Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LECTURE NOTES
20121003
1 (15)
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
1.
2.
3.
4.
COMBINATIONS OF ACTIONS
12
14
REFERENCES
15
2 (15)
ABSTRACT
This is the second seminar presentation of the Seminar on Eurocodes, presented 13.03.2003.
The course was arranged in Laboratory of Bridge Engineering in the Helsinki University of
Technology in spring 2003 and was for under- (Rak-11.146) and postgraduate students (Rak11.163).
Aim in this paper is Loading, Bridges and is based on several parts of pre (pr) Eurocodes by
European Committee for Standardization (CEN):
prEN 1990, Basis of structural design [1],
EN 1990 prAnnex A2, Application for Bridges (Normative) [2] and
prEN 1991-2, Traffic loads on Bridges [3].
Above-mentioned pars are presented in general level. Vertical traffic load actions for road,
foot- and railway bridges and these loads in combination of actions (limit state design) are
studied. Eurocodes are compared to Finnish standards. Effects of load models (characteristic
values) are clarify by maximum bending moment curves for single span bridge.
INTRODUCTION
Traffic loads on Bridges is second part of Actions of structures in Eurocode EN 1991 [3]. It
consist of traffic actions and other actions specially for road and railway bridges and actions
on footways, cycle tracks and footbridges.
Basis of structural design (prEN 1990) [1] (presented in previous seminar presentation [6])
consist of general directions of limit state design (partial factor method).
Application for Bridges [2] is prAnnex 2 of Basis of structural design. It consist of
combinations of actions and parameters used in limit state design.
Traffic loads on bridges in Finnish standards are defined in two Finnish publications
Associations of Finnish Civil Engineers: Standard for Loading on Structures RIL
144-2002 [8]
Finnish Road Administration: Loads on Bridges [9]
Effects of Eurocodes to Finnish bridge design have concerned in two Finnish masters thesis
required for a diploma:
Mikkonen, Esa: Effects of Eurocodes on the Structural Design of Steel Structures of
Road Bridges in Finland [7]
Honkanen, Hannu: Effect of European Standards on the Design of Composite
Bridges [5]
Eurocodes concerning to wood bridges is presented in Nordic wood bridge project [4].
Loads due to traffic give rise to vertical and horizontal, static and dynamic forces. Special
names are given due to character of load, for example accidental load. Loads are described by
load models (LM). 1 They have been selected (and calibrated) so that their effects, with
dynamic increments taken into account where indicated, represent the effects of actual traffic.
Load models which can act at the same time are constituted group of loads (gr).
In this paper only vertical traffic load actions for road, foot- and railway bridges are studied.
Dynamic effects either group of loads are not studied. Vertical traffic loads in combination of
actions (limit state design) are presented.
1
3 (15)
(1)
where i is lane number ( Z+) or remaining area (r) and aQi is adjustment factor.
Uniformly distributed load is
qika = a qi qik
(2)
4 (15)
Location
Lane Number 1
Lane Number 2
Lane Number 3
Lane Number 4
Remaining area
Eurocode [3]
UDL system
Tandem system:
Two axle loads
2 Qik
with wheelbase
1,2 m
Qik [MN]
qik [MN/m2]
0,3
0,0090
0,2
0,0025
0,1
0,0025
0
0,0025
0
0,0025
Load Model 25 consists of single axle load as shown in Figure 2. Axel load is
Qakb = b Q Qak
(3)
(a)
which includes dynamic amplification. When relevant, only one wheel may be taken into
account. Load Model 2 can be predominant in the range of loaded length 3 m to 7 m.
Corresponding Finnish load models (LM2 and LM3) have smaller load and contact areas.6
5 (15)
of Finnish standard are taken into account. Models 1 of both standards is also divided in
tandem and uniformly distributed load systems. Adjustment factors are assumed to be
a Qi
=1
a qi
300
(b)
M max [MNm]
250
200
EC LM1 UDL
EC LM4
150
FS LM1 (Lk I, kk 1)
FS LM1 UDL (Lk I, kk 1, p)
FS LM1 TS (Lk I, kk 1, F)
EC LM1 TS
100
50
0
l [m]
0
50
100
150
200
250
EC LM2
FS LM2 (Lk I, kk 2)
500
M max [MNm]
400
300
200
100
l [m]
0
50
100
150
200
250
Figure 4. Maximum moments due to road traffic actions with several lanes.
Load Model 3 7 consists of a set of assemblies of axle loads representing special vehicles,
which can travel on routes permitted for abnormal loads. The National Annex may define
Load Model 3 and its conditions of use. Annex A of Traffic loads on Bridges 8 [3] gives
guidance on standard models and their conditions of applications.
7
8
6 (15)
The special vehicle load classes 1200/X, with same total weight as heavy special load model 1
(Ek 1) 9 in Finnish Standard, are presented in Table 2. (These load models dont include
dynamic amplifications.) Arrangement of axel-lines and definition of wheel contact areas of
special vehicle classes 1200/X is shown in Figure 5. Maximum moments of these load models
of single span bridge (with one lane) as a function of span length are shown in Figure 6; also
Tandem Systems of Load Model 1 of both standards are shown.
Table 2. Special vehicle with total weight of 1,2 MN in Eurocode and in Finnish standard.
Eurocode, Annex A [3]
1200/150
1200/200
8 0,15
6 0,2
7 1,5
5 1,5
Notation
Axle loads n Q [MN]
Axle spacing m ei [m]
M max [MNm]
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
l [m]
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
(c)
which includes dynamic amplification. This load model is particularly relevant for bridges
located in or near towns and should be used only for some transient design situations.
10
7 (15)
q fk = q0 + 0 , l = ]l1, l 2 [
l0 + l
q2 , l l 2
(4)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
Uniformly distributed load according to Eurocode and Finnish standard as a function of span
length is shown in Figure 7.
Order is same as right end of curves:
EC RoadLM4
0,006
0,005
0,004
0,003
0,002
0,001
0
q [MN/m ]
FS FootLM1 (kk 1)
EC FootUDL
50
100
150
200
l [m]
250
11
Load models may not be appropriate for large footbridges, when width is more than 6 m [3].
prEN 1991-2 5.3.2.1, p. 60 [3].
13
This load model should be used for abutments and walls adjacent to bridges (prEN 1991-2 5.9, p. 64) [3].
14
prEN 1991-2 5.3.2.2, p. 60 [3].
12
(k)
8 (15)
acting on a square surface of sides 0,1 m. Where, in a verification, general and local effects
can be distinguished, the concentrated load should be taken into account only for local effects.
If, for a footbridge, a service vehicle is specified, concentrated load should not be considered.
Finnish standards havent corresponding load model (CL), but service vehicle (LM2) should
be used.
When service vehicles15 are to be carried on a footbridge or footway, one service vehicle Qserv
shall be taken into account. Service vehicle load model may be defined in the National Annex
or used accidental loading model show in Figure 8. This load model has the same magnitude
of axel loads as Finnish load model 2 for footbridge [9], but the wheel base, track and contact
areas are different16.
M max [MNm]
140
EC RoadLM4
120
FS LM1 (kk 1)
100
EC UDL
80
FS LM2 (kk2)
60
EC SV
40
EC CL
20
0
0
50
100
150
200
l [m]
250
9 (15)
(l)
on lines carrying rail traffic which is heavier or lighter than normal traffic. For international
lines it is recommended to take a 1,00. Finnish standard use LM71-35, which means that a
= 1,46.22
(1) No limitation
17
1435 mm.
> 1435 mm (for example railways in Finland: 1524 mm).
19
Application of traffic loads on railway bridges are described in prEN 1991-2 6.8 [3].
20
prEN 1991-2 Annex H, p. 162 [3].
21
prEN 1991-2 6.3.2, p. 66 [3].
22
Finnish standard LM71-35.
18
10 (15)
Load Models SW/0 and SW/223 are shown in Figure 11 and the characteristic values of the
vertical loads and distances in Table 3. Load Model SW/0 shall be multiplied by the factor a
(constant l).
qvk [MN/m]
0,133
0,150
a [m]
15
25
c [m]
5,3
7,0
The effect of lateral displacement of vertical loads in the case of Load Models 71 and SW/0
shall be considered by taking the ratio of wheel loads on all axles as up to 1,25:1,00 on any
one track. The resulting eccentricity e is shown in Figure 12.
(m)
11 (15)
Maximum moments of single span bridge as a function of span length due to Eurocode and
Finnish Standard are shown in Figure 13. Load Models 71 (a = 1,00), SW/2 and unloaded
train of Eurocode and load model LM 71-35 and load model for tram (a and b)28 of Finnish
Standard are taken into account [8].
1200
M max [MNm]
1000
FS LM71-35
800
EC LM 71
600
EC LM SW/2
FS Tram a
400
EC LM UT
FS Tram b
200
l [m]
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
28
12 (15)
4. COMBINATIONS OF ACTIONS
In combination of actions using in limit state design two kind of parameters are needed:
1. g is a partial factor for the action which takes account of the possibility of
unfavourable deviations of the action values from the representative values and
2. y are factors of three kinds:
a) y0 is factor for combination value of a variable action,
b) y1 is factor for frequent value of a variable action and
c) y2 is factor for quasi-permanent value of a variable action.
Characteristic values includes adjustment factors (a, b).
Partial factors of unfavourable traffic actions in Eurocode and in Finnish standard are shown
in Table 4. When traffic action is favourable partial factor is
g =0
(n)
Three sets (A, B and C) are including in Table 4. Static equilibrium (EQU 29 ) should be
verified using set A. Design of structural members (STR30) not involving geotechnical actions
should be verified using set B. Design of structural members (STR) involving geotehcnical
actions and resistance of the ground (GEO31) should be verified using alternative approach
with set B and / or C.32
Recommended values of y factors for vertical traffic actions in Eurocode are shown in Table
5. Finnish standard havent independent y factors in the case of ultimate limit state - the
effects of they are taken into account in partial factors. When traffic action is favourable
y =0
(o)
Partial factors may be set by and y factors may be altered in the National Annex.
Table 4. Partial factors of traffic actions in Eurocode and in Finnish standard.
Partial factor
Notation
Set
29
Eurocode [2]
gQI)
AA), BB)
CC)
Road traffic
1,35
1,15
Pedestrian traffic
Rail traffic
A) EQU.
B) STR/GEO.
C) STR/GEO.
1,35
1,45
1,15
1,25
1,4
1,8
1,8
1,6
13 (15)
Table 5. Recommended values of y factors for vertical traffic actions in Eurocode and in
Finnish standard.
y factor
Road
bridges33
Footbridges34
Railway
bridges
I)
II)
III)
IV)
33
Eurocode
[2]
y0
y1
y2
0,75 0,75
0
gr1a (LM1 +
pedestrian or
0,40 0,40
0
cycle track)II)
0,40 0,40
0
gr1b (Single axle)
0
0,75
0
gr2 (Horizontal forces)
0
0
0
gr3 (Pedestrian loads)
0
0
0
gr4 (LM 4 - Crowd loading)
0
0,75
0
gr5 (LM 3 - Special vehicles)
0
0
0
gr1
0,40 0,40
0
0,3
Qfwk
0
0
0
gr2
0
0
0
IV)
Individual
LM71
0,80
0
IV)
components
SW/0
0,80
0
SW/2
0
1,0
0
Unloaded train
1,0
IV)
HSLM
1,0
0
35
Groups of loads
gr11...17
0,80 0,80
0
gr21...24, 26, 27, 31
0,80 0,70
0
36
Quasi-permanent combination in serviceability limit state.
y values are given for roads with traffic corresponding to adjusting factors aQi,
aqi, aqr, bQ equal to 1.
The combination value of pedestrian and cycle-track load is a reduced value.
0,8 if 1 track only is loaded,
0,7 if 2 tracks are simultaneously loaded and
0,6 if 3 or more tracks are simultaneously loaded.
Symbol
TS
UDL
Pedestrian + cycle-track III)
Group of loads: see prEN 1991-2, Tables 4.4a, p. 43, and 4.4b, p. 44 [3].
Group of loads: see prEN 1991-2, Table 5.1, p. 62 [3].
35
Group of loads: see prEN 1991-2, Table 6.11, p. 118 [3].
36
In Finnish: Kyttrajatilan pitkaikaiset vaikutukset.
34
Finnish
standard
[9]
yiI)
14 (15)
Uniformly distributed load on the first lane is in Eurocode three times Finnish
value (Lk I, kk 1). Tandem system loads, or bending moments for single span
beam due to them, in the case of one, three or more lanes are nearly equal in
accordance with Eurocode and in Finnish standard.
LM2
Axle load is in Eurcode about 1,5 times corresponding Finnish value (Lk I, kk
2).
LM3
LM4
CL
SV
Special vehicle in Eurocode and in Finnish standard (kk 2) are almost similar.
LM SW/0
Load Model SW/0 for continuous bridges to represent normal rail traffic on
mainline railways.
LM SW/2
LM HSLM
Load Model HSLM to represent the loading from passenger trains at speed
exceeding 200 km/h (dynamic analysis).
LM UL
15 (15)
Combinations of Actions
Characteristic values includes adjustment factors (a, b). Finnish standard havent these
factors.
Expressions for design values are given for separate ultimate limit state cases (EQU, STR,
GEO) by using design case sets (A, B and C), where partial factors (g) are defined. Partial
factor in Finnish standard for road and pedestrian traffic (without heavy special load model) is
about 33% higher than corresponding Eurocode value in the case of static equilibrium (EQU),
and for rail traffic corresponding Finnish value is about 10% higher.
In the combinations of actions vertical traffic load is normally leading variable action. Hence
factor for combination value of vertical traffic action (y0) is needed seldom. 37 In
serviceability limit state factor for frequent value of vertical traffic action (y1) decrease
leading variable action.38 Factor for quasi-permanent value of a vertical traffic actions (y2) is
zero.39
Finnish standard have y value only for quasi-permanent combination in service limit state (yi
= 0,3); in the other cases y values are including in partial factors.
The final design practice or mode in Finland due to Eurocode is determined until Finnish
national annexes are ready. Adjustment, partial and y factors may be specify in the national
annexes.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
37
See Equations 6.10 in prEN 1990 6.4.3.2, p. 46, and Equations 6.14 in 6.5.3, p. 48, 49 [1].
See Equations 6.15 in prEN 1990 6.5.3, p. 49 [1].
39
See Equations 6.16 in prEN 1990 6.5.3, p. 49 [1].
38