Bridge Assessment

A comparison of approaches by bridge engineers

and the Performance Based Standards Scheme

Contents

1. Bridge Terminology for Non-bridge Engineers.................................................................... 2

2. Tiers in Bridge Assessment................................................................................................ 2
3. Bridge Engineer Assessment Methodology........................................................................ 3
4. PBS Bridge Assessment.................................................................................................... 4
5. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................... 5
Appendix A Comparison PBS Scheme Rules and Austroads 1994 Bridge Formula.............. 5
References............................................................................................................................. 5

Austroads 2019 | page 1

 This document describes the discrepancy between the tiers of bridge assessment documented in the Heavy
Vehicle National Law’s Performance Based Standards (PBS) scheme and the tiers of assessment Austroads
bridge engineers adopt when conducting assessments to safely maximise access to road bridges and culverts.

1. Bridge Terminology for Non-bridge Engineers Figure 2: Simply Supported Spans

Consider a flat stick between two supports, a vertical load is

applied to the centre of the member (superstructure) and it
deflects downwards.
The structural effects that cause this behaviour are:
• Moment: the induced forces in the member as a result of the
bending
Figure 3: Continuous Bridges
• Shear: the vertically upward capacity to resist the applied load,
highest near the support
• Reaction: the sum of the shear forces from the span/s resisted
by a support (substructure)

Figure 1: Bridge Terminology

Load

Superstructure

Substructure
Shear

Reaction

2. Tiers in Bridge Assessment

Differing levels of effort will lead to different levels of accuracy. In looking at the safety of bridges, asset owners will allow access using
a tiered or staged approach where accuracy and effort is increased should a lower tier analysis not provide the desired results. There is
a cost-benefit consideration to this whereby increasing effort may never produce the desired results and so analysis is stopped.
There are two different methodologies of bridge assessment:
1. That undertaken by bridge engineers
2. The process in the Performance-Based Standards (PBS) Scheme – the Standards and Vehicle Assessment Rules (PBS) dated 10
November 2008

Table 1: Relativity between PBS and Bridge Engineer Tier Assessments

PBS* Bridge Engineers

PBS Tier 1 (General Access or Restricted Access)
Must meet the PBS Bridge Formula.
PBS Tier 2 (Special Access) Bridge Engineer, Tier 1 (Access assessment)
Must not cause more effects than existing commercial vehicles Line model (comparison) comparing load effect of applicant
acceptable to the bridge owner. vehicle and design vehicle.
PBS Tier 3 (Specific Link Access) Bridge Engineer Tier 2 (Structural assessment AS5100.7)
Detailed individual bridge assessment. Grillage model / Line model (analysis) and structural analysis.
Approval by the owners of the bridges to use all of the May consider condition of structures.
bridges on a spcific link based on a detailed individual bridge Output is travel conditions if any for heavy vehicle access to
assessment. network.
Bridge Engineer, Tier 3 (and higher levels)
More advanced method, bridge specific analysis and use
of international standards that are more sophisticated than
AS5100.
Non-linear analysis, load testing to support either recalibration of
computer models / determination of capacity.

page 2 | Austroads 2019

3. Bridge Engineer Assessment Methodology
The bridge engineers’ assessment methodology is based on AS 5100.7:2017.
• The assessment methodology starts at the simplest method, Tier 1 and proceeds to increasing tiers as required.
• Tier 1 bridge engineer assessment is a simple comparison of load effects from an accepted reference vehicle (either design load or
a network as of right vehicle) and the subject vehicle (application or permit vehicle)not taking into account structural capacity and the
condition of the bridge.
• Tier 2 bridge engineer assessment is a load rating of a structure taking into account actual capacities on key critical sections. This
can be line-beam models, simple 2D or 3D grillage analyses that needs to take into account actual capacities.
• Tier 3 assessment is expensive and only used sparingly. Additionally, Tier 3 may produce a lower capacity than Tier 2.

Bridge Tier 1: Comparison of Effect of Design Load with Bridge Tier 2: Analysis
Vehicle Being Assessed A Tier 2 assessment involves a grillage model of the bridge. The
A line model analysis is undertaken between the design vehicle grillage model permits and models distribution of load between
and the application (most likely permit) vehicle for the bridge members.
being assessed. The parameters Simply Supported Structures,
The structural capacity of the bridge is reviewed in accordance
Continuous Span and the support condition are considered.
with current codes. AS 5100-2017 provides the basis of bridge
Simply Supported Structures: assessment.
• Maximum (Mid span) moment A Tier 2 bridge assessment typically includes:
• Shear at support and every change of section and • Review of supplied drawings and Level 2 inspection reports
reinforcement.
• Preparation of analytical (grillage) models of the bridge
• Reaction at abutment and pier as required. For one span
• Determination of load effects for a range of predetermined
structures, abutment reaction is only considered. For multiple
Assessment/Rating Vehicles and Travel Conditions
span structures, pier reaction will also be considered.
• Determination of bridge capacities
Continuous Span:
• Calculation of Assessment Ratios (not in all jurisdictions
• Maximum Sagging moment
• Comparison with Permit Vehicle effects
• Hogging moment
• Tabulation of the Assessment Ratios (not in all jurisdictions)
• Shear at support and every change of section and
• Preparation of a Tier 2 assessment report.
reinforcement
• Reaction at support. At abutment for all structures. At pier, for
multiple span structures.
No structural assessment is undertaken by this process although
it relies on previous structural assessment to determine the
acceptable reference baseline for the structure. If an assessment
fails, a higher tier assessment may be undertaken.

Bridge Tier 3: Assessment

A Tier 3 Assessment is an advanced assessment process when a Tier 2 assessment indicates that a bridge has a theoretical structural
deficiency and the calculated deficiency is not confirmed by a bridge inspection.
Tier 3 assessments utilise:
• Higher level advanced analyses including non-linear and plastic methods
• Higher level and more accurate means of determining structural capacity
• Assessment methods based on overseas standards, other Australian Standards and other recognised methods, including:
-- Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code CSA-S6-06, which utilises modified compression field theory for determining the shear
strength of concrete. Its strut-tie provisions are also useful.
-- fib Model Code, which provides a range of more sophisticated methods for determining the structural capacity of concrete
members.
-- AS/ISO 13822, which provides a generic approach and other criteria useful for assessment.
-- Dutch NEN 8700 and Swiss SIA 269 codes, which define short-term higher risk criteria until the design and remedial work can be
completed to restore the bridge to a higher Reliability Index.
• Field and laboratory testing to understand the in-service performance of bridges and the loads applied to bridges
• Collection and/or the analysis of reliable weigh-in-motion (WIM) data.
It is essential that the Tier 3 assessment is robust and based on good engineering principles. Generally, a peer review process would
be undertaken to confirm that Tier 3 methodology is technically sound.

Austroads 2019 | page 3

 4. PBS Bridge Assessment
The freight community assessment does not consider the condition of the bridge.

PBS Tier 1: Bridge Formula

The PBS tier 1 bridge access formula is a simplified method of facilitating access to bridge structures. It is an axle group mass and
spacing formula which, if a PBS vehicle design complies with, is assumed to limit the load effects of the vehicle to not exceed the
structural capacity of (the majority) of bridges. Whilst described as a ‘bridge loading standard’, it is fundamentally a ‘gating’ formula
enabling access for vehicles to bridge structures in the absence of a structural analysis being undertaken.
The PBS tier 1 bridge access formula supports rapid and efficient access decisions within the PBS scheme. It also supports vehicle
design by establishing mass and spacing parameters that can be targeted in the design process
The PBS tier 1 bridge access formula does not equate to:
• a structural engineering analysis;
• assessment of bridge structure capacity; or
• a specific bridge’s capacity to support a nominated load.
Within structural engineering practice there are concerns that compliance with the PBS tier 1 bridge formula does not ensure that load
effects from a compliant vehicle will not overload/overstress structures. There are also concerns that it doesn’t meet the intent of the
original bridge access formula. Additionally there are concerns about the validity of the formula and its applicability as a determinant for
access to all bridges on a network.
The original ‘bridge access formula’ was:
• developed in the early 1990s on the basis of structural engineering analysis and input.
• developed with reference to, and is only confirmed as applying to, a select range (but assumed to be the majority) of bridge inventory.
• developed with limits on maximum span length and maximum mass. An ‘allowable’ overstress was included in the formula on the
assumption that the bridge was in good condition.
• not developed with the intent of being applicable to all bridge inventory, but only to bridges designed to MS18 / H20S16 standard (the
bridge design standard from 1953 to 1976) or better.
The original ‘bridge access formula’ had an explicit and underlying access management caveat was provided that access would have:
“route selection is [sic] based upon the MS18 design standard as a minimum in conjunction with the spans of bridges on the
routes used” (Austroads 1994, p 7); and
“require….assess[ment] on an individual or route basis, bridges which were designed for less than MS18 loading and/ or are
poor condition where it is intended to establish restricted access routes or areas” (Austroads 1994, p 31).
When the PBS tier 1 bridge access formulas were developed:
• the caveats on applicability of the formula in relation to: span lengths; maximum mass; structure condition; and design class, were
omitted.
• such assumption/presumption was/is not correct and significant network exposure exists as a result.
• Appendix A details the difference between the original 1994 Austroads Bridge Formula and the PBS Bridge Formula (2008).
Despite the identified structural engineering concerns, the PBS Tier 1 bridge loading formula is part of the Heavy Vehicle National Law,
and as such remains a valid access assessment process within the PBS scheme.
However while a PBS vehicle may comply with the PBS tier 1 bridge access formula, the PBS scheme notes within the definition of the
PBS A4 Bridge Loading Standard (National Transport Commission 2008) provide a basis for road managers to use PBS tier 2 or PBS
tier 3 assessment if required.
While this is consistent with the wording of assessments within the PBS scheme it is likely to affect the rapid and efficient access for
tier 1 compliant vehicles.

PBS Tier 2: Must Not Cause More Effects Than Existing PBS Tier 3: Detailed individual bridge assessment
Commercial Vehicles Acceptable to Bridge Owner This is equivalent to Bridge Tier 2. It is based on structural
Similar to Bridge Tier 1, there is a lack of clarity in regards to the assessment.
definition. The asset owner determines the acceptable limit and
The original basis for determining the assessment of the bridges
that is generally by design load or an approved network as of
was on the basis of mid span bending moment.
right vehicle that the asset owner has calculated and calibrated
the network for. There is an expectation from the PBS process Other critical structural factors that were not considered:
that this is any PBS vehicle currently granted access (sometimes • Shear at support and change of section
these consents are exceptions to the rule and cannot be taken as
precedent). There is consensus view amongst asset owners that
• Abutment reaction
this needs to be conducted by a pre-qualified bridge engineer • Pier reaction
with sufficient experience and capability. For continuous span, bridge assessment also needs to take into
account hogging moment.
This is performed by the asset owner.

page 4 | Austroads 2019

5. Conclusion
There is a discrepancy between the tiers of bridge assessment as documented in the PBS scheme and the tiers of assessment that
Austroads bridge engineers adopt when conducting bridge assessments to safely maximise access to road bridges and culverts.
This discrepancy is explained in this document. From a structural engineering viewpoint, the Bridge Formulae in the Axle Spacing
Mass Schedules as they exist in the NHVL do not apply to the entire bridge inventory, is missing critical maximum validity limits on
span ranges and masses and ignores structural condition. Additionally, the formulae does not take into account the advances in bridge
strength subsequent to the MS18 design load (1953-1976).

Appendix A Comparison PBS Scheme Rules and Austroads 1994 Bridge Formula

PBS Scheme Clause A4.5 Bridge

Criteria Austroads 1994
Formula
Bridge Formula is All bridges irrespective of spans, design It applies to simply supported spans to 20 metres maximum
applicable for the class or condition
It applies to continuous spans to 10m maximum
following bridges
The bridge must be designed to MS18 (or H20-S16) loading or better
The bridge must be in Condition State 2 or better
PBS Level 1 M = 3L + 12.5 for M <=42.5 t; and M = 3L + 12.5 for M <=42.5 t; and
M = L + 32.5 for M >=42.5t M = L + 32.5 for M >=42.5t to a maximum of 50 tonnes
PBS Level 2 M = 3L + 12.5 for M<=46.5t; and M = 3L + 12.5 for M<=46.5t; and
M = 1.5L + 29.5 for M >= 46.5t M = 1.5L + 29.5 for M >= 46.5t to a maximum of 62.5 tonnes
PBS Level 3 M = 3L + 12.5 for all M M = 3L + 12.5 for M to a maximum of 132 tonnes
PBS Level 4 M = 3L + 12.5 for all M M = 3L + 12.5 for M<=46.5t; and
M = 1.5L + 29.5 for M >= 46.5t to a maximum of 106 tonnes
Other comments PBS Rules have no maximum limit on M Each criteria has upper limit

The minimum distance, L (metres), between the extreme axles of any two axle groups – for a given total gross mass, M (tonnes), on
the axles within that distance – is controlled by the relevant bridge formula.
Condition State 2 = Fair
There are jurisdictional rules for HML vehicles such as internal clear space rules that need to be complied with.

References
Austroads 1994, Review of Axle Spacing/Mass Schedule for General Access and Restricted Access Vehicles, AP-113-94, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Retrieved from https://austroads.com.au/publications/freight/ap-113-94
National Transport Commission 2008, Performance Based Standards Scheme – The Standards and Vehicle Assessment Rules, National Transport
Commission, Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved from https://www.ntc.gov.au/Media/Reports/(098E8420-09E4-AACA-B3DB-9AB1D7B55CF3).pdf
Heavy Vehicle National Law Act 2012 (Qld). Retrieved from https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/2017-07-01/act-2012-021

Australian Standards
AS 5100.7:2017, Bridge design Bridge assessment.
AS ISO 13822-2005, Basis for design of structures - Assessment of existing structures

International Standards
CAN/CSA-S6-06 (R2012), Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code
MC2010, fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010
NEN 8700, Basis of structural assessment of existing structures - Buildings - The minimum safety level
SIA 269/0, Existing structures – Basis of conservation
SIA 269/1, Existing structures – Actions
SIA 269/2, Existing structures – Concrete structures
SIA 269/3, Existing structures – Steel structures
SIA 269/4, Existing structures – Steel-concrete composite structures
SIA 269/5, Existing structures – Timber structures
SIA 269/6, Existing structures – Masonry structures
SIA 269/7, Existing structures – Geotechnical aspects
SIA 269/8, Existing structures - Earthquake

Austroads 2019 | page 5

 Austroads
Level 9, 287 Elizabeth Street, Sydney NSW 2000, Australia
[email protected] | austroads.com.au

Bridge Assessment: A comparison of approaches by bridge engineers

and the Performance Based Standards Scheme
Published: March 2019
Austroads publication number: AP-C103-19
ISBN: 978-1-925854-16-9
Author: Austroads Bridge Task Force

page 6 | Austroads 2019