Load Rating Bridge Structures –VicRoads Practice

Vincenzo Colosimo

VicRoads Technical Consulting

Abstract This paper provides guidelines for load rating of existing bridges. It is
based on internal notes regarding criteria and practice for load rating of bridges
and consideration of multiple vehicle presence over structures with varying
numbers of heavy commercial vehicles. It extends the provisions of the current
AS 5100 Bridge Design 2004 [1] by providing a guide for bridge designers in
regards to multiple presence of heavy vehicles and loading criteria for legal,
restricted and permit vehicle travel. The main objectives of this paper are to
facilitate consistent rational bridge rating methods for assessment Engineers. This
will foster national practices for load rating bridges and allow uniform travel
potential of varying types and load configurations of vehicles.

Introduction

This paper provides current practice, criteria and efficient choice of load rating
vehicle(s) for load evaluation of existing bridges. It is based on internal notes
regarding criteria and practice for load rating of bridges and consideration of
multiple vehicle presence over structures with varying numbers of heavy
commercial vehicles. It refers to the provisions of the current AS 5100 Bridge
Design – 2004 [1], the relevant sections of the Austroads Guide for Bridge Design
[2] and other background literature that has shaped current practices.

The main objectives of this paper are to facilitate consistent rational and simplified
bridge rating methods for load assessment Engineers.

V. Ponnampalam, H. Madrio and E. Ancich 231

Sustainable Bridges: The Thread of Society
AP-G90/11_122© ABC 2011
232 Colosimo V.

Background to bridge loading standards

Information herein is partially extracted from the NRTC discussion paper [11] and
the AS5100 Part 7 [1].
A design standard specifies maximum stresses that key elements of the bridge can
sustain under repeated loading without incurring damage. When a heavy vehicle
crosses a bridge and the maximum stresses are exceeded, it is possible that
damage to the bridge may result. Even if the damage is minor, repeated crossings
may result in a requirement to repair the damage and, in extreme circumstances,
the bridge may collapse.

The AS 5100 Part 7 [1] includes a method of evaluation of the load capacity of
existing bridges and a means to establish the maximum load that can be carried on
the bridge as a rating factor RF (or fraction) of the chosen rating vehicle. The
rating strength equation is detailed as follows:

For the rest of symbol definitions refer to the AS5100.7 [1]

The evaluation should be carried out by experienced professional engineers and in

brief, should determine the capacity of the bridge under serviceability and the
ultimate limit state. The rating assessment may include the following functions:
Load rating bridge structures – VicRoads Practice 233

• Desktop analysis based on as built bridge information and current condition

measured by inspection.
• Field measurement and inspection for missing information
• Determining characteristic strengths by material testing
An alternative to analytical load rating is to carry out full scale load testing on the
bridge. This may be suitable for some specific bridges such as complex arch
bridges and would include the following type of testing:
• Static Non-destructive or destructive to the ultimate limit.
• Proof ultimate elastic.
• Dynamic for performance under specific vehicles.
The present AS5100 [1] bridge design standard requires that a bridge be designed
for an SM1600 design vehicle with a ‘load factor’ of 1.8, i.e. the bridge must be
capable of supporting a load that is 1.8 times the design load. This load caters for:
• Deterioration of the bridge through aging over its design life;
• The passage of loaded vehicles over the life of the bridge; and
• The support of vehicles carrying indivisible loads and for the occasional
overloaded vehicle to traverse the bridge without failure.
Presently, general access vehicle access performance is approximated by level 1
axle spacing mass schedules with bogie mass regulatory limits. Refer to current
typical vehicle mass indicated by Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Mass limits for trucks in Victoria

- Refer to VicRoads publication [12] for other details)

- Note that GML refers to general mass limit and MLR refers to the higher mass limit allowed
234 Colosimo V.

for a road friendly suspension. Refer to the NRTC [13] for further details.

The design loads used in the past do not necessarily simulate current vehicle mass.
Refer to Fig. 2 which shows the trend of increase in design loads versus the
increase in vehicle mass.

Fig. 2. Increases in legal mass and design loads

Specific mass configurations of relatively recent design vehicles are detailed in

Fig. 3.

Note that the HLP Platforms provide a reasonable resemblance to current single
platforms and should be utilized in determining an upper bound load rating of the
bridge for such permit vehicles, under permit vehicle criteria. This will assist in
and expedite the approval of current platforms by comparing their respective
vehicle effects.

The Austroads Bridge Assessment Group (ABAG) [4] produced typical

commercial vehicle configurations to be used for assessment of potential travel
throughout Australia. The configurations for a six-axle articulated semitrailer, a
nine-axle B-Double and a Double Road Train are set in Fig. 4. For a triple road
train, a third trailer identical to the second trailer of the double road train is added.
Load rating bridge structures – VicRoads Practice 235

Fig. 3. Bridge Design Loads

Fig. 4. Typical freight vehicles.

236 Colosimo V.

Note that the 45.5t Semi-trailer and the 68t 9 axle B-Double are the high mass
vehicles utilised by all States to check and formulate the (MLR) road network for
such vehicle travel. The network consists mainly of MS18 design load bridges or
equivalent in good working order (or under monitor status) for such travel.

Load Rating Criteria for Specific Vehicles

Information in this section is partially based on a recent TMR Queensland survey

response on VicRoads policy, Colosimo [2]. For short to medium length bridges
having two or more lanes (total both directions)

Accompanying vehicle(s) and associated lane factors.

For restricted network combination vehicles; medium mass special purpose

vehicles and permit vehicles (travelling with other traffic): we can use the same
vehicle in the accompanying lane or other heavy vehicles relevant to the expected,
surveyed or measured traffic. In addition multiple lane modification factors
should be used as per the AS5100.7 Table 6.6 for the design vehicle. In brief, the
first lane vehicle loading shall not be factored; the second lane load shall be
factored by 0.8 and subsequent lanes by 0.4.

For the heavier permit vehicles such as platforms, for undivided bridges we
usually do not allow other vehicles on the structure (apart from the permit pilot
vehicle when necessary). For divided carriageway bridges we usually don’t
consider additional vehicle loading in the carriageway with the platform. In
addition for bridges that carry both carriageways consideration should be made for
accompanying vehicles by the use of the AS5100 [1] 50% MS1600 loading (or the
Austroads 1996 [3] T44 design loading) in the other carriageway, positioned to
give the worst effects with accompanying lane factors as per AS5100.2, Table 6.6.
Both of these loadings reflect potential additional vehicles on the structure. The
accompanying Factors do not vary with the size of accompanying vehicle but with
the number of additional lanes loaded.

Position of rating vehicle on the bridge.

The rating vehicle is usually positioned on the design lanes since they are
extracted from the as built drawings of the structure. For existing bridges the
rating vehicle should be positioned on the marked traffic lanes. This is especially
Load rating bridge structures – VicRoads Practice 237

appropriate when they do not coincide with the design lanes. This can be adopted
provided that there is no likelihood of additional lanes being created by reducing
lane width in the foreseeable future, to allow more traffic on the structure.

Multiple vehicle presence for longer span bridges.

Multiple vehicles in the same lane.

The AS5100 Bridge Design does not require consideration of multiple vehicles in
the same lane when rating for the SM1600 Standard bridge capacity. If the bridge
is located on structures where convoys of heavy rating vehicles or similar are
expected statistically, such as freeways and major high commercial vehicle traffic
count roads, then consideration should be given to consider more than one vehicle.
The number of such vehicles should be restricted to the potential number
expected that may affect the capacity of the bridge. Multiple rating vehicle
queuing presence should not be considered where such traffic is unlikely i.e.
usually well away from the metropolitan areas.

The ABAG Guidelines 1997 [4] adopted by VicRoads make the following
recommendations. For vehicles in the same lane adopt headway of 17 m
(minimum clear between the rear axle of front vehicle and front axle of the rear
vehicle). A reduced 8 m headway may be considered for roads with a high number
of commercial vehicles, in areas of low speed where traffic queuing is likely. This
can occur close to traffic lights or other traffic congestion. Other values have been
and should be considered when necessary to portray future traffic and or produce
worse loading effects on the specific structure, such as alternating 8 m and 17m
between following vehicles.

The AS5100 Bridge Standard [1] does not allow other vehicles in the same lane,
when designing for the SM1600 loading. The ABAG Guideline [4] recommended
that for vehicles in the same lane multiple presence factors should be used. It is
therefore recommended that the AS5100 adjoining lane factors be adopted also for
additional vehicles in the same lane, when the spans are long enough to make this
effect relevant. These factors are relevant to other than the SM1600 loading i.e.
they can apply to the T44 rating truck or other chosen rating vehicles.
238 Colosimo V.

Live Load Factor (LF) for rating structures.

The Live Load Factor (LF) should be in accordance with the AS5100 Standard [1]
and as recommended herein:

Current recommended practice is 2.0 for general access vehicles,

1.8 for the SM1600 AS5100 design vehicle; restricted (MLR) network vehicle
travel and higher performance freight vehicles).,

1.5 For the heavy load platform(s) including the HLP320 and HLP400 with 0.1
Dynamic Load Allowance (DLA) at slow 10 km/h travel (or full DLA at normal
speed). The current practice is to use the approximately equivalent 1.4 for a single
trip permit vehicle with 0.0 DLA at 5km/h (or full DLA at normal speed) for very
heavy vehicles. Note that this equivalence was generally allowed by the NAASRA
1976 Specifications [6] Clause 11.6.2 for the overload vehicle, subject to
centreline travel without other vehicles on the bridge.

1.6 For period permit and special purpose vehicles under period permit. This
usually applies to restricted network vehicles such as Cranes and short Low
Loaders.

The rationale for these factors has been extrapolated from the following
references. The AS5100 Standard [1], the NAASRA RoRVL Review Report 1986
[5] and the NAASRA Study Report 1981 [6] publication on road movement of
indivisible items.

Dynamic Load Allowance (DLA) for the Rating (or Assessment)

vehicle.

For general access legal vehicles and restricted network access vehicles, which
include the medium combination vehicles such as B-Doubles and high
performance freight vehicles, we use the DLA as per the AS5100.2 [1].

For heavy permit vehicles (e.g. platform vehicles), we use DLA = 0.1 as per the
AS5100.2 Table 6.7.2 [1]. (Or equivalent DLA = 0 at a steady walking speed of 5
km/h as detailed in section 2 of this paper on Live Load Factors).
Load rating bridge structures – VicRoads Practice 239

Load Rating Procedure for Specific Vehicles

General Requirements

Most bridges that require rating are the older bridges of short spans. The following
procedure aligns itself to rating such bridges with particular emphasis on timber
bridges. It can be applied to most other bridges as well.

Current rating Practice

Current practice for load rating is generally in accordance with the AS5100 Bridge
Design Part 7 [1]. For timber bridges the rating should also be in accordance with
the AS 1720.1 Timber Code [7].

Clause 4.1 of the AS5100.7 [1] states that the procedure shall be to rate the
available live load capacity of the bridge compared with the effects of a nominated
rating vehicle, that is:
• the SM1600 loading for general capacity rating
• a specific live load configuration(s) for general access vehicles e.g. a legal limit
loading; or
• a specific live load configuration for restricted access vehicles, e.g., an
indivisible heavy load vehicle operating under nominated conditions.
Our VicRoads traditional and current practices align very closely with the AS
5100 [1] requirements.
The current practice is to rate the bridge to the above vehicles but to also include
the 42.5t 1,2,3 axle bogie semi-trailer. For a limit that reflects most current
vehicles the current practice is to rate the bridge to the previous T44 1,2,2 Design
truck (of 44 tonne), because it has the following specific advantages:
• For simple spans up to 8 metre the vehicle can simulate the semi-trailer as well
as shorter and lighter vehicles relevant to the original bridge designs.
• For continuity effects, the 1,2 axle bogie portion and the tandem axle straddle
the bridge pier and thus provide a check on continuity effects from the older A
Class bridge design and their associated uniform loading.
• Historically we have proven that this is the most efficient and simplest design
vehicle for rating bridges, to the extent that we have rated most of the older
bridge structures as a percentage of the T44 vehicle gross mass. For example
timber bridges designed to the order of 15t to 25t design loads, if maintained in
240 Colosimo V.

relative good working order, were proven by the same T44 vehicle to have the
same 15t to 25t order of load capacity.
• For longer spans, the same T44 vehicle closely simulates the current high mass
45t restricted access semi-trailer vehicle subject to consideration of multiple
presence. In addition for the medium span range bridges where longer
restricted 68t B-Double vehicles cannot fully load a whole span, this same
vehicle provides reliable load limit values. This takes its usefulness to the order
of 20 m spans and this span range covers most if not all of the older bridges
requiring rating.

Load rating considerations

The NAASRA ERVL Review of Road Vehicle Limits for vehicles using
Australian roads reported in 1974 [8] that in order to allow travel by typical
modern vehicles and define new axle spacing schedules for their creation (such as
the semi-trailer) that they would consider as part of the review potential maximum
overstress limits on different bridge materials which included an overstress factor
of 133 % for timber. This overstress was then translated into an equivalent
overstress factor of 1.35 with respect to the design bending moment. The same
information was confirmed in the 1986 RoRVL review of road vehicle limits [5]
with a 20 % reduction for setting the actual axle spacing mass schedules. The
RoRVL report noted that "Bridges stressed within this range will be serviceable
for sufficient time to defer reconstruction or strengthening". The NAASRA
committee defined acceptable levels of repeated overstress which included the 133
% for timber.

The traditional NAASRA Specification [9] design live load distribution to

superstructure beams is considered relevant for older bridges designed prior to
1992. The simple distribution was based on the beam spacing. That same
distribution should not be used for current rating without due consideration of
potential changes to the original bridge beam arrangement etc.

For modified bridges where actions have been taken in order to reduce the original
loading over the structure or improve the distribution of such loading the
NAASRA distribution is not considered appropriate. For example additional
beams may have been placed under the anticipated wheel line travel of vehicles.
For such modified bridges a finite element analysis or grillage analysis is required
to ensure that the strengthening is properly considered in regards to the remaining
weakest member of the superstructure and in turn the substructure components.
Examples of such modifications include the following:
Load rating bridge structures – VicRoads Practice 241

• Reducing the width between kerbs in order to reduce the bridge to one lane
travel and also to position the vehicle near the bridge centre line to improve the
load distribution.
• Adding and or strengthening beams covering the expected wheel tracks of the
heavy truck vehicles.\
• Replacing current beams with stronger beams which tend to attract additional
loading and lighten the rest.
Previous rating examples for short span bridges have indicated that the T44
vehicle represents/covers most others including smaller and shorter vehicles. In
other words some shorter vehicles can create lower rating limit values (in
comparison to the relevant parts of the T44 vehicle that is on the same span) but
the difference is not exceptional and can be considered as not providing undue risk
in regards to the additional stresses. Refer to Fig. 5 which shows legal loads
relevant to rating the older design load bridges.

Fig. 5. Design vehicles and various legal loads (Refer: Balfe P. and Meggs [10])

The alternative of placing emphasis to a short lighter vehicle check alone, (which
by the way may tend to represent the original two axle design vehicle of 1,1 axle
bogie to approximately 15 t) would not allow travel by appropriate longer vehicles
such as the 42.5t semitrailers. In other words when we allow a semitrailer of 42.5t
242 Colosimo V.

over a short span timber bridge in reality we are allowing a 1,2 axle vehicle of
22.5t or a tri-axle bogie 2.4 m long of 20t but not both. For most short to medium
span bridges the 42.5t legal semi-trailer produces similar loading effects to the
MS18 design vehicle. Refer to Fig. 6 which compares the simple loading effects
of the MS18 (42.5t) Legal load to the older A Class bridges etc. This plot as
expected indicates that the short span A Class bridges in good working order
would be expected to have in the order of 0.6 T44 capacity or an approximate load
rating of 26 tonne on the 1,2,2 axle bogie semi-trailer.

Fig. 6. Comparison of Simply Supported Vehicle Bending Moments

Traditionally the structures group (represented by the decisions of past experts in

this field both in Victoria and some other states), have accepted that the T44
vehicle is the most reliable design vehicle, for load rating the older short span
(and timber) bridges. This has allowed the continued successful use of such
bridges in Victoria. The current heavy load inventory shows the bridge rating as a
factor of T44 which is also used (often, by comparison) to consider travel of most
other vehicles on such structures. This vehicle is therefore still considered the
most relevant rating vehicle for the purpose of allowing travel by most current
legal vehicles.
Load rating bridge structures – VicRoads Practice 243

Future Load Rating.

Rating of the older bridges should be carried out in accordance with both current
bridge design standards and the original design taking into account later bridge
modifications and the current condition of the structure. In addition, analysis
should be carried out for the T44 design vehicle representing most current
vehicles. Multiple presence of heavy vehicles (both in adjacent lanes and
following lanes) should be considered, if relevant to the bridge site and for
anticipated future traffic trends.

For strengthened or modified bridges an appropriate and more detailed analysis

such as grillage analysis should also be undertaken.

Posting of load limits should also be considered for specific single, tandem and tri-
axle bogie mass of heavy trucks, rather than the current single gross mass load
limit.

Acknowledgements:

The author wishes to thank the Executive Director of VicRoads Technical and
Information Services Mr. Peter Mitchem for his permission to publish this paper.
The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance provided by VicRoads Technical
Consulting Structures support staff. The views expressed in this paper are those of
the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of VicRoads.
244 Colosimo V.

References

[1] Austroads, A.R.A.I. and S.A. AS 5100 “Bridge Design” standard, Austroads Incorporated,
Sydney, 2004.
[2] Austroads Guide for Bridge Design, 2009. Colosimo V., E-mail Note to Rudolf Kotze on
‘Bridge Rating Criteria for VicRoads’ in response to the TMR Queensland survey request,
18 Th. March 2011.
[3] Austroads ‘Australian Bridge Design Code’, Sydney 1996.
[4] Austroads bridge assessment group (ABAG), ‘Guidelines for Bridge Load capacity
Assessment’, November 1997.
[5] NAASRA RoRVL ‘Review of Road Vehicle Limits for vehicles using Australian roads’,
Technical Supplement Volume 2, Sydney April 1986.
[6] NAASRA, Study Report on ‘Study of Road Movement of Indivisible Items, Recommended
Mass and Associated Dimension Limits’, 1981.
[7] AS 1720.1, Timber Structures , Sydney 1997.
[8] NAASRA ERVL, ‘Review of Road Vehicle Limits’, 1974.
[9] NAASRA, ‘Bridge design specifications’, Sydney 1976.
[10] Balfe P. and Meggs R.C. ‘Restoration of timber bridges’, RCA and LGEAoV 43 Rd
Conference of Municipal Engineers 3,4 & 6 March 1987.
[11] VicRoads, ‘Mass Limits for Truck in Victoria”, Web page publication, February 2007.
[12] NRTC, ‘Definitions of potential performance measures and initial standards’, discussion
paper (April 2001).
[13] NRTC, ‘recommendations of the Mass limits Review’, 1996.