THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY BA 37/92

THE SCOTTISH OFFICE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

THE WELSH OFFICE

Y SWYDDFA GYMREIG

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 29-Oct-2024, BA 37/92, published: Oct-1992

Priority Ranking of Existing

Parapets

Summary: This Advice Note gives criteria for establishing priority rankings for the
upgrading of existing parapets on all motorway and other trunk road
structures.

Volume 2 home page

 Volume 2 Section 3
Part 2 BA 37/92 Registration of Amendments

REGISTRATION OF AMENDMENTS

Amend Page No Signature & Date of Amend Page No Signature & Date of
No incorporation of No incorporation of
amendments amendments
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 29-Oct-2024, BA 37/92, published: Oct-1992

ELECTRONIC COPY - NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY

October 1992 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED

Volume 2 home page

 Volume 2 Section 3
Registration of Amendments Part 2 BA 37/92

REGISTRATION OF AMENDMENTS

Amend Page No Signature & Date of Amend Page No Signature & Date of
No incorporation of No incorporation of
amendments amendments
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 29-Oct-2024, BA 37/92, published: Oct-1992

ELECTRONIC COPY - NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY

PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED October 1992
Volume 2 home page
 DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES

VOLUME 2 HIGHWAY
STRUCTURES:
DESIGN
(SUBSTRUCTURES
AND SPECIAL
STRUCTURES),
MATERIALS
SECTION 3 MATERIALS AND
COMPONENTS

PART 2

BA 37/92

PRIORITY RANKING OF EXISTING

PARAPETS
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 29-Oct-2024, BA 37/92, published: Oct-1992

Contents

Chapter

1. Introduction

2. Historical Survey of Parapet Types

3. Factors Affecting Priority

4. Risk Evaluation

5. Containment Evaluation

6. Priority Ranking

7. Remedial Work on Substandard Parapets

8. References

9. Enquiries

Annex A Risk Rankings

Annex B Hazards Below and Adjacent to

Structure - Railway Types

ELECTRONIC COPY - NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY

October 1992 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED

Volume 2 home page

 Volume 2 Section 3 Chapter 1
Part 2 BA 37/92 Introduction

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. The existing stock of structures on motorways
and other trunk roads exhibits a large variety of parapet
types; many of these are not adequate to cope with the
needs of present traffic as expressed in the current
criteria for the design of new bridge parapets, BE 5
(DMRB 2.2) (currently being updated as BD 52/92).
As part of the Overseeing Department's programme for
the rehabilitation of trunk road structures it is intended
that the parapets on existing structures should, where
necessary, be brought up to the current design standard
on a priority basis with the highest risk sites being
tackled first.

1.2. Since it is proposed that all structures in the

trunk road system should have a parapet priority
ranking assigned to them, the method of establishing
that ranking must be reasonably simple to apply,
avoiding the need for an elaborate analysis and
calculation for each and every structure. At the same
time, the method must be sufficiently clear and
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 29-Oct-2024, BA 37/92, published: Oct-1992

objective to ensure a reasonable consistency of ranking

when used by different assessing engineers.

Scope

1.3. This Advice Note gives criteria for establishing

the priority ranking of parapets. It should be applied to
all structures including retaining walls in the trunk road
stock, taking account of their age, condition and
situation. It gives priorities for action to upgrade
parapets, regardless of the degree of difficulty of
undertaking the upgrading. These difficulties are not
discussed in detail here, but must be assessed
individually for each structure. It is important that the
work of upgrading substandard parapets is co-ordinated
with other work so as to minimize costs and disruption
to traffic and this may lead to adjustments in
programming the upgrading work. These traffic
management aspects are not discussed in this Advice
Note.

Implementation

1.4 This Advice Note should be used to establish

the priority ranking of all existing parapets on trunk
road structures. Completion of this ranking should be
within a timescale agreed with the Overseeing
Department. Advice given in Chapter 7 - 'Remedial
Work on Substandard Parapets' - should be referred to
when undertaking parapet upgrading.

ELECTRONIC COPY - NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY

October 1992 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED 1/1
Volume 2 home page
 Volume 2 Section 3 Chapter 2
Part 2 BA 37/92 Historical Survey of Parapet Types

2. HISTORICAL SURVEY OF PARAPET TYPES

2.1. Parapets can be classified fundamentally into 2.4. Parapets built since 1967 are not necessarily
those which were built before the advent of design satisfactory in terms of containment and some will need
criteria based on containment in 1967, and those which to be strengthened. The reasons for this include:-
have been built since that date.
i. parapets incorrectly designed or constructed, eg
2.2. Pre-1967 parapets include a large number of some early parapets were detailed without
masonry and brick parapets, generally associated with proper continuity in the longitudinal members;
masonry arch bridges. These rely principally on their
mass to keep the stresses in the mortar layers ii. parapets designed to lower containment criteria
compressive under light to moderate impact loadings. where higher containment is now required;
They cannot be relied on to contain heavier vehicles
travelling at speed, and secondary incidents may be iii. parapets which have deteriorated; this includes
initiated by falling debris. Masonry parapets can be steel members which have corroded (check
upgraded by providing a reinforced concrete stem internal condition of hollow members) and
which may be integral with a horizontal slab spanning parapet fixings both of which in some cases
all or part of the way transversely across the bridge. have lost virtually all their design capacity;
Such reinforced concrete parapets may be clad with
masonry or brick slips to retain their original iv. parapets with other material problems,
appearance. Where masonry and brick parapets are including possible embrittlement in certain
provided on older types of bridges other than masonry earlier aluminium parapet types;
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 29-Oct-2024, BA 37/92, published: Oct-1992

arch structures, the problems of upgrading them may be

more akin to those described below. v. parapets which have been damaged and have
not been satisfactorily repaired.
2.3. Pre-1967 bridges, other than those arches dealt
with above, may have a variety of parapet types,
including wrought iron, cast iron, steel, timber,
masonry, in situ and precast concrete. The
superstructures of these bridges may not have sufficient
capacity to transmit the impact forces from parapets of
modern containment standards, and, unlike arch
bridges, may not have sufficient reserves of dead load
capacity to allow additional strengthening members to
be added to the structure; partial rebuilding of the
structure may therefore be required. The metal parapets
usually have little mass compared to masonry parapets,
and may be in a deteriorated condition. In such
conditions, even minor impacts may lead to penetration.
Furthermore, substandard parapets of this type may be
provided on relatively modern road schemes on heavily
used routes and will attract high rankings in the risk
evaluation. However some of the parapets on bridges
built before 1967 have already been provided with
additional protection often in the form of safety fences,
and, when the safety fence conforms to current
standards, such provision will justify allotting a lower
priority in lists for further remedial action.

ELECTRONIC COPY - NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY

October 1992 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED 2/1
Volume 2 home page
 Volume 2 Section 3 Chapter 3
Part 2 BA 37/92 Factors Affecting Priority

3. FACTORS AFFECTING PRIORITY

3.1. It is clear that several factors play an important
part in establishing priority ratings for action to upgrade
parapets. Among the most important of these are:

i. the nature of the risk associated with the bridge

in question which may be sub-divided into the
following hazard groups:-

a. Features below or adjacent to the

structure.

b. Type of highway carried by the

structure.

c. The road geometry and structure

layout.

d. Containment features.

ii. the degree of shortfall in the containment

Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 29-Oct-2024, BA 37/92, published: Oct-1992

capacity of the parapet.

ELECTRONIC COPY - NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY

October 1992 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED 3/1
Volume 2 home page
 Volume 2 Section 3 Chapter 4
Part 2 BA 37/92 Risk Evaluation

4. RISK EVALUATION
4.1. The degree of risk in terms of the number of front of the parapet, this parapet should be excluded
people likely to be involved in any secondary accident from the Ranking System.
is affected by certain aspects of the location and
purpose of a bridge. When the bridge crosses a busy
road, a railway line, or certain other sensitive features, Evaluation of Risk from Hazard Group Rankings
the degree of risk will plainly be greater than if it
crosses, say, a minor water course. Even if the bridge is 4.5. The risk ranking for each hazard group should
a major high level estuarine crossing, the degree of risk be determined from the table given in Annex A. The
will be relatively low if the risks are confined to the overall risk ranking is to be the sum of the rankings for
occupants of the penetrating vehicle. For bridges over groups 1, 2, 3 and 4. (Values will range from 2 to 20).
roads the degree of risk tends to increase in proportion
to the volume of traffic on the carriageways below. 4.6. Certain bridges may have more than one
ranking in each group. For example, a structure may
4.2. The risk to the traffic on the bridge in the event cross both a railway and a road. Bridges on older single
of full or partial penetration of the parapet is more carriageways may simultaneously be on roads of poor
difficult to define and the rankings given in Annex A alignment and close to junctions and of reduced parapet
have therefore been limited to broad categories of clearance. However, for each structure, the worst single
highways. ranking from each of the above four groups are to be
added together to arrive at an overall risk ranking.
4.3. The road alignments and clearances on older
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 29-Oct-2024, BA 37/92, published: Oct-1992

routes may be substandard in terms of vertical and/or

horizontal alignment and this will increase the
possibility of parapet collision incidents although the
accident record of the site may be quite good.

Clearly a site with a poor accident record, for any

reason, will attract a high ranking.

4.4. Certain aspects of the method of providing

containment need to be allowed for. In particular,
certain through deck bridges rely on the main members
to provide vehicle containment and this constitutes a
high degree of hazard since a collision could lead to the
collapse of the bridge itself.

On the other hand, certain structural members or

substandard bridge parapets have already been
protected by the installation of additional containment
facilities. Where their combined containment capability
is adequate, they do not need to be considered for
upgrading. Where normal highway safety fences are
used, consideration should be given to the clearance
provided. If this clearance is less than the minimum
given in TD 19/85 (DMRB 2.2) there is a risk that the
fence will strike the structure or parapet during vehicle
collision.

Where standard systems of safety fence or safety barrier

are provided together with the necessary clearance in

ELECTRONIC COPY - NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY

October 1992 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED 4/1
Volume 2 home page
 Volume 2 Section 3 Chapter 5
Part 2 BA 37/92 Containment Evaluation

5. CONTAINMENT EVALUATION
5.1. The weaker a parapet is in terms of its
containment capacity, the higher the priority that should
be assigned to it for upgrading action. However, there
are problems involved in trying to assess the strength of
certain existing parapets in relation to current design
requirements. Although there are design values for the
required strengths of new parapets, the final criterion of
acceptability is based on a satisfactory performance in
dynamic tests. Many existing parapets were
constructed prior to the introduction of design criteria
based on containment and had been individually
designed without the use of dynamic tests.

5.2. In view of this situation, the strength of each

parapet, including its fixings and supports, should be
assessed for ranking purposes on the basis of
engineering judgement, aimed at establishing three
broad categories of remnant strength. Full allowance
should be made for the condition of the parapet, see
paras 2.4 iii, iv and v. To help in achieving a degree of
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 29-Oct-2024, BA 37/92, published: Oct-1992

uniformity in these strength assessments, occasional

strength checks based principally on the resistance of
the existing parapet (ie posts for post and rail parapets,
cantilever strength for continuous parapets) should be
carried out.

5.3. In situations where present design requirements

would indicate the use of a P6 high containment parapet
type, then the containment requirement for a high
containment parapet will be the basis for assessing the
remnant strength category of the existing parapet.

Evaluation of Containment Ranking

5.4. The containment ranking should be determined

from the remnant strength of the parapet as a percentage
of the current design standard requirement and is given
in the table below:

Containment
Ranking

Remnant strength 0 to 33%

of full design strength 5
Remnant strength 34 to 66% 3
Remnant strength 67 to 100% 1

ELECTRONIC COPY - NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY

October 1992 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED 5/1
Volume 2 home page
 Volume 2 Section 3 Chapter 6
Part 2 BA 37/92 Priority Ranking

6. PRIORITY RANKING
6.1. The priority ranking is obtained from the
containment ranking (from para 5.4) multiplied by the
overall risk ranking (from para 4.5).

6.2. The priority ranking will be the basis for

assessing priorities for the work to upgrade parapets.
Sites with high priority ranking will generally be
upgraded before those with lower rankings.
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 29-Oct-2024, BA 37/92, published: Oct-1992

ELECTRONIC COPY - NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY

October 1992 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED 6/1
Volume 2 home page
 Volume 2 Section 3 Chapter 7
Part 2 BA 37/92 Remedial Work on Substandard Parapets

7. REMEDIAL WORK ON SUBSTANDARD

PARAPETS
7.1. Some of the general principles relating to the 7.5. Destruction of a parapet usually takes place
remedial work on substandard parapets are described when impact forces are substantially in excess of the
below. Details are not covered here and are outside the required containment level and a supporting structure is
scope of this Advice Note. Any remedial work required normally required to accommodate such an event
for the substandard parapets should be assessed and without damage. In cases where the cost and
considered individually for each structure. inconvenience of strengthening the supporting structure
are excessive (eg long viaduct), it may be economic to
7.2. The primary function of a parapet is to provide accept local damage to the supporting structure as a
vehicle containment together with safe redirection. result of catastrophic failure of the parapet and to effect
However, special consideration must be given to how a repair at the same time as the parapet replacement.
this can be achieved in structures which are listed or are
of historic importance without destroying the character
of these structures. The Overseeing Department should
be consulted in these cases at an early stage.

7.3. Among the available methods of upgrading

existing parapets, the following options should be kept
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 29-Oct-2024, BA 37/92, published: Oct-1992

in mind:-

i. remove old parapet and replace with a new one

to current standard;

ii. strengthen existing system by provision of new

components only (eg posts, rails, fixings);

iii. strengthen post and rail system by providing

additional posts. This is normally achieved by
addition of an extra post in the middle of the
bay;

iv. provide an additional independent containment

facility. This option is only viable if there is
sufficient room available to allow for an
installation which provides adequate set back
from the carriageway edge and deflection under
impact. The facility will generally be
acceptable in the long term provided that the
substandard parapet is adequate for pedestrian
containment.

7.4. Before undertaking the strengthening of

existing bridge parapets, the structure supporting the
parapets must be checked to ensure that there is
adequate strength for the additional loadings imposed
due to the upgrading of bridge parapets. Where
structures are included in the Overseeing Department's
bridge assessment programme, their parapets should be
assessed at the same time.

ELECTRONIC COPY - NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY

October 1992 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED 7/1
Volume 2 home page
 Volume 2 Section 3 Chapter 8
Part 2 BA 37/92 References

8. REFERENCES
8.1. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

Volume 2: Section 2 Special Structures

BE 5 - The Design of Highway Bridge Parapets

(Fourth Revision) [and Amendment No.2]
(DMRB 2.2) (currently being updated as BD
52/92)

TD 19/85 - Safety Fences and Barriers (DMRB

2.2)
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 29-Oct-2024, BA 37/92, published: Oct-1992

ELECTRONIC COPY - NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY

October 1992 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED 8/1
Volume 2 home page
 Volume 2 Section 3 Chapter 9
Part 2 BA 37/92 Enquiries

9. ENQUIRIES
All technical enquiries or comments on this Advice Note should be sent in writing as appropriate to:-

Head of Bridges Engineering Division

The Department of Transport
St Christopher House
Southwark Street P H DAWE
London SE1 0TE Head of Bridges Engineering Division

The Deputy Chief Engineer

Roads Directorate
The Scottish Office Industry Department
New St Andrew's House J INNES
Edinburgh EH1 3TG Deputy Chief Engineer
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 29-Oct-2024, BA 37/92, published: Oct-1992

Head of Roads Engineering (Construction) Division

Welsh Office
Y Swyddfa Gymreig
Government Buildings
Ty Glas Road B H HAWKER
Llanishen Head of Roads Engineering
Cardiff CF4 5PL (Construction) Division

Superintending Engineer Works

Department of the Environment for
Northern Ireland
Commonwealth House
Castle Street D O'HAGAN
Belfast BT1 1GU Superintending Engineer Works

Orders for further copies should be addressed to:

DOE/DOT Publications Sales Unit

Government Building
Block 3, Spur 2
Lime Grove
Eastcote HA4 8SE Telephone No: 081 429 5170

ELECTRONIC COPY - NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY

October 1992 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED 9/1
Volume 2 home page
 Volume 2 Section 3
Part 2 BA 37/92 Annex A

RISK RANKING
HAZARD GROUPS

GROUP (1) FEATURES BELOW OR ADJACENT TO STRUCTURE (SEE 4.1)

Structure either crossing over or lying alongside: Risk
Ranking
a. Motorway or AP trunk road with traffic flow over 80,000 vpd 5
b. Motorway or AP trunk road with traffic flow 60,000 to 80,000 vpd 4
c. Motorway or AP trunk road with traffic flow 40,000 to 60,000 vpd 3
d. Motorway or AP trunk road with traffic flow 20,000 to 40,000 vpd 2
e. Motorway or AP trunk road with traffic flow below 20,000 vpd 1
f. Railway type A (see Annex B) 5
g. Railway type B (see Annex B) 4
h. Other areas occupied by people, valuable installation, environmentally sensitive 1 to 5
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 29-Oct-2024, BA 37/92, published: Oct-1992

areas such as conservation areas, storage of hazardous materials, etc

GROUP (2) TYPE OF HIGHWAY CARRIED BY THE STRUCTURE

Risk
Structure carrying: Ranking

a. Dual 4 or 3 lane motorway or all purpose trunk road 5

b. Dual 2 lane motorway or all purpose trunk road 3
c. Single carriageway road 1

GROUP (3) ROAD AND STRUCTURE LAYOUT (see 4.3)

Risk
Ranking
a. Structure at a location having a poor accident record. 5
b. Structure carrying a road at or close to junctions/interchanges. 3
c. Structure carrying a road with inferior horizontal/vertical alignment. 1 to 4
d. Structure having reduced clearance between carriageway and parapet. 1 to 3
e. Structure where location or layout does not effect the risk 0

ELECTRONIC COPY - NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY

October 1992 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED A/1
Volume 2 home page
 Volume 2 Section 3
Annex A Part 2 BA 37/92

GROUP (4) CONTAINMENT FEATURES (see 4.4)

Risk
Ranking
a. Parapet consists, in whole or in part, of members which are also the main structural 5
elements of the bridge.
b. Parapet consists, in whole or in part, of members failure of which would not lead to 3
loss of the bridge or a span.
c. Parapet members not part of bridge structural members. 0

NOTE: Where a range of possible rankings is offered in a group, judgement is required to allocate a ranking
according to the greatest severity of the hazards at each location.
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 29-Oct-2024, BA 37/92, published: Oct-1992

ELECTRONIC COPY - NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY

A/2 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED October 1992
Volume 2 home page
 Volume 2 Section 3
Part 2 BA 37/92 Annex B

HAZARDS BELOW AND ADJACENT TO

STRUCTURE - RAILWAY TYPES

TYPE DESCRIPTION
A a. High speed railway line (over 160km/h); or

b. Busy railway line (with peak intensity of more than six trains an hour
each way); or

c. Any railway line carrying more than six trains per week conveying more
than one wagon containing any of the following hazardous substances:

i. FLAMMABLE GASES
(Class 2(a))

ii. TOXIC GASES

(Class 2(c))

iii. ANHYDROUS HYDROGEN CYANIDE

Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 29-Oct-2024, BA 37/92, published: Oct-1992

(HYDROCYANIC ACID HCN) or

similar products
(Class 6.1 (a));
or:

d. Any railway carrying more than six "Block" trains per week conveying
FLAMMABLE LIQUIDS with a flash point below 21EC (Class 3 (a)); or

e. Any railway line running close alongside a road when the rail level is
more than 1m below the carriageway surface.

B Any other railway line

NOTES:

Note 1: The classifications for hazardous substances are defined in Part 3 of the Working Manual for Rail Staff and
shall be agreed with the Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate.

Note 2: "Empty" wagons which have contained any of the hazardous substances mentioned in this Appendix should be
regarded as "full" unless the wagon has been purged after discharging the load.

Note 3: Explosives or radioactive substances, because of the way they are transported, are not regarded as "hazardous
goods" in the context of this Appendix.

Note 4: A "Block" train is one in which the complete train is made up of wagons carrying the same substance.

ELECTRONIC COPY - NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY

October 1992 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED B/1
Volume 2 home page