Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49295199
Article
Source: OAI
CITATIONS READS
0 6,739
1 author:
Pietro Croce
Università di Pisa
40 PUBLICATIONS 95 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Pietro Croce on 17 March 2015.
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 Holický, Czech Technical University in Prague, Klokner Institute
Jana Marková, 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
Guidebook 2
Design of B ridges
ISBN: 978-80-01-04617-3
Pages: 230
1 st e dit ion
Foreword
FOREWORD
It is expected that the Guidebooks will address the following intents in further
harmonization o f European construction industry:
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.
3
Foreword
Pisa 2010
4
Contents
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 1991-2 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 EN1991-2 load models 209
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines 221
5
Contents
6
Chapter 1: Basic requirements
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
Of these, only the first two are generally related to structural behaviour and
consequently only they are covered by structural Eurocodes.
7
Chapter 1: Basic requirements
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 (γ values)
and combination coefficients (ψ 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.
8
Chapter 1: Basic requirements
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 γ-factor applicable will be γQ equal to 1.5
rather than γG equal to 1.35.
The values of these parameters applicable to transient situations are given in Eurocode
EN 1991-1-6: Actions during execution [7].
- 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.
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.
9
Chapter 1: Basic requirements
Generally speaking, EN 1990 [1] recommends the use of characteristic and frequent
combinations for irreversible and reversible SLS, respectively, and the quasi-permanent
combination for long-term 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: 15-25
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 traffic-induced deck vibrations may also have to be limited to ensure user
comfort.
10
Chapter 1: Basic requirements
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.
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 1991-2 [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 Φ. This factor assume the value Φ2 or Φ3 depending on the track conditions, it results
1,44
Φ2 = + 0.82 1.00 ≤ Φ2 ≤ 1.67 (1)
LΦ − 0.2
for carefully maintained track and
2,16
Φ3 = + 0.73 1.00 ≤ Φ3 ≤ 2.0, (2)
LΦ − 0.2
being LΦ the determinant length (length associated withΦ), which is given in EN 1991-2 [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:
11
Chapter 1: Basic requirements
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/s2 in ballasted track or 5 m/s2 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.
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.
12
Chapter 1: Basic requirements
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 β = 3,8, assuming normal consequences.
In bridges, the β 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 100-year 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 de-icing 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:
6 REFERENCES
13
Chapter 1: Basic requirements
[3] Milan Holický 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 Directorate-General, 2003
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/construction/internal/cpd/cpd.htm
[5] Interpretative document No. 1: Mechanical resistance and stability. European
Commission, Enterprise Directorate-General, 2004
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/construction/internal/intdoc/idoc1.htm
[6] EN 1991-2 – Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. CEN,
Brussels, 2003.
[7] EN 1991-1-6 – Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Part 6: Actions during execution.
CEN, Brussels, 2003.
[8] EN 1991-1-7 – Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Part 7: Accidental actions. CEN,
Brussels, 2006.
14
Chapter 2: Basis of design – methodological aspects
Summary
1 INTRODUCTION
- 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.
15
Chapter 2: Basis of design – methodological aspects
2 UNCERTAINTIES
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.
16
Chapter 2: Basis of design – methodological aspects
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 isn’t 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.
17
Chapter 2: Basis of design – methodological aspects
Note that the above definition of reliability includes four important elements:
18
Chapter 2: Basis of design – methodological aspects
probability of failure Pf (and reliability index β) are indicated with regard to failure
consequences (see Guidebook 1 [6]).
More complicated procedures need to be used when some of the basic variables are
time-dependent. Some details concerning theoretical models for time-dependent 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 Pf defined by equation (2) or (3).
Here Φu−1 ( p f ) denotes the inverse standardised normal distribution function. At present the
reliability index β defined by equation (4) is a commonly used measure of structural
reliability in several international documents [1], [2], [5].
It should be emphasized that the failure probability Pf and the reliability index β
represent fully equivalent reliability measures with one to one mutual correspondence given
by equation (4) and numerically illustrated in Table 1.
19
Chapter 2: Basis of design – methodological aspects
In EN 1990 [1] and ISO 2394 [2] the basic recommendation concerning required
reliability level is often formulated in terms of the reliability index β related to a certain
design working life.
Table 1. Relationship between the failure probability Pf and the reliability index β.
Pf 10−1 10−2 10−3 10−4 10−5 10−6 10−7
β 1.3 2.3 3.1 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.2
4 RELIABILITY TARGETS
20
Chapter 2: Basis of design – methodological aspects
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
21
Chapter 2: Basis of design – methodological aspects
22
Chapter 2: Basis of design – methodological aspects
properties fd = fk /γm, dimensions ad + ∆a and model uncertainties θd. The design values of
these quantities are determined (taking into account various uncertainties) using their
characteristic values (Fk, fk, ak, θk), partial factors γ, reduction factors ψ 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].
23
Chapter 2: Basis of design – methodological aspects
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.
S tart
Risk analysis
Ha za rd ide ntifica tion
Risk assessment
Ris k es tima tion
No
R is k tre a tm e nt Acce pta ble risk?
Yes
S top
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 Pf and the reliability index β. 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
24
Chapter 2: Basis of design – methodological aspects
relatively close to the level recommended in EN 1990 (β = 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.
25
Chapter 2: Basis of design – methodological aspects
7. REFERENCES
26
Chapter 2: Basis of design – methodological aspects
Equation (A.6) represents a general form of the necessary condition for the minimum
of total cost Ctot(x,q,n) and the optimum value xopt of the parameter x. It generates also the
27
Chapter 2: Basis of design – methodological aspects
optimum (target) probability of failure and corresponding target value of the reliability index
β.
Considering equation (2) and (4) the total costs Ctot(x,q,n) described by equation (A.1)
may be written as
n
(1 − p( x))
1−
(1 + q)
Ctot(x,q,n) = Cf p( x) + C 0 + x C1 (A.7)
(1 − p( x))
1−
(1 + q)
Note that the total sum of expected malfunction costs during the period of n years is
dependent on the product of the one-time malfunction Cf , initial probability p(x) and a sum of
the geometric sequence having the quotient (1− p(x)/(1+ q).
Thus the total malfunction cost Ctot(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
Ctot(x,q,n) ≈ Cf p(x) PQ(x,q,n) + C0 + x C1 (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
n n
(1 − p( x)) 1
1− 1−
(1 + q) (1 + q)
PQ (x,q,n) = ≈ = PQ(q,n) (A.9)
(1 − p( x)) 1
1− 1−
(1 + q) (1 + q)
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
dp( x) C1
=− (A.10)
dx C f PQ(q, n)
Equation (A.10) can be used for assessing the target (optimum) value pt(x) of the initial
annual probability p(x).
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 pt(q,n)
follows from equation (A.10) as
a C1
pt ( q , x ) = (A.12)
Cf PQ ( q, n)
28
Chapter 2: Basis of design – methodological aspects
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 Ctot(x,q,n)
given by equation (A.1) is transformed to the standardized form κtot(x,q,n) as
Ctot ( x, q, n) − C0
κtot(x,q,n) = = p( x) PQ( x, q, n) +x C1/ Cf (A.16)
Cf
Obviously, both costs Ctot(x,q,n) and κtot(x,q,n) achieve the minimum for the same
parameter xopt.
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 κtot(x,q,n) (given by equation (A.14)), and the reliability index β
corresponding to the probability Pfn(x) (given by equation (A.3)), with structural parameter x
for selected costs ratio C1/Cf. The optimum values xopt(q,n) of the structural parameter x are
indicated by the dotted vertical lines.
Figure A.2 shows variation of the optimum structural parameter xopt(q,n) with the costs
ratio C1/Cf , again for q =0.03, n =50. The optimum parameter xopt(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.
29
Chapter 2: Basis of design – methodological aspects
κtot(x,q,n) β
6
0.04 5
β
0.02
C1/ Cf =0.001 3
Figure A.1. Variation of the total standardized costs κtot(x,q,n) and the reliability index β
with structural parameter x for q =0.03, n = 50 and selected costs ratios C1/Cf.
14
12
10
8
C1 / Cf
6
1 .10 1 .10 1 .10
5 4 3
0.01
Figure A.2. Variation of the optimum structural parameter xopt obtained from equation
(4) or (13) with the costs ratio C1/Cf for q =0.03, n =50.
30
Chapter 2: Basis of design – methodological aspects
βopt
n = 10
4 50
100
C1/Cf
2
.
1 10
6
1 .10
5
1 .10
4
1 .10
3
0.01
Figure A.3. Variation of the optimum reliability index βopt with the cost ratio C1/Cf for
selected design working life n = 10, 50, 100, and the discount rate q = 0.03.
- 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).
31
Chapter 2: Basis of design – methodological aspects
32
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
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 EN1991-2 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 1991-2 [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.
The static load model for road bridges of the EN 1991-2 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 safe-sided for bigger spans.
33
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
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.
Remaining area
Remaining area
Remaining area
Remaining area
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).
34
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
Figure 2. Lane numbering in case the entire carriageway is supported by a single deck
Figure 3. Lane numbering in case the carriageway consists of two separate parts
supported by two separate decks
- 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.
The adjustment factors αQ and αq 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 i-th lane are indicated αQi⋅Qki and αqi⋅qki while on the remaining
area the weight density of the uniformly distributed load is expressed as αqr⋅qkr.
35
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
0.4
0.4
1.2
Longitudinal axis
1.6
2
of the bridge
0.4
0.4
0.4 0.8 0.4
For bridges without road signs restricting vehicle weights, it should be assumed
αQ1≥0.8 for the tandem system on the first notional lane, while for i≥2, αqi≥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 αQi⋅Qki and αqi⋅qki;
- 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.
36
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
Q ik Q ik
qik
0.5
Q1k =300 kN
2.0 Lane n. 1 q1k =9.0 kN/m
0.5
0.5
Q 2k=200 kN
w 2.0 Lane n. 2 q 2k=2.5 kN/m
2
0.5
0.5
Q 3k=100 kN
2.0 Lane n. 3 q 3k=2.5 kN/m
2
0.5
Longitudinal axis
1.4
2
of the bridge
0.6
0.35
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 βQ⋅200 kN should be considered. If not otherwise specified, the
contact surface of each wheel is rectangle, whose dimensions are 0.35 m×0.6 m.
37
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
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 pick-up, 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 1991-2, 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 Geometry Axle loads Vehicle Geometry Axle loads Vehicle type
weight type
600 kN 3×1.5 m 4×150 kN 600/150
900 kN 5×1.5 m 4×150 kN 900/150
1200 kN 7×1.5 m 4×150 kN 1200/150 5×1.5 m 6×200 kN 1200/200
1500 kN 9×1.5 m 4×150 kN 1500/150 7×1.5 m 1×100+7× 200 kN 1500/200
1800 kN 11×1.5 m 4×150 kN 1800/150 8×1.5 m 9×200 kN 1800/200
2400 kN 11×1.5 m 12×200 kN 2400/200
2400 kN 5×1.5+12+5×1.5 m 12×200 kN 2400/200/200
3000 kN 14×1.5 m 15×200 kN 3000/200
3000 kN 7×1.5+12+6×1.5 m 15×200 kN 3000/200/200
3600 kN 17×1.5 m 18×200 kN 3600/200
38
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
1.2 1.2
0.3
Longitudinal axis
of the bridge
240 kN axle weight
Figure 7. Axle lines and wheel contact areas for special vehicles
4.20
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.
39
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
The nominal value of the load, including dynamic amplification, is equal to 5.0
kN/m2, while the combination value is reduced to 3.0 kN/m2, even if it seems that calculations
are considerably simplified adopting a value of 2.5 kN/m2, 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.
being w1 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.
40
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
41
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
The values of ψ0, ψ1, ψ2 for gr1a, referring to load model n.1 are assigned for routes
with traffic corresponding to adjusting factors αQi, αqi, αqr and βQ 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 α factors.
For example, for traffic situations characterised by severe presence of continuous
traffic, like for bridges in urban areas, a value of ψ2 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
42
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
On the contrary, if the application of the aforesaid Load Model 4 is not required, a
uniformly distributed load qfk, to be applied to the unfavourable parts of the influence surface,
should be considered.
Value of qfk depends on the loaded length L [m] and it is given by
120 (4)
2,5 kN/m 2 ≤ q fk = 2.0 + ≤ 5.0 kN/m 2 .
L + 30
In road bridges supporting footways or cycle tracks, the characteristic value 5 kN/m2
or the combination value (2.5 kN/m2) should be considered, according to figure 10.
2
q fk =5.0 kN/m
Figure 10. Characteristic load on a footway (or cycle track) of a road bridge
Q sv1=80 kN Q sv2=40 kN
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Longitudinal axis
1.3
of the bridge
0.2
3
0.2
43
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
The horizontal force, which does not coexists with the concentrated load Qfwk, 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.
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 1991-1-3.
Wind and thermal actions should not be considered as simultaneous.
44
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
Load model Fn, which should be placed in the most adverse position on the bridge
deck, is represented by one pulsating force with a vertical component Fn,v
Fn,v = 280 k v ( f v ) sin(2π f v t ) [N] (5)
to be considered separately.
In equations (5) and (6) fv is the natural vertical frequency of the bridge closest to 2
Hz, fh is the natural horizontal frequency of the bridge closest to 1 Hz, t is the time in s and
kv(fv) and kh(fh) are suitable coefficients, depending on the frequency according to figure 12.
For the evaluation of fv, fh and of the inertia effects, Fn should be associated, if
unfavourable, with a static mass equal to 800 kg, applied at the same location.
45
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
The uniformly distributed load model Fs, to be applied on the whole deck of the
bridge, consists in a uniformly distributed pulsating load with vertical component
Fs ,v = 15 k v ( f v ) sin(2π f v t ) [N/m2], (7)
to be considered separately.
For the evaluation of fv, fh and of the inertia effects, Fs should be associated, if
unfavourable, with a static mass equal to 400 kg/m2, 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 Fs on limited unfavourable areas (e.g. span
by span) or with an opposition of phases on successive spans.
3 3
kh(f h)
kv(f v)
2 2
1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
f v [Hz] f h [Hz]
Figure 12. Relationships between coefficients kv(fv), kh(fh) and frequencies fv, fh
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 fv or fh 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.
46
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
Evaluation of accelerations shall take into account the damping of the footbridge,
through the damping factor ζ referring to the critical damping, or the logarithmic decrementδ,
which is equal to 2πζ.
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:
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 a1d due to
the group of pedestrians may then be assumed as:
1 − exp(−2π nζ )
a1d = 165 k v ( f v ) [m/s2], (9)
Mζ
where M is the total mass of the bridge, f is the relevant, i.e. the determining, fundamental
frequency, and kv(fv) is given in figure 12.
Like road bridge load models, also railway bridges load models of EN 1991-2 do not
describe actual loads, although weight and geometry of trains are often exactly known.
Load models for railway bridges have been set-up 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 EN1991-2 concerns standard track gauge and wide
track gauge of the European mainline network. In general, the load models given here are not
applicable to narrow-gauge 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 1991-2, specific alternative load models and
combination rules should be defined for the particular case under consideration.
- 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,
47
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
- actions due to overhead line equipment and other railway infrastructure and
equipment.
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.
Heavier or lighter rail traffics can be taken into account multiplying the characteristic
values of loads given in figure 13 by a factor α, which should assume following values: 0.75;
0.83; 0.91; 1.10; 1.21; 1.33; 1.46, being α=1.0 the α factor for normal traffic.
In any case, the same factor α 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.
Table 7. Characteristic values of vertical loads for Load Models SW/0 and SW/2
Load qvk a c
Model [kN/m] [m] [m]
SW/0 133 15.0 5.3
SW/2 150 25.0 7.0
48
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
q vk q vk
a c a
qv1 +q v2
Qv1 +Qv2
qv2
≤1.25
qv1 e qv2 qv1
Qv1 Qv2 Qv2
≤1.25
Qv1
r
e≤ 18
r
49
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
through the ballast can be considered according to figure 17, where a represents the
sleeper’s 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
duo-block 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
duo-block sleepers, figure 20 should be suitably modified to take into account the
transverse load distribution under each rail shown in figure 19.
Qvi
a a a a
Qvi
sleeper
4:1
reference
plane
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
50
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
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.
Qh
Qr Qv h
reference
4 :1
plane
A R M B
σA σB
σM
Figure 18. Transverse distribution of action for ballasted tracks without cant
Qh
Qr Qv h
0.6 0.6 running
plane
reference
4:1
4:1
plane
A R M B
σA σB
51
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
Qh
Qr Qv running
h
plane
u
reference
4:1
plane
A R M B
σA σB
σM
Figure 20. Transverse distribution of action for ballasted tracks with cant
52
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
1.1 Deck plate (for both directions) 3 times cross girder spacing
2.1 Deck plate for both directions Twice the cross girder spacing + 3 m
3.2 Cantilever of the rail bearers 3.6 m (it is recommended adoption of Φ3)
3.3 Cross girders (as part of cross Twice the length of the cross girder
girder/continuous rail bearers grillage)
For arch bridges and concrete bridges of all types with a cover of more than 1.00 m, Φ2
and Φ3 may be reduced according to the formula
h - 1.00
red Φ2,3 = Φ2,3 - ≥ 1.0 , (12)
10
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
(V≥200 km/h) require specific dynamic analysis considering Real trains or High Speed Load
53
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
Model, according to the specific application rules. The question is outside the scope of the
present Guidebook and it will not be discussed here.
- transverse cantilever
supporting railway loadings e
End cross girders or trimmer beams 3.6 m (it is recommended adoption of Φ3)
Note: For cases 1.1 to 4.6 inclusive LΦ cannot exceed the determinant length of the main girders
54
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
- any number of uniformly distributed loads qvk should be applied on the track and up
to four concentrated loads Qvk should be applied once per track,
55
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
- 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 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 qvk shall be applied to a
track.
56
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
v2 V2
Qtk = ( f Qvk ) = ( f Qvk ) [kN]
gr 127 ⋅ r
(13)
2 2
v V
qtk = ( f qvk ) = ( f qvk ) [kN/m],
gr 127 ⋅ r
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 Number of tracks
associated acceptance criteria
1 2 ≥3
Traffic Safety Checks:
1 or 2 or 3 or
– Deck twist (EN 1990 Annex 2 A2.4.4.2.2) 1 1 or 2 *)
more *)
1 or 2 or 3 or
– Deformation of the deck (EN 1990 Annex 2 A2.4.4.2.3) 1 1 or 2 *)
more *)
– Horizontal deflection of the deck (EN 1990 Annex 2 1 or 2 or 3 or
1 1 or 2 *)
A2.4.4.2.4) more *)
– Combined response of structure and track to
variable actions including limits to vertical and
1 1 or 2 *) 1 or 2 *)
longitudinal displacement of the end of a deck (
6.5.4)
– Vertical acceleration of the deck (EN1991-2 6.4.6
1 1 1
and EN 1990 Annex 2 A2.4.4.2.1)
SLS Checks:
– Passenger comfort criteria (EN 1990 Annex 2 1 1 1
A2.4.4.3)
ULS Checks
– Avoidance of unrestrained uplift at bearings 1 1 or 2 *) 1 or 2 or 3 or
more *)
*)
whichever is critical (see multi-component 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 Φ2 or Φ3.
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 α.
For Load Model 71 (and LM SW/0, if relevant) the reduction factor f is given by:
V − 120 814 2.88
f = 1 − + 1 .75 1 − ≤1.0, (14)
1000 V L f
where V is the maximum line speed in km/h and Lf 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
57
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
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).
58
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
When the line speed V is bigger than 300 km/h and the influence length Lf 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.
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 axle-loads 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 Qlak and 6000 kN for Qlbk.
59
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
(1) All relevant factors (α, Φ, 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 1991-2
(7) If a dynamic analysis is required in accordance with 6.4.4 of EN 1991-2 also see 6.4.6.5(3) of EN 1991-2.
to be considered in designing a structure supporting two tracks (Load Groups 11-27 except 15).
Each of the two tracks shall be considered as either T1 (Track one) or T2 (Track 2)
60
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
6 CONCLUDING REMARKS
In recent years, bridge codes have considerably evolved. This evolution is the result of
the positive interaction of several factors, namely
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 axle’s
arrangement as well as in terms of axle and vehicle weights.
61
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
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 1991-2 have been discussed, highlighting the application rules and the group of
traffic loads to be considered in combination with non-traffic actions.
When relevant, particular attention has been devoted to background information, also
aiming to suggest safe-sided 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 1991-2 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] EN1991-2, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. CEN,
Brussels, 2003.
[2] O’Connor, A.J. et al., Effects of traffic loads on road bridges – Preliminary studies for the
re-assessment of the Eurocode 1, Part 3. Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on
Weigh-in-motion of road vehicles. Lisbon, 1998
[3] EN1990-A2, 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] O’Brien, E.J. et al., Bridge applications of weigh-in-motion. Paris: Laboratoire Central des
Ponts et Chaussées, 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): 136-143, 2001
[8] Tschemmernegg, F. & al, Verbreiterung und Sanierung von Stahlbrücken. 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.
62
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
Appendix A to Chapter 3 – Development of static load traffic models for road bridges
of EN 1991-2
Static load models for road bridges of EN 1991-2 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 road-vehicle 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, pre-normative 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.
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:
63
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
- model refinement.
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 traffic’s 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 100-200 lorries. [4, 5].
Statistical analyses, that allowed to know the distributions of the most significant
traffic parameters, like traffic composition, inter-vehicle distances, axle’s 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.1÷A.5. Table A.1 shows the daily flows of cars and lorries per lane and the
percentage of inter-vehicular 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 axle-loads 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 axle-load 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;
64
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
Table A.4. Daily flows and statistical parameters of axles heavier than 10 kN and lorries
ALL AXLES TANDEM AXLES TRIDEM AXLES
Flow Pmean σ Pmax Flow Pmean σ Pmax Flow Pmean σ Pmax
[kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [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
65
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
- 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 axle-loads 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 1980’s: the inter-axle distance
distribution strongly results trimodal: the first mode, a little scattered, is located
around 1.30 m, corresponding to the usual axle’s 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
1980’s: 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
1991-2 load models for road bridges were based on the traffic recorded in Auxerre (France),
on the motorway A6 Paris-Lyon.
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.1÷A.6. More precisely, in figures A.1, A.2 and A.3 are shown the histograms of
66
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
vehicle speeds, inter-vehicle distances and axle loads, respectively, referring to the total
vehicle’s 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 axle-loads
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 Périférique. Such traffics,
nevertheless, are not very significant, since they depend on local situations and are hard to
generalize.
0.08
0.07
Slow lane
0.06
Auxerre (F)
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51
speed - [m/s]
Figure A.1. Histogram of the vehicle speed frequency – Auxerre – total flow
0.40
Slow lane
0.30 Auxerre (F)
0.20
0.10
0.00
2 3 4 4 4
1.36 10 5.07 10 1.00 10 1.50 10 2.00 10
Inter-vehicle distance - [m]
Figure A.2. Histogram of the inter-vehicle distance frequency – Auxerre – total flow
67
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
0.45
0.40
Slow lane
0.35
Auxerre (F)
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
12 25 38 51 64 77 90 103 116 129 142 155 168 181
Axle load - [kN]
Figure A.3. Histogram of the axle load frequency – Auxerre – total flow
0.07
0.06
Slow lane
0.05
Auxerre (F)
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51
speed - [m/s]
Figure A.4. Histogram of the vehicle speed frequency – Auxerre – lorries
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.
68
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
0.30
0.25
Slow lane
0.20
Auxerre (F)
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
8.9 101 5.83 103 1.16 104
Intervehicle -distance - [m]
Figure A.5. Histogram of the inter-vehicle distance frequency – Auxerre – lorries
0.07
0.06
Slow lane
0.05
Auxerre (F)
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
10 37 64 91 118 145 172
Axle load - [kN]
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.
69
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
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.
- 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;
70
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
- for the fourth lane, the mean daily effect induced by the fast lane traffic as
recorded.
- 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.
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 quasi-permanent - 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 set-up.
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 X1, X2.…, Xi,…,Xn, being Xi the weight
of the i-th vehicle entering the bridge at time i.
If the weights Xi are independent and distributed according to the same cumulative
distribution function F(x), the return period Rx of the x value of Xi, which is defined as
R x = E [N x ] , where N x = inf {n | X 1 < x, X 2 < x,...., X n−1 < x, X n ≥ x}, (A.1)
R x = [1 − F ( x)] .
−1 (A.2)
If the time series is replaced by a stationary stochastic process {Xt, t>0}, then
R x = E [Tx ], where Tx = inf {t | X t ≥ x ∧ X u < x, ∀u < t}. (A.3)
If YN is the maximum value of Xi and N is the total number of vehicles crossing the
bridge during Rx, then it is
YN = max{X i ,0 < i ≤ N }. (A.4)
71
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
F [YN ] = [F (x )] . (A.5)
n
( )
R = R yp = −
T T
≅ , where 0 < p << 1 .
ln(1 − p ) p
(A.7)
The expression (A.7), which does not depends on yp 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=974.78≈1000 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 1991-2
works.
The methods are based on the half-normal 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.
where x0 is the last mode of the distribution and zR is the upper p-fractile of the standardized
normal variable Z,
p = (2 ⋅ N )−1 , (A.9)
where m and σ are the mean value and the standard deviation of the histogram itself.
The value xR is then
xR = u + y ⋅α ' , (A.11)
being
[
y = − ln − ln(1 − R )−1 , ] (A.12)
72
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
190
180
Effect
T(y)
170
160
150
-2 0 2 4 6 8
Reduced variable y
In addition to the extrapolated static effects, the target values evaluation requires also
specific knowledge about the dynamic effects, due to vehicle-bridge interactions, to be
considered in calibration studies [9].
73
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
74
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
N0
Dynamic
increment
Obviously, due to its conventional nature, ϕcal doesn't have a precise physical
meaning; in fact the static and dynamic x-fractiles don’t correspond to the same load
configuration.
The characteristic values of the calibration impact factors ϕcal, derived from Auxerre
traffic and employed in EN1991-2, are synthesized in figure A.10, depending on the span
length L.
The target dynamic values Edyn(x-fractile) can be finally evaluated through the expression
ϕ cal ⋅ ϕ local
E dyn( x − fractile) = ⋅ E st ( x − fractile) . (A.15)
ϕ in
where ϕlocal represents the local impact factor, when relevant.
Local impact factor ϕlocal takes into account concentrated irregularities of the roadway
surface.
75
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
1.8
1.7 Bending 1
1.6 lane
1.5 Bending 2
lanes
φ cal
1.4
Bending 4
1.3 lanes
1.2 Shear
1.1
1
0 100 200
L [m]
Figure A.10. Calibration value of the impact factors ϕcal (EN 1991-2).
Traffic load models for road bridges of EN 1991-2 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:
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:
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.
76
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
- 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.
77
Chapter 3: Static loads due to traffic
78
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
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 EN1991-2 [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 EN1991-2 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.
In the following the pre-normative background studies which have been carried out in
the framework of EN 1991-2 to define fatigue loads models for road traffic is discussed,
together with the main features of the models themselves.
79
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
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 S-N 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, axle’s 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.
80
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
It can be easily recognised that fatigue verification methods goes along with a well-
defined procedure, characterised by the following steps
5.a calculation of the design stress history σ=σ(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 Palmgren-Miner rule: if D≤1
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.
5.b calculation of the design stress history σ=σ(t) produced in the detail by the
frequent load spectrum transiting over the influence surface;
6.b computation of the maximum stress range ∆σmax=σmax-σmin, being σmax and σmin,
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.
81
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
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
82
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
S S
m m
=3 =3
∆σ ∆σ m=
D
D 5
∆σL
O 5⋅106 108 N
5⋅106
?σ
O ?σ
N
Figure 1. Bilinear S-N curve Figure 2. Trilinear S-N curve
This last definition implies that the return period of ∆σmax is about half a day, giving
so direct explanation of frequent load spectrum denomination.
In EN 1991-2 studies, to derive equivalent load spectra independently from the fatigue
classification of details, cumulative damage has been computed referring generally to
simplified S-N curves with unique slope, in turn m=3 (figure 3) or m=5 (figure 4). S-N 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.
S S
m
=3 m=
5
O N O N
Figure 3. Single slope S-N curve (m=3) Figure 4. Single slope S-N curve (m=5)
m
=3
∆σ
D m=
5
O ?σ
5⋅106 N
Figure 5. Double slope m=3- m=5 S-N curve without endurance limit
83
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
Fatigue load model 1 is extremely simple and generally very safe-sided. 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 Qik by
0.7 and the weight density of the uniformly distributed loads qik 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).
Q ik Qik
qik
0.5
Q1k =210 kN
2.0 Lane n. 1 q1k =2.7 kN/m2
0.5
0.5
Q 2k=140 kN
w 2.0 Lane n. 2 q 2k=0.75 kN/m2
0.5
0.5
Q 3k=70 kN
2.0 Lane n. 3 q 3k=0.75 kN/m2
0.5
The verification consists of checking that the maximum stress range ∆σmax induced by
the model is smaller of the fatigue limit ∆σD. 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 multi-lane configurations, generally resulting extremely
safe-sided.
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 safe-sided.
84
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
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.
4.20 80 A
1.30 140 B
140 B
3.20 90 A
5,20 180 B
1.30 120 C
1.30 120 C
120 C
3.40 90 A
6.00 190 B
1.80 140 B
140 B
4.80 90 A
3.60 180 B
4.40 120 C
1.30 110 C
110 C
85
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
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 Nobs, 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 1991-2 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 cable-stayed bridges, important existing bridges or bridges
carrying unusual traffics, whose relevance justifies ad hoc investigations [2].
86
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
Longitudinal axis
of the bridge
A
1.78
0.32
0.32
0.22 0.22
2
Longitudinal axis
of the bridge
0.32
0.32
B 0.54 0.54
0.22 0.22
0.22 2 0.22
Longitudinal axis
of the bridge
1.73
0.32
0.32
0.27 0.27
2
Table 4. Indicative number of lorries expected per year and for a slow lane
Traffic categories Nobs per year and per slow lane
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 M0 at midspan of simply supported beams, bending moments M1 and M2 at midspan
and on the support, respectively, of two span continuous beams and bending moment M3 at
midspan of three span continuous beams.
87
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
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, ∆Mmax,LM1, and fatigue load model 2, ∆Mmax,LM2,
and the maximum bending moment ranges due to real traffic, ∆Mmax,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 2⋅106 cycles.
The ratios between the equivalent bending moment ranges due to fatigue load model
3, ∆Meq,LM3, and the equivalent bending moment ranges due to real traffic, ∆Meq,real, are shown
in figures 11 and 12, considering one slope S-N curves characterised by m=3 and m=5,
respectively. Analogous diagrams for equivalent bending moment ranges due to fatigue load
model 4, ∆Meq,LM4, are illustrated in figure 13, for m=3 S-N curve.
88
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
89
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
90
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
where
∑n ⋅Q i i
m
Qm1 = m i
, (3)
∑n i
i
and N0 and Q0 the flow and the equivalent vehicle weight of the reference traffic, it results
1
Q N m
λ2 = k ⋅ m1 ⋅ 1 . (4)
Q0 N0
In equation (4) k represents a conversion parameter, given by
Def Q0
k= ⋅ , (5)
Dv Qm1
91
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
where Dv is the damage produced by N0 fatigue vehicles and Def is the damage produced by
N0 real lorries.
For Auxerre traffic it ensues Q0 = 480 kN and N 0 = 2 ⋅106 lorries per year.
λ3 is given by
T
λ3 = m , (6)
TR
where TR is the reference design working life (TR=100 years) and T is the actual design
working life.
λ4, which, as said, takes into account vehicle interactions, can be expressed as
N1* N* η
m N η
m
where N1 is the lorry flow (number of the lorries) on the main lane, Ni the lorry flow on the i-
th lane, ηi the max ordinate of the influence surface corresponding to i-th lane, N i* the
lonely, i.e. not interacting, lorry flow on the i-th lane, Ncomb the number of interacting lorries
and ηcomb 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 λ4 can be theoretically derived for two
simultaneously loaded lanes, as shown in the Appendix A to the present chapter.
The equivalent impact factor ϕfat, finally, is the ratio between the damage due to the
dynamic stress history and the damage due to the corresponding static stress history
ϕ fat = m
∑ ni,dym ⋅ (∆σ i,dym )m . (8)
∑ ni,stat ⋅ (∆σ i,stat )m
In conclusion, said ∆σc the detail category, the fatigue assessment reduces to check
that expression
∆σ eq = λ ⋅ ϕ fat ⋅ ∆σ p ≤ ∆σ c (9)
is satisfied.
92
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
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 1991-2 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.
For fatigue damage assessments of railway bridges subjected to normal railway traffic
based on characteristic values of Load Model 71, including the dynamic factor Φ, EN 1991-2
assigns three different fatigue load spectra.
These load spectra refer to three different traffic mixes, usual traffic mix, traffic with 250
kN-axles 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:
93
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
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
1 1
1 + ϕ '+ ϕ " (10)
2 2
where
L2
K −
ϕ'= and ϕ " = 0,56e 100 (11)
1− K + K 4
94
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
being v the Maximum Permitted Vehicle Speed in m/s, L the determinant length LΦ in m of
v v
the structural member and K = for L≤20 m and K = for L>20 m.
160 47,16 L0, 408
6x225 kN
11.5
11.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
6.9
3.2
3.6
12x(4x110 kN)
16.5
16.5
3.3
6.7
3.3
2.9
2.5
2.5
5.0
2.5
2.5
4x225 kN 10x(4x110 kN)
4.95
4.45
8.46
8.46
16.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.0
3.0
4x20 t 13x(4x150 kN) 4x20 t
15.7
15.7
15.7
11.0
3.0
3.0
3.3
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.3
3.0
3.0
4x170 kN 3x170 kN 8x(2x170 kN) 3x170 kN 4x170 kN
4.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
5.7
5.0
5.7
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.1
2.1
3.9
6.5
3.8
6.5
3.7
3.7
6.5
3.5
8.0
3.2
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
A A B A C CABBBAAC+
CABCAACCB
11.0
2.2
2.2
6.9
2.2
2.2
3.0
3.2
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
10x(4x225 kN)
6x225 kN
4.2
4.2
2.2
2.2
6.9
2.2
2.2
3.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
20x(2x225 kN)
95
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
4.4
4.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
5.7
5.0
5.7
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
Train type 5 - Freight train - V=80 km/h - P=21600 kN - n=7/d
12.8
4.4
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
3.9
6.5
3.8
6.5
3.7
3.7
6.5
3.5
8.0
3.2
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
A A B A C CABBBAAC+
CABCAACCB
11.0
11.0
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
6.9
3.0
3.2
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
10x(4x250 kN)
6x225 kN
4.2
4.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
6.9
3.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
20x(2x250 kN)
6x225 kN
11.5
11.5
2.2
2.2
6.9
2.2
2.2
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
3.2
3.6
12x(4x110 kN)
16.5
3.3
6.7
3.3
2.9
2.5
2.5
5.0
2.5
2.5
4.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
5.7
5.0
5.7
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
11.5
14.0
11.5
14.0
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
96
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
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 S-N
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 1991-2 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 Palmgren-Miner rule, EN
1991-2 allows to adopt also a conventional simplified fatigue assessment method, based on λ
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, ∆σeq, is compared with the detail category.
In the present chapter, background information and main features of EN 1991-2 load
spectra have been illustrated, discussing their possibilities and their fields of application and
highlighting the results of pre-normative calibration studies.
When vehicle’s interactions are significant, EN 1991-2 fatigue load models cannot be
used, unless additional information is available. Vehicle’s interactions problems are tackled
97
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
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 λ4.
Finally, in Annex A to the present Guidebook, the aptness of EN 1991-2 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
98
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
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.
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 Θ on L is exponentially distributed.
99
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
−1
w i −1
−1
δ δ
n
s
Pn = ⋅ 1 + + ∑ δ i ⋅ α ⋅ ∏ α + ∑ϕ j n=0, 1, (A.2)
α α i=2 s =1
j =1
and by
−1
δ
n n−1 −1 −1
w i −1
δ s s
Pn = ∏ α + ∑ ϕ j ⋅ 1 + + ∑ δ α ∏ α + ∑ ϕ j
i
2≤n≤w, (A.3)
α s =1 j =1 α i = 2 s =1 j =1
where δ represents the lorry flow density and α = Θ −1 . The annual number of interactions
between n vehicles i1, .., in on the j-th lane can be then obtained substituting these formulae in
the general equation,
n
P Nj ∏ Ni k j
(A.4)
k =1
N (i1 , i 2 , ...., i n ), j = n ⋅ ⋅
1 − P0 n n
∑ ∏ N i ts j
qn s =1
where ∑ 2
indicates the sum over all the possible choices with repetitions of n elements
q
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
δ δ δ2 δ δ
P0 = 1 + ⋅ 1 + , P2 = ⋅ 1 + ⋅ 1 +
α α + ϕ1 α ⋅ (α + ϕ1 ) α α + ϕ1
(A.5)
100
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
−1
µk
m µi
Pk = k ⋅∑ 0≤k≤m. (A.8)
α ⋅ k! i = 0 α i ⋅ i!
Substituting (A.8) in the general expression
k
P k N i jhj N* ∏ N hj (A.9)
⋅ ∏ ⋅ j =1
N i1 h1 , i 2 h2 , ...., i k h k = k ⋅
1 − P0 j =1 N h k k
j ∑ ∏ N hts
m s =1
k
where ∑ represents the sum over all the possible choices of k elements among m, it is
m
k
possible to derive the annual number of interactions of k lorries, i1 on the h1-th lane,....., ik on
the hk-th lane,
k
µk
N i jhj
k N* ∏ N hj
= mα ⋅ kj! ⋅ ∏
k
N i1 h1 , i 2 h2 , ...., i k h k ⋅ ⋅
j =1
. (A.10)
µ j =1 N h k k
∑ α j ⋅ j! j ∑ ∏ N hts
j =1 m s =1
k
As said before, usually only the case in which two lorries r and t are simultaneously
present on the h-th and the j-th lane is relevant, so that it results
−1
µ2 2 µi
P2 = ⋅ ∑ i and
2 ⋅α 2 i = 0 α ⋅ i!
−1 (A.11)
N rh ⋅ N tj
µ2 2 µi Nh + N j
N r h, t j = ⋅ ⋅ ∑ i ⋅ ,
N h ⋅ N j 2 ⋅α 2 i =1 α ⋅ i! 2
101
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
or
max σ A j ≤ max σ Ai ∧ min σ A j ≤ min σ Ai (A.14)
If the couples of interacting histories are sorted in such a way that the corresponding
∆σ 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 Ncij, obtained as h-th combination of the stress history
σ Ai and as k-th combination of the stress history σ A j is given by
( h −1)
N i ⋅( k −1) N j (A.15)
N cij = ( h −1)
,
N i + ( k −1)N j
( h −1) ( k −1)
where N i and N j are the number of the individual stress histories σ Ai and σ A j
which are not yet combined and being (0)
N i = N Ai and (0)
N j = N A j the number of
repetitions of σ Ai and σ A j in the lonely vehicle spectrum.
The actual number of individual stress histories σ Ai , which do not combine with other stress
histories, is given by
( p)
N i = ( 0) N i − ∑ ( N ik + N ki ) , (A.16)
k ≠i
being the sum extended to all the stress histories σ Ak , which combine with σ Ai 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 interaction-free vehicle spectrum.
The above mentioned methods allow the derivation of some important general results.
102
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
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 λ4-factor accounting for multilane
effect in λ-coefficient method.
The analysis, shortly illustrated below, can be performed taking into account:
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 λ4 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) N1 N2 N3 N4
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
103
Chapter 4: Fatigue loads due to traffic
Taking into account lorry interactions in all possible relative positions of the two
lorries, equivalent stress ranges ∆σeq, can be easily evaluated from table A.2, provided that
influence coefficient pertaining to each lane is known.
Obviously, said ∆σ1 the equivalent stress range corresponding to one lane flow only,
the required λ4 coefficient is simply given
∆σ eq
λ4 = . (A.17)
∆σ 1
If the two lanes have the same influence coefficient, i.e. the influence surface is
cylindrical, λ4 values result those indicated in table A.3, being 1.149 ≈ 5 2 (m=5) the λ4 basic
value, corresponding to zero interactions.
Table A.3. λ4-factors for two lanes carrying lanes carrying equal lorry flows
L (m) N1 N2 N3 N4
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 λ4, which takes into account globally vehicle
interactions, is a quasi-linear function of Θ ⋅ N , which can be expressed in closed form as
η1 + η 2 L⋅N
λ4 = 5 ⋅ 1.03 + 0.01 ⋅ . (A.18)
η1 v ⋅ 10 6
where L is in m and v in m/s, being η1 and η2, η1≥η2, the influence coefficients related to the
two interacting lanes.
104
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
Summary
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 EN1991-1-4 [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, EN1991-1-4 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 multi-cell, 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 EN1991-1-4 rules can be easily extended to
variable cross sections, to double deck bridges as well as to other bridge types, provided that
wind-structure 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 wind-structure 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.
105
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
B
z
y
L
x
for road bridges, where ψ0=0.6 for persistent design situations and ψ0=0.8 for actions during
execution,
Fwk'' = ψ 0 Fwk , (4)
106
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
for railway bridges, while for footbridges no additional limitation is necessary as ψ0 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
cs⋅cd, can be assumed cs⋅cd=1.0, being cs the size factor and cd the dynamic factor.
- 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 d1 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 d1 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.
parapet or noise barrier
Solid safety barrier or
Open parapet
Open safety
barrier
0.3
d1
107
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
During execution, finishing can be disregarded in the evaluation of Aref,x and, prior of
the placement of the carriageway, the surface of two main beams should be considered.
In presence of traffic, reference area Aref,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
where ce is the exposure coefficient for kinetic pressure and cf,x is the force coefficient, which
is equal to cf,x0, being cf,x0 the force coefficient or drag coefficient without free end flow.
The exposure coefficient could be evaluated considering a reference height ze 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 cf,x can be assumed equal to 1.30 for normal bridges, or can be
determined using the expression
b
c f , x = min 2.4; max 2.5 − 0.3 ; 1 , (10)
d tot
for bridge with solid parapets and/or solid barriers and/or traffic, and using the expression
b
c f , x = min 2.4; max 2.5 − 0.3 ; 1.3 , (11)
d tot
for the construction phase and/or bridges with open parapets.
In expressions (10) and (11) b represents the total width of the bridge and dtot the
height considered in the evaluation of Aref,x, Aref,x=dtot⋅L, except for truss girder where dtot 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 α1, the
drag coefficient cf,x0 may be decreased by a factor η1,
η1 = max(1 − 0.005 α 1 ; 0.7 ) , (12)
but this reduction does not affect Fw.
If the bridge is sloped transversely by an angle α2, the drag coefficient cf,x0 should be
increased by a factor η2,
η 2 = max(1 + 0.03 α 1 ; 1.25) . (13)
108
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
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 ze and/or b/dtot,
linear interpolation is permitted.
Fz
e Aref,z=bL
β
θ α
dtot
b
on
θ=α+β
c ti
re
d di β=superelevation
win
α=angle of the wind with the horizontal
Figure 3. Transversal slope and wind inclination for z-direction 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 α of the wind with the horizontal, due to turbulence,
may be taken as ±5°.
109
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
Figure 4. Force coefficients cf,z for bridges with transversal slope and wind nclination
The reference area Aref,z should be set equal to the planar area of the bridge, Aref,z=b⋅L,
being b the total width and L the length of the bridge.
The vertical force Fz, 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.
110
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
3 SNOW LOADS
4 THERMAL ACTIONS
111
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
70
60
1
50
2
40
3
30
Te,max
20
10
-10
Te,min
3
-20
2
-30
1
-40
-50
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Tmin Tmax
Figure 6. Correlation between shade air temperature (Tmin, Tmax) and uniform
components of the bridge temperature (Te,min, Te,max)
If T0 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 ∆Tu is given by
∆Tu = Te,max - Te,min = ∆TN ,esp + ∆TN ,con , (14)
where
∆TN,exp=Te,max-T0 and ∆TN,con=T0-Te,min (15)
are the temperature variations to be considered when the bridge expands or contracts,
respectively.
Assessing bearing displacements it can be assumed ∆TN,exp=Te,max-T0+20°C and
∆TN,con=T0-Te,min+20°C.
112
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
Table 4. Adjustment factors ksur for road, foot and railway bridges
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3
Surface thickness Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom
[mm] warmer warmer warmer warmer warmer warmer
than bottom than top than bottom than top than bottom than top
insurfaced 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.1
water-proofed 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
113
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
24 °C -6 °C
14 °C
8 °C
h
4 °C
0.2 m
0.5 m
0.3 m
21 °C -5 °C
0.1 m
0.5 m
h
114
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
100 mm surfacing
h
Concrete slab
100 mm surfacing
h
Concrete beam
100 mm surfacing
h
Table 7.a. Non linear vertical temperature differences for composite bridges, normal
profile
Temperature difference (∆T)
Type of construction
Heating Cooling
100 mm surfacing
h
115
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
Table 7.b. Non linear vertical temperature differences for composite bridges, simplified
profile
Temperature difference (∆T)
Type of construction
Heating Cooling
100 mm surfacing
On the contrary, special attention should be paid for concrete multicell box girder
where temperature of the inner webs can differ significantly (around 15°C) from the
temperature of the outer ones.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Effects of variable climatic actions, wind, snow and temperature given in Eurocodes
EN 1991-1-x 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 wind-structure
interactions are not relevant.
Bridge types which are sensitive to wind-structure 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 safe-sided linear distributions.
Seismic actions have been not considered here, as their illustration is beyond the scope
of the present Guidebook.
6. REFERENCES
[1] EN1991-1-4, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-4: General actions – Wind
actions. Brussels: CEN, 2005
116
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
[2] Holicky, M et al., GB1: Basis of design and actions on structures, Leonardo Project
number: CZ/08/LLP-LdV/TOI/134020, Prague, CTU, 2010
[3] EN1991-1-3, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-3: General actions – Snow
loads. Brussels: CEN, 2004
[4] EN1991-1-5, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-5: General actions – Thermal
actions. Brussels: CEN, 2004
117
Chapter 5: Non traffic actions
118
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
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:
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 1991-1-7. Apart from design values and other
detailed information for the loads mentioned above, the document EN 1991, Part 1-7 also gives
guidelines how to handle accidental loads in general. In many cases structural measures alone
cannot be considered as very efficient.
119
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
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. tri-orthogonal 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).
120
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
Force
(a)
time
Force
(b)
time
Force
(c)
time
Figure 1. Typical time characteristics of (a) accidental, (b) variable and (c) permanent loads
121
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
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 1991-1-7 [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 1991-1-7 [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 1991-1-7 [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.
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 ρ is 0.01 for all four
122
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
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.
H h
y
Fdy
a
b
According to the code, the forces Fdx and Fdy 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:
a( H − a ) 1.25(5.00 − 1.25)
Mdx = Fdx = 1000 = 940 kNm
H 5.00
H −a 5.00 − 1.25
Qdx = Fdx = 1000 = 750 kN
H 5.00
Similar for the direction perpendicular to the diving direction:
a( H − a ) 1.25(5.00 − 1.25)
Mdy= Fdy = 500 = 470 kNm
H 5.00
H −a 5.00 − 1.25
Qxy = Fdy = 500 = 375 kN
H 5.00
Other loads are not relevant in this case. The self-weight 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:
MRdx = 0.8 ρ h2 b fy = 0.8 0.01 1.002 0.50 300 000 = 1200 kNm
123
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
MRdy = 0.8 ρ h b2 fy = 0.8 0.01 1.00 0.502 300 000 = 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 fctk = 1200 kN/m2) only is approximately equal to:
QRd = .0.3 bh fctk = 0.3 1.00 0.50 1200 = 360 kN.
This is almost sufficient for the loading in y-direction, but not for the x-direction.
Additional shear force reinforcement is necessary.
124
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
F(h) F(h')
10° F(h)
10°
h'
h drivig h
direction
EN 1991 1-7 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:
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].
125
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
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 vE 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:
y
vE
L θ0
w
1)
x
derailed vehicle
vehicle on the railway track
y
vE
w θ0
L
2)
x
derailed vehicle
L = engine
w = carriage
v = velocity at moment
vE
of derailment
3)
θ0 θ0 x
derailed vehicles
Cases of derailment
engine Re 6/6: length=19.3 m; width=3.0 m;
height=4.5 m; mass=120 t
126
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
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.
20 20 20
10 10 10
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].
127
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
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
128
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
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.
The ship bridge accidents can be in general divided into three cases (Figure 9):
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
129
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
failure process with intensity λ(x), the probability that the structure is hit at least once in a period
T can be expressed as:
Pc (T) = nT( 1- P a ) ∫ ∫ λλ(x) Pc (x,y) f s (y) dx dy (1)
whereas:
T = period of time under consideration
n = number of ships per time unit (traffic intensity)
λ(x) = probability of a failure per unit travelling distance
Pc(x,y) = conditional probability of collision, given initial position (x,y)
fs(y) = distribution of initial ship position in y direction
Pa = the probability that a collision is avoided by human intervention.
For the evaluation in practical cases, it may be necessary to evaluate Pc 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 λ, 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 λ=28/(10×8×80000) = 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 so-called load indentation
curves (F-u 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:
P(F>Fd ) = nT(1-p a ) ∫ ∫ λλ(x) P[vx,y) ( km) > F d ] f s (y) dx dy (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 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.
130
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
For sea going vessels values in Table 7 are based on equation (2), with v=3 m/s and
k0=15 MN/m for the smallest ship category and 60 MN/m for the heaviest category.
6 DISCUSSION ON ANNEX C
The informative Annex C of EN 1991 Part 1-7 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:
F = vr k m (3)
where vr 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:
131
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
d d
structure
structure
road
ϕ d
road
road structure
s
v0
d
road
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 vr after a distance s from the critical point is:
vr = (v02– 2 a s )0.5 (5)
132
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
Using a = 4 m/s2 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 ϕ = 15o. For intermediate distances one may use the expression:
F = Fo 1 − d / d b (for d < db). (6)
Note that the value of db 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 elastic-plastic 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:
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.
133
Chapter 6: Accidental actions
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:
The models presented in Annex C of EN 1991-1-7 have been discussed. Apart from
design values and other detailed information for the loads mentioned above, the document EN
1991, Part 1-7 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 1991-1-1 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Part 1-1: 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) 109-117
[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 May-2 June 2006, ISSN 1895-
8281, pp 175-182
[10] Joint Committee on Structural Safety (JCSS), Probabilistic Model Code, www.jcss.ethz.ch
[11] UIC Code 777-2: 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; 16-19 June 2004, Delft, The Netherlands, A.A. Balkema
Publishers, ISBN 90 5809 676 9; pp. 1057-1063
[13] Proske,D.:Ein Beitrag zur Risikobeurteilung von alten Brücken unter Schiffsanprall,
Dissertation, TU Dresden, 2003.
[14] Starossek, U., Progressive Collapse of Structures: Nomenclature and Procedure, Structural
Engineering International Vol. 2, 2006.
134
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes
Summary
The combination rules for bridges introduced in this Chapter are based on Eurocode
EN 1990/A1. The combinations of traffic loads with non-traffic 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
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
135
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes
where the less favourable expression needs to be considered. Where relevant, the favourable
or unfavourable design values of permanent actions Gd,sup or Gd,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)
∑ γ G , j Gk , j " +" γ P P " +" γ Q ,1 Qk ,1" +" ∑ γ Q ,i ψ 0 ,i Qk ,i (3)
j ≥1 j ≥1
The rules for combinations of construction loads during execution for bridges were
transferred from EN 1991-1-6 [6] to EN 1990/A1 [2]. However, some rules for the
136
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes
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 1991-1-6 [5].
It should be taken into account in appropriate cases that construction loads Qc act
simultaneously with other types of actions. Different construction loads (Qca to Qce) 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 Qca 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 short-time construction periods on the basis of EN 1991-1-6 [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.
- 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 FW* or ψ 0 FWk .
For certain serviceability limit states of concrete bridges the infrequent combination of
actions is also recommended in EN 1990/A1 [2] given as
{
E d = E G k , j ; P; ψ 1,infq Qk ,1 ; ψ 1,i Qk ,i } j ≥ 1; i > 1 (4)
where the combination of actions in braquet may be expressed as
137
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes
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.
138
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes
The recommended values of ψ0, ψ1 and ψ2 for gr1a and gr1b are given for road traffic
corresponding to adjusting factors αQi, αqi, αqr and βQ 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 α factors.
Recommended ψ factors for footbridges are given in Table 3. The combination value
of the pedestrian and cycle-track load, mentioned in Table 4.4a of EN 1991-2 [3] is a reduced
value to which the factors ψ0 and ψ1 may be used.
The recommended ψ0 value for thermal actions may in most cases be reduced to 0 for
ultimate limit states EQU, STR and GEO.
- 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.
139
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes
140
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes
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 Permanent actions Prestress Accidental Accompanying variable
transient unfavourable favourable or seismic actions
design action main others
situation
(if any)
Accidental Gkj,sup Gkj,inf P Ad ψ11 Qk1 or ψ21Qk1 ψ2,i Qk,i
exp. (6.11a/b)
Seismic Gkj,sup Gkj,inf P γIAEk or ψ2,i Qk,i
Exp. (6.12a/b) AEd
In the case of accidental design situations, the main variable action may be taken with its
frequent or quasi-permanent 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
where Qc , k is the characteristic value of construction loads as defined in EN 1991-1-6 [6], i.e.
the characteristic value of the relevant combination of groups Qca, Qcb, Qcc, Qcd, Qce and Qcf.
141
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes
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 self-weight
G, construction loads Qc and wind actions W are acting on a bridge cantilever. The scheme is
illustrated in Figure 1.
gd,sup wd
qca,d qcb,d Qcc,d
gd,inf
wd
a b
142
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes
where the lengths of bridge cantilevers are a = 24 m and b = 27 m. The self-weight of the
prestressed concrete cantilever is determined on the basis of nominal dimensions of the box
girder cross-section considering the mean value of density. The bridge cross-sectional area is
A = 7.6 m2 and the density of prestressed concrete γc = 25 kN/m3. The self-weight is
determined as
gk = Ac γc = 7.6 × 25 = 190 kN/m
The heavy construction device Qk,cc (50 kN), construction loads due to working
personnel qca (1 kN/m2) and movable storage of material qcb (0.2 kN/m2) are applied
considering the recommended values given in ČSN EN 1991-1-6 [6].
The wind action per 1 metre of bridge length is determined as wk = ±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
Ed,dst=1.05×190×272/2+1.35×(50×272+1×272/2+0.2×272/2)+1.5×0.8×6.9×272/2=117.4 MNm
and in case that the wind is a leading variable action
Ed,dst = 1.05×190×272/2+1.5×6.9×272/2+1.35×(50×272+1×272/2+0,2×272/2) = 118.2 MNm
and the stabilizing effects of actions are given as
Ed,stb = 0.95 × 190 × 242/2 – 1.5 × 6.9 × 242/2 = 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 contra-weight
is applied, the uncertainties in the position of the contra-weight need to be considered or the
recommended partial factor γg,inf = 0.8 applied according to Table 4.
143
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes
Figure 2.b. Box girder of the Čekanice bridge on highway D3 (Prague - Tábor).
Selected results of comparative studies of the highway bridge in Čekanice are given in
Tables 9 to 12.
Table 10. Moments based on alternative procedures given in EN 1990/A1 [2] and EN
1991-1-5 [5], sagging cross-sections.
Type of cross- Moments in MNm
section,
EN 1991-1-5
approach No.
(6.10) Q1 (6.10) T1 (6.10a) (6.10b) Q1 (6.10b) T1
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 1991-1-5 [5], hogging cross-sections
Type of cross- Stresses in MPa
section, EN
1991-1-5
approach No.
(6.10) Q1 (6.10) T1 (6.10a) (6.10b) Q1 (6.10b) T1
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
144
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes
Table 12 Lower stresses based on alternative procedures given in EN 1990/A1 [2] and
EN 1991-1-5 [5], hogging cross-sections
Type of cross- Stresses in MPa
section, EN
1991-1-5
approach No. (6.10) Q1 (6.10) T1 (6.10a) (6.10b) Q1 (6.10b) T1
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
145
Chapter 7: Combination rules for bridges in Eurocodes
146
Chapter 8: Case study - Design of a concrete bridge
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 1991-2. 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 1991-1-1 [1], EN 1991-1-4 [2], EN 1991-1-5
[3], EN 1991-2 [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 pre-stressed 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
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 bridge’s intrados and an underlying roadway is 6.0 m.
The surfacing is made by a 60 mm thick asphalt layer.
147
Chapter 8: Case study - Design of a concrete bridge
11.8
1.5 0.5 7.5 0.5 1.5
11.8
0.82 0.2
0.35
0.9
3.06
1.81
2.76
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.3
0.98
148
Chapter 8: Case study - Design of a concrete bridge
3 LOAD ANALYSIS
The self-weight of the cast-in-situ r.c. slab pertaining to each longitudinal beam is
g k ,1s = γ A = 25.0 kN/m 3 × 0.3 m × 2.95 m = 22.13 kN/m . (2)
149
Chapter 8: Case study - Design of a concrete bridge
3.0
notional lane n. 1
7.5
3.0
notional lane n. 2
1.5
remaining area
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 αQi Qik, accompanied by a uniformly distributed load αqi qik, being αQi and αqi
the adjustment factors. In the present work it has been assumed αQi=αqi =1.0 for each lane,
while the values Qik and qik are summarized in table 1.
Regarding the crowd loading, EN 1991-2 prescribes a nominal value of 5.00 kN/m2,
and a combination value of 3.0 kN/m2 (2.5 kN/m2 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.
150
Chapter 8: Case study - Design of a concrete bridge
variations in the site’s orography, can usually be assumed equal to 1.0. Iv and cr are defined by
the following expressions
ki
if z min < z ≤ 200 m
z
I v ( z e ) = c0 ( z e ) ⋅ ln , (9)
z0
I v ( z min ) if z min ≥ z
z
k r (z e ) ⋅ ln if z min < z ≤ 200 m
cr ( z e ) = z0 , (10)
cr ( z min ) if z min ≥ z
where ki is the turbulence factor, usually set to 1.0. In formulae (9) and (10), the terrain factor
kr, the roughness length z0 and the minimum height zmin 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 z0=1.0 m,
zmin=10.0 m, kr=0.234.
The reference height ze 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
ze=(6.0+0.5⋅3.06) m=7.53 m (figure 5).
3.06
1.53
ze = 7.53
6
151
Chapter 8: Case study - Design of a concrete bridge
As ze <zmin, it holds
I v ( ze ) = I v ( z min ) =
1
= 0.434 , (11)
10 m
1.0 ⋅ ln
1.0 m
10 m
cr (ze ) = cr (z min ) = 0.234 ⋅ ln = 0.539 ,
(12)
1.0 m
so that
ce (z e ) = ce (z min ) = 0.539 2 ⋅ 1.0 2 ⋅ [1 + 7 ⋅ 0.434] = 1.176 . (13)
Basic wind velocity vb is function of geographic site. Here we assume vb=27 m/s,
obtaining an equivalent static pressure
(14)
q p (z e ) = 1.176 ⋅
1.25
⋅ 27.0 2 = 535.9 N/m 2 ≅ 0.54 kN/m 2 .
2
Said x the horizontal direction orthogonal to the bridge’s axis, the force Fwk,x is
Fwk , x = q p ( z e ) ⋅ c f , x ⋅ Aref , x , (15)
where the coefficient cf,x depends on the ratio between the deck’s width b and the total deck’s
height dtot 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 cf,x is
b 11.8
c f , x = min 2.4; max 2.5 − 0.3 ; 1.3 = 2.5 − 0.3 = 1.669 . (16)
d tot 4 . 26
If must be noted that the simplified approach proposed in EN1991-1-4 [2] allowing to
set cf,x=1.3 is generally unsafe-sided.
Using (16), the force Fwk,x for unloaded bridge is then (figure 6)
Fwk , x = q p ( z e )c f , x Aref , x = 0.54 ⋅ 1.669 ⋅ 4.26 = 3.84 kN/m . (17)
1.2
Fwk,x
Figure 6. Equivalent static force Fwk,x (unloaded bridge)
152
Chapter 8: Case study - Design of a concrete bridge
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 cf,x is then
b 11.8
c f , x = min 2.4; max 2.5 − 0.3 ; 1.0 = 2.5 − 0.3 = 1.80 , (18)
d tot 5.06
and also for loaded bridge the simplification cf,x=1.3 results unsafe-sided.
Since ψ0w=0.6, the combination values ψ0wFwk,x for the equivalent wind force for
loaded bridge result (figure 7)
ψ 0 w Fwk , x = ψ 0 w q p (z e )c f , x Aref , x = 0.6 ⋅ 0.54 ⋅ 1.8 ⋅ 5.06 = 2.95 kN/m , (20)
respectively.
2 m EN 1991-1-4
3 m Italian National Annex
Regarding the vertical action, lacking more precise data from wind tunnel tests, the
coefficient cf,z can be set to
c f , z = ± 0. 9 , (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, Fwk,z is
Fwk , z = q p ( z e ) ⋅ c f , z ⋅ Aref , z = 0.54 ⋅ (± 0.9 ) ⋅ 11.80 m = ±5.74 kN/m , (23)
applied with an eccentricity, e, with respect to the longitudinal axis of the bridge
d 11.80 m
e= = = 2.95 m . (24)
4 4
153
Chapter 8: Case study - Design of a concrete bridge
The vertical force Fwk,z is much smaller than the permanent loads, therefore, according
to EN 1991-1-4, 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.
70
60
1
50
2
40
3
30
Te,max
20
10
-10
Te,min
3
-20
2
-30
1
-40
-50
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Tmin Tmax
Figure 8. Evaluation of Te,max and Te,min
Setting the initial bridge temperature T0 to 20 °C, the characteristic values of the
maximum expansion and contraction ranges, ∆TN,exp and ∆TN,con, result so
∆TN,exp = Te,max − T0 = 41.7 − 20 = 21.7 °C , (25)
154
Chapter 8: Case study - Design of a concrete bridge
15 °C
8 °C
Figure 9. Simplified temperature distributions along the height of the cross section
4 STRESS CALCULATION
155
Chapter 8: Case study - Design of a concrete bridge
1 2 3 4
0.4
0.7
0.85
-0.2
-0.35
0.1
Figure 10. Influence line for load on the external longitudinal beam (n. 1)
1 2 3 4
0.4
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.45
Figure 11. Influence line for load on the internal longitudinal beam (n. 2)
156
Chapter 8: Case study - Design of a concrete bridge
1 2 3 4
A
∆ ∆ ∆
-0.35 ∆
-0.30 ∆
-0.20 ∆
-0.65 ∆
0.1 ∆
0.4 ∆
Figure 12. Influence line for bending moment in section A-A of the transverse beam
400 600
60
60
300
°
300
45
°
45
820 1020
Figure 13. Load dispersal for the wheel of Figure 14. Load dispersal for the wheel of
the tandem system of LM 1 the single axle of LM 2
157
Chapter 8: Case study - Design of a concrete bridge
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
Gk1,t L 1
M g (C )k = Gk L2 +
1
⋅ = ⋅ 59.62 ⋅ 45.0 2 + 2.93 ⋅ 15.0 kNm = 15135.3 kNm (33)
8 4 3 8
,
while the maximum shear force occurs at support (cross section A) and it results
Gk1,t 1
V g ( A )k =
1 (34)
Gk L + = ⋅ 59.62 ⋅ 45.0 + 2.93 kN = 1344.4 kN .
2 4 2
Q2k=200 kN Q2k=200 kN
2
2
2
qrk =2.5 kN/m
2
q1k =9 kN/m
2 2
q fk =3.0 kN/m q 2k=2.5 kN/m
1 2 3 4
0.48
0.4
0.76
0.7
0.85
0.01
-0.2
-0.35
0.1
0.17
158
Chapter 8: Case study - Design of a concrete bridge
2 2
q fk =5.0 kN/m q fk =5.0 kN/m
1 2 3 4
0.4
0.76
0.7
0.85
-0.2
-0.35
0.1
0.31
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
Qk = 2 ⋅ 300 ⋅ 0.48 + 2 ⋅ 200 ⋅ 0.17 = 356 kN , (35)
and a uniformly distributed load
q k = 1.5 ⋅ 3.0 ⋅ 0.76 + 3.0 ⋅ 9.0 ⋅ 0.48 + 3.0 ⋅ 2.5 ⋅ 0.17 + 0.21 ⋅ 2.5 ⋅ 0.01 = 17.66 kN/m . (36)
Considering the tandem system as a unique concentrated load (knife load), it is
Q L 1 45.0
M q (C )k max = q k L2 + k = ⋅ 17.66 ⋅ 45.0 2 + 356 ⋅
1
= 8475.2 kNm , (37)
8 4 8 4
and
1
Vq ( A)k max =
1
q k L + Qk = ⋅ 17.66 ⋅ 45.0 + 356 = 753.3 kN . (38)
2 2
When crowd loading (LM4) is considered instead (figure 16), to beam n. 1 pertains
only a uniformly distributed load
q k = 1.5 ⋅ 5.0 ⋅ 0.76 + 6.2 ⋅ 5.0 ⋅ 0.31 = 15.31 kN/m , (39)
whose effects are, in the present example, less severe than those caused by lorry traffic.
159
Chapter 8: Case study - Design of a concrete bridge
Q1k=300 kN Q1k=300 kN
Q2k=200 kN Q2k=200 kN
2
2
qrk =2.5 kN/m 2
2
q1k =9 kN/m
2
A q 2k=2.5 kN/m
1 2 3 4
A
∆ ∆ ∆
-0.35 ∆
-0.30 ∆
-0.20 ∆
-0.65 ∆
0.02 ∆
0.1 ∆
0.11 ∆
0.18 ∆
0.21 ∆
0.23 ∆
0.33 ∆
0.4 ∆
2 2
q fk =5.0 kN/m q fk =5.0 kN/m
2 2
q fk =5.0 kN/m
A q fk =5.0 kN/m
1 2 3 4
A
∆ ∆ ∆
-0.35 ∆
-0.30 ∆
-0.20 ∆
-0.65 ∆
-0.43 ∆
-0.07 ∆
-0.06 ∆
-0.26 ∆
0.1 ∆
0.4 ∆
160
Chapter 8: Case study - Design of a concrete bridge
and
V ( A)d max = 1.35 V g ( A) k + 1.35 Vq (Q) k = 2831.9 kN . (43)
Design value of braking or acceleration forces depends on the vertical loads applied on
notional lane n. 1 and it results
Qld max = 1.35 (0.6 ⋅ 2 Q1k + 0.1 q1k w1 L) = 1.35 ( 360 + 2.7 ⋅ 45) = 650.0 kN . (44)
This value must be combined with an appropriate combination value of vertical traffic
load, corresponding to its frequent value. Recalling that ψ1=0.75 for the tandem systems of
LM1 and ψ1=0.4 for the uniformly distributed load component of LM1, loads pertaining to
beam n. 1 (see expressions (35) and (36)) become
Qk = 0.75 (2 ⋅ 300 ⋅ 0.48 + 2 ⋅ 200 ⋅ 0.17 ) = 267 kN , (45)
and
q k = 0.4 (1.5 ⋅ 3 ⋅ 0.76 + 3.0 ⋅ 9.0 ⋅ 0.48 + 3 ⋅ 2.5 ⋅ 0.17 + 0.21 ⋅ 2.5 ⋅ 0.01) = 7.06 kN/m , (46)
1 Q L 7.06 ⋅ 45 2 276 ⋅ 45
M q (C )d max = 1.35 q k L2 + k = 1.35 + = 6469.0 kNm (47)
8 4 8 4
and
1 7.06 ⋅ 45.0
Vq ( A)d max = 1.35 q k L + Qk = 1.35 + 267 = 575.0 kN . (48)
2 2
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.
161
Chapter 8: Case study - Design of a concrete bridge
tandem systems of LM1, for the isolated single axle (LM2) and for crowd loading (LM4),
while ψ1=0.40 for the uniformly distributed load component of LM1.
162
Chapter 8: Case study - Design of a concrete bridge
considering that the coefficient of thermal expansion for prestressed concrete is αT=10⋅10-6
°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 Courbon-Engesser 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 1991-1-1 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 1-1 General actions. Densities, self-
weight, imposed loads for buildings, CEN, Brussels, 2002.
[2] EN 1991-1-4 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 1-4 General actions. Wind actions,
CEN, Brussels, 2005.
[3] EN 1991-1-5 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 1-5 General actions. Thermal
actions, CEN, Brussels 2004.
[4] EN 1991-2 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 1992-1-1 Eurocode 2 Design of concrete structures. Part 1-1 General rules and rules
for buildings, CEN, Brussels, 2004.
[7] EN 1992-2 Eurocode 2 Design of concrete structures. Part 2 Concrete bridges. Design
and detailing rule, CEN, Brussels, 2005.
163
Chapter 8: Case study - Design of a concrete bridge
164
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
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 1991-2. 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 1991-1-1 [1], EN 1991-1-4 [2], EN 1991-1-5
[3], EN 1991-2 [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.
2.1 General
The bridge’s 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
I-shaped transverse beams, 750 mm height. The span of the longitudinal stiffeners is 3000
mm, i.e. the transverse beam’s 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 L-shaped 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 extra-urban area and the distance between the bridge
intrados and the underlying ground is 20.0 m.
165
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
2.3 Material
Materials are chosen according to EN 1993-1-1 [6] and EN 1993-2 [7]
The structural steel is S355J2 grade.
3 LOAD ANALYSIS
To take into account the weight of other structural parts (transverse beams, bracings
and so on), the value of gk,1b, is increased of about 6%, so that the self-weight gk,1 results
g k ,1 = 1.06 g k ,1b ≅ 48.6 kN/m . (2)
166
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
5
51.36
0
-10
-15
-20
-25 -24.5898
5
180
0
-5 0 60 120 180 240 300 360
-10
-15
-20 -21
-25
167
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
5
69.24
0
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
-5
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 nl is then given by
w 10.50 (4)
nl = Int = Int = 3,
3 m 3
and the remaining area is 1.50 m wide,
wr = w − nl ⋅ 3.0 m = 10.50 m − 3 ⋅ 3.0 m = 1.50 m . (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. 2
10.5
3.0
notional lane n. 3
1.5
remaining area
notional lane n. 1
3.0
notional lane n. 2
10.5
168
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
As known, EN 1991-2 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 extra-urban 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 αQi Qik, accompanied by a uniformly distributed load αqi qik, being αQi and αqi
the adjustment factors. In the present work it has been assumed αQi=αqi =1.0 for each lane,
while the values Qik and qik are summarized in table 1. Only one tandem system should be
considered per lane, placed in the most unfavourable position.
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.
Q1k=300 kN Q1k=300 kN
2
q1k =9 kN/m
2 2 2
q2k=2.5 kN/m q3k =2.5 kN/m qrk=2.5 kN/m
169
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
Q1k=300 kN Q1k=300 kN
2000
2
q1k =9 kN/m
2
q2k=2.5 kN/m
Expression (7) depends on the roughness coefficient cr, on the orography factor c0 and
on the turbulence intensity Iv. The orography factor, taking into account any significant local
variations in the site’s orography, can usually be assumed equal to 1.0. Iv and cr, instead, are
defined by the following expressions
ki
if z min < z ≤ 200 m
z
I v ( z e ) = c0 ( z e ) ⋅ ln , (8)
z0
I v ( z min ) if z min ≥ z
z
k r (z e ) ⋅ ln if z min < z ≤ 200 m
cr ( z e ) = z0 , (9)
cr ( z min ) if z min ≥ z
170
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
where ki is the turbulence factor, usually set to 1.0. The terrain factor kr, the roughness length
z0 and the minimum height zmin depend on the terrain category.
As said, the bridge in question is located in an extra-urban 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 z0=0.050 m, zmin=2.0 m, kr=0.19.
The reference height ze 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
ze=20.0+(3.80/2) m= 21.90 (figure 10).
As ze>zmin, it results
I v ( ze ) =
1
= 0.164 , (10)
21.90 m
1.0 ⋅ ln
0.05 m
21.90 m
cr ( z e ) = 0.19 ⋅ ln = 1.156 , (11)
0.05 m
whence
ce ( z e ) = 1.156 2 ⋅1.0 2 ⋅ [1 + 7 ⋅ 0.164] = 2.869 . (12)
Considering for the site a basic wind velocity vb=27 m/s, qp(ze) results
(13)
q p ( z e ) = 2.869 ⋅
1.25
⋅ 27.0 2 = 1307 N/m 2 .
2
171
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
According to EN 1991-2, the y-axis is assumed parallel to the bridge axis, x-axis is
assumed horizontal and perpendicular to the y-axis, while the z-axis lies in the vertical plane
containing the y-axis.
The equivalent static force Fwk,x in the x direction is given by
Fwk , x = q p ( z e ) ⋅ c f , x ⋅ Aref , x , (14)
where the coefficient cf,x is a function of the ratio between the total deck’s width b and the
total deck’s height dtot 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 cf,x is
b 11.6
c f , x = min 2.4; max 2.5 − 0.3 ; 1.3 = 2.5 − 0.3 = 1.709 . (15)
d tot 4.4
and also for loaded bridge the simplification cf,x=1.3 proposed in EN1991-1-4 is unsafe-sided.
Considering the reduction factor η1 calculated before, the combination value ψ0wFwk,x
for the equivalent wind force for loaded bridge results (figure 18)
ψ 0 w Fwk , x = ψ 0 w q p (z e )c f , xη1 Aref , x = 0.6 ⋅1.307 ⋅1.9 ⋅ 0.95 ⋅ 5.8 = 8.21 kN/m , (19)
172
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
being ψ0w=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 dtot=6.8 m, cf,x=1.988 and
ψ 0 w Fwk , x = ψ 0 w q p ( ze )c f , xη1 Aref , x = 0.6 ⋅ 1.307 ⋅ 1.988 ⋅ 0.95 ⋅ 6.8 = 10.07 kN/m . (20)
Concerning the vertical action, lacking more precise data from wind tunnel tests, a
value of ±0.9 can be assumed for the force coefficient cf,z. Since the reference area Aref,z is the
horizontal projection of the bridge deck, Aref,z=b=11.6 m2/m, the equivalent static force for
unit length Fwk,z is then
Fwk , z = q p ( z e ) ⋅ c f , z ⋅ Aref , z = 1.307 kN/m 2 ⋅ (± 0.9) ⋅11.6 m = ±13.64 kN/m . (21)
to be applied with eccentricity e=0.25 b=0.25⋅11.6 m=2.9 m with respect to the longitudinal
axis of the bridge.
According to EN1991-2, as Fwk,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 y-direction (the
bridge’s longitudinal axis) should be considered, which can be set equal to 25% of the forces
in the x-direction.
173
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
70
60
1
50
2
40
3
30
Te,max
20
10
-10
Te,min
3
-20
2
-30
1
-40
-50
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Tmin Tmax
Figure 14. Evaluation of Te,max and Te,min
174
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
The second non uniform contribution is clearly very significant for the bridge under
consideration. EN 1991-1-5 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 section’s 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,
∆TM,heat=+18 °C, and to an increase of 13 °C for bottom warmer than top, ∆TM,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
175
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
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.
Figure 17. Load dispersal for the wheel of Figure 18. Load dispersal for the wheel of
the tandem system of LM 1 the single axle of LM 2
Thus, the relative contact pressure for a single wheel of the heaviest tandem system of
LM1 is
150 (24)
pQ1k = = 522.1 kN/m 2
0.536 ⋅ 0.536
and for a single wheel of the isolated axle load of LM 2 is
200 (25)
pQak = = 523.6 kN/m 2 .
0.736 ⋅ 0.486
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.
176
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
177
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
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, Gk yields the symmetrical
diagram of bending moments shown in figure 21, where
M g ( A)k =
2 2
Gk L2 = 74.12 ⋅120.0 2 kNm = 85381.8 kNm , (27)
25 25
M g (B )k = −
1 1
Gk L2 = − 74.12 ⋅120.0 2 kNm = −106727.4 kNm , (28)
10 10
M g (C )k =
1 1
Gk L2 = 74.12 ⋅120.0 2 kNm = 26681.8 kNm . (29)
40 40
Sec. B Sec. C
Sec. A
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)
Qtk = 2Q1k + 2Q2 k + 2Q3k = (600 + 400 + 200) kN = 1200 kN ; (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
MQ(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
M Q ( A')k max = M q ( A')k max + M Qt ( A')k max = 66548.9 + 29507.7 = 96056.6 kNm . (32)
178
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
Figure 23. Arrangement of UDL to maximize bending moment in the central span
To minimize the bending moment MQ(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
M Q (B )k min = M q (B )k min + M Qt (B )k min = −78860.0 − 14780.2 = −91640.2 kNm . (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, MQ(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
M Q ( A')k min = M q ( A')k min + M Qt ( A')k min = −14109.3 + −4915.3 = −19024.6 kNm . (35)
179
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
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
M ( A')d max = 244364.0 kNm . (39)
Figure 26. Shear force diagram corresponding to Mdmax in the first span
180
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
The corresponding bending moment and shear forces diagrams are illustrated in
figures 27 and 28, respectively.
The minimum bending moment on the second support M(B)dmax is obtained applying
the permanent design load Gd=1.35 Gk =100.06 kN/m on each span, the uniformly distributed
design traffic load qd=1.35 qk =61.76 kN/m on the first and the second span and the design
concentrated traffic load Qd=1.35 Qk =1620 kN approximately around 69.24 m away from the
first support, obtaining
M (B )d max = −267796.0 kNm . (41)
The corresponding bending moment and shear forces diagrams are illustrated in
figures 29 and 30, respectively.
Figure 29. Bending moment diagram corresponding to Mdmin on the second support
181
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
Figure 30. Shear force diagram corresponding to Mdmin on the second support
The minimum bending moment in the first span M(A’)dmin is obtained applying the
permanent design load Gd=1.0 Gk =74.12 kN/m on each span, the uniformly distributed
design traffic load qd=1.35 qk =61.76 kN/m on the central span and the design concentrated
traffic load Qd=1.35 Qk =1620 kN on the second span, approximately around 49.9 m away
from the second support, so that
M ( A')d min = −59275.4 kNm . (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 Gd=1.0 Gk =74.12 kN/m on each span, the uniformly distributed
design traffic load qd=1.35 qk =61.76 kN/m on the lateral spans and the design concentrated
traffic load Qd=1.35 Qk =1620 kN approximately 70.7 m away from the first or the last
support, so
M (C )d min = −25261.7 kNm . (43)
182
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
The corresponding bending moment and shear forces diagrams are illustrated in
figures 33 and 34, respectively.
The maximum bending moment on the second support M(B)dmax is obtained applying
the permanent design load Gd=1.0 Gk =74.12 kN/m on each span, the uniformly distributed
design traffic load qd=1.35 qk =61.76 kN/m on the third span and the design concentrated
traffic load Qd=1.35 Qk =1620 kN approximately around 50.5 m away from the third support,
obtaining
M (B )d max = −86922.2 kNm . (44)
The corresponding bending moment and shear forces diagrams are illustrated in
figures 35 and 36, respectively.
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 Gd=1.35 Gk =100.06 kN/m on each span, the uniformly distributed design traffic
183
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
load qd=1.35 qk =61.76 kN/m on the first and the third span and the design concentrated
traffic load Qd=1.35 Qk =1620 kN immediately left hand of section B-, obtaining the shear
force diagram illustrated in figure 37, where
( )
V B− d min = −12890.0 kN . (45)
Minimum design shear force in section C-, V(C-)dmin is obtained applying the
uniformly distributed design traffic load qd=1.35 qk =61.76 kN/m on the left hand half of the
central span and the design concentrated traffic load Qd=1.35 Qk =1620 kN immediately left
hand of section C-, obtaining the shear force diagram illustrated in figure 39, where
184
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
( )
V C− d min = −2276.0 kN . (47)
5
4
3
2
V [MN]
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
0 120 x [m] 240 360
Finally, maximum design shear force in section C-, V(C-)dmax is obtained applying the
uniformly distributed design traffic load qd=1.35 qk =61.76 kN/m on the right hand half of the
central span and the design concentrated traffic load Qd=1.35 Qk =1620 kN immediately right
hand of section C-, obtaining the shear force diagram illustrated in figure 40, where
( )
V C− d max = 2276.0 kN . (48)
185
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
M wz ( A)k =
2 2
Fwk , z L2 = ± 13.64 ⋅120.0 2 kNm = ±15713.3 kNm , (49)
25 25
M wz (B )k = −
1 1
Fwk , z L2 = m 13.64 ⋅120.0 2 kNm = m19641.6 kNm , (50)
10 10
M wz (C )k =
1 1
Fwk , z L2 = ± 13.64 ⋅120.0 2 kNm = ±4910.4 kNm , (51)
40 40
while for loaded bridge, the combination value ψ0wFwk,z=±8.18 kN/m, ψ0w=0.6, should be
considered, in place of Fwk,z.
Partial factor γQ for wind actions in ULS combinations is γQ=1.50 if unfavourable and
γQ=0 if favourable.
The vertical temperature differences, assumed to be linear through the cross section’s
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).
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
6 α ∆T
M ∆T = − EJ T , (54)
5 h
it results
186
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
M1 M2
R1 R2
M1 M2
R1 R2
Figure 42. Structural systems for assessment of cross section members (ref. figure 8)
187
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
M1 M2
R1 R2
M1 M2
R1 R2
Figure 43. Structural systems for assessment of cross section members (ref. figure 9)
5 FINAL REMARKS
6 REFERENCES
[1] EN 1991-1-1 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 1-1 General actions. Densities, self-
weight, imposed loads for buildings, CEN, Brussels, 2002.
[2] EN 1991-1-4 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 1-4 General actions. Wind actions,
CEN, Brussels, 2005.
[3] EN 1991-1-5 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 1-5 General actions. Thermal
actions, CEN, Brussels 2004.
[4] EN 1991-2 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 2 Traffic loads on bridges, CEN,
Brussels, 2003.
188
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
189
Chapter 9: Case study – Design of a steel bridge
190
Chapter 10: Case study - Design of a composite bridge
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 EN-1991, “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:
1.1 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.
191
Chapter 10: Case study - Design of a composite bridge
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.
2.1 Geometry
The solution adopted is a continuous composite bridge deck carrying three lanes of
road traffic, with a constant cross-sectional height of 2,15 m and a total width of 10 m. The
deck cross-section comprises an in situ concrete slab 0,25 m deep and two 1,9-m 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).
10,0 m
0,5 m 0,5 m
0,25 m
1,90 m
192
Chapter 10: Case study - Design of a composite bridge
103,5 m
Structural steel:
Modulus of
Nominal thickness Yield strength
Steel grade elasticity Ea
t [mm] fy [N/mm2]
[kN/mm2]
S355 t ≤ 40 mm 355
210
S460 40 < t ≤ 80 mm 430
Concrete:
Reinforcing steel 1:
In composite structures, the design value of the modulus of elasticity may be taken to
be equal to the value for structural steel: Es = 210 kN/mm2 ([2], §3.2.2).
Stud connectors 2:
Nominal ultimate strength fu = 450 N/mm2
Diameter φ = 19 mm
Height h = 125 mm.
1
While in EN 1992-1-1 [4] the yield strength of reinforcing steel is symbolized as fyk,, in EN 1994-1-1 [5] it is
shown fsk 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.
193
Chapter 10: Case study - Design of a composite bridge
SL DB SL
ST ST DI ST DI ST DI ST DI ST ST DI ST DI ST DI
30,00 m 21,75 m
2,08 2,08 2,08 3,125 3,125 3,125 3,125 3,00 3,00 2,50 2,50 2,50 2,50 3,35 3,35 3,35 3,35 3,35
450x25
TOP FLANGE
tw = 12 mm tw = 15 mm tw = 12 mm
WEB
600x25 600x40 600x60 (S460M) 600x40
BOTTOM FLANGE
ST: TRANSVERSE STIFFENER; DI: INTERMEDIATE DIAPHRAGM; DB: BEARING DIAPHRAGM; SL: LONGITUDINAL STIFFENER
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.
194
Chapter 10: Case study - Design of a composite bridge
Dead loads
The dead loads consist primarily of the vehicle restraint system and the asphalt layer
and are borne by the composite structure.
g dl = 1, 6 kN/m 2 ⋅ 5, 0 m = 8, 0 kN/m
Shrinkage
Pursuant to EN 1994-2 [2] §3.1(3) and EN 1992-1-1 [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:
70
3
β70% = 1,55 ⋅ 1 − = 1, 018 .
100
The basic drying shrinkage strain, εcd,0, is calculated as:
38
ε cd ,0 = 0,85 ( 220 + 110 ⋅ 4 ) ⋅ exp −0,12 ⋅ ⋅10−6 ⋅1, 018 = 362 ⋅10−6
10
2 Ac 2 ⋅ 2,5
The notional height is: =h0 = = 0, 244 m
u 20,5
where Ac is the cross-sectional area and u the perimeter of the member in contact with the
atmosphere.
10000
β ds (t , ts ) = = 0,985
10000 + 0, 04 ⋅ 2443
Drying shrinkage strain develops over time as:
ε cd (t ) = 0, 985 ⋅ 0,85 ⋅ 362 ⋅10−6 = 303 ⋅10 −6
195
Chapter 10: Case study - Design of a composite bridge
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):
1 − 70 /100
ϕ70% = 1 + = 1, 48
0,1⋅ 3 244
16,8 16,8
β ( f cm ) = = = 2, 73
f cm 30 + 8
1 1
β (t0 ) = = = 0,55
0,1 + t0 0,2
0,1 + 150,2
where t0 is the age of concrete at first loading in days.
The notional creep coefficient ϕ0 is:
ϕ0 = 1, 48 ⋅ 2, 73 ⋅ 0, 55 = 2, 22
Traffic loads.
Further to EN 1991-2 [8], §4.3.2, only Load Model 1 is applied. In this model, used
for general verification calculations, both concentrated two-axle 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 wl=3,0 m wide, is afforded by the relation (Figure 4):
w 9, 0
nl = int = int = 3.
3 3
Since the span length is greater than 10 m, each of the three tandem load systems may
be replaced by a one-axle load equal to the total load exerted by the two axles constituting the
system [8], §4.3.2 (6).
196
Chapter 10: Case study - Design of a composite bridge
w = 9,0 m
Due to the absence of specific indications related to the expected traffic, the
adjustment factors αQ and αq 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):
The same linear thermal expansion coefficient is assumed for the steel and the
concrete, namely α = 10·10-6 ºC-1 ([2], §3.1(1) and §5.4.2.5(3); [4], §3.1.3(5)).
The value specified in EN 1991-2 [8], section 5, for uniform thermal variation is
disregarded because it is irrelevant to the present study.
- Actual area:
Self-weight of the formwork: qcc,k = 0,5 kN/m2
197
Chapter 10: Case study - Design of a composite bridge
4 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
198
Chapter 10: Case study - Design of a composite bridge
Le = 18,4 m Le = 18,4 m
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 self-weight,
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 nL for the concrete may be used to calculate
the effects of creep. Depending on the type of loading, the modular ratios are given by:
nL = n0 (1 + ψ Lϕt )
where: n0 is the modular ratio Ea /Ecm for short-term loading;
ψL is the creep multiplier depending on the type of loading;
φt is the creep coefficient;
Ecm is the secant modulus of elasticity of the concrete for short-term
loading.
The modular ratio n0 for analysing the structure when exposed to traffic loads and
temperature (and dead loads, where the analysis is performed for t = 0) is:
n0 = Ea / Ecm = 210 / 33 = 6, 4
The ratio for permanent loads3 is:
3
In this case, the dead load only, because the construction entails no shoring.
199
Chapter 10: Case study - Design of a composite bridge
5,0 m
0,25 m
Ø 20 a 20 (s)
= 450 x 25 Ø 16 a 20 (i)
1,90 m
= 1815 x 15
= 600 x 60 (S 460)
200
Chapter 10: Case study - Design of a composite bridge
5,0 m
0,25 m
= 450 x 25
1,90 m
= 1850 x 12
= 600 x 25
= 450 x 25
1,90 m
= 1835 x 12
= 600 x 40
201
Chapter 10: Case study - Design of a composite bridge
Type of section 2 3 1 3 1 3 2
103,5 m
The characteristics considered for each section type are given in Table 4, depending
on the applied action.
5 ACTION EFFECTS
- 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 33 ⋅ 10
6
Ecm
N = Ac ⋅ ε cs∞ ⋅ = 5 ⋅ 0.25 ⋅ 353 ⋅ 10 ⋅ = 6649 kN
1 + 0.55 ⋅ 2.18 2.19
0.25
M = N ⋅v − = 6649 ⋅ ( 0.529 − 0.125 ) = 2686 kN ⋅ m *
2
202
Chapter 10: Case study - Design of a composite bridge
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/Ac (using the
aforementioned values of N and Ac) must be considered to estimate the shrinkage-
induced stress in the slab.
N N
M M
30,0 m 43,5 m 30,0 m
103,5 m
203
Chapter 10: Case study - Design of a composite bridge
6 DESIGN VALUES
Table 8. Partial factors for material properties, ultimate limit state calculations
Material Partial factor
γM0 = 1,0
Structural steel
γM1 = 1,1
Concrete γc = 1,5
Reinforcing steel γs = 1,15
The values used for partial factors γM0 and γM1 are as recommended in EN 1993-2
[13].
7 COMBINATIONS OF ACTIONS
4
Only combinations for t = ∞ are used in the present example.
204
Chapter 10: Case study - Design of a composite bridge
MEd , max = 1.35 · ( 439 + 2744 + 805 ) − 394 + 1.35 ⋅ (4380 + 5938) = 18919 kN ⋅ m
M Ed,max = 1.35 ⋅ (439 + 2744 + 805) − 394 + 1.5 ⋅1424 + 1.35 ⋅ (0.4 ⋅ 4380 + 0.75 ⋅ 5938)
= 15503 kN ⋅ m
205
Chapter 10: Case study - Design of a composite bridge
M Ed,min = 1.35 ⋅ (-744 − 4648 − 1087) − 394 + 1.35 ⋅ (-4214 − 2760) = −18556 kN ⋅ m
VEd ,conc = 1.35 ⋅ (109 + 680 + 174) + 1.35 ⋅ (707 + 519) = 2955 kN
Where thermal action is regarded to be the predominant variable action:
1.35 ⋅ G p + Gsc + 1.5 ⋅ T + 1.35 ⋅ (ψ 0 ⋅ QTS + ψ 0 ⋅ QUDL )
M Ed,min = 1.35 ⋅ (-744 − 4648 − 1087) − 394 + 1.5 ⋅ (-1709) + 1.35 ⋅ (0.4 ⋅ (-4214) + 0.75 ⋅ (-2760))
= -16774 kN ⋅ m
VEd ,conc = 1.35 ⋅ (109 + 680 + 174) + 1.35 ⋅ (0.4 ⋅ 707 + 0.75 ⋅ 519) = 2207 kN .
VEd ,max = 1.35 ⋅ (109 + 680 + 174) + 1.35 ⋅ (707 + 800) = 3334 kN
Table 10 summarises the action effects found for the mid-span and support sections.
Table 10. Moments and shear forces acting on the mid-span and support sections
Type of section Action effects M [kN·m] V [kN]
206
Chapter 10: Case study - Design of a composite bridge
8 FINAL REMARKS
9 REFERENCES
[1] Monografía M-10. Comprobación de un Tablero Mixto. Comisión 5, Grupo de Trabajo
5/3 “Puentes Mixtos”, Asociación Científico-técnica del Hormigón Estructural, Madrid,
2006, ISBN 84-89670-47-1.
[2] EN 1994-2 Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part 2: Rules
for bridges. CEN, Brussels, 2005.
[3] EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 1-1: General rules and rules
for buildings. CEN, Brussels, 2005.
[4] EN 1992-1-1 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. Part 1-1: General rules and
rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels, 2004.
[5] EN 1994-1-1 Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part 1-1:
General rules and rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels, 2004.
[6] EN 1990 Eurocode - Basis of structural design, CEN, Brussels, 2002.
[7] EN 1991-1-1 Eurocode 1 - Actions on structures. Part 1-1: General actions – Densities,
self-weight, imposed loads for buildings, CEN, Brussels, 2002.
[8] EN 1991-2 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. CEN,
Brussels, 2003.
[9] EN 1991-1-5 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. Part 1-5: General actions – Thermal
actions. CEN, Brussels, 2003.
[10] EN 1991-1-6 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. Part 1-6: General actions – Actions
during execution. CEN, Brussels, 2005.
[11] EN 1993-1-5 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 1-5: 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 1993-2 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 2: Steel bridges. CEN, Brussels,
2006.
207
Chapter 10: Case study - Design of a composite bridge
208
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN1991-2 load models
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 EN1991-2 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
209
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN1991-2 load models
As just said, at present the results of a wide campaign of in-situ 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.
Disregarding wrong data, the maximum recorded axle load results about 292 kN,
pertaining to the 3rd 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
EN1991-2 load models, as described in the following.
210
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN1991-2 load models
211
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN1991-2 load models
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
212
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN1991-2 load models
Figure 5. Comparison of total lorry weight spectra for Auxerre and Moerdijk traffics.
- 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 1991-2 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
213
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN1991-2 load models
through a Monte Carlo simulation, differ on the inter-vehicle 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 1991-2
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
1991-2.
0 0.5 1
Figure 6. Influence line for bending moment M0 at midspan of simply supported bridge
0 1 2
Figure 7. Influence line for hog moment M1 at intermediate support of two span
continuous bridge
0.432
0 1 2
Figure 8. Influence line for max sag moment M2 in the section located 0.432·L from the
support in two span continuous bridge
214
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN1991-2 load models
0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 9. Influence line for hog moment M3 at the third support of five span continuous
bridge
0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 10. Influence line for max sag moment M4 at midspan of five span continuous
beam bridge
215
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN1991-2 load models
values of Auxerre traffic must be multiplied to reproduce the fatigue damage induced by the
actual traffic.
The Keq,t curves, pertaining to Moerdijk traffic as well as to conventional traffics
derived from fatigue load model LM4 of EN 1991-2, 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 M0, figures 12 and
17 to M1, figures 13 and 18 to M2, figures 14 and 19 to M3 and figures 15 and 20 to M4.
216
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN1991-2 load models
217
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN1991-2 load models
218
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN1991-2 load models
- load model LM 4 represents very satisfactorily the actual fatigue damage induced by
the Auxerre traffic and is generally safe-sided;
- despite of EN 1991-2 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 unsafe-sided
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 Keq 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 Keq factors generally ranging between 0.8 and
0.85 except the cases M1 and M3 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 EN1991-2. The fatigue assessments have been supplemented also
considering two conventional traffics, deduced by the fatigue load model 4 of EN1991-2,
constituted by equivalent lorries.
219
Annex A: Effects of LHVs on road bridges and EN1991-2 load models
Results of the study demonstrate that EN 1991-2 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
220
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
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 1991-3, for towers and masts in EN 1993-3-1 and for pipelines in EN
1993-4-3. 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
2.1 General
EN 1991-3 [6] give guidance for specification of actions induced by cranes on runway
beams and by rotating machines on supporting structures.
– variable vertical crane actions caused by the self-weight of the crane and the hoist load
221
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
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 ϕ to be applied to the static values of actions
Fϕ,k = ϕ i Fk (1)
Where Fϕ,k is the characteristic value of a crane action, ϕ i is the dynamic factor and Fk is the
characteristic static component of a crane action. The various dynamic factors and their
application are listed in Table 2.1 of EN 1991-3 [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 non-crane 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.
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.
222
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
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 ψ-factors are given in Table 1.
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
γGj,sup = 1,35
γGj,inf = 1,25
γQ,1 = 1,35 for unfavourable variable crane actions
γQ,1 = 1,00 for favourable variable crane actions where crane is present
γQ,1 = 0 for favourable variable crane actions where crane is not present
γQ = 1,5 for other unfavourable variable actions (0 where favourable)
provided that applying γGj,inf = 1,00 both to the favourable part and to the unfavourable part of
permanent actions does not give a more unfavourable effect.
223
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
The design values of actions and recommended partial factors based on EN 1990 [1]
and EN 1991-3 [6] for the ultimate limit states (STR) in the persistent and transient design
situations are given in Table 2.3.
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 Prestress Accidental Accompanying variable
unfavourable favourable or seismic actions
action main (if any) others
Accidental Gkj,sup Gkj,inf Pk Ad ψ11 Qk1 or ψ21Qk1 ψ2,i Qk,i
Exp.
(6.11a/b)
Seismic Gkj,sup Gkj,inf Pk γIAEk or ψ2,i Qk,i
Exp. AEd
(6.12a/b)
In case of accidental design situations, the main variable action may be taken with its frequent or
quasi-permanent values. The choice is given in the National Annex depending on the accidental
action under consideration.
224
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
actions according to expressions (6.14a) to (6.16b) taking into account the serviceability
requirements and the distinction between reversible and irreversible limit states.
3.1 General
The lattice towers and guyed masts which are within the scope of EN 1993-3-1 [8]
should be designed in accordance with general rules of EN 1990 [1] for the basis of design
and EN 1993-1-1 [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.
225
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
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 βt are not recommended in EN 1993-3-1 [8].
where k is given in ISO 12494 [10] dependent on Ice Class and the values of reduction
coefficients ψI = ψW = 0,5 are recommended in EN 1993-3-1 [8].
4.1 General
EN 1993-4-3 [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.
226
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
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.
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.
227
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
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.
w
g
L=3m
228
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
Thus, the application of the reliability elements given in EN 1993-3-1 [8] leads to
about 15 % reduction of internal moment.
In case that the reliability elements recommended in the CENELEC standard EN
50341-1 [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 50341-1 [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
229
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
230