Road Design Note

Guidelines for the protection of gantry RDN 06-13

and cantilever sign supports January 2019

1. Purpose 3. Safe system

The purpose of this Road Design Note (RDN) is to provide VicRoads adopts a Safe System approach of shared
additional guidance to designers when considering the responsibility, which means designers need to recognise that
protection of gantry and cantilever sign supports located in humans, as road users are fallible and will continue to make
close proximity to traffic lanes. mistakes on the road. In a Safe System, roads would also be
designed to reduce the severity of crashes when they inevitably
Gantry and cantilever signs not only pose a roadside risk to
occur.
errant vehicle occupants, but also to other road users should
they collapse following impact. Therefore, unlike other roadside Forgiving treatments which reduce the severity of an injury,
hazards, the potential risk of collapse and additional risk to third such as Wire Rope Safety Barrier (WRSB), are preferred over
party road users, means designers need to consider whether a less forgiving (more rigid) systems and should be used where
higher level of protection is required to mitigate the risk. they meet the objectives of the site.
This RDN must be read in conjunction with the Austroads For Gantry and Cantilever protection, barrier combinations
Guide to Road Design (AGRD) and VicRoads supplements should be considered to provide both a forgiving and higher
(VRS). The information provided is intended to complement containment barrier to reduce the likelihood of a vehicle
other guidelines hence VicRoads should be sought for occupant injury and structure collapse.
clarification, regarding any unusual discrepancies.
This RDN does not apply to the protection of bridge piers, 4. Additional risk
approach barriers or on bridges. In these cases, AS 5100 and Gantry and cantilever sign supports are a potentially greater
relevant VicRoads Bridge Technical Notes must be used. hazard than other roadside hazards (e.g. tree or batter) given
their value to the network and consequence (or severity) in the
2. Background event of a collapse.
This RDN has been issued in response to an increasing In addition to AGRD Part 6 and VRS, Gantry and Cantilever
demand for gantry and cantilever structures on which static supports should be designed with consideration of additional
route information signs, Variable Message Signs, Lane Use risks to a potential third party in accordance with this RDN.
Management Signs and Intelligent Transport Systems are
Additional risks, specific to Gantry and Cantilever supports,
provided.
should include the following:
It is necessary that designers understand and consider the
• Consequence of a collapse. (4.1)
additional risks specific to gantry and cantilever supports.
Designers should consider the protection of errant vehicle • Provision of a safe workplace. (4.2)
occupants and a potential third-party road user when
• Potential disruption to the network due to a collapse. (4.3)
determining the most appropriate protection.
• Asset value / repair cost (4.4)
While current guidelines, such as AGRD Part 6 and VicRoads
supplements, assist designers to assess and treat the risk of
vehicle-to-hazard impacts, the consideration of third-party risk
and consequence is not yet provided.

RDN 06-13 Page 1 of 19 Final v1.1 January 2019

 RDN 06-13 – Guidelines for the protection of gantry and cantilever sign supports

4.1. Consequence of a collapse Where gantry supports are shown to collapse in a predictable,
uniform manner and a vehicle can be expected to avoid the
This additional risk considers the likelihood that a collapse will
hazard, the risk of third-party incident may be reduced.
occur, and the potential consequence to a third party in the
event of a collapse (e.g. a collapsed structure impacting a
vehicle).
4.2. Provision of a safe workplace
Gantry and Cantilever structures can be designed for easy
4.1.1. Likelihood of a collapse access and maintenance under live traffic. Where a gantry or
The likelihood of collapse is a function of ‘impact frequency’ cantilever structure is intended as a workplace for maintenance
and ‘structural capacity to resist an impact’. In other words, personnel, the following must apply:
the probability that an errant vehicle will impact the support with Section 28 of the Victorian OHS Act 2004, states that “a person
enough energy to cause a collapse. who designs a structure, who knows that the structure is to be
used as a workplace, must ensure that it is designed to be safe
Initially gantry and cantilever supports are not designed to and without risks to the health of persons using it as a workplace
withstand impacts from vehicles, the same way that supporting for a purpose for which it was designed.” 20
bridge piers are, and will collapse as a result of any impact. The designer of a workplace gantry should therefore consider
the need of a higher barrier containment level based on the
The likely frequency that an errant vehicle may impact the
frequency of maintenance, the routine tasks undertaken and
support will depend on traffic exposure (volume) and can be
the program to coordinate additional safety controls during
determined with quantitative analysis methods, such as those
work hours, such as a temporary speed reduction or adjacent
specified in AGRD Part 6, Section 4.5 and 4.6 (e.g. RASPv39).
lane closure during access.
Where a safety barrier is provided, the likelihood of impact and
collapse will be reduced to include only vehicles that penetrate 4.3. Disruption to the network
or vault the selected barrier. Higher barrier containment levels Gantry and Cantilever supports are typically located on high
will reduce the risk of penetration further, while specific barrier speed, high volume roads and are used to house vital network
types can be used to provide a more consistent mechanism of infrastructure. Designers should recognise that in the event of a
failure. See Section 6.4. collapse, there could be a direct and/or indirect effect on the
If gantry and cantilever supports can be designed to withstand network operation.
a vehicle impact (see Section 7.3), the likelihood of a collapse The primary network disruption factors that require
can be further calibrated to vehicles with an impact energy that consideration include:
exceeds capacity. Collision protection is often combined with
barrier protection to mitigate the risk further. • Number of trafficked lanes affected by a collapse;

Hazard risk assessment tools, such as the Roadside Safety • Potential to detour traffic;
Analysis Program (RSAPv39), can be used to assess the • Direct and in-direct network disruption;
likelihood of hazard penetration and collapse, however, these
• Removal and replacement disruption.
results rely on the quality of input data and should only be used
in conjunction with road design guidance, sound engineering Direct network disruption includes delays to occupants on the
judgment and informed decision making. affected road and connecting roads. Indirect network disruption
includes resultant congestion and increased safety risk from
The ‘likelihood of a collapse’ may differ between two supports
detoured traffic using smaller arterial and local roads.
of the same structure, depending on the location and ability to
withstand an impact. For example, a median overhead gantry
4.4. Asset value / repair cost
support will typically have twice the traffic exposure to a verge
The asset owner is required to consider the value of the asset
support, increasing the likelihood of collapse.
over its lifetime and potential repair costs in the event of an
4.1.2. Consequence to a third party impact.
To assess the additional risk to a third party, designers should Where an increased cost to protect the asset is offset by a
consider the probable outcome in the event of a collapse. lower lifecycle repair cost from vehicle impact damage, this
treatment should be considered.
The primary factors that require consideration include:
This is primarily a cost-based decision and applies only to the
• Number of trafficked lanes affected by a collapse;
protection of assets, not the vehicle occupant. As such, higher
• Probability that a vehicle is present during a collapse (e.g. protection is only required near to the support and a more
traffic volume); forgiving barrier system should be adopted on the approach to
• Speed, sight lines and stopping distance provided for support safe system principles.
approaching vehicles.

RDN 06-13 Page 2 of 19 Final v1.1 January 2019

 RDN 06-13 – Guidelines for the protection of gantry and cantilever sign supports

Road safety barriers must be selected in accordance with RDN

5. Risk categorisation
06-04 and rated to the design speed of the road and expected
To assist designers and Projects in quantifying the additional vehicle class.
risk for typical gantry and cantilever supports, four risk
categories (1-4) have been provided, each with a minimum risk 5.2. Risk Category 2
scenario and barrier criteria. The following is considered to be Risk Category 2: Minimum
Where gantry and cantilever supports can be classified into one Scenario:
of these four categories, the protection should meet the
• A gantry or cantilever support that satisfies all the
minimum barrier criteria provided. following:
Risk categorisation should be undertaken on each support as o the likelihood of collapse is considered “low”, such as
the risk may differ between two supports of the same structure. when the operating speed is less than 80km/h, or the
support is sufficiently set back from the traffic lane on a
These risk categories have been provided as guidance for straight section of road and away from diverge or merge
designers, on what is considered to be a complex problem, and points (e.g. outside clear zone);
must be used in conjunction with sound engineering judgment.
o the percentage of vehicles greater than 2T (e.g. pick-up
The classification process must consider all relevant additional truck) is less than 15% or CV <8% (Appendix B);
risks mentioned in Section 4. Risk category examples below do AND the road has an AADT of less than 60,000 at
not consider the whole of life asset value / cost. 100km/h and less than 80,000 at 80km/h (Appendix E).
o the structure does not provide access for maintenance
5.1. Risk Category 1 workers during live traffic;
The following is considered to be Risk Category 1: Minimum
o the possible network disruption from a collapse can be
Scenario:
reasonably managed. e.g. collapsed structure is unlikely
• A gantry or cantilever support that satisfies one or more of to block all lanes.
the following, Risk category 2 supports recognise additional risk, but are very
o it cannot feasibly be impacted, unlikely to be impacted as a result of a barrier penetration, do
not provide access for maintenance workers and are
o is designed to withstand all impact forces of an errant
vehicle, or considered manageable to the operation of the network in the
event of a collapse. See the Category 2 Example Scenario
o it does not have the potential for additional risk e.g. below.
does not project over a trafficked lane and is improbable
to cause third party incidents. Supports with a greater additional risk, e.g. less offset, higher
Risk Category 1 supports demonstrate similar risk to other design speed or increased percentage of CV%, should be
roadside hazards, and the additional risk of the structure is considered for Category 3 or above.
considered very low to none.
Category 2 Example Scenario
Category 1 Example Scenario

This cantilever
support has a low
probability of
collapse given the
elevated location
and 60km/h likely
impact speed. In this
case, there is a very
low chance for
collapse or fatal and
serious injuries.

Category 1: Minimum barrier criteria This cantilever support projects over a single on-ramp traffic lane.
Thriebeam is TL-4 and is unlikely to be penetrated. In the event of
Risk category 1 supports do not require consideration of a collapse, vehicles are unlikely to be impacted and the structure
additional risk in this RDN and should be treated as a hazard in would have minor disruption to the network until repaired.
accordance with AGRD Part 6 and VicRoads supplementary
guidance (e.g. safety barrier). Category 2: Minimum barrier criteria
NB: Safe system principles note that even hazards located Risk category 2 supports must be treated with a road safety
outside the clear zone can still cause injury when impacted and barrier rated Test Level 3 (TL-3) or higher and designed to
should be treated to reduce the likelihood and severity. 100km/h regardless of operating speed.

RDN 06-13 Page 3 of 19 Final v1.1 January 2019

 RDN 06-13 – Guidelines for the protection of gantry and cantilever sign supports

Road safety barriers must be designed in accordance with 5.4. Risk Category 4
AGRD Part 6 and Section 6 of this RDN. Where a concrete
The following are considered to be Risk Category 4: Minimum
barrier type is required, the barrier is to be designed in
Scenario:
accordance with VicRoads Standard Drawings and AS 5100.
• A gantry or cantilever support with a high risk of collapse.
5.3. Risk Category 3 This will typically include a combination of either minimum
The following is considered to be Risk Category 3: Minimum road geometry, high speed, high volume and increased
Scenario: CV%;
• A gantry or cantilever with access for maintenance workers
• A gantry or cantilever support that satisfies all the
under high speed live traffic;
following:
• A gantry or cantilever that will have detrimental
o the support is located such that a desirable road
consequences to the road network in the event of a
geometry and barrier design (e.g. working width) is
collapse. e.g. spans an entire road carriageway.
achieved;
o the percentage of vehicles greater than 8T (e.g. moving • A gantry or cantilever that houses valuable network assets
van) is less than 15% or CV < 21% (Appendix B); and warrants the use of a higher barrier containment level
and barrier confidence.
AND the road has an AADT of less than 20,000 at
100km/h and less than 30,000 at 80km/h (Appendix E). Risk category 4 supports recognise that one or more additional
risks may be detrimental to the safety of road users or the
o the structure does not provide access for maintenance operation of the road network in the event of an impact.
workers or risks are mitigated with additional control
measures (e.g. lane closure and/or speed reduction); These gantries will typically include working platforms & access
o the possible network disruption from a collapse is critical ladders, valuable infrastructure and/or have a high likelihood of
but manageable (e.g. it projects over a single direction collapse or consequence.
carriageway/ramp or contraflow is possible).
Category 4 Example Scenario
Risk Category 3 supports recognise a higher probability of
collapse than Category 2, but the probable frequency of an
impact is low and the asset value does not warrant a higher
barrier containment level. See the Category 3 Example
Scenario below.
Supports with greater additional risk, including when a working
platform or vital piece of infrastructure is attached, should be
considered for Category 4.

Category 3 Example Scenario

This gantry projects over the entire carriageway.
This cantilever support Maintenance to be completed during controlled traffic management.
projects over a single traffic Gantry support houses vital network assets.
lane.
Medium minimum: Medium recommended
Straight road alignment with
15% CV. Barrier offset 3m Category 4: Minimum barrier criteria
from traffic lane.
Category 4 supports should be treated in accordance with
Asset value likely warrants AS 5100: Bridge design. Safety barriers must be CONCRETE,
greater protection than TL-3 and the minimum barrier containment level must be ‘Medium’
as shown in photo.
Maintenance must be or higher as determined by a risk assessment.
completed with a temporary
speed reduction. This risk assessment must evaluate all additional risks of the
support and conclude the containment level required
considering the methodology detailed in AS5100.1 Appendix B:
Category 3: Minimum barrier criteria
Road Barrier Performance Level Selection Method5 or an
Risk category 3 supports must be treated with a road safety approved alternative.
barrier rated and designed to Test Level 4 (TL-4) or higher
regardless of operating speed. Road safety barrier layouts should be designed in accordance
with AGRD Part 6 and Section 6 below. It is noted that at the
Road safety barriers must be designed in accordance with time of writing this RDN, a ‘Medium’ performance barrier or
AGRD Part 6 and Section 6 of this RDN. Where a concrete higher has not been accepted in RDN 06-04, therefore all
barrier type is required, the barrier must be in accordance with concrete barriers must be engineered and designed in
VicRoads Standard Drawings and AS 5100. accordance with SD 3901, AS 5100 and Bridge Technical
Notes.

RDN 06-13 Page 4 of 19 Final v1.1 January 2019

 RDN 06-13 – Guidelines for the protection of gantry and cantilever sign supports

6. Road Safety Barrier Design

Gantry and cantilever supports that have additional risk (i.e.
Risk Category 2 to 4) must be treated with a road safety barrier
that is designed in accordance with AGRD Part 6, relevant
VicRoads supplements and this document.
The following section is structured as per the road safety
barrier design process detailed in AGRD Part 6, Figure 6.1.

A modified version of the barrier design process (Figure 6.1)

has been provided in Appendix F to include the guidance within
this document. This process may be used by designers.

6.1. Collect information about site and

barrier objective (B1 & B2)
The objective of gantry and cantilever protection is to;

• protect road users from impacting the support, and

• shield the support from impact, to protect the asset and
mitigate the potential of collapse and consequence to third
parties.
To assess the relevant additional risk, designers must
understand the expected mode of transport of the site (e.g.
vehicle types & distribution), the possible impact conditions and
intended use of the structure. Site context is critical to ensure
the barrier is designed for the expected road user and the
potential for a barrier penetration is understood.

6.2. Determine the lateral offset of the

barrier (B3 & B4)
Gantry and cantilever supports are typically located close to the
road where a desirable barrier offset of 3-4m cannot be
achieved. While desirable barrier offsets are still preferred,
other objectives must be balanced such as the management of
internal stresses (maximum span) in cantilever gantries. Figure 6.1: Road Safety Design Process (Modified)
(Source: Appendix E, Figure E1)
Findings from an Austroads (2012)8 report indicate that most
vehicles recover within the first 2.0m of sealed shoulder. As 6.3. Determine the containment level
such, where 3.0m cannot be achieved, a short length of barrier
required (B5)
offset at 2.0-2.5m from the traffic lane may be adopted in front
VicRoads does not provide objective warrants for the use of
of the support without approval. This offset aims to:
higher containment roadside barriers outside of this RDN, and
• reduce nuisance impacts on the barrier and the overall site-specific factors are often required to be considered such as
time the barrier remains damaged, percentage of heavy vehicles, road geometry or severe
• minimise the potential for vehicles to impact the barrier at consequences associated with a penetration.
high angles, and AGRD Part 6 states that if the run-off-road risk associated with
• minimise maintenance costs over the life of the barrier. heavy vehicles is particularly high or the consequence of a run-
off-road would be catastrophic, a barrier meeting TL-5 or TL-6
Where a reduced barrier offset is required and the support
may be considered being largely based on consideration of
cannot be relocated, the barrier should be able to withstand
additional risk and consequence of a heavy vehicle impacting
nuisance impacts to minimise repair costs and mitigate the risk
the support.
of a damaged barrier not performing as intended.
Supports classified as risk category 2-3 should be protected
Barrier offsets less than desirable should be limited to locally in
with a safety barrier rated to the minimum test level specified in
front of the support and a flare rate should be adopted in
Section 5. Higher containment levels should be considered
accordance with AGRD Part 6 to reduce perception effects for
where the risk is greater than the minimum scenario, e.g. when
motorists (e.g. shy away effects) and opportunity for stopping.
traffic has a high percentage of heavy vehicles.

RDN 06-13 Page 5 of 19 Final v1.1 January 2019

 RDN 06-13 – Guidelines for the protection of gantry and cantilever sign supports

Vehicle Speed Impact Vehicle Speed Impact

Test Angle Angle
(kg) (km/h) Severity (kJ) (kg) (km/h) Severity (kJ)
Level
NCHRP Report 350 MASH
1 2,000 50 25° 34.5 2,270 50 25° 39.1
2 2,000 70 25° 67.5 2,270 70 25° 76.6
3 2,000 100 25° 138 2,270 100 25° 156.4
4 8,000 80 15° 138 10,000 90 15° 209.3
5 36,000 80 15° 595 36,000 80 15° 595
6 36,000 80 15° 595 36,000 80 15° 595
Special1 44,000 100 15 1137
Table 6.1: Test level conditions and impact severities
Source: AS/NZS 3845.1 Road Safety Barriers4. Not all impact conditions are included.
Note 1: Special performance as outlined in AS 5100.2:2017 Appendix A – Design loads for special performance level barriers6.

To assess the risk and conclude a barrier containment level, Performance, Deflection, Site Conditions, Compatibility, Cost
designers should understand the criteria to which road safety and Maintenance.
barriers are tested, and be able to compare a potential vehicle
In reality, the potential impact conditions and distribution of
impact with the crash tested capacity.
vehicle types on a section of road are broader than those used
For example, Test Level 4 (NCHRP350) barriers are tested to during crash testing. Designers must recognise the mode of
capacity with an 8,000kg truck impacting at 80km/h and 15 transport that can impact the barrier and select the
degrees. See Table 6.1. Impacts from heavier vehicles with a performance level required to meet objectives.
greater energy are more likely to breach the barrier.
For details on the performance of specific barrier types, refer
As a recommended guide, a higher containment barrier should supplementary guidance such as RDN 06-02, RDN 06-04,
be considered when more than 15% (85th percentile) of RDN 06-08 and Detail Sheets on the VicRoads website.
vehicles are heavier than capacity, e.g. where 15% of vehicles
are greater than 8,000kg, a TL-5 barrier should be considered. 6.4.2. Capacity for heavy vehicles
See methodology in Appendix B for guidance. To date, the capacity for a barrier to contain and redirect a
heavy vehicle has been largely based on impact conditions;
Supports classified as risk category 4 must be protected with a
e.g. whether the impact energy is less than the barrier capacity
CONCRETE safety barrier rated to a performance level
and the barrier engages with the vehicle.
determined via AS 5100.1 Appendix A.
In fact, exceeding the energy capacity of a barrier does not
While ‘Medium’ performance should be the minimum level
necessarily mean the barrier is totally compromised, but rather
required, the barrier performance level selection method in
it begins a failure process that depends on many variables
Appendix A of AS 5100.1 should be completed to determine if
including barrier type and method of failure (e.g. rollover,
a higher performance level (‘High’, ‘Special’) should be
structural failure or vaulting) -NCHRP 20139.
adopted. If an alternative methodology is proposed
(e.g. RASPv39), it must be agreed by the Superintendent and The choice of barrier type should consider the traffic distribution
Manager Safe System Engineering in writing. and if required, the ability to contain a heavy vehicle. Certain
barrier types may require greater deflection area, a vehicle roll
6.4. Choose the barrier type (B6) allowance (Section 6.6) or the addition of sway protection
This section does not apply to category 4 supports which must (Section 6.6.2).
be protected with a CONCRETE safety barrier.
Detailed guidance on the “capacity for heavy vehicles” is not
The type of barrier (flexible, semi-rigid or rigid) chosen for risk always readily available and engineering judgment is critical.
category 2 & 3 supports should be based on relevant guidance,
site constraints and product specific performance. 6.4.3. Barrier performance confidence
Where barrier protection is critical to mitigate the additional
Figure 6.2 shows an example of how the support offset can
risks of a support, the confidence in which a barrier is likely to
influence barrier type, based on TL-4 containment level, a
contain a vehicle should be considered.
straight alignment and 100km/h design speed.
Barrier types with a uniform dynamic deflection, additional
6.4.1. General capacity, or predictable failure mechanism can provide greater
As per AGRD Part 6, Section 6.2 and Section 6.3.14, the key confidence and mitigation of risk than barriers with multiple
parameters to consider when selecting a barrier type include; performance variables.

RDN 06-13 Page 6 of 19 Final v1.1 January 2019

 RDN 06-13 – Guidelines for the protection of gantry and cantilever sign supports

Figure 6.2: Example of TL-4 barrier type vs. offset

For example, concrete barriers are designed for limited and also withstand greater impacts without damage, thereby
sometimes zero deflection (excluding vehicle roll allowance) increasing the overall time that a barrier is effective.
when the impact energy is less than capacity. In the event of a
greater vehicle impact, concrete barriers have shown to absorb 6.4.5. Vulnerable road users
energy during failure or cause the vehicle to roll over the Where the gantry or cantilever support is located in a high-risk
barrier. This can provide a high level of protection confidence area for vulnerable road users, consideration must be given to
even for impacts with high angles or unconventional vehicle tested barrier types with protection for vulnerable road users.
shapes.
For example, motorcyclists are more likely to lose control on
In comparison, semi-rigid and flexible systems rely more on the outside of tight curves and the barrier type in this location
barrier-vehicle engagement. While crash testing demonstrates should allow for motorcyclist protective treatments, such as the
a ‘worst practical case’, these barrier types possess a risk of use of continuous motorcyclist protection.
penetration from unconventional impact conditions (e.g.
If a barrier treatment cannot provide the minimum containment
increased deflection).
level and protection for high risk vulnerable road users, the
Gantry and cantilever signs that provide maintenance access support location should be reconsidered.
under live traffic should adopt a high level of performance
confidence, such as concrete barrier. 6.5. Determine dynamic deflection (B7)
Software such as RSAPv39 or computer simulation techniques The likelihood of replicating a tested dynamic deflection value
may be used to assess the risk of barrier penetration for on-site will rely on the potential weight, speed and angle of an
several impact scenarios including vehicle roll, structural fail or impacting vehicle.
vaulting. Risk Category 2, 3 and 4 barriers must be designed for a
100km/h deflection regardless of design speed.
6.4.4. Maintenance and Repair
Key maintenance factors for barrier selection include: Where the percentage of heavy vehicles is high, an additional
safety factor should be built into the design, such as a greater
• Routine and Periodic maintenance deflection area or vehicle roll allowance (Section 6.6).
• Collision repair (cost and frequency) Product specific dynamic deflection is documented in relevant
• Safety risk / exposure from a damaged barrier VicRoads Road Design Notes, Detail Sheets and Supplier
design manuals.
While these parameters are typically regarded as cost factors,
(e.g. repair cost and frequency) designers should consider the It is important for designers to note that although dynamic
potential safety consequence where these tasks are not deflection is a key consideration of safety barrier design, the
undertaken. barrier should achieve a positive life-cycle benefit/cost,
including safety, maintenance and other ongoing
For example, WRSB must be periodically maintained to meet
considerations. Decreasing deflection will increase the stiffness
consistent barrier performance compared to concrete barriers
and severity of the barrier for impacting vehicle occupants.
which require no routine maintenance. Concrete barriers can

RDN 06-13 Page 7 of 19 Final v1.1 January 2019

 RDN 06-13 – Guidelines for the protection of gantry and cantilever sign supports

6.6. Determine vehicle roll allowance (B8)

Vehicle roll allowance, also known as Working Width, must be
considered and provided for all gantry and cantilever
protection, in accordance with this section.

6.6.1. General
Vehicle roll allowance provides additional clearance behind the
barrier for taller vehicles that may roll beyond the barrier during
redirection. This may include heavy vehicles with an impact
energy less than capacity.

4.6 m
The concept of vehicle roll is depicted with an indicative line of
roll experienced by an impacting vehicle. See Figure 6.3.

Figure 6.4: Point of contact method

6.7. Check that working width is less than

the barrier-to-hazard clearance (B10)
Gantry and cantilever supports must be located outside the
barrier working width (deflection + roll allowance). If
impracticable, the support must only be located within the
working width where all risks have been evaluated and the
following order of precedence has been documented:

• alternate barrier type and design (6.4),

• provision of barrier sway protection (6.7.1);
• higher containment level (6.3) or,
• collision protection for the support (7.3).

Where a Risk Category 4 support is still located within the

Figure 6.3: Working Width working width of the barrier, the barrier must have sway
protection (Section 6.7.1), a minimum effective height of
Barrier suppliers are required to document working width (roll
1500mm (Special T445) above pavement level and the support
allowance) during crash testing, which is typically observed
must be designed for a minimum collision load of 200kN
only with larger test vehicles such as the TL-4 (8T-10T) truck
(Medium Performance Level longitudinal load5) applied 1m
and above. Refer relevant Detail Sheets, Product Manuals or
above the top of barrier. This ensures the risk has been
Road Design Notes for barriers with working width values.
mitigated as far as practicable.
6.6.2. Methods of vehicle roll allowance
6.7.1. Sway protection
Where working width values are not provided for a barrier
Sway protection for concrete barriers can be used to reduce
product, the vehicle roll allowance must be determined using
the amount of vehicle roll above and beyond the barrier that
the following:
would otherwise impact the support.
• Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6, Table 6.8 should
be used for rigid and semi-rigid barriers approximately Sway protection is not necessarily intended to increase the
800mm high; containment level of the barrier, but can be used in the vicinity
of a support for additional risk mitigation. Sway protection can
• The barrier “point of contact method” should be used for
be used to protect both the asset and vehicle occupant of a
rigid barriers greater than 800mm high, typically TL-4
concrete barriers adopted for Risk Category 3 & 4 heavy vehicle. This is effective where the percentage of heavy
supports. The point of contact method adopts a projected vehicles is high enough to warrant protection from the gantry.
vehicle roll line that contacts the face of the barrier and is
Sway protection is a modification to barrier profile and should
extended to a height of 4.6m above the pavement surface.
See Figure 6.4. be used only when necessary. All modifications to profile

RDN 06-13 Page 8 of 19 Final v1.1 January 2019

 RDN 06-13 – Guidelines for the protection of gantry and cantilever sign supports

should retain smooth vehicle redirection and limit snagging;

excessive protrusions with the sole intent of satisfying vehicle
roll allowance is prohibited and can be unsafe.
Concrete barriers with sway protection must retain the F-Shape
profile in accordance with SD 3901 to an effective height of
920mm above pavement level. An example of a concrete
barrier with sway protection has been detailed in Figure 6.5.
Figure 6.6: Two-stage protection points of need

6.9. Choose terminal treatments (B14)

Terminal treatments are designed to protect the end of a
longitudinal barrier. As such, any additional risks considered for
the gantry or cantilever support do not apply to the barrier
terminal. The containment level of the terminal should meet the
35mm design speed of the road. Refer RDN 06-04 for accepted
terminal treatments.

6.10. Design the transitions between

barriers (B15)
Figure 6.5: Sway protection example Transitions between concrete barrier containment levels should
be done in accordance with VicRoads Bridge Technical Notes
6.8. Determine barrier points of need (B11) and must transition consecutively in performance level.
The barrier points of need should be determined in accordance
The transition length between two containment levels is
with the ‘Run-out Length Method’ specified in AGRD Part 6 and
considered at the lower barrier containment level and should
VicRoads supplements. VicRoads standard drawing SD 3521
be situated outside the minimum length of need required.
adopts this method for a range of hazard & barrier offsets.
Transitions in barrier height must be done at a maximum rate
The minimum barrier containment level and type determined
of 1:10.
must extend between the vehicle run-out-lines to adequately
protect the support. Transitions that require a change in barrier offset to the traffic
lane must refer AGRD Part 6, Section 6.3.5: Step B3.
Outside the length of need, the barrier may be terminated or
transitioned in accordance with VicRoads guidelines. Flaring
the safety barrier may be adopted in accordance with AGRD 7. Other design considerations
Part 6 to reduce the length of barrier required. 7.1. Location of gantry and cantilever
Where sway protection or reduced deflection is required locally supports
in front of the support, the minimum length should be based on The effective location and spacing of gantry and cantilever
performance requirements of the barrier variant. For example, structures should be designed in relation to certain road
the length of reduced post spacing for a WRSB must extend features in accordance with VicRoads Traffic Engineering
either side of the support to ensure a reduced deflection at the Manual and Freeway Ramp Signals Handbook.
support.
Where flexibility is available from a traffic engineering
Case Study: gantry protection barriers for the M80 adopted a perspective, the location of supports (chainage and offset)
concrete barrier length of 36m, 24m before and 12m after the should be in conjunction with barrier design to balance multiple
support to provide enough contact length for the redirection of objectives.
heavy vehicles in front of the support. This was in addition to
guard fence that extended to the barrier point of need. To lower the additional risk of a support and resultant level of
protection required, gantry and cantilever supports should be
6.8.1. Points of need for two-stage protection located in areas with a low likelihood of vehicle impact.
If a two-stage protection system (Section 7.1) has been Supports should be sufficiently offset from the traffic lane to
adopted, the barrier points of need may differ for each system. accommodate the installation of more forgiving barrier systems
The ‘run-out-length method’ must be applied to the primary such as WRSB or flexible GF.
(front) barrier intended to protect road users. This is the Where a certain barrier type is preferred, e.g. motorcyclists
minimum length of barrier to address run-off-road risk. The have been identified and a motorcycle friendly barrier is
secondary (back) barrier however, if intended to only prevent desirable, supports should be located to accommodate suitable
heavy vehicle collision with the gantry support, may consider a barrier designs.
15° departure angle as the run-off line for a heavy vehicle. See
Figure 6.6.

RDN 06-13 Page 9 of 19 Final v1.1 January 2019

 RDN 06-13 – Guidelines for the protection of gantry and cantilever sign supports

7.2. Two-stage protection Collision loads from road traffic

Where adequate offset is available from the traffic lane, the use AS 5100.2:2017 states that where supports are located within
of a two-stage protection system can provide a forgiving barrier the clear zone, and not located behind an appropriate
system for the safety of passenger vehicle occupants, and a protective barrier, they shall be designed to resist a minimum
high containment barrier for the mitigation of additional risks. equivalent static load of 2700 kN acting in any direction in a
Flexible barrier systems are preferred to reduce impact severity horizontal plane, applied 1.2 m above ground level.
of vehicle occupants.
Assuming an impact deformation of 0.3m, this 2700 kN collision
Two-stage protection will require supports to be offset further force equates to a 4,500kg vehicle impacting at 60km/h and
from the road and is not always beneficial unless the additional does not represent the maximum force generated in a collision.
risk of the structure is considered high. AS 5100.2:2005 commentary states that for high speed
roadways (>60km/h), a higher collision load should be
An example of a two-stage protection is shown in Figure 7.1; a
investigated.
rigid concrete barrier rated to the required containment level is
offset 1.9-2.3m behind a WRSB (working width) which is offset In theory, the collision load adopted should be based on the
3.0m from the traffic lane. The extent of concrete barrier is maximum vehicle impact on-site to eliminate additional risk. In
enough to capture potential heavy vehicles that may cause practice, designing solely for collision protection is not ideal and
collapse, and the extent of WRSB is enough to reduce impact a combination of protection that can redirect most errant
severity for vehicle occupants. See also AGRD Part 6, Section vehicles away from the gantry and resist the collision loads
6.3.14. from a barrier penetration is more cost effective.
Where a Risk Category 4 support is located within the working
width of the barrier, refer Section 6.7.

7.4. Light poles, light mast and power pole

protection
Light poles, light masts and power poles are not required to be
protected in accordance with this Road Design Note.

It is however recommended that the design and protection of

structures such as these, considers any relevant additional
Figure 7.1: Example of two-stage protection
risks detailed in Section 4, and are protected in accordance
At the time of writing, the effect of a two-stage protection when with relevant guidelines and engineering judgement.
determining the barrier containment level has not been
Refer to Bridge Technical Note 014 – Sign gantries and lighting
quantified. While errant heavy vehicles are less likely to
masts.
penetrate two safety barrier systems compared to one, the
precise interaction and benefit is unknown therefore the
containment level should be selected in accordance with
Section 6.3.
It is noted that computer simulation is becoming increasingly
common and as more expertise is developed worldwide, the
use of simulation techniques is strongly recommended to
support complex decision making in constrained locations,
especially when a reduced containment level is proposed.

7.3. Gantry leg collision protection

To minimise the level of additional risk, gantry and cantilever
supports can be designed to resist the collision load of an
impacting vehicle.

While collision protection may be used to mitigate additional

risk of a collapse, a barrier combination should be provided to
protect the occupants of passing traffic from impacting the
support.

RDN 06-13 Page 10 of 19 Final v1.1 January 2019

 RDN 06-13 – Guidelines for the protection of gantry and cantilever sign supports

Bibliography Appendices
1. AASHTO, 2012, LFRD Bridge Design Specification; APPENDIX A: Summary of concrete barrier guidelines
2. AASHTO, 2011, Roadside design guide;
APPENDIX B: Containment of heavy vehicles
3. Austroads, 2010, Guide to Road Design;
4. Australian Standard, 2015, AS/NZS 3845.1: 2015: Road Safety
APPENDIX C: Worked Example – Risk Category 3
Barrier Systems; (seeking examples)
5. Australian Standard, 2017, AS 5100.1: 2017 Bridge Design, APPENDIX D: Worked Example – Risk Category 4
Part 1: General Principles; (seeking examples)
6. Australian Standard, 2017, AS 5100.2: 2017 Bridge Design,
Part 2: Design loads; APPENDIX E: Modified Road Safety Barrier Design Process
7. Australian Standard, 2017, AS 5100.6: 2017 Bridge Design, APPENDIX F: Risk profile comparison with AS5100.1:2017
Part 6: Steel and composite construction;
APPENDIX G: Risk Category – Summary Table
8. Jurewicz & Steinmetz, 2012, Crash performance of safety
barriers on high-speed roads;

9. NCHRP, 2013, 22-27 Roadside safety analysis program

(RSAPv3) update, RoadSafe LLC;
10. Google maps, 2016, www.google.com; For information please contact:
11. TMR, 2018, Design criteria for bridges and other structures;
VicRoads Safe System Design, 60 Denmark St, Kew Vic 3101
12. VicRoads, 2018, Bridge Technical Note 001: Bridge traffic
Email: [email protected]
barriers;
13. VicRoads, 2018, Bridge Technical Note 003: Bridge support Road Design Note 06-13 – Revision Summary
protection;
14. VicRoads, 2018, Detail sheets; Issue Approved Date Amendment
15. VicRoads, 2016, Road Design Note 06-02: The use of WRSB;
v1.0 M-SSD Feb2018 First edition
16. VicRoads, 2017, Road Design Note 06-04: Accepted Safety
Barrier Products; v1.1 M-SSD Jan2019 Revisions related to
17. VicRoads, 2017, Road Design Note 06-08: The use of Guard AS5100 and similar
Fence; references.
Editorial changes.
18. VicRoads, 2018, Standard drawings for roadworks;
19. VicRoads, 2018, Supplements to the Austroads Guide to Road
Design;
20. Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004

21. VicRoads, 2018, Bridge Technical Note 014: Sign gantries and
lighting masts;

RDN 06-13 Page 11 of 19 Final v1.1 January 2019

 RDN 06-13 – Guidelines for the protection of gantry and cantilever sign supports

Appendix A – Summary of concrete As such this RDN should be used to supplement the AGRD
Part 6 and ensure designers consider the additional risk and
barrier guidelines severity of a gantry or cantilever support.

This appendix summarises current safety barrier requirements At the time of writing this RDN, AGRD Part 6 is being updated
and the design of rigid concrete barriers. Content in this to consider the principles of safe system to advise Road
Appendix is informative only. Authorities and designers on the preferred methodology to
protect hazards.
AS/NZS 3845: 2015 – Road safety barriers
AS/NZS 3845 sets out the requirements for both permanent VicRoads safety barrier requirements (2017)
and temporary road safety barrier systems, including testing In Victoria, crash testing criteria from AS/NZS 3845.1 has been
methods, the evaluation process, manufacturing, installation adopted as the minimum for all roadside safety barriers. Safety
and maintenance. barriers are subject to a matrix of impacts using a described
vehicle, speed and angle while meeting a set of criteria that is
In simplest terms, it informs road authorities on how safety
based on factors of structural adequacy, occupant risk and
barriers should be tested and evaluated for suitability.
vehicle trajectory.
It details the preferred crash testing required to establish a
Safety barrier products that have been evaluated and accepted
system’s suitability, the material specifications and the
by VicRoads are listed in Road Design Note 06-04 – Accepted
accompanying documentation. It is intended that Road
safety barrier products.
Authorities review the information in this Standard to meet a
duty of care for barrier systems on the network. Safety barriers should be designed in accordance with AGRD
Part 6 and VicRoads supplements to ensure the barrier will
For rigid barriers, where the installed configuration (e.g.
mitigate the risk. Where hazards have additional risk to 3rd
foundation) is different to a crash tested configuration, it must
parties, then guidance such as this RDN must be sought.
be of sufficient strength to assist the barrier to resist the lateral
loads and effective load height specified in AS 5100.2 for the Barriers products selected for site (e.g. Conc., GF, or WRSB),
dynamic forces applied by the design performance crash test must also be designed in accordance with product specific
with minimal if any resulting deflection or deformation. requirements to ensure the barrier performs as designed.

AS 5100: 2017 – Bridge design NCHRP Report 350 vs MASH

AS 5100 is intended for the design of rigid barriers on new and MASH (Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware) is the new set
existing bridges, and through reference in AS/NZS 3845 is also of guidelines for crash testing safety devices and will replace
relevant where roadside concrete barriers cannot be installed the previous testing standard: NCHRP Report 350.
as they were crash tested. AS 5100 provides the criteria to
AS 5100:2017 uses MASH as the basis for design loads.
design the anchorage, footing, foundation, and material
(including reinforcement) of concrete barriers. VicRoads accepts both MASH and NCHRP 350 roadside
safety barriers and is currently transitioning to MASH only.
In simplest terms, it details how rigid concrete barriers should
be designed to resist impact forces from heavy vehicles and VicRoads concrete barrier requirements (2017)
built to provide a long-term maintainable asset.
In Victoria, F-Shape is the preferred concrete barrier profile for
Ultimate design loads in AS 5100 have been chosen to align its superior small car performance. Standard profile dimensions
with values in AASHTO LRFD Specifications, to allow for and concrete barrier requirements are provided in Standard
barriers crash tested in accordance with NCHRP Report 350 Drawing SD 3901.
and MASH to be adopted. Equations for the analysis of
Roadside concrete barriers (Test Level) must be designed, built
stresses have been provided in AASHTO LRFD (2012).
and installed in accordance with the suite of standard drawings.
Performance Level concrete barriers (e.g. used on structures
AGRD Part 6 – Roadside design, safety and
and the approach) must be in accordance with AS5100.
barriers (2010)
Austroads Guide to Road Design part 6 provides guidelines for The manufacture and installation of concrete barrier will
hazard identification, mitigation and a clearly defined process depend on the Test Level or Performance Level required.
for designing roads for safety. Concrete barriers with sway protection are often required to
In simplest terms, it tells designers and Road Authorities what modify the F-shape profile or height. To minimise the potential
is considered a hazard/risk and how to best mitigate that for snagging or small car de-stabilisation, the profile shown in
hazard/risk considering all road users. SD 3901 must be used.

Hazards and barriers are assessed based on impact severity, Concrete barriers with steel rails must be designed in
while guidance on barrier products or minimum containment accordance with AS 5100.
level is left to the designer and guidance from Road Authorities.

RDN 06-13 Page 12 of 19 Final v1.1 January 2019

 RDN 06-13 – Guidelines for the protection of gantry and cantilever sign supports

Appendix B – Containment of heavy Non-CV Total CV Total

Weight Range
vehicles (kg) Cumulative Cumulative
percentage percentage
Barrier containment level should be selected based on the
< 800 0.7 -
specific weight distribution of passing traffic. Unfortunately,

Test Level 3
detailed traffic information is not always readily available and 800-1100 16 -
the CV% is often used to make decisions.
1101-1400 49 92 % - -
This appendix discusses containment of heavy vehicles and
1401-1700 82 -
provides designers with a general guide to protect heavy
vehicles based on CV%. 1700-2000 92 -

This guidance uses network wide assumptions and does not 2001-2300 98 -
preclude the importance or need to consider site specific

Test Level 4
2301-2600 99 -
context. Refer Assumptions, notes and other considerations.
2601-2900 >99 8% - 30 %
Heavy vehicle vs. commercial vehicle
4501-6000 - 6
‘Commercial vehicle’ is a term typically used within traffic
volumes and includes non-passenger vehicles from small 6000-8000 - 30
trucks (4.5T GVM) and towing (car + caravan) to large trucks.
8000-10000 - 38
This can differ to the term ‘Heavy vehicle’ which may refer to a
Test Level 5
10000-12000 - - 51 42 %
vehicle of greater mass than the capacity vehicle used during
barrier crash testing. Including: 12000-16500 - 72

• TL-3: 2,000kg Pick-up, 16500-20000 - 76

- 24 %
• TL-4: 8,000kg Truck, and 20000-36000 - 96

• TL-5: 36,000kg Articulated Van. > 36000 - - >99 4%

• TL-6: 36,000kg Tanker Figure B.1: Registered vehicle weight distribution (2015)

Relationships between heavy and commercial

vehicles <2000 kg 2000-8000 kg >8000 kg
The following guidance uses data from a 2015 study of the
100%
entire Victorian registered vehicle fleet and documented vehicle
Vehicle distribution

weight / type.
80%
The general weight distribution of registered vehicles at
September 2015 on the network can be seen in Figure B.1. 60%
The weight gap between 3000kg-4500kg is due to the record
change from Tare to GVM. 40%

Using this distribution, the percentage of vehicles can be 20%

grouped by weight into the barrier test levels, and an 2 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
approximate relationship between Commercial Vehicles and Commercial Vehicle%
Heavy Vehicles can be predicted.
This can be converted into the following relationships; Figure B.2: Vehicle weight distribution vs. CV%

• % vehicles: 820-2000 kg = 92 x (1-CV%)

• % vehicles: 2000-8000 kg = 8 + (22 x CV%) Containment of heavy vehicles
• % vehicles: 8000-16500 kg = 42 x CV% As a general minimum, the 85th percentile of passing traffic
should be contained by a road safety barrier.
• % vehicles: 16500-36000 kg = 24 x CV%
• % vehicles: > 36000 kg = 4 x CV% Figure B.2 uses the relationships determined to graph the
calculated weight distribution based on CV%.
Note: CV% to be written as a decimal.
Figure B.1, for example, shows that 8% of non-CV’s and 30%
of CV’s generally weigh between 2000-8000kg.

RDN 06-13 Page 13 of 19 Final v1.1 January 2019

 RDN 06-13 – Guidelines for the protection of gantry and cantilever sign supports

Summary:
Appendix C – Worked example:
• The percentage of vehicles larger than 2,000kg will exceed
15% when the percentage of CV exceeds 7.6%.
Risk Category 3
• The percentage of vehicles larger than 8,000kg will exceed We are seeking opportunities for a worked example. If you
15% when the percentage of CV exceeds 21%. have any comments or suggestions, please contact the author
noted on the last page for consideration in the next revision.
As such, a TL-4 and TL-5 safety barrier should be considered
when the CV% exceeds 7.6% and 21% respectively.

Assumptions, notes & other considerations Appendix D – Worked example:

• This method assumes that the traffic distribution for the
road is similar to the entire network. In practice, certain Risk Category 4
vehicle types may be more common depending on the
local area which should be considered. E.g. Tourist roads We are seeking opportunities for a worked example. If you
with low traffic count but carrying significant numbers of have any comments or suggestions, please contact the author
buses should consider a higher containment level. noted on the last page for consideration in the next revision.
• Vehicle weight distribution data (2014) does not include
special vehicles such as Busses, Service or Emergency,
given the ratio would be quite low compared to all vehicles.
• This section provides general guidance on when to
increase the minimum barrier level based on vehicle
weight. It does not recognise high risk locations or very low
volume roads where the exposure is low.
• This method does not include the likely impact speeds and
angles on-site. This would require further analysis to
demonstrate that a vehicle is more or less likely to
penetrate a barrier at various speeds and angles.
• AS 5100.1:2017 Table A2 shows a different vehicle mix to
be used for benefit cost analysis; the original data could
not be located for comparison. It is however expected that
differences in the classification may make an accurate
comparison difficult and given that both methods are
general, rather than site specific, such a comparison would
not be overly valuable. Refer Figure F1.
• Other Australian Road Authorities may develop methods to
determine containment level based on vehicle mix and
distribution. The methods may be considered when they
become available.

RDN 06-13 Page 14 of 19 Final v1.1 January 2019

RDN 06-13 – Guidelines for the protection of gantry and cantilever sign supports

Appendix E: Modified road safety barrier design process

Figure F.1: Modified road safety barrier design process for the protection of gantry and cantilever sign supports (Part 1)
(Original Source: Source: AGRD Part 6, Figure 6.1)

RDN 06-13 Page 15 of 19 Final v1.1 January 2019

RDN 06-13 – Guidelines for the protection of gantry and cantilever sign supports

Figure F.2: Modified road safety barrier design process for the protection of gantry and cantilever sign supports (Part 2)
(Original Source: Source: AGRD Part 6, Figure 6.1)

RDN 06-13 Page 16 of 19 Final v1.1 January 2019

 RDN 06-13 – Guidelines for the protection of gantry and cantilever sign supports

Appendix F: Comparison of risk profiles with AS5100:2017

AS 5100.1:2017, Appendix A; provides a selection method for barrier performance levels on bridges. Risk categorisation within this
RDN has been provided as roadside guidance for designers, on what is a complex problem. The information provided is intended to
compliment the risk profile in AS5100:2017 for roadside use and VicRoads should be notified or sought regarding any unusual
discrepancies for a response.
For reference, a comparison of risk profiles between this RDN and AS5100:2017, Appendix A: Road barrier performance level
selection method, has been provided below.

Commercial Cars and Vans/pickups Rigid and Articulated vehicles

vehicles %
(<8000kg) (>8000kg)

10 93 7

20 86 14

30 70 30

Figure F1: Comparison of vehicle mix in AS5100 (top) and RDN 06-13 (bottom)

Comments:
1. ‘Commercial vehicle’ is a term typically used within traffic volumes and includes non-passenger vehicles from small trucks
(4.5T GVM) and towing (car + caravan) to large trucks.
2. Refer Appendix B for assumptions, notes & other considerations.

RDN 06-13 Page 17 of 19 Final v1.1 January 2019

 RDN 06-13 – Guidelines for the protection of gantry and cantilever sign supports

Figure F1: Comparison of performance level in AS5100 and RDN 06-13

Comments:

1. Risk Category 2 (TL-3) = Yellow. Risk Category 3 (TL-4) = Green. Risk Category 4 (AS5100) = Red
2. In accordance with AS5100.1:2004 Table 10.4; Low is similar to Rigid TL2, Regular is similar to Rigid TL-4 and Medium is
similar to Rigid TL-5.

RDN 06-13 Page 18 of 19 Final v1.1 January 2019

 RDN 06-13 – Guidelines for the protection of gantry and cantilever sign supports

Appendix G: Risk Categorisation – Summary Table

This table is a summary of the information provided in Section 5. As such, should only be used after reading the entire document to
understand the issue and guidance included.
Risk categorisation should be undertaken on each support as the risks may differ between two supports of the same structure.
These risk categories have been provided as guidance for designers, on what is considered to be a complex problem, and must be
used in conjunction with sound engineering judgment.

Risk Scenario Minimum barrier Example

Cat.

1 It cannot feasibly be impacted, or Treated as a hazard in accordance

with AGRD Part 6 and VicRoads
it is designed to withstand impact forces of an errant supplementary guidance
vehicle, or
e.g. typical safety barrier
it does not have the potential for additional risk e.g. does
not project over a trafficked lane and is improbable to
cause third party incidents.

2 The likelihood of collapse is considered “low”, e.g. the Road safety barrier rated to Test
operating speed is < 80km/h, or the support is sufficiently Level 3 (TL-3) or higher; and
set back from the traffic lane on a straight section of road
and away from diverge or merge points; and designed to 100km/h regardless of
operating speed.
AADT less than 60,000 at 100km/h
AADT less than 80,000 at 80km/h; and e.g. flexible guard fence
th
CV < 8% or 2T < 85 percentile); and
no access for maintenance workers during live traffic; and
network disruption from a collapse can be reasonably
managed. e.g. collapsed structure is unlikely to block all
lanes.

3 The support is located such that a desirable road Road safety barrier rated to Test
geometry and barrier design (e.g. working width) is Level 4 (TL-4) or higher; and
achieved; and
designed to 100km/h regardless of
AADT less than 20,000 at 100km/h operating speed.
AADT less than 30,000 at 80km/h; and
e.g. Thriebeam guard fence
CV < 21% or 8T < 85th percentile); and
no access for maintenance workers or risks have been
mitigated with additional control measures (e.g. lane
closure and/or speed reduction); and
the possible network disruption from a collapse is
manageable (e.g. it projects over a single direction
carriageway or ramp).

4 A gantry or cantilever support with a high risk of collapse. Adopt AS 5100: Bridge design.
E.g. a combination of road geometry, high speed, high
volume and increased CV%; or CONCRETE road safety barrier,
containment level of ‘Medium’ or
A gantry or cantilever with access for maintenance higher as determined by a risk
workers under high speed live traffic; or assessment.
A gantry or cantilever that will have detrimental A risk assessment must evaluate all
consequences to the road network in the event of a additional risks of the structure and
collapse. e.g. spans an entire road carriageway; or conclude the containment level,
including the methodology detailed
A gantry or cantilever that houses valuable network assets in AS5100.1 Appendix B or an
and warrants the use of a higher barrier containment level approved alternative.
and barrier confidence.

RDN 06-13 Page 19 of 19 Final v1.1 January 2019