QAV _ SLS

QRV _ SLS
Available SLS bridge capacity for Reference Vehicle effects

SLS loading applied by Reference Vehicle
Note that the SLS assessment ratios are equal to the ULS assessment ratios where Ru is replaced by
R and the ultimate limit state load factors replaced with the serviceability limit state load factors.
11.3 Determination of assessment ratios
The assessment process and the assessment ratios shall identify the elements that have the minimum
SAR for each Reference Vehicle and Travel Restriction loading scenario. The ERB and ERT values
are to be derived using the same effects used in the calculation of the minimum SAR. Note that the
elements corresponding to the minimum SAR may not be the same elements as would exhibit the
minimum ERB or ERT.
The assessment ratios shall be reported for all Reference Vehicle and Travel Restriction loading
scenarios.
For each assessment, the objective is to identify the effects on each of the bridge elements due to the
loading from the Reference and Accompanying Vehicles for each applicable Travel Restriction.
The assessment ratios are reported for collections of similar components for representative load
effects. For example: bending in internal girders in similar spans; or shear in headstocks in similar
piers. The assessment ratios for the collection will correspond to the minimum SAR for the load effect
at all the possible failure locations within all the components that make up the collection.
The assessment ratios are further summarised to identify the critical element and the associated
assessment ratios for the entire bridge for each Reference Vehicle and Travel Restriction.
Each collection is defined in terms of:
Grouping refer Table 11.1
Component refer Table 11.2
Load effect refer Table 11.3.
Table 11.1: Groupings
Grouping Code Example

Abutment A#-# A1-2 (Abutments 1 and 2)
Pier P#-# P2 (Pier 2)
Span/Cell S#-# S1-3 (Spans 1 to 3)
Table 11.2: Components
Component Component
#1
Deck Unit (Xm) Headstock (dimensions) #2
Kerb Unit (Xm) #1 Column (dimensions) #2
Transverse Deck Unit Section Wall
Deck Slab Footing
#1
Edge Girder - PSC (Xm) Pile Cap
Inner Girder - PSC (Xm) #1 Piles (type) #3
Edge Girder - Steel non-composite (Xm) #1
Inner Girder - Steel non-composite (Xm) #1
Edge Girder - Steel composite (Xm) #1
Inner Girder - Steel composite (Xm) #1
Edge Girder - RC (Xm) #1
Inner Girder - RC (Xm) #1
Cross Girder - End of span
Cross Girder - Intermediate
Connections #5
Notes:
#1
for example: Deck Unit (9m)
#2
for example: Headstock (1200x750)
#3
for example: Piles (driven)
#4
where structure has been modified, include extension on component title for "original", "widening",
"strengthening", "lengthening" etc
#5
connections is a collective for those components that join members together such as bolts, welds, plates,
stiffeners
#6
where additional details are required to identify a member, particularly with continuous girders where there are
multiple section types, select the relevant option and then add the additional information after a "-".
Table 11.3: Load effects
Load Effect Code Description [units]

BF Bearing force [kN]
M Bending moment (non-horizontal element) [kNm]
M(Nmax) Bending corresponding to max axial load [kNm]
Bending moments causing hogging effects in horizontal elements [kNm or
Mhog
kNm/m]
Bending moments causing sagging effects in horizontal elements [kNm or
Msag
kNm/m]
N Axial force (tension +ve) [kN or kN/m]
N(Mmax) Axial Load corresponding to max bending [kN or kN/m]
Pressure Geotechnical [kPa]
S&T(C) Strut-and-tie concrete capacity (strut and node) [kN]
S&T(T) Strut-and-tie reinforcement capacity (tension) [kN]
V Shear force (includes torsion) [kN]
V(Anch) Anchorage shear [kN]
V(Long) Longitudinal shear [kN/m]
V(punch) Punching shear [kN]
V@# Shear at a distance # from face of support [kN]
Assessment ratios are a function of:
a) The loads:
a. dead load and superimposed dead load
b. Reference Vehicle
c. Accompanying Vehicle
d. Travel Restriction
e. Position of Reference and Accompanying Vehicles
b) the grouping being considered
c) the components being considered
d) location within the components under consideration (e.g. mid-span of internal girders)
e) load effect under consideration.
Unfortunately the relationships between the assessment ratios are complex and they cannot be
derived from each other. In addition, the minimum SAR and the minimum ERB may not occur at the
same location and that this location can vary depending on the level of the load.
In order to minimise the calculation effort, the ERT and ERB values are to be derived from the data
used to calculate the minimum SAR for a particular load effect in a group of components for a
particular Reference Vehicle and Travel Restriction. A procedure for the calculation of the SAR, ERT
and ERB values for each loading scenario is as follows:
a) identify the groups of components, locations of interest and effects of interest (e.g. internal
deck units, mid-span, bending). It is important that the all potentially critical locations and
effects are identified
b) calculate the ULS capacities at each location of interest for each effect of interest (e.g. shear
strength of a pier headstock)
c) determine the loading arrangement (RV + AV + longitudinal and lateral position) that
generates the minimum SAR within the group of components at each location of interest for
each effect of interest. Identify the component and location of interest with the minimum SAR
and record the corresponding effects of interest at the SLS and the ULS due to dead load,
superimposed dead load, Reference Vehicles and Accompanying Vehicles
d) for each SAR, calculate the corresponding ERT and ERB utilising the effects used to calculate
the SAR (i.e. the SAR, ERT and ERB will correspond to a particular location and loading
scenario)
e) calculate the minimum SAR for the bridge and the corresponding ERT and ERB
f) summarise and report the results.
11.3.1 Geotechnical
In relation to assessment ratios derived for geotechnical effects:
Where no pile / foundation capacity is provided an Assessment Ratio is not required for this
component however the dead and live load effects should be reported in the tables.
Unless the bridge is exhibiting damaging levels of settlement, the geotechnical capacity is
unlikely to be considered critical (refer to Figure 1 - the departments Structural Assessment of
Existing Road Bridges Organisational Policy). The allowable bearing pressures detailed on the
drawings are the geotechnical capacities required by the original design, but may not
represent the actual strength of the founding material. The consequence of a geotechnical
failure of the foundation due to a transient large load is temporary overstressing of the
bearing strata. This is extremely unlikely to cause collapse of the structure.
The Assessment Ratios for geotechnical effects shall be determined and recorded for both the
SLS and ULS.
Where an Assessment Ratio < 1.00 for geotechnical effects:
the foundation element is considered a serviceability issue because significant settlement

occurs prior to collapse
if no settlement has occurred, a SMP may not be required due only to geotechnical
influences (an SMP may be required for settlement monitoring activities or other reasons)
if significant settlement occurs, the bridge will be classified as a Structurally Deficient

Bridge. If structural distress occurs as a result o settlement, it must be processed as an
Immediate Risk Structurally Deficient Bridge.
11.4 Critical elements
The critical element is the element with the minimum SAR for the loading scenario and component
grouping under consideration. For example, the critical element of a bridge may be the shear strength
of a headstock do from the face of the support whereas the critical element for the superstructure
maybe mid-span bending of an internal deck unit.
11.5 Results presentation
In order to facilitate the application, validation and future adaption of the data (e.g. to include the
effects of a Tier 2 assessment of strength) it is necessary to record each of the component effects
used in the derivation of the Assessment Ratios (i.e. SAR, ERT and ERB). Both the SLS effects and
their corresponding ULS effects are to be recorded for all combinations the applicable Reference
Vehicles and Travel Restrictions.
To facilitate the collation by the department of each bridge assessment into a database of the network
of bridges, it is essential that the assessment data is reported in a standard format.
There are multiple reporting formats:
a) an Assessment Spreadsheet that records the detailed assessment information
b) a Summary of Results that records the minimum structural Assessment Ratios for the bridge
for all Reference Vehicles and Travel Restrictions and the corresponding critical elements
c) a Summary of Potentially Structurally Deficient Components for unrestricted travel by MCVs

for the bridge that identifies components with assessment ratios less than 1.0 for unrestricted
travel (i.e. Travel Restriction 1) by MCVs (i.e. as-of-right vehicles)
d) a listing of Flagged Items.
11.5.1 Assessment Spreadsheet
The detailed assessment information is to be reported electronically as an excel spreadsheet (referred

to as the Assessment Spreadsheet) strictly in accordance with the spreadsheet supplied as part of the
Principal Supplied Material. The data reporting format is presented in Table 11.4. Assessment Ratios
less than 1.0 are to be highlighted.
All Assessment Ratios for all components shall be included in the Assessment Spreadsheet and shall
include results for all combinations of applicable Travel Restrictions and Reference Vehicles.
The assessment ratios for components with a SAR > x are to be reported in the Assessment
Spreadsheet as having an assessment ratio (ERB, ERT and SAR) of >x where x is the greater of
three or two times the minimum assessment ratio for the bridge for the Reference Vehicle under
consideration.
The headings to the Assessment Spreadsheet are prepared, in the main part, assuming that the
assessment calculations are conducted at the ultimate limit state. The exception is that some
geotechnical assessments are conducted at the serviceability limit state. It is expected that the same
spreadsheet can be used for both the ULS and SLS assessments with the significant difference being
that the load factors for the SLS (SLS) are set to the serviceability limits state load factors as per
Section 7.6.1. For example, when calculating the SLS assessment ratios for a scenario: the SLS
strength (R) should be entered for the capacity; the load factors should be set to the SLS load factors;
and thus intermediate results such as G* = GG +GSGS = G _SLSG + GS _SLS GS.
Table 11.4: Sample from an Assessment Spreadsheet (2 assessment lanes) 4
General LoadingScenario Location&LoadEffect CalculationInfo
Loading
Reference Travel Below/
Route Level Brief Calc'n
BISID Vehicle Restriction Grouping Component LoadEffect Above
Type (GML/H Version Method
(RV) (TR) Ground
ML)
Headstock
1111 RT HML 3.06 1H 1 P13 V@d0 ULS Above
(1200x750)
1111 RT HML 3.06 1H 1 S14 Deckunit(9m) V@2m ULS Above
Headstock
1111 RT HML 3.06 5 7 P13 Mhog ULS Above
(1200x750)
Headstock
1111 RT HML 3.06 1H 1 P13 V@d0 ULS Above
(1200x750)
Capacity DeadLoad AccompanyingVehicle1 ReferenceVehicle
ULS:
( R u )or
G g Gs gs G* QAV_1 Q_AV AV_1 AVFAV_1 Q*AV_1 QRV Q_RV RV Q*RV
SLS:
(R )
AD=
F=BxC+ K=GxHx
A B C D E G H I J AA AB AC AAxABx(
DxE (1+I)xJ
1+AC)
609 152 1.2 29 2.0 240 71.9 2.0 0.4 0.8 161 95 2.0 0.4 265
591 50 1.2 8 2.0 76 104.4 2.0 0.4 0.8 234 126 2.0 0.4 354
485 98 1.2 18 2.0 154 0.0 2.0 0.4 0.8 0 238 1.5 0.1 393
609 149 1.2 29 2.0 236 94.5 2.0 0.4 0.8 212 68 2.0 0.4 189
ERB,ERT&SAR AssessmentOrganisation&RPEQ
Simply Number Number

AvailLL AvailLL Nameof Nameof
Q*RV+ G*+Q*AV Geotech Comments Redundancy Supported of of Assess
Q*AV Capacity Capacityfor ERB ERT SAR Organisation Assessing Verifying
Q*AV +Q*RV forRV RV&AV
(Y/N) /Flag (Low/High) Loading
RPEQ
Assessing
RPEQ
Verifying Date
(Y/N) RPEQ RPEQ
AE=K+
AF=AD AG=F+ AH=AF AJ= AK= AL=
P+U+ AI=AF AM AN AO AP AQ AR AS AT AU AV
+AE AD+AE AE AH/AD AI/AF A/AG
Z
161 426 665 208 369 0.79 0.87 0.92 N High Y XYZ AEngineer 1234 VEngineer 3456 27/02/2012
The data in the Assessment Spreadsheet can be readily filtered and sorted within excel (e.g. using the
AutoFilter command). Filtering and sorting the data facilitates the identification of inconsistent/incorrect
data. This provides a useful quality check.
4
Note: The spreadsheet is presented as 3 screenshots one below each other.
Loads and capacities should be reported to nearest whole numbers and Assessment Ratios to two
decimal places. Although this is not consistent with the accuracy of assumptions and calculations
leading to these values, it minimises errors due to their use in subsequent assessment calculations.
Additional columns shall be added where there are insufficient columns to capture effects due to all
Accompanying Vehicles.
In addition, to ensure standardisation of reporting standard descriptions / codes are provided for use
when completing the Assessment Spreadsheet:
Route type refer Table 11.5 and Bridge Parameters
Loading level refer Table 11.6 and Bridge Parameters
Grouping refer Table 11.1
Component refer Table 11.2
Load effect refer Table 11.3
Calculation method refer Table 11.7
Below / above ground
Table 11.5: Route type
Code Description
RT Road Train route
BD B-Double route
GA General Access route
Table 11.6: Loading level
Code Description
GML General Mass Limits
HML Higher Mass Limits
Table 11.7: Calculation method
Code Description
ULS Calculations based on ultimate limit state loads
Calculations based on ultimate limit state loads. Only applicable to SLS (or factor of
SLS
safety methods) used in geotechnical assessments
Table 11.8: Below / above ground
Code Description
Above Component is above ground with full DLA
Below Component is sufficiently below ground for DLA = 0
Where a suitable description is not available, please contact the departments Structures Section
project manager to discuss the matter.
Many elements in the Assessment Spreadsheet are defined in Section 4. Other elements include:
Enter Y if the row of the Assessment Spreadsheet relates to a

Geotech (Y/N)
geotechnical assessment
Enter N if the row of the Assessment Spreadsheet does not relate to a

geotechnical assessment
Location of entering any flagged information or comments relating to

Comments
the assessment of an element. Refer to Section 11.5.4 Flagged Items for
/ Flag
further details are to be included in this column and in the report.
Enter Low for low redundancy bridges and High for high redundancy
Redundancy (Low/High)
bridges (refer Section 7.6.2).
Enter Y if the loading applied to the component is consistent with a

Simply Supported Loading simply supported bridge (e.g. most deck unit bridges, drop-in-spans).
(Y/N) Otherwise enter N (e.g. continuous bridges, balanced cantilever
bridges except drop in spans).
Organisation Name of organisation that has assessed the element
Name of Assessing RPEQ Name of responsible assessing RPEQ
Name of Verifying RPEQ RPEQ number of responsible assessing RPEQ
Name of Verifying RPEQ Name of responsible verifying RPEQ
Name of Verifying RPEQ RPEQ number of responsible verifying RPEQ
Assess Date Date the signature block was signed
11.5.2 Summary of Potentially Structurally Deficient Components for unrestricted travel by

MCVs
The Summary of Potentially Structurally Deficient Components for unrestricted travel by MCVs is to
include the following tabulation:
Table 11.9 Example of summary of potentially structurally deficient components for

unrestricted travel by MCVs (partially filled)
Likelihood
Strategy to of
Reason for
RV Group Component ERB ERT SAR overcome success
deficiency
deficiency of
strategy
Tier 2 shear Likely
Shear - assessment
2G P1-3 Headstock 0.75 0.80 0.95
Asv<Asv.min Add K-brace Almost
to portal certain
Notes:
1. Refer to Table 7.2 for a list of MCVs.
2. Potentially structurally deficient components are those components that have Assessment
Ratios less than 1.0.
3. If there are no potentially structurally deficient components, then indicate this in the table.
4. The reason for the deficiency should convey the reasons for the low assessment ratios.
5. The strategy to overcome deficiency should convey the strategies to overcome the
deficiencies for the unrestricted travel by MCVs. These strategies could include more
advanced assessment methods, travel restrictions (such as single lane running on low volume
routes) and strengthening. The likelihood of success of the strategy is to be rated as one of
the following: very unlikely, unlikely, possible, likely, almost certain.
11.5.3 Summary of Results
The Summary of Results records the minimum Assessment Ratios for the bridge and the
corresponding critical structural elements for each Reference Vehicle and Travel Restriction. A
Summary of Results is to be supplied in the format as set out in the example Summary of Results
presented in Table 11.10 utilising the Principal Supplied Excel spreadsheet.
The SAR, ERT and ERB values reported in the Summary of Results relate to the structural actions
only and do not include Assessment Ratios derived from geotechnical considerations. The
Assessment Ratios for geotechnical considerations (e.g. Pile axial load) are reported but in terms of
whether or not there are any SARs for the geotechnical elements that are less than 1.0 (refer Geotech
SAR < 1 (Y/N)). These will be treated as a serviceability issue unless settlement or distress is
observed (refer Section10.10).
In the Summary of Results table, the Critical element section identifies the bridge component that
was critical for each combination of Reference Vehicle and Travel Restriction. The critical element is
identified by the group, component and load effect. Assessment Ratios less than 1.0 are to be
highlighted.
Table 11.10: Example Summary of Results (partially filled)

BridgeID:1111 RouteType: RT Date: 4/01/13
BridgeName: XXXXCreek LoadingLevel: HML BriefVersion: 3.05
Reference Travel CriticalElement AssessmentRatios(Structrualonly) Geotech
Vehicle Restriction SAR<1
Grouping Component LoadEffect ERB ERT SAR
(RV) (TR) (Y/N)
1H 1 P13 Headstock(1200x750) V@do 0.79 0.87 0.92 Y
1H 2 S14 Deckunit(9m) V@2m 0.96 0.98 0.98 N
1H 3 S14 Kerbunit(9m) Msag 1.21 1.21 1.15 N
1H 4
1H 5
1H 6
2H 1
2H 2
2H 3
2H 4
2H 5
2H 6
3 1
3 2
3 3
3 4
3 5
3 6
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
4 5
4 6
5 7
6H 1
6H 2
6H 3
6H 4
6H 5
6H 6
Note: The SAR, ERT and ERB values exclude values associated with geotechnical effects
11.5.4 Flagged Items
Include a list of the Flagged Items and their description in the immediately vicinity of the Summary of
Results in the report.
The Flagged Items listing is to include the following:
Concrete components, excluding slabs and transversely stressed deck units, where Asv < Asv.min [List
components] ##
Concrete components where ku > 0.4 [List components] ##
Shear connectors [Assessed or not assessed] ##
Any other non-ductile components [List components]
Elements considered likely to have reduced capacity based on Level 2 Inspection [List components]
Other [Not applicable or specify]
##
The Assessment Spreadsheet contains a Comments / Flag column that is to be used to inform the
departments Structures Section of issues considered important for the ongoing management of the bridge.
Entries in this column are to be made to draw attention to matters considered important when managing heavy
vehicle loads. Examples include the Flagged Items relating to an element or a specific loading related matter.
##
These have been identified with a in the Flagged Items listing above.
Notes:
1. all items are to be included, even when not applicable
2. add additional items as appropriate
11.5.5 Condition
All Assessment Ratios are to be reported assuming the structure is of sound condition (refer
Section 10.1).
Where the condition of components reported in the Level 2 inspection report may impact upon the
load carrying capacity of the components then this is to be flagged (i.e. in both the Flagged Items
Listing and the Assessment Spreadsheet as per Section 11.5.4) and discussed in the report (refer
Section 12). The discussion is to include the sensitivity of the assessments ratios to reductions in
capacity, the range of reductions in capacity considered reasonable and any underlying assumptions.
Chapter 12: Deliverables
12 Deliverables
The following deliverables are required to be delivered to the project manager at the completion of the
works:
a covering letter summarising the works completed
a bound hard copy of each report in A4 portrait format for every bridge analysed (i.e. one
bridge per report) and shall include:
the front cover should include the BIS ID, Bridge Name, Road No and Road Name
a signature block is to be incorporated at the front of each bridge report. The signature
block is to include:
date, name, RPEQ number and signature of the RPEQ responsible for the
assessment
date, name and signature of the assessing engineer
date, name, RPEQ number and signature of the RPEQ responsible for verifying the
assessment
date, name and signature of the engineer verifying the assessment
a brief description of the bridge (at the front of the report)
a copy of the general arrangement drawing/s for the bridge (at the front of the report)
a copy of the Bridge Parameters for the assessment with items such as as specified in
the Criteria replaced with the actual parameters adopted in the assessment (at the front
of the report)
the Summary of Potentially Structurally Deficient Components for unrestricted travel by

MCVs (at the front of the report)
the Summary of Results table (at the front of the report)
the Flagged Items listing (at the front of the report)
a summary of the bridges condition based on the inspection reports and a discussion the
implications of the condition on the assessment results
assumptions adopted during analysis and the sensitivity of the results to these
assumptions
deviations from the standard assumptions outlined
a description of the load cases used
a description of the analysis methods used
a printout of the Assessment Spreadsheet showing all combinations of applicable

st nd
Reference Vehicles (1 level of sort) and Travel Restrictions (2 level of sort). The
printout is to be restricted to the following columns of the Assessment Spreadsheet: BIS
ID; Reference Vehicle (RV); Travel Restriction; Grouping; Component; Load Effect; ERB;
ERT; SAR
a CD or USB containing electronic copies of:
Chapter 12: Deliverables
each report in PDF file format
inspection reports used
drawings used
calculations in PDF file format
the Assessment Spreadsheet in Excel containing all data
the Summary of Results in Excel
SpaceGass models (i.e. without results in order to minimise file size but when re-run will
generate the results used in the assessment)
SpaceGass moving load library used in the assessment.
The CD or USB shall contain a Table of Contents in the form of a Microsoft Word document in the root
directory. This table of contents shall list the name and location of each file contained on the disk and
shall contain a short description of each file. Sufficient instructions shall be provided to facilitate
interpretation and enable all software to run. Electronic versions of all spreadsheets and other files
shall not be password protected or locked in any way.
The file structure is to have the following folders with the relevant information stored in each folder:
BIS ID Bridge Name
Calcs
Dwgs
Insp Reports
Reports
Tables
SpaceGass
Please note that the BIS ID is a unique numeric identified for each bridge and it is the primary means
of identification of a bridge and thus all filing should be BIS ID centric.
13 Additional work
As a consequence of an initial assessment, additional work that is outside the scope of the initial
assessment may be requested. This may include the investigation of secondary effects on potentially
non-ductile structures and Tier 2 shear assessments.
14 Communication
All communication with the department shall be via the departments Structures Section Project
Manager.
15 Timing
The assessment deliverables are required to be delivered to the departments Structures Section by
as per the invitation for offer.
Appendix A: Modelling
Appendix A Modelling
This guide is intended to standardize the models produced by different assessors.
A.1 SpaceGass files
One SpaceGass model will be produced per Reference Vehicle with the following naming
convention:
BIS ID_RefVehNo_other.SG where BIS ID is the Bridge Information System identification fro a
bridge and RefVehNo is the Reverence Vehicle Number
For example: 1234_6G.SG
A.2 Load Cases
Load Case 1 Dead Load
Load Case 2 Superimposed Dead Load
Load Case 3 DL + SDL
Moving loads will be used to model the Reference Vehicle and Accompanying Vehicle loads.
The time interval and speed functions shall be reviewed to ensure that the moving load
generator will position the loads to induce the highest member loads for the action under
consideration (refer Section 9.3).
A.3 Travel paths for skew bridges
There is a known limitation in SpaceGass Versions prior to 10.8.7 when using the moving load
function to generate loads for skew bridges. If a generated vehicle axle group is partially on the bridge
so that one wheel is within the confines of the grillage and the other wheel is outside of the grillage,
then the entire axle load will be transferred onto the grillage members via the wheel located within the
grillage. This deficiency in SpaceGass will produce very high and incorrect shears at the first and last
members to be traversed by the moving load. The problem can be avoided by modelling the relieving
slab and a second span.
Care should still be taken to check the validity of results and incorrect results should be ignored.
A.4 Application of wheel loads to superstructures
The SpaceGass moving load function applies wheel loads to those members that have been selected
for application of the moving load. Care must be taken to ensure the appropriate members are
selected (SpaceGass filters are helpful) so that the distribution of the wheel loads to the load carrying
elements generates a good approximation of the effects induced in these members and that centroid
of the applied loads coincide with the corresponding wheel load.
In the case of models that incorporate both the superstructure and substructure, it is possible to
inappropriately apply wheel loads to the substructure if the substructure is selected during the
application of the moving load model.
Validation is essential to ensure that the wheel loads have been applied appropriately.
For related information refer Section 9.3 Moving Vehicle Step Size.
Appendix B: Dimensions and properties of selected rolled steel members
Appendix B Dimensions and properties of selected rolled steel members
B.1 British Joists (Redpath and Brown, page 8 and 9, 1950)
B.2 British Joists (Redpath and Brown, page 10 and 11, 1950)
B.3 Australian RSJs (BHP Handbook, 1961)
Appendix C: Bridge parameters
Appendix C Bridge parameters
BIS ID
Bridge Name
Road No
Road Name
Road Section Name
Tdist (km)
Heavy Vehicle Route Type [Road-train, B-Double

or General Access]
Loading Level [GML or HML]
Extent of Assessment [specify]
Stationary traffic [not applicable or specify]
Reference Vehicles [As defined in criteria or

specify]
Accompanying Vehicles [As defined in criteria or

specify]
Travel Restrictions [As defined in criteria or

specify]
Assessment lane width [As defined in criteria or

##.#m]
HLP drive line [As defined in criteria or specify]

Drive lines must be specified for wide bridges on
small radius curves (e.g. ramps)
Bridge redundancy [high or low]
Material Properties [As defined in criteria or

specify]
Analysis [As defined in criteria or specify]
Element Capacities [As defined in criteria or

specify]
Tier 2 Assessments [Not required or specify]
Other [Not applicable or specify]
Document title, Transport and Main Roads, Month Year 71

Tier 1 Bridge Heavy Load Assessment Criteria - 2013 (Main Road)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tier 1 Bridge Heavy Load Assessment Criteria - 2013 (Main Road)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criteria

State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) 2013

Amendment Register History (prior to August 2013)

Version 3.09 includes the following changes:

1. the addition of Reference Vehicle 6 to the vehicles to be assessed on BD routes

2. provisions regarding the interpretation of drawings and inspection reports added

3. provisions regarding step size and stagger of vehicles added

Version 3.08 April 2013

Version 3.08 includes the following changes:

1. renaming of Assessment Vehicle 5 to remove the reference to HLP320 as Reference Vehicle

2. material properties for reinforced concrete hollow spun piles added

Version 3.07 April 2013

Version 3.07 includes the following changes:

2. Extent of assessment added to Bridge Parameters

Version 3.06 March 2013

Version 3.06 includes the following changes:

1. Assessment Vehicle 7G and 7H amended to a vehicle that approximates both semi-trailers

2. Reference Vehicles for General Access amended to 1G/1H, 3 and 5

3. crane reference Vehicle selection based on bridge span

6. a Summary of Potentially Structurally Deficient Components for unrestricted travel by MCVs

11. Flagged Items altered

13. the file structure for the CD of data altered

14. the naming convention for SpaceGass files altered

15. a blank copy of the current Bridge Parameters included in Appendix C

17. editorial changes.

Version 3.05 Jan 2013

Version 3.05 includes the following changes:

2. changes to the loads that need to be considered additions of secondary effects

4. increased the width of the assessment lane for cranes

8. updates to headings in Assessment Spreadsheet and Summary of Results

9. updates to Flagged Items listing

12. addition of a brief description of the bridge in the reporting requirements

13. editorial changes.

Version 3.04 28 November 2012

Version 3.04 includes the following changes:

2. amendments to the provisions for the minimum headway between vehicles

Version 3.03 26 November 2012

Version 3.03 includes the following changes:

2. updated versions of the following:

Version 3.02 16 November 2012

Version 3.02 includes the following changes:

2. updated versions of the following:

Version 3.01 14 November 2012

Version 3.01 includes the following changes:

1. the addition of initial provisions relating to low ductility bridges

4. updated versions of the following:

Version 3.00 7 November 2012

Version 3.00 is a general update to the criteria. Changes include:

2. rearrangement of material and formatting changes

3. the inclusion of as-of-right vehicles as well as permit vehicles

5. alignment with the departments Structural Assessment of Existing Road Bridges

6. the incorporation of:

ERT Equivalence Ratio Traffic

SAR Strength Assessment Ratio

13. the adoption of AS 5100 / AS 1170 terminology where appropriate

18. expansion of the detailed assessment reporting requirements (Assessment Spreadsheet) to

Vehicle Limits Manual (Version 2 Feb 2011)

Bridge Inspection Manual (Second edition June 2004)

Table 2.1: Comparison of historical design vehicles ............................................................................... 2

Table 7.2: Description of Assessment Vehicles .................................................................................... 19

Table 7.4: Number of assessment lanes in a carriageway ................................................................... 25

Table 7.5: Lateral position of assessment lanes ................................................................................... 26