DESIGN of BRIDGES
Pietro Croce et al.
Guidebook 2
DESIGN of BRIDGES
Pietro Croce et al.
Editor:
Pietro Croce, University of Pisa, Department of Civil Engineering, Structural Division
Authors:
Pietro Croce, University of Pisa, Department of Civil Engineering, Structural Division
Milan Holick, Czech Technical University in Prague, Klokner Institute
Jana Markov, Czech Technical University in Prague, Klokner Institute
Angel Arteaga, E. Torroja Institute of Construction Sciences, CSIC, Madrid
Ana de Diego, E. Torroja Institute of Construction Sciences, CSIC, Madrid
Peter Tanner, E. Torroja Institute of Construction Sciences, CSIC, Madrid
Carlos Lara, E. Torroja Institute of Construction Sciences, CSIC, Madrid
Dimitris Diamantidis, University of Applied Sciences in Regensburg, Faculty of Civil Engineering
Ton Vrouwenvelder, Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, Delft
Gui debook 2
Desi gn of Bri dges
ISBN: 9788001046173
Edi t ed by: Pi et ro Croce, Uni versi t y of Pi sa
Publ i shed by: Czech Techni cal Uni versi t y i n Prague, Kl okner Inst i tut e
ol nova 7, 166 08 Prague 6, Czech Republ i c
Pages: 230
1
st
edi t i on
Foreword
3
FOREWORD
The Leonardo da Vinci Project CZ/08/LLPLdV/TOI/134020 Transfer of Innovations
Provided in Eurocodes, addresses the urgent need to implement the new system of European
documents related to design and construction work and products.
These documents, called Eurocodes, are systematically based on the recently
developed Council Directive 89/106/EEC The Construction Product Directive and its
Interpretative Documents ID 1 and ID 2. Implementation of Eurocodes in each Member State
is a demanding task as each country has its own longterm tradition in design and
construction.
The project should enable an effective implementation and application of the new
methods for designing and verification of buildings and civil engineering works in all the
partner countries (CZ, DE, ES, IT, NL) and in other Member States.
The need to explain and effectively use the latest principles specified in Eurocodes
standards is apparent from enterprises, undertakings and public national authorities involved
in construction industry and also from university and colleges. Training materials, manuals
and software programmes for education are urgently required.
The submitted Guidebook 2 completes the set of two guidebooks intended to provide
required manuals and software products for training, education and effective implementation
of Eurocodes:
Guidebook 1: Load Effects on Buildings
Guidebook 2: Design of bridges.
It is expected that the Guidebooks will address the following intents in further
harmonization o f European construction industry:
 reliability improvement and unification of the process of design,
 development of a single market for product and for construction services,
 improvement of the competitiveness of the European industries in the global world
market;
 new opportunities for trained primary target groups in the labour market.
The Guidebook 2 is focused on determining load effects on road, railway and
pedestrian bridges and special civil structures. The following main topics are discussed in
particular:
 basic requirements on bridges,
 basis of structural design,
 traffic loads for static and fatigue assessment and climatic actions,
 accidental actions,
 combination rules for bridges,
 examples and case studies.
Annex A to Guidebook 2 concerns new traffic trends in European countries and their
consequences on load models and on assessment of existing bridges; Annex B provides basic
information about action and combination rules for special structures, like cranes, masts,
towers and pipelines.
Foreword
4
The Guidebook 2 is written in a userfriendly way employing only basic mathematical
tools, supplemented by examples and case studies developed in detail.
A wide range of potential users of the Guidebooks and other training materials
includes practising engineers, designers, technicians, experts of public authorities, young
people high school and university students. The target groups come from all territorial
regions of the partner countries. However, the dissemination of the project results is foreseen
to be spread into all Member States of CEN and other interested countries.
Pisa 2010
Contents
5
GUIDEBOOK 2 DESIGN OF BRIDGES
CONTENTS
Foreword 3
Contents 5
Chapter 1: Basic requirements 7
Chapter 2: Basis of design methodological aspects 15
Appendix A to Chapter 2 Principles of probabilistic optimization 27
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic 33
Appendix A to Chapter 3 Development of static load traffic models
for road bridges of EN 19912 63
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic 79
Appendix A to Chapter 4 Vehicle interactions and fatigue assessments 99
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions 105
Chapter 6: Accidental actions 119
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes 134
Chapter 8: Case study  Design of a concrete bridge 147
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge 165
Chapter 10: Case study  Design of a composite bridge 191
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN19912 load models 209
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines 221
Contents
6
Chapter 1: Basic requirements
7
CHAPTER 1: BASIC REQUIREMENTS
Angel Arteaga
1
, and Ana de Diego
1
1
E. Torroja Institute of Construction Sciences, CSIC. Madrid. Spain
Summary
The Eurocode system establishes a series of basic requirements that must be met by all
structures to ensure their suitability for their intended use and durability. Those requirements,
based on European Commission Directives and other construction standards in place, are
reviewed and explained in Chapter 1 of Guidebook 1. This first chapter of Guidebook 2
describes the specific requirements applicable to bridges.
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background documents
All the essential requirements to be met by any construction work, bridges included,
are laid down in Eurocode EN 1990 [1]. The serviceability limits specifically applicable to
bridges, in which user safety and comfort are the prime concerns, are set out in EN 1990/A1
(EN 1990 Annex 2) [2]. That standard also specifies the combinations of actions to be
considered when verifying ultimate and serviceability limit states in bridges.
1.2 General principles
Chapter 1 of Guidebook 1 on buildings [3] provides a detailed account of the
requirements that, pursuant to the Construction Products Directive (CPD) [4], must be met by
construction products for their free circulation on the European construction products market.
The provisions of the CPD are applicable not only to buildings, but to construction
works in general. The definition of construction works contained in Interpretative document
No 1: Mechanical resistance and stability [5], expressly includes bridges. Hence, the entire
content of that Chapter 1 is relevant to bridges. Readers who wish to consult the general
requirements for bridges are referred to the aforementioned chapter of Guidebook 1: the
present chapter of Guidebook 2 is limited to questions exclusively pertinent to bridges.
In its Annex I [4], the CPD lists six essential requirements that must be met by all
construction products and works, as follows:
1. Mechanical resistance and stability
2. Safety in case of fire
3. Hygiene, health and the environment
4. Safety in use
5. Protection against noise
6. Energy economy and heat retention
Of these, only the first two are generally related to structural behaviour and
consequently only they are covered by structural Eurocodes.
Chapter 1: Basic requirements
8
The provisions of essential requirement 2, safety in case of fire, include a number of
structural behaviourrelated issues. Indeed, while Part 1.2 of all the Eurocodes, from EN 1991
on actions in general to EN 1992 to EN 1999 on structural materials, deal with structural
behaviour in the event of fire, this question was not addressed in Guidebook 1 nor is it
included in this Guidebook 2.
Consequently, the present publication and specifically this chapter cover only the first
of the essential requirements, mechanical resistance and stability. Inasmuch as the third
through the sixth requirements do not involve structural behaviour, compliance therewith
cannot, generally speaking, be ensured under the provisions of the structural Eurocodes. For
that reason, they are not considered in either Guidebook 1 [3] or the present text. That
notwithstanding, Annex 2 of EN 1990 [2] lists user safety and comfort requirements that
bridges must meet in connection with the fourth essential requirement, safety in use. Since [2]
relates these requirements to structural response, they are dealt with in this Guidebook as part
of the discussion on serviceability criteria.
2 BASIC REQUIREMENTS
2.1 General
The scope of EN 1990 Annex A2 [2] and EN 1991 Part 2 [6 ] covers road, rail and
foot bridges. By contrast, certain special kinds of bridges, such as moveable bridges,
aqueducts and combination road and railway bridges are excluded.
EN 1990 Annex A2 [2] also lists criteria for the combination of actions to be applied
to verify ultimate limit states (ULS), serviceability limit states (SLS), partial factors ( values)
and combination coefficients ( values). These issues are addressed in detail in Chapter 6
hereunder.
Annex A2 also lays down procedures and methods for verifying SLS when such limit
states are not related to the structural materials.
2.2 Permanent design situation requirements
All the provisions of [3] on ULS and SLS requirements are applicable to bridges and
nothing more is needed to say. Only to highlight that, in fact, the indication on the Guidebook
1 on the greater influence, today, of SLS than ULS requirements is particularly pertinent to
bridges, whose longer spans and stronger and lighter materials intensify their susceptibility to
deformation and vibrations. As a result, serviceability limit states may be more quickly
reached in such structures. In addition to that technological challenge, designers are faced
with an aesthetic issue: in bridges, beauty is essentially a result of the structure itself, which
means that possible flaws cannot be cloaked for want of a superstructure.
2.3 Transient situation requirements
In general, the load conditions affecting bridges during construction (see figure 1) can
vary in an important way from the conditions prevailing during normal use. The structural
strength scheme may also differ. Piers and decks that are designed to form portal frames in the
finished structure, for instance, may work like cantilevered beams with wholly different stress
distributions during construction. Therefore construction stage conditions must be specially
taken into account and the construction phases planned with particular care.
One condition, whose verification is normally very important in bridges, but much less
so in buildings, is the static equilibrium during construction. In certain stages of the
construction, actions or limit states may be of greater influence than in the finished structure.
The EQU limit states in these transient situations are often relevant and meticulous planning
Chapter 1: Basic requirements
9
is required to prevent EQU failure. In such cases, the possible position and values of self
weight and loads at different construction times must be taken into consideration, in the full
understanding that the values of characteristic actions, partial factors and combination
coefficients may differ from the permanent situation values. In this phase, the weight of
concrete cast on decks, for instance, is regarded to be not a permanent action as in the finished
structure, but a variable action. As a result, the factor applicable will be
Q
equal to 1.5
rather than
G
equal to 1.35.
The values of these parameters applicable to transient situations are given in Eurocode
EN 199116: Actions during execution [7].
Figure 1. Bridge under construction
2.4 Accidental situation requirements
Of the accidental actions listed in EN 199117 [8], only impacts and gross errors are
generally applicable to bridges.
Impact may be the result of collision either under or on the bridge. These situations are
dealt with separately in the Eurocodes: the former in [8] and the latter in [6] as traffic loads.
In bridges, clearly, other strategies besides design can be implemented to protect the
structure from major impact damage. Such alternative strategies include:
 the use of low sensitivity, highly robust structural typologies, such as redundancies
 the use of structural systems that warn of collapse i.e., ductile members
 the prevention or reduction of possible hazards by providing suitable clearance, ample
distance between lane centrelines and bridge members liable to be impacted
(bollards...) and so on.
The effect of impact on lightweight structures, such as some footbridges, is not
covered by [7]. In these cases, the aforementioned alternative strategies would be ever more
relevant.
Accidental actions affecting bridges are discussed in depth in Chapter 5 hereunder.
3 SERVICEABILITY REQUIREMENTS
3.1 General
As specified in [3], most serviceability criteria defined in terms of structural materials
are equally applicable to bridges and buildings.
Chapter 1: Basic requirements
10
In addition to general serviceability criteria, however, certain specific criteria are in
place for bridges in connection with user safety and comfort, more specifically to avoid
excessive deck vibration or deformation.
3.2 Serviceability criteria for road bridges
Table 1 gives the design values for the combinations of actions to be considered in
SLS verification. While the Eurocode recommends partial factors, , equal to 1,0 when
calculating the design values for actions from their characteristic values, this criterion may be
modified in national annexes.
Table 1. Design values for use in combinations of actions
Combination Permanent actions G
d
Prestress Variable actions Q
d
Unfavourable Favourable Leading Others
Characteristic
Frequent
Quasipermanent
G
kj,sup
G
kj,sup
G
kj,sup
G
kj,inf
G
kj,inf
G
kj,inf
P
P
P
Q
k,1
1,1
Q
k,1
2,1
Q
k,1
0,i
Q
k,i
2,i
Q
k,i
2,i
Q
k,i
Generally speaking, EN 1990 [1] recommends the use of characteristic and frequent
combinations for irreversible and reversible SLS, respectively, and the quasipermanent
combination for longterm effects and structural aesthetics. Certain specific SLS for road
bridges address durability or user comfort and safety.
Damage to structural load bearings before the end of their design working life must be
prevented by limiting the amplitude of deck vibration over the supports. Another solution is to
adopt for these elements, if replaceable, a shorter service life than for other members: 1525
years, instead of the 100 years normally established for bridges.
There are SLS directly related to user comfort and safety, such as uplift of the deck in
the supports (and, which would be, as noted, also cause damage to the bearings). Since these
limit states are related to human safety may be demanding higher safety levels than other
SLS.
Wind or trafficinduced deck vibrations may also have to be limited to ensure user
comfort.
3.3 Serviceability criteria for footbridges
The pursuit of ever lighter weight and more engaging bridge designs has led to some
wellknown cases of footbridges subject to excessive vibrations, causing extreme user
discomfort and forcing to take important measures to improve its conditions.
Depending of the different situations, Annex 2 [2] recommends considering different
load values:
 for persistent design situations, the presence of a group of about 8 to 15 people
(depending on the deck area) walking at a normal pace
 for other traffic categories, depending on the design situations: permanent,
transient or accidental, or the deck area or part of it in consideration, specific load
cases should be considered, when relevant: presence of streams of pedestrians
(significantly more than 15 persons), or occasional festive or choreographic events
 EN 1990 Annex 2 [3] recommends the following maximum deck acceleration
values:
0.7 m/s
2
for vertical vibrations
Chapter 1: Basic requirements
11
0.2 m/s
2
for horizontal vibrations due to normal use
0.4 m/s
2
for exceptional crowd conditions.
Such verifications are generally necessary only in footbridges with low natural
frequencies, i.e., under 5 Hz for vertical and under 2.5 Hz for horizontal (lateral) and torsional
vibrations. These low natural frequencies often occur in light footbridges.
3.4 Serviceability criteria for railway bridges
As in road bridges, the SLS for railway bridges are related to durability and user
comfort or safety, all in the context of excessive deck deformation or vibration and ultimately
of bridge stiffness.
Traffic may be compromised by excessive bridge deformation, which generates
unacceptably large vertical and horizontal variations in track geometry and vibrations in
bridge members. Such excessive vibrations may also cause ballast instability, inadmissible
reductions in wheelrail contact forces or rail fatigue, not to mention passenger discomfort.
Given that user safety is highly sensitive to track conditions, the following checks
should be performed:
 vertical acceleration in the deck, to prevent ballast instability;
 vertical deflection in the deck throughout each span;
 unrestrained uplift at the bearings, to avoid premature bearing failure;
 twist of the deck measured along the centre line of each track on the approaches to and
passage over bridges to minimise the risk of train derailment;
 horizontal transverse deflection;
 limits to the first natural frequency of lateral span vibration, to prevent resonance
between the bridge and the lateral motion of vehicles on their suspension.
Some of the above phenomena also affect passenger comfort due to excessive vertical
or horizontal acceleration.
To determine the effect of the actions on the bridge could be necessary to perform a
dynamic analysis, the EN 19912 [6] gives the conditions when this analysis is needed. In
general is needed in bridges serving lines with Maximum Line Speed in site bigger than 200
km/h, with no simple structure, spanning more than 40 m and with first natural torsional
frequency more than 1,2 times the first natural bending frequency. That document indicates
also the way to perform a dynamic analysis, but this is out of the scope of this Guidebook.
If this dynamic analysis is not needed, static load effects are enhanced by a dynamic
factor . This factor assume the value
2
or 3 depending on the track conditions, it results
82 . 0
2 . 0
44 , 1
2
+
=
L
1.00
2
1.67 (1)
for carefully maintained track and
73 . 0
2 . 0
16 , 2
3
+
=
L
1.00
3
2.0, (2)
being L
the determinant length (length associated with), which is given in EN 19912 [6]
paragraph 6.4.5.3 depending on kind and dimensions of the elements.
EN 1991/A1 [2] gives the criteria regarding the traffic safety limiting vertical
acceleration in deck, deck twist and vertical deformation of the deck:
 Vertical acceleration in deck: acceleration is limited to prevent track instability and
thereby ensure traffic safety. The maximum design values specified for frequencies of
Chapter 1: Basic requirements
12
up to 3.5 Hz or 1.5 times the frequency of the fundamental mode of vibration of the
member considered are 3.5 m/s
2
in ballasted track or 5 m/s
2
for decks in which the
elements supporting the track are secured directly.
 Deck twist: maximum track twist must be limited. For tracks with gauge s [m] of 1.435
m, t [mm/3m] measured over a length of 3 m (see figure 2) should not exceed the values
given in Table 2.
Figure 2 Definition of deck twist
Table 2. Recommended maximum values for deck twist
 Vertical deformation of the deck: Passenger comfort depends on vertical acceleration
inside the coach during travel on, approach to, passage over and departure from the
bridge. Vertical acceleration must be limited, therefore, to ensure acceptable comfort
levels, according to Table 3.
Table 3. Recommended comfort levels
Comfort level Vertical acceleration b
v
(m/s
2
)
Very high 1.0
High 1.3
Acceptable 2.0
4 DESIGN WORKING LIFE AND RELIABILITY MANAGEMENT
One of the first things a designer must know when designing a structure is its
projected working life. The indicative design working life categories listed in Eurocode EN
1990 [2] and given in Table 4 below may be modified in the national annexes.
In bridges, as noted earlier, not all members need be designed to the same working
life: some of them, which are more or less readily replaceable, like bearings, may be classified
under category 2 and designed for shorter working lives than the main members.
In Table 4 bridges are included under category 5, with a design working life of 100
years. These values are indicative only, and in each specific case subject to an agreement
between the owner (usually the authorities) and the designer, in which bridge characteristics
play a significant role: traffic density, accessibility, existence of alternative routes and so on.
For instance, for a bridge in a main road the 100 years design working life appears adequate,
but for a minor bridge serving an area with little traffic with alternative paths a 25 or 50 years
would be more adequate design working life.
Speed range V (km/h) Maximum twist t (mm/3m)
V 120 t 4,5
120 < V 200 t 3,0
V > 200 t 1,5
Chapter 1: Basic requirements
13
Table 4. Design working life. Indicative values
Design working
life category
Indicative design
working life (years)
Examples
1 10 Temporary structures
(1)
2 1025 Replaceable structural parts, e.g. gantry
girders, bearings
3 1530 Agricultural and similar structures
4 50 Building structures and other common
structures
5 100 Monumental building structures, bridges,
and other civil engineering structures
(1) Structures or parts of structures that can be dismantled with a view to being reused
should not be considered as temporary.
Closely reliability level and its attainment are associated with design working life. In
the Eurocodes, partial factors and characteristic values are based on a design working life of
50 years and a reliability index of = 3,8, assuming normal consequences.
In bridges, the value and consequently the partial factors and characteristic values
listed in the Eurocodes derived from there would seemingly have to be revised to adapt them
to a 100year design working life and potentially sizeable economic consequences.
This option shall be necessary in works of major importance. In most common
bridges, however, this approach to raising the reliability index is not always justified.
Rather, greater reliability should be attained via suitable quality control during
construction and satisfactory inspection and maintenance policies throughout the working life.
The aim of this approach is to reduce the dispersion of material strength values, lower the
probability of gross errors and raise the likelihood of detecting minor flaws. These
requirements are more commonly met and more readily assumed in bridges than buildings.
5 DURABILITY
Durability is a major issue in bridges. They normally have a fairly long design
working life (100 years) and are directly exposed to environmental conditions, for they have
not protective superstructure. Furthermore, in cold climates deicing salts, which cause
aggressive corrosion in steel, are frequently strewn over bridges. In any event, the presence of
water always intensifies durability problems in any material.
The requirements for long durability can be summarised as follows:
 appropriate choice of materials, in keeping with the environmental conditions
 careful design from the standpoint of durability: speedy evacuation of rainwater, for
instance
 quality control measures
 inspection and maintenance programme tailored to the prevailing conditions.
6 REFERENCES
[1] EN 1990 Eurocode  Basis of structural design. CEN, Brussels, 2002.
[2] EN 1990/A1 Application for bridges. CEN, Brussels, 2002.
Chapter 1: Basic requirements
14
[3] Milan Holick et al., Guidebook1: Load Effects on Buildings. Leonardo da Vinci Project,
CTU, Klokner Institute, Prague, 2009
[4] Construction Products Directive (Council Directive 89/106/EEC). European
Commission, Enterprise DirectorateGeneral, 2003
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/construction/internal/cpd/cpd.htm
[5] Interpretative document No. 1: Mechanical resistance and stability. European
Commission, Enterprise DirectorateGeneral, 2004
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/construction/internal/intdoc/idoc1.htm
[6] EN 19912 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. CEN,
Brussels, 2003.
[7] EN 199116 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 6: Actions during execution.
CEN, Brussels, 2003.
[8] EN 199117 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 7: Accidental actions. CEN,
Brussels, 2006.
Chapter 2: Basis of design methodological aspects
15
CHAPTER 2: BASIS OF DESIGN METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS
Milan Holick
1
and Dimitris Diamantidis
2
1
Klokner Institute, Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic
2
University of Applied Sciences, Regensburg, Germany
Summary
Uncertainties affecting structural performance can never be entirely eliminated and
must be taken into account when designing any construction work. Various design methods
and operational techniques for verification of structural reliability have been developed and
worldwide accepted in the past. The most advanced operational method of partial factors is
based on probabilistic concepts of structural reliability and risk assessment. General principles
of structural reliability and risk assessment can be used to specify and further calibrate partial
factors and other reliability elements. Moreover, developed calculation procedures and
convenient software products can be used directly for verification of structural reliability
using probabilistic concepts and available experimental data.
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background materials
Basic concepts of structural reliability are codified in a number of national standards,
in the new European document EN 1990 [1] and the International Standard ISO 2394 [2].
Additional information may be found in the background document developed by JCSS [3]
and in recently published handbook to EN 1990 [4]. Guidance for application of probabilistic
methods of structural reliability may be found in working materials provided by JCSS [5] and
in relevant literature listed in [4] and [5].
1.2 General principles
General principles of structural reliability are described in both the international
documents EN 1990 [1] and ISO 2394 [2]. Basic requirements on structures are specified in
Section 2 of EN 1990 [2]: a structure shall be designed and executed in such a way that it will,
during its intended life, with appropriate degrees of reliability and in an economic way
 sustain all actions and influences likely to occur during execution and use;
 remain fit for the use for which it is required.
It should be noted that two aspects are explicitly mentioned: reliability and economy
(see also Guidebook 1 [6]). However, this Guidebook shall be primarily concerned with
reliability of bridge structures, which include
 structural resistance;
 serviceability;
 durability.
Chapter 2: Basis of design methodological aspects
16
Additional requirements may concern fire safety of structures (see Handbook 5) or
other accidental design situations. In particular it is required by EN 1990 [1] that in the case
of fire, the structural resistance shall be adequate for the required period of time.
To verify all the aspects of structural reliability implied by the abovementioned basic
requirements, an appropriate design lifetime, design situations and limit states should be
considered. Note that the basic lifetime for a common building is 50 years and that, in general,
four design situations are identified: permanent, transient, accidental and seismic. Two types
of limit states are normally verified: ultimate limit states and serviceability limit states.
2 UNCERTAINTIES
2.1 Classification of uncertainties
It is well recognised that construction works including bridges are complicated
technical systems suffering from a number of significant uncertainties in all stages of
execution and use. Depending on the nature of a structure, environmental conditions and
applied actions, various types of uncertainties become more significant than the others. The
following types of uncertainties can be identified in general:
 natural randomness of actions, material properties and geometric data;
 statistical uncertainties due to a limited size of available data;
 uncertainties of the resistance and load effect models due to simplifications of actual
conditions;
 vagueness due to inaccurate definitions of performance requirements;
 gross errors in design, during execution and use;
 lack of knowledge concerning behaviour of new materials and actions in actual
conditions.
The order of the listed uncertainties corresponds approximately to the decreasing level
of current knowledge and available theoretical tools for their description and consideration in
design (see following sections). It should be emphasized that most of the above listed
uncertainties (randomness, statistical and model uncertainties) can never be eliminated
absolutely and must be taken into account when designing any construction work.
2.2 Available tools to describe uncertainties
Natural randomness and statistical uncertainties may be relatively well described by
available methods provided by the theory of probability and mathematical statistics. In fact
the EN 1990 [1] gives some guidance on available techniques. However, lack of credible
experimental data (e.g. for new materials, some actions including environmental influences
and also for some geometrical properties) causes significant problems. In some cases the
available data are inhomogeneous, obtained under different conditions (e.g. for material
resistance, imposed loads, environmental influences, for inner dimensions of reinforced
concrete crosssections). Then it may be difficult, if not impossible, to analyse and use them
in design.
The uncertainties of computational models may be to a certain extent assessed on the
basis of theoretical and experimental research. EN 1990 [1] and materials of JCSS [5] provide
some guidance. The vagueness caused by inaccurate definitions (in particular of serviceability
and other performance requirements) may be partially described by the means of the theory of
fuzzy sets. However, these methods have a little practical significance, as suitable
experimental data are rarely available. The knowledge of the behaviour of new materials and
Chapter 2: Basis of design methodological aspects
17
structures may be gradually increased through theoretical analyses verified by experimental
research.
The lack of available theoretical tools is obvious in the case of gross errors and lack of
knowledge, which are nevertheless often the decisive causes of structural failures. To limit
gross errors due to human activity, a quality management system including the methods of
statistical inspection and control may be effectively applied.
Various design methods and operational techniques, which take these uncertainties
into account, have been developed and worldwide used. The theory of structural reliability
provides background concept techniques and theoretical bases for description and analysis of
the abovementioned uncertainties concerning structural reliability.
3 RELIABILITY
3.1 General
The term "reliability" is often used very vaguely and deserves some clarification.
Often the concept of reliability is conceived in an absolute (black and white) way the
structure either is or isnt reliable. In accordance with this approach the positive statement is
understood in the sense that a failure of the structure will never occur. This interpretation is
unfortunately an oversimplification. Although it may be unpleasant and for many people
perhaps unacceptable, the hypothetical area of absolute reliability for most structures (apart
from exceptional cases) simply does not exist. Generally speaking, any structure may fail
(although with a small or negligible probability) even when it is declared as reliable.
The interpretation of the complementary (negative) statement is usually understood
more correctly: failures are accepted as a part of the real world and the probability or
frequency of their occurrence is then discussed. In fact in the design it is necessary to admit a
certain small probability that a failure may occur within the intended life of the structure.
Otherwise designing of civil structures would not be possible at all. What is then the correct
interpretation of the keyword reliability and what sense does the generally used statement
the structure is reliable or safe have?
Several bridge failures have been occurred in the past. Frequent causes of bridge
failures are floods, collisions and fatigue problems. Figure 1 shows the failure of the bridge
over the Mississippi River in central Minneapolis, which collapsed in 2007. The bridge had an
age of 40 years, not many compared to the 100 years desired lifetime of bridge. Therefore the
reliability of a bridge should be focussed through all phases i.e. design, construction,
operation, maintenance and upgrading.
Under this basic consideration it appears even more important to implement reliability
concepts from the very initial design stage and consequently to use modern reliability based
design elements. Therefore a scientific definition of reliability and an associated derivation of
the reliability based design elements are necessary. Such steps have been implemented in the
Eurocodes and are explained and illustrated next.
3.2 Definition of reliability
A number of definitions of the term reliability are used in literature and in national
and international documents. ISO 2394 [2] provides a definition of reliability, which is similar
to the approach of national standards used in some European countries: reliability is the
ability of a structure to comply with given requirements under specified conditions during the
intended life, for which it was designed. In quantitative sense reliability may be defined as the
complement of the probability of failure.
Chapter 2: Basis of design methodological aspects
18
Figure 1. Failure of the Mississippi River bridge in Minneapolis, August 2007.
Note that the above definition of reliability includes four important elements:
 given (performance) requirements definition of the structural failure,
 time period assessment of the required servicelife T,
 reliability level assessment of the probability of failure P
f
,
 conditions of use limiting input uncertainties.
An accurate determination of performance requirements and thus an accurate
specification of the term failure are of uttermost importance. In many cases, when considering
the requirements for stability and collapse of a structure, the specification of the failure is not
very complicated. In many other cases, in particular when dealing with various requirements
of occupants comfort, appearance and characteristics of the environment, the appropriate
definitions of failure are dependent on several vaguenesses and inaccuracies. The
transformation of these occupants' requirements into appropriate technical quantities and
precise criteria is very hard and often leads to considerably different conditions.
In the following the term failure is being used in a very general sense denoting simply
any undesirable state of a structure (e.g. collapse or excessive deformation), which is
unambiguously given by structural conditions.
The same definition as in ISO 2394 is provided. In Eurocode EN 1990 [1] including
note that the reliability covers the loadbearing capacity, serviceability as well as the
durability of a structure. Fundamental requirements include the statement (as already
mentioned) that a structure shall be designed and executed in such a way that it will, during
its intended life with appropriate degrees of reliability and in an economic way sustain all
actions and influences likely to occur during execution and use, and remain fit for the use for
which it is required. Generally a different level of reliability for loadbearing capacity and
for serviceability may be accepted for a structure or its parts. In the documents [1] and [2] the
Chapter 2: Basis of design methodological aspects
19
probability of failure P
f
(and reliability index ) are indicated with regard to failure
consequences (see Guidebook 1 [6]).
3.3 Probability of failure
The most important term used above (and in the theory of structural reliability) is
evidently the probability of failure P
f
. In order to defined P
f
properly it is assumed that
structural behaviour may be described by a set of basic variables X = [X
1
, X
2
, ... , X
n
]
characterizing actions, mechanical properties, geometrical data and model uncertainties.
Furthermore it is assumed that the limit state (ultimate, serviceability, durability or fatigue) of
a structure is defined by the limit state function (or the performance function), usually written
in an implicit form as
Z(X) = 0 (1)
The limit state function Z(X) should be defined in such a way that for a favourable (safe) state
of a structure the function is positive, Z(X) 0, and for a unfavourable state (failure) of the
structure the limit state function is negative, Z(X) < 0 (a more detailed explanation is given in
the following Chapters of this Guidebook 2).
For most limit states (ultimate, serviceability, durability and fatigue) the probability of
failure can be expressed as
P
f
= P{Z(X) < 0} (2)
The failure probability P
f
can be assessed if basic variables X = [X
1
, X
2
, ... , X
n
] are
described by appropriate probabilistic (numerical or analytical) models. Assuming that the
basic variables X = [X
1
, X
2
, ... , X
n
] are described by time independent joint probability density
function
X
(x) then the probability P
f
can be determined using the integral
x x
X
d ) (
0 ) ( Z
f
<
=
X
P (3)
More complicated procedures need to be used when some of the basic variables are
timedependent. Some details concerning theoretical models for timedependent quantities
(mainly actions) and their use for the structural reliability analysis are given in other Chapters
of this Guidebook 2. However, in many cases the problem may be transformed to a time
independent one, for example by considering in equation (2) or (3) a minimum of the function
Z(X) over the reference period T.
Note that a number of different methods [2] and software products [8, 9, 11] are
available to calculate failure probability P
f
defined by equation (2) or (3).
3.4 Reliability index
An equivalent term to the failure probability is the reliability index , formally defined
as a negative value of a standardized normal variable corresponding to the probability of
failure P
f
. Thus, the following relationship may be considered as a definition
) (
f
1
P
U
= (4)
Here ) (
1
p
u
f
d
= 4.3 should be used in the verification of structural reliability. The same reliability level
corresponding to class 3 is achieved when the time period T
a
= 1 year and
a
= 5.2 is used,
again in case of limit states dominated by time varying actions. If the working life is 100
years as it usual for bridges then in case of time dependent actions the lifetime target
reliability index (i.e. for T= 100years) can be obtained from the formulae discussed in 3.3 of
Guidebook 1 [6] and results approximately as
d
= 4,1 (for T = 100 years)
Chapter 2: Basis of design methodological aspects
21
Table 2. Reliability classification in accordance with EN [1]
Reliability
classes
Consequences for
loss of human life,
economical, social
and environmental
consequences
Reliability index Examples of buildings and
civil engineering works
a
for T
a
=
1 year
d
for T
d
=
50 years
RC3 high High 5.2 4.3 Important bridges, public
buildings
RC2 normal Medium 4.7 3.8 Residential and office
buildings
RC1 low Low 4.2 3.3 Agricultural buildings,
greenhouses
Important bridges are in general important structures with considerable consequences
of failure and should be in general RC3 (reliability class 3) structures. However bridges can
be also classified in the three categories of Table 2 according to the consequences of failure.
A small bridge in a rural area with limited traffic can be for example associated to RC1. The
target reliability can be obtained also on the basis of an optimisation procedure as illustrated
in Appendix A of this chapter.
4.3 Global failure robustness
Structures are composed of various elements such as columns, beams, plates etc. The
aforementioned target reliability values are valid for components, since structural design is
based on design of components. The global reliability i.e. the reliability against collapse of the
entire bridge system or a major part of it is a function of the reliability of all the elements
against local failure but also of the system response to local failure. The assumption that a
consistent level of reliability of a structural system is reached by an adequate reliability of its
members is not generally valid. Especially for bridges structures subjected to extreme
environmental loads such as earthquake or wind or accidental loads such as explosion or
impact is not sufficient.
Therefore structural codes have additional requirements regarding global failure or
progressive failure of the structure. The associated requirements in the Eurocodes are
discussed in Chapter 5 of Guidebook 1 [6].
5 DESIGN METHODS IN PRACTICE
5.1 General
During their historical development the design methods have been closely linked to
the available empirical, experimental as well as theoretical knowledge of mechanics and the
theory of probability. The development of various empirical methods for structural design
gradually crystallized in the twentieth century in three generally used methods, which are, in
various modifications, still applied in standards for structural design until today: the
permissible stresses method, the global factor and partial factor methods. All these methods
are often discussed and sometimes reviewed or updated.
The following short review of historical development illustrates general formats of
above mentioned design methods and indicates relevant measures that are applied to take into
account various uncertainties of basic variables and to control resulting structural reliability.
In addition a short description of probabilistic methods of structural reliability and their role
Chapter 2: Basis of design methodological aspects
22
in further development of design procedures is provided. Detailed description of probabilistic
methods of structural reliability is given in Chapter 2, Chapter 3 and in Annex B of
Guidebook 1 [6].
5.2 Permissible stresses
The first of the worldwideaccepted design methods for structural design is the method
of permissible stresses that is based on linear elasticity theory. The basic design condition of
this method can be written in the form
max
<
per
, where
per
=
crit
/ k (6)
The coefficient k (greater than 1) is the only explicit measure supposed to take into account all
types of uncertainties (some implicit measures may be hidden). Moreover, only a local effect
(a stress)
max
is compared with the permissible stress
per
and, therefore, a local (elastic)
behaviour of a structure is used to guarantee its reliability. No proper way is provided for
treating geometric nonlinearity, stress distribution and ductility of structural materials and
members. For that reasons the permissible stress method leads usually to conservative and
uneconomical design.
However, the main insufficiency of the permissible stress method is lack of possibility
to consider uncertainties of individual basic variables and computational models used to
assess load effects and structural resistances. Consequently, reliability level of structures
exposed to different actions and made of different material may be not only conservative
(uneconomical) but also considerably different.
5.3 Global safety factor
The second widespread method of structural design is the method of global safety
factor. Essentially it is based on a condition relating the standard or nominal values of the
structural resistance R and load effect E. It may be written as
s = R / E > s
0
. (7)
Thus the calculated safety factor must be greater than its specified value s
0
(for
example s
0
=1,9 is commonly required for bending resistance of reinforced concrete
members). The global safety factor method attempts to take into account realistic assumptions
concerning structural behaviour of members and their crosssections, geometric nonlinearity,
stress distribution and ductility; in particular through the resulting quantities of structural
resistance R and action effect E.
However, as in the case of the permissible stresses method the main insufficiency of
this method remains a lack of possibility to consider the uncertainties of particular basic
quantities and theoretical models. The probability of failure can, again, be controlled by one
explicit quantity only, by the global safety factor s. Obviously, harmonisation of reliability
degree of different structural members made of different materials is limited.
5.4 Partial factor method
At present, the most advanced operational method of structural design [1, 2] accepts
the partial factor format (sometimes incorrectly called the limit states method) usually applied
in conjunction with the concept of limit states (ultimate, serviceability or fatigue). This
method can be generally characterised by the inequality
E
d
(F
d
, f
d
, a
d
,
d
) < R
d
(F
d
, f
d
, a
d
,
d
) (8)
where the design values of action effect E
d
and structural resistance R
d
are assessed
considering the design values of basic variables describing the actions F
d
=
F
F
k
, material
Chapter 2: Basis of design methodological aspects
23
properties f
d
= f
k
/
m
, dimensions a
d
+ a and model uncertainties
d
. The design values of
these quantities are determined (taking into account various uncertainties) using their
characteristic values (F
k
, f
k
, a
k
,
k
), partial factors , reduction factors and other measures of
reliability [1, 2, 3, 4], Thus the whole system of partial factors and other reliability elements
may be used to control the level of structural reliability. Detailed description of the partial
factor methods used in Eurocodes method is provided in Guidebook 1.
Compared with previous design methods the partial factor format obviously offers the
greatest possibility to harmonise reliability of various types of structures made of different
materials. Note, however, that in any of the above listed design methods the failure
probability is not applied directly. Consequently, the failure probability of different structures
made of different materials may still considerably vary even though sophisticated calibration
procedures were applied. Further desired calibrations of reliability elements on probabilistic
bases are needed; it can be done using the guidance provided in the International standard ISO
2394 [2] and European document EN 1990 [1].
5.5 Probabilistic methods
The probabilistic design methods introduced in the International Standard [2] are
based on a requirement that during the service life of a structure T the probability of failure P
f
does not exceed the design value p
d
or the reliability index is greater than its design value
d
P
f
P
d
or >
d
(9)
In EN 1990 [1] the basic recommended reliability index for ultimate limit states
d
= 3.8 corresponds to the design failure probability P
d
= 7.2 10
5
, for serviceability limit
states
d
= 1.5 corresponds to P
d
= 6.7 10
2
. These values are related to the design working
life of 50 years that is considered for building structures and common structures. In general
greater  values should be used when a short reference period (one or five years) will be
used for verification of structural reliability.
It should be mentioned that probabilistic methods are not yet commonly used in
design praxis. However, the developed calculation procedures and software products (for
example [8, 9] and [11]) already enable the direct verification of structural reliability using
probabilistic concepts and available experimental data. Recently developed software product
CalCode [11] is primarily intended for calibration of codes based on the partial factor method.
5.6 Risk assessment
The risk assessment of a system consists of the use of all available information to
estimate the risk to individuals or populations, property or the environment, from identified
hazards. The risk assessment further includes risk evaluation (acceptance or treatment). The
whole procedure of risk assessment is typically an iterative process as indicated in Figure 2.
The first step in the risk analysis involves the context (scope) definition related to the system
and the subsequent identification of hazards.
The system is understood as a bounded group of interrelated, interdependent or
interacting elements forming an entity that achieves in its environment a defined objective
through the interaction of its parts. In the case of technological hazards related to civil
engineering works, a system is normally formed from a physical subsystem, a human
subsystem, their management, and the environment. Note that the risk analysis of civil
engineering systems (similar to the analysis of most systems) usually involves several
interdependent components (for example human life, injuries, and economic loss).
Any technical system may be exposed to a multitude of possible hazard situations. In
the case of civil engineering facilities, hazard situations may include both environmental
effects (wind, temperature, snow, avalanches, rock falls, ground effects, water and ground
Chapter 2: Basis of design methodological aspects
24
water, chemical or physical attacks, etc.) and human activities (usage, chemical or physical
attacks, fire, explosion, etc.). As a rule, hazard situations due to human errors are more
significant than hazards due to environmental effects.
Figure 2. Flowchart of iterative procedure for risk assessment.
6 CONCLUDING REMARKS
The basic concepts of the probabilistic theory of structural reliability are characterized
by two equivalent terms, the probability of failure P
f
and the reliability index . Although
they provide limited information on the actual frequency of failures, they remain the most
important and commonly used measures of structural reliability. Using these measures the
theory of structural reliability may be effectively applied for further harmonisation of
reliability elements and for extensions of the general methodology for new, innovative
structures and materials.
Historical review of the design methods worldwide accepted for verification of
structural members indicates different approaches to considering uncertainties of basic
variables and computational models. The permissible stresses method proves to be rather
conservative (and uneconomical). The global safety factor and partial factor methods lead to
similar results. Obviously, the partial factor method, accepted in the recent EN documents,
represents the most advanced design format leading to a suitable reliability level that is
Start
Definition of the system
Haza rd ide ntifica tion
Probability analysis Conse que nce ana lysis
Ris k es tima tion
Risk e va lua tion
Acce pta ble risk? Ris k tre a tme nt
Stop
No
Yes
R
i
s
k
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
i
s
k
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
Chapter 2: Basis of design methodological aspects
25
relatively close to the level recommended in EN 1990 ( = 3.8). The most important
advantage of the partial factor method is the possibility to take into account uncertainty of
individual basic variables by adjusting (calibrating) the relevant partial factors and other
reliability elements.
Various reliability measures (characteristic values, partial and reduction factors) in the
new structural design codes using the partial factor format are partly based on probabilistic
methods of structural reliability, partly (to a great extent) on past empirical experiences.
Obviously the past experience depends on local conditions concerning climatic actions and
traditionally used construction materials. These aspects may be considerably different in
different countries. That is why a number of reliability elements and parameters in the present
suite of European standards are open for national choice.
It appears that further harmonisation of current design methods will be based on
calibration procedures, optimisation methods and other rational approaches including the use
of methods of the theory of probability, mathematical statistics and the theory of reliability
and risk assessment. The probabilistic methods of structural reliability provide the most
important tool for gradual improvement and harmonisation of the partial factor method for
various structures from different materials. Moreover, developed software products enable
direct application of reliability methods for verification of structures using probabilistic
concepts and available data.
Design of a structure assisted by risk assessment may be effectively used when there is
a need to consider failure consequences of a system containing the structure and costs of
safety measures. Probabilistic optimisation of the system utility may provide valuable
information concerning the optimum target reliability level. Finally it should be mentioned
that many famous structures have been designed according to the Eurocodes [12], and a
typical case is the famous bridge in Millau, France, which is illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Millau bridge in France
Chapter 2: Basis of design methodological aspects
26
7. REFERENCES
[1] EN 1990 Eurocode  Basis of structural design. CEN, Brussels, 2002.
[2] ISO 2394 General principles on reliability for structures, ISO, 1998.
[3] JCSS: Background documentation, Part 1 of EC 1 Basis of design, 1996.
[4] Gulvanessian, H. Calgaro, J.A. Holick, M.: Designer's Guide to EN 1990,
Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design; Thomas Telford, London, 2002, ISBN: 07277
3011 8, 192 pp.
[5] JCSS: Probabilistic model code. JCSS working materials, http://www.jcss.ethz.ch/, 2001.
[6] Milan Holick et al., Guidebook1: Load Effects on Buildings. Leonardo da Vinci Project,
CTU, Klokner Institute, Prague, 2009
[7] EN 199111 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 11 General actions. Densities, self
weight, imposed loads for buildings, CEN, Brussels, 2002
[8] VaP, Variable Processor, version 2.3, Petschacher Software and Project, Feldkirchen,
2009.
[9] COMREL, version 7.10, Reliability Consulting Programs, RCP MUNICH, 1999.
[10] ISO 13822. Basis for design of structures  Assessment of existing structures, ISO
2001.
[11] CodeCal, Excel sheet developed by JCSS, http://www.jcss.ethz.ch/.
[12] de Ville de Goyet, V. Important Structures designed Using the Eurocodes, Workshop
EURussia cooperation on standardisation for construction, Moscow, October 2008.
[13] Diamantidis, D.  P. Bazzurro, Target Safety Criteria for Existing Structures, Workshop
on Risk Acceptance and Risk Communication, Stanford University, CA, USA, March
2007.
[14] Joint Committee on Structural Safety (JCSS), Assessment of Existing Structures, RILEM
Publications S.A.R.L., 2000.
[15] Allen, D.E., 1993, Safety Criteria for the Evaluation of Existing Structures, Proceedings
IABSE Colloquium on Remaining Structural Capacity, Copenhagen, Denmark.
[16] CSA S61990, 1990, Design of Highway Bridges: Supplement No. 1Existing Bridge
Evaluation, Canadian Standards Association, Ottawa, Ontario.
Chapter 2: Basis of design methodological aspects
27
Appendix A to Chapter 2 Principles of probabilistic optimization
A.1 General principles
Principles of probabilistic optimization are illustrated considering the objective
function in a basic form of the total cost C
tot
(x,q,n) as
C
tot
(x,q,n) = C
f
=
n
i
q,i Q x,i P
1
f
) ( ) ( + C
0
+ x C
1
(A.1)
Here x is a decision parameter of the optimization (a parameter of structure resistance), q is
annual discount rate (e.g. 0.03, an average long run value of the real discount rate in European
countries), n the number of years of a considered design working life (e.g. 50, 100), P
f
(x,i)
failure probability at the year i, C
f
malfunctioning costs (due to loss of structural utility),
Q(q,i) discount factor dependent on the annual discount rate q and number of years i, C
0
initial cost independent of decision parameter x, and C
1
cost per unit of the decision parameter
x.
Note that the design working life is considered here as a given determistic quantity. In
reality the working life for a given design is a random quantity depending on social and
physical factors. The design itself may aim at some optimum. This, option, however, is
neglected in this appendix.
Assuming independence, the annual probability of failure P
f
(x,i) at the year i is given
by the geometric sequence
P
f
(x,i) = p(x) (1 p(x))
i1
(A.2)
where p(x) denotes the initial probability of failure that is dependent on the decisive parameter
of structural resistance x. Then the failure probability P
fn
(x) during n years can be estimated
by the sum of the sequence P
f
(x,i) given as
P
fn
(x) = 1 (1 p(x))
n
n p(x) (A.3)
Where the approximation indicated in equation (A.3) is acceptable for small
probability p(x) < 10
3
.
The discount factor of the expected future costs at the year i is considered in a usual
form as
Q(q,i) = 1/ (1+q)
i
(A.4)
Here q denotes discount rate. Thus, the cost of malfunctioning C
f
is discounted by the factor
Q(q,i) depending on the discount rate q and the point in time (number of year i) when the loss
of structural utility occurs.
The necessary conditions for the minimum of the total cost follow from equation (A.1)
as
0
) , (
) , (
) , , (
1
1
f
f
tot
= +
=
C
x
i x P
i q Q C
x
n q x C
n
i
(A.5)
thus
f
1
1
f
) , (
) , (
C
C
x
i x P
i q Q
n
i
=
=
(A.6)
Equation (A.6) represents a general form of the necessary condition for the minimum
of total cost C
tot
(x,q,n) and the optimum value x
opt
of the parameter x. It generates also the
Chapter 2: Basis of design methodological aspects
28
optimum (target) probability of failure and corresponding target value of the reliability index
.
Considering equation (2) and (4) the total costs C
tot
(x,q,n) described by equation (A.1)
may be written as
C
tot
(x,q,n) = C
f
) 1 (
)) ( 1 (
1
) 1 (
)) ( 1 (
1
) (
q
x p
q
x p
x p
n
+
+ C
0
+ x C
1
(A.7)
Note that the total sum of expected malfunction costs during the period of n years is
dependent on the product of the onetime malfunction C
f
, initial probability p(x) and a sum of
the geometric sequence having the quotient (1 p(x)/(1+ q).
Thus the total malfunction cost C
tot
(x,q,n) depends on the annual probability of failure
p(x), discount rate q and on number of years n. For small probabilities of failure p(x), the cost
given by equation (A.7) may be well approximated as
C
tot
(x,q,n) C
f
p(x) PQ(x,q,n) + C
0
+ x C
1
(A.8)
where the time factor PQ(x,q,n) depends primarily on the number of years n and discount rate
q. It is almost independent of the structural parameter x and, for small probability p(x) may be
approximate as
PQ (x,q,n)
) 1 (
1
1
) 1 (
1
1
) 1 (
)) ( 1 (
1
) 1 (
)) ( 1 (
1
q
q
q
x p
q
x p
n n
+
= = PQ(q,n) (A.9)
For given q and n the simplified time factor PQ(q,n) is independent of x; for q = 0.03 and n =
50, the simplified time factor PQ(q,n) ~ 26.5, for q = 0.03 and n = 100 PQ(q,n) ~ 32,5. If the
discount rate is small, q ~ 0, then the simplified time factor converts to number of years n,
PQ(q,n) ~ n.
The necessary condition for the minimum of the total costs then follows from
equations (A.8) and (A.9) as
) , ( d
) ( d
1
n q PQ C
C
x
x p
f
= (A.10)
Equation (A.10) can be used for assessing the target (optimum) value p
t
(x) of the initial
annual probability p(x).
A.2 A special case
A special case concerns structures when a failure is dominated by a load like wind
with an exponential distribution. Then the failure probability p(x) may be expressed as
p(x) = exp{x/a } (A.11)
where a is an appropriate statistical parameter. Then the target (optimum) probability p
t
(q,n)
follows from equation (A.10) as
) , (
) , (
f
1
t
n q PQ C
C a
x q p = (A.12)
Chapter 2: Basis of design methodological aspects
29
The corresponding optimum structural parameter x
opt
(q,n) may be then written in an
explicit form as
) , (
ln ) , (
f
1
opt
n q PQ C
C a
a n q x = (A.13)
Note that the simplified time factor PQ(q,n) is independent of x. Obviously the
optimum structural parameter x
opt
(q,n) and the target probability p
t
(q,n) depends on the cost
ratio C
1
/ C, number of years n and discount rate q.
Given the optimum value for x we may find the optimum value for the annual failure
probability as:
) , (
) (
1
n q PQ C
aC
x p
f
opt
= (A.14)
The optimum probability for the total design working life T
d
= n years is then:
f
opt opt fn
C
aC
n q PQ
n
x np x P
1
) , (
) ( ) ( = (A.15)
The value of n/PQ(q,n) runs for q = 0.03 from 1.1 for n = 1 to 3.0 for n=100. Note that for
small discount rates q ~ 0, the value n/PQ(q,n) = 1. This means that the optimum failure
probability is almost independent of n and, thus, of the design working life.
Consider for instance the case that for q = 0.03 and a certain value of aC
1
/C
f
, the
optimum failure probability for a design life time of 50 years is 7.2 10
5
, which corresponds to
= 3.8. If the design life time is 100 years, the optimum failure probability decreases to 10
4
,
or = 3.7; if the design life time is 10 years, the optimum increases to 3.9. The difference
between 3.7 and 3.9 is small enough to be neglected in practical design.
A.3 An example
The following example illustrates the general principles and special case of
probabilistic optimization described above. To simplify the analysis the total costs C
tot
(x,q,n)
given by equation (A.1) is transformed to the standardized form
tot
(x,q,n) as
tot
(x,q,n) = ) , , ( ) (
) , , (
f
0
n q x PQ x p
C
C n q x C
tot
=
+x C
1
/ C
f
(A.16)
Obviously, both costs C
tot
(x,q,n) and
tot
(x,q,n) achieve the minimum for the same
parameter x
opt
.
The exponential expression for the probability p(x) in equation (A.11) is simplified
assuming a = 1. Further it is considered that the discount rate q = 0.03 and the total period of
time is n = 50 years. Under this assumptions Figure A.1 shows variation of the total
standardized costs
tot
(x,q,n) (given by equation (A.14)), and the reliability index
corresponding to the probability P
fn
(x) (given by equation (A.3)), with structural parameter x
for selected costs ratio C
1
/C
f
. The optimum values x
opt
(q,n) of the structural parameter x are
indicated by the dotted vertical lines.
Figure A.2 shows variation of the optimum structural parameter x
opt
(q,n) with the costs
ratio C
1
/C
f
, again for q =0.03, n =50. The optimum parameter x
opt
(q,n) may be obtained from
general condition (A.6) or from simplified expression (A.13) for the simplified time factor
Q(q,n) ~ 26.5.
Chapter 2: Basis of design methodological aspects
30
Figure A.1. Variation of the total standardized costs
tot
(x,q,n) and the reliability index
with structural parameter x for q =0.03, n = 50 and selected costs ratios C
1
/C
f
.
Figure A.2. Variation of the optimum structural parameter x
opt
obtained from equation
(4) or (13) with the costs ratio C
1
/C
f
for q =0.03, n =50.
The optimum reliability index
opt
is generally a function of a number of basic
variables. In the fundamental case considered above, the optimum reliability index
opt
=
opt
(q,n,C
1
/C
f
) depends particularly on the discount rate q, design working life n and the cost
ratio C
1
/C
f
. However, the index
opt
is primarily dependent on the cost ratio C
1
/C
f
and its
dependence on the discount rate q and the design working life n seems to be insignificant.
This is well illustrated by Figure A.3 that shows variation of the optimum reliability index
opt
with the cost ratio C
1
/C
f
for selected design working life n = 10, 50, 100, and the discount rate
q = 0.03.
It follows from Figure A.3 that with increasing working life n (and increasing discount
rate q) the optimum reliability index
opt
slightly decreases. For very small discount rate q 0,
the value n/PQ(q,n) = 1 and the index
opt
is independent of n.
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
1
2
3
4
5
6
tot
(x,q,n)
x
C
1
/ C
f
=0.002
C
1
/ C
f
=0.001
C
1
/ C
f
=0.0001
C
1
/ C
f
=0.00001
1
.
10
5
1
.
10
4
1
.
10
3
0.01
6
8
10
12
14
16
C
1
/ C
f
x
opt
(q,n) for q =0.03, n =50
Chapter 2: Basis of design methodological aspects
31
Figure A.3. Variation of the optimum reliability index
opt
with the cost ratio C
1
/C
f
for
selected design working life n = 10, 50, 100, and the discount rate q = 0.03.
A.4 Concluding remarks
Probabilistic optimization may provide valuable background information concerning
reliability differentiation by assessing the target (optimum) probability of failure or the
reliability index. It appears that the target reliability index and corresponding resistance
parameter depends on
 the ratio of cost per unit of structural parameter and cost of structural failure
(malfunctioning costs),
 the statistical parameter of failure probability,
 discount rate and design working life.
Results obtained from analyzed example indicate more specific conclusions, validity
of which should be conditioned by the accepted assumptions concerning the objective
function and annual failure probability. It appears that with increasing malfunctioning cost,
the target reliability index and the optimum structural resistance increase (Figure A.1 and
A.2). The design working life seems to have a very limited influence on the optimum life time
reliability, particularly for small discount rates (Figure 3). For practical purposes the optimum
target reliability index and the corresponding structural parameter can be well assessed
considering reasonable lower bounds for the design working life (say 50 years) and the
discount rate (say 0.02).
Available experience indicates that applications of the optimization approach in
practice should be primarily based on properly formulated objective functions, and on
credible estimates for the cost per unit of structural parameter and cost of structural failure
(malfunctioning costs).
1
.
10
6
1
.
10
5
1
.
10
4
1
.
10
3
0.01
2
3
4
5
C
1
/C
f
opt
n = 10
50
100
Chapter 2: Basis of design methodological aspects
32
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
33
CHAPTER 3: STATIC LOADS DUE TO TRAFFIC
Pietro Croce
1
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Structural Division  University of Pisa
Summary
In contemporary codes for bridges, load traffic models for static verification aim to
reproduce the real values of the effects induced in the bridges by the real traffic, i.e. the
effects having specified return periods; therefore they are artificial models, generally not
representing real vehicles. Static traffic load models of EN19912 are illustrated and their
origin is discussed.
1 INTRODUCTION
Whilst in traditional bridge codes static loads were represented by real vehicles, in
modern codes, static verifications are performed through artificial models, resulting in the
same values of the effects induced in the bridges by the real traffic.
Static traffic load models for road, pedestrian and railway bridges of the new
Eurocode EN 19912 [1] are illustrated, stressing the background philosophy and the applied
methodological criteria.
Calibration of traffic models for road bridges was based on real traffic data recorded in
two experimental campaign performed in Europe between 1980 and 1994 and mainly on the
traffic recorded in may 1986 in Auxerre (F) on the motorway Paris Lyon. The Auxerre traffic
was identified, on the basis of the available data, as the most representative European
continental traffic in terms of composition and severity, also taking into account the expected
traffic trends. This conclusion was confirmed by more recent studies [2].
The calibration is discussed in much more detail in Appendix A to the present chapter.
2 THE EN 19912 LOAD TRAFFIC MODELS FOR ROAD BRIDGES
The static load model for road bridges of the EN 19912 is illustrated in the following.
As the load model is calibrated for road bridges having carriageway width smaller
than 42 m and span length up to 200 m, it cannot be used, in principle, outside the above
mentioned field. Anyhow, it results generally safesided for bigger spans.
2.1 Division of the carriageway and numbering of notional lanes
The carriageway is defined as the part of the roadway surface sustained by a single
structure (deck, pier etc.). It includes all the physical lanes (marked on the roadway surface),
the hard shoulders, the hard strips and the marker strips. Its width w should be measured
between the kerbs, if their height is greater than 100 mm, or between the inner limits of the
safety barriers, in all other cases.
The carriageway width does not include, in general, the distance between fixed safety
barriers or kerbs of a central reservation nor the widths of these barriers.
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
34
The carriageway is divided in notional lanes, generally 3 m wide, and in the remaining
area, according to Table 1, as reported, for example, in figure 1. If the carriageway is
physically divided in two parts by a central reservation, then:
 each part, including all hard shoulder or strips, should be separately divided in
notional lanes, if the parts are separated by a fixed safety barrier;
 the whole carriageway, central reservation included, should be divided in notional
lanes, if the parts are separated by demountable safety barriers or another road
restraint system.
Table 1. Subdivision of the carriageway in notional lanes
Carriageway
width w
Number of
notional lanes n
l
Width of a
notional lane
Width of the
remaining area
w<5.4 m 1 3 m w3 m
5.4 m w<6 m 2 0.5 w 0
6 m w Int(w/3) 3 m w3n
l
Notional lane n. 1
Remaining area
Remaining area
Remaining area
Remaining area
Notional lane n. 2
Notional lane n. 3 3.0
3.0
3.0 w
Figure 1. Example of lane numbering
The location of the notional lanes is not linked with their numbering, so that number
and location of the notional lanes should be chosen each time in order to maximize the
considered effect. In particular cases, for example for some serviceability limit states or for
fatigue verifications, it is possible to derogate from this rule and to consider less severe
locations of the notional lanes. In general, the notional lane that gives the most severe effect is
numbered lane n. 1 and so on, in decreasing order of severity.
The numbering of the carriageway depends on the element under consideration.
When the carriageway is made by two separate supported by a unique deck, the lane
numbering should regard the entire carriageway, considering, obviously, that lane n. 1 can be
alternatively on the two parts (figure 2).
When, instead, carriageway consists of two separate parts on two independent decks
supported by the same abutments or the same piers, it needs to distinguish two cases: for deck
design purposes, each part is considered and numbered independently, while, on the contrary,
for abutment or pier design the two parts are considered and numbered together (figure 3).
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
35
Deck design: one
notional lane numbering
Pier design: one
notional lane numbering
Figure 2. Lane numbering in case the entire carriageway is supported by a single deck
Deck design: two separate
notional lane numbering
Pier design: one
notional lane numbering
Figure 3. Lane numbering in case the carriageway consists of two separate parts
supported by two separate decks
2.2 Load models for vertical loads
Load models representing vertical loads are intended for the evaluation of road traffic
effects associated with ULS verifications and with particular serviceability verifications.
Four different load models are considered:
 load model n. 1 (LM1) generally reproduces traffic effects to be taken into account
for global and local verifications; it is composed by concentrated and uniformly
distributed loads;
 load model n. 2 (LM2) reproduces traffic effects on short structural members; it is
composed by a single axle load on specific rectangular tire contact areas;
 load model n. 3 (LM3), special vehicles, should be considered only when
requested, in a transient design situation; it represents abnormal vehicles not
complying with national regulations on weight and dimension of vehicles. The
geometry and the axle loads of the special vehicles to be considered in the bridge
design should be assigned by the bridge owner;
 load model n. 4 (LM4), a crowd loading.
2.3 Load model n. 1
Load model n. 1 consists of two subsystems:
 a system of two concentrated axle loads, representing a tandem system weighing
2
Q
Q
k
(see Table 2), whose geometry is shown diagrammatically in figure 4;
 a system of distributed loads having a weight density per square meter of
q
q
k
(see Table 2).
The adjustment factors
Q
and
q
depend on the class of the route and on the expected
traffic type: in absence of specific indications, they are assumed equal to 1. The characteristic
loads values on the notional ith lane are indicated
Qi
Q
ki
and
qi
q
ki
while on the remaining
area the weight density of the uniformly distributed load is expressed as
qr
q
kr
.
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
36
Longitudinal axis
of the bridge
0
.
4
0
.
4
2
0
.
4
1
.
6
0
.
4
0.4 0.8 0.4
1.2
Figure 4. Tandem system of LM1
Table 2. Load model n. 1 characteristic values
Position Tandem system Axle
load Q
ik
[kN]
Uniformly distributed
load q
ik
[kN/m
2
]
Notional lane n. 1 300 9.0
Notional lane n. 2 200 2.5
Notional lane n. 3 100 2.5
Other notional lanes 0 2.5
Remaining area 0 2.5
For bridges without road signs restricting vehicle weights, it should be assumed
Q1
0.8 for the tandem system on the first notional lane, while for i2,
qi
1.0 except for the
remaining area.
The load model n. 1 should apply according to the following rules (see figure 5):
 in each notional lane only one tandem system should be considered, situated in the
most unfavourable position;
 the tandem system should be considered travelling in the direction of the
longitudinal axis of the bridge, centred on the axis of the notional lane;
 when present, the tandem system should be considered in full, i.e. with all its four
wheels;
 the uniformly distributed loads apply, longitudinally and transversally, only on the
unfavourable parts of the influence surface;
 the two load systems can insist on the same area;
 the impact factor is included in the load values
Qi
Q
ki
and
qi
q
ki
;
 when static verification is governed by combination of local and global effects, the
same load arrangement should be considered for calculation of local and global
effects;
 when relevant, and only for local verifications, the transverse distance between
adjacent tandem systems should be reduced, up to a minimum of 0.4 m.
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
37
Lane n. 1
Q =300 kN
q =9.0 kN/m
Q
ik
Q
ik
q
ik
Lane n. 2
0.5
2.0
0.5
Q =200 kN
2k
q =2.5 kN/m
2k
2
Lane n. 3
Q =100 kN
3k
q =2.5 kN/m
3k
2
Remaining area q =2.5 kN/m
rk
2
1k
1k
0.5
2.0
0.5
0.5
2.0
0.5
w
Figure 5. Example of application of load model n.1
2.4 Load model n. 2
The local load model n. 2, LM2 (figure 6), consists of a single axle load
Q
Q
ak
with
Q
ak
=400 kN, dynamic amplification included. Unless otherwise specified
Q
=
Q1
.
Longitudinal axis
of the bridge
2
0
.
6
1
.
4
0
.
6
0.35
Figure 6. Load model n. 2 (single axle)
The load model, which is intended only for local verifications, should be considered
alone on the bridge, travelling in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the bridge.
The model should be applied in any location on the carriageway and, if necessary,
only one wheel load of
Q
200 kN should be considered. If not otherwise specified, the
contact surface of each wheel is rectangle, whose dimensions are 0.35 m0.6 m.
2.5 Load model n. 3  Special vehicles
Besides the above mentioned load models, the Eurocode also foresees the possibility
to consider special vehicles, whose transit on the road network and in particular on the bridges
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
38
is subject to special authorisation, because they exceed the legal limits in length, in width
and/or in mass.
These special vehicles are represented by a set of standardised arrangements of axle
loads, where the bridge owner can pickup, according to his specific necessities, one or more
vehicles to be taken into account in the bridge design.
The load model should be considered only if expressly required and its application
should regard only the selected special vehicles.
A useful reference is represented by the set of standardized special lorries given in the
informative Appendix A of EN 19912, which is reported in Tables 3.a and 3.b.
The nominal values of the axle loads of the special lorries are associated exclusively to
transient design situations.
Each axle load is considered uniformly distributed over two or three narrow
rectangular surfaces 1.20 m long and 0.15 m wide. Axles weighing 150 or 200 kN are
considered distributed on two surfaces, axles weighing 240 kN are considered distributed on
three surfaces, as illustrated in figure 7.
Special vehicles characterised by axle loads in the interval 150 to 200 kN occupy the
notional lane n. 1, while special vehicles characterized by 240 kN axle loads occupy two
adjacent notional lane, lanes n. 1 and n. 2 (figure 8). The lanes are situated in the most
unfavourable position, at most excluding hard shoulders, hard strips and marker strips. More
favourable positions can be considered, if transit is allowed only under special limitations.
Table 3.a. Special vehicles with axle weighing 150 and 200 kN
150 kN axle loads 200 kN axle laods
Vehicle
weight
Geometry Axle loads
Vehicle
type
Geometry Axle loads Vehicle type
600 kN 31.5 m 4150 kN 600/150
900 kN 51.5 m 4150 kN 900/150
1200 kN 71.5 m 4150 kN 1200/150 51.5 m 6200 kN 1200/200
1500 kN 91.5 m 4150 kN 1500/150 71.5 m 1100+7 200 kN 1500/200
1800 kN 111.5 m 4150 kN 1800/150 81.5 m 9200 kN 1800/200
2400 kN 111.5 m 12200 kN 2400/200
2400 kN 51.5+12+51.5 m 12200 kN 2400/200/200
3000 kN 141.5 m 15200 kN 3000/200
3000 kN 71.5+12+61.5 m 15200 kN 3000/200/200
3600 kN 171.5 m 18200 kN 3600/200
Table 3.b. Special vehicles with axles weighing 240 kN
240 kN axle loads
Vehicle weight Geometry Axle loads Vehicle type
2400 kN 81.5 m 10240 kN 2400/240
3000 kN 121.5 m 1120+12200 kN 3000/240
3600 kN 141.5 m 15240 kN 3600/240
3600 kN 71.5+12+61.5 m 15200 kN 3600/240/240
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
39
L
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l
a
x
i
s
o
f
t
h
e
b
r
i
d
g
e
1.2
0.3
1.2
150 kN or 200 kN axle weight
1.2
0.3
1.2
240 kN axle weight
1.2
0.3
Figure 7. Axle lines and wheel contact areas for special vehicles
Figure 8. Arrangement of special vehicle on the carriageway
Since special vehicles are assumed to move at low speed (5 km/h), dynamic effects are
not significant; therefore dynamic magnification is considered included in the nominal values
of the axle loads.
As a rule, concomitance of the special vehicles with the load model n. 1 is taken into
account considering that the lane (lane n. 1) or the two adjacent lanes (lanes n. 1 and 2),
occupied by the standardized special vehicle, are not subjected to additional traffic loads in a
range of 25 m each side from the front axle and the rear axle of the special vehicle itself,
measured in the longitudinal direction as shown in figure 9.
According to the aforementioned general rules, the remaining parts of the notional
lanes and of the carriageway are loaded with the frequent values of load model n. 1.
2.6 Load model n. 4 Crowd loading
The uniformly distributed load model n. 4, the crowd loading, is particularly
significant for bridges situated in urban areas and it should be considered only when expressly
required.
4.20
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
40
Figure 9. Simultaneity of special vehicles and load model n. 1
The nominal value of the load, including dynamic amplification, is equal to 5.0
kN/m
2
, while the combination value is reduced to 3.0 kN/m
2
, even if it seems that calculations
are considerably simplified adopting a value of 2.5 kN/m
2
, like in lanes 2 and 3 and in the
remaining area.
The crowd loading should be applied on all the relevant parts of the length and width
of the bridge deck, including the central reservation, if necessary.
2.7 Characteristic values of horizontal actions
2.7.1 Braking and acceleration forces
The braking or acceleration force, denoted by Q
lk
, should be taken as a longitudinal
force acting at finished carriageway level.
The characteristic values of Q
lk
depends on the total maximum vertical load induced
by LM1 on notional lane n. 1, as follows
( ) kN 900 10 . 0 2 6 . 0 Q kN 180
1 1 lk
1 1 1
+ = L w q Q
l k q k Q Q
,
(1)
being w
1
is the lane width and L the length of the loaded area.
This force, that includes dynamic magnification, should be considered located along
the axis of any lane. When the eccentricity is not significant, the force may be considered
applied along the carriageway axis and uniformly distributed over the loaded length.
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
41
2.7.2 Centrifugal force
The centrifugal force Q
tk
is a transverse force acting at the finished carriageway level
and perpendicularly to the axis of the carriageway. Unless otherwise specified, Q
tk
should be
considered as a point load at any deck cross section.
The characteristic value of Q
tk
, including dynamic magnification, depends on the
horizontal radius r [m] of the carriageway centreline and on the total maximum weight of the
vertical concentrated loads of the tandem systems of the main loading system Q
v
) 2 (
ik
i
Q v
Q Q
i
=
,
(2)
and it is given by
v tk
Q Q = 2 . 0 [kN], r<200 m;
r
Q
Q
v
tk
= 40 [kN], 200 mr1500 m;
0 =
tk
Q , r>1500 m.
(3)
2.8 Groups of traffic loads on road bridges
When simultaneity of traffic actions with nontraffic actions is significant, the
characteristic values of the traffic actions can be determined considering the five different,
and mutually exclusive, group of loads reported in table 4, where the dominant component
action is underlined.
Each groups of loads indicated in the table should be considered as defining a
characteristic action for combination with nontraffic loads, but they can be used also to
evaluate infrequent and frequent values.
To obtain infrequent combination values it is sufficient to replace in table 4
characteristic values with the infrequent ones, leaving unchanged the others, while frequent
combination values are obtained replacing characteristic values with the frequent ones and
setting to zero all the others. The factors for traffic loads on road bridges are reported in
table 5.
Table 4. Assessment of characteristic values of multicomponent actions for traffic loads
on road bridges
Carriageway
Footways and
cycle tracks
Vertical loads Horizontal loads Vertical loads only
Group of
loads
Main load
model
Special
vehicles
Crowd
loading
Braking force Centrifugal
force
Uniformly
distributed loads
1 Characteristic
values
Combination value
2 Frequent
values
Characteristic
values
Characteristic
values
3 Characteristic
values
4 Characteristic
values
Characteristic
values
5 see 2.5 and
figure 9
Characteristic
values
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
42
Table 5. Recommended values of  factors for traffic loads on road bridges
Action Symbol
0
1infq
1
2
gr1a (LM1)
Tandem System
UDL
0.75
0.40
0.80
0.80
0.75
0.40
0
0
gr1b (single axle) 0 0.80 0.75 0
Traffic loads gr2 (Horizontal Forces) 0 0 0 0
(see table 9) gr3 (Pedestrian loads) 0 0.80 0 0
gr4 (LM4 Crowd loading)) 0 0.80 0.75 0
gr5 (LM3 Special vehicles)) 0 1.0 0 0
The values of
0
,
1
,
2
for gr1a, referring to load model n.1 are assigned for routes
with traffic corresponding to adjusting factors
Qi
,
qi
,
qr
and
Q
equal to 1, while those
relating to UDL correspond to the most common traffic scenarios, in which an accumulation
of lorries can occur, but not frequently. Other values may be envisaged for other classes of
routes or of other classes of expected traffic, according to the relevant factors.
For example, for traffic situations characterised by severe presence of continuous
traffic, like for bridges in urban areas, a value of
2
other than zero may be envisaged for the
UDL system of LM1 only.
The factors for the UDL, given in table 5, apply not only to the distributed part of
LM1, but also to the combination value of the pedestrian load mentioned in table 5.
3 ACTIONS ON FOOTBRIDGES
The section of EN19912 concerning actions on footbridges covers explicitly actions
on footways, cycle tracks and footbridges and it is specifically devoted only to footbridges.
The uniformly distributed load q
fk
and the concentrated load Q
fwk
given in the following,
where relevant, can be also used for parts of road and railway bridges accessible to pedestrian.
Load models and their representative values include dynamic amplification effects and
should be used for all serviceability and ultimate limit state static calculations, excluding
fatigue limit states.
When vibration assessments based on specific dynamic analysis are necessary, ad hoc
studies should be performed. Some guidance about vibration check of footbridges is given in
EN1990A2 [3] as summarized in the following 3.6
3.1 Vertical load models
Three different vertical load models can be envisaged for footbridges:
1. an uniformly distributed load representing the static effects of a dense crowd;
2. one concentrated load, representing the effect of a maintenance load;
3. one or more, mutually exclusive, standard vehicles, to be taken into account when
maintenance or emergency vehicles are expected to cross the footbridge itself.
3.1.1 Uniformly distributed load
The crowd effect on the bridge is represented by a uniformly distributed load.
When risk of dense crowd exists or if required, Load Model 4 for road bridges should
be considered also for footbridges.
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
43
On the contrary, if the application of the aforesaid Load Model 4 is not required, a
uniformly distributed load q
fk
, to be applied to the unfavourable parts of the influence surface,
should be considered.
Value of q
fk
depends on the loaded length L [m] and it is given by
2 2
kN/m 0 . 5
30
120
0 . 2 kN/m 5 , 2
+
+ =
L
q
fk
.
(4)
In road bridges supporting footways or cycle tracks, the characteristic value 5 kN/m
2
or the combination value (2.5 kN/m
2
) should be considered, according to figure 10.
q =5.0 kN/m
fk
2
Figure 10. Characteristic load on a footway (or cycle track) of a road bridge
3.1.2 Concentrated load
For local assessments, a 10 kN concentrated load Q
fwk
, representing a maintenance
load should be considered on the bridge, acting on a square surface of sides 0.1 m. The
concentrated load will not be combined with other variable nontraffic loads.
Obviously, when the service vehicle described in 3.1.3 is taken into account, Q
fwk
should be disregarded.
3.1.3 Service vehicle
Service vehicles for maintenance, emergencies (e.g. ambulance, fire) or other services
can be assigned when necessary, depending on the particular situation. When no special
information is available and no permanent obstacle prevents the transit of vehicles on the
bridge deck, the special service vehicle defined in figure 11 should be considered in transient
design situations.
When consideration of the service vehicle is not required, the transit of the vehicle
shown in figure 11 should be considered as accidental.
Longitudinal axis
of the bridge
3
0
.
2
0.2
1
.
3
0
.
2
0.2
0
.
2
0.2
Q =40 kN
sv2
Q =80 kN
sv1
Figure 11. Service or accidental vehicle
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
44
3.2 Characteristic values of horizontal forces
For footbridges, it should be considered a horizontal force Q
flk
, acting simultaneously
with the corresponding vertical load, whose characteristic value is equal to the greater of:
 10% of the total load corresponding to the uniformly distributed load or
 60% of the total weight of the service vehicle, when relevant.
The horizontal force, which does not coexists with the concentrated load Q
fwk
, acts
along the bridge deck axis at the pavement level on a square surface of sides 0.1 m and it is
normally sufficient to ensure the horizontal longitudinal stability of the footbridge.
3.3 Groups of traffic loads on footbridges
Vertical loads and horizontal forces due to traffic should be combined, when relevant,
considering the groups of loads defined in table 6. Each one of these mutually exclusive
groups defines a characteristic action for combination with non traffic loads.
When combinations of traffic loads with actions of different nature need to be
considered, any group of loads in table 6 should be considered as one action.
Table 6. Definition of groups of loads (characteristic values)
Load type Vertical forces Horizontal forces
Load system Uniformly
distributed load
Service
vehicle
Groups gr1 F
k
0 F
k
of loads gr2 0 F
k
F
k
Wind and snow are not considered to act simultaneously with traffic loads on
footbridges, except on roofed bridges, which are considered according to the appropriate rules
given in EN 199113.
Wind and thermal actions should not be considered as simultaneous.
3.4 Application of the load models
The traffic models described in the previous paragraphs, with the exception of the
service vehicle model, may also be used for pedestrian and cycle traffic areas of the deck of
road bridges limited by parapets and not included in the carriageway, as well as on footpaths
of railway bridges.
These actions are free, so that the vertical loads should be applied anywhere within the
relevant areas, in order to obtain the most adverse effects.
3.5 Verifications of traffic induced deformations and vibrations for footbridges
As known, traffic induced deformations and vibrations of footbridges strongly
influence the serviceability level.
The main structure is generally affected by vertical and horizontal vibrations, as well
as torsional vibrations, either alone or coupled with vertical and/or horizontal vibrations
The design situations to be studied depend on the type of pedestrian traffic admitted
on individual footbridge during its design working life and on the level of regulation,
authorisation and control of the traffic itself.
In general, the following design situations could be taken into account:
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
45
1. A persistent design situation considering the simultaneous presence of a group of
about 8 to 15 persons walking normally;
2. the simultaneous presence of streams of pedestrians (significantly more than 15
persons), which could be persistent, transient or accidental depending on boundary
conditions, like location of the footbridge in urban or rural areas, the possibility of
crowding due to the vicinity of railway and bus stations, schools, important building
with public admittance, relevance of the footbridge itself and so on;
3. occasional sports, festive or choreographic events, requiring ad hoc investigations.
3.5.1. Bridgetraffic interaction
A pedestrian normally walking exert on the bridge vertical periodic forces, with a
frequency ranging between 1 and 3 Hz, and horizontal periodic forces, perfectly synchronised
with the vertical ones, with a frequency ranging between 0.5 and 1.5 Hz, but forces exerted by
several persons are generally not synchronised and characterised by different frequencies.
When the frequency of the periodic forces normally exerted by pedestrians is close to
a natural frequency of the deck, it commonly happens that the subjective perception of the
bridge oscillation induces the pedestrian to synchronise their steps with the vibrations of the
bridge, so that resonance occurs, increasing considerably the response of the bridge.
The number of pedestrians participating to the resonance is highly random and
depends on the number of persons on the bridge: when the number of persons on the bridge is
bigger than 10, the number of the participating persons is a decreasing function of their
number, but correlation between forces exerted by pedestrians themselves may increase with
movements.
3.5.2. Dynamic models of pedestrian loads
The studies about dynamic modelling of pedestrian loads for footbridge design are still
in progress, also in consideration of the serviceability failures produced by vibrations in
recently built footbridges (Millennium bridge in London, Solferino bridge in Paris), so that
what given in this chapter should be considered as merely informative.
Dynamic pedestrian loads could be defined by means of two separate models
consisting of:
1. a concentrated force (F
n
), representing the excitation by a limited group of pedestrians,
which should be systematically used for the verification of the comfort criteria;
2. a uniformly distributed load (F
s
), representing the excitation caused by a continuous
stream of pedestrians, which should be used separately from F
n
where specified.
Load model F
n
, which should be placed in the most adverse position on the bridge
deck, is represented by one pulsating force with a vertical component F
n,v
) 2 sin( ) ( 280
,
t f f k F
v v v v n
= [N]
(5)
and an horizontal component F
n,h
) 2 sin( ) ( 70
,
t f f k F
h h h h n
= [N],
(6)
to be considered separately.
In equations (5) and (6) f
v
is the natural vertical frequency of the bridge closest to 2
Hz, f
h
is the natural horizontal frequency of the bridge closest to 1 Hz, t is the time in s and
k
v
(f
v
) and k
h
(f
h
) are suitable coefficients, depending on the frequency according to figure 12.
For the evaluation of f
v
, f
h
and of the inertia effects, F
n
should be associated, if
unfavourable, with a static mass equal to 800 kg, applied at the same location.
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
46
The uniformly distributed load model F
s
, to be applied on the whole deck of the
bridge, consists in a uniformly distributed pulsating load with vertical component
) 2 sin( ) ( 15
,
t f f k F
v v v v s
= [N/m
2
],
(7)
and horizontal component
) 2 sin( ) ( 4
,
t f f k F
h h h h s
= [N/m
2
],
(8)
to be considered separately.
For the evaluation of f
v
, f
h
and of the inertia effects, F
s
should be associated, if
unfavourable, with a static mass equal to 400 kg/m
2
, applied at the same area.
In special cases, likes relevant footbridges, it may be possible to increase the reliability
degree of the assessments, by specifying to apply F
s
on limited unfavourable areas (e.g. span
by span) or with an opposition of phases on successive spans.
0 1 2 3 4 5
fv [Hz]
k
v
(
f
v
)
1
2
3
Vertical vibrations
0 1 2 3 4 5
fh [Hz]
k
h
(
f
h
)
1
2
3
Horizontal vibrations
Figure 12. Relationships between coefficients k
v
(f
v
), k
h
(f
h
) and frequencies f
v
, f
h
3.5.3. Comfort criteria
In order to ensure pedestrian comfort, the maximum acceleration of any part of the
deck should not exceed
 0,7 m/s
2
for vertical vibrations; or
 0,15 m/s
2
for horizontal vibrations.
The assessment of comfort criteria should be performed for natural vertical frequency
of the footbridge up to 5 Hz or horizontal and torsional natural frequencies up to 2.5 Hz.
In the evaluation of natural frequencies f
v
or f
h
the mass of any permanent load should
be taken into account and the stiffness parameters of the deck should be calculated using the
short term dynamic elastic properties of the structural material and, if significant, of the
parapets. It must be noted that generally the mass of pedestrians is relevant only for very light
decks.
If comfort criteria cannot be satisfied with a significant margin, the possible
installation of dampers in the structure after its completion should be envisaged in the design.
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
47
Evaluation of accelerations shall take into account the damping of the footbridge,
through the damping factor referring to the critical damping, or the logarithmic decrement,
which is equal to 2.
For rather short spans, when calculations are performed using the groups of
pedestrians given before, the effect of the damping on the acceleration can be considered
through the reduction factors:
 ) 2 exp( 1
,
n k
v n
= for vertical vibrations or
 ) exp( 1
,
n k
h n
= for horizontal vibrations,
where n is the number of steps necessary to cross the span under consideration.
For a simply supported bridge, the design value of the vertical acceleration a
1d
due to
the group of pedestrians may then be assumed as:
) 2 exp( 1
) ( 165
1
M
n
f k a
v v d
= [m/s
2
],
(9)
where M is the total mass of the bridge, f is the relevant, i.e. the determining, fundamental
frequency, and k
v
(f
v
) is given in figure 12.
4 ACTIONS ON RAILWAY BRIDGES
Like road bridge load models, also railway bridges load models of EN 19912 do not
describe actual loads, although weight and geometry of trains are often exactly known.
Load models for railway bridges have been setup in such a way that their effects,
amplified by the dynamic coefficients, which in this case are given separately, represent the
characteristic effects of the most severe train traffic expected on the European railways
network.
The rail traffic within the scope in EN19912 concerns standard track gauge and wide
track gauge of the European mainline network. In general, the load models given here are not
applicable to narrowgauge railways, tramways and other light railways, preservation
railways, rack and pinion railways, funicular railways and so on, that require specific loading
models, to be specifically defined.
Of course, when other traffic conditions need to be considered, which are outside the
scope of the load models specified in EN 19912, specific alternative load models and
combination rules should be defined for the particular case under consideration.
4.1 Representation of actions and nature of rail traffic loads
Actions due to normal railway operations are usually represented by:
 vertical loads,
 vertical loading for earthworks,
 dynamic effects,
 centrifugal forces,
 nosing forces,
 traction and braking forces,
 combined response of a structure and track to variable actions,
 aerodynamic effects from passing trains,
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
48
 actions due to overhead line equipment and other railway infrastructure and
equipment.
4.2 Vertical loads
In EN 19912 five load models are given for railway loading:
1. Load Model 71, representing normal rail traffic on mainline railways;
2. Load Model SW/0, which could be relevant for continuous bridges;
3. Load Model SW/2, representing heavy trains;
4. Load Model HSLM, representing high speed (>200 km/h) passenger trains;
5. Load Model unloaded train, representing the effect of an unloaded train.
The loadings can vary depending on the nature, the volume and maximum weight of rail
traffic on different railways, as well as on different qualities of track.
4.2.1 Load Model 71
Load Model 71, representing the vertical static effect of normal rail traffic, is composed
by a 4axles vehicle weighing 1000 kN and by a uniformly distributed load equal to 80 kN/m,
not limited in extension, as illustrated in figure 13.
Q =250 kN
vk
250 kN 250 kN 250 kN
q =80 kN/m
vk
q =80 kN/m
vk
0.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.8
no limitation in extension
no limitation in extension
Figure 13. Load Model 71
Heavier or lighter rail traffics can be taken into account multiplying the characteristic
values of loads given in figure 13 by a factor , which should assume following values: 0.75;
0.83; 0.91; 1.10; 1.21; 1.33; 1.46, being =1.0 the factor for normal traffic.
In any case, the same factor should be considered to evaluate equivalent vertical loading
for earthworks and earth pressure effects, centrifugal, traction and braking forces, combined response
of structure and track to variable actions, accidental actions and Load Model SW/0 for continuous
span bridges.
4.2.2 Load Models SW/0 and SW/2
Load Model SW/0 represents the static effect of normal traffic on continuous beams,
while Load Model SW/2, which represents the static effect of heavy rail traffic, should be taken
into account only where heavy rail traffic is foreseen.
LM SW/0 and SW/2 are represented by two uniformly distributed loads of length a,
spaced by c, as reported in table 7 and illustrated in figure 14.
Table 7. Characteristic values of vertical loads for Load Models SW/0 and SW/2
Load
Model
q
vk
[kN/m]
a
[m]
c
[m]
SW/0
SW/2
133
150
15.0
25.0
5.3
7.0
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
49
q
vk
q
vk
a c a
Figure 14. Load Models SW/0 and SW/2
4.2.3 Load Model unloaded train
The so called unloaded train is a particular load model consisting of a vertical uniformly
distributed load with a characteristic value of 10.0 kN/m, which could be used for some
particular verifications.
4.2.4 Eccentricity of vertical load models 71 and SW/0
The eccentricity of vertical load due to lateral displacement to be considered for static
verifications assessments can be taken into account considering the ratio of wheel loads on all
axles as up to 1.25:1.00 on each track, so that it results the eccentricity e shown in figure 15,
which should be not greater than r/18, being r the transverse distance between the wheel loads.
The loads to be taken into account are the appropriate uniformly distributed and
concentrated loads pertaining to LM71 and SW0 when required.
The load eccentricity e may be neglected in fatigue verifications
r
q
v1
Q
v1
q
v2
Q
v2
q +q
v1
Q +Q
v1
v2
v2
e
q
v2
q
v1
1.25
Q
v2
Q
v1
1.25
e
r
18
Figure 15. Eccentricity of vertical loads
4.2.5 Distribution of axle loads
Distribution of axle loads by the rails, sleepers and ballast, for all kind of trains and
verifications, including fatigue, can be taken into account
 in the longitudinal direction considering that a point force or an axle load is
distributed by the rail over three adjacent sleepers, being the loaded one subjected to
the 50% of the load and each of the two adjacent one subjected to the 25% of the load
as indicated in figure 16; for local verifications a load dispersal with 4:1 slope
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
50
through the ballast can be considered according to figure 17, where a represents the
sleepers spacing;
 in the transverse direction depending on the track configuration: the actions should
be distributed transversely according to figure 18 for bridges with ballasted track
without cant, according to figure 19 for bridges with ballasted tracks with cant and
for full length sleepers, where the ballast is only consolidated under the rails, or for
duoblock sleepers; according to figure 20 for bridges with ballasted tracks with cant
and full length sleepers; finally, in case of bridges with ballasted track and cant and
for full length sleepers, where the ballast is only consolidated under the rails, or for
duoblock sleepers, figure 20 should be suitably modified to take into account the
transverse load distribution under each rail shown in figure 19.
Q
vi
Q
vi
a a a a
4
Q
vi
2
Q
vi
4
Figure 16. Longitudinal distribution of concentrated loads
Q
vi
sleeper
reference
plane
4
:
1
Figure 17. Longitudinal dispersal of sleeper loads through the ballast
4.2.6 Equivalent vertical loading for earthworks and earth pressure effects
To determine earth pressure effects or to design earthworks under or adjacent to the
track, an equivalent vertical loading due to rail traffic actions can be considered for the
evaluation of global effects, represented by the appropriate load of model LM71 or SW/2
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
51
uniformly distributed over a width of 3.0 m at a level 0.70 m below the running surface of the
track. Dynamic effects can be disregarded.
For local elements close to a track (e.g. ballast retention walls and so on), the maximum
local vertical, longitudinal and transverse loadings on the element due to rail traffic actions
should be evaluated.
4.2.7 Footpaths and general maintenance loading
For pedestrian and cycle paths and for general maintenance loads a uniformly
distributed load with a characteristic value q
fk
=5 kN/m should be taken into account, while
for design of local elements a concentrated load Q
k
=2.0 kN acting alone should be applied on
a square surface with a 200 mm side.
4
:
1
Q
v
Q
h
Q
r
M R A B
reference
plane
h
A
B
Figure 18. Transverse distribution of action for ballasted tracks without cant
4
:
1
Q
v
Q
h
Q
r
M R A B
reference
plane
h
A
running
plane
0.6
4
:
1
0.6
Figure 19. Transverse distribution of action for duoblock sleepers
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
52
4
:
1
Q
v
Q
h
Q
r
M R A B
reference
plane
h
A
B
u
running
plane
Figure 20. Transverse distribution of action for ballasted tracks with cant
4.3 Dynamic magnification factors (
2
,
3
)
Provided that risks of resonance effects and excessive vibrations of the bridge are
negligible, dynamic magnification of stresses and vibration effects can be taken into account
through the dynamic factor .
On the contrary, when risks of resonance or excessive vibrations exist, a suitable
dynamic analysis is necessary. In these cases static load effects multiplied by the dynamic
factor are unable to predict resonance effects from high speed trains, therefore dynamic
analysis techniques, taking into account the time dependant nature of the loading from the
High Speed Load Model (HSLM) and Real Trains (e.g. by solving equations of motion) are
required for predicting dynamic effects at resonance.
The dynamic factors can be applied also to structures with more than one track.
4.3.1. Definition of the dynamic factor
The dynamic factor which increases the static load effects induced by Load Models
71, SW/0 and SW/2 depends on the level of maintenance of tracks.
For carefully maintained track, it is
1.00 82 . 0
2 . 0
44 , 1
2
+
L
1.67,
(10)
while for standard maintained track, it is
1.00 73 . 0
2 . 0
16 , 2
3
+
L
2.00,
(11)
being L
can be obtained
evaluating L
itself as the base length of the influence line for the deflection of the member
under consideration.
The dynamic factor shall not be used with the loading due to Real Trains, Fatigue
Trains, Load Model HSLM and load model unloaded train.
When the resultant stress in a structural member depends on several effects, each of
which relates to a separate structural behaviour, each effect should be calculated using the
appropriate determinant length.
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
53
Table 8.a. Determinant length L
Case Structural element Determinant length L
Steel deck plate: closed deck with ballast bed (orthotropic deck plate) (global and local transverse
stresses)
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Deck with cross girders and continuous
longitudinal ribs
Deck plate (for both directions)
Continuous longitudinal ribs (including
small cantilevers up to 0.5 m
cantilevers greater than 0.5 m require ad
hoc studies)
Cross girders
End cross girders
3 times cross girder spacing
3 times cross girder spacing
Twice the length of the cross girder
3.6 m (it is recommended adoption of
3
)
Deck plate with cross girder only
2.1
2.2
2.3
Deck plate for both directions
Cross girders
End cross girders
Twice the cross girder spacing + 3 m
Twice the cross girder spacing + 3 m
3.6 m (it is recommended adoption of
3
)
Steel grillage: closed deck with ballast bed (orthotropic deck plate) (global and local transverse
stresses)
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Rail bearers:
 as an element of continuous
grillage
 simply supported
Cantilever of the rail bearers
Cross girders (as part of cross
girder/continuous rail bearers grillage)
End cross girders
3 times cross girder spacing
Cross girder spacing + 3 m
3.6 m (it is recommended adoption of
3
)
Twice the length of the cross girder
3.6 m (it is recommended adoption of
3
)
For arch bridges and concrete bridges of all types with a cover of more than 1.00 m,
2
and
3
may be reduced according to the formula
1.0
10
1.00 
3 , 2 3 , 2
h
 = red ,
(12)
being h [m] the height of cover from the top of the deck to the top of the sleeper, including the
ballast, or, in case of arch bridges, from the crown to the extrados.
Rail traffic actions on columns with a slenderness <30, abutments, foundations, retaining
walls and ground pressures may be calculated disregarding dynamic effects.
Bridges sensitive to dynamic effects and in any case bridge on high speed lines
(V200 km/h) require specific dynamic analysis considering Real trains or High Speed Load
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
54
Model, according to the specific application rules. The question is outside the scope of the
present Guidebook and it will not be discussed here.
Table 8.b. Determinant length L
Case Structural element Determinant length L
Concrete deck slab with ballast (global and local transverse stresses)
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
Deck slab as part of box girder or
upper flange of the main beam:
 spanning transversally to the
main girders
 spanning in longitudinal
direction
 cross girders
 transverse cantilever
supporting railway loadings
Deck slab continuous (in main girder
direction) over the cross girders
Deck slab for half through and through
bridges :
 spanning perpendicular to the
main girders
 spanning in longitudinal
direction
Deck slab spanning transversely
between longitudinal steel beams in
filler bridge decks
Longitudinal cantilevers of deck slab
End cross girders or trimmer beams
3 times span of deck plate
3 times span of deck plate
Twice the length of the cross girder
e
 If e0.5 m, three times the distance
between the webs
 If e>0.5 m ad hoc studies are
necessary
Twice the cross girder spacing
Twice span of deck slab + 3 m
Twice span of deck slab
Twice the determinant length in the
longitudinal direction
 If e0.5 m, 3.6 m (it is recommended
adoption of
3
)
 If e>0.5 m ad hoc studies are
necessary
3.6 m (it is recommended adoption of
3
)
Note: For cases 1.1 to 4.6 inclusive L
Main girders
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
Simply supported girders and slabs
(including steel beams embedded in
concrete)
Girders and slabs continuous over n
spans with L
m
=(L
1
+ L
2
+....+ L
n
)/n
Portal frames and closed frames or
boxes:
 single span
 spanning in longitudinal
direction
Single arch, arch rib, stiffened girder of
bowstring
Series of arches with solid spandrels
retaining fills
Suspension bars (in conjunction with
stiffening girders)
Span in the main girder direction
L
=min[(1+0.1n)L
m
; L
i,max
]
Consider as three span continuous beam (use
expression in 5.2 with horizontal and vertical
lengths of members of frame or box)
Consider as multi span continuous beam
(use expression in 5.2 with lengths of end
vertical members and members)
Half span of the bridge
Twice the clear opening
4 times the longitudinal spacing of
suspension bars
Structural supports
6
Columns, trestles, bearings, uplift
bearings, tension anchors and for
calculation of contact pressure under
bearings
Determinant length of the supported member
4.4. Application of traffic loads on railway bridges
In designing a railway bridge, the number and the position of the loaded tracks should
determined first, according to the relevant influence surfaces.
In each verification the greatest number of tracks geometrically and structurally
possible should be considered in the less favourable position, irrespective of the effective
positions of the intended tracks, according to the given minimum spacing between centrelines
of adjacent tracks.
Actions of different nature should be combined considering traffic loads and forces
placed in the most unfavourable positions.
For the determination of the most adverse load effects, the following rules apply: when
LM 71 is considered,
 any number of uniformly distributed loads q
vk
should be applied on the track and up
to four concentrated loads Q
vk
should be applied once per track,
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
56
 for elements carrying two tracks, Load Model 71 shall be applied to either track or
both tracks,
 for bridges carrying three or more tracks, LM 71 should be applied if loaded tracks
are less than three, while 0.75 times LM71 should be applied for three or more
loaded tracks;
when LM SW/0 is considered,
 the loading SW/0 should be applied once to a track;
 for elements carrying two tracks, LM SW/0 should be applied to either track or
both tracks;
 for bridges carrying three or more tracks, LM SW/0 should be applied if loaded
tracks are less than three, while 0.75 times LM SW/0 should be applied for three or
more loaded tracks;
 continuous beam bridges designed for LM71 must be checked for LM SW/0 too;
finally, when LMSW/2 is considered,
 the loading SW/2 shall be applied once to a track,
 for elements carrying more than one track, LM SW/2 shall be applied to any one
track only, with LM71 or LMSW/0 applied to the other tracks, in accordance with
the specific application rules.
When relevant, the following rules apply for the Load Model unloaded train:
 the Load Model unloaded train shall only be considered in the design of
structures carrying one track.
 any number of lengths of the uniformly distributed load q
vk
shall be applied to a
track.
For serviceability assessments concerning deformations, LM 71 and, if relevant, Load
Models SW/0 and SW/2 increased by the dynamic factor should be applied.
For vibrations or resonance assessments, the above mentioned Load Models for High
Speed trains (HSLM) or Real Trains (RT) should be also taken into account.
The number of loaded tracks to be loaded when checking the limits of deflections and
vibration is given in table 9.
4.5 Horizontal forces  characteristic values
4.5.1 Centrifugal forces
When the track is curved over the whole or part of the length of the bridge, the
centrifugal force and the track cant should be considered.
The centrifugal forces act outwards in a horizontal direction and are applied 1.80 m
above the running surface, considering the Maximum Line Speed V allowed on the bridge,
except for Load Model SW/2, for which a maximum speed of 80 km/h may be assumed.
Said Q
vk
and q
vk
the characteristic values of the vertical load components of the
railway load models, LM 71, SW/0, SW/2 and unloaded train, any enhancement for
dynamic effects is disregarded, the characteristic values Q
tk
, q
tk
of the corresponding centrifugal
forces are given by
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
57
) (
127
) (
2 2
vk vk tk
Q f
r
V
Q f
r g
v
Q
= = [kN]
) (
127
) (
2 2
vk vk tk
q f
r
V
q f
r g
v
q
= = [kN/m],
(13)
being f a reduction factor, given in the following.
Table 9. Number of tracks to be loaded for checking limits of deflection and vibration
Limit States Checks and
associated acceptance criteria
Number of tracks
1 2 3
Traffic Safety Checks:
Deck twist (EN 1990 Annex 2 A2.4.4.2.2) 1 1 or 2
*)
1 or 2 or 3 or
more
*)
Deformation of the deck (EN 1990 Annex 2 A2.4.4.2.3) 1 1 or 2
*)
1 or 2 or 3 or
more
*)
Horizontal deflection of the deck (EN 1990 Annex 2
A2.4.4.2.4)
1 1 or 2
*)
1 or 2 or 3 or
more
*)
Combined response of structure and track to
variable actions including limits to vertical and
longitudinal displacement of the end of a deck (
6.5.4)
1 1 or 2
*)
1 or 2
*)
Vertical acceleration of the deck (EN19912 6.4.6
and EN 1990 Annex 2 A2.4.4.2.1)
1 1 1
SLS Checks:
Passenger comfort criteria (EN 1990 Annex 2
A2.4.4.3)
1 1 1
ULS Checks
Avoidance of unrestrained uplift at bearings 1 1 or 2
*)
1 or 2 or 3 or
more
*)
*)
whichever is critical (see multicomponent actions in 4.6)
In equations (13), v in m/s and V in km/h are the maximum line speed, g is the gravity
acceleration and r is the radius of curvature in m. In case of varying radius, r could suitably set
to its mean value.
Centrifugal forces should be combined with the pertinent vertical traffic load.
The centrifugal force shall not be multiplied by the dynamic factor
2
or
3
.
The factor f takes into account the reduced mass of higher speed trains, therefore, as for
short loaded lengths the magnitude of centrifugal forces is dictated by faster light vehicles, for
Load Model 71 (and where significant Load Model SW/0) the cases considered in table 10 shall
be considered, depending on the line speed V and on the adjustment factor .
For Load Model 71 (and LM SW/0, if relevant) the reduction factor f is given by:
(
(


\


\

+
=
f
L V
V
f
88 . 2
1 75 . 1
814
1000
120
1 1.0,
(14)
where V is the maximum line speed in km/h and L
f
is the influence length in m of the loaded part
of curved track on the bridge, which is most unfavourable for the design of the structural element
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
58
under consideration.
For Load Model 71 (and where significant Load Model SW/0) and V>120 km/h, two
cases should be taken into account:
 case a: in this case Load Model 71 (and where relevant Load Model SW/0) is taken
into account with its dynamic factor and the centrifugal force is evaluated according
to equations (13) setting V=120 km/h, so that the latter is not reduced (f = 1);
 case b: in this case Load Model 71 (and where relevant Load Model SW/0) is taken
into account with its dynamic factor and the centrifugal force is evaluated according
to equations (13) considering the maximum speed V=120 km/h and the related
reduction factor f, evaluated according (14).
Table 10. Load cases for centrifugal force evaluation
Value
of
Max
Line
Speed
[km/h]
Centrifugal force based on
Associated vertical traffic
based on V
[km/h]
f
<1 >120 V 1 f 1f(LM71+SW/0) 1(LM71+SW/0) or
0.5(LM71+SW/0)
when vertical traffic actions
are favourable
120 1 1 (LM71+SW/0)
1(LM71+SW/0) or
0.5(LM71+SW/0)
when vertical traffic actions
are favourable
0   
120
V 1 1 (LM71+SW/0)
0   
=1 >120 V 1 f 1f(LM71+SW/0) 11(LM71+SW/0)
or10.5(LM71+SW/0)
when vertical traffic actions
are favourable
120 1 1 11 (LM71+SW/0)
11(LM71+SW/0)
or10.5(LM71+SW/0)
when vertical traffic actions
are favourable
0   
120
V 1 1 11 (LM71+SW/0)
0   
>1 >120*
)
V 1 f 1f(LM71+SW/0) 11(LM71+SW/0)
or10.5(LM71+SW/0)
when vertical traffic actions
are favourable
120 1 1 (LM71+SW/0)
1(LM71+SW/0) or
0.5(LM71+SW/0)
when vertical traffic actions
are favourable
0   
120 V 1 1 (LM71+SW/0)
0   
*
)
valid only if maximum speed of heavy freight traffic limited to 120 km/h
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
59
When the line speed V is bigger than 300 km/h and the influence length L
f
is bigger
than 2.88 m a lower bound exists for f, f (V=300 km/h).
For Load Models SW2 and unloaded train f=1.0.
4.5.2 Nosing force
The nosing force Q
sk
, to be always combined with the vertical traffic load, is
represented by a concentrated force acting horizontally, applied at the top of the rails,
normally to the centreline of track, on both straight and curved track. For rail traffic with
maximum axle load of 250 kN, the characteristic value should be taken as Q
sk
=100 kN and it
should be multiplied by the dynamic magnification factor Q
sk
.
Nosing force should by multiplied by the adjustment factor only when >1.
4.5.3 Actions due to traction and braking
Traction and braking forces are commonly considered as uniformly distributed over the
corresponding influence length L
a,b
for traction and braking effects related to the structural
element considered.
Traction force is indicated with Q
lak
and braking force is indicated with Q
lbk
.
Traction and braking forces, applied the top of the rails in the longitudinal direction of
the track, should be determine according to the following expressions, which are applicable to
all types of track construction, e.g. continuous welded rails or jointed rails, with or without
expansion devices, being L
a,b
in m:
Traction force: Q
lak
= 33 L
a,b
[kN]1000 [kN] (15)
for Load Models 71, SW/0, SW/2, unloaded train and HSLM;
Braking force: Q
lbk
= 20 L
a,b
[kN]6000 [kN]
for Load Models 71, SW/0 and Load Model HSLM
Q
lbk
= 35 L
a,b
[kN] (16)
for Load Model SW/2
Q
lbk
= 2.5 L
a,b
[kN]
for Load Model unloaded train.
In some special case, like for lines carrying special traffic (restricted to high speed
passenger traffic for example) the traction and braking forces may be taken as equal to 25% of
the sum of the axleloads of the Real Train acting on the influence length of the action effect of
the structural element considered, with an upper limits of 1000 kN for Q
lak
and 6000 kN for Q
lbk
.
4.6 Multicomponent traffic actions
4.6.1 Characteristic values of multicomponent actions
The simultaneity of the above mentioned traffic loadings may be taken into account by
considering the mutually exclusive groups of loads given in EN 19912 and reported in table 11.
Each groups of loads reported in the table defines a single variable characteristic action,
that should be taken into account for combination with nontraffic loads and should be
considered as a single variable traffic action.
The number of group loads is high; therefore it implies a considerable increase of the
number of the load combinations to be considered in the analyses.
Anyhow, the number of the load groups can be considerably reduced, making some little
safesided simplification, so that only four relevant group of loads need to be taken in account,
according to table 12.
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
60
Table 11. Groups of traffic loads (characteristic values of multicomponent actions)
Groups of loads Vertical forces Horizontal forces
n = Reference EN 19912
6.3.2/6.3.3 6.3.3 6.3.4 6.5.3 6.5.1 6.5.2
Comment
1
2
3
Number
of tracks
Load
group
Loaded
track
LM 71
(1)
SW/0
(1)
,
(2)
HSLM
(6)(7)
SW/2
(1),(3)
Unload
ed train
Traction,
Braking
(1)
Centrifugal
force
(1)
Nosing
force
1 11 T
1
1 1
(5)
0.5
(5)
0.5
(5)
Max. vertical
1 with max.
longitudinal
1 12 T
1
1 0.5
(5)
1
(5)
1
(5)
Max. vertical
2 with max.
transverse
1 13 T
1
1
(4)
1 0.5
(5)
0.5
(5)
Max.
longitudinal
1 14 T
1
1
(4)
0.5
(5)
1 1 Max. lateral
1 15 T
1
1 0.5
(5)
1
(5)
1
(5
Lateral
stability with
unloaded
train
1 16 T
1
1 1
(5)
0.5
(5)
0.5
(5)
SW/2
1 17 T
1
1 0.5
(5)
1
(5)
1
(5)
SW/2
2 21 T
1
T
2
1
1
1
(5)
1
(5)
0.5
(5)
0.5
(5)
0.5
(5)
0.5
(5)
Max. vertical
1 with max
longitudinal
2 22 T
1
T
2
1
1
0.5
(5)
0.5
(5)
1
(5)
1
(5)
1
(5)
1
(5)
Max. vertical
2 with max.
transverse
2 23 T
1
T
2
1
(4)
1
(4)
1
1
0.5
(5)
0.5
(5)
0.5
(5)
0.5
(5)
Max.
longitudinal
2 24 T
1
T
2
1
(4)
1
(4)
0.5
(5)
0.5
(5)
1
1
1
1
Max. lateral
2 26 T
1
T
2
1
1
1
(5)
1
(5)
0.5
(5)
0.5
(5)
0.5
(5)
0.,5
(5)
SW/2
2 27 T
1
T
2
1
1 0.5
(5)
0.5
(5)
1
(5)
1
(5)
1
(5)
1
(5)
SW/2
3 31 T
i
0.75 0.75
(5)
0.75
(5)
0.75
(5)
Additional
load case
(1) All relevant factors (, , f, ...) shall be taken into account.
(2) SW/0 shall only be taken into account for continuous span bridges.
(3) SW/2 needs to be taken into account only if it is stipulated for the line.
(4) Factor may be reduced to 0.5 if favourable effect, it cannot be zero.
(5) In favourable cases these non dominant values shall be taken equal to zero.
(6) HSLM and Real Trains where required in accordance with 6.4.4 and 6.4.6.1.1. of EN 19912
(7) If a dynamic analysis is required in accordance with 6.4.4 of EN 19912 also see 6.4.6.5(3) of EN 19912.
Leading component action as appropriate
to be considered in designing a structure supporting one track (Load Groups 1117)
to be considered in designing a structure supporting two tracks (Load Groups 1127 except 15).
Each of the two tracks shall be considered as either T
1
(Track one) or T
2
(Track 2)
to be considered in designing a structure supporting three or more tracks;
(Load Groups 11 to 31 except 15. Any one track shall be taken as T
1
, any other track as T
2
with all other
tracks unloaded. In addition the Load Group 31 has to be considered as an additional load case where all
unfavourable lengths of track T
i
are loaded.
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
61
Table 12. Assessment of simplified groups of traffic loads
Load
type
Vertical load Horizontal load Notes
Group of
loads
Vertical load
(1)
Unloaded
train (1)
Traction
Braking
Centrifugal
force
Nosing force
Group 1
(2)
1.00  0.5 (0) 1.00 (0) 1.00 (0) Maximum
vertical and
lateral
action
Group 2
(2)
 1.00 0 1.00 (0) 1.00 (0) Lateral
stability
Group 3
(2)
1.00 (0.5)  1.00 0.5 (0) 0.5 (0) Maximum
longitudinal
action
Group 4
(3)
0.8 (0.6, 0.4) 0.8 (0.6, 0.4) 0.8 (0.6, 0.4) 0.8 (0.6, 0.4) Concrete
cracking
Leading action
(1) Including all his coefficients , and so on
(2) Simultaneity of several actions with their characteristic values, even if improbable, is considered for
groups 1, 2 and 3, considering that the consequences of this assumptions are not relevant
(3) Group 4 should be considered only for concrete cracking (values in parentheses are to be considered
when more than 1 track is loaded: 0.6 for two loaded tracks and 0.4 for three or more loaded tracks.
4.6.2 Other representative values of the multicomponent actions
The frequent values of multicomponent actions can be determined using the same rules
given above: for each group of loads, instead of characteristic values, the factors given in table
11 affect the frequent values of the relevant actions considered.
When the reduced number of groups of loads is considered, according to table 12, only
group 4 should be taken into account.
Quasipermanent traffic actions shall be taken as zero.
6 CONCLUDING REMARKS
In recent years, bridge codes have considerably evolved. This evolution is the result of
the positive interaction of several factors, namely
 recent progresses of the probabilistic theory of structural reliability;
 improved knowledge of the statistical parameters governing the extreme value
distributions of climatic actions; and,
 finally, availability of large databases regarding in situ traffic measurements all
around the world.
The most evident outcome of the modern code development is the artificial nature of
traffic load models.
Since they aim to reproduce to real traffic effects characterised by specified return
period or by given probability to be exceed in the design working life of the bridge, traffic
load models can differ considerably by real vehicles, in terms of silhouette and axles
arrangement as well as in terms of axle and vehicle weights.
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
62
Amongst the contemporary codes for bridge design, Eurocode emerges for its primary
importance, profiting of out to date background and ad hoc studies.
It must be highlighted that Eurocode has been widely checked and it is successfully
applied in current design practice in Europe.
In the present chapter the static traffic load models for road, pedestrian and railway
bridges of EN 19912 have been discussed, highlighting the application rules and the group of
traffic loads to be considered in combination with nontraffic actions.
When relevant, particular attention has been devoted to background information, also
aiming to suggest safesided simplified assumptions.
In the appendix A to this chapter, calibration study of the traffic load models for road
bridges are illustrated in details, while in the Annex A to the present Guidebook, the future
traffic trends of the lorry traffic in European road network is discussed and their consequences
on EN 19912 load models are analysed.
Non traffic actions are illustrated in chapter 5 and load combinations in chapter 7.
The practical application of the load models for road bridges is better detailed in
chapters 8, 9 and 10, where three case studies are developed.
7 REFERENCES
[1] EN19912, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures  Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. CEN,
Brussels, 2003.
[2] OConnor, A.J. et al., Effects of traffic loads on road bridges Preliminary studies for the
reassessment of the Eurocode 1, Part 3. Proceedings of the 2
nd
European Conference on
Weighinmotion of road vehicles. Lisbon, 1998
[3] EN1990A2, Eurocode: Basis of structural design Annex A2: Applications for bridges.
CEN, Brussels, 2005
[4] Croce, P. & Sanpaolesi, L., Design of bridges. Pisa: TEP, 2004.
[5] OBrien, E.J. et al., Bridge applications of weighinmotion. Paris: Laboratoire Central des
Ponts et Chausses, 1998.
[6] Bruls, A et al., ENV1991 Part 3: The main model of traffic loads on road bridges.
Background studies. Proceedings of IABSE Colloquium on Basis of Design and Actions
on Structures. Background and Application of Eurocode 1. Delft, 1996.
[7] Croce, P. & Salvatore, W., Stochastic model for multilane traffic effects on bridges.
Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, 6(2): 136143, 2001
[8] Tschemmernegg, F. & al, Verbreiterung und Sanierung von Stahlbrcken. Stahlbau n. 9,
1989.
[9] Sedlacek, G. & al. 1991. Eurocode 1  Part 12. Traffic loads on road bridges. Definition
of dynamic impact factors. Report of subgroup 5.
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
63
Appendix A to Chapter 3 Development of static load traffic models for road bridges
of EN 19912
A.1 General principles
Static load models for road bridges of EN 19912 have been developed considering
that an up to date structural code should
 be easy to use;
 be applicable independently on the static scheme and on the span length of the
bridge;
 reproduce as accurately as possible the real load effects induced on the bridge by
all possible flowing and jammed traffic scenarios, that can occur on the bridge
during its design working life; the real load effects are characterised by a specified
return period or by a given probability to be exceeded during the design working
life;
 include the dynamic magnification due to the roadvehicle and to the bridge
vehicle interactions in load values;
 allow combinations of local and global effects of actions;
 be unambiguous, covering all the cases that could occur in the design practice.
Obviously, as load models are to be defined and calibrated referring to traffic effects
having specified return periods, prenormative studies had to deal with complicated
theoretical and methodological problems. Among these, especially significant were those
concerned with the extrapolation to very long time periods of effects due to flowing traffics,
recorded on the slow lane for few days or few weeks, taking into account the most severe
flowing and/or congested traffic scenarios that could happen on one or on several lanes.
A.2 Static load model philosophy
As a rule, the evaluation of real traffic effects and the subsequent drafting and
calibration of the load model can be carried out by analytical and numerical methodologies
consisting of:
 identification of the most significant real traffic records;
 choice of the static schemes and spans of the relevant bridges;
 specification of the influence surfaces the most significant effects;
 elaboration of the traffic data and their manipulation to obtain jammed, slowed
down and flowing traffic types;
 determination of the histograms of the extreme values of the effects induced by the
transit of the different traffic typologies on the influence surfaces;
 simulation of extreme scenarios for multilane traffic;
 elaboration and extrapolation of the histograms of the extreme values of the effects
to evaluate the reference values, characterized by specified return period;
 correction of the reference values to take into account the dynamic effects due to
roadvehicle and to vehiclestructure interactions;
 drafting and calibration of the load model;
 applicative trials;
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
64
 model refinement.
A.3 Statistical analysis of European traffic data
As said, the first phase of the study was devoted to statistic analysis of European
traffic data, in order to select the most representative traffics, in terms of the expected flow
and composition.
Available European traffics data were mainly the result of two large measurement
campaigns performed, respectively, within 1977 and 1982 on bridges situated in France,
Germany, Great Britain, Italy and Holland and within 1984 and 1988 on several roads all
around the Europe. Recorded daily flows on the slow lane were varying between 1000 and
8000 lorries on motorways, and between 600 and 1500 lorries on main roads, while fast lane
daily flows on motorway and slow lane daily flows on secondary roads resulted drastically
reduce to 100200 lorries. [4, 5].
Statistical analyses, that allowed to know the distributions of the most significant
traffic parameters, like traffic composition, intervehicle distances, axles spacing, weight,
length and speed of each lorry, essentially was limited to data recorded in Italy, France and
Germany; in fact, UK data appeared poorly representative of the continental situation, while
Spanish and Dutch data seemed excessively influenced by the respective road systems
peculiarities.
Significant data, derived from long distance motorway traffics (Auxerre (F), Garonor
(F), Brohltal (D), Fiano Romano (I), Sasso Marconi (I) and Piacenza (I)), are summarized in
tables A.1A.5. Table A.1 shows the daily flows of cars and lorries per lane and the
percentage of intervehicular distances smaller than 100 meters; table A.2 illustrates the traffic
compositions in terms of standardized lorries, while table A.3 illustrates the composition of
the entire fleets of circulating commercial vehicles in the three above mentioned Countries.
Finally, daily flows of axles heavier than 10 kN and lorries, together with the respective
values of statistical parameters are shown in table A.4 and A.5, respectively.
Generally, the analysis of the European traffic data shows that
 mean values of axleloads and total weight of heavy vehicles strongly depend on
the traffic typology, i.e. on the road classification; they are usually very scattered:
 the statistical distribution of the axleload is generally unimodal, with the mode
around 60 kN, while the statistical distribution of the total weight is bimodal with
the first mode around 150 kN and the second mode around 400 kN;
Table A.1. Daily traffic flows per lane
Cars Lorries % intervehicle
distance<100 m
Brohltal (D) 11126 4793 26.7
Garonor (F 1982)  2570 32.6
Garonor (F 1984)  3686 32.3
Auxerre (slow lane) (F) 8158 2630 18
Auxerre (slow lane) (F) 1664 153 8.5
Fiano R. (I) 8500 4000 26.1
Piacenza (I) 8500 5000 30.9
Sasso M. (I) 7500 3500 24.3
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
65
Table A.2. Composition of the commercial traffic
Lorries (%)
(2 Axles)
Lorries (%)
(>2 Axles)
Articulated
lorries (%)
Lorries with
trailer (%)
Brohltal (D) 16.6 1.6 40.2 41.6
Garonor (F  1982) 38.6 2.6 47.6 11.2
Garonor (F  1984) 47.5 2.2 44.3 6.0
Auxerre (slow lane) (F) 22.7 1.3 65.2 10.8
Auxerre (fast lane) (F) 27.6 3.5 58.4 10.5
Fiano R. (I) 41.4 7.0 29.0 22.6
Piacenza (I) 35.3 7.5 35.8 21.4
Sasso M. (I) 40.1 10.0 30.2 19.7
Table A.3. Composition of the circulating lorry fleets
Germany France Italy
2 axles 17.0 32.0 38.67
3 axles 5.0 5.8 9.0
4 axles 25.0 25.0 10.0
5 axles 52.0 33.2 33.0
6 axles 1.0 4.0 8.0
> 6 axles   1.33
Table A.4. Daily flows and statistical parameters of axles heavier than 10 kN and lorries
ALL AXLES TANDEM AXLES TRIDEM AXLES
Flow
P
mean
[kN]
[kN]
P
max
[kN]
Flow
P
mean
[kN]
[kN]
P
max
[kN]
Flow
P
mean
[kN]
[kN]
P
max
[kN]
Brohltal
(D) 19970 59.0 28.4 165.0 1977 116.5 54.6 260.0 1035 60.0 230.0 355.0
Garonor
(F) 1982
8470 57.6 27.6 180.0 712 126.3 49.3 340.0 303 90.0 200.0 295.0
Garonor
(F) 1984
11593 59.3 30.0 195.0 1016 132.1 58.1 290.0 489 90.0 200.0 320.0
Auxerre (F)
slow lane
10442 82.5 35.2 195.0 844 165.6 54.0 305.0 961 130.0 250.0 390.0
Auxerre (F)
fast lane
581 73.1 41.2 200.0 47 141.2 63.9 275.0 51 120.0 250.0 390.0
Fiano R. (I) 15000 56.8 32.9 142.0 2000 115.2 45.5 245.0 900 80.0 260.0 360.0
Piacenza
(I)
20000 61.8 31.0 135.0 2500 127.0 44.1 260.0 1500 100.0 220.0 365.0
Sasso M. (I) 13000 61.9 30.8 135.0 1600 136.4 49.5 260.0 800 110.0 250.0 375.0
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
66
Table A.5. Daily flow and total weights of commercial vehicles
Flow
P
mean
[kN]
[kN]
P
max
[kN]
Brohltal (D) 4793 245.8 127.3 650.0
Garonor (F) 1982
2570 189.8 107.5 550.0
Garonor (F) 1984
3686 186.5 118.0 560.0
Auxerre (F) slow lane
2630 326.7 144.9 630.0
Auxerre (F) fast lane
153 277.2 163.6 670.0
Fiano R. (I)
4000 204.5 130.3 590.0
Piacenza (I)
5000 235.2 140.0 630.0
Sasso M. (I)
3500 224.9 149.0 620.0
 on the contrary, daily maxima are much less sensitive to traffic composition and
they vary between 130 and 210 kN for single axles, between 240 and 340 kN for
two axles in tandem, between 220 and 390 kN for three axles in tridem, and
between 400 and 650 kN for the total lorry weight;
 daily maxima of axleloads and of total weight of the vehicle largely exceed the
legal values;
 in consequence of industrial choices of lorry manufacturers, vehicle geometries
have remained practically unchanged since the 1980s: the interaxle distance
distribution strongly results trimodal: the first mode, a little scattered, is located
around 1.30 m, corresponding to the usual axles spacing for tandem and tridem
arrangements of axles, the second mode, also characterized by low scattering, is
located around 3.20 m, a typical value for tractors of articulated lorries, while the
third one, located around 5.40 m, is much more dispersed;
 long distance continental Europe traffic data are sufficiently homogeneous;
 the heavy traffic composition evolved in a very straightforward way during the
1980s: the percentage of articulated lorries stepped up despite a strong reduction
in the less commercially profitable trailer trucks, in conjunction with a contraction
of the number of single lorries, whose use is increasingly limited to local routes;
 in consequence of a better and more rational management of the lorry fleets, the
number of empty lorry passages has been strongly reduced and often limited to the
sole tractor unit in case of articulated lorries, , so raising the mean vehicle loads;
 long distance traffics are much more aggressive than local traffics;
 generally lorry flows tend to increase, even if the absolute maximum flow was
recorded in 1980 in Germany on the Limburger Bahn (8600 lorries per day on the
slow lane).
On the basis of the above mentioned considerations, the studies for calibration of EN
19912 load models for road bridges were based on the traffic recorded in Auxerre (France),
on the motorway A6 ParisLyon.
The Auxerre traffic is very severe and summarizes effectively the main characteristics
of the long distance European traffic, especially in terms of composition.
Other traffic data have been used only for checking the reliability of the results
obtained with Auxerre data.
The most relevant parameters of the slow lane Auxerre traffic are summarized in
figures A.1A.6. More precisely, in figures A.1, A.2 and A.3 are shown the histograms of
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
67
vehicle speeds, intervehicle distances and axle loads, respectively, referring to the total
vehicles flow (lorries plus cars), while in figures A.4, A.5 and A.6 are reported the analogous
histograms referring only to the lorry flow.
The statistical analyses allow to conclude that speed and length of vehicles are poorly
correlated and, from the probabilistic point of view, practically independent on the axleloads
and on the total weight of the vehicles.
It must be stressed, finally, that European traffics exist which are more aggressive than
the Auxerre traffic, like the one recorded in Paris on the Boulevard Prifrique. Such traffics,
nevertheless, are not very significant, since they depend on local situations and are hard to
generalize.
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51
speed  [m/s]
Slow lane
Auxerre (F)
Figure A.1. Histogram of the vehicle speed frequency Auxerre total flow
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
1.36 10
2
5.07 10
3
1.00 10
4
1.50 10
4
2.00 10
4
Intervehicle distance  [m]
Slow lane
Auxerre (F)
Figure A.2. Histogram of the intervehicle distance frequency Auxerre total flow
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
68
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
12 25 38 51 64 77 90 103 116 129 142 155 168 181
Axle load  [kN]
Slow lane
Auxerre (F)
Figure A.3. Histogram of the axle load frequency Auxerre total flow
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51
speed  [m/s]
Slow l ane
Auxerre (F)
Figure A.4. Histogram of the vehicle speed frequency Auxerre lorries
A.4 Traffic scenarios
The evaluation of the reference values of the real traffic effects induced on the bridge
by the recorded traffic is not trivial.
Traffic records generally refer to normal flowing situations; they are often inadequate
to represent the most severe situations, which can happen in disturbed traffic scenarios. For
this reason, in order to consider extreme traffic situations as well, traffic data have been
opportunely manipulated, considering deterministic traffic scenarios being representative of
some relevant real situation [6], [7].
Concerning the single lane, four different types of traffic models have been developed
as follow: flowing, slowed down, and congested with/or without cars.
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
69
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
8.9 10
1
5.83 10
3
1.16 10
4
Intervehicle distance  [m]
Slow lane
Auxerre (F)
Figure A.5. Histogram of the intervehicle distance frequency Auxerre lorries
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
10 37 64 91 118 145 172
Axle load  [kN]
Slow lane
Auxerre (F)
Figure A.6. Histogram of the axle load frequency Auxerre lorries
The flowing traffic is represented by the traffic as recorded. Flowing traffic, to which a
suitable dynamic coefficient must be associated, is particularly important for bridges spanning
up to 30 to 40 m, when characteristic values are sought. If frequent values are wanted, flowing
traffic is relevant in a much wider span range.
Slowed down traffic is significant when infrequent loads are sought. It can be easily
obtained considering the vehicles in the recorded order and reducing the distance among
adjacent axles of two consecutive vehicles to a suitable minimum value to simulate vehicle
convoys in braking phase. The minimum distance can be generally set to 20 m.
The congested traffic, which is relevant when the bridge span is greater than 50 m, can
be finally extracted from the recorded traffic reducing to 5 m the distance between the
adjacent axles of two consecutive vehicles, so reproducing a traffic column in slow (stop and
go) motion.
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
70
The traffic scenarios are particularly influenced by the driver behaviours, therefore,
among the congested traffic configurations, it is particularly meaningful that one
characterized by the presence on the slow lane of lorries only. In fact, when the traffic slows
down, the drivers of lighter and faster vehicles tend to change lane to overtake heaviest
vehicles.
This effect is very well represented in classical photos, like that reported by
Tschemmenerg & al. [8], relative to traffic jams on the Europa bridge (figure A.7). Obviously,
the congested traffic without cars can be simply obtained disregarding light vehicles, below
35 kN.
Figure A.7. Traffic jam on the Europa Bridge (from [8])
In defining the target values of traffic effects, extreme situations characterised by
flowing or jammed traffic on one or several lanes have been modelled considering several
deterministic traffic scenarios, as synthesized below, considering Auxerre traffic.
Flowing multilane traffics were obtained considering the following effects:
 for the most loaded lane, the first lane, the extrapolated effect induced by the slow
lane traffic as recorded;
 for the second lane, the daily maximum effect (not extrapolated), induced by the
slow lane traffic as recorded;
 for the third lane, the mean daily effect induced by the slow lane traffic as
recorded;
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
71
 for the fourth lane, the mean daily effect induced by the fast lane traffic as
recorded.
Jammed traffic scenarios took into account:
 for the most loaded lane, the first lane, the extrapolated effect induced by the
congested traffic without cars, deduced from the slow lane traffic;
 for the second lane, the daily maximum effect induced by the congested traffic
with cars, deduced from the slow lane traffic;
 for the third lane, the daily maximum effect induced by the slow lane traffic as
recorded;
 for the fourth lane, the mean daily effect induced by the slow lane traffic as
recorded.
Target values have then been evaluated referring to a considerable number of bridge
spans and influence surfaces. In particular, nine cylindrical influence surfaces have been
considered for simply supported as well as continuous bridges, spanning between 5 and 200
m.
A.5 Extrapolation methods
As mentioned above, the choice of the main load model and its calibration requires the
preliminary knowledge of the reference values, which are the relevant values of the effects 
characteristic, infrequent, frequent, and quasipermanent  to be reproduced through the load
model itself.
Obviously, even considering deterministic traffic scenarios, the methodology to
evaluate the reference values cannot be taken for granted, so that suitable numerical
procedures, based on appropriate extrapolation methods of the histograms of the traffic
induced effects must be setup.
The relationship between the return period and the distribution fractile can be easily
determined, assuming a uniform flow of lorries on the bridge. Under this hypothesis the
distance amongst two vehicles can be considered as equivalent to unit time interval, so that
the vehicles are described by a stationary time series X
1
, X
2
., X
i
,,X
n
, being X
i
the weight
of the ith vehicle entering the bridge at time i.
If the weights X
i
are independent and distributed according to the same cumulative
distribution function F(x), the return period R
x
of the x value of X
i
, which is defined as
[ ]
x x
N E R = , where { } x X x X x X x X n N
n n x
< < < =
, ,...., ,  inf
1 2 1
,
(A.1)
can be derived from
[ ]
1
) ( 1
= x F R
x
.
(A.2)
If the time series is replaced by a stationary stochastic process {X
t
, t>0}, then
[ ]
x x
T E R = , where { } t u x X x X t T
u t x
< < = ,  inf .
(A.3)
If Y
N
is the maximum value of X
i
and N is the total number of vehicles crossing the
bridge during R
x
, then it is
{ } N i X Y
i N
< = 0 , max .
(A.4)
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
72
As the X
i
are independent and identically distributed, the cumulative distribution
function F[Y
N
] of Y
N
itself is given by
[ ] ( ) [ ]
n
N
x F Y F = .
(A.5)
In conclusion, said y
p
the upper pfractile of Y
N
, p is
( )
p
y F p =1 ,
(A.6)
and, for N and T, R results
( )
( ) p
T
p
T
y R R
p
= =
1 ln
, where 1 0 << < p . (A.7)
The expression (A.7), which does not depends on y
p
and on the distribution of X,
associates the return period and the fractile. For example, when the design life is 50 year, the
5% fractile (p=0.05) matches the value having a return period R=974.781000 years.
In general, to evaluate the extreme values of the effects induced by the traffic, three
different methods of extrapolation have been employed in the framework of EN 19912
works.
The methods are based on the halfnormal distribution, on the Gumbel distribution and
the Monte Carlo method, respectively. It is important to stress, however, that the characteristic
values of real traffic effects resulted practically independent on the extrapolation method.
A.5.1 Halfnormal distribution extrapolation method
In the halfnormal distribution extrapolation method the upper tail of the extreme
values distribution of the stochastic variable X is approximated by a normal distribution,
through an opportune choice of two parameters of the normal distribution.
The value x
R
, having a return period R, is given then by
R R
z x x + =
0
,
(A.8)
where x
0
is the last mode of the distribution and z
R
is the upper pfractile of the standardized
normal variable Z,
( )
1
2
= N p ,
(A.9)
being N the total number of lorries during the reference period R.
A.5.2 Gumbel distribution extrapolation method
Under hypotheses similar to those illustrated in the previous paragraph, the extreme
values distribution can be represented through a two parameters Gumbel (type I) distribution.
The parameters u and , which represent, respectively, the mode and the scattering of
the distribution, can be derived from the extreme values histogram as
= 45 . 0 m u , ( )
1
7797 . 0 '
= ,
(A.10)
where m and are the mean value and the standard deviation of the histogram itself.
The value x
R
is then
' + = y u x
R
,
(A.11)
being
( ) [ ]
1
1 ln ln
= R y ,
(A.12)
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
73
the reduced variable of the Gumbel distribution.
An example of application of this extrapolation method on a Gumbel chart for a
generic effect T(y) is synthetically illustrated in figure A.8.
Gumbel chart
150
160
170
180
190
200
2 0 2 4 6
8
Reduced variable y
Effect
T(y)
Figure A.8. Example of data extrapolation on a Gumbel chart
A.5.3 Monte Carlo extrapolation method
Numerical extrapolation procedures based on the Monte Carlo method make use of
automatic generations of a suitable set of extreme traffic situations, derived from the recorded
traffic data, in such a way that a suitable population of extreme values is obtained. This
population is elaborated in turn with an appropriate extrapolation method.
The population can be produced in several ways.
The simplest and intuitive procedure consists in the repeated application of the Monte
Carlo method.
The vehicles crossing the bridge are randomly selected amongst a complete set of
standard vehicles, representing the most common real lorries. Lorry silhouettes, axle loads,
axle spacings and the intervehicle distances are generated according to the relevant statistic
parameters of the recorded traffic.
An alternative procedure, more complicated but also much more effective, has been
proposed and adopted for calibrating the reference values of real traffic effects [7]. In this
methodology the crude Monte Carlo method is employed to obtain representative statistics of
the effects, which are the input data for the calculation of the statistical parameters of the
Gumbel distribution.
This latter method allowed also to underline that reference values are poorly
dependent upon the traffic jam frequency, at least for the most loaded lane [7].
A.6 Definition of dynamic magnification factors
In addition to the extrapolated static effects, the target values evaluation requires also
specific knowledge about the dynamic effects, due to vehiclebridge interactions, to be
considered in calibration studies [9].
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
74
A.6.1 The inherent impact factors
Since the recorded traffic data refer to flowing traffic, they contain some dynamic
effects and they must be corrected through the socalled inherent impact factor, which is
intrinsic in the measurements and can be evaluated simulating numerically the weighing in
motion measurements.
For the purposes EN 19912, the Auxerre weighing in motion device has been
simulated considering the lorries, represented by a sequence of axles with shockabsorbers
having suitable dynamic characteristics, running on good roughness pavement resting on rigid
foundation.
In this way it was stated that the characteristic values, which are relevant for the
ultimate limit states, are affected by an inherent impact factor
in
=1.10. When serviceability
limit states and fatigue are considered, instead, and the range between the 10% and the 90%
fractiles is taken into account, static and dynamic effects practically coincide and
in
=1.00.
A.6.2 The impact factor
The impact factor depends on several parameters, like type, static scheme, span,
natural frequency and damping coefficient of the bridge, dynamic characteristics and speed of
the lorries, roughness of the road pavement and so on.
Generally, it results greater when the natural frequency of the bridge is close to the
natural frequencies of axles (1012 Hz) and lorries (12 Hz).
In the framework of EN 19912 prenormative studies, in order to determine global
local impact factors, a number of numerical simulations have been performed considering
several bridge schemes with varying traffic scenarios.
Concerning global effects, medium or good road pavement roughness has been
considered in turn. Local dynamic effects have been studied taking into account the presence
of a stepped irregularity, 30 mm height and 500 mm wide, simulating a road surface
discontinuity, like that caused by a damaged expansion joint, a pothole or an ice sheet.
The result of each numerical simulation was a time history of the considered effect,
like the one reported in figure A.9, from which the socalled physical impact factor can be
derived. Physical impact factor is the ratio between the maximum dynamic response and the
maximum static response of the bridge
st
dyn
max
max
= .
(A.13)
The physical impact factor refers to a well precise load configuration and it depends
on such a quantity of parameters that cannot to be directly employed for load model
calibration. Besides, heaviest vehicles, which mainly influence the extreme values of the
dynamic distribution of traffic effects, are generally slow and are characterised by small value
of factors.
For calibration purposes, two alternative approaches can be adopted:
 the first approach takes into account dynamic effects referring directly to the
dynamic effects distribution;
 an alternative method takes into account the static effect distribution multiplied by
a suitable calibration value of the impact factor,
cal
.
cal
can be defined as the
ratio between the dynamic value E
dyn(pfractile)
and the static value E
st(pfractile)
corresponding to the same assigned pfractile
) (
) (
fractile p st
fractile p dyn
cal
E
E
= .
(A.14)
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
75
Static
oscillogram
Effect
Dynamic
increment
N 0
Dynamic
oscillogram
t
t
Figure A.9. Definition of the physical impact factor
Obviously, due to its conventional nature,
cal
doesn't have a precise physical
meaning; in fact the static and dynamic xfractiles dont correspond to the same load
configuration.
The characteristic values of the calibration impact factors
cal
, derived from Auxerre
traffic and employed in EN19912, are synthesized in figure A.10, depending on the span
length L.
The target dynamic values E
dyn(xfractile)
can be finally evaluated through the expression
) ( ) ( fractile x st
in
local cal
fractile x dyn
E E
. (A.15)
where
local
represents the local impact factor, when relevant.
Local impact factor
local
takes into account concentrated irregularities of the roadway
surface.
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
76
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
0 100 200
L [m]
c
a
l
Bending 1
lane
Bending 2
lanes
Bending 4
lanes
Shear
Figure A.10. Calibration value of the impact factors
cal
(EN 19912).
A.7 Concluding remarks
Traffic load models for road bridges of EN 19912 have been defined and calibrated
step by step balancing demand for accuracy and demands for ease of use.
Preliminary calibrations highlighted that load models best fitting the target values
should consist of concentrated loads and distributed loads:
 at least two concentrated loads should be considered in each relevant lane;
 Introduction of more than two concentrated loads doesnt affect the precision of
the results.
 the intensity of the uniformly distributed loads result slowly decreasing functions
of the loaded length L.
The preliminary outcome has been successively modified to simplify the structure and
the application rules of the load model, mainly to eliminate any reason for ambiguity, finally
arriving to a load model characterised by:
 load values independent from the loaded length;
 dynamic effects include in load values;
 coexistence of concentrated and distributed loads on the same loaded area;
 aptitude to evaluate local and global, even simultaneous, effects;
 width of the notional lane equal to 3.0 m.
For the sake of model coherence, it has been established that, when relevant, the entire
carriageway width can be loaded, i.e. not only the part occupied by the physical lanes, but
also that one remaining.
In order to reproduce the real traffic effects in secondary elements, characterized by
influence surfaces with very small base length, it has been also introduced a local load model,
constituted by a single axle, which should be considered alone on the bridge.
Once opportunely calibrated, the so defined load model constitutes the load model of
EN 1991  2, which is illustrated more precisely in 2 of chapter 3.
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
77
Besides characteristic loads, having a probability of about 2% to be exceed in 50 years
design working life, i.e. about 1000 years return period, other relevant values of real traffic
effects exist, like infrequent, frequent and quasipermanent values, which are particularly
relevant for SLS assessments.
Infrequent and frequent can be identified by one year or one week return period,
respectively. Quasipermanent values result generally negligible and can be set zero, except
for particular cases, like, for example, bridges in the urban zone.
Frequent and infrequent values of traffic effects can be determined resorting to
methods substantially analogous to those used for the evaluation of characteristic values.
Their detailed illustration is omitted here, stressing only some relevant conclusion, on which
the relevant parts of EN 19912 are based:
 characteristic values of traffic effects increase slowly with the return period, in fact
 taking into account a medium roadway roughness, infrequent values of traffic
effects are about 90% of the corresponding characteristic values;
 taking into account a good roadway roughness, infrequent values reduce a little
and become about 80% of the corresponding characteristic values;
 frequent values of traffic effects are 70%80% of the corresponding characteristic
values;
 since the frequent values of traffic effects depend substantially on flowing traffic,
as the span increase frequent values tend to precise lower limits, which are
approximately 40%50% of the corresponding characteristic values.
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
78
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
79
CHAPTER 4: FATIGUE LOADS DUE TO TRAFFIC
Pietro Croce
1
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Structural Division  University of Pisa
Summary
Fatigue performance of bridges is becoming more and more important due to the
growth of traffic flows, the increase of mean weight of the Heavy Good Vehicles, the
advances in conception and plan of bridges, the refinement of stress analysis techniques and
the deeper knowledge of the mechanical properties of the materials. In many cases fatigue
assessments strongly influence the design of new bridges and the assessment of existing
bridges. Fatigue traffic load models of EN19912 [1] for road and railway bridges are
illustrated and their background is discussed.
1 INTRODUCTION
In the last years the advances in conception and designing of bridges, the refinement
of stress analysis techniques and the deeper knowledge of the mechanical properties of the
materials have determined a relevant improvement of the bridge design as well as of the
bridge performances. At the same time, as the traffic flows and the mean weight of the Heavy
Good Vehicles have increased considerably, the fatigue resistance demand of modern bridges
have so significantly risen, that in many cases fatigue assessments strongly influence the
design.
On the base of the aforesaid considerations, in modern bridge codes sophisticated
fatigue load models should be given aiming to reproduce as well as possible the fatigue
induced by real traffic.
In the following fatigue traffic load models of EN19912 for road and railway bridges
are illustrated and their background is discussed.
The knowledge of the actual road traffic is affected by high uncertainties, on the
contrary, railway traffic is not only better known, but can be managed much more easily. For
this reason the calibration of fatigue traffic models for road bridges, mainly based on the real
traffic recorded in 1986 in Auxerre (F) on the motorway Paris Lyon, is discussed in much
more detail.
2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE FATIGUE ROAD LOAD MODELS OF EN 19912
In the following the prenormative background studies which have been carried out in
the framework of EN 19912 to define fatigue loads models for road traffic is discussed,
together with the main features of the models themselves.
2.1 Modelling of fatigue loads
As known, the ISO definition states that fatigue is the progressive, localised and
permanent structural change occurring in a material subjected to conditions that produce
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
80
fluctuating stresses and strains at some point or points and that may culminate in cracks or
complete fracture after a sufficient number of fluctuations.
In engineering structures, fatigue is induced by actions and loads varying with time
and/or space and/or by random vibrations. Thus fatigue can be originated by natural events,
like waves, wind and so on, or by loads deriving from the normal service of the structure
itself.
Among the civil structures exposed to fatigue, bridges occupy a prominent position, as
they are subjected to the fluctuating action of lorries or trains crossing the bridges themselves.
The assignment of appropriate fatigue load models is therefore a key topic in contemporary
bridge design codes of practice.
In principle, modelling of fatigue loads asks for the complete knowledge of the so
called load spectrum, expressing the load variations or the number of recurrences of each load
level during the design working life of the structure. Load spectrum is generally given in
terms of an appropriate function, graph, histogram or table.
The load spectrum is often deduced from recorded data, referring to relatively short
time intervals. In this case, additional problems must be faced regarding the statistical
processing, the reliability over longer periods of the available data and the future trends of
traffic.
Whenever the real load spectrum results so complicated that cannot be directly used
for fatigue checks, as it happens for bridge, it is replaced by some conventional load
spectrum, aimed to reproduce the fatigue induced by the real one.
The evaluation of conventional load spectra is particularly problematic, because it
requires to consider the actions also from the resistance point of view. In fact, fatigue depends
on the nature of the varying actions and loads, and additionally on structural material details,
through the shape and the properties of the relevant SN curves.
Problems become even tougher when details exhibit endurance (fatigue) limit. As
fatigue limits under constant amplitude represents a threshold value for the damaging stress
range, it needs to distinguish between equivalent load spectra, aiming to reproduce the actual
fatigue damage, and frequent load spectra, aiming to reproducing the maximum load range to
be taken into account for fatigue assessments.
Since fatigue verifications are performed in different ways, depending on the necessity
to assess fatigue damage or boundless fatigue life, the distinction between equivalent and
frequent spectra appears quite obvious.
Moreover, the powerful methods of the stochastic process theory, often used in
defining fatigue load spectra in other engineering structures, cannot be applied to bridges, as
road traffic loads induce broad band stress histories. All that implies that the link between the
action and the effect cannot be expressed by simple formulae, while further difficulties arise
when vehicle interactions, whether due to simultaneity or not, become significant.
Nevertheless, provided that vehicle interaction problems can be solved in some way,
as shown in the Appendix A to the present chapter, it is intuitive enough to think that fatigue
load spectra for bridges are composed by suitable sets of standardized lorries, where each
lorry is identified by its own relevant properties, i.e. relative frequency, number of axles, axle
loads, axles spacing, deduced processing appropriate traffic records.
At this stage, it appears quite evident that definition of load spectra for bridges
requires careful consideration of fatigue assessment methodology, to assure that assessments
based on conventional spectra or on real spectra lead to the same results.
2.1.1 Fatigue verification methods
The preliminary explanation of fatigue assessment methodology based on
conventional load spectra is a crucial question in studying fatigue load models.
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
81
It can be easily recognised that fatigue verification methods goes along with a well
defined procedure, characterised by the following steps
1 assignment of fatigue load spectra, discriminating, if necessary, equivalent ones
from frequent ones;
2 detection and classification of structural details most vulnerable to fatigue
cracking and selection of the appropriate SN curves;
3 choice of the pertinent partial factors
M
;
4 evaluation, for each detail, of the appropriate influence surface.
At this stage, the assessment methodology splits up in two different branches,
accordingly as fatigue verification is devoted to compute fatigue damage or to assess
boundless fatigue life.
Damage computation procedure
5.a calculation of the design stress history =(t) produced in the detail by the
equivalent load spectrum travelling over the influence surface;
6.a analysis of the stress history by means of a suitable cycle counting method, like
the reservoir method or the rainflow method, to obtain the stress spectrum, where
the number of occurrences of each stress range in the design working life is
associated with the stress range itself;
7.a computation of the cumulative damage D using the PalmgrenMiner rule: if D1
the fatigue check is satisfied, otherwise, it is necessary to raise the fatigue strength
of the detail. Fatigue resistance can be enhanced both reducing the stress range,
i.e. enlarging the dimensions, or increasing fatigue category, i.e. adopting more
refined workmanship or details.
Boundless fatigue life assessment
5.b calculation of the design stress history =(t) produced in the detail by the
frequent load spectrum transiting over the influence surface;
6.b computation of the maximum stress range
max
=
max

min
, being
max
and
min
,
respectively, the absolute maximum and the absolute minimum of the stress
history;
7.b boundless fatigue life assessment. If the verification is not satisfied, it is possible
to improve fatigue resistance using the provisions described in 7.a, or to attempt
to go through fatigue damage computation.
Obviously, in bridges exposed to highdensity traffic, concrete slabs and orthotropic
steel deck details are subject to such a huge number of stress cycles, that boundless fatigue
life assessment using frequent load spectra becomes quite obligatory.
2.1.2 Reference traffic measurements
Also the fatigue load models of Eurocode 1 have been defined and calibrated on the
basis of the two large traffic measurement campaigns carried out in several European
countries in years 1977 to 1982 and 1984 to 1988, which have been discussed in Annex A to
chapter 3.
Unlike static loads, which depend only on the upper tail of the traffic load distribution,
fatigue loads are influenced by the entire distribution.
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
82
For this reason, fatigue models have been refined, supplementing the main calibration,
based on Auxerre traffic data, with supplementary studies, based on different traffic data, in
order to enlarge their field of application,.
These supplementary calibrations regarded not only motorway traffics  Brothal (D),
Piacenza, Fiano Romano, Sasso Marconi (I) but also local traffic on secondary roads (Epone
(F)). In effect, long distance traffics, typical of motorways and main roads, are characterised
by high percentage of heavy vehicles, while local traffics, typical of secondary roads, are
lighter and composed mostly by two axle lorries. Besides, it should be considered that, as
confirmed by recent traffic data, European traffics show a trend characterised by
 marked increase of the number of articulated lorries visvis the simultaneous
reduction of the number lorries with trailer;
 reduction of the number of three axle lorries for the benefit of two axle lorries;
 increase of the average load per lorry.
2.2 The fatigue load models of EN 19912
The calibration method, the underlying philosophy, the methodological approach and
the main features of the fatigue models of Eurocode 1 are summarised in the following.
2.2.1 Calibration method
Fatigue load models have been calibrated referring to reference influence surfaces
relative to simply supported and continuous bridges, spanning in the range 3 m to 200 m.
In agreement with the general fatigue assessment procedures, calibration has been set
up according to the following scheme,
 choice of the most significant European traffic data;
 selection of appropriate SN curves;
 evaluation of the stress histories in reference bridges;
 cycle counting and stress spectra computation;
 first identification of fatigue models;
 definition of standardised lorry silhouettes;
 calibration of frequent load models, best fitting the maximum stress range
max
induced by real traffic;
 calibration of equivalent load models, best fitting the fatigue damage D induced by
the traffic.
2.2.2 Reference SN curves
Reference SN curves pertain to steel details, characterised by endurance limit.
As known, in the logarithmic SN chart these curves are represented by a bilinear
curve, characterised by a sloping branch of constant slope, m=3, (figure 1), or by a trilinear
curve, characterised by two sloping branches, m=3 and m=5, (figure 2), according as
boundless fatigue life or fatigue damage is to be assessed.
Since steel details exhibit fatigue limit
D
, two cases can be envisaged, according to
the maximum stress range
max
of the real stress history is higher than
D
or not.
To be significant for fatigue,
max
must be exceeded several times during the design
working life of the bridge and its definition is not trivial. Two different approaches have been
proposed, leading to similar results: in the former,
max
is defined as the stress range such
that the 99% of the total fatigue damage results from all stress ranges below
max
; in the
latter
max
is the stress range exceeded approximately 510
4
times during the bridge life.
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
83
O N
S
m
=
3
?
510
6
D
Figure 1. Bilinear SN curve
O N
S
m
=
3
?
510
6
D
m
=
5
L
10
8
Figure 2. Trilinear SN curve
This last definition implies that the return period of
max
is about half a day, giving
so direct explanation of frequent load spectrum denomination.
In EN 19912 studies, to derive equivalent load spectra independently from the fatigue
classification of details, cumulative damage has been computed referring generally to
simplified SN curves with unique slope, in turn m=3 (figure 3) or m=5 (figure 4). SN curves
with double slope (figure 5) and without endurance limit have been used for some additional
calculations.
Some comparisons show that load spectra obtained using the simplified curve m=5 are
free from significant errors and reproduce generally well the actual fatigue damage.
O N
S
m
=
3
Figure 3. Single slope SN curve (m=3)
O N
S
m
=
5
Figure 4. Single slope SN curve (m=5)
O N
S
m
=
3
?
510
6
D m
=
5
Figure 5. Double slope m=3 m=5 SN curve without endurance limit
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
84
2.2.3 Fatigue load models
From the abovementioned considerations, it derives that at least two conventional
fatigue load models must be considered: the one for boundless fatigue life assessments, the
other for fatigue damage calculations. Besides, since an adequate fitting of the effects induced
by the real traffic requires very sophisticated load models, whose application is often difficult,
the introduction of simplified and safesided models, to be used when sophisticated checks are
unnecessary, seems very opportune.
For this reason in EN 19912 two fatigue load models are foreseen for each kind of
fatigue verification: the former is essential, safesided and easy to use, the latter is more
refined and accurate, but also more complicated. In conclusion, four conventional models are
given:
 models 1 and 2 for boundless fatigue checks;
 models 3 and 4 for damage calculations.
Fatigue load model 1 is extremely simple and generally very safesided. It directly
derives from the main load model used for assessing static resistance, where the load values
are simply reduced to the frequent ones (figure 6.a), multiplying the tandem axle loads Q
ik
by
0.7 and the weight density of the uniformly distributed loads q
ik
by 0.3.
Obviously, for local verifications, the fatigue load model n. 1 is constituted by the
isolated concentrated axle weighing Q=280 kN (frequent value  figure. 6.b).
Lane n. 1
Q =210 kN
q =2.7 kN/m
Q
ik
Q
ik
q
ik
Lane n. 2
0.5
2.0
0.5
Q =140 kN
2k
q =0.75 kN/m
2k
2
Lane n. 3
Q =70 kN
3k
q =0.75 kN/m
3k
2
Remaining area q =0.75 kN/m
rk
2
1k
1k
0.5
2.0
0.5
0.5
2.0
0.5
w
2
Figure 6.a. Fatigue load model n. 1
Figure 6.b. Fatigue load
model n. 1 for local
verifications
The verification consists of checking that the maximum stress range
max
induced by
the model is smaller of the fatigue limit
D
. The application rules for the load model n. 1
agree exactly with those given for the main load model, so that the absolute minimum and
maximum stresses correspond as rule to different load configurations. The model allows
making coarse verifications also in multilane configurations, generally resulting extremely
safesided.
The simplified fatigue model n. 3, conceived for damage computation, is constituted
by a symmetrical conventional four axle vehicle, also said fatigue vehicle (figure 7). The
equivalent load of each axle is 120 kN. This model is accurate enough for spans bigger than
10 m, while for smaller spans it results safesided.
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
85
Figure7. Fatigue load model n. 3
Fatigue load models n. 2 and n. 4 are the most refined one and they are load spectra
constituted by five standardised vehicles, representative of the most common European
lorries.
Fatigue load model n. 2, which is a set of lorries with frequent values of axle loads,
and fatigue model n. 4, which is a set of lorries with equivalent values of the axle loads, are
illustrated in tables 1 and 2, respectively. They allow to perform very precise and
sophisticated verifications, provided that the interactions amongst vehicles simultaneously
crossing the bridge are negligible or opportunely considered.
Table 1. Fatigue load model n. 2 frequent set of lorries
LORRY
SILHOUETTE
Axle spacing
[m]
Frequent
axle loads
[kN]
Wheel type
(see table 3)
4.5 90
190
A
B
4.20
1.30
80
140
140
A
B
B
3.20
5,20
1.30
1.30
90
180
120
120
120
A
B
C
C
C
3.40
6.00
1.80
90
190
140
140
A
B
B
B
4.80
3.60
4.40
1.30
90
180
120
110
110
A
B
C
C
C
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
86
Table 2. Fatigue load model n. 4 equivalent set of lorries
LORRY SILHOUETTE TRAFFIC TYPE
Long
distance
Medium
distance
Local
traffic
LORRY
Axle
spacing
[m]
Equivalent
Axle loads
[kN]
Lorry
percentage
Lorry
percentage
Lorry
percentage
4.5 70
130
20.0 40.0 80.0
4.20
1.30
70
120
120
5.0 10.0 5.0
3.20
5.20
1.30
1.30
70
150
90
90
90
50.0 30.0 5.0
3.40
6.00
1.80
70
140
90
90
15.0 15.0 5.0
4.80
3.60
4.40
1.30
70
130
90
80
80
10.0 5.0 5.0
The types of wheels pertaining to each standardised lorries of fatigue load models n. 2
and n. 4 are indicated in table 1, referring to table 3.
The number of lorries to be taken into account for damage assessments depends on the
traffic category: indicative values of N
obs
, representing the number of lorries of year per slow
lane, are given in table 4. The additional traffic on the fast lane can be assumed to be 10% of
the slow lane traffic.
In fact, in EN 19912 a further general purpose fatigue model is anticipated too,
denominated fatigue model n. 5. This model is constituted by a sequence of consecutive axle
loads, directly derived from recorded traffic, duly supplemented to take into account vehicle
interactions, where relevant.
Fatigue model n. 5 is aimed to allow accurate fatigue verifications in particular
situations, like suspended or cablestayed bridges, important existing bridges or bridges
carrying unusual traffics, whose relevance justifies ad hoc investigations [2].
2.2.4 Accuracy of fatigue load models
In the following, some significant results obtained using the fatigue load models are
compared with those pertaining to the reference traffic, allowing to highlight the accuracy and
the field of application of the each conventional model.
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
87
Table 3. Definition of wheels and axles of standard lorries
Wheel axle
type
Geometrical definition
A
L
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l
a
x
i
s
o
f
t
h
e
b
r
i
d
g
e
2
1.78
0.22
0
.
3
2
0.22
0
.
3
2
B
L
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l
a
x
i
s
o
f
t
h
e
b
r
i
d
g
e
2
0.22
0
.
3
2
0.22
0
.
3
2
0.22
0.22
0.54 0.54
C
L
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l
a
x
i
s
o
f
t
h
e
b
r
i
d
g
e
2
1.73
0.27
0
.
3
2
0.27
0
.
3
2
Table 4. Indicative number of lorries expected per year and for a slow lane
Traffic categories N
obs
per year and per slow lane
1 Roads and motorways with 2 or more lanes per direction
with high flow rates of lorries
2.010
6
2 Roads and motorways with medium flow rates of lorries 0.510
6
3 Main roads with low flow rates of lorries 0.12510
6
4 Local roads with low flow rates of lorries 0.0510
6
Essentially, the comparison concerns the four influence surfaces shown in figure 8, for
bridges span L varying between 3 m and 100 m. The influence surfaces pertain to bending
moment M
0
at midspan of simply supported beams, bending moments M
1
and M
2
at midspan
and on the support, respectively, of two span continuous beams and bending moment M
3
at
midspan of three span continuous beams.
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
88
Figure 8. Reference influence lines
In figures 9 to 14 the outcomes of different fatigue load models for the aforesaid
influence lines are compared with the real traffic (Auxerre traffic) effects, in function of the
span length L, considering only one notional lane.
For unlimited fatigue life assessments, the ratios between the maximum bending
moment ranges due to fatigue load model 1, M
max,LM1
, and fatigue load model 2, M
max,LM2
,
and the maximum bending moment ranges due to real traffic, M
max,real
, are diagrammatically
reported in figures 9 and 10, respectively.
For fatigue damage assessments reference can be made to the equivalent bending
moment range corresponding to 210
6
cycles.
The ratios between the equivalent bending moment ranges due to fatigue load model
3, M
eq,LM3
, and the equivalent bending moment ranges due to real traffic, M
eq,real
, are shown
in figures 11 and 12, considering one slope SN curves characterised by m=3 and m=5,
respectively. Analogous diagrams for equivalent bending moment ranges due to fatigue load
model 4, M
eq,LM4
, are illustrated in figure 13, for m=3 SN curve.
Figure 9. Accuracy of fatigue load model n. 1
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
89
Figure 10. Accuracy of fatigue load model n. 2
Figure 11. Accuracy of fatigue load model n. 3 m=3
Figure 12. Accuracy of fatigue load model n. 3 m=5
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
90
Figure 13. Accuracy of fatigue load model n. 4
Analysis of the diagrams shows that:
 as just said, fatigue load model n. 1 appears very safesided, especially for short
spans;
 load model n. 2 results much more reliable; values little below the actual ones are
obtained for M
2
in the span range 20 to 50 m, but this depends on the particular
shape of the influence line;
 as expected, model n. 4 fits very good actual results for short influence lines;
 fatigue model n. 3 looks unsafe for M
2
influence lines when spans are above 30 m,
in particular for higher m values. To solve the problem it has been proposed to
modify the model n. 3 taking into account an additional fatigue vehicle each time
that the influence surface exhibits two contiguous areas of the same sign. This
additional fatigue vehicle, having equivalent axle loads set to 40 kN, should run on
the same lane of the basic fatigue vehicle, 40 m away from it. The adoption of such
an additional vehicle should mitigate the error in computation of M
2,eq
, as it
appears evident in figure 14, where damage calculations for M
2
influence line and
for m=3 and m=9 SN curves, considering additional fatigue vehicle.
Figure 14. Accuracy of improved fatigue load model n. 3 2 vehicles
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
91
2.3 The coefficient method
Besides the usual damage computations based on PalmgrenMiner rule, EN 19912
also foresees a conventional simplified fatigue assessment method, said coefficient method,
based on damage equivalent factors, which are dependent on the material.
The method, derived originally for railway bridges, is based for road bridges on
fatigue model n. 3 (fatigue vehicle) and it is aimed to bring back fatigue verifications to
conventional resistance checks, comparing a conventional equivalent stress range,
eq
,
depending on appropriate coefficients, with the detail category [3], [4].
The equivalent stress range
eq
is given by
p fat p fat eq
= =
4 3 2 1
,
(1)
where

min , max , p p p
= is the maximum stress range induced by fatigue model n. 3;

1
is a coefficient depending on the shape and on the base length of the influence
surface, i.e. on the number of secondary cycles in the stress history;

2
is a coefficient allowing to pass from reference traffic, used in fatigue model
calibration, to expected traffic;

3
depends on the design life of the bridge;

4
takes into account vehicle interactions amongst lorries simultaneously crossing
the bridge;

fat
is the equivalent dynamic magnification factor for fatigue verifications.
1
, represented in graphical or tabular form, is calculated in the calibration phase,
comparing the damage due to the fatigue vehicle with the damage produced by a single stress
cycle having the maximum stress range
p
.
If m is the slope of SN curve, it is
m
m
p
i
m
i i
n
1
1


\

.
(2)
2
depends on the annual lorry flow and on traffic composition.
In general, said N
1
and Q
m1
the flow and the equivalent weight of the actual traffic,
m
i
i
i
m
i i
m
n
Q n
Q
=
1
,
(3)
and N
0
and Q
0
the flow and the equivalent vehicle weight of the reference traffic, it results
m
m
N
N
Q
Q
k
1
0
1
0
1
2


\

= .
(4)
In equation (4) k represents a conversion parameter, given by
1
0
m v
ef
Q
Q
D
D
k = ,
(5)
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
92
where D
v
is the damage produced by N
0
fatigue vehicles and D
ef
is the damage produced by
N
0
real lorries.
For Auxerre traffic it ensues 480
0
= Q kN and
0
N =
6
10 2 lorries per year.
3
is given by
m
R
T
T
=
3
,
(6)
where T
R
is the reference design working life (T
R
=100 years) and T is the actual design
working life.
4
, which, as said, takes into account vehicle interactions, can be expressed as
m
i i
m
comb comb
m
i i
N
N
N
N
N
N
N l
(
(


\

+
(
(


\

+ =
1 1 1 1
*
1
*
1
1 4
) , (
,
(7)
where N
1
is the lorry flow (number of the lorries) on the main lane, N
i
the lorry flow on the i
th lane,
i
the max ordinate of the influence surface corresponding to ith lane,
*
i
N the
lonely, i.e. not interacting, lorry flow on the ith lane, N
comb
the number of interacting lorries
and
comb
the overall ordinate of the influence surface for the interacting lanes, being the
second summation extended to all relevant combinations of lorries on several lanes.
An appropriate closed form expression for
4
can be theoretically derived for two
simultaneously loaded lanes, as shown in the Appendix A to the present chapter.
The equivalent impact factor
fat
, finally, is the ratio between the damage due to the
dynamic stress history and the damage due to the corresponding static stress history
( )
( )
m
m
stat i stat i
m
dym i dym i
fat
n
n
=
, ,
, ,
.
(8)
In conclusion, said
c
the detail category, the fatigue assessment reduces to check
that expression
c p fat eq
=
(9)
is satisfied.
2.4 Partial factors
M
The partial factors
f
, regarding the action aspect, and
m
, regarding the fatigue
resistance aspect, cover uncertainties in the evaluation of loads and stresses as well as fatigue
strength scattering.
According to the experience from steel structures, these partial factors affecting stress
ranges are generally combined in a unique factor
m f M
= . Beside the material, the
numerical values of
M
depend on the possibility to detect and repair fatigue cracks and on the
consequences of fatigue failure and are given ion the relevant Eurocodes.
2.5 Effects of future traffic trends
In the next future, the traffic composition could be sensibly modified.
In fact, in order to improve the organization of the European transportation network,
the European Commission enacted the 96/53/EC Directive limiting the total mass of Heavy
Good Vehicles (HGV) to 44 t, but admitting, on a parity basis, the possibility to allow the
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
93
circulation of Long and Heavy Vehicles (LHV), characterised by mass up to 60 t and length
till 25 m. This possibility has been admitted in Germany and in northern Countries, in
particular Sweden, Finland, Denmark and The Netherlands. For this reason in these Countries
a significant increase of the number of LHVs in long distance traffic has been experienced.
Despite of their effectiveness in terms of decrease of pollutant emissions and cost
reduction, LHVs could result too much demanding for existing infrastructures, in particular
for bridges, so that their impact requires careful examination.
In order to evaluate the aptness of EN 19912 fatigue load models to cover also the
effects of LHVs, some additional studies has been performed on relevant bridge schemes and
spans comparing the Auxerre traffic effects with those induced by a more recent one,
containing a relevant number of LHVs, recorded with a WIM device at the Moerdijk site in
the Netherlands in April 2007. These studies are illustrated in the Annex A to the present
Guidebook.
3 FATIGUE LOAD MODELS FOR RAILWAY BRIDGES OF EN 19912
For fatigue damage assessments of railway bridges subjected to normal railway traffic
based on characteristic values of Load Model 71, including the dynamic factor , EN 19912
assigns three different fatigue load spectra.
These load spectra refer to three different traffic mixes, usual traffic mix, traffic with 250
kNaxles mix or light traffic mix, depending on whether the structure carries mixed (usual) traffic,
predominantly heavy freight traffic or lightweight passenger traffic.
The above mentioned load spectra are based on an annual traffic tonnage of 25 Mt per
each track.
If not otherwise specified, fatigue damage should be assessed taking into account that:
 in structures carrying multiple tracks, fatigue loadings shall be applied to a maximum
of two tracks, which should be the most unfavourable;
 the structural design working life of the bridge is 100 years;
 when dynamic effects can be considered through static dynamic factors, static
dynamic factors should be determined according to the method illustrated in 3.2;
 bridges requiring dynamic analysis could necessitate of additional investigations
and/or recommendations.
3.1 Train types for fatigue
As just said, three different load spectra are given on the basis of three traffic mixes,
standard, heavy and light, characterized by illustrated respectively in tables 5.a, 5.b and 5.5 and
in figures 15.a, 15.b and 15.b, where also train type are indicated.
The load spectra refer to adjustment factors =1.0. When relevant, the axle loads should
be multiplied by the appropriate adjustment factor .
3.2 Dynamic magnification factors for fatigue assessments
The static dynamic factors
2
and
3
are applied to load models LM 71, SW/0 and
SW/2.
Since the static dynamic factors are intended for static assessments of bridge members,
they are evaluated considering extreme loading cases that can occur in the design working life.
For this reason, they would be excessively onerous if applied to Real Trains included in
fatigue load spectra.
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
94
Table 5.a. Standard traffic mix with axles 225 kN
Train type Number of
trains/day
Mass of
train [t]
Traffic volume
[Mt/year]
1 12 663 2.90
2 12 530 2.32
3 5 940 1.72
4 5 510 0.93
5 7 2160 5.52
6 12 1431 6.27
7 8 1035 3.02
8 8 1035 2.27
Total 67 24.95
Table 5.b. Heavy traffic mix with 250 kN axles
Train type Number of
trains/day
Mass of
train [t]
Traffic volume
[Mt/year]
5 6 2160 4.73
6 13 1431 6.79
11 16 1135 6.63
12 16 1135 6.63
Total 51 24.78
Table 5.c. Light traffic mix with axles 225 kN
Train type Number of
trains/day
Mass of
train [t]
Traffic volume
[Mt/year]
1 10 663 2.4
2 5 530 1.0
5 2 2160 1.4
9 190 296 20.5
Total 207 25.3
In reality, in fatigue verifications only the equivalent dynamic effect over the assumed
100 years design working life needs to be considered, therefore the dynamic enhancement for
each Real Train can be reduced, for Maximum Permitted Vehicle Speeds up to 200 km/h, to

\

+ + "
2
1
'
2
1
1
(10)
where
4
1
'
K K
K
+
= and
100
2
56 , 0 "
L
e
=
(11)
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
95
being v the Maximum Permitted Vehicle Speed in m/s, L the determinant length L
in m of
the structural member and
160
v
K = for L20 m and
408 , 0
16 , 47 L
v
K = for L>20 m.
3
.
0
4x20 t 13x(4x150 kN)
Train type 3  High speed train  V=250 km/h  P=9400 kN  n=5/d
8
.
4
6
1
6
.
5
4x20 t
3
.
0
8
.
4
6
3
.
0
4
.
4
5
2
.
5
4
.
9
5
3
.
0
2
.
5
2
.
5
4
.
4
5
3
.
0
4x170 kN 8x(2x170 kN)
Train type 4  High speed train  V=250 km/h  P=5100 kN  n=5/d
1
1
.
0
3
.
0
3
.
3
1
5
.
7
3
.
0
3x170 kN
1
5
.
7
3
.
0
3
.
0
1
1
.
0
3
.
0
4x170 kN
3
.
3
3
.
0
3x170 kN
1
5
.
7
3
.
0
3
.
0
2
.
1
6x225 kN
Train type 5  Freight train  V=80 km/h  P=21600 kN  n=7/d
4
.
0
4
.
4
2
.
1
15x(6x225 kN)
2
.
1
2
.
1
1
.
8
5
.
0
5
.
7
1
.
8
1
.
8
1
.
8
5
.
7
1
.
8
1
.
8
1
.
8
1
.
8
2
.
1
6x225 kN
Train type 6  Freight train  V=100 km/h  P=14310 kN  n=12/d
3
.
9
4
.
4
2
.
1
2
.
1
2
.
1
6
.
5
3
.
8
1
.
8
1
.
8
2x70 kN
A
2x70 kN
A
6
.
5
3
.
7
1
2
.
8
4x225 kN
B A
6
.
5
3
.
7
1
.
8
1
.
8
8
.
0
4x225 kN
C
3
.
5
3
.
2
CABBBAAC+
CABCAACCB
2
.
2
6x225 kN
10x(4x225 kN)
Train type 7  Freight train  V=120 km/h  P=10350 kN  n=8/d
3
.
0
1
.
8
1
.
8
3
.
2
1
1
.
0
6
.
9
2
.
2
2
.
2
2
.
2
1
.
8
1
1
.
0
1
.
8
2
.
2
6x225 kN
20x(2x225 kN)
Train type 8  Freigth train  V=100 km/h  P=10350 kN  n=6/d
3
.
5
4
.
2
5
.
5
6
.
9
2
.
2
2
.
2
2
.
2
5
.
5
4
.
2
5
.
5
2
.
2
6x225 kN
12x(4x110 kN)
Train type 1  Passenger train  V=200 km/h  P=6630 kN  n=12/d
3
.
2
2
.
6
2
.
6
3
.
6
1
1
.
5
6
.
9
2
.
2
2
.
2
2
.
2
2
.
6
1
1
.
5
2
.
6
3
.
3
4x225 kN 10x(4x110 kN)
Train type 2  Passenger train  V=160 km/h  P=5300 kN  n=12/d
2
.
9
2
.
5
2
.
5
6
.
7
5
.
0
3
.
3
1
6
.
5
2
.
5
1
6
.
5
2
.
5
Figure 15.a. Fatigue load spectrum for normal traffic mix
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
96
2
.
1
6x225 kN
4
.
0
4
.
4
2
.
1
15x(6x225 kN)
2
.
1
2
.
1
1
.
8
5
.
0
5
.
7
1
.
8
1
.
8
1
.
8
5
.
7
1
.
8
1
.
8
1
.
8
1
.
8
2
.
1
6x225 kN
3
.
9
4
.
4
2
.
1
2
.
1
2
.
1
6
.
5
3
.
8
1
.
8
1
.
8
2x70 kN
A
2x70 kN
A
6
.
5
3
.
7
1
2
.
8
4x225 kN
B A
6
.
5
3
.
7
1
.
8
1
.
8
8
.
0
4x225 kN
C
3
.
5
3
.
2
CABBBAAC+
CABCAACCB
2
.
2
6x225 kN
10x(4x250 kN)
Train type 11  Freight train  V=120 km/h  P=11350 kN  n=16/d
3
.
0
1
.
8
1
.
8
3
.
2
1
1
.
0
6
.
9
2
.
2
2
.
2
2
.
2
1
.
8
1
1
.
0
1
.
8
2
.
2
6x225 kN
20x(2x250 kN)
Train type 12  Freight train  V=100 km/h  P=11350 kN  n=16/d
3
.
5
4
.
2
5
.
5
6
.
9
2
.
2
2
.
2
2
.
2
5
.
5
4
.
2
5
.
5
Train type 5  Freight train  V=80 km/h  P=21600 kN  n=7/d
Train type 6  Freight train  V=100 km/h  P=14310 kN  n=12/d
Figure 15.b. Fatigue load spectrum for heavy traffic mix
2
.
2
6x225 kN
12x(4x110 kN)
Train type 1  Passenger train  V=200 km/h  P=6630 kN  n=10/d
3
.
2
2
.
6
2
.
6
3
.
6
1
1
.
5
6
.
9
2
.
2
2
.
2
2
.
2
2
.
6
1
1
.
5
2
.
6
3
.
3
4x225 kN 10x(4x110 kN)
Train type 2  Passenger train  V=160 km/h  P=5300 kN  n=5/d
2
.
9
2
.
5
2
.
5
6
.
7
5
.
0
3
.
3
1
6
.
5
2
.
5
1
6
.
5
2
.
5
2
.
1
6x225 kN
4
.
0
4
.
4
2
.
1
15x(6x225 kN)
2
.
1
2
.
1
1
.
8
5
.
0
5
.
7
1
.
8
1
.
8
1
.
8
5
.
7
1
.
8
1
.
8
1
.
8
1
.
8
Train type 5  Freight train  V=80 km/h  P=21600 kN  n=2/d
2
.
5
4x130 kN
Train type 9  Suburban train  V=120 km/h  P=2960 kN  n=190/d
1
4
.
0
2
.
5
4
.
3
2
.
5
4x110 kN
1
1
.
5
2
.
5
2
.
5
2x(4x130 kN)
1
4
.
0
4
.
3
2
.
5
4
.
3
2
.
5
4x110 kN
1
1
.
5
2
.
5
4
.
3
2
.
5
4x130 kN
1
4
.
0
2
.
5
Figure 15.c. Fatigue load spectrum for light traffic mix
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
97
3.3 The factor design method
Also for railway bridges, the fatigue assessment can be simplified and reduced to an
equivalent stress range verification, determined according to the relevant Eurocodes (EN 19922,
EN 19932, EN 19942), on the basis of the socalled method.
For example, for steel bridges, the safety verification shall be carried out by ensuring that
the following condition is satisfied:
Mf
c
Ff
71 2
(12)
where
Ff
is the partial factor for fatigue loading, usually set to 1.00, is the damage
equivalent factor for fatigue, which takes account the expected railway traffic on the bridge and
the span of the member,
2
is the dynamic factor,
71
is the maximum stress range due to the
Load Model 71 (and where required SW/0),
C
is the reference value of the fatigue strength,
i.e. the class of the detail, and
Mf
is the partial factor for fatigue strength.
Load model should be placed in the most unfavourable position for the element under
consideration, disregarding any adjustment factor.
4 CONCLUDING REMARKS
Fatigue verifications are decisive for designing new road and railway bridges as well
for assessing existing ones.
In up to date structural codes fatigue loads are given through suitable load spectra,
deduced from real traffic data, recorded using weighing in motion devices.
In theory, load spectrum can be directly deduced from real traffic data, provided that
they are representative of the traffic concerning the bridge, during its design working life. In
practice, the management of real load spectrum is very complicated and it requires a huge
amount of calculations; therefore, its application is justified only for particularly important
bridges.
Usually, in structural codes fatigue loads are assigned through conventional load
spectra, which reproduce the fatigue effects induced by the real traffic. Since fatigue effects
depend not only on the actions but also on the material properties, through the appropriate SN
curve, the definition and the use of conventional load spectra is not trivial.
Duly taking into account the theoretical differences that exist between equivalent load
spectra, intended to reproduce fatigue damage, and frequent load spectra, intended to
reproduce the maximum load range for fatigue assessments, in EN 19912 five load spectra
are assigned for road bridge assessments and three load spectra are assigned for railway
bridges assessments.
In addition to the usual damage computations, based on PalmgrenMiner rule, EN
19912 allows to adopt also a conventional simplified fatigue assessment method, based on
damage equivalent factors, which are dependent on the material. This method brings back
fatigue verification to conventional resistance check, where an appropriate equivalent stress
range,
eq
, is compared with the detail category.
In the present chapter, background information and main features of EN 19912 load
spectra have been illustrated, discussing their possibilities and their fields of application and
highlighting the results of prenormative calibration studies.
When vehicles interactions are significant, EN 19912 fatigue load models cannot be
used, unless additional information is available. Vehicles interactions problems are tackled
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
98
from the theoretical point of view in Appendix A to the present chapter, where simplified
formulae are also given for the evaluation of the pertinent damage equivalent factor
4
.
Finally, in Annex A to the present Guidebook, the aptness of EN 19912 fatigue load
models to face the actual trends of road traffic and in particular the effects of Long and Heavy
Vehicles, allowed by the 96/53/EC Directive is discussed and additional studies are
illustrated.
5 REFERENCES
[1] EN19912, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures  Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges.
Brussels: CEN, 2003
[2] Caramelli, S. & Croce, P., Messina bridge: testing assisted deck fatigue design,
International Institute of Welding Conference on Welded Constructions: Achievements
and perspectives for the new millennium. Florence, 2000.
[3] Croce, P., Background to Fatigue Load Models for Eurocode 1: Part 2 Traffic Loads.
Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials 1(3:4): 250263, 2001
[4] Bruls A et al., Part 3: Traffic loads on bridges. Calibration of road load models for road
bridges. Proceedings of IABSE Colloquium on Basis of Design and Actions on Structures.
Background and Application of Eurocode 1. Delft, 1996.
[5] Ventsel E.S., Probability theory. Moscow: MIR, 1983.
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
99
Appendix A to Chapter 4 Vehicle interactions and fatigue assessments
A.1 General principles
When vehicle interaction is relevant, stress histories cannot be determined using
conventional fatigue models or recorded traffic data, unless appropriate additional information
are available.
The achievement of general theoretical results in modelling vehicle interactions could
sensibly enlarge the field of application of the fatigue load models and it represents a main
objective in the improvement of EN 19912.
A.2 Modelling of vehicle interactions
The probability that several vehicles are running simultaneously on the bridge, on the
same lane or on several lanes, can be found theoretically in the framework of the queuing
theory.
The bridge can be assimilated to a service system, with or without waiting queue, and
the stochastic processes can be modelled as Markov processes. This allows to arrive to a
suitably modified load spectrum, composed by single vehicles or vehicle convoys travelling
alone on the bridge so that the complete stress history results a random assembly of their
individual stress histories.
A.2.1 Basic assumptions
Let the load spectrum consisting in a set of q types of lorries and be N
ij
the number of
ith vehicle per year (annual flow) on the jth lane. The total flow on the jth lane is then
=
=
q
i
ij j
N N
1
.
(A.1)
Obviously, the probability that several lorries are simultaneously travelling on the
bridges, which is negligible for L<40 m, becomes more and more relevant as the characteristic
length L of the influence line increases.
Basic hypotheses of the theory are that the vehicle arrivals are distributed according a
Poisson law and that the transit time on L is exponentially distributed.
A.2.2 Interaction between lorries simultaneously travelling on one lane
The probability P
n
that n lorries are simultaneously travelling on L can be calculated
considering the bridge as a single channel system with a waiting queue, in which the waiting
time, depending on the number of requests in the queue, and the number of the request in the
queue itself are limited.
In fact, as there is a minimum value for the time interval T
s
between two consecutive
lorries, the waiting time for the ith vehicle in the queue is given by
s i
T i T = and the
number of requests in the queue is limited to ( ) 1 int
1
=
s
T w .
Under the assumption that each T
i
is distributed with an exponential law whose
parameter is
1
=
i i
T , the problem can be solved in a closed form [5]. The probability P
n
to
have n vehicles on the lane, i.e. n1 requests in queue, is then given by
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
100
1
2
1
1
1 1
1
= =
)
(
(


\



\

+ + + 
\

=
w
i
i
s
s
j
j
i
n
n
P
n=0, 1,
(A.2)
and by
1
2
1
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1
= =
= =
)
(
(


\



\

+ + +
(
(


\

+ =
w
i
i
s
s
j
j
i
n
s
s
j
j
n
n
P
2nw,
(A.3)
where represents the lorry flow density and
1
= . The annual number of interactions
between n vehicles i
1
, .., i
n
on the jth lane can be then obtained substituting these formulae in
the general equation,


\

=
=
=
n
s
t
k
q
n
s
j i
n
k
i
j
n
i
N
N
n
N
P
P
N
1
1
j
0
j ), i ...., , i , (
1
n 2 1
(A.4)
where
2
q
indicates the sum over all the possible choices with repetitions of n elements
among q.
In the practice, the problem is reduced to consider the simultaneous presence of two
lorries r and t only, so that it results
1
1
0
1 1
(
(


\

+
+ + =
P ,
( )
1
1 1
2
2
1 1


\

+
+ +
+
=
P
(A.5)
and the annual number of interactions becomes
( )
2
2
2
1
1
j t), , (
j
q s
j i
tj rj
r
N
N
N N
N
s
t


\

+ +
=
=
.
(A.6)
When a single vehicle model is given, equation (A.6) simplifies further into
( )
1
j 1), 1, (
2
+ +
=
j
N
N .
(A.7)
A.2.3 Interaction between lorries simultaneously travelling on several lanes
Under the aforementioned hypotheses, interactions between lorries simultaneously
travelling on several lanes can be tackled in analogous way.
The bridge is considered as a multiple channel system without waiting queue, where
new requests are refused if all channels are occupied. In this case the probability P
k
to have
simultaneously vehicles on k lanes, i.e. k occupied channels, can be deduced solving an
Erlang type system.
Said the density of the total flow N
*
and recalling that
1
= , it results
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
101
1
0
! !
=


\

=
m
i
i
i
k
k
k
i k
P
0km.
(A.8)
Substituting (A.8) in the general expression
\
 =
=
=


\



\

=
k
m
k
s
h
k
j
h
k
j h
h i
k
h i
s
t
j
j
j j
N
N
k
N
N
N
P
P
N
1
1
*
1 0
h i ...., , i , h
1
k k 2 2 1 1
(A.9)
where
\

k
m
represents the sum over all the possible choices of k elements among m, it is
possible to derive the annual number of interactions of k lorries, i
1
on the h
1
th lane,....., i
k
on
the h
k
th lane,
\
 =
=
=
=


\



\

=
k
m
k
s
h
k
j
h
k
j h
h i
m
j
j
j
k
k
h i
s
t
j
j
j j
N
N
k
N
N
N
j
k
N
1
1
*
1
1
h i ...., , i , h
!
!
k k 2 2 1 1
.
(A.10)
As said before, usually only the case in which two lorries r and t are simultaneously
present on the hth and the jth lane is relevant, so that it results
1
2
0
2
2
2
! 2
=


\

=
i
i
i
i
P
and
2 ! 2
1
2
1
2
2
j t ,
j h
i
i
i
j h
tj rh
h r
N N
i N N
N N
N
+


\

,
(A.11)
or, simply, when a single type of vehicle is considered,
2
! 2
1
2
1
2
2
j ,
j h
i
i
i
h
N N
i
N
+


\

.
(A.12)
A.2.4 The time independent load spectrum
The procedures described above allow to obtain the socalled lonely vehicles
spectrum, which is timeindependent being composed by individual vehicles and by vehicle
convoys travelling alone on the bridge.
Generally, the evaluation of the lonely vehicles spectrum requires to resort to both the
above mentioned procedure:
 the simultaneous transit on the same lane is considered first, obtaining a new load
spectrum, composed by individual vehicles and by vehicle convoys travelling alone
on the lane;
 new load spectra are then applied on different lanes to solve the multilane case.
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
102
A.2.5 Time independent interactions
Once the lonely vehicle spectrum is known, the complete stress history can be derived
as a random assembly of the individual stress histories.
Unfortunately, the stress spectrum cannot be determined, in general, as a pure and
simple sum of the individual stress spectra. In fact when maximum and minimum stresses are
given by different members of the spectrum, the individual stress histories can combine,
depending on the cycle counting method adopted, originating some kind of time independent
interaction.
If cycles are identified using the reservoir method or the rainflow method, the problem
can be solved in the general case. The demonstration is out of the scope of this Guidebook
and it will be shown only the main results.
Two individual stress histories
i
A
and
j
A
interact if and only if
j i
A A
max max
j i
A A
min min
(A.13)
or
i j
A A
max max
i j
A A
min min
(A.14)
If the couples of interacting histories are sorted in such a way that the corresponding
max
are in descending order, the number of the combined stress histories as well as the
residual numbers of each individual stress history can be computed in a very simple recursive
way, as follows.
In general, an individual stress history can interact with several others; therefore the
number of combined stress histories N
cij
, obtained as hth combination of the stress history
i
A
and as kth combination of the stress history
j
A
is given by
j
k
i
h
j
k
i
h
cij
N N
N N
N
) 1 ( ) 1 (
) 1 ( ) 1 (
+
= ,
(A.15)
where
i
h
N
) 1 (
and
j
k
N
) 1 (
are the number of the individual stress histories
i
A
and
j
A
which are not yet combined and being
i
A i
N N =
) 0 (
and
j
A j
N N =
) 0 (
the number of
repetitions of
i
A
and
j
A
in the lonely vehicle spectrum.
The actual number of individual stress histories
i
A
, which do not combine with other stress
histories, is given by
( )
+ =
i k
ki ik i i
p
N N N N
) 0 ( ) (
,
(A.16)
being the sum extended to all the stress histories
k
A
, which combine with
i
A
itself.
In conclusion, a new modified load spectrum is obtained, whose members, represented
by the lonely individual vehicles and convoys and by their time independent combinations,
are interaction free, so that it can be defined as interactionfree vehicle spectrum.
A.6 Concluding remarks
The above mentioned methods allow the derivation of some important general results.
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
103
The methods can be used to tackle relevant questions concerning the calculation of the
maximum length of the influence line for which lorry interaction on the same lane can be
disregarded or with the calibration of damage equivalent
4
factor accounting for multilane
effect in coefficient method.
The analysis, shortly illustrated below, can be performed taking into account:
 SN curve in characterised by on slope m=5;
 four different annual lorry flow rates, N
1
=2.510
5
; N
2
=5.010
5
; N
3
=1.010
6
;
N
4
=2.010
6
, distributed over 280 working days;
 constant lorry speed v=13.89 m/sec.
Assuming an intervehicle interval T
s
=1.5 s, application of (A.7) allows to calculate,
for example, how many vehicles per years are travelling simultaneously on the same lane, in
function of the annual vehicle flow and on the considered length L, as summarised in table
A.1.
Table A.1. Number of yearly interacting vehicles on one lane
L (m) N
1
N
2
N
3
N
4
40 1190 4729 18566 71605
50 1690 6670 25987 98813
60 2165 8515 32940 123618
75 2858 11177 42796 157689
100 3978 15423 58110 208240
These theoretical results, which are in good agreement with numerical simulations,
confirm that simultaneous presence of several lorries on the same lane is generally not
relevant for spans below 75 m. On the contrary, when bending moment on support of two
span continuous beams is considered under high traffic flows, simultaneity results significant
starting from 30 m span.
Closed form expression for calculation of
4
coefficients can be obtained resorting to
equation (A.12) referring to two lanes carrying equal lorry flows per year, which is the most
relevant case for practical applications. The results are summarized in table A.2 for different
traffic flows and span length.
Table A.2. Number of yearly interacting vehicles on two lanes carrying equal lorry flows
L (m) N
1
N
2
N
3
N
4
10 1846 7331 28901 112358
20 3666 14450 56179 212764
30 5458 21367 81966 303028
50 8967 34626 129532 458712
75 13213 50200 182480 617280
100 17312 64766 229356 746264
150 25100 91240 308640 943390
200 32383 114678 373132 1086953
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
104
Taking into account lorry interactions in all possible relative positions of the two
lorries, equivalent stress ranges
eq
, can be easily evaluated from table A.2, provided that
influence coefficient pertaining to each lane is known.
Obviously, said
1
the equivalent stress range corresponding to one lane flow only,
the required
4
coefficient is simply given
1
4
=
eq
.
(A.17)
If the two lanes have the same influence coefficient, i.e. the influence surface is
cylindrical,
4
values result those indicated in table A.3, being
5
2 149 . 1 (m=5) the
4
basic
value, corresponding to zero interactions.
Table A.3.
4
factors for two lanes carrying lanes carrying equal lorry flows
L (m) N
1
N
2
N
3
N
4
10 1.156 1.162 1.174 1.197
20 1.162 1.174 1.197 1.234
30 1.168 1.186 1.217 1.264
50 1.180 1.207 1.250 1.310
75 1.194 1.230 1.283 1.351
100 1.207 1.250 1.310 1.381
150 1.230 1.283 1.351 1.423
200 1.250 1.310 1.381 1.450
These results demonstrate that
4
, which takes into account globally vehicle
interactions, is a quasilinear function of N , which can be expressed in closed form as

\

+
+
=
6
5
1
2 1
4
10
01 . 0 03 . 1
v
N L
.
(A.18)
where L is in m and v in m/s, being
1
and
2
,
1
2
, the influence coefficients related to the
two interacting lanes.
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
105
CHAPTER 5: NON TRAFFIC ACTIONS
Pietro Croce
1
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Structural Division  University of Pisa
Summary
In bridge design, climatic, geotechnical and environmental actions should be
considered, like wind, snow, temperature, earth pressure, water actions, uneven settlements
and so on. Variable climatic actions for bridges are discussed, stressing the peculiarities of the
relevant load models.
1 INTRODUCTION
Besides dead loads and imposed loads, other climatic, geotechnical and environmental
actions should be considered in bridge design, like wind, snow, temperature, earth pressure,
water actions, uneven settlements and so on.
In this chapter, the climatic actions are discussed, devoting special attention to
peculiarities of the relevant load models for bridges.
2 WIND ACTIONS
Wind actions on bridges are specified in EN199114 [1]; here only peculiarities
concerning bridges themselves will be taken into account, as general information are just
given in the chapter 4 of Guidebook 1 [2].
Strictly speaking, EN199114 specifications are applicable only to girder bridges
spanning up to 200 m with a constant cross section and one or more spans . Cross section can
be boxed, mono or multicell, or open with two or more longitudinal beams, which can be
made, in turn, by open or box sections or by truss, with a single deck (upper or lower).
In any case, it must be stressed that EN199114 rules can be easily extended to
variable cross sections, to double deck bridges as well as to other bridge types, provided that
windstructure interactions are not relevant.
Bridges characterised by multiple or significantly curved decks, roofed bridges and
movable bridges could require some additional studies.
Lower or intermediate deck arch bridges or suspended and cable stayed bridges call
for specific studies, since for them windstructure interactions cannot be disregarded.
In general, wind is considered blowing in two horizontal directions, x and y, being y
the longitudinal axis of the bridge and x the transversal axis (figure 1), originating forces in x,
y and z direction. Forces induced by wind blowing in direction x can be considered not
simultaneous with forces induced by wind blowing in direction y and vice versa; on the
contrary, wind forces acting in z direction should be considered acting simultaneously with
the corresponding x or y force. In some of particular orography, it could be necessary to
consider some inclination of the wind directions, out of the horizontal plane.
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
106
x
y
z
L
B
D
Figure 1. Reference system for wind actions on bridges.
2.1 Wind forces on bridges
For the evaluation of wind actions on bridges, two different load scenarios are taken
into account, depending on the compatibility of strong wind with traffic on bridge. In fact, if
the traffic is not protected against the wind, for example by wind shields, road, pedestrian or
railway traffic is not possible when the fundamental value of basic wind velocity v
b,0
attains a
particular threshold value, equal to
m/s 23
*
0 ,
=
b
v ,
(1)
for road bridges, and to
m/s 25
* *
0 ,
=
b
v ,
(2)
for railway bridges.
When bridge in unloaded, the wind forces F
wk
, evaluated as indicated in the following,
should be considered.
If the bridge is not protected against the wind, the combination value of the wind
actions is given by
wk wk
F F
0
'
= ,
(3)
for road bridges, where
0
=0.6 for persistent design situations and
0
=0.8 for actions during
execution,
wk wk
F F
0
' '
= ,
(4)
for railway bridges, where
0
=0.75, and
wk wk
F F
0
' ' '
= ,
(5)
for footbridges, where
0
=0.30.
If the bridge is protected against the wind, i.e. wind shields are foreseen on the bridge
or the bridge is covered, the combination value of the wind should not exceed
( )
*
0 ,
*
b wk wk
v F F = ,
(6)
for road bridges, and
( )
* *
0 ,
* *
b wk wk
v F F = ,
(7)
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
107
for railway bridges, while for footbridges no additional limitation is necessary as
0
is low
enough.
If dynamic analysis is not required, as it happens in normal bridges, for example
bridge spanning up to 40 m, whatever the construction material used, the structural factor
c
s
c
d
, can be assumed c
s
c
d
=1.0, being c
s
the size factor and c
d
the dynamic factor.
2.1.1 Wind forces on the deck in the xdirection
Wind forces in the xdirection can be evaluated using the expression
x ref b wk
A C v F
,
2
2
1
= ,
(8)
where =1.25 kg/m
3
is the air density, v
b
is the basic wind speed for the site under
consideration, A
ref,x
is the reference area and C is the wind load factor for bridges.
In absence of traffic, reference area A
ref,x
should be evaluated taking into account:
 in case of plain (web) beams, the total height d of the projection on a vertical plane
of all the main beams, including the part of one cornice or footway or ballasted
track projecting over the front main girder, (see figure 2), plus the sum d
1
of the
heights of solid parapets, noise barriers, wind shields and open safety barriers
installed on the bridge;
 in case of truss beams, the total height d of the projection on a vertical plane of all
the trusses, including the part of one cornice or footway or ballasted track
projecting over the front main girder, or the projection of the contour of the solid
section, whichever is less, plus the sum d
1
of the heights of solid parapets, noise
barriers, wind shields, and open safety barriers installed on the bridge.
The height of open safety barrier is set to 0.3 m, so that the reference heights to be
considered in same relevant case can be derived from table 1.
d
0.3
d1
O
p
e
n
p
a
r
a
p
e
t
O
p
e
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
S
o
l
i
d
s
a
f
e
t
y
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
o
r
p
a
r
a
p
e
t
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
Fig. 2. Depth to be used in evaluation of A
ref
,
w
.
Table 1. Depth to be considered in evaluation of A
ref
,
w
Road restraint systems and shields On one side On both sides
Open parapet or open safety barrier d+0.3 m d+0.6 m
Solid parapet or solid safety barrier d+d
1
d+2 d
1
Open parapet and open safety barrier d+0.6 m d+1.2 m
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
108
During execution, finishing can be disregarded in the evaluation of A
ref,x
and, prior of
the placement of the carriageway, the surface of two main beams should be considered.
In presence of traffic, reference area A
ref,x
should be assumed as the larger between the
area evaluated considering absence of traffic and the area obtained taking into account the
presence of traffic. Lateral surface of vehicles exposed to wind is represented
 in road bridges, with a rectangular area, 2 m in height, starting from the
carriageway level, on the most unfavourable position, independently of the location
of the vertical traffic loads;
 in railway bridges, with a rectangular area, 4 m in height, starting from the top of
the rail, on the whole length of the bridge.
Calculation of wind load factor C
The wind load factor C is given by
x f e
c c C
,
= ,
(9)
where c
e
is the exposure coefficient for kinetic pressure and c
f,x
is the force coefficient, which
is equal to c
f,x0
, being c
f,x0
the force coefficient or drag coefficient without free end flow.
The exposure coefficient could be evaluated considering a reference height z
e
given by
the distance from the lowest point of the ground and the centre of the bridge beck,
disregarding additional parts, parapets, barriers and so on, included in the reference area.
The force coefficient c
f,x
can be assumed equal to 1.30 for normal bridges, or can be
determined using the expression
= 1 ; 3 . 0 5 . 2 max ; 4 . 2 min
,
tot
x f
d
b
c , (10)
for bridge with solid parapets and/or solid barriers and/or traffic, and using the expression
= 3 . 1 ; 3 . 0 5 . 2 max ; 4 . 2 min
,
tot
x f
d
b
c , (11)
for the construction phase and/or bridges with open parapets.
In expressions (10) and (11) b represents the total width of the bridge and d
tot
the
height considered in the evaluation of A
ref,x
, A
ref,x
=d
tot
L, except for truss girder where d
tot
does
not include the truss height, so that truss girder should be considered separately.
Two generally similar decks, being at the same level and separated transversally by a
gap not significantly greater than 1 m, can be considered as a unique structure, when
windward structure forces are to be calculated. In other cases special studies are necessary.
If particular orography determines an incoming wind inclined more than 10 in the
vertical plane, the drag coefficient may be derived from special investigation.
When the windward face of the section is inclined to the vertical of an angle
1
, the
drag coefficient c
f,x0
may be decreased by a factor
1
,
( ) .7 0 ; 005 . 0 1 max
1 1
= ,
(12)
but this reduction does not affect F
w
.
If the bridge is sloped transversely by an angle
2
, the drag coefficient c
f,x0
should be
increased by a factor
2
,
( ) .25 1 ; 03 . 0 1 max
1 2
+ = .
(13)
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
109
Provided that dynamic analysis is not necessary, the wind load factor C can be also
evaluated in a more simple way using table 2. In the table the force factors C refer to terrain
category II, Area with low vegetation such as grass and isolated obstacles (trees, buildings)
with separations of at least 20 obstacle height. For intermediate values of z
e
and/or b/d
tot
,
linear interpolation is permitted.
Table 2. Force factors C for bridges
b/d
tot
z
e
20 m z
e
=50 m
0.5 6.7 8.3
4.0 3.6 4.5
2.1.2 Wind forces on deck in the ydirection
When relevant, longitudinal wind forces in ydirection can be assumed equal to 25%
of wind forces in xdirection for plated bridges and to 50% of wind forces in xdirection for
truss bridges.
2.1.3 Wind forces on deck in the zdirection
Upward and downward vertical wind forces in zdirection can be determined using the
lift force coefficients c
f,z
, which should not be used to calculate vertical vibrations of bridge
deck.
If suitable wind tunnel tests are not available, it can be assumed c
f,z
=0.9, so
considering globally the influence of a possible transverse slope of the deck, of the slope of
terrain and of fluctuations of the angle of the wind direction with the deck due to turbulence.
Considering the symbols indicated in figure 3, alternative values of c
f,z,
can be derived
from the diagrams reported in figure 4. These diagrams are valid in the range 1010,
where is the sum of , which is the inclination of the wind direction in the vertical plane,
and , which is the superelevation of the deck. When using the diagrams, the total depth d
tot
may be limited to the depth of the deck structure, disregarding the presence of traffic and any
bridge equipment.
The reference height can be assumed be z
e
, as in previous cases.
F
z
e
b
d
tot
w
in
d
d
ir
e
c
t
io
n
Aref,z=bL
=superelevation
=angle of the wind with the horizontal
=+
Figure 3. Transversal slope and wind inclination for zdirection wind forces
For hilly terrain, when the bridge deck is at least 30 m above ground, and in every case
for flat and horizontal terrain, the angle of the wind with the horizontal, due to turbulence,
may be taken as 5.
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
110
Figure 4. Force coefficients c
f,z
for bridges with transversal slope and wind nclination
The reference area A
ref,z
should be set equal to the planar area of the bridge, A
ref,z
=bL,
being b the total width and L the length of the bridge.
The vertical force F
z
, which is relevant only if it is of the same order of magnitude of
the dead load, can be considered applied with an eccentricity e=b/4, if not otherwise specified.
2.2 Wind forces on piers
Wind actions for the entire bridge should be evaluated considering the most
unfavourable wind direction for bridge and supporting piers.
Wind forces on piers should be determined using the general formulae and the relevant
force and pressure coefficients.
During construction phases, intermediate situations can occur where horizontal
transmission or redistribution of wind actions by the deck are not granted: these transient
design situations could result the most severe for the piers and for some particular type of
deck. For this reason, besides persistent design situations, also transient design situations for
wind actions during execution should be assessed.
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
111
3 SNOW LOADS
Snow loads on bridges should be determined according the general procedure of
Eurocode EN 199113 [3], just described in Guidebook 1, therefore only some additional
information about simultaneity of snow load with other actions is given here.
In general, except for roofed bridges and for bridges situated in particular geographic
area, snow loads should not be combined with traffic actions
4 THERMAL ACTIONS
As known, in EN 199115 [4] a generic temperature profile in the cross section of a
structural element can be obtained by superposition of four essential components, as
illustrated in figure 5.
Figure 5. Essential constituents of a temperature profile
These components correspond to
 a uniform temperature component T
u
;
 a linearly variable component about the zaxis T
My
;
 a linearly variable component about the yaxis T
Mz
;
 a non linear component T
E
, which results in a selfequilibrated system of stesses.
4.1 Temperature changes on bridges
The temperature changes on bridges are given in terms of uniform temperature
component, vertical difference component, which includes non linear component also, and,
when relevant, a horizontal difference component, which can be assumed linearly varying.
The temperatures in the bridge depend not only by the shade air temperature and solar
radiation, but also on the scheme, on the cross section, on the mass and on the material.
Therefore, bridges can be classified in terms of categories and subcategories as
follows:
1. Steel bridge: steel box girder
steel truss or plate girder;
2. Composite bridge
3. Concrete bridge: concrete slab
concrete beam
concrete box girder.
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
112
4.1.1 Uniform temperature component
The uniform temperature component depends on the maximum and minimum
temperature, T
e,max
and T
e,min
, that the bridge can attain during its working life.
Once determined the maximum and minimum shade air temperatures of the site
characterized by 50 years return period, T
max
and T
min
, the uniform temperature components
T
e,max
and T
e,min
can be determined according to the diagrams of figure 6, where T
e,max
and
T
e,min
, in C, are expressed in terms of T
max
and T
min
, in C, for each bridge category recalled
before. Values of T
e,max
values for truss or plated steel bridges (category 1) can be reduced by
3 C.
50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1
2
3
3
2
1
Tmin Tmax
T
e
,
m
i
n
T
e
,
m
a
x
Figure 6. Correlation between shade air temperature (T
min
, T
max
) and uniform
components of the bridge temperature (T
e,min
, T
e,max
)
If T
0
is the initial bridge temperature, i.e. the temperature of the bridge at the time
when it is restrained, the variation of the uniform bridge temperature T
u
is given by
con N esp N e e u
T T T T T
, , min , max ,
 + = = ,
(14)
where
T
N,exp
=T
e,max
T
0
and T
N,con
=T
0
T
e,min
(15)
are the temperature variations to be considered when the bridge expands or contracts,
respectively.
Assessing bearing displacements it can be assumed T
N,exp
=T
e,max
T
0
+20C and
T
N,con
=T
0
T
e,min
+20C.
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
113
4.1.2 Vertical temperature varying component
In consequence of the different heating and cooling of the top and bottom surfaces of
the bridge, vertical temperature variations can occur. These variations correspond to
maximum heating, when the top surface is warmer than bottom surface, and maximum
cooling, when the bottom surface is warmer than the top surface.
The vertical temperature profiles can be defined under two different hypothesis,
according as nonlinear temperature profile T
E
is disregarded or not: in the former case a
simplified equivalent linear profile can be considered, while in the latter one a non linear
profile, including T
E
, is taken into account.
Equivalent linear vertical temperature profile
When equivalent linear vertical temperature profile is adopted, the maximum
temperature differences corresponding to maximum heating or maximum cooling, denoted as
T
M,heat
and T
M,cool
, for the different bridge categories can be deduced by table 3.
The values given in table 3 represent upper bound values of the temperature
differences for road and railways bridges carrying a 50 mm surfacing. For different thickness
of the surfacing, values of table 3 should be multiplied by the adjustment factors k
sur
given in
table 4.
Table 3. Equivalent linear vertical temperature variations for bridges
Type of deck Top warmer than
bottom T
M,heat
[C]
Bottom warmer than
top T
M,cool
[C]
Type 1:
Steel deck
18
13
Type 2:
Composite deck
15
18
Type 3:
Concrete deck
 concrete box girder
 concrete beam
 concrete slab
10
15
15
5
8
8
Table 4. Adjustment factors k
sur
for road, foot and railway bridges
Surface thickness
[mm]
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3
Top
warmer
than bottom
Bottom
warmer
than top
Top
warmer
than bottom
Bottom
warmer
than top
Top
warmer
than bottom
Bottom
warmer
than top
insurfaced 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.1
waterproofed 1.6 0.6 1.1 0.9 1.5 1.0
50 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
100 0.7 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.7 1.0
150 0.7 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0
ballast (750 mm) 0.6 1.4 0.8 1.2 0.6 1.0
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
114
Non linear vertical temperature profiles
When more refined analyses are necessary, the vertical temperature profile can be
assumed as non linear, considering in the heating and cooling conditions the temperature
profiles given in tables 5, 6 and 7 for steel bridges, concrete bridges and composite bridges,
respectively.
For composite bridges two alternative profiles, normal and simplified, are given in
tables 7.a and 7.b. The simplified profile is generally safesided.
The temperature differences T given in tables 5 to 7 include both the vertical
temperature component T
M
and the non linear temperature component T
E
, together with a
little part of uniform component T
N
, just considered in the uniform temperature component
T
N
, given in 4.1.1.
The temperatures for other surfacing depths of bridge decks of type 1 to 3 are given in
Tables B.1 to B.3 of EN 199115, Annex B.
4.1.3 Horizontal temperature varying component
Horizontal temperature differences in bridges can be generally disregarded, except in
special cases, for example when one side of the bridge is much more exposed to the sunlight
of the other one.
When horizontal component must be taken into account, a linear variation of 5 C can
be assumed.
Table 5. Non linear vertical temperature differences for steel bridges
Type of construction
Temperature difference (T)
Heating Cooling
h
Steel deck with 40 mm surfacing
0
.
1
m
0
.
2
m
0
.
3
m
24 C
14 C
8 C
4 C
h
6 C
0
.
5
m
h
h
Steel deck on truss or plate girder
with 40 mm surfacing
21 C
0
.
5
m
h
5 C
0
.
1
m
h
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
115
Table 6. Non linear vertical temperature differences for concrete bridges
Type of construction
Temperature difference (T)
Heating Cooling
h
100 mm surfacing
Concrete slab
100 mm surfacing
h
Concrete beam
h
100 mm surfacing
Concrete box girder
Table 7.a. Non linear vertical temperature differences for composite bridges, normal
profile
Type of construction
Temperature difference (T)
Heating Cooling
h
100 mm surfacing
Concrete deck on box, truss or plate
girder
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
116
Table 7.b. Non linear vertical temperature differences for composite bridges, simplified
profile
Type of construction
Temperature difference (T)
Heating Cooling
h
100 mm surfacing
Concrete deck on box, truss or plate
girder
On the contrary, special attention should be paid for concrete multicell box girder
where temperature of the inner webs can differ significantly (around 15C) from the
temperature of the outer ones.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Effects of variable climatic actions, wind, snow and temperature given in Eurocodes
EN 19911x have been illustrated, with special emphasis on their application on bridges,
discussing peculiarities, application rules and possible simplification of the relevant load
models.
Wind specifications are applicable only to girder bridges spanning up to 200 m with a
constant cross section and one or more spans, but they can be extended variable cross
sections, to double deck bridges as well as to other bridge types, provided that windstructure
interactions are not relevant.
Bridge types which are sensitive to windstructure interactions, like lower or
intermediate deck arch bridges or suspended and cable stayed bridges, call for specific
studies, duly supported by wind tunnel tests.
Simultaneity of snow loads with traffic actions is generally not significant, except in
very particular cases, as roofed bridge, and can be disregarded.
Air shade temperature variations and solar radiation result in temperature fields in the
bridge, depending on the bridge location and on the structural material. These temperature
fields are typically non linear and have been described in detail, but often it is possible to refer
to simplified and safesided linear distributions.
Seismic actions have been not considered here, as their illustration is beyond the scope
of the present Guidebook.
6. REFERENCES
[1] EN199114, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures  Part 14: General actions Wind
actions. Brussels: CEN, 2005
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
117
[2] Holicky, M et al., GB1: Basis of design and actions on structures, Leonardo Project
number: CZ/08/LLPLdV/TOI/134020, Prague, CTU, 2010
[3] EN199113, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures  Part 13: General actions Snow
loads. Brussels: CEN, 2004
[4] EN199115, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures  Part 15: General actions Thermal
actions. Brussels: CEN, 2004
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
118
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
119
CHAPTER 6: ACCIDENTAL ACTIONS
Ton Vrouwenvelder
1
, Dimitris Diamantidis
2
1
TNO, Delft, Netherlands
2
University of Applied Sciences, Regensburg, Germany
Summary
The accidental actions covered by Part 1.7 of EN 1991 are discussed and guidance for
their application in design calculations is given. A short summary is presented of the main clauses
in the code for collisions due to trucks. After the presentation of the clauses an example is given
in order to get some idea of the design procedure and the design consequences.
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
General principles for classification of actions on structures, including accidental
actions and their modelling in verification of structural reliability, are introduced in EN 1990
Basis of Design. In particular EN 1990 defines the various design values and combination rules to
be used in the design calculations. A detailed description of individual actions is then given in
various parts of Eurocode 1, EN 1991 [2]. Part 1.7 of EN 1991 covers accidental actions and
gives rules and values for the following topics:
 impact loads due to road traffic
 impact loads due to train traffic
 impact loads due to ships
It should be kept in mind that the loads in the main text are rather conventional. More
advanced models are presented in annex C of EN 199117. Apart from design values and other
detailed information for the loads mentioned above, the document EN 1991, Part 17 also gives
guidelines how to handle accidental loads in general. In many cases structural measures alone
cannot be considered as very efficient.
1.2 Background Documents
Part 1.7 of EN 1991 is partly based on the requirements put forward in the Eurocode on
traffic loads (ENV 19913) and some ISOdocuments. For the more theoretical parts use has been
made of prenormative work performed in IABSE [5] and CIB [6]. Specific backgrounds
information can be found in [7] and [8].
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
120
2 BASIC FRAMEWORK
In order to reduce the risk involved in accidental type of load one might, as basic
strategies, consider probability reducing as well as consequence reducing measures, including
contingency plans in the event of an accident. Risk reducing measures should be given high
priority in design for accidental actions, and also be taken into account in design. Design with
respect to accidental actions may therefore pursue one or more as appropriate of the following
strategies, which may be mixed in the same design:
1. preventing the action occurring or reducing the probability and/or magnitude of the
action to a reasonable level. (The limited effect of this strategy must be recognised; it
depends on factors which, over the life span of the structure, are normally outside the
control of the structural design process)
2. protecting the structure against the action (e.g. by traffic bollards)
3. designing in such a way that neither the whole structure nor an important part thereof
will collapse if a local failure (single element failure) should occur
4. designing key elements, on which the structure would be particularly reliant, with
special care, and in relevant cases for appropriate accidental actions
5. applying prescriptive design/detailing rules which provide in normal circumstances
an acceptably robust structure (e. g. triorthogonal tying for resistance to explosions,
or minimum level of ductility of structural elements subject to impact). For
prescriptive rules Part 1.7 refers to the relevant ENV 1992 to ENV 1999.
The design philosophy necessitates that accidental actions are treated in a special manner
with respect to load factors and load combinations. Partial load factors to be applied in analysis
according to strategy no. 3 are defined in Eurocode, Basis of Design, to be 1.0 for all loads
(permanent, variable and accidental) with the following qualification in: "Combinations for
accidental design situations either involve an explicit accidental action A (e.g. fire or impact) or
refer to a situation after an accidental event (A = 0)". After an accidental event the structure will
normally not have the required strength in persistent and transient design situations and will have
to be strengthened for a possible continued application. In temporary phases there may be reasons
for a relaxation of the requirements e.g. by allowing wind or wave loads for shorter return periods
to be applied in the analysis after an accidental event. As an example Norwegian rules for
offshore structures are referred to.
The typical difference between permanent, variable and accidental loads is shown in
Figure 1 depending on time. Permanent loads are always present (e.g permanent weight of the
construction). Variable loads are nearly always present even its value may be small for a
considerable part of time. However values which are nonzero will occur many times during the
design life of the structure (traffic, snow, wind). Accidental loads, on the contrary, usually never
occur during the lifetime of a structure. But if they are present, it takes only a short time. The
duration depends on the manner of load. For example: Explosions take a shorter time (seconds)
than floods (some days).
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
121
Figure 1. Typical time characteristics of (a) accidental, (b) variable and (c) permanent loads
3 IMPACT DUE TO ROAD TRAFFIC (VEHICLE COLLISIONS)
3.1 Impact on substructure
Impacts on the substructure of bridges by road vehicles are a relatively frequent
occurrence and may have considerable consequences. Specific provisions are consequently
specified in EN 1991 Part 17. In the case of soft impact, design values for the horizontal actions
due to impact on vertical structural elements (e.g. columns, walls) in the vicinity of various types
of internal or external roads may be obtained from Table 1. Soft impact means that the impacting
body consumes most of the available kinetic energy. The forces F
dx
and F
dy
denote respectively
the forces in the driving direction and perpendicular to it. There is no need to consider them
simultaneously. The collision forces are supposed to act at 1.25 m above the level of the driving
surface (0.5 m for cars). The force application area may be taken as 0.25 m (height) by 1.50 m
(width) or the member width, whichever is the smallest.
In addition to the values in this Table 1 the code specifies more advanced models for
nonlinear and dynamic analysis in an informative annex. The values of design impact forces
given in Table 1 are left open for the national choice as Nationally Determined Parameters.
time
Force
(a)
time
Force
(b)
time
Force
(c)
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
122
Table 1. Horizontal static equivalent design forces due to impact on supporting
substructures of structures over roadways
Type of road Type of vehicle Force F
d,x
[kN] Force F
d,y
[kN]
Motorway
Country road
Urban area
Courtyards/garages
Courtyards/garages
Truck
Truck
Truck
Passengers cars only
Trucks
1000
750
500
50
150
500
375
250
25
75
The probabilistic methods of the reliability theory have been used in [9] to determine the
impact forces due to vehicle impact. Two alternative procedures given in EN 199117 [1],
Annexes B and C have been analysed. The following assumptions have been taken:
1. The probability of a structural member being impacted by a lorry leaving its traffic
lane is 0.01 per year.
2. The target failure probability for a structural member, given a lorry hits the
substructure of the bridge is 10
4
/10
2
= 0.01 [3, 4].
3. The probabilistic models given by the working documents of JCSS [10] have been
implemented
The values of accidental impact forces have been computed in [9] and are shown here in
Table 5 for the three assumed distances d of the substructure from the road. The resulting impact
forces determined on the basis of above introduced alternative probabilistic procedures (see Table
2) are considerably higher than the minimum (indicative) requirement for impact forces given
Section 4 of EN 199117 [1] (see Table 1). This is mainly due to the rather high probability of a
structural member being impacted by a lorry leaving its traffic lane, i.e. 0.01 per annum, which
represents a conservative assumption. For roadways, the impact forces are in a range from 2.9 to
2.8 MN, for roads in urban areas, the impact forces are in a broader range from 1.9 to 1.4 MN
(depending on the applied probabilistic approach) for three study cases of distances d from 3 to 9
m. The study [9] indicates that for the design of structural members located nearby the traffic
routes the upper bound of the accidental impact forces should be recommended in the National
annex of EN 199117 [1] provided that no other safety measures are implemented. However it is
stated here that the values of Table 2 are relatively high and that they may be recomputed based
on recorded statistics in a certain region or for certain road types.
Table 2: Design values of impact forces based on the probabilistic approach.
Type of road Design impact force F
d,x
[kN]
d = 3 m d = 6 m d = 9 m
Roadways 2910 2850 2810
Urban areas 1580 1500 1430
Design Example
Consider the reinforced concrete bridge pier of Figure 2. The cross sectional dimensions
are b = 0.50 m and h = 1.00 m. The column height h = 5 m and it is assumed to be hinged to both
the bridge deck as to the foundation structure. The reinforcement ratio is 0.01 for all four
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
123
groups of bars as indicated in figure 4.1, right hand side. Let the steel yield stress be equal to 300
MPa and the concrete strength 50 MPa. The column will be checked for impact by a truck under
motorway conditions.
x
H h
y
F
dy
a
b
Figure 2. Bridge pier under impact loading
According to the code, the forces F
dx
and F
dy
should be taken as 1000 kN and 500 kN
respectively and act at a height of a = 1.25 m. The design value of the bending moments and
shear forces resulting from the static force in longitudinal direction can be calculated as follows:
M
dx
=
H
) a H ( a
F
dx
=
00 . 5
) 25 . 1 00 . 5 ( 25 . 1
1000 = 940 kNm
Q
dx
=
H
a H
F
dx
=
00 . 5
25 . 1 00 . 5
1000 = 750 kN
Similar for the direction perpendicular to the diving direction:
M
dy
=
H
) a H ( a
F
dy
=
00 . 5
) 25 . 1 00 . 5 ( 25 . 1
500 = 470 kNm
Q
xy
=
H
a H
F
dy
=
00 . 5
25 . 1 00 . 5
500 = 375 kN
Other loads are not relevant in this case. The selfweight of the bridge deck and traffic
loads on the bridge only lead to a normal force in the column. Normally this will increase the load
bearing capacity of the column. So we may confine ourselves to the accidental load only.
Using a simplified model, the bending moment capacity can conservatively be estimated
from:
M
Rdx
= 0.8 h
2
b f
y
= 0.8 0.01 1.00
2
0.50 300 000 = 1200 kNm
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
124
M
Rdy
= 0.8 h b
2
f
y
= 0.8 0.01 1.00 0.50
2
300 000 = 600 kNm
As no partial factor on the resistance need to be used in the case of accidental loading, the
bending moment capacities can be considered as sufficient. The shear capacity of the column,
based on the concrete tensile part (say f
ctk
= 1200 kN/m
2
) only is approximately equal to:
Q
Rd
= .0.3 bh f
ctk
= 0.3 1.00 0.50 1200 = 360 kN.
This is almost sufficient for the loading in ydirection, but not for the xdirection.
Additional shear force reinforcement is necessary.
3.2 Impact on superstructure
Design values for actions due to impact from lorries and/or loads carried by the lorries on
members of the superstructure should be defined unless adequate clearances or suitable protection
measures to avoid impact are provided. The recommended value for adequate clearance,
excluding future resurfacing of the roadway under the bridge, to avoid impact is in the range 5.0
m to 6.0 m. The following scenarios are considered:
a) impact on restraint system on the superstructure (see Figure 3)
Indicative equivalent static design forces are given in the Eurocode 1 part 1.7 for that
scenario and are reported here in Table 3.
The forces apply perpendicular to the direction of normal travel.
Figure 3. Vehicle impact on restraint system
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
125
Table 3  Indicative equivalent static design forces due to impact on superstructures.
Category of traffic
Equivalent static design force
F
dx
a
[kN]
Motorways and country national and main roads 500
Country roads in rural area 375
Roads in urban area 250
Courtyards and parking garages 75
a
x = direction of normal travel.
b) impact forces on the underside surfaces of bridge decks
The same impact forces as given in Table 3 with an upward inclination are considered as
also shown in Figure 4.
F(h)
10
F(h')
10
F(h)
h
h'
h
drivig
direction
Figure 4. Impact forces on underside surfaces of superstructure
4 LOADS DUE TO RAILWAY COLLISION
EN 1991 17 classifies structures that maybe subject to impact from derailed railway
traffic according to Table 4. Bridges belong consequently to class B. For that class each
requirement should be specified. To some extent it is questionable whether an analysis for
horizontal impact should be made at all since the probability of such an event is very small. The
probability depends on:
 Likelihood of train derailment
 Likelihood of train colliding with the bridge given train derailment
The likelihood of train derailment depends on the derailment rate, the number of trains per
day and the critical distance. The likelihood of collision depends on the lateral distance from the
structure and on the train velocity [11]. A risk analysis approach can be found in [12].
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
126
Table 4. Classes of structures subject to impact from derailed railway traffic.
Class A
Structures that span across or near to the operational railway that are either permanently
occupied or serve as a temporary gathering place for people or consist of more than one
storey.
Class B
Massive structures that span across or near the operational railway such as bridges carrying
vehicular traffic or single storey buildings that are not permanently occupied or do not
serve as a temporary gathering place for people.
Recent studies in Switzerland have investigated the impact force on bridges after train
derailment. The impact force is a function of the speed and direction of impact, which depends
mainly on the train velocity v
E
and the distance from the point of derailment to the point of
impact, as well as on the dynamic friction coefficients. Before the engine or the rest of the train
impacts on a structure after derailment, the train, or a part of it, travels a certain distance across
the ballast and the platform. Thus, part of the kinetic energy is dissipated before impact. Thereby
a number of different cases have been treated. Some of the more important ones are shown in
Figure 5 and are:
1. Derailment of the engine at the front end of the train.
2. Derailment of a carriage at the front end of the train (engine at rear)
3. Derailment of two carriages at an arbitrary position of the train.
x
v
E
y
L
w
0
1)
vehicle on the railway track
derailed vehicle
L = engine
w = carriage
v = velocity at moment
of derailment
x
v
E
y
L
w
0
2)
derailed vehicle
x
0
0
v
E
3)
derailed vehicles
Cases of derailment
engine Re 6/6: length=19.3 m; width=3.0 m;
height=4.5 m; mass=120 t
carriage EW IV: length=26.4 m; width=2.8 m;
height=4.1 m; mass=41/50 t
Figure 5. Cases of train derailment
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
127
The results of the studies have shown that the impact forces depend on the scenario and
can reach values up to 30 MN. Impact functions of train engines on stiff structures are reported in
Figure 6 as function of the engine velocity at moment of derailment.
It is recommended here to perform a risk analysis to define the impact forces in case that
this accidental load is considered, i.e. has an annual probability of occurrence greater than 10
6
.
Protection measures are also recommended to reduce the risk.
t [s/100]
F [MN]
O
2 4 6 8 10
10
20
30
v 8 m/s
E
t [s/100]
F [MN]
O
2 4 6 8
10
20
30
8 m/s<v 12 m/s
E
t [s/100]
F [MN]
O
2 4 6 8
10
20
30
v >12 m/s
E
Figure 6. Impact functions of train engines on stiff structures
5 LOADS DUE TO SHIP IMPACT
Ship impact accidents (see Figure 7) have occurred several times in the past with
considerable consequences. Table 5 shows the most important casualties of accidents involving
ships and bridges, [13].
Table 5. Fatalities in shipbridge collisions (19602002)
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
128
Figure 7. Ship impact on bridges
The probability of a ship colliding with a particular object in the water (here bridge deck
or bridge piers) depends on the intended course of the ship relative to the object and the
possibilities of navigation or mechanical errors. In order to find the total probability of an object
being hit, the total number of ships should be taken into account. Finally, the probability of
having some degree of structural damage also depends on the mass, the velocity at impact, the
place and direction of the impact and the geometrical and mechanical properties of ship and
structure.
When discussing ship collisions, it is essential to make a distinction between rivers and
canals on the one side and open water areas like lakes and seas on the other. On rivers and canals
the ship traffic patterns can be compared to road traffic. On open water, shipping routes have no
strict definitions, although there is a tendency for ships to follow more or less similar routes when
having the same destination.
A typical possible model for the ship distribution within a traffic lane is presented in
Figure 8. In general it will be possible to model the position of a ship in a lane as a part with some
probability density function. Details will of course depend on the local circumstances. It should
be noted that sometimes the object under consideration might be the destination of the ship, as for
instance a supply vessel for an offshore structure.
Navigation errors are especially important for collisions at sea. Initial navigation errors
may result from inadequate charts, instrumentation errors and human errors. The probabilistic
description of these errors depends on the type of ship and the equipment on board, the number of
the crew and the navigation systems in the sea area under consideration. Given a ship on collision
course, the actual occurrence of a collision depends on the visibility (day or night, weather
conditions, failing of object illumination, and so on) and on possible radar and warning systems
on the structure itself.
Mechanical failures may result from the machinery, rudder systems or fire, very often in
connection with bad weather conditions. The course of the ship after the mechanical failure is
governed by its initial position and velocity, the state of the (blocked) rudder angle, the current
and wind forces, and the possibility of controlling the ship by anchors or tugs. These parameters
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
129
together with the mass and dimensions of the ship should be considered as random. Given these
data, it is possible to set up a calculation model from which the course of the ship can be
estimated and the probability of a collision can be found. Such models have been applied several
times in ship collision specific studies for important bridges.
Figure 8. Ingredients for a ship collision model
The ship bridge accidents can be in general divided into three cases (Figure 9):
A. bow collision with bridge pillar,
B. side collision with bridge pillar,
C. deckhouse (superstructure) collision with bridge span.
Figure 9. Frequent types of ship bridge accidents: A) bow collision with bridge pillar; B)
side collision with bridge pillar; C) deckhouse (superstructure) collision with bridge span
The most important and frequent in scope of energy distributed during collision are bow
collisions.
The occurrence of a mechanical or navigation error, leading to a possible collision with a
structural object, can be modelled as an (inhomogeneous) Poison process. Given this Poison
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
130
failure process with intensity (x), the probability that the structure is hit at least once in a period
T can be expressed as:
(y) dx dy f (x,y)
P
(x) )
P
 (T) = nT(
P
s
c a c
1 (1)
whereas:
T = period of time under consideration
n = number of ships per time unit (traffic intensity)
(x) = probability of a failure per unit travelling distance
P
c
(x,y) = conditional probability of collision, given initial position (x,y)
f
s
(y) = distribution of initial ship position in y direction
P
a
= the probability that a collision is avoided by human intervention.
For the evaluation in practical cases, it may be necessary to evaluate P
c
for various
individual object types and traffic lanes, and add the results in a proper way at the end of the
analysis. To give some indication for , in the Nieuwe Waterweg near Rotterdam in the
Netherlands, 28 ships were observed to hit the river bank in a period of 8 years and over a
distance of 10 km. Per year 80 000 ships pass this point, leading to =28/(10880000) = 10
6
per
ship per km.
For practical applications mechanical models rules have been developed to calculate the
part of the total energy that is transferred into the structure. Some of these rules are based on
empirical models, others on a static approximation, starting from socalled load indentation
curves (Fu diagrams) for both the object and the structure. According to this model the
interaction force during collapse is assumed to raise form zero up to the value where the sum of
the energy absorption of both ship and structure equal the available kinetic energy at the
beginning of the impact.
Design values can be then defined then from the collision model. The occurrence of a
mechanical or a navigation error, leading to a possible collision with a structural object, can be
modelled as a Poisson process. If data about types of ships, traffic intensities, error probability
rates and sailing velocities are known, a design force could be found from:
(y) dx dy f ]
F
km) > ( x,y) (x) P[v ) p ) = nT( P(F>F
s
d a d
1 (2)
Given target reliability and estimates for the various parameters in (2) design values for
impact forces may be derived. The values in Tables 4.5 and 4.6 of EN 1991 Part 1.7, however,
have not been derived on the basis of explicit target reliability.
For inland ships the values in Table 4.5 in [2] have been chosen in accordance with ISO
DIS 10252. For a particular design it should be estimated which size of ships on the average
might be expected, and on the basis of those estimates, design values for the impact forces can be
found. Table 6 shows a comparison between:
 the values in Table 4.5 of EN 199117;
 the values based on Annex C of EN 199117, equation (C1);
 the values based on Annex C of EN 199117, equation (C9).
The masses for the inland waterways ships should been taken in the middle of the class.
The velocity used is 3 m/s and the equivalent stiffness k = 5 MN/m.
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
131
Table 6. Design forces F
d
for inland ships
m
[ton]
v
[m/s]
k
[MN/m]
F
d
[MN] F
d
[MN]
F
d
[MN]
Table 4.5 of
EN 199117
eq (C.1) of EN
199117
eq (C.9) of EN
199117
300 3 5 2 4 5
1250 3 5 5 8 7
4500 3 5 10 14 9
20000 3 5 20 30 18
For sea going vessels values in Table 7 are based on equation (2), with v=3 m/s and
k
0
=15 MN/m for the smallest ship category and 60 MN/m for the heaviest category.
Table 7. Design forces F
d
for seagoing vessels
m
[ton] v [m/s]
k
[MN/m]
F
d
[MN]
F
d
[MN]
F
d
[MN]
Table 4.6 of
EN 199117
eq(C.1) of EN
199117
eq (C.11) of
EN 199117
3000 5 15 50 34 33
10000 5 30 80 87 84
40000 5 45 240 212 238
100000 5 60 460 387 460
6 DISCUSSION ON ANNEX C
The informative Annex C of EN 1991 Part 17 gives the designer information on
background information for dynamic calculations in the case of impact loading.
A correct impact assessment s requires a nonlinear dynamic analysis of a model that
comprises both the structure as the impacting body.
The annex demonstrates the principles of such an analysis using simple empirical
models. It should be noted that more advanced models might be appropriate in special cases or
background studies.
In the assumption that the structure is rigid and immovable and the colliding object
deforms linearly during the impact phase and remains rigid during unloading, the maximum
resulting dynamic interaction force is given by:
m k v F
r
=
(3)
where v
r
is the object velocity at impact; k is the equivalent elastic stiffness of the object (i.e. the
ratio between force F and total deformation); m is the mass of the colliding object. The stiffness,
of course, is some kind of an averaged equivalent value, incorporating all kind of geometrical and
physical nonlinearities in the mechanics of the collision process.
Some reasonable estimates for these quantities are shown in Table 8:
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
132
Table 8. Statistical parameters for input values
mean
value
standard
deviation
m mass 20 ton 12 ton
v velocity 80 km/hr 10 km/hr
k equivalent stiffness 300 kN/m
As we are considering a loading situation conditional upon the accidental event of
collision, there is no need to use extreme fractiles of these distributions. In many cases one
chooses to use the mean plus one standard deviation. In this case this leads to m=32 ton and v= 90
km/hr=25 m/s and from there we find:
F = 25 (300 32)
0.5
= 2400 kN
Compared to the F = 1000 kN in table 3.1 this is a large number. However, we should
keep in mind that the load in table 3.1 is intended as a static value, where the force acts only over
a short period of time. The shape of the force due to impact can usually be assumed as a
rectangular pulse and the duration of the pulse is then given by:
k m t / = (4)
In the given example the duration would be 0.3 s. Another point is that the vehicle
usually looses speed between the point where it leaves the track and the point where it hits the
structure (see Figure 10).
r
o
a
d
v
0
road
structure
s
d
d
d
d
road
road structure
structure
structure
Figure 10. Situation sketch for impact by vehicles (top view and cross sections for upward
slope, flat terrain and downward slope)
For a given deceleration a, the velocity v
r
after a distance s from the critical point is:
v
r
= (v
0
2
2 a s )
0.5
(5)
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
133
Using a = 4 m/s
2
we arrive at a distance s = 80 m. This means that the force will be zero if
the distance between the centre line of the track and the structural element is about 20 m. Here it has
been assumed that the angle = 15
o
. For intermediate distances one may use the expression:
F = F
o
b
d d / 1
(for d < d
b
). (6)
Note that the value of d
b
may be adjusted because of the terrain characteristics.
The force of eq. (3) is the force at the impact surface between the structure and the
impacting vehicle. Inside the structure this load will lead to dynamic effects. As long as the
structure behaves elastically there may be some the dynamic amplification (one may think of 40
percent). However, due to elasticplastic effects stresses may be reduced.
7 RISK ANALYSIS
For important bridges risk analyses are performed in order to compute the risk associated
to impact forces and especially due to ship collision. Site specific data of the type of traffic are
combined with probabilistic analyses as mentioned above in order to define:
 Design impact force associated to a target probability level
 Protection measures
 Robustness measures to avoid global failure (see for example [14])
The risk analysis scheme given in the Eurocodes 1991 Part 1.7 can be useful in order to
analyse the aforementioned aspects. It is reported here in Figure 11. Decision measures are taken
based on such a procedure.
Figure 10. Risk analysis procedure in the Eurocodes
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
134
8 CONCLUSIONS
Accidental actions on bridges as specified in the Eurocode 1991 Part 1.7 have been
reviewed in this chapter. The following topics have been covered:
 impact loads due to road traffic
 impact loads due to train traffic
 impact loads due to ships
The models presented in Annex C of EN 199117 have been discussed. Apart from
design values and other detailed information for the loads mentioned above, the document EN
1991, Part 17 also gives guidelines how to handle accidental loads in general. In many cases
structural measures alone cannot be considered as very efficient.
9 REFERENCES
[1] EN 1990 Eurocode  Basis of structural design. European Comittee for Standardisation,
04/2002.
[2] EN 199111 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 11: General actions Densities, self
weight, imposed loads for buildings. European Comittee for Standardisation, 04/2002.
[3] ISO 2394, General principles on reliability for structures. 1998.
[4] I SO 3898, Bases for design of structures Notations  General Symbols, 1997.
[5] Larsen, O.D.: Structural Engineering Documents Ship Collision with bridges, The
interaction between Vessel traffic and Bridge structures
[6] CIB: Actions on structures impact, CIB Report, Publication 167, CIB, Rotterdam 1992
[7] Vrouwenvelder, T.: Stochastic modelling of extreme action events in structural engineering,
Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 15 (2000) 109117
[8] Vrouwenvelder, T.:Design for ship impact according to Eurocode 1, Part 2.7, Ship
collision analysis, Gluver and Olson, 1998 Balkema, ISBN 9054109629
[9] Markova, J. and K. Jung: Alternative procedures for impact forces in Eurocodes Journal of
KONBIN, In: Proceeding of the 4th International Conference on Safety and Reliability,
Wydawnictwo Instytutu Technicznego Wojsk Lotniczych, 30 May2 June 2006, ISSN 1895
8281, pp 175182
[10] Joint Committee on Structural Safety (JCSS), Probabilistic Model Code, www.jcss.ethz.ch
[11] UIC Code 7772: Structures Built over Railway lines, Paris, 2003.
[12] Jung, K. and J. Markova: Risk assessment of structures exposed to impact by trains" In:
Walraven, Blaauwendraad, Scarpas & Snijder (eds.), Proceedings of 5th International PhD
Symposium in Civil Engineering; 1619 June 2004, Delft, The Netherlands, A.A. Balkema
Publishers, ISBN 90 5809 676 9; pp. 10571063
[13] Proske,D.:Ein Beitrag zur Risikobeurteilung von alten Brcken unter Schiffsanprall,
Dissertation, TU Dresden, 2003.
[14] Starossek, U., Progressive Collapse of Structures: Nomenclature and Procedure, Structural
Engineering International Vol. 2, 2006.
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes
135
CHAPTER 7: COMBINATION RULES FOR BRIDGES IN EUROCODES
Milan Holick
1
, Jana Markov
1
1
Klokner Institute, Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic
Summary
The combination rules for bridges introduced in this Chapter are based on Eurocode
EN 1990/A1. The combinations of traffic loads with nontraffic actions and alternative
procedures for load combinations are presented here. An example of verification of the bridge
cantilever for the limit state of static equilibrium is included. Furthermore, selected results of
application of alternative combination rules for the design of prestressed concrete highway
bridge in the Bohemia are presented. Comparison of obtained action effects indicates that
alternative combination rules may lead to considerably diverse load effects. Further
harmonisation based on calibrations of partial factors and other safety elements is needed.
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background documents
EN 1990/A1 [2] provides basis for determination of combinations of actions for
ultimate and serviceability limit state verifications of bridges. The aim of this Chapter is to
describe principles of load combinations. Permanent actions, traffic loads and climatic actions
due to wind, snow and temperature are considered in accordance with relevant Parts of EN
1991. Supplementary information on the traffic load models provided in EN 19912 [3] is
given in the Background document [4] which is expected to be available on the JRC web site.
1.2 General principles
EN 1990/A1 [2] gives rules focused on the application of basis provided in EN 1990
[1] for the bridge design. The critical load cases should be determined for the selected design
situations and identified limit states.
Similarly as for buildings (see Annex A1 in [1]) the alternative combination rules for
the ultimate limit states provided in EN 1990/A1 [2] may lead to significantly diverse load
effects as illustrated in Section 5.
2 COMBINATION OF ACTIONS
2.1 General
The effects of actions that cannot occur simultaneously due to physical or functional
reasons should not be considered together in combinations of actions. In case when specific
measures are provided preventing some actions to act simultaneously, these combinations
need not be considered in analysis (e.g. when it is assured that some construction loads are not
simultaneously acting during a specific construction phase).
The expressions 6.9a to 6.12b in EN 1990 [1] are applied for the verification of
ultimate limit states and the expressions 6.14a to 6.16b are applied for the verification of the
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes
136
serviceability limit states in bridge design.
2.2 Fundamental combination of actions
Three alternatives procedures for fundamental combination of actions is provided for
bridges, similarly as for buildings. The choice of combination is the National Determined
Parameter (NDP) which may be nationally selected.
For example the fundamental combination of actions in bridge design in the Czech
Republic is based on the twin expressions (6.10a), (6.10b) given as
i k i
i
i Q k Q
j
P j k j G
Q Q P G
, , 0
1
, 1 , 1 , 0 1 ,
1
, ,
" " " " " "
>
+ + + (1)
+ + +
1
, , 0 , 1 , 1 ,
1
, ,
" " " " " "
j
i k i i Q k Q
j
P j k j G
Q Q P G (2)
where the less favourable expression needs to be considered. Where relevant, the favourable
or unfavourable design values of permanent actions G
d,sup
or G
d,inf
should be considered.
The application of the combination of actions according to the twin expressions
(6.10a), (6.10b) gives in common cases more uniform reliability level of bridges for various
ratios of the characteristic values of variable loads and permanent loads. Furthermore, it was
also decided in the Czech Republic to allow application of the unique expression (6.10)
+ + +
1
0 1 1
1 j
i , k i , i , Q , k , Q
j
P j , k j , G
Q " " Q " " P " " G (3)
Selected results of application of alternative combination rules for a prestressed
concrete road bridge is shown in the example 5.2 at the end of this Chapter.
The rules for simultaneous combinations of individual traffic load models and their
arrangements are provided in EN 19912 [3]. Five different and mutually exclusive groups of
traffic loads as given in [3] are shown in Table 1. Any group of traffic loads should be taken
into account as one variable action which is acting in combination with other variable actions.
Table 1. Assessment of groups of traffic loads (characteristic values of the multi
component action)
Carriageway Footways and
cycle tracks
Vertical loads Horizontal loads Vertical loads
only
Groups
of
loads
Main load
model LM1
Special
vehicles LM3
Crowd
loading LM4
Braking,
acceleration
forces
Centrifugal.
transverse
force
Uniformly
distributed loads
gr1 Characteristic
values
gr2 Frequent
values
Characteristic
values
Characteristic
values
gr3 Characteristic
values
gr4 Characteristic
values
Characteristic
values
gr5 See EN 1991
2
Characteristic
values
The rules for combinations of construction loads during execution for bridges were
transferred from EN 199116 [6] to EN 1990/A1 [2]. However, some rules for the
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes
137
verification of ultimate and serviceability limit states during execution and for combination of
construction loads with other variable loads remain till now in Annex A2 of EN 199116 [5].
It should be taken into account in appropriate cases that construction loads Q
c
act
simultaneously with other types of actions. Different construction loads (Q
ca
to Q
ce
) should be
considered according to the project conditions as one single action, or also as several
individual construction loads that are combined with other variable actions. In some cases it
need not be considered in one combination some variable actions. For example, it is rather
unlikely the simultaneous occurrence of construction load Q
ca
due to
working personnel with
small site equipment together with maximum wind or snow actions. For individual project
however, it may need be considered in combination snow and wind simultaneously with other
types of construction loads, e.g. with cranes. The characteristic values of climatic actions may
be reduced for shorttime construction periods on the basis of EN 199116 [6].
Where relevant, the thermal actions and water loads should be considered
simultaneously with construction loads. The various parameters governing water actions and
components of thermal actions should be taken into account when identifying appropriate
combinations with construction loads. The selection of actions to load combinations need to
be considered according to the conditions of individual project.
2.3 Combinations of actions for road bridges
Suplementary rules are introduced for load combinations on road bridges. The snow
load and wind actions need not to be combined with
 the braking and acceleration forces or the centrifugal forces or the associated group
of loads gr2
 the loads on footways and cycle tracks or with the associated group of loads gr3,
 the crowd loading (LM 4) or the associated group of loads gr4.
In common cases it is not necessary to consider the snow loads together with models
LM1 and LM2. However, in some mountain areas it may be also necessary to consider the
combination of snow with traffic.
LM1 or group of loads gr1a need not to be considered with wind actions greater
than
*
W
F or
Wk
F
0
.
For certain serviceability limit states of concrete bridges the infrequent combination of
actions is also recommended in EN 1990/A1 [2] given as
{ } 1 ; 1 ; ; ; E
, , 1 1 , infq , 1 ,
> = i j Q Q P G E
i k i k j k d
(4)
where the combination of actions in braquet may be expressed as
i k,
1
, 1 k,1 infq 1,
1
,
"+" "+" "+" Q Q P G
i
i
j
j k
>
(5)
The infrequent value of the traffic load corresponds to the mean return period of one
year which is based on the product of the characteristic value of variable load and factor
1,infq
. The recommended value of the factor for traffic loads
1,infq
= 0.8.
2.4 Combination rules for footbridges
Infrequent combination of variable actions is not considered in footbridge design. The
concentrated load (wheel load) Q
fwk
need not to be combined with any other variable actions
than those due to traffic.
In general, wind loads and thermal actions need not be taken into account
simultaneously in common cases.
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes
138
Snow loads need not be combined with groups of loads gr1 and gr2 for footbridges
unless otherwise specified for particular geographical areas and certain types of footbridges.
In case that fotbridges provide protection of the pedestrians and cyclists against all kinds of
unfavourable weather, the specific load combinations may be determined. The combination
similar to actions on buildings may be applied in which instead of relevant category of
imposed load the specific group of traffic loads is applied.
2.5 Combinations of actions for accidental design situations
One accidental action should be considered only in accidental load combination which
need not be combined with snow load or wind actions.
Models of accidental actions on bridges are given in EN 19912 [3], models of impact
forces due to cars, heavy vehicles and vessels on bridge substructures in EN 199117 [7].
Additional combinations of actions for other accidental design situations (e.g. combination of
road or rail traffic actions with avalanche, flood or scour effects) may be agreed for the
individual project.
2.6 Values of factors
factors for traffic loads, wind, thermal actions and construction loads are given for
road bridges in the following Table 2. The recommended values of factors are given for the
road traffic corresponding to adjusting factors
Qi
,
qi
,
qr
and
Q
equal to 1. The
recommended
0
value for thermal actions may in most cases be reduced to 0 for ultimate
limit states EQU, STR and GEO.
The characteristic values of wind actions and snow loads during execution are defined
in EN 199116 [6]. Representative values of water loads are not given in EN 1990/A1 [2].
They may be defined as NDP in the National Annex or for the individual project.
Table 2. Recommended values of factors for road bridges.
Type of action
0
1,infq
1
2
Traffic loads
gr1a
(LM1 +
pedestrian or
cycletrack
loads)
1)
TS (tandem system) 0.75 0.8 0.75 0
UDL (uniform) 0.40 0.8 0.40 0
pedestrian or cycle
track loads
2)
0.40 0.8 0.40 0
gr1b (single axle) 0 0.8 0.75 0
gr2 (horizontal forces) 0 0 0 0
gr3 (pedestrian loads) 0 0.8 0.40 0
gr4 (LM4 crowd loading) 0 0.8 0.75 0
gr5 (LM3 special vehicles) 0 0 0 0
Wind actions F
w
persistent design situation
transient design situation
0.6
0.8
0.6

0.2

0
0
F
w
* 1.0 1  
Thermal actions T
k
0.6 0.8 0.6 0.5
Snow loads Q
Sn,k
transient design situation 0.8   
Construction loads Q
c
1.0   1.0
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes
139
The recommended values of
0
,
1
and
2
for gr1a and gr1b are given for road traffic
corresponding to adjusting factors
Qi
,
qi
,
qr
and
Q
equal to 1. Those relating to UDL
correspond to common traffic scenarios, in which a rare accumulation of lorries can occur.
Other values may be expected for other classes of routes, or expected traffic, related to the
choice of the corresponding factors.
Recommended factors for footbridges are given in Table 3. The combination value
of the pedestrian and cycletrack load, mentioned in Table 4.4a of EN 19912 [3] is a reduced
value to which the factors
0
and
1
may be used.
The recommended
0
value for thermal actions may in most cases be reduced to 0 for
ultimate limit states EQU, STR and GEO.
Table 3. Recommended values of factors for footbridges.
Action
0
1
2
gr1 0.40 0.40 0
Traffic loads Q
fw
0 0 0
gr2 0 0 0
Wind forces F
w
0.3 0.2 0
Thermal actions T 0.6 0.6 0.5
Snow loads Q
Sn
(transient design situation) 0.8  0
Construction loads Q
c
1.0  1.0
3 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES
3.1 Design values of actions in persistent and transient design situations
The design values of actions and recommended partial factors given in EN 1990/A1 [2]
for the ultimate limit states (EQU) in the persistent and transient design situations are given in
Table 4.
The design values of actions and recommended partial factors given in EN 1990/A1 [2]
for the ultimate limit states (STR) in the persistent and transient design situations are given in
Table 5.
The design values of actions and recommended partial factors given in EN 1990/A1 [2]
for the ultimate limit states (STR/GEO) in the persistent and transient design situations are
given in Table 6.
For the design of geotechnical structures (e.g. footings, piles, piers, abutments) where
geotechnical actions and the resistance of the ground are involved the following three
alternative approaches recommended in EN 1990/A1 [2]
 Approach 1: Applying in separate calculations design values from Table 6(C) and
Table 5(B) to the geotechnical actions as well as the actions from the structure;
 Approach 2: Applying design values of actions from Table 6(B) to the geotechnical
actions as well as the actions from the structure;
 Approach 3: Applying design values of actions from Table 6(C) to the geotechnical
actions and, simultaneously, applying design values of actions from 5(B) to the
actions from the structure.
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes
140
Table 4. Design values of actions (EQU) (Set A)
Persistent
and transient
design
situation
Permanent actions
unfavourable favourable
Prestress Leading
variable
action
Accompanying variable
actions
main others
(if any)
Eq. (6.10)
Gj,sup
G
kj,sup
Gj,inf
G
kj,inf
P
P
Q,1
Q
k,1
Q,i
0,i
Q
k,i
The recommended set of partial factors:
Gj,sup
=1.05 for unfavourable actions and
Gj,inf
=0.95 for favourable permanent actions,
Qi
=1.35 for
unfavourable actions due to road and pedestrian traffic,
Q
=1.45 for unfavourable actions due to
railway traffic, reduced to
Q
=1.20 for load models SW/2 and unloaded train,
Qi
=1.5 for other
variable actions, 0 for favourable variable actions.
The values of partial factors for prestressing
P
are given in the relevant design Eurocodes.
For unfavourable construction loads in transient design situations
Q
=1.35.
When a counterweight is used, partial factor for its weight can be assumed
G,inf
=0.8.
For the verification of uplift of bearings of continuous bridges or in cases where the verification of
static equilibrium also involves the resistance of structural members (e.g. where the loss of static
equilibrium is prevented by stabilising systems or devices, e.g. anchors, stays or auxiliary columns),
as an alternative to two separate verifications based on Tables 4 (Set A) and 5 (Set B), a combined
verification, based on Table 4 (Set A), may be applied.
The following values of factors are recommended in the combined verification:
G,sup
=1.35,
G,inf
=1.25 for permanent actions,
Q
=1.35 for unfavourable actions due to road traffic
and pedestrians,
Q
= 1.45 for unfavourable actions due to railway traffic, reduced to
Q
=1.20 for load
models SW/2 and unloaded train;
Q
=1.50 for other variable actions and
Q
=1.35 for construction
loads. For favourable variable actions,
Q
=0, provided that applying
G,inf
=1,00 both to the favourable
and unfavourable part of permanent actions does not give more unfavourable effect.
Table 5. Design values of actions (STR) (Set B)
Persistent
and transient
design
situation
Permanent actions
unfavourable favourable
Prestress Leading
variable
action
Accompanying variable
actions
main others
(if any)
Exp. (6.10)
Gj,sup
G
kj,sup
Gj,inf
G
kj,inf
P
P
Q,1
Q
k,1
Q,i
0,i
Q
k,i
Exp. (6.10a)
Gj,sup
G
kj,sup
Gj,inf
G
kj,inf
P
P
Q,1
0,1
Q
k,1
Q,i
0,i
Q
k,i
Exp. (6.10b)
Gj,sup
G
kj,sup
Gj,inf
G
kj,inf
P
P
Q,1
Q
k,1
Q,i
0,i
Q
k,i
The choice between exp. 6.10, or 6.10a and 6.10b may be decided in the National Annex.
Recommended values:
Gj,sup
= 1.35 for unfavourable and
Gj,inf
= 1.0 for favourable permanent actions;
Q
= 1.35 for unfavourable actions due to road or pedestrian traffic;
Q
= 1.45 for unfavourable actions due to railway traffic, reduced to
Q
=1.20 for load models SW/2
and unloaded train;
For favourable variable actions,
Q
= 0.
The characteristic values of all permanent actions from one source may be multiplied by
G,sup
if
the total resulting action effect is unfavourable and
G,inf
if the total resulting action effect is
favourable.
For particular verifications, the values for
G
and
Q
may be subdivided into
g
and
q
and the
model uncertainty factor
Sd
(a value of
Sd
in recommended in the range 1.0 to 1.15).
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes
141
Table 6. Design values of actions (STR/GEO) (Set C)
Persistent and
transient
design
situation
Permanent actions
unfavourable favourable
Prestress Leading
variable
action
Accompanying variable actions
main others
(if any)
Exp. (6.10))
Gj,sup
G
kj,sup
Gj,inf
G
kj,inf
P
P
Q,1
Q
k,1
Q,i
0,i
Q
k,i
Recommended set of partial factors for actions:
Gj,sup
=
Gj,inf
=
Gset
=1.0 for permanent actions and actions due to settlements,
Q
=1.15 for unfavourable actions due to road and pedestrian traffic,
Q
=1.15 for unfavourable actions
due to railway traffic,
Q
= 1,30 for the variable part of horizontal earth pressure from soil, ground
water, free water and ballast,
Q
= 1.30 for all other unfavourable variable actions (0 for favourable).
The selection of the geotechnical approach is a NDP which may be given the National
Annex. For example it was decided in the Czech Republic to recommend the Approach 2 for
footings, piles, anchors, underground walls etc., and the Approach 3 is recommended to be
applied for the stability of the slopes.
The design values of actions for the ultimate limit states in the accidental and seismic
design situations are given in Table 7.
Table 7. Design values of actions for use in accidental and seismic combinations
Persistent and
transient
design
situation
Permanent actions
unfavourable favourable
Prestress Accidental
or seismic
action
Accompanying variable
actions
main others
(if any)
Accidental
exp. (6.11a/b)
G
kj,sup
G
kj,inf
P A
d
11
Q
k1
or
21
Q
k1
2,i
Q
k,i
Seismic
Exp. (6.12a/b)
G
kj,sup
G
kj,inf
P
I
A
Ek
or
A
Ed
2,i
Q
k,i
In the case of accidental design situations, the main variable action may be taken with its
frequent or quasipermanent values. The choice is given in the National Annex depending on the
accidental action under consideration.
For execution phases during which there is a risk of loss of static equilibrium, the
combination of actions is given as
k c, 2
1 1
"+" "+" " " " "
d inf kj, sup kj,
Q A P G G
j j
+ + (6)
where
k c
Q
,
is the characteristic value of construction loads as defined in EN 199116 [6], i.e.
the characteristic value of the relevant combination of groups Q
ca
, Q
cb
, Q
cc
, Q
cd
, Q
ce
and Q
cf
.
4 SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES
4.1 Design values of actions for serviceability verifications
Three combinations of actions are recommended for verification of serviceability
criteria. The design values of actions for the serviceability limit states are given in Table 8.
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes
142
Several serviceability criteria are recommended in EN 1992 to EN 1999 including
cracking in concrete structures.
Table 8 Design values of actions for use in serviceability limit states
Combination Permanent actions G
d
Prestress Variable actions Q
d
Unfavourable Favourable Leading Others
Characteristic
Frequent
Quasipermanent
G
k,j,sup
G
k,j,sup
G
k,j,sup
G
k,j,inf
G
k,j,inf
G
k,j,inf
P
P
P
Q
k,1
1,1
Q
k,1
2,1
Q
k,1
0,i
Q
k,i
2,i
Q
k,i
2,i
Q
k,i
5 EXAMPLES
Example 5.1 Verification of the ultimate limit states (EQU) during execution
The stability of a bridge cantilever during execution should be verified. The selfweight
G, construction loads Q
c
and wind actions W are acting on a bridge cantilever. The scheme is
illustrated in Figure 1.
a
b
g
d,inf
g
d,sup
Q
cc,d q
ca,d
q
cb,d
w
d
w
d
Figure 1. Actions on a bridge cantilever during an execution phase
It is assumed that the coefficient of variation of selfweight g is very small and
therefore, the mean value of the selfweight may be applied. Three construction loads are
present on the rightside of the bridge cantilever: the uniformly distributed load due to
working personnel with small site equipment q
ca
, the movable storage of materials q
cb
and
moveable heavy devices Q
cc
. Moreover, it is assumed a nonfavourable effect of the wind
forces w acting on the bridge cantilever (on the right side in the downwards direction, on the
left side in the upward direction.
The following condition given in (6.7) of EN 1990 [1] is applied for the verification of
static equilibrium
E
d, dst
E
d, stb
(7)
The destabilizing effects of actions are determined on the basis Table 4
E
d,dst
= 1.05 g
k
b
2
/2
+ 1.35 (q
ca,k
b
2
/2 + q
cb,k
b
2
/2 + Q
cc,k
b
2
) + 1,5
0
w
k
b
2
/2
and stabilizing effects of actions are given as
E
d,dst
= 0.95 g
k
a
2
/2
1.5 w
k
b
2
/2
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes
143
where the lengths of bridge cantilevers are a = 24 m and b = 27 m. The selfweight of the
prestressed concrete cantilever is determined on the basis of nominal dimensions of the box
girder crosssection considering the mean value of density. The bridge crosssectional area is
A = 7.6 m
2
and the density of prestressed concrete
c
= 25 kN/m
3
. The selfweight is
determined as
g
k
= A
c
c
=
7.6 25 = 190 kN/m
The heavy construction device Q
k,cc
(50 kN), construction loads due to working
personnel q
ca
(1 kN/m
2
) and movable storage of material q
cb
(0.2 kN/m
2
) are applied
considering the recommended values given in SN EN 199116 [6].
The wind action per 1 metre of bridge length is determined as w
k
= 6.9 kN/m (the
procedure for specification of wind actions is not included here).
The destabilising effects in case that the leading construction load (dominant) is present
may be determined
E
d,dst
=1.0519027
2
/2+1.35(5027
2
+127
2
/2+0.227
2
/2)+1.50.86.927
2
/2=117.4 MNm
and in case that the wind is a leading variable action
E
d,dst
= 1.0519027
2
/2+1.56.927
2
/2+1.35(5027
2
+127
2
/2+0,227
2
/2) = 118.2 MNm
and the stabilizing effects of actions are given as
E
d,stb
= 0.95 190 24
2
/2
1.5 6.9 24
2
/2 = 101 kNm.
The condition given by expression (7) is not satisfied and therefore, for assurance of the
cantilever stability it is necessary to accept additional measures. In case that the contraweight
is applied, the uncertainties in the position of the contraweight need to be considered or the
recommended partial factor
g,inf
= 0.8 applied according to Table 4.
Example 5.2 Selected results of application of alternative combination rules
Selected results of the application of alternative load combinations given by expressions
(6.10) or twin expressions (6.10a), (6.10b) for the analysis of internal forces of the highway
prestressed concrete bridge in ekanice are presented here. The bridge is a 13 span
continuous beam, length of spans from 22 m to 40.5 m. The first part of bridge is built of
beams (3 spans above the railway), characterised by the cross sections reported in Figure 2.a,
the second part is built of box girder, see Figure 2.b.
The selfweight, permanent loads, the group of traffic loads gr1 and thermal actions are
taken into account.
The two alternative approaches for the vertical difference component of thermal actions
provided in EN 199115[5] are also considered here (linear approach 1 and nonlinear
approach 2). The approach 2 is selected in the National Annex of the Czech Republic.
Figure 2.a. Crosssections of the ekanice bridge on highway D3 (Prague  Tbor).
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes
144
Figure 2.b. Box girder of the ekanice bridge on highway D3 (Prague  Tbor).
Selected results of comparative studies of the highway bridge in ekanice are given in
Tables 9 to 12.
Table 9. Moments based on alternative procedures given in EN 1990/A1[2] and EN
199115 [5], hogging crosssections.
Type of cross
section, EN 1991
15 approach No.
Moments in MNm
(6.10) Q
1
(6.10) T
1
(6.10a) (6.10b) Q
1
(6.10b) T
1
Beam  2 12.47 9.15 7.68 8.67 5.36
Box girder  1 36.26 32.67 27.88 28.92 25.32
Box girder  2 31.39 24.55 23.01 24.05 17.20
Table 10. Moments based on alternative procedures given in EN 1990/A1 [2] and EN
199115 [5], sagging crosssections.
Type of cross
section,
EN 199115
approach No.
Moments in MNm
(6.10) Q
1
(6.10) T
1
(6.10a) (6.10b) Q
1
(6.10b) T
1
Beam  2 14.48 13.42 10.83 12.59 11.54
Box girder  1 34.97 34.65 27.61 30.60 30.28
Box girder  2 31.99 29.69 24.64 27.63 25.32
Table 11. Upper stresses based on alternative procedures given in EN 1990/A1 [2] and
EN 199115 [5], hogging crosssections
Type of cross
section, EN
199115
approach No.
Stresses in MPa
(6.10) Q
1
(6.10) T
1
(6.10a) (6.10b) Q
1
(6.10b) T
1
Beam  2 1.20 1.08 0.51 0.16 0.28
Box girder  1 1.23 0.85 0.34 0.45 0.07
Box girder  2 2.85 3.55 1.96 2.07 2.77
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes
145
Hogging and sagging moments based on alternative combination rules given by
expression (6.10) and twin expressions (6.10a,6.10b) of EN 1990/A1 [2] considered for two
types of bridge crosssections are shown in Tables 9 and 10, for stresses in Tables 11 and 12.
The leading variable action is noted as Q
1
for traffic loads or T
1
for thermal actions.
Table 12 Lower stresses based on alternative procedures given in EN 1990/A1 [2] and
EN 199115 [5], hogging crosssections
Type of cross
section, EN
199115
approach No.
Stresses in MPa
(6.10) Q
1
(6.10) T
1
(6.10a) (6.10b) Q
1
(6.10b) T
1
Beam  2 6.34 3.26 2.82 4.52 1.44
Box girder  1 3.54 3.48 2.27 2.78 2.73
Box girder  2 1.81 0.57 0.53 1.05 0.16
6 REFERENCES
[1] EN 1990 Eurocode  Basis of structural design. CEN, Brussels, 2002.
[2] EN 1990/A1 Application for bridges. CEN, Brussels, 2002.
[3] EN 19921 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. CEN,
Brussels, 2003.
[4] Sedlacek G. et al., Background document to EN 19912 Traffic loads for road bridges
and consequences for the design, JRC Report, 2009
[5] EN 199115 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 5: Thermal actions. CEN,
Brussels, 2003
[6] EN 199116 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 1: Actions during execution.
CEN, Brussels, 2005
[7] EN 199117 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 1: Accidental actions. CEN,
Brussels, 2006.
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes
146
Chapter 8: Case study  Design of a concrete bridge
147
CHAPTER 8: CASE STUDY  DESIGN OF A CONCRETE BRIDGE
Pietro Croce
1
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Structural Division, University of Pisa, Italy
Summary
In this chapter an example of a simply supported prestressed concrete road bridge with
open cross section. The load analysis is performed according to the provisions of EN 1990
and EN 1991, with special emphasis on traffic loads given in EN 19912. Aim of the case
study is to clarify load application and load combinations, taking into account their influence
on the local and global behaviour of the bridge members. Static and fatigue assessments are
out of the scope of the present paper and are not considered here.
1 INTRODUCTION
In the present case study, the design of a prestressed concrete road bridge is discussed,
with special emphasis on loads and load combinations.
Loads are determined according to EN 199111 [1], EN 199114 [2], EN 199115
[3], EN 19912 [4], and load combinations are derived from EN 1990 [5].
The simply supported bridge, which covers an effective span of 45.0 m (figure 1), is
located in a urban area and it is characterised by an open cross section composed by four
precast prestressed concrete longitudinal beams set at constant spacing of 2.95 m (figure 2),
connected by four stiff transverse beams. The transverse beam spacing is 15.0 m.
The upper flanges of the precast longitudinal beams are duly connected to a 0.30 m
thick concrete slab, cast in situ in a second phase. The concrete slab is not prestressed.
Only end transverse beams (diaphragms) are connected to the concrete slab.
15 15 15
45
Transverse beams End transverse beam End transverse beam
Figure 1. Static scheme of the bridge
2 THE SIMPLY SUPPORTED BRIDGE
2.1 General
The total width of the bridge is 11.8 m. The carriageway, 7.50 m wide, is separated
from the two walkways, each one 1.50 m wide, by means of two fixed safety barriers.
The height of the longitudinal beams, whose geometry is represented in figure 3, is
2.76 m; therefore the total height of the cross section is 3.06 m.
The distance between the bridges intrados and an underlying roadway is 6.0 m.
The surfacing is made by a 60 mm thick asphalt layer.
Chapter 8: Case study  Design of a concrete bridge
148
7.5 1.5 0.5
11.8
1.5 0.5
Figure 2. Cross section of the bridge
0.8
2.95 2.95 2.95
11.8
2
.
7
6
3
.
0
6
0
.
3
0
.
6
1
.
8
1
0
.
3
5
0
.
3
0.9
0
.
2
0
.
3
5
0
.
6
0.98
0.82
Figure 3. Geometry of the cross section
2.2 Mass properties of the longitudinal beams
The area A of each precast longitudinal beam is 1.27 m
2
.
The centroid of the precast beam is located 1.24 m away from its intrados and the
principal moments of inertia of the beam about its centroidal axes are J
x
=1.099 m
4
about the
horizontal axis x and J
y
=0.045 m
4
about the vertical axis y.
Once cast the slab, the mass properties of each beam modify as follows: area A=2.153
m
2
; centroid located 1.93 m away from the intrados; principal moments of inertia of the beam
about its centroidal axes J
x
=2.564 m
4
about the horizontal axis x and J
y
=0.687 m
4
about the
vertical axis y.
The moment of inertia J
y
of the whole cross section about its centroidal vertical axis y
is finally 96.453 m
4
.
2.3 Structural materials
Materials are chosen according to EN 199211 [6] and EN 19922 [7]
The strength class of structural normal weight concrete is C50/60.
Reinforcing steel is B450C.
Prestress is obtained using posttensioned prestressing tendons.
Chapter 8: Case study  Design of a concrete bridge
149
3 LOAD ANALYSIS
3.1 Structural selfweight
Considering a density =25.0 kN/m
3
for reinforced concrete, the nominal selfweight
of each precast beam is:
kN/m 0 . 31 m 24 . 1 kN/m 0 . 5 2
2 3
1 ,
= = = A g
b k
.
(1)
The selfweight of the castinsitu r.c. slab pertaining to each longitudinal beam is
kN/m 13 . 22 m 2.95 m 3 . 0 kN/m 0 . 5 2
3
1 ,
= = = A g
s k
.
(2)
The total selfweight of each transverse beam is
kN 72 . 11 m 69 . 4 kN/m 0 . 5 2
3 3
1 ,
= = =
t t k
V G ,
(3)
being V
t
its volume.
3.2 Self weight of non structural elements
Self weights of non structural elements to be considered are those due to the
waterproofing, to the 60 mm asphalt surfacing, to the safety barriers and to the parapets. For
global verifications it is a reasonable approximation to consider these loads distributed per
unit surface, by spreading out the weight of safety barriers and parapets.
All things considered, the equivalent uniformly distributed loads corresponding to the
selfweight of non structural elements g
k,1p
is about 2.2 kN/m
2
, so that the load per unit length
of the bridge g
k,2
is
kN/m 96 . 25 m 80 . 11 kN/m 2 . 2
3
2 ,
= =
k
g .
(4)
3.3 Traffic loads
According to EN 19912 [4], traffic loads should be applied on the carriageway,
longitudinally and transversally, in the most adverse position, according to the shape of the
influence surface, in order to maximize or minimize the considered load effects.
The first operation to be performed consists of determining the width w of the
carriageway and the number of notional lanes.
The carriageway width w depends, first of all, on whether the walkways are accessible
to vehicular traffic or not. In the present case, as walkways are protected by fixed safety
barriers, only crowd loading needs to be considered on them.
The carriageway width w is given by the clear distance between the safety barriers,
therefore w=7.50 m.
As w>6.0 m, each notional lane is 3.0 m wide and the maximum number of notional
lanes n
l
which can be considered is given by
2
3
50 . 7
Int
m 3
Int =
(
=
(
=
w
n
l
,
(5)
and the maximum width of remaining area w
r
is 1.50 m (figure 4),
m 50 . 1 m 0 . 3 2 m 50 . 7 m 0 . 3 = = =
l r
n w w . (6)
As known, EN 19912 calls for four separate static load models, being the single axle
load model n. 2 (LM2) devoted only to local verifications.
Chapter 8: Case study  Design of a concrete bridge
150
notional lane n. 1
notional lane n. 2
remaining area
7
.
5
3
.
0
3
.
0
1
.
5
Figure 4. Notional lane arrangement on the carriageway
For global verifications of the urban bridge in question, only load model n. 1 (LM1)
and the expressly required crowd loading, load model n. 4 (LM4), are relevant.
Load model n. 3 corresponding to special vehicles (LM3) is not considered, as the
bridge is not concerned with special vehicle transit.
On the i th notional lane, the main load model LM1 provides for a tandem system of
axles weighing
Qi
Q
ik
, accompanied by a uniformly distributed load
qi
q
ik
, being
Qi
and
qi
the adjustment factors. In the present work it has been assumed
Qi
=
qi
=1.0 for each lane,
while the values Q
ik
and q
ik
are summarized in table 1.
Table 1. Characteristic values for load model n. 1 (LM1)
Notional lane Q
k
[kN] q
k
[kN/m
2
]
Lane 1 300 9.0
Lane 2 200 2.5
Remaining area 0 2.5
Regarding the crowd loading, EN 19912 prescribes a nominal value of 5.00 kN/m
2
,
and a combination value of 3.0 kN/m
2
(2.5 kN/m
2
in the Italian National Annex).
LM1 and LM4 loads must be distributed in the most unfavourable way (both
transversally and longitudinally) for the effect under consideration, bearing in mind, however,
that a single lane cannot hold more than one tandem system, and that the tandem system, if
present, must be considered in full, that is to say, with all the four wheels.
3.4 Wind actions
Wind actions can be represented by vertical and horizontal equivalent static forces.
Vertical force is orthogonal to the roadway plane, while horizontal forces are
represented by two components, parallel and orthogonal to the bridges longitudinal axis,
respectively.
The equivalent pressure exerted by the wind can be calculated through the expression
( ) ( )
2
2
b e e e p
v z c z q
= ,
(7)
in which is the air density, which is assumed to be constant and equal to 1.25 kg/m
3
, v
b
is
the basic wind velocity and c
e
(z
e
) is the socalled exposure coefficient, given by
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) [ ]
e v e e r e e
z I z c z c z c + = 7 1
2
0
2
,
(8)
where z
e
stands for the reference altitude over the ground.
Expression (8) depends on the roughness coefficient c
r
, on the orography factor c
0
and
on the turbulence intensity I
v
. The orography factor, taking into account any significant local
Chapter 8: Case study  Design of a concrete bridge
151
variations in the sites orography, can usually be assumed equal to 1.0. I
v
and c
r
are defined by
the following expressions
( )
( )
( )
<


\

=
z z z I
z z
z
z
z c
k
z I
v
e
i
e v
min min
min
0
0
if
m 200 if
ln
,
(9)
( )
( )
( )
<


\

=
z z z c
z z
z
z
z k
z c
r
e r
e r
min min
min
0
if
m 200 if ln
,
(10)
where k
i
is the turbulence factor, usually set to 1.0. In formulae (9) and (10), the terrain factor
k
r
, the roughness length z
0
and the minimum height z
min
depend on the terrain category.
As said, the bridge in question is located in an urban area which can be classified in
terrain category IV, that is an area in which at least 15 % of the surface is covered with
buildings whose average height exceeds 15 m. For terrain category IV it results z
0
=1.0 m,
z
min
=10.0 m, k
r
=0.234.
The reference height z
e
represents the distance between the lowest ground level to the
centre of the bridge deck structure, disregarding other parts (e.g. parapets) of the reference
areas Recalling that the intrados of the structure is 6.0 m above ground level, it is
z
e
=(6.0+0.53.06) m=7.53 m (figure 5).
3
.
0
6
1
.
5
3
6
z
e
=
7
.
5
3
Figure 5. Evaluation of the reference height z
e
for wind actions
Chapter 8: Case study  Design of a concrete bridge
152
As z
e
<z
min
, it holds
( ) ( ) 434 . 0
m 0 . 1
m 10
ln 0 . 1
1
min
=

\

= = z I z I
v e v ,
(11)
( ) ( ) 539 . 0
m 0 . 1
m 10
ln 234 . 0
min
=

\

= = z c z c
r e r
,
(12)
so that
( ) ( ) [ ] 176 . 1 434 . 0 7 1 0 . 1 539 . 0
2 2
min
= + = = z c z c
e e e
.
(13)
Basic wind velocity v
b
is function of geographic site. Here we assume v
b
=27 m/s,
obtaining an equivalent static pressure
( )
2 2 2
kN/m 54 . 0 N/m 9 . 535 0 . 27
2
25 . 1
176 . 1 = =
e p
z q .
(14)
Said x the horizontal direction orthogonal to the bridges axis, the force F
wk,x
is
( )
x ref x f e p x wk
A c z q F
, , ,
= ,
(15)
where the coefficient c
f,x
depends on the ratio between the decks width b and the total decks
height d
tot
exposed to wind.
When the bridge is unloaded the exposed height is 4.26 m, as the presence of two open
safety barriers and two open parapets is equivalent to an increase of 1.2 m in the exposed
height.
For unloaded bridge, the coefficient c
f,x
is
669 . 1
26 . 4
8 . 11
3 . 0 5 . 2 3 . 1 ; 3 . 0 5 . 2 max ; 4 . 2 min
,
= =


\



\

=
tot
x f
d
b
c . (16)
If must be noted that the simplified approach proposed in EN199114 [2] allowing to
set c
f,x
=1.3 is generally unsafesided.
Using (16), the force F
wk,x
for unloaded bridge is then (figure 6)
( ) kN/m 84 . 3 26 . 4 669 . 1 54 . 0
, , ,
= = =
x ref x f e p x wk
A c z q F .
(17)
1
.
2
Fwk,x
Figure 6. Equivalent static force F
wk,x
(unloaded bridge)
Chapter 8: Case study  Design of a concrete bridge
153
When the bridge is loaded, the exposed height increases by 2.0 m (3.0 m in the Italian
National Annex), so it becomes 5.06 m (6.06 m).
In that case the coefficient c
f,x
is then
80 . 1
06 . 5
8 . 11
3 . 0 5 . 2 0 . 1 ; 3 . 0 5 . 2 max ; 4 . 2 min
,
= =


\



\

=
tot
x f
d
b
c , (18)
or, according to the Italian National Annex,
916 . 1
06 . 6
8 . 11
3 . 0 5 . 2 0 . 1 ; 3 . 0 5 . 2 max ; 4 . 2 min
,
= =


\



\

=
tot
x f
d
b
c , (19)
and also for loaded bridge the simplification c
f,x
=1.3 results unsafesided.
Since
0w
=0.6, the combination values
0w
F
wk,x
for the equivalent wind force for
loaded bridge result (figure 7)
( ) kN/m 95 . 2 06 . 5 8 . 1 54 . 0 6 . 0
, , 0 , 0
= = =
x ref x f e p w x wk w
A c z q F ,
(20)
( ) kN/m 76 . 3 06 . 6 916 . 1 54 . 0 6 . 0
, , 0 , 0
= = =
x ref x f e p w x wk w
A c z q F ,
(21)
respectively.
2 m EN 199114
3 m Italian National Annex
wind action 0 Fwk,x
Figure 7. Equivalent static force
0w
F
wk,x
(loaded bridge)
Regarding the vertical action, lacking more precise data from wind tunnel tests, the
coefficient c
f,z
can be set to
9 . 0
,
=
z f
c , (22)
where the sign is determined by the most unfavourable situation. As in that case the reference
area is the horizontal projection of the bridge deck, F
wk,z
is
( ) ( ) kN/m 74 . 5 m 80 . 11 9 . 0 54 . 0
, , ,
= = =
z ref z f e p z wk
A c z q F ,
(23)
applied with an eccentricity, e, with respect to the longitudinal axis of the bridge
m 95 . 2
4
m 80 . 11
4
= = =
d
e .
(24)
Chapter 8: Case study  Design of a concrete bridge
154
The vertical force F
wk,z
is much smaller than the permanent loads, therefore, according
to EN 199114, it could be disregarded.
Finally, in the longitudinal direction y, the action to be considered is 25% of that for
the direction orthogonal to the axis, but it is not relevant in this case.
3.5 Thermal actions
As we are dealing with a statically determined structure, uniform and linear thermal
variations should be taken into account only to calculate deformations of the structure and, if
relevant, effects of friction forces in bearings.
Non linear thermal variations cause stresses, but they are not particularly relevant in
the present example.
Assuming that in the site under consideration the maximum and minimum air shade
temperatures with an annual probability of being exceeded of 0.02 are T
max
=40 C and T
min
=
10 C, respectively, the uniform bridge temperature components for a concrete bridge result
T
e,max
=41.7 C and T
e,min
=1.8 C (figure 8).
50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1
2
3
3
2
1
Tmin Tmax
T
e
,
m
i
n
T
e
,
m
a
x
Figure 8. Evaluation of T
e,max
and T
e,min
Setting the initial bridge temperature T
0
to 20 C, the characteristic values of the
maximum expansion and contraction ranges, T
N,exp
and T
N,con
, result so
C 7 . 21 20 7 . 41
0 max , exp
= = = T T T
e N,
,
(25)
C 8 . 21 ) 8 . 1 ( 20
min , 0 con
= = =
e N,
T T T .
(26)
Linearly varying vertical temperature difference components can be set to
T
M,heat
=+15 C for top warmer than bottom and to T
M,cool
=+8 C for bottom warmer than
top (figure 9).
Deeper investigations are out of the scope of the present example.
Chapter 8: Case study  Design of a concrete bridge
155
15 C
8 C
Figure 9. Simplified temperature distributions along the height of the cross section
4 STRESS CALCULATION
4.1 Global behaviour of the structure
Since transverse beams are much stiffer than longitudinal beams, transverse load
distribution can be studied through the classical CourbonEngesser theory, which assumes
that transverse beams can be modelled as rigid beams resting on linear elastic supports,
corresponding to the longitudinal beams.
When the cross section is made of n longitudinal beams, the reaction R
i
induced in the
ith longitudinal beam by a concentrated load P, applied with an eccentricity e
1
with respect to
the vertical centroidal axis of the deck, is given by
(
(
(
+ =
= =
n
j
j j
i
n
j
j
i i
d J
e d
J
J P R
1
2
1
1
1
,
(27)
where d
i
is the distance of the ith longitudinal beam from the vertical centroidal axis and J
i
is
the moment of inertia of the ith longitudinal beam.
If the n longitudinal beams are identical, expression (27) simplifies in
(
(
(
+ =
=
n
j
j
i
i
d
e d
n
P R
1
2
1
1
,
(28)
that clearly indicates that the most heavily stressed beams are the external ones.
When, as in the present example, the longitudinal beams are also equally spaced,
expression (28) can be further simplified and for the external beams it becomes
( )
(
+
+ =
1
6 1
1
1
n n
e
n
P R , (29)
said the spacing of the longitudinal beams.
Setting P=1, the above mentioned formulae allow to determine the influence lines of
the load pertaining to each beam. In figures 10 and 11 are illustrated the influence lines
concerning loads on the external beam n. 1 and on the internal beam n. 2, respectively.
From these influence lines it can be easily derived the influence lines for shear forces
and bending moments acting on relevant cross sections of the transverse beam. For example,
in figure 12 it is illustrated the influence line for bending moment in the cross section AA of
the transverse beam.
Chapter 8: Case study  Design of a concrete bridge
156
0
.
7
0
.
4
0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3
5
0
.
8
5
1
2 3 4
Figure 10. Influence line for load on the external longitudinal beam (n. 1)
0
.
4
0
.
3
0
.
2
0
.
4
5
1
2 3 4
0
.
1
0
.
0
5
Figure 11. Influence line for load on the internal longitudinal beam (n. 2)
4.2 Local effects on the slab
Since the concrete slab behaves like a continuous plate supported by the longitudinal
beams, main stresses in it are in the transverse direction, except that in the neighbourhood of
end diaphragms, where the slab is connected to end diaphragms themselves.
For the evaluation of the local effects, the wheel contact pressures can be determined
resorting to the well known hypothesis of 45 diffusion of the loads through the surfacing and
the slab. In this way, recalling that the surfacing thickness is 60 mm and the slab thickness is
300 mm, the equivalent contact area dimensions result 820820 mm
2
for the wheels of the
tandem axle systems of LM1 (figure 13) and 1020770 mm
2
for the wheels of the isolated
axle of LM2 (figures 14), respectively.
Chapter 8: Case study  Design of a concrete bridge
157
1
2 3 4

0
.
3
0
0
.
4
0
.
1

0
.
2
0

0
.
6
5

0
.
3
5
A
A
Figure 12. Influence line for bending moment in section AA of the transverse beam
400
820
4
5
6
0
3
0
0
Figure 13. Load dispersal for the wheel of
the tandem system of LM 1
600
1020
4
5
6
0
3
0
0
Figure 14. Load dispersal for the wheel of
the single axle of LM 2
Under these hypotheses, the relative contact pressures result
2
1
kN/m 1 . 233
82 . 0 82 . 0
150
=
=
k Q
p ,
(30)
for a single wheel of the heaviest tandem system of LM1 and
2
kN/m 6 . 254
77 . 0 02 . 1
200
=
=
Qak
p ,
(31)
for a single wheel of the isolated axle load of LM 2.
Chapter 8: Case study  Design of a concrete bridge
158
4.3 Calculation of the main structure under traffic actions
4.3.1 Effects of the selfweight and dead loads
Recalling expressions (1) and (2), the characteristic value of the uniformly distributed
selfweight is
kN/m 13 . 53
, 1 ,
= + =
s k b k k
g g G ,
(32)
while the effect of the weight of each transverse beam on each longitudinal beam is a
concentrated load of 2.93 kN, placed 15.0 m away from the support.
From expression (4) the dead load of non structural parts pertaining to each
longitudinal beam is 6.49 kN/m.
Under permanent loads, the maximum bending moment occurs at midspan (cross
section C) and it is given
( ) kNm 3 . 15135 kNm 0 . 15 93 2 0 . 45 62 . 59
8
1
3 4 8
1
2 , 1 2
=

\

+ = + = .
L
G
L G C M
t k
k k g
,
(33)
while the maximum shear force occurs at support (cross section A) and it results
( ) kN 4 . 1344 kN 93 2 0 . 45 62 . 59
2
1
4 2
1
, 1
=

\

+ = + = .
G
L G A V
t k
k k g
.
(34)
4.3.2 Effects of traffic loads on main beams
The influence lines to be considered for transversal distribution of traffic loads have
those previously discussed, shown in figures 10 and 11.
For an external beam, that is the most heavily loaded, the most unfavourable load
arrangements are the one represented in figure 15 for traffic loads and the one represented in
figure 16 for crowd loading.
0
.
7
0
.
4
0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3
5
0
.
8
5
1
2 3 4
Q =300 kN
q =9 kN/m
2
q =2.5 kN/m
2
1k
Q =300 kN
1k
1k
Q =200 kN
2k
Q =200 kN
2k
q =3.0 kN/m
2
2
0
.
7
6
0
.
4
8
0
.
1
7
2k fk
2
q =2.5 kN/m
2
rk
0
.
0
1
Figure 15. Most unfavourable traffic load arrangement for beam n. 1
Chapter 8: Case study  Design of a concrete bridge
159
0
.
7
0
.
4
0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3
5
0
.
8
5
1
2 3 4
q =5.0 kN/m
2
q =5.0 kN/m
0
.
7
6
fk
fk
0
.
3
1
2
Figure 16. Most unfavourable LM4 (crowd loading) arrangement for beam n. 1
When traffic loads are taken into account (figure 15), to beam n. 1 pertain a
concentrated load
kN 356 17 . 0 200 2 48 . 0 300 2 = + =
k
Q ,
(35)
and a uniformly distributed load
kN/m 66 . 17 01 . 0 5 . 2 21 . 0 17 . 0 5 . 2 0 . 3 48 . 0 0 . 9 0 . 3 76 . 0 0 . 3 5 . 1 = + + + =
k
q .
(36)
Considering the tandem system as a unique concentrated load (knife load), it is
( ) kNm 2 . 8475
4
0 . 45
356 0 . 45 66 . 17
8
1
4 8
1
2 2
max
= 
\

+ = + =
L Q
L q C M
k
k k q
,
(37)
and
( ) kN 3 . 753 356 0 . 45 66 . 17
2
1
2
1
max
= 
\

+ = + =
k k k q
Q L q A V .
(38)
When crowd loading (LM4) is considered instead (figure 16), to beam n. 1 pertains
only a uniformly distributed load
kN/m 31 . 15 31 . 0 0 . 5 2 . 6 76 . 0 0 . 5 5 . 1 = + =
k
q ,
(39)
whose effects are, in the present example, less severe than those caused by lorry traffic.
4.3.3 Effects of traffic loads on transverse beams
Stresses in transverse beams are caused only by traffic loads.
Considering the just mentioned influence line (figure 12), the load arrangements that
determine maximum and minimum bending moment in cross section AA of the transverse
beam are those illustrated in figures 17 and 18.
With the load arrangement of figure 17, the bending moment in section AA results
( )
( ) ( )
( )
kNm 2 . 922
11 . 0 89 . 0 07 . 0 3 15 5 . 2 07 . 0 200 15
29 . 0 2 . 2 305 . 0 8 . 0 9 23 . 0 33 . 0 300
95 . 2
max
=
(
+ + +
+ + +
=
k q
AA M ,
(40)
Chapter 8: Case study  Design of a concrete bridge
160
while with the crowd loading arrangement of figure 18 it is
( )
( )
kNm 7 . 254 15
06 . 0 27 . 1 07 . 0
57 . 0 26 . 0 43 . 0 5 . 1
5 95 . 2
min
=
(


\

+
+ +
=
k q
AA M .
(41)
1
2 3 4

0
.
3
0
0
.
4
0
.
1

0
.
2
0

0
.
6
5

0
.
3
5
A
A
Q =300 kN
q =9 kN/m
q =2.5 kN/m
2
1k
Q =300 kN
1k
1k
2k
Q =200 kN
2k
Q =200 kN
2k
2
2
2
0
.
0
2
0
.
2
1
0
.
3
3
0
.
2
3
0
.
1
8
q =2.5 kN/m
2
rk
0
.
1
1
Figure 17. Load arrangement maximizing M(AA) in the transverse beam
1
2 3 4

0
.
3
0
0
.
4
0
.
1

0
.
2
0

0
.
6
5

0
.
3
5
A
A
q =5.0 kN/m
fk
2
q =5.0 kN/m
fk
2
q =5.0 kN/m
fk
2
q =5.0 kN/m
fk
2

0
.
2
6

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
7

0
.
4
3
Figure 18. Load arrangement minimizing M(AA) in the transverse beam
Chapter 8: Case study  Design of a concrete bridge
161
4.3.4 ULS combinations for permanent and traffic loads
Adopting expression (6.10) of EN 1990 and recalling that in ULS structural
verifications (STR) partial factor for permanent loads,
G
, is set to 1.35 for unfavourable
effects and to 1.0 for favourable effects, and partial factor for traffic loads,
Q
, is set to 1.35
for unfavourable effects and to 0 for favourable effects, design values of stresses can be
obtained.
Maximum bending moment at midspan M(C)
dmax
and maximum shear force at end
support V(A)
dmax
are
( ) kNm 2 . 31874 ) ( 35 . 1 ) ( 35 . 1
max
= + =
k q k g d
C M C M C M .
(42)
and
( ) kN 9 . 2831 ) ( 35 . 1 ) ( 35 . 1
max
= + =
k q k g d
Q V A V A V .
(43)
Design value of braking or acceleration forces depends on the vertical loads applied on
notional lane n. 1 and it results
kN 0 . 650 45) 2.7 360 ( 35 . 1 ) 1 . 0 2 (0.6 35 . 1
1 1 1 max
= + = + = L w q Q Q
k k ld
.
(44)
This value must be combined with an appropriate combination value of vertical traffic
load, corresponding to its frequent value. Recalling that
1
=0.75 for the tandem systems of
LM1 and
1
=0.4 for the uniformly distributed load component of LM1, loads pertaining to
beam n. 1 (see expressions (35) and (36)) become
( ) kN 267 17 . 0 200 2 48 . 0 300 2 75 . 0 = + =
k
Q ,
(45)
and
( ) kN/m 06 . 7 01 . 0 5 . 2 21 . 0 17 . 0 5 . 2 3 48 . 0 0 . 9 0 . 3 76 . 0 3 5 . 1 4 . 0 = + + + =
k
q ,
(46)
so that maximum bending moment in C and maximum shear force in A result
( ) kNm 0 . 6469
4
45 276
8
45 06 . 7
1.35
4 8
1
35 . 1
2
2
max
=
(
(


\

+
= 
\

+ =
L Q
L q C M
k
k d q
(47)
and
( ) kN 0 . 575 267
2
0 . 45 06 . 7
35 . 1
2
1
35 . 1
max
= 
\

+
= 
\

+ =
k k d q
Q L q A V .
(48)
When the leading traffic loads are vertical ones, the accompanying value of the
braking and acceleration forces are to be defined in National Annex and can be set to zero.
4.3.5 SLS combinations for permanent and traffic loads
Concerning SLS verifications, combinations of permanent and traffic load are
generally relevant only for characteristic and frequent load combinations, as quasipermanent
values of traffic loads are zero, except in very particular cases.
Significant load arrangements to be considered look very similar to the ones just
illustrated regarding ULS verifications, so they will not be further discussed.
As just recalled, it is necessary to stress that frequent values of traffic loads are
obtained via the
1
factors, which depend on the nature of the load: in fact
1
=0.75 for the
Chapter 8: Case study  Design of a concrete bridge
162
tandem systems of LM1, for the isolated single axle (LM2) and for crowd loading (LM4),
while
1
=0.40 for the uniformly distributed load component of LM1.
4.4 Wind effects
Partial factor
Q
for wind actions in ULS combinations is
Q
=1.50 if unfavourable and
Q
=0 if favourable.
4.4.1 Design effects of vertical wind actions
The vertical component of the pressure exerted by the wind, as discussed in 3.4, is a
uniformly distributed load acting on the entire length of the bridge with an eccentricity e=2.95
m.
For unloaded bridge it results
kN/m 61 . 8 kN/m 74 . 5 5 . 1
, ,
= = =
z wk Q z wd
F F ,
(49)
so that the design wind actions on the external beams become
kN/m 74 . 4
95 . 2 20
95 . 2 61 . 8 6
4
61 . 8
= 
\

+ =
wd
q .
(50)
For loaded bridge, the combination value
0w
q
wk
=2.84 kN/m should be considered,
in place of q
wd
.
4.4.2 Design effects of horizontal wind actions
Design values of horizontal wind action should derived from expressions (17) for
unloaded bridge and from expressions (20) or (21) for loaded bridge.
For unloaded bridge, the design load is
kN/m 76 . 5 kN/m 84 . 3 5 . 1
, ,
= = =
x wk Q x wd
F F ,
(51)
applied with an eccentricity of e
z
=2.13 m with respect to the bearings plane.
For loaded bridge, instead, the design load is
kN/m 43 . 4 kN/m 95 . 2 5 . 1
, 0 , 0
= = =
x wk w Q x wd w
F F ,
(52)
applied with an eccentricity of e
z
=2.53 m, according to EN 19912, or
kN/m 64 . 5 kN/m 76 . 3 5 . 1
, 0 , 0
= = =
x wk w Q x wd w
F F ,
(53)
applied with an eccentricity of e
z
=3.03 m, according to Italian National Annex.
Horizontal actions determine, as well as bending moments in the horizontal plane M
z
,
total horizontal support reaction at each end given by
L F R
x wk x d
=
, ,
5 . 0 or L F R
x wk w x d , 0 ,
5 . 0 = ,
(54)
and vertical reactions on the supports of the external beams given by


\

=
95 . 2 20
5 . 0 6
,
,
z x wk
z d
e L F
R or


\

=
95 . 2 20
5 . 0 6
, 0
,
z x wk w
z d
e L F
R
.
(55)
4.5 Effects of thermal variations
As said, uniform and linearly varying temperature variations induce only
displacements and secondary stress states due to friction in bearings, which can be determined
Chapter 8: Case study  Design of a concrete bridge
163
considering that the coefficient of thermal expansion for prestressed concrete is
T
=1010
6
C.
5 FINAL REMARKS
In the present chapter, effects of loads and load combinations on a simply supported
concrete bridge with open cross section are discussed.
The road bridge is located in an urban area, so that also crowd loading needs to be
explicitly taken into account.
Application of permanent, climatic and traffic actions, derived from the relevant parts
of Eurocode 1, is illustrated in detail, paying special attention to traffic loads.
As the transverse beams are much stiffer than the longitudinal beams, transverse load
distribution has been studied resorting to the CourbonEngesser theory.
Load combinations for ultimate and serviceability limit state assessments are
determined according to EN 1990 rules, highlighting specific features of local or global
behaviour and their consequences as well as possible simplifications.
The example confirms that Eurocodes are very appropriate for bridge design.
6 REFERENCES
[1] EN 199111 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 11 General actions. Densities, self
weight, imposed loads for buildings, CEN, Brussels, 2002.
[2] EN 199114 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 14 General actions. Wind actions,
CEN, Brussels, 2005.
[3] EN 199115 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 15 General actions. Thermal
actions, CEN, Brussels 2004.
[4] EN 19912 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 2 Traffic loads on bridges, CEN,
Brussels, 2003.
[5] EN 1990 Eurocode  Basis of structural design. CEN, Brussels, 2002.
[6] EN 199211 Eurocode 2 Design of concrete structures. Part 11 General rules and rules
for buildings, CEN, Brussels, 2004.
[7] EN 19922 Eurocode 2 Design of concrete structures. Part 2 Concrete bridges. Design
and detailing rule, CEN, Brussels, 2005.
Chapter 8: Case study  Design of a concrete bridge
164
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
165
CHAPTER 9: CASE STUDY DESIGN OF A STEEL BRIDGE
Pietro Croce
1
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Structural Division, University of Pisa, Italy
Summary
In the present chapter it is discussed the design of an orthotropic steel deck bridge
according to Eurocodes EN 1990 and EN 1991, in particular referring to traffic loads given in
EN 19912. The case study refers to a three span continuous bridge with box cross section.
Aim of the case study is to clarify the influence of load application and load combinations on
the local and global behaviour of bridge members.
1 INTRODUCTION
In the present case study, the design of an orthotropic steel deck bridge is discussed,
with special emphasis on loads and load combinations.
The steel bridge considered here is a three span continuous bridge on four supports.
The clear length of each span is 120 m, so that the length of the bridge is 360 m (figure 1).
Loads are determined according to EN 199111 [1], EN 199114 [2], EN 199115
[3], EN 19912 [4], and load combinations are derived from EN 1990 [5].
Fatigue aspects are out of the scope of the present paper; therefore they are not
discussed here.
2 THE THREE SPAN CONTINUOUS BRIDGE
2.1 General
The bridges structure is made up of an orthotropic steel deck, with closed trapezoidal
longitudinal stiffeners, sustained by a box girder, 3800 mm height (figure 2), whose current
geometry is described below.
The deck is made up by an 18 mm upper flange stiffened by 8 mm thick trapezoidal
stiffeners.
The trapezoidal stiffeners, which have a lower flange 200 mm wide and are 270 mm in
height, are characterised by a spacing of 600 mm (300+300 mm) and are continuous through
Ishaped transverse beams, 750 mm height. The span of the longitudinal stiffeners is 3000
mm, i.e. the transverse beams spacing.
The webs of the box girder are 12 mm thick, while the lower flange is 34 mm thick.
The webs and the lower flange are stiffened by Lshaped 200x100x14 longitudinal stiffeners.
The carriageway is composed by two physical lanes, each one 3.75 m wide, and by
two walkways, each one 1.50 m wide, so that the total width of the carriageway between the
safety barriers is 10.50 m and the overall width of the bridge is 11.60 m. The walkways are at
the same level of the physical lanes, from which they are separated only by the road signs.
The bridge is located in an extraurban area and the distance between the bridge
intrados and the underlying ground is 20.0 m.
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
166
120 120 120
Figure 1. Static scheme of the bridge
Figure 2. Cross section of the bridge
2.2 Mass properties of the cross section
The total area A of the cross section is 0.584 m
2
and its centroid is 1.54 m from the
deck extrados.
The principal moments of inertia about the centroidal axis are J
x
=1.665 m
4
about the
horizontal axis x and J
y
=3.711 m
4
about the vertical axis y.
The strength moduli are then W
x
=1.081 m
3
and W
x
=0.737 m
3
, about the xaxis, and
W
y
=0.639 m
3
and W
y
=0.639 m
3
, about the yaxis.
2.3 Material
Materials are chosen according to EN 199311 [6] and EN 19932 [7]
The structural steel is S355J2 grade.
3 LOAD ANALYSIS
3.1 Structural selfweight
Since the steel density is =78.5 kN/m
3
, the nominal selfweight of the bridge is:
kN/m 84 . 45 m 584 . 0 kN/m 78.5
2 3
1 ,
= = = A g
b k
.
(1)
To take into account the weight of other structural parts (transverse beams, bracings
and so on), the value of g
k,1b,
is increased of about 6%, so that the selfweight g
k,1
results
kN/m 6 . 48 06 . 1
1 , 1 ,
=
b k k
g g .
(2)
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
167
3.2 Self weight of non structural elements
Self weights of non structural elements to be considered are those due to the
waterproofing, to the 60 mm thick asphalt surfacing and to the safety barriers. For global
verifications it is a reasonable approximation to consider these loads distributed per unit
surface, by spreading out the weight of safety barriers.
All told, the equivalent uniformly distributed loads corresponding to the selfweight of
non structural elements g
k,1p
is about 2.2 kN/m
2
, so that the load per unit length of the bridge
g
k,2
is
kN/m 52 . 25 m 60 . 11 kN/m 2 . 2
3
2 ,
= =
k
g .
(3)
3.3 Traffic loads
According to EN 19912 [1], traffic loads should be applied on the carriageway,
longitudinally and transversally, in the most adverse position according to the shape of the
influence surface, in order to maximize or minimize the considered load effect.
For example, to determine the maximum sag moments in the spans and the hog
moment at the supports, the relevant influence surfaces, illustrated in figures 3, 4 and 5, must
be considered.
According to EN 19912, it is necessary first to determine the total width of the
carriageway w and the number of conventional lanes. The width w depends on whether the
walkways are isolated from vehicular traffic by fixed safety barriers or by kerbs of sufficient
height (>100 mm) or not. In the present case, walkways are potentially interested by vehicle
traffic, as they are separated from the physical lanes only by road signs. For this reason, the
width w is represented by the inner distance between the safety barriers, and therefore
w=10.50 m.
24.5898
51.36
25
20
15
10
5
0
5
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
Figure 3. Influence line for max sag moment in span 1 [m]
21
180
25
20
15
10
5
0
5
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
Figure 4. Influence line for max sag moment in span 2 [m]
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
168
12.3168
69.24
5
0
5
10
15
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
Influence Line for Hog Moment at Support 2
Figure 5. Influence line for hog moment at support 2 [m]
As the influence surfaces for bending in box girders are cylindrical, i.e. they have
rectangular cross section, to maximize bending moments the entire carriageway should be
loaded. The number of notional lanes n
l
is then given by
3
3
50 . 10
Int
m 3
Int =
(
=
(
=
w
n
l
,
(4)
and the remaining area is 1.50 m wide,
m 50 . 1 m 0 . 3 3 m 50 . 10 m 0 . 3 = = =
l r
n w w . (5)
Obviously, to maximize the torque coexisting with the maximum bending moment, it
is necessary to maximize the load eccentricity, so obtaining the notional lane arrangement
illustrated in figure 6.
Clearly, when load conditions maximizing the torque are explored, load eccentricities
should be maximized and different lane arrangement should be considered, like the one
illustrated in figure 7, where only two notional lanes need to be loaded.
notional lane n. 1
notional lane n. 2
notional lane n. 3
remaining area
1
0
.
5
3
.
0
3
.
0
3
.
0
1
.
5
Figure 6. Notional lane arrangement on the carriageway (bending moment calculation)
notional lane n. 1
notional lane n. 2
1
0
.
5
3
.
0
3
.
0
Figure 7. Notional lane arrangement on the carriageway (torque calculation)
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
169
As known, EN 19912 calls for four separate static load models, being the single axle
load model n. 2 (LM2) devoted only to local verifications.
For global verifications of the bridge in question, only load model n. 1 (LM1) is
relevant.
In fact, load model n. 3 corresponding to special vehicles (LM3) and load model n. 4,
crowd loading (LM4), are not accounted for, as the bridge is not interested by special vehicle
transit and it is located in an extraurban area. In this regard, it must be recalled that load
models LM4 and LM3 need to be considered only when expressly required.
On the i th notional lane, the main load model LM1 provides for a tandem system of
axles weighing
Qi
Q
ik
, accompanied by a uniformly distributed load
qi
q
ik
, being
Qi
and
qi
the adjustment factors. In the present work it has been assumed
Qi
=
qi
=1.0 for each lane,
while the values Q
ik
and q
ik
are summarized in table 1. Only one tandem system should be
considered per lane, placed in the most unfavourable position.
Table 1. Characteristic values for load model n. 1 (LM1)
Notional lane Q
k
[kN] q
k
[kN/m
2
]
Lane 1 300 9.0
Lane 2 200 2.5
Lane 3 100 2.5
Remaining area 0 2.5
As said, when seeking a determined effect on the bridge, the LM1 must obviously be
arranged in the most unfavourable position and the tandem systems, when present, need to be
considered in full, that is, with all their four wheels.
By way of example, possible arrangements of the static traffic loads are represented in
figures 8 and 9, corresponding to notional lane numberings discussed below and illustrated in
figures 6 and 7, respectively.
2000
Q =300 kN
q =9 kN/m
2
q =2.5 kN/m
2
q =2.5 kN/m
2
1k
Q =300 kN
1k
1k
2k 3k
q =2.5 kN/m
2
rk
2000
Q =200 kN
2k
Q =200 kN
2k
2000
Q =100 kN
3k
Q =100 kN
3k
Figure 8. Load condition corresponding to notional lane numbering in figure 6
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
170
2000
Q =300 kN
q =9 kN/m
2
q =2.5 kN/m
2
1k
Q =300 kN
1k
1k
2k
2000
Q =200 kN
2k
Q =200 kN
2k
Figure 9. Load condition corresponding to notional lane numbering in figure 7
3.4 Wind actions
Wind actions can be represented by vertical and horizontal equivalent static forces.
Vertical force is orthogonal to the roadway plane, while the horizontal forces can be
represented by two components, parallel and orthogonal to the bridges longitudinal axis,
respectively.
The equivalent pressure exerted by the wind can be calculated through the expression
( ) ( )
2
2
b e e e p
v z c z q
= ,
(6)
in which is the air density, which is assumed to be constant and equal to 1.25 kg/m
3
, v
b
is
the basic wind velocity and c
e
(z
e
) is the socalled exposure coefficient, depending on the
reference altitude over the ground, z
e
, and given by
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) [ ]
e v e e r e e
z I z c z c z c + = 7 1
2
0
2
.
(7)
Expression (7) depends on the roughness coefficient c
r
, on the orography factor c
0
and
on the turbulence intensity I
v
. The orography factor, taking into account any significant local
variations in the sites orography, can usually be assumed equal to 1.0. I
v
and c
r
, instead, are
defined by the following expressions
( )
( )
( )
<


\

=
z z z I
z z
z
z
z c
k
z I
v
e
i
e v
min min
min
0
0
if
m 200 if
ln
,
(8)
( )
( )
( )
<


\

=
z z z c
z z
z
z
z k
z c
r
e r
e r
min min
min
0
if
m 200 if ln
,
(9)
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
171
where k
i
is the turbulence factor, usually set to 1.0. The terrain factor k
r
, the roughness length
z
0
and the minimum height z
min
depend on the terrain category.
As said, the bridge in question is located in an extraurban area which can be classified
in terrain category II, i.e. an area with low vegetation, such as grass, and isolated obstacles
(trees, buildings) with separations of at least 20 obstacle heights. For terrain category II it
results z
0
=0.050 m, z
min
=2.0 m, k
r
=0.19.
The reference height z
e
represents the distance between the lowest ground level to the
centre of the bridge deck structure, disregarding other parts (e.g. parapets) of the reference
areas Recalling that the intrados of the structure is 20.0 m above ground level, it is
z
e
=20.0+(3.80/2) m= 21.90 (figure 10).
Figure 10. Evaluation of the reference height z
e
for wind actions
As z
e
>z
min
, it results
( ) 164 . 0
m 05 . 0
m 90 . 21
ln 0 . 1
1
=

\

=
e v
z I
, (10)
( ) 156 . 1
m 05 . 0
m 90 . 21
ln 19 . 0 = 
\

=
e r
z c ,
(11)
whence
( ) [ ] 869 . 2 164 . 0 7 1 0 . 1 156 . 1
2 2
= + =
e e
z c .
(12)
Considering for the site a basic wind velocity v
b
=27 m/s, q
p
(z
e
) results
( ) . N/m 1307 0 . 27
2
25 . 1
869 . 2
2 2
= =
e p
z q
(13)
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
172
According to EN 19912, the yaxis is assumed parallel to the bridge axis, xaxis is
assumed horizontal and perpendicular to the yaxis, while the zaxis lies in the vertical plane
containing the yaxis.
The equivalent static force F
wk,x
in the x direction is given by
( )
x ref x f e p x wk
A c z q F
, , ,
= ,
(14)
where the coefficient c
f,x
is a function of the ratio between the total decks width b and the
total decks height d
tot
exposed to wind.
When the bridge is unloaded the exposed height is 4.4 m, as the presence of two open
safety barriers determines an increase of 0.6 m in the exposed height.
When the bridge is loaded the exposed height increases by 2.0 m, so becoming 5.8 m.
For unloaded bridge, the coefficient c
f,x
is
709 . 1
4 . 4
6 . 11
3 . 0 5 . 2 3 . 1 ; 3 . 0 5 . 2 max ; 4 . 2 min
,
= =


\



\

=
tot
x f
d
b
c . (15)
If must be noted that the simplified approach proposed in EN199114, suggesting to
assume c
f,x
=1.3, is generally unsafesided.
Since the webs of the box girder are inclined by the angle =10 with respect to the
vertical (figure 11), the coefficient c
f,x
calculated in (15) can be reduced by the factor
1
( ) 95 . 0 .7 0 ; 005 . 0 1 max
1 1
= = ,
(16)
obtaining (figure 12)
( ) kN/m 34 . 9 4 . 4 95 . 0 709 . 1 307 . 1
, 1 , ,
= = =
x ref x f e p x wk
A c z q F .
(17)
Figure 11. Web inclination allowing a reduction of the coefficient c
f,x
For loaded bridge, the coefficient c
f,x
is
90 . 1
8 . 5
6 . 11
3 . 0 5 . 2 0 . 1 ; 3 . 0 5 . 2 max ; 4 . 2 min
,
= =


\



\

=
tot
x f
d
b
c ,
(18)
and also for loaded bridge the simplification c
f,x
=1.3 proposed in EN199114 is unsafesided.
Considering the reduction factor
1
calculated before, the combination value
0w
F
wk,x
for the equivalent wind force for loaded bridge results (figure 18)
( ) kN/m 21 . 8 8 . 5 95 . 0 9 . 1 307 . 1 6 . 0
, 1 , 0 , 0
= = =
x ref x f e p w x wk w
A c z q F ,
(19)
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
173
being
0w
=0.6.
It is interesting to note that in the Italian National Annex the exposed height of lorries
it has been set equal to 3.0 m, instead of 2.0 m. In this case, as d
tot
=6.8 m, c
f,x
=1.988 and
( ) kN/m 07 . 10 8 . 6 95 . 0 988 . 1 307 . 1 6 . 0
, 1 , 0 , 0
= = =
x ref x f e p w x wk w
A c z q F .
(20)
Figure 12. Equivalent static force F
wk,x
(unloaded bridge)
Figure 13. Equivalent static force
0w
F
wk,x
(loaded bridge)
Concerning the vertical action, lacking more precise data from wind tunnel tests, a
value of 0.9 can be assumed for the force coefficient c
f,z
. Since the reference area A
ref,z
is the
horizontal projection of the bridge deck, A
ref,z
=b=11.6 m
2
/m, the equivalent static force for
unit length F
wk,z
is then
( ) ( ) kN/m 64 . 13 m 6 . 11 9 . 0 kN/m 307 . 1
2
, , ,
= = =
z ref z f e p z wk
A c z q F .
(21)
to be applied with eccentricity e=0.25 b=0.2511.6 m=2.9 m with respect to the longitudinal
axis of the bridge.
According to EN19912, as F
wk,z
is much lower than the permanent load (65.52 kN/m),
it could be disregarded.
Finally, when relevant, equivalent static forces in the longitudinal ydirection (the
bridges longitudinal axis) should be considered, which can be set equal to 25% of the forces
in the xdirection.
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
174
3.5 Thermal actions
As the structure under consideration is a continuous beam resting on four supports,
thermal actions induce displacements and stresses.
In order to account for thermal variations, two different contributions must be
distinguished. A uniform thermal variation along the cross section and a nonuniform
temperature variation along the sections height, corresponding to situations where the top and
the bottom of the bridge are at different temperatures, due to differential heating or cooling
effects.
The former contribution does not provoke any stresses as long as the bridge can slide
horizontally in correspondence to its supports and it will cause only a shortening or elongation
of the structures line of axis (i.e. it is relevant only for design of bearings and expansion
joints).
A typical uniform temperature variation T
U
can be derived from EN 199115.
Assuming that in the site under consideration the maximum and minimum air shade
temperatures with an annual probability of being exceeded of 0.02 are T
max
=40 C and T
min
=
10 C, respectively, the uniform bridge temperature components for a steel bridge result
T
e,max
=56.6 C and T
e,min
=13.3 C (figure 14).
Setting the initial bridge temperature T
0
to 20 C, the characteristic values of the
maximum expansion and contraction ranges, T
N,exp
and T
N,con
, result so
C 6 . 36 20 6 . 56
0 max , exp
= = = T T T
e N,
,
(22)
C 3 . 33 ) 3 . 13 ( 20
min , 0 con
= = =
e N,
T T T .
(23)
50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1
2
3
3
2
1
Tmin Tmax
T
e
,
m
i
n
T
e
,
m
a
x
Figure 14. Evaluation of T
e,max
and T
e,min
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
175
The second non uniform contribution is clearly very significant for the bridge under
consideration. EN 199115 offers two possible procedures to deal with it, provided that the
surfacing thickness is not less than 40 mm.
The first, more accurate one, calls for applying rather complex thermal variation laws
along the cross sections height (figure 15), while the second instead makes use of simpler
linear variations. Consequently, while the first variation laws require employing dedicated
software for the structural analysis, simplified linear variations enable even manual
calculations, at least up to a certain degree. In case of steel deck structures, simplified linear
variations correspond to a raise in temperature of 18 C for top warmer than bottom,
T
M,heat
=+18 C, and to an increase of 13 C for bottom warmer than top, T
M,cool
=+13 C,
(figure 16).
Figure 15. Accurate temperature distributions along the height of the cross section
Figure 16. Simplified temperature distributions along the height of the cross section
4 STRESS CALCULATION
4.1 Behaviour of the structure
The structural behaviour of the orthotropic steel deck bridges is usually described
taken into account three separate static functions for the stiffened plate. In effect, the stiffened
plate participates to three different resisting systems, each one characterised by precise stress
and deformation patterns.
In the local resisting system the deck plate directly sustains the traffic loads and
transfers them to the orthotropic plate system, composed by the deck plate, the longitudinal
stiffeners and the transverse beams.
In the intermediate resisting system the orthotropic system transmits the loads to the
main system.
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
176
Finally, in the global resisting system, the stiffened plate represents the upper flange of
the main girders.
The resultant stress pattern in the deck plate can be so obtained by the superposition of
the individual stress patterns induced by each one of the three above mentioned static systems.
4.2 Local effects on the deck plate
The stress pattern of the local resisting system is often not considered in the static
checks, as the combined effect of local plastic deformations and membranetype behaviour
limits the stress peaks. In fact, when it collapses, the deck plate behaves mainly like a tensile
cylindrical membrane restrained by two longitudinal hinges located at the connections with
the stiffeners webs: in this mechanism normal stresses in longitudinal direction are not
relevant.
However, if an evaluation of such a stresses is required, the wheel contact pressure can
be determined resorting to the well known hypothesis of 45 diffusion of the loads through
the surfacing and the deck plate. In this way, recalling that the surfacing thickness is 60 mm
and the deck plate thickness is 16 mm, the contact area dimensions result 536536 mm
2
for
the wheels of the tandem axle systems of LM1 (figure 17) and 736486 mm
2
for the wheels
of the isolated axle of LM2 (figures 18), respectively.
Figure 17. Load dispersal for the wheel of
the tandem system of LM 1
Figure 18. Load dispersal for the wheel of
the single axle of LM 2
Thus, the relative contact pressure for a single wheel of the heaviest tandem system of
LM1 is
2
1
kN/m 1 . 522
536 . 0 536 . 0
150
=
=
k Q
p
(24)
and for a single wheel of the isolated axle load of LM 2 is
2
kN/m 6 . 523
486 . 0 736 . 0
200
=
=
Qak
p .
(25)
Local stresses are very important when fatigue assessments are concerned. As known,
fatigue assessments can be determinant in designing deck plates, ribs and transverse beams
details, but they are outside the scope of the present example.
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
177
4.3 Orthotropic deck plate analysis
The analysis of the orthotropic deck plate, whose function is to transfer the traffic
loads to the main girder, can be performed through analytical or numerical methods.
The analytical methods are based on the Hber equation for the orthotropic plate.
Although all the calculation procedures available in the literature are based on defining an
equivalent orthotropic deck, they can be divided into two classical families, depending upon
whether both longitudinal ribs and transverse beams are spread out in calculating the
equivalent decks stiffness, or only longitudinal ribs are considered. The former methods
include, for instance, the Cornelius method, while the PelikanEsslinger method represents a
refined example of the second approach, largely applied, especially in studying influence
surfaces.
A detailed illustration of the analytical methods is beyond the scope of the present
example, but it is important to stress that in both cases local plate behaviour cannot be
determined, while the effective state of stress and deformation in the longitudinal stiffeners
can be derived only adopting the latter ones.
A very refined approach, able also to reproduce the local behaviour, consists in the
implementation of a finiteelement model, made up essentially of isotropic shell elements,
which reproduces a significant portion of the deck. In the FE model the upper plate, the
stiffeners and the transverse beams are appropriately meshed as shown in figures 19 and 20.
Figure 19. FE mesh of an orthotropic deck
Figure 20. FE mesh detail
In order to reduce the degrees of freedom of the problem, alternative simplified FE
models can be implemented, using equivalent orthotropic shell elements, based on one of the
two analytical approaches illustrated before.
Since the wheel loads influence only few longitudinal stiffeners (three to five), it is
necessary to model only a limited deck width, not bigger than the width of a notional lane,
regardless of the calculation method adopted (FEM or numerical analysis), so limiting the
problems complexity.
The uniformly distributed loads to be considered can be determined, considering their
dispersal through the surfacing and the deck plate, as illustrated in 4.2.
4.4 Calculation of the main girder under vertical loads
The main girder is calculated simply as a continuous beam resting on four supports,
characterised by constant flexural stiffness EJ
x
(J
x
=1.151 m
4
).
4.4.1 Effects of the selfweight and dead loads
Applying the single source principle of EN 1990 to the structural selfweight and to
dead loads, their effects can be calculated considering a uniformly distributed load
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
178
kN/m 12 . 74
2 , 1 ,
= + =
k b k k
g g G .
(26)
Said A the cross section of the first span where bending moment attains its local
maximum, and denoted with B and C the intermediate supports, G
k
yields the symmetrical
diagram of bending moments shown in figure 21, where
( ) kNm 8 . 85381 kNm 0 . 120 12 . 74
25
2
25
2
2 2
= = = L G A M
k k g
,
(27)
( ) kNm 4 . 106727 kNm 0 . 120 12 . 74
10
1
10
1
2 2
= = = L G B M
k k g
,
(28)
( ) kNm 8 . 26681 kNm 0 . 120 12 . 74
40
1
40
1
2 2
= = = L G C M
k k g
.
(29)
Figure 21. Bending moment diagrams for permanent loads.
4.4.2 Effects of traffic loads
As said, since the bending moment influence surfaces of the box girder are cylindrical,
the most severe transversal load arrangement for bending moment is the one previously
illustrated in figure 8, where all three notional lanes as well as the residual area of the
carriageway are loaded.
For this reason, the total uniformly distributed load of LM1 to be applied on the bridge
is given by
( ) kN/m 75 . 45 m 5 . 1 kN/m 5 . 2 m 0 . 3 kN/m 5 . 2 5 . 2 9
2 2
= + + + =
k
q ,
(30)
while the global effects of the tandem systems of LM 1 can be determined considering in the
worst longitudinal position a single concentrated load (knife load)
( ) kN 1200 kN 200 400 600 2 2 2
3 2 1
= + + = + + =
k k k tk
Q Q Q Q ;
(31)
this is the sum of the axle loads of the three tandem systems applied on the three notional
lanes.
Referring to the bending moment in the side spans, in the central span and at the
intermediate supports, the most unfavourable load arrangements should be determined
according to the influence lines illustrated in figures 3, 4 and 5, respectively.
For example, to maximize the bending moment in the first span due to traffic loads
M
Q
(A)
kmax
, the uniformly distributed load should be applied on the first and on the third span
as indicated in figure 22, while the concentrated load should be applied on the section A,
located around 51.4 m from the first support, so that
( ) ( ) ( ) kNm 6 . 96056 7 . 29507 9 . 66548 ' ' '
max max max
= + = + =
k Q k q k Q
A M A M A M
t
.
(32)
Sec. A
Sec. B
Sec. C
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
179
Figure 22. Arrangement of UDL to maximize bending moment in lateral spans
To maximize the bending moment at midspan (section C) due to traffic loads,
M
Q
(C)
kmax
, the central span should be loaded with uniformly distributed traffic load (figure
23), being the concentrated load located at midspan
( ) ( ) ( ) kNm 0 . 74610 0 . 25200 0 . 49410
max max max
= + = + =
k Q k q k Q
C M C M C M
t
.
(33)
Figure 23. Arrangement of UDL to maximize bending moment in the central span
To minimize the bending moment M
Q
(B)
kmin
due to traffic loads on cross section B,
corresponding to the second support, the first and the second span should be loaded with
uniformly distributed load (figure 24), while the concentrated load should be placed 69.24 m
away from the first support
( ) ( ) ( ) kNm 2 . 91640 2 . 14780 0 . 78860
min min min
= = + =
k Q k q k Q
B M B M B M
t
.
(34)
Figure 24. Arrangement of UDL to minimize bending moment on the second support
When minimum traffic load effects are investigated, different load conditions are to be
considered, as indicated in the following.
The minimum bending moment in the section A of the first span, M
Q
(A)
kmin
, is
obtained applying the uniformly distributed load on the central span, as just indicated in
figure 22, and the concentrated load around 49.9 m away from the second support, so that
( ) ( ) ( ) kNm 6 . 19024 3 . 4915 3 . 14109 ' ' '
min min min
= + = + =
k Q k q k Q
A M A M A M
t
.
(35)
The minimum bending moment at midspan (section C), M
Q
(C)
kmin
, is obtained
applying the uniformly distributed load on the lateral spans, as indicated in figure 22, and the
concentrated load around 70.7 m away from the first or the last support, so that
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
180
( ) ( ) ( ) kNm 1 . 38479 1 . 5539 0 . 32940
min min min
= + = + =
k Q k q k Q
C M C M C M
t
.
(36)
The maximum bending moment at intermediate support (section B), M
Q
(B)
kmax
, is
obtained applying the uniformly distributed load on the third span, and the concentrated load
around 50.5 m away from the third support, so that
( ) ( ) ( ) kNm 0 . 14675 0 . 3695 0 . 10980
max max max
= + = + =
k Q k q k Q
B M B M B M
t
.
(37)
4.4.3 ULS combinations for permanent and traffic loads
Applying the single source principle for permanent loads and recalling that in ULS
structural verifications (STR) partial factor for permanent loads,
G
, is set to 1.35 for
unfavourable effects and to 1.0 for favourable effects, and partial factor for traffic loads,
Q
, is
set to 1.35 for unfavourable effects and to 0 for favourable effects, design values of bending
moments are obtained as follows, considering expression (6.10) of EN 1990.
The maximum bending moment in the first span M(A)
dmax
is obtained applying the
permanent design load G
d
=1.35 G
k
=100.06 kN/m on each span, the uniformly distributed
design traffic load q
d
=1.35 q
k
=61.76 kN/m on the lateral spans and the design concentrated
traffic load Q
d
=1.35 Q
k
=1620 kN on the section A, around 51.0 m away from the first
support, so that
( ) kNm 0 . 244421 ' '
max
=
d
A M .
(38)
The corresponding bending moment and shear force diagrams are illustrated in figures
25 and 26, respectively.
Figure 25. Bending moment diagram corresponding to M(A)
dmax
in the first span
Even if, in general, cross section A differs from A, in the present example the
difference is so little that it could be disregarded. In fact, considering A, it would result
( ) kNm 0 . 244364 '
max
=
d
A M .
(39)
Figure 26. Shear force diagram corresponding to M
dmax
in the first span
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
181
The maximum bending moment at midspan M(C)
dmax
is obtained applying the
permanent design load G
d
=1.35 G
k
=100.06 kN/m on each span, the uniformly distributed
design traffic load q
d
=1.35 q
k
=61.76 kN/m on the central span and the design concentrated
traffic load Q
d
=1.35 Q
k
=1620 kN on section C, so that
( ) kNm 0 . 136742
max
=
d
C M .
(40)
The corresponding bending moment and shear forces diagrams are illustrated in
figures 27 and 28, respectively.
Figure 27. Bending moment diagram corresponding to M
dmax
at midspan
Figure 28. Shear force diagram corresponding to M
dmax
ad midspan
The minimum bending moment on the second support M(B)
dmax
is obtained applying
the permanent design load G
d
=1.35 G
k
=100.06 kN/m on each span, the uniformly distributed
design traffic load q
d
=1.35 q
k
=61.76 kN/m on the first and the second span and the design
concentrated traffic load Q
d
=1.35 Q
k
=1620 kN approximately around 69.24 m away from the
first support, obtaining
( ) kNm 0 . 267796
max
=
d
B M .
(41)
The corresponding bending moment and shear forces diagrams are illustrated in
figures 29 and 30, respectively.
Figure 29. Bending moment diagram corresponding to M
dmin
on the second support
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
182
Figure 30. Shear force diagram corresponding to M
dmin
on the second support
The minimum bending moment in the first span M(A)
dmin
is obtained applying the
permanent design load G
d
=1.0 G
k
=74.12 kN/m on each span, the uniformly distributed
design traffic load q
d
=1.35 q
k
=61.76 kN/m on the central span and the design concentrated
traffic load Q
d
=1.35 Q
k
=1620 kN on the second span, approximately around 49.9 m away
from the second support, so that
( ) kNm 4 . 59275 '
min
=
d
A M .
(42)
The corresponding bending moment and shear force diagrams are illustrated in figures
31 and 32, respectively.
The minimum bending moment at midspan M (C)
dmin
is obtained applying the
permanent design load G
d
=1.0 G
k
=74.12 kN/m on each span, the uniformly distributed
design traffic load q
d
=1.35 q
k
=61.76 kN/m on the lateral spans and the design concentrated
traffic load Q
d
=1.35 Q
k
=1620 kN approximately 70.7 m away from the first or the last
support, so
( ) kNm 7 . 25261
min
=
d
C M .
(43)
Figure 31. Bending moment diagram corresponding to M
dmin
in section A
Figure 32. Shear force diagram corresponding to M
dmin
in section A
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
183
The corresponding bending moment and shear forces diagrams are illustrated in
figures 33 and 34, respectively.
Figure 33. Bending moment diagram corresponding to M
dmin
in section C
Figure 34. Shear force diagram corresponding to M
dmin
in section C
The maximum bending moment on the second support M(B)
dmax
is obtained applying
the permanent design load G
d
=1.0 G
k
=74.12 kN/m on each span, the uniformly distributed
design traffic load q
d
=1.35 q
k
=61.76 kN/m on the third span and the design concentrated
traffic load Q
d
=1.35 Q
k
=1620 kN approximately around 50.5 m away from the third support,
obtaining
( ) kNm 2 . 86922
max
=
d
B M .
(44)
The corresponding bending moment and shear forces diagrams are illustrated in
figures 35 and 36, respectively.
Figure 35. Bending moment diagram corresponding to M
dmax
in section B
Particularly relevant cases concern minimum design shear force at the right hand end
of first span (section B

), maximum design shear force at the left hand end of the central span
(section B
+
) and maximum and minimum shear forces at midspan (sections C

and C
+
).
Minimum design shear force in section B

V(B

)
dmin
is obtained applying the permanent
design load G
d
=1.35 G
k
=100.06 kN/m on each span, the uniformly distributed design traffic
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
184
load q
d
=1.35 q
k
=61.76 kN/m on the first and the third span and the design concentrated
traffic load Q
d
=1.35 Q
k
=1620 kN immediately left hand of section B

, obtaining the shear
force diagram illustrated in figure 37, where
( ) kN 0 . 12890
min
=
d
B V .
(45)
Figure 36. Shear force diagram corresponding to M
dmax
in section B
Figure 37. Shear force diagram corresponding to V
dmin
in section B

Maximum design shear force in section B
+
V(B
+
)
dmax
is obtained applying the
permanent design load G
d
=1.35 G
k
=100.06 kN/m on each span, the uniformly distributed
design traffic load q
d
=1.35 q
k
=61.76 kN/m on the central span and the design concentrated
traffic load Q
d
=1.35 Q
k
=1620 kN immediately right hand of section B
+
, obtaining the shear
force diagram illustrated in figure 38, where
( ) kN 2 . 11329
max
=
+
d
B V .
(46)
Figure 38. Shear force diagram corresponding to V
dmax
in section B
+
Minimum design shear force in section C

, V(C

)
dmin
is obtained applying the
uniformly distributed design traffic load q
d
=1.35 q
k
=61.76 kN/m on the left hand half of the
central span and the design concentrated traffic load Q
d
=1.35 Q
k
=1620 kN immediately left
hand of section C

, obtaining the shear force diagram illustrated in figure 39, where
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
185
( ) kN 0 . 2276
min
=
d
C V .
(47)
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 120 240 360
V
[
M
N
]
x [m]
Figure 39. Shear force diagram corresponding to V
dmin
in section C

Finally, maximum design shear force in section C

, V(C

)
dmax
is obtained applying the
uniformly distributed design traffic load q
d
=1.35 q
k
=61.76 kN/m on the right hand half of the
central span and the design concentrated traffic load Q
d
=1.35 Q
k
=1620 kN immediately right
hand of section C

, obtaining the shear force diagram illustrated in figure 40, where
( ) kN 0 . 2276
max
=
d
C V .
(48)
Figure 40. Shear force diagram corresponding to V
dmax
in section C

4.4.4 SLS combinations for permanent and traffic loads
Concerning SLS verifications, combinations of permanent and traffic load are
generally relevant only for characteristic and frequent load combinations, as quasipermanent
values of traffic loads are zero, except in very particular cases.
Significant load arrangements to be considered look very similar to those illustrated
before regarding ULS verifications, so they will not be discussed in detail.
It is just necessary to recall that frequent values of traffic loads are obtained via the
1
factors, which depend on the nature of the load: in fact,
1
=0.75 for the tandem systems of
LM1, for the isolated single axle of LM2 and for crowd loading (LM4), while
1
=0.40 for the
uniformly distributed loads of LM1.
4.4.5 Wind effects
When relevant, the vertical component of the pressure exerted by the wind should be
considered as uniformly distributed load acting on the entire length of the bridge.
The bending moment diagram is then analogous to that due to dead loads and
therefore, recalling expression (21), for unloaded bridge it results
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
186
( ) kNm 3 . 15713 kNm 0 . 120 64 . 13
25
2
25
2
2 2
,
= = = L F A M
z wk k wz
,
(49)
( ) kNm 6 . 19641 kNm 0 . 120 64 . 13
10
1
10
1
2 2
,
m m = = = L F B M
z wk k wz
,
(50)
( ) kNm 4 . 4910 kNm 0 . 120 64 . 13
40
1
40
1
2 2
,
= = = L F C M
z wk k wz
,
(51)
while for loaded bridge, the combination value
0w
F
wk,z
=8.18 kN/m,
0w
=0.6, should be
considered, in place of F
wk,z
.
Partial factor
Q
for wind actions in ULS combinations is
Q
=1.50 if unfavourable and
Q
=0 if favourable.
4.5 Design values of horizontal wind actions
The design values of horizontal wind action are derived from expressions given in
3.4, recalling that
Q
=1.50 if the effect is unfavourable and
Q
=0 if the effect is favourable.
4.6 Effects of thermal variations
As said, in a continuous bridge the uniform temperature variation T
U
induces only
longitudinal displacements. Considering that the coefficient of thermal expansion for steel is
T
=1210
6
C
1
, the longitudinal displacements u
y
associated with the uniform temperature
variations T
N,exp
=36.6 C and T
N,exp
=33.3 C result
mm/m 439 . 0 1000 10 12 6 . 36
6
exp ,
= =
y
u ,
(52)
mm/m 40 . 0 1000 10 12 3 . 33
6
,
= =
con y
u .
(53)
The vertical temperature differences, assumed to be linear through the cross sections
height, produce a bending moment diagram that is linear in the two side spans and constant in
the central one. In figure 41 is reported the bending moment diagram for heating (top warmer
then bottom).
120 120 120
Figure 41. Bending moment diagram for vertical temperature differences (heating)
Recalling that, for the continuous beams considered in the present example, the
extreme values of bending moments are given by
h
T
EJ M
T
T
5
6
,
(54)
it results
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
187
kNm 8 . 23849
8 . 3
18 10 12
665 . 1 10 1 . 2
5
6
6
8
=
=
T
M ,
(55)
in case of heating (top warmer then bottom), and
( )
kNm 9 . 17224
8 . 3
13 10 12
665 . 1 10 1 . 2
5
6
6
8
=
=
T
M .
(56)
in case of cooling (bottom warmer then top).
When, depending on the local site conditions, the adoption of a more precise law of
variation for vertical temperature differences is required, as described in 3.5, more refined
analyses should be performed.
4.7 Assessment of the members of the cross section
To avoid use of complicated models, the assessment of members of the cross section
of the box girder can be performed in a very simplified way considering the classical
superposition of two structural systems.
In the first structural system, where member loads are considered, the cross section is
suitably modified so that it results kinematically determinate or restrained. In this restrained
structure the memberend forces due to member applied loads are calculated and the
equivalent fixedend structure forces are determined.
In the second structural system, the static equilibrium in the kinematically released
structure is restored by applying the negative of the equivalent fixedend structure forces on
the actual structure.
The application of this method to the relevant cases discussed in 3.3 and illustrated in
figures 8 and 9 is summarized in figures 42 and 43, respectively.
R1
M1
M1
M2
M2
R1 R2
R2
Figure 42. Structural systems for assessment of cross section members (ref. figure 8)
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
188
R1
M1
M1
M2
M2
R1 R2
R2
Figure 43. Structural systems for assessment of cross section members (ref. figure 9)
5 FINAL REMARKS
In the present chapter, a relevant example is developed concerning steel bridges.
The design of a three spans continuous bridge with orthotropic steel deck and box
cross section is illustrated, paying special attention to the evaluation of extreme effects
induced by permanent, climatic and traffic actions according to EN 1991.
The road bridge, whose total length is 360 m, is located in an extraurban area, so that
also crowd loading can be disregarded.
Starting from the usual distinction between local and global static behaviour, different
methodological approaches for orthotropic deck bridges analysis are illustrated, stressing their
theoretical bases.
Discussion of load combinations according to EN 1990 rules demonstrates also in this
case the soundness of Eurocode system for bridge design.
6 REFERENCES
[1] EN 199111 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 11 General actions. Densities, self
weight, imposed loads for buildings, CEN, Brussels, 2002.
[2] EN 199114 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 14 General actions. Wind actions,
CEN, Brussels, 2005.
[3] EN 199115 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 15 General actions. Thermal
actions, CEN, Brussels 2004.
[4] EN 19912 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 2 Traffic loads on bridges, CEN,
Brussels, 2003.
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
189
[5] EN 1990 Eurocode  Basis of structural design. CEN, Brussels, 2002.
[6] EN 199311 Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures. Part 11 General rules and rules for
buildings, CEN, Brussels, 2005.
[7] EN 19932 Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures. Part 2 Steel bridges, CEN, Brussels,
2006.
Chapter 9: Case study Design of a steel bridge
190
Chapter 10: Case study  Design of a composite bridge
191
CHAPTER 10: CASE STUDY  DESIGN OF A COMPOSITE BRIDGE
Peter Tanner
1
, Carlos Lara
1
and Angel Arteaga
1
1
Institute of Construction Science, IETcc CSIC, Madrid, Spain
Summary
The identification of all the actions and action effects likely to arise during
construction and future use is a crucial step in bridge design. Actions and effects that go
unrecognised in this stage and are consequently ignored in further analyses may result in
structural designs with an unacceptably low level of reliability. With proper detection, on the
contrary, suitable safety measures can be readily adopted to ensure the required levels of
reliability are reached. This chapter deals with the application of the structural Eurocodes,
particularly EN1991, Actions on Structures, to the analysis of composite decks on road
bridges. The effects of actions and combinations of actions relevant to the verification of the
ultimate and serviceability limit states in bridge decks are also studied.
1 INTRODUCTION
The primary purpose of the present chapter is to illustrate how Eurocode EN 1991,
Actions on Structures and other structural Eurocodes can be applied to the analysis of
composite steel and concrete decks on road bridges. The specific aims sought are:
1. to define the sitespecific actions and environmental effects included in the EN
1991 models, as well as the combinations of actions that must be taken into
account when verifying conformity to structural safety and serviceability
requirements.
2. to identify the action effects to be used to verify bridge deck conformity to
structural safety and serviceability requirements for each relevant combination of
actions.
EN 1990/A1 [2] provides basis for determination of combinations of actions for
ultimate and serviceability limit state verifications of bridges. The aim of this Chapter is to
describe principles of load combinations. Permanent actions, traffic loads and climatic actions
due to wind, snow and temperature are considered in accordance with relevant Parts of EN
1991. Supplementary information on the traffic load models provided in EN 19912 [3] is
given in the Background document [4] which is expected to be available on the JRC web site.
1.1 Scope
Although bridge deck design normally covers serviceability, structural safety, fatigue
resistance and durability of all structural members, i.e., the bridge deck, piers, abutments and
foundations, the present chapter deals with the structural safety and serviceability of the
bridge deck only. The verification of ultimate, serviceability and fatigue limit states is not
explicitly covered. The example used illustrates only the questions relating to overall
structural analysis for determining the relevant action effects.
Chapter 10: Case study  Design of a composite bridge
192
In the example introduced in this chapter, adapted from [1], the bridge deck consists of
two steel girders and a concrete slab. This example was chosen because as a result of the
ample coverage of this type of deck in Eurocode 4, Part 2 on the design of composite steel
and concrete bridges [2], Eurocode provisions can be applied rather straightforwardly.
For the intents and purposes of this example, certain simplifying assumptions have
been made, particularly respecting construction stages (2.4) and the design situations
considered in the verification of ultimate limit states (3.1). Nonetheless, the deck
dimensions, materials used and assumptions hereunder are realistic and the deck in the
example meets all the applicable structural safety, serviceability, fatigue and durability
requirements laid down in the relevant structural Eurocodes.
1.2 Chapter organisation
The introduction, the first of this chapter, describes the aims and scope of the example.
It is followed by a review of the bridge deck, including geometric characteristics, material
properties and the construction sequence.
Section 3 identifies all the actions and their effects likely to arise during bridge deck
construction and future use, along with the specific load models for the actions that should be
considered in analysis and design calculations.
A number of the features of the structural model used for the analysis of the composite
bridge deck are described in Section 4.
The values to be used for internal forces and moments and the displacements found
with bridge deck analysis are summarised in section 5.
Section 6 reviews the partial factors used to calculate the design values of the effects
of actions and resistance thereto, while Section 7 discusses the combinations of actions
applied to verify structural conformity to safety and serviceability standards.
The chapter concludes with an eighth section containing general remarks on
composite bridge deck analysis as stipulated in structural Eurocodes.
2 BRIDGE DECK DESCRIPTION
2.1 Geometry
The solution adopted is a continuous composite bridge deck carrying three lanes of
road traffic, with a constant crosssectional height of 2,15 m and a total width of 10 m. The
deck crosssection comprises an in situ concrete slab 0,25 m deep and two 1,9m deep welded
steel girders, set at a distance of 5,0 m (Figure 1). The bridge has a total length of 103,5 m
and three spans: 30,0 +43,5+30,0 m (Figure 2).
0,5 m 0,5 m
0
,
2
5
m
1
,
9
0
m
2,5 m 5,0 m 2,5 m
10,0 m
Figure 1. Composite deck crosssection for a road bridge
Chapter 10: Case study  Design of a composite bridge
193
30,0 m 43,5 m 30,0 m
103,5 m
Figure 2. Static system
2.2 Material properties
Structural steel:
As per EN 199311 [3], 3.2:
Steel grade
Nominal thickness
t [mm]
Yield strength
f
y
[N/mm
2
]
Modulus of
elasticity E
a
[kN/mm
2
]
S355 t 40 mm 355
210
S460 40 < t 80 mm 430
Concrete:
As per EN 199211 [4], 3.1:
Strength class C30
Characteristic cylinder strength f
ck
= 30 N/mm
2
Secant modulus of elasticity E
cm
= 33 kN/mm
2
Reinforcing steel
1
:
As per EN 199211 [4], 3.2 and Annex C:
Steel grade B 500
Specified yield strength f
sk
= 500 N/mm
2
Modulus of elasticity E
s
= 200 kN/mm
2
In composite structures, the design value of the modulus of elasticity may be taken to
be equal to the value for structural steel: E
s
= 210 kN/mm
2
([2], 3.2.2).
Stud connectors
2
:
Nominal ultimate strength f
u
= 450 N/mm
2
Diameter = 19 mm
Height h = 125 mm.
1
While in EN 199211 [4] the yield strength of reinforcing steel is symbolized as f
yk
,, in EN 199411 [5] it is
shown f
sk
to distinguish it from structural steel.
2
In the context of the material recommended for stud connectors, reference is made in [2], 3.4.2.1, to EN
13918.
Chapter 10: Case study  Design of a composite bridge
194
2.3 Steel plate thickness, stiffeners and diaphragms
According to the distribution of stiffeners and diaphragms and the steel plate thickness
set out in Figure 3, referred to the bridge deck surface, a total of 100 kg/m
2
of structural steel
is needed.
2,08 2,08 2,08 3,125 3,125 3,125 3,35 3,35 3,35
3,35 6,70 6,70 5,00 5,00 6,25 6,25 6,25
450x25
tw = 12 mm
600x40 600x40 600x25 600x60 (S460M)
tw = 15 mm
6,25
3,125 3,00
30,00 m 21,75 m
3,00 3,35 3,35 2,50 2,50 2,50 2,50
ST
ST: TRANSVERSE STIFFENER; DI: INTERMEDIATE DIAPHRAGM; DB: BEARING DIAPHRAGM; SL: LONGITUDINAL STIFFENER
DI ST ST DI ST DI ST DI ST ST
DB SL SL
ST ST DI DI
tw = 12 mm
BOTTOM FLANGE
DI
WEB
TOP FLANGE
Figure 3. Distribution of stiffeners and diaphragms
2.4 Construction
For the purpose of structural analysis, bridge construction is assumed to be divided
into the following stages:
 Erection of the steel structure.
 Casting of the in situ concrete in a single lift across the entire length of the bridge
without temporary supports.
 Simultaneous application of all dead loads, in particular the vehicle restraint system
and the asphalt layer, two weeks after the in situ concrete is poured.
3 ACTIONS
3.1 Introduction
Structural reliability is closely related to the recognition of the actions and effects to
which the structure may be exposed during construction and use. The goal is to identify all
actions and effects likely to arise. Only then can a solution be found that meets the basic
requirements laid down in EN 1990 [6], 2.1. In light of the importance of this step, the
actions and action effects that might be relevant to the bridge deck in the example are
described below. Only persistent and transient design situations are considered for ultimate
limit state verification. In other words, the analysis does not address the effects of either
accidental or seismic actions. Loads affecting only one half of the bridge deck are considered,
however.
3.2 Permanent actions
Selfweight of steel structure
The selfweight of the steel structure is sustained by the steel structure alone without
temporary supports:
2
1, 0 kN/m 5, 0 m 5, 0 kN/m
s
g = =
Chapter 10: Case study  Design of a composite bridge
195
Selfweight of in situ concrete slab
Like the selfweight of the steel structure, the weight of the in situ concrete is borne by
the steel structure alone [7]:
3
0, 25 m 25, 0 kN/m 5, 0 m 31, 25 kN/m
c
g = =
Dead loads
The dead loads consist primarily of the vehicle restraint system and the asphalt layer
and are borne by the composite structure.
2
1, 6 kN/m 5, 0 m 8, 0 kN/m
dl
g = =
3.2 Creep and shrinkage
Shrinkage
Pursuant to EN 19942 [2] 3.1(3) and EN 199211 [4] 3.1.4 and Annex B, total
shrinkage strain has two components, drying and autogenous shrinkage strain. Taking
ambient relative humidity to be 70 % and assuming that the concrete is manufactured with
Class N cement:
3
70%
70
1, 55 1 1, 018
100
 
 
= =



\
\
.
The basic drying shrinkage strain,
cd,0
, is calculated as:
( )
6 6
,0
38
0,85 220 110 4 exp 0,12 10 1, 018 362 10
10
cd
(  
= + =
 (
\
The notional height is:
0
2 2 2, 5
0, 244 m
20, 5
c
A
h
u
= = =
where A
c
is the crosssectional area and u the perimeter of the member in contact with the
atmosphere.
3
10000
( , ) 0,985
10000 0, 04 244
ds s
t t = =
+
Drying shrinkage strain develops over time as:
6 6
( ) 0, 985 0,85 362 10 303 10
cd
t
= =
( )
0.5
( ) 1 exp 0, 2 10000 1, 0
as
t = =
6 6
( ) 2, 5 (30 10) 10 50 10
ca
= =
The autogenus shrinkage strain is:
6 6
( ) 1, 0 50 10 50 10
ca
= =
and the total shrinkage strain at t = is:
Chapter 10: Case study  Design of a composite bridge
196
6 6
(303 50) 10 353 10
cs
= + =
Creep
Given that all dead loads are applied 15 days after the in situ concrete is poured and
that the ambient relative humidity is 70 %, it follows that ([2], 2.3.3 and 3.1; [4], 3.1.4 and
Annex B):
70%
3
1 70 / 100
1 1, 48
0,1 244
= + =
16, 8 16, 8
( ) 2, 73
30 8
cm
cm
f
f
= = =
+
0 0,2 0,2
0
1 1
( ) 0, 55
0,1 0,1 15
t
t
= = =
+ +
where t
0
is the age of concrete at first loading in days.
The notional creep coefficient
0
is:
0
1, 48 2, 73 0, 55 2, 22 = =
( )
18
1, 5 244 1 0, 012 70 250 632 1500
H
(
= + + =
( )
0.3
0
10000
, 0, 982
632 10000
c
t
(
= =
(
+
The final creep coefficient is:
( ) ( )
0 0 0
, , 2, 22 0, 982 2,18 t t = = =
3.3 Variable actions
Traffic loads.
Further to EN 19912 [8], 4.3.2, only Load Model 1 is applied. In this model, used
for general verification calculations, both concentrated twoaxle tandem loading and
uniformly distributed loads are considered.
The carriageway width w is assumed to be equal to the distance between the inner
limits of the vehicle restraint system, therefore w=9,0 m. As w>6,0 m, the number of
conventional lanes, each of which is w
l
=3,0 m wide, is afforded by the relation (Figure 4):
9, 0
int int 3
3 3
l
w
n
   
= = =
 
\ \
.
Since the span length is greater than 10 m, each of the three tandem load systems may
be replaced by a oneaxle load equal to the total load exerted by the two axles constituting the
system [8], 4.3.2 (6).
Uniformly distributed loads: Lane 1 q
1k
= 9,0 kN/m
2
other notional lanes q
i,k
= 2,5 kN/m
2
Chapter 10: Case study  Design of a composite bridge
197
remaining area q
rk
= 2,5 kN/m
2
Tandem system Lane 1 Q
1k
= 300 kN (1 axle of 600 kN)
Lane 2 Q
2k
= 200 kN (1 axle of 400 kN)
Lane 3 Q
3k
= 1 00 kN (1 axle of 200 kN)
other notional lanes Q
ik
= 0.
Figure 4. Traffic loads on the bridge deck
Due to the absence of specific indications related to the expected traffic, the
adjustment factors
Q
and
q
are assumed to be equal to 1,0.
Temperature
Linear temperature variation from the upper to the lower face of the bridge deck (see
6.1.4.1 of [9] and 4 of chapter 5):
Top surface warmer (heating) T = +15 C (7 C/m)
Bottom surface warmer (cooling) T = 18 C (8,4 C/m)
The same linear thermal expansion coefficient is assumed for the steel and the
concrete, namely = 10 10
6
C
1
([2], 3.1(1) and 5.4.2.5(3); [4], 3.1.3(5)).
The value specified in EN 19912 [8], section 5, for uniform thermal variation is
disregarded because it is irrelevant to the present study.
Construction loads during the casting of concrete
Pursuant to EN 199116 [10], 4.11.2, the following construction loads are taken into
account simultaneously in the calculations to verify steel structure conformity. These loads
are intended to be positioned to cause the maximum effects, which may be symmetrical or
not.
 Actual area:
Selfweight of the formwork: q
cc,k
= 0,5 kN/m
2
Q3k = 100 kN Q3k = 100 kN
2,0 m
q1k = 9,0 kN/m
2
q2,3k = 2,5 kN/m
2
Q1k = 300 kN Q1k = 300 kN
2,0 m
Q2k = 200 kN Q2k = 200 kN
2,0 m
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
wl = 3,0 m wl = 3,0 m wl = 3,0 m
w = 9,0 m
Chapter 10: Case study  Design of a composite bridge
198
Weight of the fresh concrete (density 26 kN/m
3
): q
cf,k
=0,25 26=6,5 kN/m
2
 Outside the working area:
Working personnel with small site equipment: q
ca,k
= 0,75 kN/m
2
 Inside the working area (3 m3m):
10 % of the selfweight of fresh in situ concrete, but 0,75 q
ca,33
1,5 kN/m
2
:
q
ca,33
=0,1 6,5= 0,65 kN/m
2
<0,75 kN/m
2
therefore, in the present case q
ca,33
= 0,75 kN/m
2
.
4 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
4.1 Effective width
4.1.1 General remarks
The effective widths calculated in the items below, which are valid for verifying the
ultimate and serviceability limit states, refer to the concrete slab only. The reduction set out in
EN 199315 [11] should be applied to the steel flanges, in the present case
el
= 1.
4.1.2 Global bridge deck analysis
Each span is assumed to have a constant effective width across its entire length, which
is taken to be the midspan value calculated as described in item 4.1.2 ([2], 5.4.1.2(4)).
4.1.3 Effective width for verifying crosssections
The effective width of the concrete slab for verifying crosssectional conformity to
requirements is determined as specified in EN 19942 [2], 5.4.1.2.
At midspan or over an internal support, the total effective width b
eff
is determined
from.
0 eff ei
b b b = +
where:
/ 8
ei e i
b L b =
b
i
is the actual width;
L
e
is the equivalent span
(approximate distance between
points of zero bending moment);
b
0
is the distance between the
centres of the outstand shear
connectors.
In the present case it is assumed b
0
= 0,20 m.
The effective width at the end supports is corrected by applying the
i
factor:
,0 0 eff i ei
b b b = +
where:
(0, 55 0, 025 / ) 1, 0
i e ei
L b = + ,
Consequently:
(0, 55 0, 025 25, 5/ (2, 5 0,1) 0, 82
i
= + =
b
b
b
e1
eff
e2
b
o
Chapter 10: Case study  Design of a composite bridge
199
,0
0, 2 2 0, 82 2, 5 4, 3 m
eff
b = + = .
The resulting distribution of equivalent spans and effective widths is shown in Figure
5.
Figure 5. Distribution of equivalent spans and effective widths
4.1.4 Construction
Given the construction sequence described in 3.4, the procedure to verify steel
structure conformity with the legislation must cover the actions generated by its selfweight,
the weight of the in situ concrete and the construction loads ([2], 5.4.2.4). The construction
sequence is also used as a factor in composite deck verification.
4.1.5 Creep
According to [2], 5.4.2.2, modular ratios n
L for the concrete may be used to calculate
the effects of creep. Depending on the type of loading, the modular ratios are given by:
0
(1 )
L L t
n n = +
where: n
0
is the modular ratio E
a
/E
cm
for shortterm loading;
L
is the creep multiplier depending on the type of loading;
t
is the creep coefficient;
E
cm
is the secant modulus of elasticity of the concrete for shortterm
loading.
The modular ratio n
0
for analysing the structure when exposed to traffic loads and
temperature (and dead loads, where the analysis is performed for t = 0) is:
0
/ 210 / 33 6, 4
a cm
n E E = = =
The ratio for permanent loads
3
is:
3
In this case, the dead load only, because the construction entails no shoring.
7,5 m
30,0 m
Le = 25,5 m
Le = 18,4 m
eff
b
4,3 m 5,0 m
15,0 m 7,5 m 15,0 m
30,0 m
21,7 m
43,5 m
4,8 m 5,0 m
10,9 m
4,8 m 5,0m
7,5 m 10,9 m
4,3 m
7,5 m
Le = 25,5 m Le = 30,5 m
Le = 18,4 m
Chapter 10: Case study  Design of a composite bridge
200
6.4 (1 1,1 2,18) 21, 7 n = + =
The ratio for primary and secondary shrinkage effects is:
6, 4 (1 0, 55 2,18) 14 n = + = .
4.2 Concrete cracking
Given that the ratio between lengths of adjacent continuous spans is
30, 0 / 43, 5 0, 7 0, 6 = > , the effect of cracking is calculated by applying the flexural stiffness
of the cracked section to 15% of the span on both sides of each internal support ([2],
5.4.2.3). This simplification is acceptable for all calculations with the exception of
connection design, where the result might err on the unsafe side.
Further to the previous assumption, the length affected by cracking is 0,1530,0 = 4,5
m in the lateral spans and 0,1543,5=6.5 m in the central span, both adjacent to each support.
Since the thickness of the web and the bottom flange is designed to change at a
distance of 5,0 m from the support on each side, for the sake of simplification, this is the
distance used as the region subject to cracking in the three spans.
4.3 Mechanical properties of crosssections
As discussed in 4.1.2 and 4.1.3, a constant effective width of b
eff
= 5 m along the
entire deck is assumed for structural analysis, obtaining the section properties reported below.
Type 1 section: over piers (5 m on both sides)
= 450 x 25
1
,
9
0
m
= 600 x 60 (S 460)
= 1815 x 15
5,0 m
0
,
2
5
m
20 a 20 (s)
16 a 20 (i)
Figure 6. Type 1 section
Table 1. Type 1 section properties
Structural steel section
Transformed section
Cracked Section
n = 6.4 n = 14 n = 21,7
Area [m
2
] 0,074 0,270 0,164 0,132 0,087
Inertia [m
4
] 0,041 0,143 0,118 0,102 0,063
v [m] 1,247 0,504 0,749 0,898 1,291
v [m] 0,653 1,646 1,401 1,252 0,859
NOTE 1: v is the distance between the uppermost fibre in the section and the centroid.
v is the distance between the centroid and the lowermost fibre in the section.
In the cracked section, the upper face of the concrete slab is regarded to be the uppermost
fibre.
NOTE 2: The contribution of the reinforcing steel is disregarded in the calculations to determine the
characteristics of the transformed section.
Chapter 10: Case study  Design of a composite bridge
201
Type 2 section: over abutments (5 m from bearing)
5,0 m
1
,
9
0
m
0
,
2
5
m
= 450 x 25
= 600 x 25
= 1850 x 12
Figure 7. Type 2 section
Table 2. Type 2 section properties
Structural steel section
Transformed section
n = 6.4 n = 14 n = 21,7
Area [m
2
] 0,048 0,244 0,138 0,106
Inertia [m
4
] 0,029 0,082 0,071 0,065
v [m] 1,023 0,353 0,529 0,649
v [m] 0,877 1,797 1,621 1,501
Type 3 section: span
= 600 x 40
= 1835 x 12
5,0 m
= 450 x 25
1
,
9
0
m
0
,
2
5
m
Figure 8. Type 3 section
Table 3. Type 3 section properties
Structural steel section
Transformed section
n = 6.4 n = 14 n = 21,7
Area [m
2
] 0,057 0,253 0,147 0,115
Inertia [m
4
] 0,034 0,108 0,092 0,082
v [m] 1,153 0,415 0,624 0,762
v [m] 0,747 1,735 1,526 1,388
Chapter 10: Case study  Design of a composite bridge
202
4.4 Structural model
The structural model is a continuous beam whose characteristics are shown in Figure
9.
2
5,0 m
103,5 m
30,0 m
20,0 m 10,0 m 33,5 m 10,0 m 20,0 m 5,0 m
43,5 m
2
30,0 m
Type of section
3 1 3 1 3
Figure 9. Structural model adopted
The characteristics considered for each section type are given in Table 4, depending
on the applied action.
Table 4. Characteristics by section type and applied action
TYPE 1 SECTION TYPE 2 SECTION TYPE 3 SECTION
Selfweight of steel structure Structural steel Structural steel
Structural steel
Selfweight of in situ concrete Structural steel Structural steel
Structural steel
Dead load
t = 0 Cracked section Transformed n=6,4 Transformed n=6,4
t = Cracked section Transformed n=21,7 Transformed n=21,7
Traffic load Cracked section Transformed n=6,4 Transformed n=6,4
Temperature Cracked section Transformed n=6,4 Transformed n=6,4
Shrinkage Cracked section Transformed n=14,0 Transformed n=14,0
5 ACTION EFFECTS
5.1 Internal forces and moments
Elastic analysis is used to calculate the action effects in the sections over the pier and
at midspan in the intermediate bay. The findings are given in Table 5. The values for shear
refer to the section over the pier in the intermediate span.
The effect of thermal action is calculated by entering the gradient set out in 3.4 above
in the structural model.
Primary and secondary shrinkageinduced effects are estimated as follows ([2],
5.4.2.2):
 in light of the properties of the sections where n = 14, the forces and moments
applied at the two ends of the deck are as follows (figure 10)
6
6
33 10
5 0.25 353 10 6649 kN
1 0.55 2.18 2.19
cm
c cs
E
N A
   
= = =
 
+
\
\
( )
0.25
6649 0.529 0.125 2686 kN m
2
M N v
 
= = =

\
*
Chapter 10: Case study  Design of a composite bridge
203
where the value of v is that pertaining to the section over the abutment;
 in addition to the effects discussed above, tensile stresses equal to N/A
c
(using the
aforementioned values of N and A
c
) must be considered to estimate the shrinkage
induced stress in the slab.
Table 5. Internal forces and moments
Over pier At midspan
M (kNm) V (kN) M (kNm) V (kN)
Selfweight of steel structure 744 +109 +439 0
Selfweight of in situ concrete 4648 +680 +2744 0
Dead load
t = 0
t =
1011
1087
+174
+174
+881
+805
0
0
Uniformly distributed load 4214 +707 +4380 0
Tandem system
M
max
= 2760
M
conc
= 0
V
conc
= +519
V
max
= +800
+5938 +400
Temperature
Cooling
Heating
1709
+1424
0
0
1709
+1424
0
0
Shrinkage 394 0 394 0
103,5 m
30,0 m 43,5 m 30,0 m
N
M
N
M
Figure 9. Forces and moments to be applied to estimate shrinkage effects
5.2 Vertical displacements
The following midspan displacements in the intermediate bay are obtained from the
model using the properties of the transformed sections where the effective width of the
concrete is reduced, according to the modular ratio related with the type of loading.
The mechanical property values used to calculate the deflection induced by distributed
traffic loads and tandem system are the values for the shortterm loads at t = 0 and t = .
Table 6. Displacements at midspan in the central bay
Load state f [mm] (t = 0) f [mm] (t = )
Selfweight of steel structure 8 8
Selfweight of concrete 51 51
Dead load 6 7
Shrinkage 0 5
Total traffic load 22 22
Distributed load on the central span 34 34
Tandem system 33 33
Chapter 10: Case study  Design of a composite bridge
204
6 DESIGN VALUES
6.1 Effects of actions
In serviceability limit state verifications, the partial factors for the actions are assumed
to be equal to 1,0 ([6], A1.4.1 (1)).
In ultimate limit state verifications, the partial factors used are given in [12] (A.2.3)
and listed in Table 7 below:
Table 7. Partial factors for actions, ultimate limit state calculations
Type of action Partial factor
Permanent loads
G
= 1,35
Traffic loads
Q
= 1,35
Thermal action
Q
= 1,5
Shrinkage
Gsc
= 1,0 ([2] 2.3.3)
6.2 Material properties
In serviceability limit state verifications, the partial factors for material properties are
assumed to be 1,0 ([6], section 6.5.4(1)).
In ultimate limit state verifications, the partial factors used are given in [2] (2.4) and
listed in Table 8 below:
Table 8. Partial factors for material properties, ultimate limit state calculations
Material Partial factor
Structural steel
M0
= 1,0
M1
= 1,1
Concrete
c
= 1,5
Reinforcing steel
s
= 1,15
The values used for partial factors
M0
and
M1
are as recommended in EN 19932
[13].
7 COMBINATIONS OF ACTIONS
7.1 factor values
The factors for the action combinations considered in this study, given in the
following table 9, are the factors recommended in EN 1990/A1 (Annex A2, on application to
bridges) [12].
7.2 Combinations for the verification of ultimate limit states4 (ULS)
The combinations of actions used for ULS verification, applying the above action
combination and partial factors, are:
4
Only combinations for t = are used in the present example.
Chapter 10: Case study  Design of a composite bridge
205
Table 9. Combination factors used for ultimate limit state calculations
Type of action
0
1,infq
1
2
Uniformly distributed load 0,4 0,8 0,4 0,0
Tandem system 0,75 0,8 0,75 0,0
Thermal action
0,0 (ULS)
0,6 (SLS)
0,8 0,6 0,5
a) 1.35 1.35
p sc
G G Q + +
b)
0 0
1.35 1.5 1.35 ( )
p sc TS UDL
G G T Q Q + + + +
where:
0
= 0,75 for tandem system (TS)
0
= 0,40 for uniformly distributed loads (UDL)
G
p
permanent loads
G
sc
shrinkage
Q traffic loads
Q
TS
traffic loads due to tandem system
Q
UDL
uniformly distributed traffic loads
T temperature
7.2.1 Midspan section
Where traffic loads are assumed to be the predominant variable action:
1.35 1.35
p sc
G G Q + +
( ) , 1.35 439 2744 805 394 1.35 (4380 5938) 18919 kN m Ed max M = + + + + =
1.35 400 540 kN Ed V = =
Where thermal action is regarded to be the predominant variable action:
0 0
1.35 1.5 1.35 ( )
p sc TS UDL
G G T Q Q + + + +
1.35 (439 2744 805) 394 1.5 1424 1.35 (0.4 4380 0.75 5938)
15503 kN m
Ed,max
M = + + + + +
=
1.35 0.75 400 405 kN Ed V = =
7.2.2 Support section
The two combinations studied are: minimum bending moment and concomitant shear,
and maximum shear and concomitant bending moment.
 1
st
combination: M
Ed,min
 V
Ed,conc
Where traffic loads are assumed to be the predominant variable action:
1.35 1.35
p sc
G G Q + +
Chapter 10: Case study  Design of a composite bridge
206
1.35 (744 4648 1087) 394 1.35 (4214 2760) 18556 kN m
Ed,min
M = + =
,
1.35 (109 680 174) 1.35 (707 519) 2955 kN
Ed conc
V = + + + + =
Where thermal action is regarded to be the predominant variable action:
0 0
1.35 1.5 1.35 ( )
p sc TS UDL
G G T Q Q + + + +
1.35 (744 4648 1087) 394 1.5 (1709) 1.35 (0.4 (4214) 0.75 (2760))
16774 kN m
Ed,min
M = + + +
=
,
1.35 (109 680 174) 1.35 (0.4 707 0.75 519) 2207 kN
Ed conc
V = + + + + = .
 2
nd
combination: M
Ed,conc
 V
Ed,max
Where traffic loads are assumed to be the predominant variable action:
1.35 1.35
p sc
G G Q + +
,
1.35 (744 4648 1087) 394 1.35 (4214) 14829 kN m
Ed conc
M = + =
,
1.35 (109 680 174) 1.35 (707 800) 3334 kN
Ed max
V = + + + + =
Where thermal action is regarded to be the predominant variable action:
This combination does not condition the results.
Table 10 summarises the action effects found for the midspan and support sections.
Table 10. Moments and shear forces acting on the midspan and support sections
Type of section Action effects M [kNm] V [kN]
Midspan M
Ed,max
 V
Ed,con
18919 540
Support
M
Ed,min
 V
Ed,con
18556 2955
M
Ed,conc
V
Ed,max
14829 3334
7.3 Combinations for verifying serviceability limit states (SLS)
The following combinations of actions are established for verifying SLS ([6], [8] and
[13]):
 Characteristic combination: (a) 0.6
p sc
G G Q T + + +
(b)
0 0 p sc TS UDL
G G T Q Q + + + +
Frequent combination: (a)
1 1
0.5
p sc TS UDL
G G Q Q T + + + +
(b) 0.6
p sc
G G T + +
Quasipermanent combination: 0.5
p sc
G G T + +
where:
0
=
1
= 0,75 for tandem system (TS)
0
=
1
= 0,40 for uniformly distributed loads (UDL).
Chapter 10: Case study  Design of a composite bridge
207
8 FINAL REMARKS
In this chapter, the provisions of a number of items in EN1991, Actions on
Structures, along with specific stipulations for composite steel and concrete bridges and
other structural Eurocodes are applied to analyse a composite steel and concrete bridge deck
for vehicle traffic. The following concluding remarks are in order:
 The study discussed hereunder focuses on the application, as reliably as possible, of
the rules laid down in the structural Eurocodes referenced.
 In keeping with the purpose and scope of this chapter, all the relevant actions and
their effects likely to arise during bridge deck construction and future use are
identified. The specific load models for the actions that should be considered in
analysis and design calculations are also determined.
 Further to the requirements for safety and serviceability of composite steel and
concrete structures, the relevant action effects are calculated and the combinations
of actions for verifying ultimate and serviceability limit states are determined for
the example chosen.
9 REFERENCES
[1] Monografa M10. Comprobacin de un Tablero Mixto. Comisin 5, Grupo de Trabajo
5/3 Puentes Mixtos, Asociacin Cientficotcnica del Hormign Estructural, Madrid,
2006, ISBN 8489670471.
[2] EN 19942 Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part 2: Rules
for bridges. CEN, Brussels, 2005.
[3] EN 199311 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 11: General rules and rules
for buildings. CEN, Brussels, 2005.
[4] EN 199211 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. Part 11: General rules and
rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels, 2004.
[5] EN 199411 Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part 11:
General rules and rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels, 2004.
[6] EN 1990 Eurocode  Basis of structural design, CEN, Brussels, 2002.
[7] EN 199111 Eurocode 1  Actions on structures. Part 11: General actions Densities,
selfweight, imposed loads for buildings, CEN, Brussels, 2002.
[8] EN 19912 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. CEN,
Brussels, 2003.
[9] EN 199115 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. Part 15: General actions Thermal
actions. CEN, Brussels, 2003.
[10] EN 199116 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. Part 16: General actions Actions
during execution. CEN, Brussels, 2005.
[11] EN 199315 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 15: Plated structural
elements. CEN, Brussels, 2006.
[12] EN 1990:2002/A1:2005 Eurocode  Basis of structural design. Annex A2: Application for
bridges. CEN, Brussels, 2005.
[13] EN 19932 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 2: Steel bridges. CEN, Brussels,
2006.
Chapter 10: Case study  Design of a composite bridge
208
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN19912 load models
209
ANNEX A: EFFECTS OF LHVs ON ROAD BRIDGES AND EN19912
LOAD MODELS
Pietro Croce
1
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Structural Division  University of Pisa
Summary
To improve the European transportation network, the European Commission issued the
96/53/EC directive, that besides limiting the total mass of Heavy Good Vehicles (HGV) to 44 t,
allowed, on a parity basis, the possibility to permit the circulation of Long and Heavy Vehicles
(LHV), with total mass up to 60 t and length till 25 m. Northern European countries took
advantage of this possibility, experiencing a significant increase of LHVs on long distance traffic.
Since the static and fatigue models for road bridges of EN19912 have been calibrated on the
traffic recorded in Auxerre (F) in 1986, where LHVs were not included, the effect of the
introduction of LHVs could be excessively demanding, with disproportionate increase of costs.
Recent studies concerning this relevant question are discussed.
1 INTRODUCTION
In order to improve the organization of the European transportation network, the
European Commission issued the 96/53/EC Directive [1] limiting the total weight of Heavy Good
Vehicles (HGV) to 44 t, but admitting, on a parity and not discriminating basis, the possibility to
allow the circulation of Long and Heavy Vehicles (LHV), with a total mass up to 60 t and with
length till 25 m.
Some northern European countries, in particular Sweden, Finland, The Netherlands and
Germany, permitted the LHVs, so experiencing a significant increase of the number of LHVs in
long distance traffic.
The introduction of LHVs opens new prospects for traffic management thanks to of their
effectiveness in terms of decrease of pollutant emissions and cost reduction. However, it could
lead on the other hand to excessive surcharge of bridges, with disproportionate increase of costs.
Since the load models for static and fatigue assessments of road bridges given in EN1991
2 [2] have been calibrated using the traffic recorded in Auxerre (F) in 1986, obviously not
including LHVs,, the impact of LHVs on existing infrastructures as well as on the load models
themselves could be very relevant.
In order to clarify this problem and to draw some preliminary conclusion, additional
studies have been performed on relevant bridge schemes and spans comparing the Auxerre traffic
effects with those induced by the traffic recorded in April 2007 in Moerdijk, the Netherlands,
characterised by an high percentage of LHVs.
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN19912 load models
210
2 LONG AND HEAVY VEHICLE TRAFFIC MEASUREMENT
As just said, at present the results of a wide campaign of insitu measurements concerning
typical LHV traffic in the Netherlands are available, which have been used in the present study.
The above mentioned measurements have been performed in the first week of April 2007
in Moerdijk (NL), using a state of art weighing in motion (WIM) device, in the framework of the
studies concerning the assessment of equivalent fatigue loads for bridge decks, made by van
Bentum and Dijkstra [3].
In the records vehicles travelling with speed greater than 33 m/s were disregarded,
considering that in this case the reliability is not granted.
2.1 Characteristics of Moerdijk traffic
Analysis of Moerdijk traffic allows classifying commercial lorries in 53 relevant
subclasses, characterized by axle number varying between 2 and 9, described in figure 1. It must
be noted that lorries with up to 13 axles appear in the records and that the maximum recorded
lorry load was about 1140 kN, pertaining to a ten axle lorry type O13411, 19.5 m long.
Preliminary analysis of the records revealed that in few cases measurements were
inaccurate, so that it was necessary to eliminate wrong data from traffic database. In fact, the four
records summarized in table 1 and relative to two axle lorries appear largely unrealistic, also due
to excessive speed or length.
Table 1. Inaccurate data for 2 axle lorries in Moerdijk records
Speed
[m/s]
Length
[m]
Weight
[kN]
1
st
axle
Load
[kN]
2
nd
axle
load
[kN]
30.6 21.02 707 398 309
3.3 13.05 613 208 405
3.3 62.02 684 318 366
27.2 11.32 689 353 336
Disregarding wrong data, the maximum recorded axle load results about 292 kN,
pertaining to the 3
rd
axle of a T12O3 lorry, whose total weight is 636 kN, while the maximum
uniformly distributed load is about 63 kN/m, pertaining to a T12O21 silhouette weighing 813 kN
in total.
Moerdijk traffic measurements, amended according to the aforesaid considerations, were
taken into account for the evaluation of static and fatigue effects on reference bridge schemes and
spans, to be compared with those induced by the Auxerre traffic, as well as with those induced by
EN19912 load models, as described in the following.
3 HGV TRAFFIC AND LHV TRAFFIC COMPARISON
3.1 Axle and lorry loads
Static effects can be compared in a very simple way in terms of load spectra.
This is highlighted in particular in figures 2, 3, 4 and 5, which refer to comparison of
single, tandem, tridem axles weight spectra and total lorry weight spectra of Auxerre and
Moerdijk, respectively.
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN19912 load models
211
Figure 1. Lorry subclasses and symbols for Moerdijk (NL) traffic
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN19912 load models
212
Figure 2. Comparison of single axle load spectra for Auxerre and Moerdijk traffics.
Figure 3. Comparison of tandem axle load spectra for Auxerre and Moerdijk traffics
Figure 4. Comparison of tridem axle load spectra for Auxerre and Moerdijk traffics
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN19912 load models
213
Figure 5. Comparison of total lorry weight spectra for Auxerre and Moerdijk traffics.
3.2 Preliminary conclusions about static loads
The examination of the traffic records and the load spectra comparison shown above
highlight that:
 in consequence of the new traffic trend, the average axle number of the commercial
vehicle tends to increase significantly;
 total weight of LHVs could raise very high level, but usually this level is associated
with axle loads close to the legal limits;
 despite that occasionally axle loads can reach about 300 kN, Moerdijk traffic appears,
in general, less severe than the Auxerre traffic;
 it seems, therefore, that EN 19912 load models for static verifications cover also
Moerdijk traffic effects, so confirming, at this stage, its effectiveness;
 clearly, to draw more definitive conclusions it is necessary to enlarge the field of
investigation, also considering different traffic records.
It must be stressed, moreover, that Auxerre traffic data, obtained with less refined
WIM devices, probably are affected by a systematic overestimate.
4 FATIGUE DAMAGE
4.1 Reference traffics and equivalent load spectra
Besides in terms of static assessment, it is necessary to ascertain the aggressiveness of
traffic in terms of fatigue damage.
For this purpose four different traffic samples, composed by 10 000 vehicle each, have
been taken into account: two real ones, directly derived from Auxerre traffic measurements
used for calibration of EN 19912 models and from the new Moerdijk traffic measurements,
respectively, and two conventional ones, suitably derived from the fatigue load model n. 4 for
long distance traffic.
The aforesaid conventional traffic models were obtained taking into account an annual
flow of 210
6
standard LM 4 lorry silhouettes on the slow lane. These models, obtained
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN19912 load models
214
through a Monte Carlo simulation, differ on the intervehicle distances, that in the former case
are as simulated, in order to consider also interaction between vehicles simultaneously present
on the bridge, and in the latter case they are suitably increased in such a way that only isolated
lorries can cross the bridge, so avoiding interaction. It must be also stressed that EN 19912
states that, as rule, fatigue load models cannot be used directly when vehicle interactions
become significant, unless adequate additional ad hoc studies are performed.
The choice of these four reference traffics is particularly appropriate, because it allows
to compare the fatigue damage induced by the Auxerre traffic not only with the damage
induced by Moerdijk one, but also with those induced by the equivalent load spectra of EN
19912.
4.2 Reference influence lines and spans for bridges
Preliminarily, five influence surfaces for simply supported and continuous beams have
been selected to perform the fatigue damage assessment. The influence surfaces, illustrated in
figures 6 to 10, refer to the bending moment at midspan of a simply supported beam (M
o
), to
the bending moment at intermediate support (M
1
) and at section located 0.432 L from the first
support, where the bending moment attains the maximum value(M
2
), in a two span continuous
beam and to the to the bending moment at the third support (M
3
) and at midspan (M
4
) of a five
span continuous beam.
0 0.5 1
Figure 6. Influence line for bending moment M
0
at midspan of simply supported bridge
0 1 2
Figure 7. Influence line for hog moment M
1
at intermediate support of two span
continuous bridge
0.432
0 1 2
Figure 8. Influence line for max sag moment M
2
in the section located 0.432 L from the
support in two span continuous bridge
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN19912 load models
215
0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 9. Influence line for hog moment M
3
at the third support of five span continuous
bridge
0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 10. Influence line for max sag moment M
4
at midspan of five span continuous
beam bridge
4.3 Comparison of fatigue damage
For each influence line, nine different span lengths have been considered, varying
from 3 m to 100 m (3 m, 5 m, 10 m, 20 m, 30 m, 50 m, 70 m, 100 m), and the bending
moment histories induced in each of them, in turn, by the four relevant traffics have been
determined.
Stress spectra have been derived from the above mentioned time histories using the
rainflow cycle counting method. Finally, fatigue damage has been evaluated using the
Palmgren Miner rule.
In the damage assessment, consistently with the assumptions made in EN19912
background studies, simplified single slope SN curves, without fatigue limit, have been taken
into account, assuming, in turn, a slope m=3 and m=5. These statements are fully justified, as
they simplify significantly fatigue assessments, introducing negligible errors.
The fatigue damage induced by each relevant traffic is then compared with the one
induced by the Auxerre traffic, both for m=3 or m=5, and the aggressiveness of each traffic is
finally derived in terms of the equivalence factor K
eq,t
for the actual traffic, given by
eqAux
t
eq
Aux
t
m
D
D
t eq
K
= =
1
,
(1)
where D
t
is the fatigue damage induced by the actual traffic, D
Aux
is the fatigue damage
induced by the Auxerre traffic, m is the slope of the SN curve adopted for the evaluation of
D
t
and D
Aux
,
eq,t
is the equivalent value of the stress range for the actual traffic and
eq,Aux
is the equivalent value of the stress range for the Auxerre traffic. Obviously, higher values of
K
eq,t
correspond to more aggressive traffics.
K
eq,t
is a characteristic traffic parameter and it represents a concise way to compare
different traffics: in fact, it can be interpreted as an adjustment factor for which the axle load
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN19912 load models
216
values of Auxerre traffic must be multiplied to reproduce the fatigue damage induced by the
actual traffic.
The K
eq,t
curves, pertaining to Moerdijk traffic as well as to conventional traffics
derived from fatigue load model LM4 of EN 19912, with and without vehicle interaction, are
plotted for each relevant influence line, in terms of span length, in figures 11 to 15 for m=3
and in figures 16 to 20 for m=5. More precisely figures 11 and 16 refer to M
0
, figures 12 and
17 to M
1
, figures 13 and 18 to M
2
, figures 14 and 19 to M
3
and figures 15 and 20 to M
4
.
Figure 11. K
eq
curves for bending moment M
0
(m=3)
Figure 12. K
eq
curves for bending moment M
1
(m=3)
Figure 13. K
eq
curves for bending moment M
2
(m=3)
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN19912 load models
217
Figure 14. K
eq
curves for bending moment M
3
(m=3)
Figure 15. K
eq
curves for bending moment M
4
(m=3)
Figure 16. K
eq
curves for bending moment M
0
(m=5)
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN19912 load models
218
Figure 17. K
eq
curves for bending moment M
1
(m=5)
Figure 18. K
eq
curves for bending moment M
2
(m=5)
Figure 19. K
eq
curves for bending moment M
3
(m=5)
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN19912 load models
219
Figure 20. K
eq
curves for bending moment M
4
(m=5)
Critical examination of these K
eq,t
curves allows to conclude that:
 load model LM 4 represents very satisfactorily the actual fatigue damage induced by
the Auxerre traffic and is generally safesided;
 despite of EN 19912 statement that establishes that isolated standard lorries cannot be
used when vehicle interactions are relevant (i.e. when L > 30 m), the use of
conventional often allows to approximate real traffic effects better than resorting to
improved load model LM4, taking into account interactions;
 conventional load model LM4, disregarding vehicle interactions, results unsafesided
for bending moment at intermediate supports of continuous beams: in this case, on the
contrary, the use of improved load model LM4 leads to significant overestimates of
fatigue damage, with K
eq
values raising up 1.25;
 the aforesaid phenomena can be explained considering that influence line of
intermediate support is characterized by two adjacent zones where the ordinates of the
influence line are comparable, so that from one side the stress range induced by
isolated vehicles, which affect only one zone, is too low, while, from the other side,
interacting LM4 vehicles, which affect both adjacent zones, determine too high stress
range, as their equivalent axle loads values, calibrated considering short and medium
span bridges, are similar;
 the Moerdijk traffic is characterized by K
eq
factors generally ranging between 0.8 and
0.85 except the cases M
1
and M
3
for span length L > 50 m and m=5.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The impact of LHVs on design of bridges in terms of static and fatigue assessments
has been discussed, comparing the effects induced by the Moerdijk (NL) traffic, characterized
by high percentage of LHVs, with those induced by the Auxerre traffic, used as reference
traffic in background of EN19912. The fatigue assessments have been supplemented also
considering two conventional traffics, deduced by the fatigue load model 4 of EN19912,
constituted by equivalent lorries.
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN19912 load models
220
Results of the study demonstrate that EN 19912 load models adequately cover the
effect induced by the LHVs, as included in Moerdijk measurements. This can be explained
considering, on the one hand, that overloads of single axles of LHVs are usually not so
relevant as for HGVs, on the other hand, that Auxerre data, obtained in 1986 with a less
refined WIM device, could be affected by some systematic overestimate.
Clearly, these results need to be supplemented and improved as they concern specific
traffic measurement; therefore further studies are necessary enlarging the field of
investigation and considering various traffic measurements.
6. REFERENCES
[1] Directive 96/53/EEC, OJ L.235, 17/09/1996.
[2] EN19912, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures  Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. Brussels:
CEN 2003
[3] van Bentum, C.A. & Dijkstra, O.D. Process description of equivalent fatigue load on
bridge decks. TNO report 366 B UK. Delft: TNO, 2008.
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
221
ANNEX B: ACTIONS AND COMBINATION RULES FOR CRANES,
MASTS, TOWERS AND PIPELINES
Milan Holick
1
, Jana Markov
1
1
Klokner Institute, Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic
Summary
Relevant loads due to cranes and machinery need to be considered in the design of
towers, masts and pipelines. For the selected design situations and identified limit states, the
critical load cases should be assessed. The combination rules for actions, partial factors and
other reliability elements provided in EN 1990 are supplemented for the purposes of cranes
and machinery in EN 19913, for towers and masts in EN 199331 and for pipelines in EN
199343. It is foreseen that during the planned revision of EN 1990 the basis of design for
these structures will be transferred to a new Annexes of EN 1990.
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background documents
The aim of this Chapter is to introduce an overview of actions and supplementary
rules for their combinations needed for the design of masts, towers, pipelines and crane
supporting structures. The basic procedures for the determination of characteristic and design
values of actions are given in EN 1990 [1] and in various Parts of EN 1991. Some Parts of
EN 1993 provide rules for specification of actions and their combinations for masts, towers
and pipelines.
1.2 Basic principles
EN 1990 [1] gives basic principles for the design of construction works. EN 19913
[6] provides supplementary rules for the design of cranes and machinery, EN 199331 [7] for
masts and towers and EN 199343 [8] for pipelines.
2 ACTIONS AND COMBINATION RULES FOR CRANES AND MACHINERY
2.1 General
EN 19913 [6] give guidance for specification of actions induced by cranes on runway
beams and by rotating machines on supporting structures.
2.2 Actions due to cranes
Actions due to cranes include hoist loads, inertial forces caused by
acceleration/deceleration and by other dynamic effects. Following vertical and horizontal
components are distinguished:
variable vertical crane actions caused by the selfweight of the crane and the hoist load
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
222
variable horizontal crane actions caused by acceleration/deceleration or by skewing or
by other dynamic effects.
The various representative values of variable crane actions are characteristic values
composed of a static and a dynamic component.
Dynamic components (induced by vibration due to inertial and damping forces) are in
general taken into account by dynamic factors to be applied to the static values of actions
F
,k
=
i
F
k
(1)
Where F
,k
is the characteristic value of a crane action,
i
is the dynamic factor and F
k
is the
characteristic static component of a crane action. The various dynamic factors and their
application are listed in Table 2.1 of EN 19913 [6].
The simultaneity of crane load components may be taken into account by considering
groups of loads. Each of these groups should be considered as defining one characteristic
crane action for the combination with noncrane loads.
Cranes can also evoke accidental actions due to collision with buffers or collision of
lifting attachments with obstacles. These actions should be considered for the structural
design where appropriate protection is not provided. They are represented by various load
models defining design values in the form of equivalent static loads.
2.3 Actions due to machinery
Structures supporting rotating machines are commonly loaded by permanent actions
due to the selfweight of all fixed or movable parts and static actions due to operations.
Variable actions due to machinery during normal service are dynamic actions caused by
accelerated masses including
periodic frequencydependent bearing forces due to eccentricities of rotating masses in
all directions, mainly perpendicular to the axis of the rotors
periodic actions due to service depending on the type of machine that are transmitted
by the hull or bearings to the foundations
free mass forces or mass moments
forces or moments due to switching on/off or other transient procedures such as
synchronisations.
Moreover, accidental actions may occur due to e.g. accidental magnification of the
eccentricity of masses (for instance by fracture of brakes), by short circuit or out of
synchronisation of the generators and machines.
2.4 Combinations of actions
Effects of actions that cannot exist simultaneously due to physical or functional
reasons should not be considered together in combination of actions.
When combining a group of crane loads together with other actions, the group of crane
loads should be considered as one action. For runways outside buildings the wind actions,
snow and temperature should be considered. The maximum wind force
*
W
F compatible with
crane operations need to be considered (the recommended value is
*
W
F = 20 m/s).
The combination of actions for ultimate limit states is based on expressions (6.9a) to
(6.12b) and for serviceability limit states on expressions (6.14a) to (6.16b) according to EN
1990 [1].
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
223
Where an accidental action is to be considered, no other accidental action nor wind nor
snow actions need be considered to occur simultaneously.
Recommended values of factors are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Recommended values of factors
Action
0
1
2
Single crane or groups of loads
induced by cranes
1,0 0,9 (*)
(*) The recommended value is the ratio between the permanent crane action and the
total crane action.
2.5 Ultimate limit states
For each critical load case, the design values of the effects of actions should be
determined by combining the values of actions which occur simultaneously in accordance
with EN 1990 [1].
Static equilibrium (EQU) and uplift of structural bearings for structures supporting
cranes and machinery should be verified using the design values of actions given in Table 2.
Table 2. Design values of actions (EQU) (Set A)
P/T
situations
Permanent actions Leading
variable
action (*)
Accompanying variable actions
Unfavourable Favourable Main (if any) Others
Eq. (6.10)
Gj,sup
G
kj,sup
Gj,inf
G
kj,inf
Q,1
Q
k,1
Q,i
0,i
Q
k,i
NOTE 1 The recommended set of values for are
Gj,sup
= 1,05
Gj,inf
= 0,95
Q
= 1,35 for unfavourable variable crane actions
Q
= 1,00 for favourable variable crane actions, where crane is present
Q
= 0 for favourable variable crane actions, where crane is not present
Q
= 1,5 for other unfavourable variable actions (0 where favourable)
NOTE 2 For verification of uplift of structural bearings or in cases where the verification of static
equilibrium also involves the resistance of structural members (e.g. where loss of static equilibrium is
prevented by stabilizing systems or devices, e.g. anchors, stays or auxiliary columns) as an alternative
to two separate verifications based on Tables 2.2 and 2.3 a combined verification based on Table 2.2
may be adopted with the following recommended values
Gj,sup
= 1,35
Gj,inf
= 1,25
Q,1
= 1,35 for unfavourable variable crane actions
Q,1
= 1,00 for favourable variable crane actions where crane is present
Q,1
= 0 for favourable variable crane actions where crane is not present
Q
= 1,5 for other unfavourable variable actions (0 where favourable)
provided that applying
Gj,inf
= 1,00 both to the favourable part and to the unfavourable part of
permanent actions does not give a more unfavourable effect.
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
224
The design values of actions and recommended partial factors based on EN 1990 [1]
and EN 19913 [6] for the ultimate limit states (STR) in the persistent and transient design
situations are given in Table 2.3.
Table 3. Design values of actions (STR) (Set B)
P/T
situations
Permanent actions
unfavourable favourable
Prestress Leading
variable
action
Accompanying variable
actions
Main (if any) others
Exp. (6.10)
Gj,sup
G
kj,sup
Gj,inf
G
kj,inf
P
P
k
Q,1
Q
k,1
Q,i
0,i
Q
k,i
Exp. (6.10a)
Gj,sup
G
kj,sup
Gj,inf
G
kj,inf
P
P
k
Q,1
0,1
Q
k,1
Q,i
0,i
Q
k,i
Exp. (6.10b)
Gj,sup
G
kj,sup
Gj,inf
G
kj,inf
P
P
k
Q,1
Q
k,1
Q,i
0,i
Q
k,i
Recommended values:
Gj,sup
= 1,35 for unfavourable and
Gj,inf
= 1,0 for favourable permanent actions
Q
= 1,35 for unfavourable crane actions,
Q
= 1,00 for favourable crane actions, where crane is
present,
Q
= 0 for favourable crane actions, where crane is not present.
Q
= 1,5 for other unfavourable variable actions,
Q
= 0 for favourable variable actions where
crane is not present
= 0,85 (so that
Gj,sup
= 0,851,35 = 1,15)
P
= recommended values are specified in the relevant design Eurocode.
The characteristic values of all permanent actions from one source may be multiplied by
G,sup
if
the total resulting action effect is unfavourable and
G,inf
if the total action effect is favourable.
For particular verifications, the values for
G
and
Q
may be subdivided into
g
and
q
and the
model uncertainty factor
Sd
(a value of
Sd
in recommended in the range 1,0 to 1,15).
The design values of actions for the ultimate limit states in the accidental and seismic
design situations are given in Table 4.
Table 4 Design values of actions for use in accidental and seismic combinations
P/T situations Permanent actions
unfavourable favourable
Prestress Accidental
or seismic
action
Accompanying variable
actions
main (if any) others
Accidental
Exp.
(6.11a/b)
G
kj,sup
G
kj,inf
P
k
A
d
11
Q
k1
or
21
Q
k1
2,i
Q
k,i
Seismic
Exp.
(6.12a/b)
G
kj,sup
G
kj,inf
P
k
I
A
Ek
or
A
Ed
2,i
Q
k,i
In case of accidental design situations, the main variable action may be taken with its frequent or
quasipermanent values. The choice is given in the National Annex depending on the accidental
action under consideration.
2.6 Serviceability limit states
Three combinations of actions are recommended for verification of serviceability
criteria. The design values of actions for the serviceability limit states are given in Table 2.5.
The serviceability criteria should be defined in relation to the serviceability
requirements in accordance with EN 1992 to EN 1999. Deformations should be calculated in
accordance with relevant EN 1991 to EN 1999 by using the appropriate combinations of
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
225
actions according to expressions (6.14a) to (6.16b) taking into account the serviceability
requirements and the distinction between reversible and irreversible limit states.
Table 5. Design values of actions for use in serviceability limit states
Combination Permanent actions G
d
Prestress Variable actions Q
d
Unfavourable Favourable Leading Others
Characteristic
Frequent
Quasipermanent
G
k,j,sup
G
k,j,sup
G
k,j,sup
G
k,j,inf
G
k,j,inf
G
k,j,inf
P
k
P
k
P
k
Q
k,1
1,1
Q
k,1
2,1
Q
k,1
0,i
Q
k,i
2,i
Q
k,i
2,i
Q
k,i
3 ACTIONS AND COMBINATION RULES FOR MASTS AND TOWERS
3.1 General
The lattice towers and guyed masts which are within the scope of EN 199331 [8]
should be designed in accordance with general rules of EN 1990 [1] for the basis of design
and EN 199311 [7] for design of steel structures.
Three reliability levels are distinguished for the ultimate limit state verifications of
structures, depending on the possible economic and social consequences of their collapse.
3.2 Actions and environmental influences
Models of actions are given in relevant Parts of EN 1991. Selfweight should be
determined in accordance with EN 199111 [2]. Imposed load is recommended to be
considered on members inclined within 30 to horizontal to carry the weight of a workman
making possible the maintenance. Wind loads need to be specified according to EN 199114
[4] however, using the wind force coefficients and supplementary rules for wind actions given
in Annex B of EN 199311 [7]. Basic guidance for modelling of climatic actions [3,4] are
provided in Annex B and for ice loads in Annex C [7], more details for icing are given in
ISO 12494 [10]. Hazard situations, proposed strategies for risk reduction, accidental actions
and guidance for their application are provided in EN 199117 [5].
3.3 Ultimate limit states
Permanent, transient and accidental design situations are distinguished. The basis for
specification of characteristic and design values of actions are given in EN 1990 [1]. The
values of partial factors and factors for actions in the ultimate limit states are recommended
in Annex A to EN 199311 [7].
3.4 Serviceability limit states
The serviceability limit states which need to be considered within the scope of
structures given in EN 199331 [8] include
deflections or rotations that may adversely affect the use of the structure
vibration, oscillation or sway that cause loss of transmitted signals
deformations, deflections, vibration, oscillation or sway leading to damage to non
structural elements.
3.5 Reliability differentiation
Three reliability classes 1 to 3 are distinguished in EN 199331 [8] related to the
consequences of structural failure as illustrated in Table 6.
The values of partial factors
G
and
Q
recommended in EN 199331 [8] for the
ultimate limit state verifications considering three reliability classes are introduced in Table 7.
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
226
Table 6. Reliability differentiation for towers and masts.
Reliability
Class
Examples of structures
3 towers and masts erected in urban locations, or where their failure is likely to cause
injury or loss of life; towers and masts used for vital telecommunication facilities;
other major structures where the consequences of failure would be likely to be very
high
2 all towers and masts that cannot be defined as class 1 or 3
1 towers and masts built on unmanned sites in open countryside; towers and masts,
the failure of which would not be likely to cause injury to people
Table 7. Partial factors for actions
Type of action
effect
Reliability Class
G
for permanent
actions
Q
for variable
actions
unfavourable
3 1,2 1,6
2 1,1 1,4
1 1,0 1,2
favourable all classes 1,0 0,0
However, the values of partial factors of actions appear to be considerably lower than
those recommended for structures in the basic Eurocode EN 1990 [1], Annex A1. Presently,
the target values of reliability index
t
are not recommended in EN 199331 [8].
3.6 Ice load and combinations with wind
The basis for specification of ice load is given in ISO 12494 [10] to which EN 19933
1 [8] make reference. The ice loads are based on Ice Classes IC for rime (IR) and glaze (IG).
The specification of relevant Ice Class for the site location is left for national decision.
Combination of ice with wind can often govern the design of masts and towers. Two
combinations of wind and snow need to be considered for both symmetrical icing and
asymmetrical icing:
leading ice load and accompanying wind
G
G
k
+
ice
Q
k,ice
+
W
k
W
Q
k,w
(2)
leading wind and accompanying ice
G
G
k
+
W
k Q
k,w
+
ice
ice
Q
k,ice
(3)
where k is given in ISO 12494 [10] dependent on Ice Class and the values of reduction
coefficients
I
=
W
= 0,5 are recommended in EN 199331 [8].
4 ACTIONS AND COMBINATION RULES FOR PIPELINES
4.1 General
EN 199343 [9] provides principles and application rules for the structural design of
buried cylindrical steel pipelines for the transport of liquids or gases or mixtures of liquids
and gases at ambient temperatures. The design of pipelines should be in accordance with
provisions of EN 1990 [1] for the basis of design and EN 1991 for actions.
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
227
Different levels of reliability may be adopted for different types of pipelines,
depending on possible economic and social consequences of their collapse. Each CEN
Member State may define the minimum level of reliability. The recommended values given in
EN 199343 [9] are intended for medium safety requirements.
4.2 Actions and environmental influences
Actions which should be considered include
internal and external pressure
self weight of the pipeline and its content (transported product)
soil loads, imposed deformation (due to settlements, landslides)
traffic loads
temperature variations
construction loads
seismic loads.
4.3 Ultimate limit states
The basis for specification of characteristic and design values of actions are provided
in EN 1990 [1]. The values of partial factors shall be based on the required reliability level.
The following combinations of actions for ultimate limit states should be considered
a) Internal pressure: The difference between the maximum internal pressure and the
smallest external pressure. This limit state is generally used first for the
determination of the wall thickness.
b) Internal pressure plus other relevant loads: The internal and external pressure
conditions defined in (a), with the other relevant design loads added. This limit state
is generally used to check critical strains
c) External pressure plus other relevant loads: The difference between the maximum
external pressure and the smallest internal pressure, with the other relevant design
loads added. This limit state is generally used to check ovalisation, critical strains,
local buckling etc.
d) Temporal variations in pressure plus other relevant design loads. This case is
concerned with cyclic actions on the pipe. This limit state is generally used last to
check for fatigue.
4.4 Serviceability limit states
For serviceability limit states the following combinations should be considered
a) Internal pressure plus other relevant loads: The difference between the maximum
internal pressure and the smallest external pressure with the other relevant design
loads.
b) External pressure plus other relevant loads: The difference between the maximum
external pressure and the smallest internal pressure, with the other relevant design
loads added.
4.5 Reliability differentiation
Pipelines usually comprise several associated facilities such as pumping stations,
operation centres, maintenance stations, etc., each of them housing different sorts of
mechanical and electrical equipment. Since these facilities have a considerable influence on
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
228
the continued operation of the system, it is necessary to give them adequate consideration in
the design process aimed at satisfying the overall reliability requirements.
Different levels of reliability may be adopted for different types of pipelines,
depending on possible economic and social consequences of their collapse. The choice of the
target reliability should be agreed between the designer, the client and the relevant authority.
5 AN EXAMPLE OF SPECIFICATION OF ACTIONS
A simply supported steel beam span of 3 m of a transmitting tower is located at high
of 14 m above the terrain of category 2 where the basic wind velocity is v
b0
= 27,5 m/s, see
Fig. 1. The steel beam (crosssectional shape I, in mutual distances of 1 m) is loaded by the
selfweight of a steel deck thickness of 0,01 m and by average permanent load 3 kN/m
2
due to
the transmitting facilities. The tower is located in region with Ice Class IR5.
The selfweight of a beam is 0,1 kN/m, the permanent load g = 3 kN/m
2
, wind
pressure w at high 14 m w = 0,6 kN/m
2
(or suction 1,8 kN/m
2
) and icing i = 0,5 kN/m
2
.
g
w
i
L = 3 m
Figure 1. Scheme of a structural member and its loading.
The fundamental combination and reliability elements given in EN 1990 [1] is
considered for a common structural reliability class RC2. The maximum moment for the
simple beam is determined for an icing considered as a leading action
M = 1/8 L
2
(1,35 g + 1,5 i + 1,5
W
k w)
M = 1/83
2
(1,353,1 + 1,50,5 + 1,50,60,60,6) = 5,9 kNm
where
W
= 0,6, k = 0,6 [10], and for the wind considered as a leading action
M = 1/8 L
2
(1,35g + 1,5 w + 1,5
I
i)
M = 1/83
2
(1,353,1 + 1,50,6 + 1,50,50,5) = 6,1 kNm
where
I
= 0,5. The values of reliability elements (partial factors and reduction factors) are
based on EN 1990 [1].
However, when the values of reliability elements given in EN 199331 [8] are
considered then the following result will be obtained if icing is a leading action
M = 1/83
2
(1,13,1 + 1,40,5 + 1,40,60,60,6) = 5 kNm
and for the wind considered as a leading action
M = 1/83
2
(1,13,1 + 1,40,6 + 1,40,50,5) = 5,2 kNm
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
229
Thus, the application of the reliability elements given in EN 199331 [8] leads to
about 15 % reduction of internal moment.
In case that the reliability elements recommended in the CENELEC standard EN
503411 [11] should be applied then the resulting moments decrease about 30 % in
comparison with results based on EN 1990 [1]. The reliability of structural members designed
considering reliability elements according to EN 503411 [11] appears to be significantly low.
8 CONCLUDING REMARKS
The design of structures supporting cranes and machinery, towers and masts and
pipelines are based on the load combinations provided in EN 1990 [1]. Supplementary rules
for the specification of loads and load effects are given in relevant Parts of EN 1991 and EN
1993.
It is expected that within the revision of EN 1990 similar Annexes A for cranes and
machinery, masts and towers and pipelines will be further developed. However, proposed
values of partial factors and other reliability elements should be further calibrated and
harmonised.
9 REFERENCES
[1] EN 1990 Eurocode Basis of design. CEN, Brussels, 2006.
[2] EN 199111 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 11: General actions Densities,
self weight, imposed loads for buildings. CEN, Brussels, 2002.
[3] EN 199113 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 13: Snow loads. CEN, Brussels,
2003.
[4] EN 199114 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 14: Wind loads. CEN, Brussels,
2005.
[5] EN 199117 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 17: Accidental actions. CEN,
Brussels, 2006.
[6] EN 19913 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures Part 3: Actions induced by cranes and
machinery. CEN, Brussels, 2006.
[7] EN 199311 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures Part 1.1: General rules and rules
for buildings. CEN, Brussels, 2005.
[8] EN 199331 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures Part 3.1: Towers, masts and
chimneys Towers and masts. CEN, Brussels, 2006.
[9] EN 199343 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures Part 4.3: Pipelines. CEN,
Brussels, 2007.
[10] ISO 12494 Atmospheric icing on structures. ISO/TC98, 2001.
[11] EN 50341. Overhead electrical lines exceeding AC 45 kV Part 1: General requirements
Common specifications, CENELEC, Brussels, 2001.
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
230