Freight

Cover of Review of Axle Spacing Mass Schedules and Future Framework for Assessment of Heavy Vehicle Access Applications
Review of Axle Spacing Mass Schedules and Future Framework for Assessment of Heavy Vehicle Access Applications
  • Publication no: AP-R466-14
  • ISBN: 978-1-925037-79-1
  • Published: 10 September 2014

A key component to improving freight productivity in Australia is to improve access to the network for heavy vehicle operators. Assessment of bridge capacity is perceived to be critical to this aim.

Currently bridge evaluation occurs using the performance based standards which only allow fast assessments up to the equivalent of the MS18 design load using the current bridge formulae. This project demonstrates the development of an assessment framework to allow fast assessment of bridges using a simple line model comparison approach.

The process involves setting service levels that reflect the historic design levels adopted historically to design bridges. A reference vehicle can then be selected and calibrated to the service level. The results of the study show that the process is reasonable to assess the moment capacity of a bridge.

There is more variability in the results related to the shear capacity which, for the majority of bridges in Australia will not be a significant issue however for shear critical structures the method should be used with caution. The study only related to simply supported bridges.

  • 1. Introduction
    • 1.1. Background
    • 1.2. Project Aims
    • 1.3. Scope of this Report
    • 1.4. Outline
    • 1.5. Key Terms
  • 2. Review of Current Assessment Processes and Administration for Heavy Vehicle Access to Bridges
    • 2.1. Types of Assessment Processes
      • 2.1.1. Design Vehicle Comparison
      • 2.1.2. Use of ASMS for Evaluation
      • 2.1.3. Line Load Analysis with Distribution Factors
      • 2.1.4. 2D Grillage Analysis
      • 2.1.5. Load Rating Comparison ‘Equivalent Ratings’
      • 2.1.6. Higher Order Analysis
      • 2.1.7. Testing
      • 2.1.8. Tiered Assessment
    • 2.2. Performance-based Standards
    • 2.3. Current and Future Regulatory Conditions in Australia
    • 2.4. Risk Ownership
    • 2.5. Discussion and Forward Direction
  • 3. Framework for a Nationally Consistent Assessment for Heavy Vehicle Access to Bridges
    • 3.1. Overview of Proposed Framework
    • 3.2. Service Levels
      • 3.2.1. Purpose of Service Levels
      • 3.2.2. Discrete Versus Continuous Service Levels
      • 3.2.3. Selection of Appropriate Service Levels for the Framework
      • 3.2.4. Configuration of Service Levels
      • 3.2.5. Mapping Service Levels to Design Capacities
    • 3.3. Jurisdictional Evaluation of Service Levels
      • 3.3.1. Overview
      • 3.3.2. Tiered Approach to Assessment
      • 3.3.3. Bridge Assessment Guidelines
    • 3.4. Heavy Vehicle Assessment Module
      • 3.4.1. Rationale of the Line Model Analysis
      • 3.4.2. Limitations
      • 3.4.3. Additional Assessment Parameters
    • 3.5. Proposed Application Interface Criteria
      • 3.5.1. The Application Process
      • 3.5.2. GIS Capability
      • 3.5.3. Partial Access
      • 3.5.4. Example Interface
    • 3.6. Suggested Regulatory Structure and Recommendations for Implementation
  • 4. Detailed Methodology for the Assessment of Heavy Vehicle Access to Bridges
    • 4.1. Justification of Line Model Comparison
      • 4.1.1. Validation Process
      • 4.1.2. Vehicle Selection
      • 4.1.3. Bridge Type Selection
      • 4.1.4. Line Model Analysis
      • 4.1.5. Grillage Model Analysis
      • 4.1.6. Example of Validation Process
      • 4.1.7. Results for an Example Bridge
      • 4.1.8. Results for all Bridges in the Study
      • 4.1.9. Discussion of the Results
    • 4.2. Selection of Service Levels
      • 4.2.1. Bridge Capacities and Design Vehicles
      • 4.2.2. Service Level Mapping Procedure
      • 4.2.3. Service Level Mapping Process
      • 4.2.4. Assigning Service Levels
  • 5. Conclusions and Recommendations
    • 5.1. Conclusions
    • 5.2. Recommendations
    • 5.3. Future Work
  • References
  • Appendix A International Practice of Assessment of Heavy Vehicle Access to Bridges
  • A.1 United Kingdom Practice
  • A.1.1 Highways Agency
  • A.1.2 Standards for the Assessment of Bridges
  • A.2 United States Practice
  • A.2.1 Indiana Department of Transport
  • A.2.2 Federal Authorities
  • Appendix B Stakeholder Survey on Current and Future Use of Axle Spacing Mass Schedules
  • B.1 DPTI – Alistair Paul, Bridge Group
  • B.1.1 Current use of Axle Spacing Mass (ASMS) Schedules
  • B.1.2 Use of Other Techniques for Assessing Access to Networks
  • B.1.3 Use of ASMS for vehicle design
  • B.1.4 Nationally Consistent Approach to Heavy Vehicle Access Assessment
  • B.1.5 Areas of Development
  • B.1.6 Nationally Consistent Loading Levels
  • B.1.7 Support for the Proposed Framework
  • B.1.8 Further development of ASMS/bridge formulae
  • B.1.9 Opportunity for Additional Comment
  • B.2 NZTA – John Reynolds, Bridge Group
  • B.2.1 Current use of Axle Spacing Mass (ASMS) Schedules
  • B.2.2 Use of Other Techniques for Assessing Access to Networks
  • B.2.3 Use of ASMS for Vehicle Design
  • B.2.4 Nationally Consistent Approach to Heavy Vehicle Access Assessment
  • B.2.5 Areas of Development
  • B.2.6 Nationally Consistent Loading Levels
  • B.2.7 Support for the Proposed Framework
  • B.2.8 Further Development of ASMS/Bridge Formulae
  • B.2.9 Opportunity for Additional Comment
  • B.3 VicRoads – Alex Ng, Technical Consulting
  • B.3.1 Current use of Axle Spacing Mass (ASMS) Schedules
  • B.3.2 Use of Other Techniques for Assessing Access to Networks
  • B.3.3 Use of ASMS for Vehicle Design
  • B.3.4 Nationally Consistent Approach to Heavy Vehicle Access Assessment
  • B.3.5 Areas of Development
  • B.3.6 Nationally Consistent Loading Levels
  • B.3.7 Support for the Proposed Framework
  • B.3.8 Further Development of ASMS/Bridge Formulae
  • B.3.9 Opportunity for Additional Comment
  • B.4 VicRoads – Ian Mond, Heavy Vehicle Policy Manager
  • B.4.1 Current use of Axle Spacing Mass (ASMS) Schedules
  • B.4.2 Use of Other Techniques for Assessing Access to Networks
  • B.4.3 Use of ASMS for vehicle design
  • B.4.4 Nationally Consistent Approach to Heavy Vehicle Access Assessment
  • B.4.5 Areas of Development
  • B.4.6 Nationally Consistent Loading Levels
  • B.4.7 Support for the Proposed Framework
  • B.4.8 Further development of ASMS/bridge formulae
  • B.4.9 Opportunity for Additional Comment
  • B.5 ATA – David Coonan
  • B.5.1 Current use of Axle Spacing Mass (ASMS) Schedules
  • B.5.2 Use of Other Techniques for Assessing Access to Networks
  • B.5.3 Use of ASMS for Vehicle Design
  • B.5.4 Nationally Consistent Approach to Heavy Vehicle Access Assessment
  • B.5.5 Areas of Development
  • B.5.6 Nationally Consistent Loading Levels
  • B.5.7 Support for the Proposed Framework
  • B.5.8 Further Development of ASMS/Bridge Formulae
  • B.5.9 Opportunity for Additional Comment
  • B.6 Department of Infrastructure and Transport – Andrew Hyles, Heavy Vehicle Productivity and Pricing
  • B.7 NHVR – Greg Forbes
  • B.8 RMS – Parvez Shah
  • B.8.1 Current use of Axle Spacing Mass (ASMS) Schedules
  • B.8.2 Use of Other Techniques for Assessing Access to Networks
  • B.8.3 Use of ASMS for Vehicle Design
  • B.8.4 Nationally Consistent Approach to Heavy Vehicle Access Assessment
  • B.8.5 Areas of Development
  • B.8.6 Nationally Consistent Loading Levels
  • B.8.7 Support for the Proposed Framework
  • B.8.8 Further Development of ASMS/Bridge Formulae
  • B.8.9 Opportunity for Additional Comment
  • B.9 Main Roads WA – Mahes Rajakaruna
  • B.9.1 Current use of Axle Spacing Mass (ASMS) Schedules
  • B.9.2 Use of Other Techniques for Assessing Access to Networks
  • B.9.3 Use of ASMS for vehicle design
  • B.9.4 Nationally Consistent Approach to Heavy Vehicle Access Assessment
  • B.9.5 Areas of Development
  • B.9.6 Nationally Consistent Loading Levels
  • B.9.7 Support for the Proposed Framework
  • B.9.8 Further development of ASMS/bridge formulae
  • B.9.9 Opportunity for Additional Comment
  • Appendix C Mock Example Web Based Interface for the Application Process
  • C.1 Login and Menu
  • C.2 Main Menu Page
  • C.3 Route Permit Application – Vehicle Selection and Configuration
  • C.4 Route Permit Application – Vehicle Selection and Configuration
  • C.5 Network Permit Application
  • C.6 Network Viewer Module
  • C.7 Fleet Management Module
  • Appendix D Vehicles
  • Appendix E Validation Process
  • Appendix F Bridge Details and Analysis
  • F.1 001GTMR
  • F.1.1 Plan and Typical Section of Structure
  • F.1.2 T44 Reference Vehicle Results
  • F.1.3 Vehicle Moment and Shear Results
  • F.1.4 Ratio of Line Models and Grillage Models
  • F.1.5 Validation Plots for Moment and Shear
  • F.2 PN75438
  • F.2.1 Plan and Typical Section of Structure
  • F.2.2 T44 Reference Vehicle Results
  • F.2.3 Vehicle Moment and Shear Results
  • F.2.4 Ratio of Line Models and Grillage Models
  • F.2.5 Validation Plots for Moment and Shear
  • F.3 PN3331
  • F.3.1 Plan and Typical Section of Structure
  • F.3.2 T44 Reference Vehicle Results
  • F.3.3 Vehicle Moment and Shear Results
  • F.3.4 Ratio of Line Models and Grillage Models
  • F.3.5 Validation Plots for Moment and Shear
  • F.4 PN2231
  • F.4.1 Plan and Typical Section of Structure
  • F.4.2 T44 Reference Vehicle Results
  • F.4.3 Vehicle Moment and Shear Results
  • F.4.4 Ratio of Line Models and Grillage Models
  • F.4.5 Validation Plots for Moment and Shear
  • F.5 PN3091
  • F.5.1 Plan and Typical Section of Structure
  • F.5.2 T44 Reference Vehicle Results
  • F.5.3 Vehicle Moment and Shear Results
  • F.5.4 Ratio of Line Models and Grillage Models
  • F.5.5 Validation Plots for Moment and Shear
  • F.6 PN3356
  • F.6.1 Plan and Typical Section of Structure
  • F.6.2 T44 Reference Vehicle Results
  • F.6.3 Vehicle Moment and Shear Results
  • F.6.4 Ratio of Line Models and Grillage Models
  • F.6.5 Validation Plots for Moment and Shear
  • F.7 PN85686
  • F.7.1 Plan and Typical Section of Structure
  • F.7.2 T44 Reference Vehicle Results
  • F.7.3 Vehicle Moment and Shear Results
  • F.7.4 Ratio of Line Models and Grillage Models
  • F.7.5 Validation Plots for Moment and Shear