technical notes

CAR IMPACT BARRIERS FOR ELEVATED STRUCTURES

Wheel stops should not be relied upon to prevent cars falling off elevated structures.
Impact barriers must be provided.
Impact barriers must satisfy the load requirements of Australian Standard AS 1170.1 - 2002

Vehicle Impact
Barriers for
Elevated Structures
Result of an Inquest
by Peter J. Taylor
Date of Issue: July, 2009

Taylor Lauder Bersten Pty Ltd

ABN 94 074 717 892

Level 6, 1 James Place, North Sydney NSW 2060

p. 02 9409 3300 f. 02 9929 6667 e. info@tlbengineers.com

Contents
1. Introduction
2.

Wheel Stops

3.

Vehicle Barriers

4.

The Coroners Conclusion

5. Comments

References
Appendix 1: AS 1170, Part 1 1981
Appendix 2: AS/NZS 1170.1 2002

Taylor Lauder Bersten Pty Ltd

ABN 94 074 717 892

Level 6, 1 James Place, North Sydney NSW 2060 p. 02 9409 3300 f. 02 9929 6667 info@tlbengineers.com www.tlbengineers.com

1. Introduction
1.1

In January 2009, the Deputy State Coroner issued his findings into the
death of Mr. Thomas Lee, who in 2006 reversed his car into a car space
on the second storey of a multi-storey Sydney car park, and collided with
the external steel barrier which failed. Mr Lees car fell some nine metres
to the ground below, and he was killed. (Ref 1).

1.2

Peter Taylor of TLB Engineers was an expert witness in the Coroners

Court.

1.3

During the inquest, evidence was given that the car park was built in 1986
and the vehicle barriers should have been designed and constructed to
withstand loads in accordance with the requirements of the Australian
Standard AS 1170.1 1981. (Appendix 1 and Reference 3).

1.4

It was found that the structural design of the steel barriers did not meet
the 1981 SAA Code loading requirements for impact from cars. There
was a suggestion that some reliance for vehicle restraint may have been
placed on pre-cast concrete wheel stops, although these were not
present at the ends of aisles where the barrier was the only restraint. In
any event, it was found by calculation that the steel barriers which may
have appeared to have been substantial to a lay person, were not even
structurally adequate for pedestrian loading in accordance with AS 1170.1
1981.

2. Wheel Stops
2.1

The 150mm high pre-cast concrete wheel stop did not prevent Mr. Lees
car from impacting the steel barrier.

2.2

The 1971 and 1981 versions of AS 1170.1 stated: Note: Special

consideration should be given to the design of kerbings and guard rails to
alleviate possible vehicle impact on the structure. (Refer to Appendix 1
and References 2 and 3).

2.3

During the inquest evidence was given that in some buildings there was
complete reliance on wheel stops only to restrain vehicles.

2.4

The Coroners opinion was that this was an erroneous interpretation of

the SAA Code (AS 1170.1 1981), and consequently, the steel barriers
should have been designed to withstand vehicle impact as if the wheel
stops were not present.

3. Vehicle Barriers
3.1

Barriers are intended to minimise the risk of injury to persons by

containing moving vehicles, especially on elevated floor slabs.

3.2

The SAA Codes recommend minimum lateral loads and heights of load
application for the structural design of barriers.

3.3

Both the 1971 and 1981 loading codes required that the horizontal impact
load should be 1.5 x 1500 kg for domestic and 1.5 x 2250 kg for other
structures, applied at a height above floor level of 0.45m generally and not
less than 0.9 m for trucks (References 2 and 3).

Taylor Lauder Bersten Pty Ltd

ABN 94 074 717 892

Level 6, 1 James Place, North Sydney NSW 2060 p. 02 9409 3300 f. 02 9929 6667 info@tlbengineers.com www.tlbengineers.com

3.4

Therefore the steel barrier which Mr. Lee encountered should have been
designed to withstand a horizontal force of 1.5 x 2250 kg applied at
a height of 0.45m above the top of the floor slab. Evidence was given
that structural calculations showed the barrier to be quite inadequate to
withstand this load.

4. The Coroners Conclusion

4.1

Because the evidence presented at the Court hearing suggested that

in most areas of this building the designers must have relied on wheel
stops only to contain vehicles, the Coroner sought to correct this risk
of deficiency in existing elevated car parks by recommending that they
should all be reviewed to ensure compliance with the current SAA Code
AS/NZS 1170.1 2002 which is more specific in relation to the use of
kerbs and wheel stops. (Appendix 2 and Reference 4).

4.2

The Coroners recommendations include:

(a) . . . that the Minister take steps . . . to ensure that all multi-storey
above-ground car parks built before 1989 be required to upgrade
vehicle and pedestrian barriers to comply with the current Australian
Standard.
(b) . . . that the Ministers take steps . . . to ensure that Councils have
the powers necessary to conduct audits of above-ground car parks
built before 1989 to determine whether they are in need of urgent
upgrading to ensure safety. The relevant Australian Standard with
respect to design loads for both pedestrian and vehicle impact at
present is AS 1170.1 2002. (Refer to Appendix 2 and Reference 4).

5. Recommendations
5.1

The Australian Standard AS/NZS 2890.1 2004 Parking Facilities Part 1

Off-Street Car Parking requires that wherever the drop from the edge of
a parking area exceeds 600mm, barriers should be provided to withstand
the loads required by AS/NZS 1170.1.

5.2

AS 2890.1 notes that the purpose of wheel stops is as an optional parking

guide to limit the travel of a vehicle into a parking space. They are not
mandatory.

5.3

The load capacity of existing barriers and/or the provision of new barriers
should also be considered during the maintenance and/or refurbishment
of existing buildings.

References
1. Engineers Australia, March 2009.
2. Standards Association of Australia, AS 1170, Part 1 1971, SAA Loading
Code.
3. Standards Association of Australia, AS 1170, Part 1 1981, SAA Loading
Code.
4. Standards Australia, AS/NZS 1170.1: 2002, Structural design actions, Part 1.

Taylor Lauder Bersten Pty Ltd

ABN 94 074 717 892

Level 6, 1 James Place, North Sydney NSW 2060 p. 02 9409 3300 f. 02 9929 6667 info@tlbengineers.com www.tlbengineers.com

Appendix 1
AS 1170, Part 1 1981

S E C T I O N 3, L I V E L O A D S
3.1 FLOOR, CEILING AND LIKE LIVE LOADS.
3.1.1
General. The live loads assumed for the structural design
of floors, ceilings and the like shall be the greatest applied loads
likely to arise from the intended use or purpose of the building or
structure and these parts shall be designed to sustain, subject
to any reduction permitted by Clause 3.9, whichever of the
following loads will produce the most adverse effects.
(a) The known loads which will be imposed because of the use of
purpose of the building or structure.
(b) The relevant uniformly distributed load obtained from Appendix B
or Clause 3.1.2, as appropriate.
(c) The relevant concentrated load obtained from Appendix B or
Clause 3.8.3, as appropriate.
(d) Loads due to the stacking of building materials or the use of
equipment (e.g. cranes and trucks) during construction or loads
which may be induced by floor-to-floor propping in multi-storey
construction.
NOTE: Close supervision of the construction is essential to ensure
that overloading due to causes given in (d) above does not
occur. Where floor-to-floor propping is employed close control
of the propping sequence should be maintained throughout
the construction period and the propping system should be
approved by an engineer competent in structural design.
3.1.2
Uniformly Distributed Live Load on Re-stricted Areas.
For floors of buildings in which the uniformly distributed live
load given in Appendix B is less than 4kPa, and the floor
area supported by any member is 3 m2 or less, the uniformly
distributed live load on that part of the floor shall be assumed as
one of the following, as appropriate:
(a) 4 kPa when the part is 1.0 m2 or less in area.
(b) The uniformly distributed load per square metre given in
Appendix B when the part is 3 m2 in area.
(c) A uniformly distributed load varying linearly between that for 1
m2 and that for 3 m2 when the part is between 1 and 3 m2 in
area.
NOTE: The provisions of this Clause are intended to provide for
possible crowd loadings on restricted areas.
3.2 PARTIAL LOADING. Although Appendix B prescribes minimum
live loads it shall be assumed also that the prescribed load can
be absent from any part or parts of a structure if its absence
therefrom will cause more adverse effects on that or any other
part.
3.3 IMPACT AND INERTIA LOADS. The live loads given in
Appendix B may be assumed to include sufficient allowance for
the effects of vertical impact arising through the normal use or
purposes of the structure.

Forces produced by installed apparatus or processes involving

the acceleration of unbalanced masses (as in reciprocating
machinery) shall be calculated and treated as additional live
loads*.
Horizontal impact or braking forces arising from the movement of
vehicles shall be calculated and treated as additional live loads.

Such loads, considered as acting separately, shall be(a) for impact . . . . . not less than 1.5 x the gross static force
imposed by the vehicle mass;
(b) for braking . . . . . not less than 0.5 x the gross static force
imposed by the vehicle mass;
and, in the absence of more definite information, the assumed mass
of the vehicle shall be taken as (i) On domestic structures.............................1500kg;
(ii) On all other structures.................................2250kg.

The height at which vehicle impact forces are considered to

act shall be generally 0.45m above floor level but in the case of
motor trucks it shall be not less than 0.9m.

NOTE: Special consideration should be given to the design of

kerbings and guard rails to alleviate possible vehicular impact on
the structure and it should be noted that the impact forces from
runaway vehicles on ramps can considerably exceed the loads
specified above.

3.4 CRANE, HOIST AND LIFT LOADS. Live loads imposed by the
dynamic effect of operation of permanently installed cranes,
hoists and the like shall be calculated in accordance with the
relevant provisions of AS 1418.

Live loads imposed by the dynamic effect of operation of

permanently installed lifts shall be calculated in accordance with
the relevant provisions of AS 1735.

3.5 LONG DURATION LOADING. Where there is likelihood that the

live loads from stored materials or installed plant will be of long
duration, the appropriate factors, if any, given in the relevant
structural design standard for the materials of construction shall
be applied.
3.6 THERMAL MOVEMENT LOADS. Loading effects produced on
structures through expansion and contraction of materials of
construction due to temperature of moisture content changes
shall be allowed for where appropriate.

In the absence of more exact local information on diurnal and

seasonal changes in air temperature the information given in
Table 1 may be used.

3.7 OTHER LIVE LOADS.

3.7.1
Stairways and Landings. Stairways and landings (other
than stairways for inspection and maintenance which are
covered by AS 1657) shall be designed for a distributed load
of not less than that given in Appendix B. Each individual stair
tread shall be designed for a load of 1.4 kN concentrated in any
position or a distributed load of 2.2 kN/m of tread measured
across the width of the stairway, whichever load produces
the more adverse effects. Each intermediate landing shall be
designed for the uniformly distributed load or for a load of 1.54
kN concentrated in any position whichever load produces the
more adverse effects.
_____________________________________________
* See the relevant structural design standards for the provisions to
be made for impact loading.

Taylor Lauder Bersten Pty Ltd

ABN 94 074 717 892

Level 6, 1 James Place, North Sydney NSW 2060 p. 02 9409 3300 f. 02 9929 6667 info@tlbengineers.com www.tlbengineers.com

Appendix 2
AS/NZS 1170.1 2002

Taylor Lauder Bersten Pty Ltd

ABN 94 074 717 892

Level 6, 1 James Place, North Sydney NSW 2060 p. 02 9409 3300 f. 02 9929 6667 info@tlbengineers.com www.tlbengineers.com