Helsinki University of Technology (HUT) LECTURE NOTES

Bridge Engineering (BE) Rak-11.107 Bridges and Foundation Structures

Risto Syrjä 031110 1 (15)

VERTICAL TRAFFIC LOADS ON BRIDGES

ACCORDING TO EUROCODES

Risto Syrjä

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT 2
INTRODUCTION 2
1. ROAD TRAFFIC ACTIONS 3
2. ACTIONS ON FOOTWAYS, CYCLE TRACKS AND FOOTBRIDGES 7
3. RAIL TRAFFIC ACTIONS 9
4. COMBINATIONS OF ACTIONS 12
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 14
REFERENCES 15
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 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 (Rak-
11.163).

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 master’s 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
Load models do not describe actual loads.
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 3 (15)

1. ROAD TRAFFIC ACTIONS

Four models of vertical loads should be taken into account for load carrying structures (LM1,
LM2, LM3 and LM4). Load models for abutments and walls adjacent to bridges are defined
separately and aren’t discussed in this connection.2

Load Model 13 consist of tandem system (TS) and uniformly distributed load (UDL) as shown
in Figure 1. Tandem system have two axel loads

Qikα = α Qi Qik (1)

where i is lane number (∈ Z+) or remaining area (r) and αQi is adjustment factor.

Uniformly distributed load is

qikα = α qi qik (2)

where αqi is adjustment factor.

Adjustment factors are given in the National Annex. Characteristic values of Qik and qik,
dynamic amplification included, are given in Table 1. Also corresponding values of Load
Model 1 of Finnish Standard4 are shown in the Table 1.

*) For lane width wl = 3 m.

Figure 1. Load Model 1.

2
See prEN 1991-2 § 4.9, p. 57 [3].
3
prEN 1991-2 § 4.3.2, p. 35. Calibration of Load Model 1 is made for length 0...200 m (prEN 1991-2 § 4.1(1),
Note 1, p. 31). [3]
4
In Finnish standard: Kuormaluokka (Lk) I, kuormakaavio (kk) 1 [9].
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 4 (15)

Table 1. Load model 1.

Eurocode [3] Finnish Standard [9]

Tandem system: UDL system Tandem system: UDL system
Two axle loads Three axle loads
Location 2 · Qik 3 · Fik
with wheelbase with wheelbases
1,2 m ≥ 2,5 m, ≥ 6 m
Qik [MN] qik [MN/m2] Fik [MN] pik [MN/m2]
Lane Number 1 0,3 0,0090 0,21 0,003
Lane Number 2 0,2 0,0025 0,21 0,003
Lane Number 3 0,1 0,0025 0 0,003
Lane Number ≥ 4 0 0,0025 0 0,003
Remaining area 0 0,0025 0 0

Load Model 25 consists of single axle load as shown in Figure 2. Axel load is

Qakβ = β Q Qak (3)

where βQ is adjustment factor, equal to αQ1, and

Qak = 0,4 MN (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

X: bridge longitudinal axis direction

1: kerb

Figure 2. Load Model 2.

Maximum moments of single span bridge with one lane (width 3 m) caused from load models
as a function of span length (l) due to Eurocode (EC) and Finnish standard (FS) are shown in
Figure 3. Load Models 1, 2 and 4 (4 is presented later) of Eurocode and Load Models 1 and 2

5
prEN 1991-2 § 4.3.3, p. 38 [3].
6
In Finnish standard LM2 axle load is 0,26 MN (Lk 1) and contact area side in longitudinal direction is 0,2 m;
LM3 consist only one wheel of LM2 [9].
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 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

α Qi 
 =1 (b)
α qi 

300 M max [MNm] Order is same as right end of curves:

EC LM1
250
EC LM1 UDL
200 EC LM4
150 FS LM1 (Lk I, kk 1)
FS LM1 UDL (Lk I, kk 1, p)
100
FS LM1 TS (Lk I, kk 1, F)
50 EC LM1 TS
0 EC LM2
l [m]
FS LM2 (Lk I, kk 2)
0 50 100 150 200 250

Figure 3. Maximum moments due to road traffic actions on one lane.

Maximum moments of single span bridge with several lanes (width of each 3 m) as a function
of span length due to Eurocode and Finnish Standard are shown in Figure 4. Concentrated
loads on separate lanes are situated in the same longitudinal location. Both Load Models 1
and 2 of Eurocode and Finnish Standard are taken into account.

500 M max [MNm] Order is same as right end of curves:

EC LM1, LM2 4 lanes
400
EC LM1, LM2, 3 lanes
300 FS LM1, LM2, 4 lanes
EC LM1, LM2, 2 lanes
200
FS LM1, LM2, 3 lanes
100 EC LM1, LM2, 1 lane
FS LM1, LM2, 2 lanes
0 l [m]
0 50 100 150 200 250 FS LM1, LM2, 1 lane

Figure 4. Maximum moments due to road traffic actions with several lanes.

Load Model 37 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 Bridges8 [3] gives
guidance on standard models and their conditions of applications.

7
prEN 1991-2 § 4.3.4, p. 39 [3].
8
prEN 1991-2 Annex A § 2, p. 121 - 125 [3].
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 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 don’t 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] Finnish Standard [9]

Notation 1200/150 1200/200 Ek 1
Axle loads n · Q [MN] 8 · 0,15 6 · 0,2 4 · 0,3
Axle spacing m · ei [m] 7 · 1,5 5 · 1,5 1,2; 8...15; 1,2

Figure 5. Special vehicles with axle-lines from 0,1 to 0,2 MN.

80 M max [MNm] Order is same as right end of curves:

70 EC LM3 SV 1200/200
EC LM3 SV 1200/150
60
FS SV (Lk I, Ek 1)
50 FS LM1 TS (Lk I, kk1, F)
EC LM1 TS
40
30
20
10
0 l [m]
0 50 100 150 200 250

Figure 6. Maximum moments due to special vehicles.

Load Model 410 is a crowd loading (front cover Figure), uniformly distributed load

qk, LM4 = 0,005 MN/m2 (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.

9
In Finnish: Raskas erikoiskuorma 1 (kuormaluokassa I) [9].
10
prEN 1991-2 § 4.3.5, p. 39 [3].
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 7 (15)

2. ACTIONS ON FOOTWAYS, CYCLE TRACKS AND FOOTBRIDGES

Three models of vertical loads, mutually exclusive, should be taken into account:
˘ a uniformly distributed load qfk,
˘ a concentrated load Qfwk and
˘ loads representing service vehicles Qserv.

The uniformly distributed load and the concentrated load should be used for road and railway
bridges as well as footbridges11, where relevant.

The characteristic value of uniformly distributed load 12 may be defined in the National
Annex. Load Model 4 for road bridges may be used where crowd risk exists.13 Otherwise
recommended value is

q1, l ≤ l1

 p
q fk = q0 + 0 , l = ]l1, l 2 [ (4)
 l0 + l
q2 , l ≥ l 2

where l is loaded length in meters and

q0 = 0,002 MN/m2 (d)
q1 = 0,005 MN/m2 (e)
q2 = 0,0025 MN/m2 (f)
p0 = 0,120 MN/m (g)
l0 = 30 m (h)
l1 = 10 m (i)
l2 = 210 m (j)

Uniformly distributed load according to Eurocode and Finnish standard as a function of span
length is shown in Figure 7.

0,006 q [MN/m ]
2 Order is same as right end of curves:
0,005 EC RoadLM4
0,004
FS FootLM1 (kk 1)
0,003
0,002 EC FootUDL
0,001
0 l [m]
0 50 100 150 200 250

Figure 7. Uniformly distributed load.

The characteristic value of concentrated load14 should be taken equal to

Qfwk = 0,01 MN (k)

11
Load models may not be appropriate for large footbridges, when width is more than 6 m [3].
12
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].
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 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 haven’t 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.

x: Bridge axis direction

Qsv1 = 0,08 MN
Qsv2 = 0,04 MN

Figure 8. Accidental loading.

Maximum moments of single span bridge as a function of span length due to Eurocode and
Finnish Standard are shown in Figure 9. Horizontal clearance is 3,5 meters. All Load Models
of Eurocode and Finnish Standard are taken into account. Effects of Service vehicles are very
close together by using Eurocode and Finnish standard (LM2).

160 M max [MNm] Order is same as right end of curves:

140 EC RoadLM4
120 FS LM1 (kk 1)
100 EC UDL
80 FS LM2 (kk2)
60 EC SV
40 EC CL
20
0 l [m]
0 50 100 150 200 250

Figure 9. Maximum moments due to actions on footbridge.

15
prEN 1991-2 § 5.3.2.3, p. 61, and § 5.6.3, p. 63 [3].
16
In Finnish standard wheel base is 2 m, track is 1,7 m and contact area side in transverse direction is 0,4 m [9].
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 9 (15)

3. RAIL TRAFFIC ACTIONS

Eurocode for railway bridges applies to rail traffic on the standard track gauge17 and wide
track gauge18 . It is not applicable for tramways and other light railways; the loading and
characteristic values of actions for these types of railways should be specified for the
particular project or they may be defined in the National Annex. In Finnish standard load
model for tramcar is given [8].

Rail traffic actions are defined by means of load models. Five models of vertical railway
loading are given19:
˘ Load Model 71 to represent normal rail traffic on mainline railways,
˘ Load Model SW/0 for continuous bridges to represent normal rail traffic on mainline
railways,
˘ Load Model SW/2 to represent heavy loads,
˘ Load Model HSLM to represent the loading from passenger trains at speed exceeding
200 km/h and
˘ Load Model “unloaded train” to represent the effect of an unloaded train.

All the load models represent static effects for the Persistent Design Situation. In the case of
Transient Design Situation the characteristic values of Load Models are using.20

The load arrangement and the characteristic values of Load Model 7121 is shown in Figure 10.
The Characteristic values shall be multiplied by a factor

α = {0,75; 0,83; 0,91; 1,00; 1,21; 1,33; 1,46} (l)

on lines carrying rail traffic which is heavier or lighter than normal traffic. For international
lines it is recommended to take α ≥ 1,00. Finnish standard use LM71-35, which means that α
= 1,46.22

(1) No limitation
Figure 10. Load Model 71.

17
1435 mm.
18
> 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.
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 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 α
(constant l).

Figure 11. Load Models SW/0 and SW/2.

Table 3. Characteristic values and distances of Load Models SW/0 and SW/2.

Load Model qvk [MN/m] a [m] c [m]

SW/0 0,133 15 5,3
SW/2 0,150 25 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.

(1) uniformly distributed load and point loads

on each rail as approopriate
(2) LM 71 (and SW/0 where required)
(3) transverse distance between wheel loads

Figure 12. Eccentricity of vertical loads.24

Load Model HSLM 25 is using only in dynamic analysis and comprises of two separate
Universal Trains with variable coach lengths, HSLM-A and HSLM-B. Limits of validity of
Load Model HSLM are given in Annex E26.

Load Model “unloaded train” 27 consist of a vertical uniformly distributed load with a
characteristic value of

qUT = 0,01 MN/m (m)

23
prEN 1991-2 § 6.3.3, p. 67 [3].
24
When r = 1435 mm, emax = 79,7 mm. In Finnish standard e = ± 200 mm [9].
25
prEN 1991-2 § 6.4.6.1.1, p. 82 [3].
26
prEN 1991-2 Annex E, p. 139 - 147 [3].
27
prEN 1991-2 § 6.3.4, p. 68 [3], and EN 1990 prAnnex A2 § 2.2.4(2), p. 8, 9 [2].
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 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 (α = 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] Order is same as right end of curves:

1000 FS LM71-35
800 EC LM 71
EC LM SW/2
600 FS Tram a
400 EC LM UT
FS Tram b
200

0 l [m]
0 50 100 150 200 250

Figure 13. Maximum moments due to rail traffic actions.

28
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 12 (15)

4. COMBINATIONS OF ACTIONS

In combination of actions using in limit state design two kind of parameters are needed:
1. γ 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. ψ are factors of three kinds:
a) ψ0 is factor for combination value of a variable action,
b) ψ1 is factor for frequent value of a variable action and
c) ψ2 is factor for quasi-permanent value of a variable action.
Characteristic values includes adjustment factors (α, β).

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

γ =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 ψ factors for vertical traffic actions in Eurocode are shown in Table
5. Finnish standard haven’t independent ψ factors in the case of ultimate limit state - the
effects of they are taken into account in partial factors. When traffic action is favourable

ψ =0 (o)

Partial factors may be set by and ψ factors may be altered in the National Annex.

Table 4. Partial factors of traffic actions in Eurocode and in Finnish standard.

Partial factor Eurocode [2] Finnish standard [9]

Notation γQI) γq1
Set AA), B B)
CC)
HSLM 1,4
Road traffic 1,35 1,15
Other LMs 1,8
Pedestrian traffic 1,35 1,15 1,8
Rail traffic 1,45 1,25 1,6
A) EQU.
B) STR/GEO.
C) STR/GEO.

29
See prEN 1990 § 6.4.1(1)a), p. 44 [1].
30
See prEN 1990 § 6.4.1(1)b), p. 44 [1].
31
See prEN 1990 § 6.4.1(1)c), p. 44 [1].
32
Three alternative approaches are mentioned in EN 1990 prAnnex A2 § 2.3.1(5), p. 15 [2].
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 13 (15)

Table 5. Recommended values of ψ factors for vertical traffic actions in Eurocode and in
Finnish standard.

Finnish
Eurocode
standard
ψ factor [2]
[9]
Symbol ψ0 ψ1 ψ2 ψiI)
Road gr1a (LM1 + TS 0,75 0,75 0
bridges33 pedestrian or UDL 0,40 0,40 0
cycle track)II) Pedestrian + cycle-track III)
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
Foot- gr1 0,40 0,40 0
0,3
bridges34 Qfwk 0 0 0
gr2 0 0 0
IV)
Railway Individual LM71 0,80 0
IV)
bridges 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
I) Quasi-permanent combination in serviceability limit state.
II) ψ values are given for roads with traffic corresponding to adjusting factors αQi,
αqi, αqr, βQ equal to 1.
III) The combination value of pedestrian and cycle-track load is a “reduced” value.
IV) 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.

33
Group of loads: see prEN 1991-2, Tables 4.4a, p. 43, and 4.4b, p. 44 [3].
34
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: Käyttörajatilan pitkäaikaiset vaikutukset.
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 14 (15)

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Vertical traffic load actions for road, foot- and railway bridges and these loads in combination
of actions (limit state design) have been studied in accordance with Eurocodes and compared
to Finnish standards.

Road Traffic Actions

Eurocode have four vertical loading models (characteristic load values):

LM1 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 Special vehicle load classes 1200/150 and 1200/200 are corresponding to
Finnish heavy special load model (Ek 1).

LM4 Crowd loading, used in or near towns, haven’t corresponding model in Finnish
standard.

Actions on Footways, Cycle Tracks and Footbridges

Eurocode have three vertical loading models (characteristic load values):

UDL Uniformly deformed load is LM4 of road bridges or load magnitude is

function of loaded length. For bridges, which loaded length is longer than 30
m, Finnish load value is between values of Eurocode models mentioned above.

CL Concentrated load should be used, where service vehicle is not specified.

Finnish standards haven’t corresponding load model.

SV Special vehicle in Eurocode and in Finnish standard (kk 2) are almost similar.

Rail Traffic Actions

Eurocode have five vertical loading models (characteristic load values):

LM 71 Load Model 71 to represent normal rail traffic on mainline railways. Finnish

standard have corresponding load models for only to this model. Finnish
standard use LM71-35, which means that α = 1,46.

LM SW/0 Load Model SW/0 for continuous bridges to represent normal rail traffic on
mainline railways.

LM SW/2 Load Model SW/2 to represent heavy loads.

LM HSLM Load Model HSLM to represent the loading from passenger trains at speed
exceeding 200 km/h (dynamic analysis).

LM UL Load Model “unloaded train” to represent the effect of an unloaded train.

HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 15 (15)

Combinations of Actions

Characteristic values includes adjustment factors (α, β). Finnish standard haven’t 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 (γ) 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 (ψ0) is needed seldom. 37 In
serviceability limit state factor for frequent value of vertical traffic action (ψ1) decrease
leading variable action.38 Factor for quasi-permanent value of a vertical traffic actions (ψ2) is
zero.39

Finnish standard have ψ value only for quasi-permanent combination in service limit state (ψi
= 0,3); in the other cases ψ 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 ψ factors may be specify in the national
annexes.

REFERENCES

[1] European Committee for Standardization (CEN): prEN 1990. Basis of

structural design. Final draft. Brussels 2001. 89 p.
[2] European Committee for Standardization (CEN): EN 1990 ˘ prAnnex A2.
Application for Bridges (Normative). Brussels 2002. 29 p.
[3] European Committee for Standardization (CEN): prEN 1991-2. Actions on
structures ˘ Traffic loads on bridges. Brussels 2002. 162 p.
[4] Haakana, P., Jutila A., Kiviluoma, R., Rautakorpi, H., Salokangas, L.:
Tutkimusprojekti puusiltojen kehittäminen, puusiltojen suunnitteluperusteet ja
menetelmät. Julkaisu nro 9. Otaniemi 1994. 66 p.
[5] Honkanen, Hannu: Euronormien vaikutus liittorakenteisten siltojen
suunnitteluun. Master’s thesis required for a diploma. Espoo 2000. 101 p.
[6] Junnonen, J.: Loading, Buildings - Seminar Presentation 13.3.2003. Seminar in
Bridge Engineering, Spring 2003. Eurocodes. Helsinki University of
Technology. 15 p.
[7] Mikkonen, Esa: Euronormien vaikutus tiesiltojen teräsrakenteiden
suunnitteluun Suomessa. Master’s thesis required for a diploma. Oulu 1996. 91
p.
[8] Suomen Rakennusinsinöörien Liitto RIL r.y.: Rakenteiden kuormitusohjeet,
RIL 144-2002. Helsinki 2002. ISBN 951-758-430-X. 205 p.
[9] Tielaitos: Siltojen kuormat. Helsinki 1999. TIEL 2172072-99. ISBN 951-726-
538-2. 31 p.

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].
38
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].