Rail Traffic Load Combination Factor

Research Programme
Engineering
Design of railway structures
to the structural Eurocodes
Part 1
Copyright
RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD LTD. 2009 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
This publication may be reproduced free of charge for research, private study or for internal
circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced and referenced
accurately and not being used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as
the copyright of Rail Safety and Standards Board and the title of the publication specified
accordingly. For any other use of the material please apply to RSSB's Head of Research and
Development for permission. Any additional queries can be directed to research@rssb.co.uk.
This publication can be accessed via the RSSB website: www.rssb.co.uk.
Disclaimer
This document has been prepared for the titled project or named part thereof and should not be relied
upon or used for any other project without an independent check being carried out as to its suitability and
prior written authority of Mott MacDonald being obtained. Mott MacDonald accepts no responsibility or
liability for the consequence of this document being used for a purpose other than the purposes for which
it was commissioned. Any person using or relying on the document for such other purpose agrees, and
will by such use or reliance be taken to confirm his agreement to indemnify Mott MacDonald for all loss
or damage resulting therefrom. Mott MacDonald accepts no responsibility or liability for this document
to any party other than the person by whom it was commissioned.
To the extent that this report is based on information supplied by other parties, Mott MacDonald accepts
no liability for any loss or damage suffered by the client, whether contractual or tortious, stemming from
any conclusions based on data supplied by parties other than Mott MacDonald and used by Mott MacDonald in preparing this report.
List of Contents
Page
Applicable British Standards, Eurocodes, National Annexes and Other Referenced Publications
Glossary
Summary
S-1
Chapters and Appendices

1
Recommended Values where National Choice is Allowed in BS EN 1990:2002.
24
2
Recommended Values where National Choice is Allowed in Eurocodes, other than BS EN
1990:2002 + A1:2005.
33
3
Part 1 - Enhancement of Previous Studies
42
3.1
42
Load Comparison Factor
Comparison of Design Load Effects
43
4.1
Partial and Combination Factors

4.1.1 Eurocodes
4.1.2 British Standards
4.1.3 Deck Types
43
43
44
45
4.2
Variation of Load Classification Factor, .
46
4.3
Variation of Dynamic Load Factor, .
50
Live Load Surcharge on Substructures
53
5.1
53
Differences in Applied Actions
Longitudinal Actions
55
6.1
Traction
55
6.2
Braking
58
Accidental Actions
61
7.1
Derailment Effects
61
7.2
Collision Effects
64
Vertical Deformation and Rotation
66
Wind Effects
69
9.1
Wind - Ultimate Limit State

9.1.1 Summary of ULS Wind Combination Results
72
73
9.2
Wind - Serviceability Limit State

9.2.1 Summary of SLS Wind Combination Results
74
75
9.3
10
11
Discussion
9.3.1 Wind Only
9.3.2 Wind (Leading) and Railway Traffic
9.3.3 Railway Traffic (Leading) and Wind
76
76
76
77
Temperature Effects
78
10.1
Ultimate Limit State Actions
78
10.2
Serviceability Limit State Actions
79
10.3
Global Temperature Effects
80
10.4
Discussion
81
10.5
Thermal Gradient Effects

82
10.5.1 Temperature Only
82
10.5.2 Temperature Coexistent with Railway Loading, Temperature Leading Action
82
10.5.3 Temperature Coexistent with Railway Loading, Railway Loading Leading
Action 83
10.5.4 Conclusion
83
Groups of Loads
84
List of Figures
Figure 1: ULS Moments in Very Light Bridge Main Girder for Variation of (Alpha)
Figure 2: ULS Moments in Medium Weight Bridge Main Girder for Variation of (Alpha)
Figure 3: ULS Moments in Very Heavy Bridge Main Girder for Variation of (Alpha)
Figure 4: ULS Shear in Very Light Bridge Main Girder for Variation of (Alpha)
Figure 5: ULS Shear in Medium Weight Bridge Main Girder for Variation of (Alpha)
Figure 6: ULS Shear in Very Heavy Bridge Main Girder for Variation of (Alpha)
Figure 7: ULS Shear in Medium Weight Bridge Main Girder for Variation of
Figure 8: ULS Shear in Very Heavy Bridge Main Girder for Variation of
Figure 9: Comparison between Characteristic (Nominal) Traction Forces
Figure 10: Comparison between ULS Traction Forces
Figure 11: Comparison between Characteristic (Nominal) Braking Forces
Figure 12: Comparison between ULS Braking Forces
Figure 13: Comparison between Characteristic (Nominal) & ULS Longitudinal Train Forces
Figure 14: Design Moments due to Derailment Effects
Figure 15: Design Shears due to Derailment Effects
Figure 16: BS EN 1991-2 Table 6.11 Groups of Loads
47
47
48
49
49
50
52
52
57
57
59
60
60
62
63
84
List of Tables
Table 1: Documents and Standards Referenced Throughout the Study
Table 2: Recommended Values in BS EN 1991-1-1
Table 3: Recommended Values in BS EN 1991-2
Table 4: Alternative Values for Traction and Braking BS EN 1991-2
Table 8: Eurocode SLS Partial and Combination Factors used for Investigating and
Table 9: Eurocode ULS Partial and Combination Factors used for Investigating and
Table 10: Eurocode ACC Partial and Combination Factors used for Investigating and
Table 11: British Standards SLS Partial and Combination Factors used for Investigating and
7
33
35
36
37
39
40
43
44
44
45
Table 12: British Standards ULS Partial and Combination Factors used for Investigating and
Table 13: British Standards ACC Partial and Combination Factors used for Investigating and
Table 14: Comparison of ULS Bending Moments where = 1,10
Table 15: Range of Factor Considered in Study
Table 16: British Standards Live Load Surcharge Values and Partial Factors
Table 17: Eurocode Live Load Surcharge Values and Partial Factors
Table 18: Comparison of the Live Load Surcharge Effects on Typical Retaining Structures
Table 19: Comparison between Traction Forces
Table 20: Comparison between Braking Forces
Table 21: Derailment Loads
Table 22: Eurocode Collision Loading (Class A Structures)
Table 23: GC/RC5510 Collision Loading
Table 24: Comparison of Design Criteria for a Typical Pier in the Hazard Zone
Table 25: Comparison of Deflections for the Typical Decks Studied
Table 26: Summary of Deck Type 5 (Pre-stressed Concrete Beams) Deflections
Table 27: Eurocode ULS Partial and Combination Factors used for Wind Study
Table 28: British Standards ULS Partial and Combination Factors used for Wind Study
Table 29: Summary of ULS Wind Combination Results
Table 30: Eurocodes SLS Partial and Combination Factors used for Wind Study
Table 31: British Standards SLS Partial and Combination Factors used for Wind Study
Table 32: Summary of SLS Wind Combination Results
Table 33: Eurocode ULS Partial and Combination Factors used for Temperature Study
Table 34: British Standards ULS Partial and Combination Factors used for Temperature Study
Table 35: Eurocode SLS Partial and Combination Factors used for Temperature Study
Table 36: British Standards SLS Partial and Combination Factors used for Temperature Study
Table 37: Summary of Expansion and Contraction with T0 Specified (+/- 10C)
Table 38: Summary of Expansion and Contraction with T0, not applied
45
45
46
51
53
53
54
56
58
62
64
65
65
66
66
72
72
73
74
74
75
78
79
79
80
80
81
Applicable British Standards, Eurocodes, National Annexes and Other

Referenced Publications
Standard or Report Reference
BS 5400-1:1998 Incorporating
Amendment No. 1
BS 5400-2:2006
BS 5400-3:2000 Incorporating
Corrigendum No. 1
BS 5400-4:1990
BS 5400-5:1979 Reprinted,
incorporating
Amendment No. 1
BS 5400-10:1980:1980
Incorporating Amendment No. I
BS 7608:1993
Incorporating
Amendment No. 1
BS 8002:1994
GC/RT5110
GC/RT5112
GC/RC5510
NR/GN/CIV/025
BS EN 1990:2002
DRAFT National Annex to BS
EN 1990:2002
BS EN 1991-1-1:2002
Title
Steel, concrete and composite
bridges Part 1: General
statement
Steel, Concrete and Composite
Bridge Part 2: Specification for
Loads
Steel, concrete and composite
bridges Part3: Code of
practice for design of steel
bridges
Steel, concrete and
composite bridges
Part 4: Code of practice for
design of
concrete bridges
Steel, concrete and
composite bridges
Part 5: Code of practice for
design of
composite bridges
Steel, concrete and
composite bridges Part 10: Code of practice for
fatigue
Code of practice for
Fatigue design and
assessment of steel
structures
Code of practice for earth
retaining structures
Design Requirements for
Structures
Loading Requirements for the
Design of Bridges
Recommendations for the
Design of Bridges
The Structural Assessment of
Underbridges
Eurocode Basis of Structural
Design
UK National Annex to
Eurocode Basis of Structural
Design
Eurocode 1: Actions on
Structures Part 1-1: General
Actions Densities, Selfweight, Imposed Loads for
Buildings
Date Published
12 March 2003
September 2006
May 2001
June 1990
May 1982
March 1999
April 1993
April 1994
August 2000
May 1997
August 2000
June 2006
April 2002
2006
April 2002
BS EN 1991-2:2003
BS EN 1991-1-3:2003
BS EN 1991-1-4:2005

EN 1991-1-4:2005
BS EN 1991-1-5:2003
National Annex to BS EN 19911-5:2003

BS EN 1991-1-7:2005

EN 1991-2:2003

EN 1991-1-4:2005
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004
BS EN 1992-2:2005
Structures Part2: Traffic
Loads on Bridges
Eurocode 1 Actions on
structures Part 1-3: General
actions Snow loads
structures - Part 1-4: General
actions - Wind actions
Eurocode 1 - Part 1-4: General
actions Thermal actions
Eurocode 1 Part 1-5: General
actions Thermal actions
actions Accidental
actions
Structures Part2: Traffic
Loads on Bridges
structures
Part 1-3: General actions
Snow loads
structures - Part 1-4: General
structures
Part 1-5: General actions
Thermal actions
Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete
Rules and Rules for Buildings
Structures Part 2: Concrete
Bridges Design and Detailing
Rules
September 2003
July 2003
April 2005
June 2005
March 2004
April 2007
September 2006
Draft, dated 07/08/03.
December 2005
June 2005
April 2007
December 2004
December 2005
December 2005
National Annex to BS EN 19922:2005
BS EN 1993-1-1:2005

EN 1993-1-1:2005
BS EN 1993-1-5:2006
BS EN 1993-1-8:2005
BS EN 1993-1-9:2005
EN 1993-1-9:2005
BS EN 1993-2:2006

EN 1993-2:2006
BS EN 1994-1-1:2004
BS EN 1994-2:2005
National Annex to BS EN 19942:2005
BS EN 1997-1:2004
BS EN 1997-2:2007
ISBN No. 978-0-7277-3160-9
Eurocode 2: Design of concrete
structures. Concrete bridges Design and detailing rules
Eurocode 3: Design of Steel
Structures - Part 1-1: General
Structures - Part 1-5: Plated
Structural Elements
Structures - Part 1-8: Design of
Joints
Structures - Part 1-9: Fatigue
Structures Part 1-9: Fatigue
Structures - Part 2: Steel
Bridges
Structures Part 2: Steel Bridges
Eurocode 4: Design of
composite steel and concrete
rules and rules for buildings
Eurocode 4 Design of
structures Part 2: General
rules and rules for bridges
Eurocode 4: Design of
structures Part 2: General
Rules and rules for bridges
Eurocode 7: Geotechnical
Design Part 1: General Rules
Eurocode 7: Geotechnical
Design Part 2: Ground
Investigation and Testing
Designers Guide to BS 1993-2
C.R. Hendy and C.J.Murphy,
Series Editor Haig Gulvanessian
December 2007
May 2005
Undated Draft.
October 2006
May 2005
May 2005
July 2007
October 2006
May 2007
February 2005
December 2005
December 2007
December 2004
April 2007
First Published 2007
ISBN No. 978-0-7277-3159-3
NETWORK RAIL REPORT
T696
RSSB REPORT
13410/R01 Rev B
ERRI D216/RP1
96/48/EC
Designers Guide to BS 1992-2

Structures Part 2; Concrete
Bridges C.R. Hendy and D.A.
Smith, Series Editor Haig
Gulvanessian
Appraisal of Eurocode for
Railway Loading (by Scott
Wilson for Network Rail)
Appraisal of Eurocodes for
Railway Loading
EN 1992 Design Criteria for
railway (by Gifford for RSSB)
ERRI Fatigue of Railway
Bridges, State of the Art Report
Council Directive 96/48/EC on
the interoperability of the trans
European high-speed rail system
First Published 2007
July 2003
January 2008
May 2007
September 1999
July 1996
(referenced throughout this

document as the High Speed
TSI)
2001/16/EC
UIC776-3 1st Edition

UIC776-1 5th Edition
Directive 2001/16/EC of the

European Parliament and of the
Council on the interoperability
on the conventional rail system
(referenced throughout this
document as the Conventional
RailTSI)
Deformation of Bridges
Loads to be considered in
railway bridge design
March 2001
January 1989
August 2006
Table 1: Documents and Standards Referenced Throughout the Study
Glossary
Terms
Term
ACC
British Standards
Document
BS EN 1990:2002
Not Applicable
BS
EN
EQU
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
BS EN 1990:2002
Item
Accidental design situation
The current British Standards
used in bridge design that
include the BS5400 suite of
standards and Network Rail and
Railway Group Standards
British Standard
Euronorm (Eurocode)
Limit state for loss of static
equilibrium of the structure or
any part of it considered as a
rigid body, where:
minor variations in the value
or the spatial distribution of
actions from a single source
are significant, and
the strengths of construction
materials or ground are
generally not governing.
FAT
BS EN 1990:2002
GEO
BS EN 1990:2002
Mott MacDonald
NA
Nom
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
RSSB
Not Applicable
Seismic
SLS
STR
BS EN 1990:2002
Not Applicable
BS EN 1990:2002
TSI
Not Applicable
UIC
ULS
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Limit state for fatigue failure of

the structure or structural
members
Limit state for the failure or
excessive deformation of the
ground where the strengths of
soil or rock are significant in
providing resistance.
Mott MacDonald
National Annex
Nominal (equivalent to
characteristic in BS )
Railway Safety and Standards
Board
Seismic design situation
Serviceability Limit State
Limit state for internal failure or
excessive deformation of the
structure or structural members,
including footings, piles,
basement walls etc, where the
strength of construction
materials of the structure
governs.
Technical Specification for
Interoperability (mandatory)
International Union of Railways
Ultimate Limit State
Characters
Character
fL
f3
Standard
BS 5400-2:2006
BS 5400-3:2000
BS 5400-4:1990
BS 5400-5:1979
BS 5400-3:2000
BS 5400-4:1990
BS 5400-5:1979
l
y
mfw
BS 5400-3:2000
BS 5400-3:2000
BS 5400-3:2000
BS 5400-3:2000
MR
MULT
BS 5400-3:2000
BS 5400-3:2000
BS EN 1990:2002
BS EN 1990:2002
BS EN 1990:2002
BS EN 1990:2002
BS EN 1991-2:2003
BS EN 1991-2:2003
Qvk
BS EN 1991-2:2003
qvk
BS EN 1991-2:2003
BS EN 1992 (all)
BS EN 1993 (all)
BS EN 1994 (all)
Mcr
d0
fub
fu
e1
BS EN 1993-1-1:2005
BS EN 1993-1-8:2005
BS EN 1993-1-8:2005
BS EN 1993-1-8:2005
BS EN 1993-1-8:2005
Description
Partial factor for a load
A factor that takes account of
inaccurate assessment of the
effects of loading, unforeseen
stress distribution in the
structure, and variations in
dimensional accuracy achieved
in construction.
Partial factor for a material
property, also accounting for
model uncertainties and
dimensional variations
Limiting shear strength of web
Shear strength
Aspect ratio of a web panel
Factor used in determining
limiting shear strength
Limiting moment of resistance
Moment of resistance if lateral
torsional buckling is prevented
Partial factor for permanent
actions.
Partial factor for Pre-stressing
actions
Partial factor for variable
actions
Partial factor for the
combination of actions
Load classification factor
applied to characteristic loading
for railway lines carrying rail
traffic which is heavier or
lighter than normal rail traffic.
Dynamic factor which enhances
the static load effects under
Load Models 71, SW/0 & SW/2
Value of Vertical point loads in
Load Models
Value of Vertical uniformly
distributed loads in Load
Models
Partial factor for a material
property, also accounting for
model uncertainties and
dimensional variations
Elastic Critical Moment.
the hole diameter for a bolt
ultimate tensile strength for bolt
ultimate tensile strength
the end distance from the centre
of a fastener hole to the adjacent
p1
BS EN 1993-1-8:2005
BS EN 1994-1-1:2004
10
end of any part, measured in the

direction of load transfer
the spacing between centres of
fasteners in a line in the
direction of load transfer
Degree of shear connection;
coefficient
Executive Summary
The commission to compare the design of railway structures in accordance with the Structural
Eurocodes and the current British Standards was awarded by RSSB to Mott MacDonald in August
2007. This report summarises Mott MacDonalds findings and experiences in using the Eurocodes.
Headline results are included in this summary section, along with outline details of the methodology
used in achieving the objectives set out below. The main text of the report provides more details of the
study and the principal outcomes. The appendices give a detailed breakdown of the work undertaken
including graphs and a comprehensive results summary. Calculations supporting the results and
conclusions reported were supplied to RSSB and may be available upon request. However, caution
must be used as many of the standards and national annexes have been revised since the draft versions
used in this study.
Objectives
The objectives of study T741, the design of railway structures to the Structural Eurocodes, are
summarised below:
Recommend values where national choice is permitted in BS EN 1990:2002.
Confirm the appropriateness of the recommended values in the Eurocodes, other than BS EN
1990, where national choice is permitted.
Complete and update earlier studies into the differences in actions (by other parties for
Network Rail and RSSB).
Compare the margin of capacity (utilisation) between the design of typical railway structural
elements to current British Standards and the Eurocodes.
Discuss significant differences between the current British Standards and the Eurocodes.
Provide a commentary on the lessons learned from using the Eurocodes.
Methodology
In achieving the majority of the studys objectives, the detailed design of selected details for a number
of typical railway bridges was undertaken. This enabled Mott MacDonald to determine a comparison
between the margin of capacity (utilisation) for a variety of bridge components and to identify issues
arising from design using the Eurocodes. The designs, to both the current British Standards and the
Structural Eurocodes, were augmented by a series of stand alone studies that included:
Investigating the sensitivity of varying the line classification factor, , a factor for nonstandard railway loads.
Investigating the sensitivity of varying the dynamic factor, , for railway loads in determining
shear effects.
Consideration of Groups of Loads
Consideration of load effects not critical in designing the selected elements of the typical
structures (for example wind and temperature).
Investigating the differences in the approach to design for fatigue.
11
Design of Railway Structures to the

Structural Eurocodes
Summary of Study
The principal findings of the study are summarised in the table below. The results of design comparisons between the British Standards and the Eurocodes are
described and discussed in more detail in the main text. The number of typical structures considered was limited to six superstructures and a generic
substructure. Only the factors encountered during the design of the selected elements have been varied.
Description of Investigation
Relevant Standards (refer to

list of references for dates of
publication)
Summary of Recommended Values, New Studies and Commentary
Recommending values where

national choice is permitted in
BS EN 1990:2002
BS EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005
(Annex A2)
The values in the draft National Annex are recommended with the following
exceptions:
Draft National Annex to BS EN

1990:2002 + A1:2005 (Annex
A2)
Table A2.4 (STR/GEO) (Set B) & (Set C), Q,Sup for wind. Draft National Annex value
= 1,70. Recommended value = 1,50 to avoid over-design of wind-sensitive elements.
BS EN 1991-1-1:2002
The values in the National Annex are recommended with the following exception:
cl. 5.2.3 (1), the lower characteristic value of the density of ballast. National Annex
value = 17kN/m3. Recommended value = 18kN/m3 for design of structural elements.
Note that dynamic effects were not considered in this study and the recommended
value is generally taken as 17kN/m3 for dynamic analyses.
BS EN 1991-2:2003
The values in the draft National Annex are recommended.
Confirming the appropriateness

of the recommended values in
the Eurocodes other than BS EN
1990 where national choice is
permitted.
Table A2.4 (STR/GEO) (Set B), G,Sup for superimposed loads. Draft National Annex
value = 1,20. Recommended value = 1,35 for ballast to ensure equivalent load effects
as current British Standards.
Note only the factors considered

in the design of typical elements
agreed with RSSB have been
considered.
Typical bridge designs
Draft National Annex BS EN

1991-2:2003 dated 07/08/2003
12


publication)
BS EN 1992-2:2005
National Annex BS EN 19922:2005 dated 31/12/2007

BS EN 1993-2:2006

1993-2:2006 dated 02/05/2007
BS EN 1994-2:2005
The values in the Eurocode are recommended.
National Annex not available

Investigating the sensitivity of
varying the line classification
factor,
BS EN 1991-2:2003
Investigating the sensitivity of

varying the dynamic factor,
BS EN 1991-2:2003

1991-2:2003 dated 07/08/2003

1991-2:2003 dated 07/08/2003
The use of = 1,1 will be mandatory for the design of new railway structures
following the implementation of the Technical Specifications for Interoperability
(Conventional Rail and High Speed Infrastructure TSI). ULS assessment is
comparable with British Standards. SLS assessment will be more onerous but is
unlikely to result in significant changes in section sizes, quantities of reinforcement or
numbers of connectors. Uncertainty surrounding the validity of simple FAT
assessment: BS EN 1991-2:2003 states simple FAT assessment not valid if > 1,0
(see Error! Reference source not found.).
The use of 3 for calculating shear effects due to transient load is recommended. The
increased shear force due to the use of 3 combined with = 1,1 will lead to higher
shear forces calculated in accordance with the Eurocodes compared with the current
British Standards. The increase is unlikely to result in significant changes in section
sizes or connection details.
13


publication)
Braking
BS EN 1991-2:2003
The values in the current British Standard are recommended in the National Annex.
The characteristic braking forces in the BS are greater than the Eurocode values. A
maximum braking force of 6000kN is specified in the Eurocode. No such cut off exists
in the current British Standards. At ULS the differences are less and for loaded lengths
above 305m the Eurocode values are greater, until the maximum value is achieved.
Design to the current Eurocode values for loaded lengths <300m, will make the design
of substructures within the allowable horizontal movement limits, the design of
bearings resisting longitudinal forces and, ensuring lateral stability of substructures,
will be less onerous. Note that traction will govern the design of short and medium
spans (up to 30m using the current British Standard and, up to 45m using Eurocode).

1991-2:2003 dated 07/08/2003
BS5400-2:2006
Traction
BS EN 1991-2:2003
1991-2:2003 dated 07/08/2003
Derailment
BS EN 1991-2:2003
1991-2:2003 dated 07/08/2003
The values in the current British Standard are recommended in the National Annex.
The characteristic traction forces in the BS are greater than the Eurocode values for
spans less than 14.7m. Above 14.7m the Eurocode characteristic values are greater.
The maximum characteristic traction force in the BS is 750kN compared with 1000kN
specified in the Eurocode. The differences in the ULS values are similar. Design to the
current Eurocode will make the design of, bearings resisting longitudinal forces,
ensuring lateral stability of substructures and, meeting the allowable horizontal
movement limits for substructures, less onerous for short spans (<15m) but more
onerous for medium spans (15m to 50m). Above 50m braking governs the design.
The study indicates that Eurocode derailment loadings are more onerous than those
from current British Standards and that elements designed specifically to resist
derailment loading may require increased capacity. The study did not cover the local
effects of derailment loading and the associated effects on member sizes. However,
for the design of the typical bridges considered, member sizes were dictated by load
combinations for the Permanent/Transient design situations rather than from
derailment loading (Accidental design situation).
14


publication)
Collision with substructures
BS EN 1991-2:2003 referring to
BS EN 1991-1-7:2006
There are potentially significant differences between the BSs and the EC, which will
be addressed by the National Annex to BS EN 1991-1-7 (Published December 2008).
The differences include the magnitude of the collision load, classification of structures
and hazard zones, and the rules of application.
The most significant differences arise from consideration of the appropriate impact
class, when impact shall be considered and, the magnitude of the equivalent impact
force.
Deformation under transient

railway actions
BS EN 1991-2:2003
1991-2:2003 dated 07/08/2003
UIC 776-3
GC/RT5110
GC/RC5510
The differences in the deformations of the steel structures studied were minimal and
attributed to the different partial factors on the actions.
The differences encountered were greater for the reinforced concrete structure. The
comparison factor was 1,15 for the vertical deformation and 1,12 for the rotation. This
is attributed to the difference in the short term modulus of elasticity specified in the
codes (for fcu = 50MPa, E = 34kN/mm2 in current British Standards compared with
37kN/mm2 in the Eurocodes), the different partial factors on the actions and, increased
effective, cracked section properties permitted by the Eurocode.
The comparison for the composite concrete and steel structure was 0,89 for the vertical
deformation and 1,041 for the rotation. This is attributed to the differences in the
modulus of elasticity specified in the codes (as above) and the different partial factors
on the actions.
Although there are differences, they should not result in any significant changes in
design or construction of railway structures.
15


publication)
Wind effects
BS EN 1991-2:2003
The Eurocode basic wind velocity is lower than the current British Standard. The
environmental factors are similar resulting in a wind pressure that is marginally higher
than the Eurocode.

1991-2:2003 dated 07/08/2003
BS EN 1991-1-4:2005
1991-1-4:2005
BS 5400-2:2006
Wind only
BS EN 1991-2:2003
1991-2:2003 dated 07/08/2003
The wind force coefficients and ULS partial factors are larger when calculated in
accordance with the Eurocode. The resulting wind force is therefore marginally greater
calculated in accordance with the Eurocode. Little change to the size and detailing for
elements designed primarily to resist wind actions is likely.
BS EN 1991-1-4:2005
1991-1-4:2005
BS 5400-2:2006
16


publication)
Wind coexistent with live load
BS EN 1991-2:2003
The wind force coefficients, the wind area and the ULS partial factors are larger when
calculated in accordance with the Eurocode. The resulting wind force is greater
calculated in accordance with the Eurocode. The Eurocode includes a load
combination comprising maximum railway traffic actions plus wind. This may lead to
larger section sizes for elements primarily resisting traffic actions but that are
vulnerable to wind forces.

1991-2:2003 dated 07/08/2003
BS EN 1991-1-4:2005
1991-1-4:2005
BS 5400-2:2006
BS EN 1991-2:2003
1991-2:2003 dated 07/08/2003
BS EN 1991-1-5:2003
Published National Annex BS
EN 1991-1-5:2003
BS 5400-2:2006
It is recommended that the partial factor Q is 1,50 rather than the suggested 1,70 value
in the draft National Annex to avoid potential increased conservatism. (Note that since
the completion of this study, the UK national Annex recommends the value of partial
factor Q is 1,70 if the characteristic value of wind actions which corresponds to 50
year return is used, or 1,45 if the characteristic value of wind actions for the required
return is calculated).
Values of the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) for concrete and composite
structures are different. There are also differences in the partial safety factors applied
for the limit states, where the Eurocode is marginally more conservative for an
equivalent temperature range.
In accordance with the Eurocode, where an installation temperature is not specified for
bearings and expansion joints, the temperature range should be modified by adding up
to a further 20 C to the range. Therefore the calculated Eurocode expansions and
contractions calculated are greater than those calculated in accordance with British
Standard, which is based on an assumed value of temperature at time zero.
Where temperatures are not modified in accordance with the Eurocode, the resulting
movements were similar to the current British Standard values.
It is recommended that the partial factors remain as the recommended values but that
the 20 C adjustment need not necessarily be made to the temperature range where
accurate consideration of the season when construction will take place has been made.
(Note that since the completion of this study, the UK national Annex recommends the
value of partial factor Q is 1,55).
17


publication)
Effect of temperature gradient
BS EN 1991-2:2003
The temperature gradients through the sections are the same in accordance with the
current British Standard and the Eurocode. However, the Eurocode is more
conservative as the applied partial factors on the thermal effects are greater than the
current British Standard.

1991-2:2003 dated 07/08/2003
BS 5400-2:2006
The design situation involving coexistent railway load is similar at ULS but the
Eurocode is more conservative at SLS.
Although the effects of temperature gradients rarely govern the design of continuous
bridges at ULS, they often contribute significant components of stress that must be
accounted for at SLS. When combined with the greater stress from the coexistent
railway load, this will lead to changes in design of structural elements and connections
compared to the current British Standard and a more conservative design.
The Eurocode allows temperature effects to be combined with the railway traffic live
load and wind. No equivalent combination exists in the current British Standard. This
could lead to increases in element sizes for continuous bridges or integral (e.g. portal
frame) structures which are primarily designed to resist traffic actions but which are
vulnerable to wind and thermal actions.
Groups of loads
BS EN 1991-2:2003
1991-2:2003
BS 5400-2:2006
The Eurocode combines individual components of railway traffic actions into Groups
of loads that can then be combined with appropriate other actions. Using specified
groups of loads as a single (multi-directional) action as an alternative to determining
the critical railway traffic actions individually may be more convenient to use and will
not result in any difference in details or margin of capacity for typical superstructures.
No advantage in using the groups of loads approach in design could be determined
when used with the factors in the UK National Annex to the Eurocode.
18


publication)
Comparison of the margin of

capacity (utilisation) for the
design of typical railway
structural elements to current
British Standards and the
Eurocodes
BS EN 1991-2:2003
The summary is based on the study of the typical railway structures agreed with
RSSB. Only the differences between the design of the agreed details are summarised
in the following sections.
Steel plate girder structures
BS EN 1993-2:2006

1991-2:2003
BS 5400-2:2006
National Annex BS EN 1993-2
The results of the study indicate that designing details at SLS and ULS will be similar
whether designed in accordance with the Eurocode or British Standards. Designs in
accordance with the Eurocodes are generally less efficient (lower utilisation) than the
current British Standards . The Eurocode design of connections subject to HSFG bolt
shear tended to be more efficient (higher utilisation) than the British Standards but the
conclusions for HSFG bolt slip and bearing were less conclusive.
The calculation of buckling capacity of beams with partially effective lateral restraint
at ULS in accordance with the Eurocodes using non linear finite element buckling
analysis could, in theory, result in a marginally smaller section being adopted.
Designing sections subject to shear in accordance with the Eurocode will result in a
marginally smaller section size being required except when the effects of shear
buckling are considered.
Designing connections to satisfy the ULS and SLS (using HSFG bolts) requirements
with the Eurocodes may require a greater number of bolts or greater bolt spacing, and
hence larger connection plates and connection areas.
The assessment of fatigue susceptible details using the simple approach (no damage)
in the current British Standards and Eurocodes shows similar results for all but the
web shear fatigue assessment although fatigue is unlikely to govern the design of shear
resisting details. It is therefore concluded that the design details to resist fatigue would
be similar for most railway bridges designed to either the current British Standards or
19


publication)
the Eurocodes with little change in the margin of capacity for the majority of details
but an increase where fatigue of welds governs.
Calculating damage using the Miner sum approach shows the current British Standards
to be more conservative because of the sensitivity of calculating damage with SN
curves. Consideration of further detail types beyond the range studied is recommended
before conclusions can be made with regard to the Miner sum fatigue assessment
methods.
Changing the recommended partial factor values is not recommended.
Steel box girder structures
BS EN 1993-2:2006
National Annex BS EN 1993-2
The calculation for the bending capacity of boxes at ULS in accordance with the
Eurocodes is more efficient. The differences are small and it is unlikely that section
sizes would change.
Designing sections subject to shear in accordance with the Eurocode will result in a
smaller section at ULS.
Designing connections to satisfy the ULS and SLS (using HSFG bolts) requirements
may require a greater number of bolts or greater bolt spacing, and hence larger
connection plates and connection areas.
Changing the proposed partial factor values is not recommended.
20


publication)
Composite steel and concrete

structures
BS EN 1994-1-1:2004, BS EN
1994-2:2005, National Annex
BS EN 1994-2:2005.
The calculation of the bending capacity of beams with fully effective lateral restraint at
ULS in accordance with the Eurocodes could result in a marginally larger section and
hence some increase in the margin of capacity.
Designing sections subject to shear in accordance with the Eurocode is unlikely to
result in a change of section or reduced margin of capacity at ULS.
Designing shear (stud) connections in accordance with the Eurocode may result in a
reduction in the number of shear connectors.
The design of reinforced concrete slabs spanning between longitudinal girders in
accordance with the Eurocodes is more onerous at ULS. Section sizes will have to
increase, stronger concrete be specified, and larger bars or more reinforcing bars be
used. The margin of capacity will be greater than designing to the current British
Standards.
Pre-stressed concrete structures
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, BS EN
BS EN 1992-2:2005.
The Eurocodes are generally more efficient (higher utilisation) than the British Codes
although this is dependent on the exposure condition of the bridge: if the bridge is
exposed to chlorides, both the Eurocodes and British Standards were found to produce
similar results.
If the bridge is not exposed to chlorides, the Eurocode provided more efficient results
with savings of approximately 10% in the number of tendons required.
Composite steel and concrete

structures Filler Decks
BS EN 1994-1-1:2004, BS EN
BS EN 1994-2:2005.
Designing filler beam decks in accordance with the British Standards resulted in a
more efficient design (higher utilisation) at ULS and for fatigue. However, the
differences were small and unlikely to result in any change in section size of any
member.
21


publication)
Substructures
BS EN 1997-1:2004 and
National Annex BS EN 19971:2004
The Eurocodes are generally more onerous for design action DA1-1, but equivalent to
BS 8002:1994 for design action DA1-2. DA1-1 load combination applies a factor to
the permanent and variable actions, whilst DA1-2 applies factors to the materials and a
reduced factor to the variable actions. It is not anticipated that the change from British
codes to Eurocodes will have a significant impact upon the overall dimensions of
retaining walls.
Note that the design of piers in the impact zone may be more substantial in accordance
with the Eurocode where piers are supporting Class A structures and the impact
forces are greater than those in the British Standards
Differences in the approach to

fatigue assessment
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004
BS EN 1992-2:2005
BS EN 1993-1-1:2005
BS EN 1993-1-9:2005
BS EN 1993-2:2006
BS EN 1994-1-1:2004
BS EN 1994-2:2005
There are significant differences in the detail classes / categories, most notably where
fatigue failure across the throat of a weld is considered. In BS 5400-10:1980 the detail
is class W and the equivalent allowable stress for 2x106 cycles is 43MPa whereas the
BS EN 1993-1-9 detail category is 36. This will lead to larger weld details.
The current, draft National Annex to BS EN 1993-1-9 limits the number of detail
categories to the equivalent BS 5400-10:1980 classes to ensure the current margins of
safety are maintained. The margin of capacity may reduce in where designs are
undertaken in accordance with the Eurocodes.
There are significant differences in the S-N curves: The current British Standard is bilinear with no cut off limits (except where all stresses are below the non-propagating
level) whereas the Eurocodes are tri-linear with cut off limits. This leads to significant
differences in the calculated number of cycles to failure or damage.
The train types and mixes are not the same in the current British Standards and the
Eurocodes. It is recommended that the relevance of the Eurocode train types and
traffic mixes to the UK railway network is established from further studies. Such a
study should consider the design of fatigue susceptible details for typical railway
bridge structures subject to real trains, together with the application of the British
22


publication)
Standard and Eurocode traffic mixes.

The workmanship levels to the British Standards are set out in BS 5400-6, 7 & 8. The
workmanship requirements for the Eurocodes are set out in BS EN 1090 and BS EN
13670, but these documents have yet to be published and before a final conclusion on
the effect of designing to the Structural Eurocodes can be made, this document must
be reviewed. The draft National Annex limits a number of the detail categories for this
reason.
Simple Method (no damage
calculation)
Despite the differences in the values for the various k and factors, where the partial
safety factor Mf recommended in the National Annex is used, and where the detail
class/category and load are constant, typically the utilisation factor BS/EN = 1,10, i.e.
the utilisation (i.e. action / resistance) in accordance with the British Standards is
greater.
It was concluded that where the detail classes are comparable, the simple approach in
accordance with the current British Standards gives reasonably similar results to the
Eurocode and the design details and the margin of capacity will not be significantly
different compared to the current British Standards.
Miner Sum Method (damage

calculated)
The damage calculted fatigue assessment, based on the Miner sum approach, is the
same in the current British Standards and the Eurocodes. However, the traffic
attributes and S-N curves differ and have a significant influence on the damage
calculation, as demonstrated in the study of the different deck types.
23

Recommended Values where National Choice is Allowed in BS EN

1990:2002.
The following tables indicate all of the factors in BS EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005 where national choice
is allowed. The table details the values specified in the Eurocode, the values suggested in the draft
national annex and those recommended as a result of this study. Differences between the National
Annex and recommended values are highlighted.
A commentary follows the table giving further background considerations applied in determining the
recommended values and to highlight the differences between the recommended values and the values
specified in UIC leaflet UIC776-1 6th edition.
All references are to BS EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005 and Draft National Annex to BS EN 1990:2002 +
A1:2005
Description
Clause
Eurocode
National Annex Recommended Value
Value
Value
Design working life
A.2.1 (1) Note 3
100 years
Text refers to
120 years.
table National
Annex.A.2.1 but
no value is
given.
120 years in
National Annex
BS EN 19912:2003.
Values of factors
A2.2.6(1) NOTE 1 See separate table
Values of factors
A2.3.1 Table
See separate table
A2.4(A) NOTES 1
and 2
Choice between 6.10
A2.3.1 Table
Not Given
Equation 6.10
Equation 6.10
and 6.10a/b
A2.4(B) NOTE 1.
Values of and factors A2.3.1 Table
See separate table
A2.4(B) NOTE 2
Values of Sd
A2.3.1 Table
Not Given
1,15
1,10 1,15 is
A2.4(B) NOTE 4
reasonable for most
situations though
specifying a value to
reduce Q or G would
result in a reduction in
the safety margin
Values of factors
A2.3.1 Table A2.4 See separate table
(C)
24

A1:2005
Description
Clause
Eurocode
Value
Value
Design values in Table
A2.3.2(1)
1,0
1,0
1,0
A2.5 for accidental
The impact
design situations, design
forces given in
values of accompanying
BS 1991-1-7
variable actions and
should be
seismic design situations
adjusted to
ensure that the
partial factor can
be set to unity.
Design values of actions A2.3.2 Table A2.5 1,0
1,0
1,0
for use in accidental and NOTE
seismic combinations of
actions
Alternative values for
A2.4.1(1) NOTE 1 1,0
1,0
1,0
traffic actions for the
(Table A2.6)
serviceability limit state
Infrequent combination A2.4.1(1) NOTE 2 Not Given
1,infq factors
1,infq not relevant for
need
not
be
used
of actions
railway bridges
Serviceability
requirements and criteria
for the calculation of
deformations
A2.4.1(2)
Not Given
Combination rules for

snow loading on railway
bridges
Maximum wind speed
compatible with rail
traffic
A2.2.4(1)
Snow need
not be
considered
BS EN 19911-4
Deformation and
vibration requirements
for temporary railway
bridges
A2.4.4.1(1) NOTE
3
A2.2.4(4)
Not given.
25
Serviceability
requirements
and criteria
given in A.2.4.2
and A.2.4.3 may
be modified if
appropriate for
the individual
project.
To be completed
To be
completed.
40m/s (gust) in
National Annex
BS EN 1991-1-4
Not given
Serviceability
requirements and
criteria given in
A.2.4.2 and A.2.4.3
are for road bridges
and footbridges.
Snow need not be

considered apart from
execution.
25m/s limit for
fundamental wind
gives the equivalent
peak velocity pressure
as 40m/s wind gust to
BS 5400-2:2006 for
most situations.
Current British
Standards do not
impose any limit, for
operational reasons.
Not considered in this
study

A1:2005
Description
Clause
Eurocode
Value
Value
bt = 3,5 m/s2 Not given
Peak values of deck
A2.4.4.2.1(4)P
2
=
5
m/s
df
acceleration for railway
study
bridges and associated
frequency range
Not given
Limiting values of deck A2.4.4.2.2 Table t1 = 4,5mm
t
=
3,0mm
2
twist for railway bridges A2.7 NOTE
study
t3 = 1,5mm
tT is
Not given
Limiting values of the
A2.4.4.2.2(3)P
7,5mm/3m.
total deck twist for
study
railway bridges
Not given
Vertical deformation of
A2.4.4.2.3(1)
Not given
ballasted and non
study
ballasted railway bridges
Not given
Limitations on the
A2.4.4.2.3(2)
Not given
rotations of non
study
ballasted bridge deck
ends for railway bridges
Not given
Additional limits of
A2.4.4.2.3(3)
Not given
angular rotations at the
study
end of decks
1= 0,0035;
Not given
Values of i and ri
A2.4.4.2.4(2)
=
0,0020;
2
factors
Table A2.8 NOTE
study
3 = 0,0015;
3
r1 = 1700;
r2 = 6000;
r3 = 14000;
r4 = 3500;
r5 = 9500;
r6 = 17500
The
Not given
Minimum lateral
A2.4.4.2.4(3)
recommended
frequency for railway
study
value
is:
bridges
fh0 = 1,2 Hz
Not given
Requirements for
A2.4.4.3.2(6)
Not given
passenger comfort for
study
temporary bridges
26

All references to BS EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005 and Draft National Annex to BS EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005
Values of factors (A2.2.6(1) NOTE 1)
BS EN 1990:2002
National
Recommended
Actions
Annex
0
1
2
0 1
2
0
1
2
Individual
LM71
components of 1 track
0,80 0,80 0
To be suggested 0,80
0,80 0
traffic actions 2 tracks
0,80 0,70 0
as part of this
0,80
0,70 0
3 tracks
0,80 0,60 0
study
0,80
0,60 0
SW/0
1 track
0,80 0,80 0
To be suggested 0,80
0,80 0
2 tracks
0,80 0,70 0
as part of this
0,80
0,70 0
3 tracks
0,80 0,60 0
study
0,80
0,60 0
Not
considered
SW/2
0
1,00 0
Not considered in
in this study
this study
Not considered Not considered in
Unloaded Train
1,00 in this study
this study
HSLM
1,00 1,00 0
in this study
this study
Traction
Individual components of traffic actions in design situations
where the traffic loads are considered as a single (multiBraking
directional) leading action and not as groups of loads should
Centrifugal forces
use the same factors as those adopted for the associated
Interaction forces*
vertical loads.
Nosing forces
1,00 0,80 0
To be suggested 1,00 0,80
0
as part of this
study
Non public footpath loads
0,80 0,50 0
in this study
this study
Real trains
1,00 1,00 0
in this study
this study
#
Hz earth pressure
1 track
0,80 0,80 0
0
2 tracks
0,80 0,70 0
as part of this
0,80 0,70
0
3 tracks
0,80 0,60 0
study
0,80 0,60
0
Aerodynamic effects
0,80 0,50 0
in this study
this study
Main traffic
The groups of load are factored as the components that form the groups and are not listed
actions
here. Refer to section 11 for further explanation.
(groups of
loads)
Other
Aerodynamic effects
0,80 0,50 0
in this study
this study
operating
Not
considered
Maintenance
loading
for
0,80
0,50
0
Not considered in
actions
in
this
study
non public footpaths
this study
Wind forces
Fwk
0,75 0,50 0
0
as part of this
study
27

All references to BS EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005 and Draft National Annex to BS EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005
Values of factors (A2.2.6(1) NOTE 1)
BS EN 1990:2002
National
Recommended
Actions
Annex
0
1
2
0 1
2
0
1
2
Fw** (maximum wind force 1,00 0
0
To be suggested 1,0
0
0
with traffic action)
as part of this
study
Thermal
Tk
0,60 0,60 0,50
0,50
actions
as part of this
study
Snow loads
QSn,k (during execution)
0,80 0
To be suggested Snow need not be
as part of this
considered apart
study
from execution.
Execution
Qc
1,00 1,00
this study
loads
in this study
* Interaction forces due to deformation under vertical traffic loads
#
Horizontal earth pressure due to traffic load surcharge
28

All references to BS EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005and Draft National Annex to BS EN 1990:2002 +

A1:2005
Design values of actions (EQU) (Set A)
Actions
BS EN 1990:2002
National Annex
Recommended
G,sup
G,inf
G,sup
G,inf
Concrete self weight

Steel self weight
1,05
1,05
0,95
0,95
1,05
1,05
0,95
0,95
Super-imposed dead
Weight of soil
Hydrostatic effects
Self weight of other
materials listed in BS EN
1991-1-1:2002, Tables
A.1-A.6
Prestressing
1,05
1,05
1,00
1,05
0,95
0,95
0,95
0,95
1,05
1,05
1,00
1,05
0,95
0,95
1,00
0,95
Rail traffic actions
1,45
(0 where
favourable)
Wind actions
1,50
Thermal actions
1,50
(0 where
favourable)
(0 where
favourable)
as defined in the
relevant design
Eurocode.
P
as defined in the
relevant design
Eurocode or for the
individual project and
agreed with the
relevant authority
Non
(0 where
given
favourable)
P
1,70
1,50
(0 where
favourable)
(0 where
favourable)
G,sup
G,inf
1,05
0,95
Not considered in
this study
1,05
0,95
1,05
0,95
1,00
1,00
1,05
0,95
Not considered in
this study
1,45
(0
where
favoura
ble)
Not considered in
this study
Not considered in
this study
The National Annex recommends that NOTE 2 is ignored, i.e. there is a different set of factors to
check uplift on continuous bridges. THIS HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED IN THIS STUDY.
Only a limited number of structures have been considered. The values recommended are based on
engineering judgement.
29

All references to BS EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005 and Draft National Annex to BS EN 1990:2002 +

A1:2005
Design values of actions (STR/GEO) (Set B)
Actions
BS EN 1990:2002 National Annex
Recommended
G,inf
G,sup
G,inf

Steel self weight
Super-imposed dead
1,35
1,35
1,35
G,sup
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,35
1,20
1,20
0,95
0,95
0,95
Weight of soil
Hydrostatic effects
1991-1-1:2002, Tables
A.1-A.6
Creep and shrinkage
Settlement (linear
analysis)
Settlement (nonlinear
analysis)
Prestressing
1,35
1,35
1,35
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,35
1,00
1,35
1,35
1,20
1,00
1,00
1,35
1,00

Earth pressure
P as defined in the
relevant design
Eurocode or for the
individual project
and agreed with the
relevant authority
1,45
0 where
favourable
1,50
1,00
G,sup
G,inf
0,95
0,95
0,95
0,95
1,00
0,95
1,35
1,20
1,35 (for
ballast)
1,35
1,00
1,35
1,35
1,20
0,00
0,00
1,35
1,20
0,00
0,00
1,35
0,00

study
P as defined in the
relevant design Eurocode
or for the individual
project and agreed with the
relevant authority
P as defined in the
relevant design
Eurocode or for the
individual project and
agreed with the
relevant authority
Not
(0 where
given
favourable)
Not
Not given
given
0,95
1,00
0,95
1,45
(0 where
favourable)
1,50
1,00
1,50
(0 where
favourable)
1,50
(0 where
favourable)
1,50
(0 where
favourable)
Wind actions
No traffic actions
applied simultaneously
with wind
Traffic actions applied
simultaneously with
wind
Thermal actions
1,50
1,70
0 where
favourable
1,50
0 where
favourable
1,50
1,50
0 where
favourable
30
(0 where
favourable)
(0 where
favourable)

All references to BS EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005 and National Annex to BS EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005

Design values of actions (STRGEO) (Set C)
Actions
BS EN 1990:2002
National Annex
Recommended
Steel self weight
Super-imposed dead
Weight of soil
Hydrostatic effects
1991-1-1:2002, Tables
A.1-A.6
Creep and shrinkage
Settlement (linear
analysis)
Settlement (nonlinear
analysis)
Prestressing

Horizontal earth pressure
G,sup
G,inf
G,sup
G,inf
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,35
1,20
1,20
1,35
1,00
1,35
0,95
0,95
0,95
0,95
1,00
0,95
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,35
1,20
0,00
0,00
1,00
1,00
1,35
0,00
P as defined in the
project and agreed with
the relevant authority
1,25
(0 where
favourable)
1,30
(0 where
favourable)
P as defined in the
project and agreed with
the relevant authority
Not given (0 where
favourable)
Not given Not given
1,50
(0 where
favourable)
1,70
1,50
(0 where
favourable)
1,30
(0 where
favourable)
G,sup
G,inf
Too few examples

considered to
recommend values.
Engineering judgement
and limited work
conclude National
Annex values
reasonable.
1,25
1,30
(0 where
favourable)
(0 where
favourable)
Wind actions
No traffic actions
applied
simultaneously with
wind
Traffic actions applied
simultaneously with
wind
Thermal actions
1,50
31
(0 where
favourable)
(0 where
favourable)
1,50
(0 where
favourable)
1,50
(0 where
favourable)
1,50
(0 where
favourable)

Commentary:
The following summarises the discussions between Mott MacDonald and RSSB in determining the
recommended values in the preceding tables:
The values of the combination factors 0 and 1 for wind actions specified in BS EN
1990:2002 + A1:2005 are recommended. Mott MacDonald initially suggested that a reduced
partial factor (Q) should be considered to account for the reduced probability of maximum
traffic occurring when the wind action is the leading action. In this case the maximum wind
action need only be applied together with a reduced (80% recommended) value for the
coexistent traffic actions. For combination 2 loads, BS 5400-2:2006 reduces fL for the wind
load from 1,40 to 1,10 in such an event and fL for the railway loads to 1,20. BS EN
1990:2002 + A1:2005, Table A2.3 (Note 2) states that where wind forces act simultaneously
with traffic actions, the wind force 0FWk should be taken as no greater than FWk** (where the
fundamental wind velocity is limited to a value compatible with the limiting wind speed for
train operations). This might be taken to imply that the traffic action is always the leading
action, which may not always be the case. Clause A2.2.4 (4) of BS EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005
places this restriction on wind velocity regardless of whether wind is an accompanying action
or not. In respect of the value to be adopted for the partial factor (Q) for wind, it was
accepted that by reverting to the values recommended in the National Annex to BS EN
1990:2002 + A1:2005, there will be an increase in wind actions but for most railway bridge
designs, this combination will not normally govern the design (it is more likely to govern for
the design of long spans such as cable supported structures.)
The action due to snow has been determined and is less than the characteristic walkway
actions for a typical, single track deck (3,50m wide). It is concluded that the Eurocode
recommendation, that snow can be neglected for all but very special structures or
environments, is followed, noting that it may need to be considered during execution.
Values of the combination factors 0 and 1 for thermal actions were initially recommended
as 1,30 in line with BS 5400-2:2006. However, it is accepted that by reverting to the values
recommended in BS EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005, whilst there will be an increase in thermal
actions for most railway bridge designs, this combination will not govern the design for
typical railway structures, with the exception of structures with continuous spans.
UIC776-1 5th edition incorporates many aspects of BS EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005 for railway
bridge loading. UIC776 Tables 1, 2 and 3 summarise the suggested combinations and partial
factors. There are differences that are worthy of highlighting and may require discussion:
Recommended values of factors for railway bridges (BS EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005, Table
A2.3), Wind forces, FWk. Suggested values for 0 = 0,75. Values in UIC776-1 5th edition are
0 = 0,60.
Ultimate limit state, equilibrium (EQU) (BS EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005, Table A2.4(A) (Set
A), permanent, direct actions (all). Suggested values for Gj = 1,05 or 0,95. Values in
UIC776-1 are Gj = 1,1 or 0,90 generally or Gj = 1,15 or 0,85 if loss of equilibrium could
result in multiple fatalities.
Ultimate limit state, equilibrium (EQU) (BS EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005, Table A2.4(A) (Set
A), permanent, indirect actions (settlement and differential settlement). Suggested values for
Gset = 1,35 if non linear analysis undertaken, or Gset = 1,20 if linear analysis undertaken.
Values in UIC776-1 are Gset = 1,35.
Ultimate limit state, resistance (STR/GEO) (BS EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005, Table A2.4(B) (Set
B). Suggested values for Gj (self weight of steel) = 1,20 or 1,00. Values in UIC776-1 are Gj
(self weight of steel) = 1,35 or 1,00.
32

Recommended Values where National Choice is Allowed in

Eurocodes, other than BS EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005.
The following tables provide a summary of the values and factors considered in the study where
national choice is allowed in Eurocodes other than BS EN 1990:2002 + A1:2002. The table details the
value specified in the Eurocodes, the suggested value in the draft National Annex and the
recommended value following the work undertaken for this study. Differences between the
recommended values and National Annex values are highlighted.
A commentary follows the table to give further background information in determining the
recommended values and to facilitate further discussion.
All references to BS EN 1991-1-1:2002 and National Annex to BS EN 1991-1-1:2002 dated 30th
December 2005
Description
Clause
Eurocode
National Annex
Recommended
Value
Value
Value
3
3
the upper characteristic 5.2.3 (1)
20,0kN/m
21 kN/m
21 kN/m3
value of the density of
ballast
the lower characteristic 5.2.3 (1)
Not given
17 kN/m3
18 kN/m3
value of the density of
ballast
the nominal depth of
5.2.3 (2)
30 %
30 % should be
30 % should be
ballast
irrespective of
applied only to the
applied only to the
ballast depth
top 300 mm
top 300 mm
Table 2: Recommended Values in BS EN 1991-1-1
33

All references to BS EN 1991-2:2003 and National Annex BS EN 1991-2:2003 dated 3rd August
2007
Description
Clause
Eurocode
National Annex
Recommended
Value
Value
Value
See Table 3
Alternative load
6.1 (2)
Alternative
See Table 3
models for railway
models may be
bridges
specified
Load on a walkway if
6.3.7 (2)
Pedestrian,
Greater of 1 kN/m or Not considered in
this study
it supports a cable
cycle and
the actual weight of
route
general
the cables
maintenance
loads, qfk =
5kN/m2
Not considered in
Maintenance load for
6.3.7 (3)
Qk = 2,0kN
Greater of Qk
the design of local
applied to
= 2,0 kN applied to a this study
elements.
square of
circular area
200mm
of 100mm diameter,
or a point load of 1
kN.
6.3.7 (4)
Not considered in
Handrail loading
Horizontal
Greater of
this study
forces taken as
0,74 kN/m or a
category B and horizontal force
C1 EN 1991-1- of 0.5 kN applied at
1
any point to the top
rail.
1,1
Values of factor
6.3.2 (3)P
1,0
1,1 is mandatory
(recommended Alternative values of for design of new
may be
for international
bridges (TSI
determined
for the
lines)
requirements: Refer
individual project.
to documents
referenced in Table
1)
Choice of dynamic
factor
6.4.5.2 (3)P
should be
used where no
factor specified
- depends on
track
maintenance
standard.
3
34
Generally 3 should
be used.
Alternative values
may be determined
for the individual
project.
should be used.

2007
Description
Clause
Eurocode
National Annex
Recommended
Value
Value
Value
Derailment of rail
6.7.1 (2)P
Design
Deck plates and
Not considered in
traffic, additional
Situations 1 and similar local
this study
requirements
2 shall be
elements designed to
considered.
support a point load
of 1.4 x 250 kN,
applied anywhere on
the deck plate or
local element. No
dynamic factor
needs to be applied
to this design load
6.7.1 (8)P
Measures to mitigate Not considered in
Derailment of rail
No
Note
1
the consequences of this study
traffic, measures for
requirements
a derailment may be
structural elements
specified.
determined for the
situated above the level
individual project.
of the rails and
requirements to retain
a derailed train on the
structure
6.8.2 (2)
The factors given in The factors given in
Assessment of groups
Table 6.11
Note
Table 6.11 should be Table 6.11 should
of loads
used.
be used.
Where economy is
not adversely
affected, values of
zero or 0,5 may be
increased to 1,0 to
simplify the design
process.
Fatigue load models,
6.9 (6) Note
100 years
The design working 120 years.
structural life
recommended
life should generally
be taken
as 120 years.
6.9 (7) Note
A special traffic mix A special traffic
Fatigue load models,
Special traffic
may be determined
specific traffic
mix may be
mix may be
for the individual
specified
determined for the
project.
individual project
noting that the
simple approach to
fatigue may no
longer be
appropriate.
35

2007
Standard loading type
Span
BS EN
National Annex
Recommended
Load Model 71, SW/0
1991-2:2003
Value
and HSLM
Traction (30% of load on all
33.La,b
driving wheels)
But <1000kN
up to 3m
(L=3m: 99kN)
150 kN
150 kN
from 3 to 5m (L=5m: 165kN)
225 kN
225 kN
300 kN
300 kN
from 7
(L=25m: 825kN) 24 (L 7) + 300
24 (L 7) + 300
to 25m
kN
kN
over 25m
1000kN max
750 kN
750 kN
Braking (25% of load on all
20.La,b
braked wheels)
But <6000kN
up to 3m
(L=3m: 60kN)
125 kN
125 kN
187 kN
187 kN
250 kN
250 kN
20 (L 7) + 250
20 (L 7) + 250
over 7 m
6000kN max
kN
kN
Table 4: Alternative Values for Traction and Braking BS EN 1991-2
36

All reference to BS EN 1992-2:2005 and National Annex BS EN 1992-2:2005:2007

Description
Clause
Eurocode National Annex Recommended
Value
Value
Value
Coefficient taking account of long
3.1.6
1,00
0,85 for bending 0,85 for bending
term effects on the compressive
and axial
and axial
strength and of unfavourable
compression
compression
effects resulting from the way the
1,00 for others
1,00 for others
load is applied. cc
Partial factors for materials for
2.4.2.4.(1) 1,50
1,50
1,50
ultimate limit states and fatigue, C
and C,fat
2.4.2.4.(1) 1,15
1,15
1,15
ultimate limit states and fatigue S
and S,fat.
2.4.2.4.(2) 1,00
1,00
1,00
serviceability limit states C
2.4.2.4.(2) 1,00
1,00
1,00
serviceability limit states S
Partial factor for shrinkage action
2.4.2.1
1,00
1,00
1,00
SH
Partial factors for prestress,
2.4.2.2(1)
1,00
0,90
0,90
ultimate limit state P,fav
Partial factor for fatigue loads, F,fat 2.4.2.3 (1) 1,00
1,00
1,00
37

All reference to BS EN 1993-2:2006 and National Annex BS EN 1993-2:2006 dated 2 May 2007
Description
Clause
Eurocode
National Annex
Recommended Value
Value
Value
Partial safety factors
6.1(1)
M0 = 1,00
(BS EN 1993- M0 = 1,00
1-1)
M0 = 1,00
M1 = 1,10
M1 = 1,10
M1 = 1,10
M2 = 1,25
M2 = 1,25
M2 = 1,25
M3 = 1,25
M3 = 1,25
M3 = 1,25
M3,ser = 1,10
M3,ser = 1,10
M3,ser = 1,10
M4 = 1,10
M4 = 1,10
M4 = 1,10
M5 = 1,10
M5 = 1,10
M5 = 1,10
M6,ser = 1,00
M6,ser = 1,00
M6,ser = 1,00
M7 = 1,10
M7 = 1,10
M7 = 1,10
Partial factors for fatigue 9.3(1)P
Ff = 1,00
Ff = 1,00
Ff = 1,00
verifications
Partial factors for fatigue 9.3(2)P
Mf = 1.1
Mf = 1.1
BS EN 1993verifications
1-9.
Mf varies
between 1,00
and 1,35
depending on
design
assumptions
and inspection
regime
Damage equivalence
9.5.3(2)
1 for various
Note 1
Recommended values
factors for railway
traffic types is Recommended
used but values not
bridges
given in table
values should be
interrogated
9.3 and 9.4 in
used.
the Eurocode.
Note 3 1 should
be specified for
specialised lines.
Shear factor,
BS EN
BS EN 1993National Choice
1,20
1993-1-1 1-5
allowed but no
6.2.6
National Annex
1,20
available.
38

All reference to BS EN 1993-2:2006 and National Annex BS EN 1993-2:2006 dated 2 May 2007
Description
Clause
Eurocode
National Annex
Recommended Value
Value
Value
Determination of design
The recommended The National Annex
A.
Values are
values of actions on the
values of T0
recommendations are
4.2.1(4)
included in
bearings and
given
in
Table
recommended.
Table A.4 in
movements of the
A.4
should
be
the Eurocode.
bearings
Refer to comments in
used, and Tg
10.5.
should
be taken as 5 C.
NOTE The
temperature
difference TK is
the maximum
contraction range
or maximum
expansion
range as
appropriate,
according to BS
EN 1991-1-5.
Notes
1. There are other interaction and modification (k) factors that can be specified in the National
Annex but these have not been considered as part of this study.
2. Imperfections and fabrication tolerances have not been considered as part of this study and
may account for some of the differences.
39

All references to BS EN 1994-2:2005 (National Annex not available)

Description
Clause
Eurocode
National Annex
Value
Value
Partial factor for 2.1.4.2(5)P
1,25
National Annex
design shear
not available
resistance of a
headed stud V
Recommended
Value
1,25

Note
1. Other factors are as in BS EN 1992 and BS EN 1993, as described in the other tables.
40

Commentary:
The following summarises the discussions on the recommended values in the preceding tables:
It is recommended that the minimum density of ballast in BS EN 1991-1-1:2002 is increased
from 17kN/m3 to 18kN/m3 as the partial factors for inferior actions is 0,95. The minimum
density is also used when considering bridge dynamic response and Network Rail may wish to
see another value or specify a value in the dynamic response section of BS EN 1991-2:2003.
It was initially recommended that the factor value is maintained at 1,0 (1,1 specified in
National Annex to BS EN 1991-2:2003) unless specified for a particular project. The impact
of increasing the value on the serviceability limit state design and fatigue assessment of a
structure is not clear where a value other than 1,0 is used because no calculations for this
situation were considered. To maintain the same level of load effects from railway actions at
the ultimate limit state, it was initially suggested that the partial factor is increased from
Q=1,45 to 1,55. However, a value of =1,1 will be mandated for new bridges to satisfy the
high speed and conventional rail TSIs and Q=1,45 is appropriate. It is suggested that
confirmation is sought that the value used for fatigue assessment has a value of 1,0 except
for special traffic mixes.
41

Part 1 - Enhancement of Previous Studies
In 2003, Network Rail and RSSB commissioned Scott Wilson to review the railway loads proposed in
the Eurocodes and National Annexes. The work1 was undertaken over a number of years as the
various Eurocodes standards were published or drafted. The recommendations from the reviews
assisted the decisions on values of factors where national choice was permitted. As part of this RSSB
commission, Mott MacDonald extended and enhanced the work undertaken by Scott Wilson. The first
part of this report describes a parametric study that was undertaken to investigate the transient loads
and effects from railway vehicles. A comparison factor is used to illustrate differences.
3.1
Load Comparison Factor
Throughout Part 1 of this report, the following load comparison factor will be used unless an
alternative factor has been described in the relevant section.
The value of the load or load effect, multiplied by the appropriate partial factor, or product of partial
factors, is calculated in accordance with the British Standards and Eurocodes listed at the start of each
section. The resulting British Standard (BS) value is divided by the equivalent Eurocode (EN) value,
to derive the comparison factor, i.e. BS/EN.
Thus a value equal to unity demonstrates the current load effects calculated, or partial factors in
accordance with, the British Standards, is equivalent to the Eurocodes. A value >1,0 shows the current
British Standards are more efficient, onerous or conservative (higher utilisation) than the Eurocodes
and a value <1,0 shows the Eurocodes to be more efficient, onerous or conservative (higher utilisation)
than the current British Standard.
NETWORK RAIL REPORT Appraisal of Eurocode for Railway Loading and RSSB report T696 Appraisal of
Eurocodes for Railway Loading
42

Comparison of Design Load Effects
British Standards
Eurocodes (incl. National Annex)
BS 5400-2:2006
BS EN 1991-1-1:2002
RC/GC5510
BS EN 1991-2:2003
The Standards referred to in Section 4 are listed above.
4.1
Partial and Combination Factors
The following partial factors and combination factors were considered in the work by Scott Wilson.
The two design situations considered were effectively the British Standards load combination 1
together with the derailment conditions specified in clause 8.5.1 of BS 5400-2:2006. To enable direct
comparison with the work undertaken by Mott MacDonald, the factors were not changed:
4.1.1
Eurocodes
(i)

(G or Q)
Action
Permanent
Transient
Self weight
(steel)
Self weight
(concrete)
Superimposed
Track
Ballast
Other
LM71
Walkways
Ballast
depth
factor
Leading
Action
1,00
1,00
0,80
0,80
1,35
1,35
1,35
1,35
1,35
1,45
1,50
30%
varies
varies
Table 8: Eurocode SLS Partial and Combination Factors used for Investigating and
43

(ii)

(G or Q)
Action
Permanent
Transient
Self weight
(steel)
Self weight
(concrete)
Superimposed
Track
Ballast
Other
LM71
Walkways
Ballast
depth
factor
Leading
Action
1,00
1,00
0,80
0,80
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
30%
varies
varies
Table 9: Eurocode ULS Partial and Combination Factors used for Investigating and
(iii)
Accidental (Derailment)
(G or Q)
Action
Permanent
Transient
Self weight
(steel)
Self weight
(concrete)
Superimposed
Track
Ballast
Other
LM71
Walkways
Derailment
Ballast
depth
factor
Leading
Action
1,00
1,00
1,00
0,80
0,80
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
30%
varies
varies
Table 10: Eurocode ACC Partial and Combination Factors used for Investigating and
4.1.2
British Standards
(i)
Action
Permanent
Transient
Self weight (steel)

Self weight (concrete)
Superimposed
Track
Ballast
Other
RU shear
RU bending
Walkways
f3
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
44
2
3
Combination 1 fL
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,20
1,00
1,10
1,00

Table 11: British Standards SLS Partial and Combination Factors used for
Investigating and
(ii)
Action
Permanent
Transient
Self weight (steel)

Superimposed
Track
Ballast
Other
RU shear
RU bending
Walkways
f3
1,10
1,10
1,10
1,10
1,10
1,10
2
3
1,10
Combination 1 fL
1,10
1,20
1,20
1,75
1,20
1,40
1,50
Table 12: British Standards ULS Partial and Combination Factors used for
Investigating and
(iii)
Derailment
Action
Permanent
Transient
Self weight (steel)

Superimposed
Track
Ballast
Other
RU shear
RU bending
Walkways
Derailment
f3
1,10
1,10
1,10
1,10
1,10
1,10
2
3
1,10
1,10
Combination 1 fL
1,10
1,20
1,20
1,75
1,20
1,40
1,50
1,00
Table 13: British Standards ACC Partial and Combination Factors used for
Investigating and
4.1.3
Deck Types
The previous studies also defined a number of deck types whose assumed properties were provided
and which have been retained for this study:
Very light;
All steel direct fastened (e.g. lightweight truss girder bridge)
Light;
All steel direct fastened (e.g. all steel Z-type)
Medium
All steel ballasted (e.g. all steel Z-type and standard box girder bridges)
Heavy;
Steel main girders and concrete floor (e.g. standard Z, D and E-type bridges)
Very heavy;
All concrete half through (e.g. flyovers as used on Dutch railways)
45

4.2
Variation of Load Classification Factor, .
is a load classification factor for lines carrying rail traffic which is heavier than lighter than normal
rail traffic ( = 1). It is applied to the rail traffic live load effects and is independent of span. For
international lines a value of not less than 1,1 is recommended (BS EN 1991-2:2003 cl.6.3.2.(3)P))
and this value has also been recommended in the draft National Annex for BS EN 1991-2:2003.
Furthermore, the technical specification for interoperability (TSIs) for new structures on high speed2
and conventional rail3 lines mandates a value of = 1,1.
This phase of the study has largely validated the previous Scott Wilson work, although small
differences in calculating the ballast weight were noted. The deck types proposed by Scott Wilson
were considered to be reasonable approximations. is a function of the rail traffic live load on the
bridge and therefore any variation in value has a bigger effect on light decks as the transient rail traffic
load forms the most significant proportion of the total load. The dynamic factor, 3, was applied to
bending moments.
In accordance with the commission objectives, the variation of between 0,9 to 1,2 for the Eurocode
load calculations was considered4. Note that long span heavy and short span light structures are
unlikely to be used and the values have been shaded to reflect this in the summary tables in Appendix
A1 and in an example, Table 14, below. The results were then compared to loads and effects
calculated for the same structures in accordance with British Standards; i.e. spans and nominal weight
of materials remain the same. Selected graphs comparing the ULS bending moments for variation of
with span, are included in this section. All graphs and summary tables are included in Appendix
A1.
Span (m)
Bridge Type 2.0
3.0
VL
0.93
0.93
L
0.93
0.93
M
0.94
0.95
H
0.94
0.95
VH
0.94
0.95
5.0
0.92
0.92
0.94
0.94
0.95
7.0
0.92
0.92
0.94
0.95
0.95
10.0
0.92
0.92
0.95
0.95
0.96
15.0
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.94
0.95
20.0
0.95
0.94
0.95
0.95
0.97
30.0
0.95
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.97
40.0
0.95
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.97
50.0
0.95
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.97
Table 14: Comparison of ULS Bending Moments where = 1,10

The results of the study summarised in the following graphs indicate that has the greatest effect on
lighter bridges over short spans.
The comparison between bridges designed to the British Standards and the Eurocodes, indicates a
maximum variation of 0,85 1,10 for the ULS bending moments of very light bridges over the ranges
of considered, compared to a maximum variation of 0,87 1,11 for the ULS bending moments of
very heavy bridges.
With = 1,0 the average ULS comparison factor 1,0. This implies that the British Standards
provide a slightly more onerous loading.
The following graphs demonstrate this for the ULS bending moments. The load effects are calculated
for both permanent and transient actions (P/T) and U denote ULS. Note that is only applied to the
live load and the transient load proportion of the total load.
High Speed TSI 96/48/EC as amended

Conventional Rail TSI 2001/16/EC as amended
4
Note that BS EN 1991-2 requires a specific value of specified in 6.3.2.(3)P
3
46

Very Light Bridges Bending Moments

ULS
40000.00
35000.00
U (P/T) Bending Moment (kNm)
30000.00
Alpha Value 0.9

Alpha Value 0.95
Alpha Value 1
Alpha Value 1.05
Alpha Value 1.1
Alpha Value 1.2
British Loading
25000.00
20000.00
15000.00
10000.00
5000.00
0.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Span (m)
Figure 1: ULS Moments in Very Light Bridge Main Girder for Variation of (Alpha)
Medium Bridges Bending Moments
ULS
50000.00
45000.00
40000.00
35000.00
Alpha Value 0.9
Alpha Value 0.95
Alpha Value 1
Alpha Value 1.05
Alpha Value 1.1
Alpha Value 1.2
British Loading
30000.00
25000.00
20000.00
15000.00
10000.00
5000.00
0.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Span (m)
Figure 2: ULS Moments in Medium Weight Bridge Main Girder for Variation of
(Alpha)
47

Very Heavy Bridges Bending Moments

ULS
140000.00
120000.00
100000.00
Alpha Value 0.9
Alpha Value 0.95
Alpha Value 1
Alpha Value 1.05
Alpha Value 1.1
Alpha Value 1.2
British Loading
80000.00
60000.00
40000.00
20000.00
0.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Span (m)
Figure 3: ULS Moments in Very Heavy Bridge Main Girder for Variation of (Alpha)
The effects of variation of on the shear forces demonstrates a greater difference between the British
Standards and the Eurocodes shear forces calculated for shorter span, lighter bridges. The majority of
results indicate that the Eurocodes produce more onerous shear forces than the British Standards. This
is due to the combined effect of and different dynamic factors, 2 for British Standards and 3 for
Eurocodes, that are applied to shear force effects.
For shorter spans, the dynamic factor is greatest. Therefore the comparison with the ULS shear force
calculations is approximately 0,88 with set as 1,0. For = 1,1 the comparison factor reduces to
approximately 0,80. However as spans increase the variation is reduced. A further study of the effects
of the dynamic factor for shear is described in section 4.3.
48

Very Light Bridges

3500.00
3000.00
U (P/T) Shear Force (kN)
2500.00
Alpha Value 0.9
Alpha Value 0.95
Alpha Value 1
Alpha Value 1.05
Alpha Value 1.1
Alpha Value 1.2
British Loading
2000.00
1500.00
1000.00
500.00
0.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Span (m)
Figure 4: ULS Shear in Very Light Bridge Main Girder for Variation of (Alpha)
Medium Bridges
4000.00
3500.00
3000.00
Alpha Value 0.9

Alpha Value 0.95
Alpha Value 1
Alpha Value 1.05
Alpha Value 1.1
Alpha Value 1.2
British Loading
2500.00
2000.00
1500.00
1000.00
500.00
0.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Span (m)
Figure 5: ULS Shear in Medium Weight Bridge Main Girder for Variation of (Alpha)
49

Very Heavy Bridges

12000.00
10000.00
8000.00
Alpha Value 0.9
Alpha Value 0.95
Alpha Value 1
Alpha Value 1.05
Alpha Value 1.1
Alpha Value 1.2
British Loading
6000.00
4000.00
2000.00
0.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Span (m)
Figure 6: ULS Shear in Very Heavy Bridge Main Girder for Variation of (Alpha)
Note that if the traffic mix does not represent real traffic (assumed to be the case where is greater
than 1,0) BS EN 1991-2:2003 cl. 6.9.(3) states that the simple approach to fatigue cannot be used.
However, it is understood that the allowable stress limits obtained from derivation of the fatigue detail
categories in BS EN 1993-1-9 include sufficient margins to allow the use of the simple approach using
the prescribed fatigue load model (LM71 or SW/0 with no applied) where the actual traffic is
represented by the standard fatigue spectrum (see BS EN 1991-2:2003, Annex D).
4.3
Variation of Dynamic Load Factor, .
This is a factor for representing the dynamic effects of rail traffic loads. For tracks with standard
maintenance the value of 3 is recommended, ranging between a minimum of 1,0 and a maximum of
2,0. The value is calculated using the determinant length, defined in table 6.2 of BS EN 1991-2:2003.
The National Annex to BS EN 1991-2:2003 recommends 3 be used .
The British Standards recommend 3 be applied to moments and 2 applied to shear forces due to live
load effects. The definition of 3 is the same in both the British Standards and Eurocodes.
50

Factor
2
2 + 1/3.(3 - 2)
2 + 2/3.(3 - 2)
3
Span (m)
2,0
3,0
1,67
1,67
1,78
1,78
1,89
1,89
2,00
2,00
5,0
1,53
1,62
1,70
1,79
7,0
1,41
1,48
1,54
1,61
10,0
1,31
1,36
1,41
1,46
15,0
1,21
1,25
1,28
1,32
20,0
1,16
1,19
1,21
1,24
30,0
1,09
1,11
1,12
1,14
40,0
1,06
1,07
1,07
1,08
50,0
1,03
1,03
1,04
1,04
Table 15: Range of Factor Considered in Study

The spreadsheets used in the study (refer to 4.2) were used, with all other factors remaining constant,
including set at 1,1. is a function of 1/L, therefore a variation in the value has a bigger effect on
shorter decks. The formulae for the calculation of in the Eurocodes and the British Standards are
the same and therefore the study only looked at the affect of altering the factor applied to shear load
effects.
The variation of between 2 and 3 was considered over the range with intermediate values set at
intervals of one third (refer to Table 15). The influence is shown in the tables and graphs included in
Appendix A2. Note that long span heavy and short span light structures are unlikely to be used and
the values have been shaded.
The results of the study indicate that the variation of the dynamic factor has the greatest effect on the
shorter spans. As the spans increase, the comparison factors tend towards a common value. For the
shorter spans the comparison factor at ULS is around 0,81, tending towards a value of 0,94 for longer
spans. This variation is expected as the value of the dynamic factor has the greatest affect for the
shorter spans.
The following graphs show the comparative shear forces for the range of spans considered at ULS
with all graphs included in Appendix A2. The load effects are calculated for both permanent and
transient actions (P/T) and U denotes ULS. The Eurocodes calculations result in higher shear forces
than British Standards, even when the lower value of the dynamic factor is used. The difference in the
values of the shear forces is therefore attributed to the application of = 1,1 to the Eurocode actions,
as discussed in the previous section of this report (refer to section 4.2) and the difference in the value
of .
51

Medium Bridges Shear Forces

ULS
4000.00
3500.00
3000.00
2500.00
Dynamic Factor 1
Dynamic Factor 2
2000.00
Dynamic Factor 3
Dynamic Factor 4
British Loading
1500.00
1000.00
500.00
0.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Span (m)
Figure 7: ULS Shear in Medium Weight Bridge Main Girder for Variation of
Very Heavy Bridges Shear Forces
ULS
12000.00
10000.00
8000.00
Dynamic Factor 1
Dynamic Factor 2
6000.00
Dynamic Factor 3
Dynamic Factor 4
British Loading
4000.00
2000.00
0.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Span (m)
Figure 8: ULS Shear in Very Heavy Bridge Main Girder for Variation of
The increased shear force due to the use of 3 combined with = 1,1 will lead to higher shear forces
calculated in accordance with the Eurocodes compared to the equivalent calculations using the current
British Standards. However the scale of the increase will only result in changes in section sizes or
connection details where shear governs the design.
52

Live Load Surcharge on Substructures
Refer also to section Error! Reference source not found., Error! Reference source not found..
British Standards
BS 5400-2:2006
RC/GC5510

BS EN 1991-2:2003

5.1
Differences in Applied Actions
The current British Standard GC/RC5510 Clause 19.6 stipulates a load of 150kN/m over a 2.5m width
which is usually slightly more onerous then the loading criterion within BS 5400-2:2006 Clause
5.8.2.1 that specifies a blanket 50kN/m2 applied on areas occupied by the track.
Design Standard
BS 5400-2:2006
GC/RC5510
Nominal Applied Load

(unit width)
50kN/m
60kN/m
fL
f3
1,20
1,20
1,10
1,10
ULS Applied Load

(unit width)
66,0kN/m
79,2kN/m
Table 16: British Standards Live Load Surcharge Values and Partial Factors
BS EN 1991-2:2003 cl 6.3.6.4 states that the equivalent characteristic vertical loading due to rail
traffic actions for earthworks under or adjacent to the track may be taken as the appropriate load
model (LM71 in this study) uniformly distributed over a width of 3,00m at a level of 0,70m below the
running rail. Assuming the four 25t axles are distributed over the 6.4m between the 80kN/m UDLs,
this equates to a load of 52.1kN/m2.
Design Standard
BS EN 1991-2
Nominal Applied Load

(unit width)
52.1kN/m
1,10 1,50
ULS Applied Load

(unit width)
86,0kN/m
Table 17: Eurocode Live Load Surcharge Values and Partial Factors
Considering a unit width of retaining structure, the GC/RC 5510 nominal load applied is the greatest.
Comparing with the Eurocode value, the load comparison factor is 1,15. However, the Eurocode
partial load factors are greater than the British Standards, the comparison factor at ULS is 0,92.
The effect of the Eurocode live load surcharge acting at a lower position below the running rail was
considered. This reduces the height of application of the Eurocode load on the retaining structure to
{H - 0.335 / H}. H is the height between the base of the retaining structure and the bottom of the
sleeper, where the surcharge is generally considered to apply in British Standards. Comparing the
resulting shear and moment on a range of heights, the comparison factors vary as shown in Table 18.
53

Comparison with
H = 7m
GC/RC5510
Nominal ULS
Shear
1,21
0.97
Bending
1,27
1,02
H = 5m
Nominal ULS
1,23
0,99
1,33
1,06
H = 3m
Nominal ULS
1,30
1,04
1,46
1,17
H = 1m
Nominal ULS
1,73
1,39
2,60
2,08
Table 18: Comparison of the Live Load Surcharge Effects on Typical Retaining
Structures
The difference in nominal loads indicate the scale of difference when considering equilibrium (EQU)
(BS EN 1990:A2 Table A.2.4(A)) whereas the ULS comparison indicates the differences when
designing retaining structure elements (STR) (BS EN 1990:A2 Table A.2.4(B).
54

Longitudinal Actions
British Standards
BS 5400-2:2006
RC/GC5510

BS EN 1991-2:2003

The draft British National Annex recommends the current British Standards approach to the
calculation of longitudinal loads due to traction and braking be used. As the National Annexes will
eventually be withdrawn, and it is possible that the values in the Eurocode are adopted, the
longitudinal forces were calculated in accordance with the Eurocodes and compared with the values in
the current British Standards and National Annex.
A range of spans were considered, between 3m and 350m, and the braking and traction forces for both
characteristic and ultimate limit state calculated and compared.
Longitudinal loads were calculated in accordance with current British Standards: BS 5400-1:1998 and
BS 5400-2:2006 with reference to GC/RC5510.
Longitudinal loads were also calculated in accordance with the Eurocodes BS EN 1990:2002 and BS
EN 1991-2:2003 noting that the National Appendix amends the Eurocode to the equivalent BS 54002:2006 value.
6.1
Traction
A range of spans were considered and the traction forces for both characteristic (nominal) and ultimate
limit state calculated. Table 19 shows the calculated traction forces for the structures considered.
Figure 9 and
Figure 10 show the trends between 3m and 350m.
Note that shall be applied to longitudinal actions due to trains and is included in the comparison.
55

Span
British Standards
Nominal
Value
kN
Deck type
1- Z type
Deck type 2
E Type
Deck type 3
Box
Girder
Deck type 4
- Composite
Deck type 5
Prestressed
Concrete
Deck type 6
Filler
Beam Deck
Substructure
type 1 -
15,5m 504
Eurocodes (not National Annex)
fL
f3
(C1)
1,4
ULS
Characteristic
Value Value
kN
kN
Leading ULS
Action
Value
kN
ULS Comparison Factor
Structure
Type
1,10 776
511
1,10 1,45 1,00
816
0,95
35,0m 750
1,4
(maximum
limit)
24,0m 708
1,4
1,10 1155
1,10 1,45 1,00
1595
0,72
1,10 1090
1000
(maximum
limit)
792
1,10 1,45 1,00
1263
0,86
20,0m 612
1,4
1,10 942
660
1,10 14,5 1,00
1053
0,90
7m
300
1,4
1,10 462
231
1,10 1,45 1,00
369
1,25
8m
324
1,4
1,10 499
264
1,10 1,45 1,00
421
1,18
7m*
300
1.5
1,10 462
231
1,10 1,45 1,00
369
1,25
Table 19: Comparison between Traction Forces

The current British Standard characteristic (nominal) values (included in the National Annex) are
greater than the Eurocode values for spans less than 14.7m. The maximum characteristic (nominal)
comparison factor is 2,27 for a 3m loaded length. Above 14.7m the Eurocode values are greater and
this can be seen when considering the typical structures studied.
The maximum characteristic traction force based on the current British Standards is 750kN compared
with 1000kN specified in the Eurocode and this gives rise to the minimum characteristic (nominal)
comparison factor of 0,75. Figure 9 shows the characteristic traction forces calculated using the
Eurocode and the current British Standards.
56

Comparison of Characteristic (Nominal) Traction Action
1100
900
Force (kN)
700
500
300
BS5400:2 Traction
EN1991-2 Traction
100
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-100
Loaded length (m)
Figure 9: Comparison between Characteristic (Nominal) Traction Forces

The differences in the factored traction values at ULS are marginally less than for the characteristic
traction values. At ULS the maximum comparison factor is 2,19 for a span of 3m and the minimum
comparison factor is 0,72 at the cut off limit. Design to the current British Standards is more onerous
where the span is less than 13m and more onerous for the Eurocode where spans are greater than 13m.
Figure 10 shows the ULS traction forces calculated in accordance with the Eurocode and the current
British Standards.
Comparison of ULS Traction Action
1800
1600
1400
Force (kN)
1200
1000
800
600
BS5400:2 Traction
400
EN1991-2 Traction
200
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Loaded length (m)
Figure 10: Comparison between ULS Traction Forces
57

When the National Annex is withdrawn, and if the Eurocode values are adopted, the design of
bearings to resist longitudinal forces, the provision of lateral stability for substructures, and the design
of substructures within the allowable horizontal movement limits, will be less onerous for short spans
(approximately <15m) but more onerous for medium spans (approximately 15m to 50m), where
traction is the critical action,. Above approximately 30m using current British Standards and above
50m for the Eurocodes, braking governs the design of substructures.
6.2
Braking
A range of spans were considered and the braking forces for both characteristic (nominal) and ultimate
limit state (ULS) were calculated. Table 20 shows the calculated braking forces for the typical
structures considered. Figure 11 and Figure 12 show the trends between 3m and 350m.
Note that shall be applied to longitudinal actions due to trains and is included in the comparison.
Span
British Standards
Nominal fL
f3
Value
(C1)
kN
Deck type
1- Z type
Deck type 2
E Type
Deck type 3
Box
Girder
Deck type 4
- Composite
Deck type 5
Prestressed
Concrete
Deck type 6
Filler
Beam Deck
Substructure
type 1 -
Eurocodes (not National Annex)

ULS
Characteristic
Value Value
kN
kN
Leading ULS
Action
Value
kN
ULS Comparison Factor
Structure
Type
15,5m 420
1,4
1,10 646
310
1,10 1,45 1,00
512
1,26
35,0m 810
1,4
1,10 1247
700
1,10 1,45 1,00
1155
1,08
24,0m 590
1,4
1,10 908
480
1,10 1,45 1,00
766
1,19
20,0m 510
1,4
1,10 785
400
1,10 1,45 1,00
638
1,23
7m
250
1,4
1,10 385
140
1,10 1,45 1,00
223
1,73
8m
270
1,4
1,10 416
160
1,10 1,45 1,00
255
1,63
7m*
250
1.5
1,10 385
140
1,10 1,45 1,00
223
1,73
* assuming the deck on the substructure is a 7m simply supported span, fixed at one end.
Table 20: Comparison between Braking Forces
58

The current British Standards characteristic (nominal) values (included in the National Annex) are
greater than the Eurocode values. The maximum comparison factor for the characteristic (nominal)
braking forces is 3,11 for a span of 3m and the minimum comparison factor is 1,02 for a span of
300m. The current British Standards characteristic braking force for a span of 295m equates to the
maximum characteristic braking force of 6000kN specified in the Eurocode. No such cut off exists in
the current British Standards. Figure 11 shows the characteristic braking forces calculated to the
Eurocode and the current British Standards.
Comparison of Characteristic (Nominal) Braking Action
Comparison of Characteristic (Nominal) Braking Action

8000
500
450
7000
400
6000
350
Force (kN)
Force (kN)
5000
300
250
200
4000
3000
150
2000
BS5400:2 Braking
BS5400:2 Braking
100
1000
EN1991-2 Braking
50
EN1991-2 Braking
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Loaded length (m)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Loaded length (m)
Figure 11: Comparison between Characteristic (Nominal) Braking Forces

The difference in the ULS values of braking actions are marginally less than the characteristic values.
With = 1,1 and Q,sup = 1,45 applied, the overall ULS factor for the Eurocode is 1,595. For the current
British Standards with the relevant factors are fL = 1,40 and f3 = 1,1 which gives an overall ULS
factor of 1,54. This means that at ULS, where the loaded length is above 154m, the Eurocode value is
greater than the current British Standards until the Eurocode reaches a cut off limit of 9570kN (at a
loaded length of approximately 305m).
The maximum ULS comparison factor is 3,01 for a span of 3m and the minimum comparison factor is
0,98 for a span of 300m. Figure 12 shows the braking forces calculated for ULS in accordance with
the Eurocode and the current British Standards.
59

Comparison of ULS Braking Action
Comparison of ULS Braking Action

500
12000
450
10000
400
350
Force (kN)
Force (kN)
8000
300
250
200
6000
4000
150
100
BS5400:2 Braking
50
EN1991-2 Braking
BS5400:2 Braking
2000
EN1991-2 Braking
10
12
14
16
18
20
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Loaded length (m)
Loaded length (m)
Figure 12: Comparison between ULS Braking Forces

When the National Annex is withdrawn, and if the Eurocode values are adopted, the design of
substructures within the allowable horizontal movement limits, the design of bearings to resist
longitudinal forces, and the provision of lateral stability for substructures, will be less onerous or
remain unchanged, where braking is the critical action. Traction will govern the design of short and
medium spans (to approximately 30m using current British Standards, to approximately 50m using the
Eurocode). Figure 13 provides a comparison of the characteristic braking and traction forces
calculated to the Eurocode and using the current British Standards.
Comparison of ULS Traction & Braking Action
Comparison of Characteristic (Nominal) Braking and

Traction Action
2000
1100
1800
900
1600
1400
500
Force (kN)
Force (kN)
700
BS5400:2 Braking
1200
1000
BS5400:2 Braking
800
EN1991-2 Braking
EN1991-2 Braking
300
600
BS5400:2 Traction
400
EN1991-2 Traction
BS5400:2 Traction
EN1991-2 Traction
100
200
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-100
10
20
30
40
50
Loaded length (m)
Loaded length (m)
Figure 13: Comparison between Characteristic (Nominal) & ULS Longitudinal Train
Forces
60
60

Accidental Actions
7.1
Derailment Effects
British Standards
BS 5400-2:2006
GC/RT5110

BS EN 1991-2:2003
The Standards referred to in Section 7.1 are listed above.

The application of derailment effects varies significantly between the Eurocode and the relevant
British Standard GC/RT5110. In the Eurocode, BS EN 1991-2:2003 and its associated draft National
Annex, derailment effects are based upon the application of Load Model 71 in two positions:
Design situation I (referred to here as case 1): Derailment of railway vehicles, with the
derailed vehicles remaining in the track area on the bridge deck with vehicles retained by the
adjacent rail or an upstand wall.
Design Situation II (referred to here as case 2): Derailment of railway vehicles, with the
derailed vehicles balanced on the edge of the bridge and loading the edge of the superstructure
(excluding non-structural elements such as walkways).
These situations are to be considered as accidental loading, with the partial factor used being 1,0. It
should also be noted that the value, used in the calculation of classified vertical loads due to
railway traffic actions, shall also be applied to derailment actions. Its value is taken as 1,1 as
discussed in this report.
Design Situation I is concerned with the major failure of structural elements, and should be considered
under the STR set of equations from BS EN 1990:2002. Design Situation II is concerned with the
overturning and collapse of the structure, and should be considered under the STR and EQU set of
equations from BS EN 1990:2002.
The British Standards specify three conditions:
Case a. For the serviceability limit state, derailed coaches or light wagons remaining close to
the track shall cause no permanent damage.
Case b. For the ultimate limit state, derailed locomotives or heavy wagons remaining close to
the track shall not cause collapse of any major element, but local damage may be accepted.
Case c. For overturning or instability, a locomotive and one following wagon balanced on the
parapet shall not cause the structure as a whole to overturn, but other damage may be
accepted.
The derailment effects were calculated for a range of spans from 2m to 50m (as previous studies by
Scott Wilson). Comparison factors were not produced due to incompatibility between the different
design situations although Eurocode design situation II is similar to British Standards case b (checking
the ultimate limit state of the structure (STR) and Eurocode design situation II can be compared to
British Standards case c (checking the stability of the structure (EQU).
Figure 14 and Figure 15 show the variation of the moments and shears due to the different derailment
cases for both the Eurocode and for British Standards.
Comparing the Eurocode design situations with the British Standards cases, the Eurocode is more
onerous. The primary reasons for the differences are the loads and the factors applied to them and the
position the load is applied. Refer to table Table 21)
61

Standard
EN 1991-2:2003
Design
Situation
/ Case
I
EN 1991-2:2003
II
BS5400-2:2006
BS5400-2:2006
BS5400-2:2006
Applied Load
Applied
Factors
LM71 (8No
250kN + 80kN/m)
LM71 (8No
250kN + 80kN/m)
Pair of 20kN/m
udls + 100kN
No rows of 4No
180kN
80kN/m
x 1,4
x 1,4
f3=1,10
f3=1,10
f3=1,10
Position of
Applied
Load
Within 1,5x
track gauge
Along edge
of structure
Within 2m of
the track cL
Anywhere on
structure
Along edge
of structure
Length of
Distribution
unlimited
20m
unlimited
4.8m
20m
Table 21: Derailment Loads

Refer to section 4 for the combination and partial factors used.
Moments Due to Derailment Effects
40000
35000
Moment (kNm)
30000
25000
Case 1
Case 2
20000
SLS (a)
ULS (b)
ULS (c)
15000
10000
5000
0
2
10
15
20
30
40
Span (m)
Figure 14: Design Moments due to Derailment Effects
62
50

Shears Due to Derailment Effects

2000
1800
1600
1400
Shear (kN)
1200
Case 1
Case 2
1000
SLS (a)
ULS (b)
ULS (c)
800
600
400
200
0
2
10
15
20
30
40
50
Span (m)
Figure 15: Design Shears due to Derailment Effects
The results of the study indicate that the derailment loadings for the Eurocode result in more onerous
loadings than those from the current British Standards. This means that elements designed specifically
to sustain derailment loading will require increased capacities and consequently increased element
sizes. This study did not cover local derailment loading and the associated effects on member sizes
due to this. However for the typical bridges used in this study, the designs would be governed by the
Permanent/Transient design situations rather than the derailment cases.
63

7.2
Collision Effects
British Standards
BS 5400-2:2006
GC/RC5510

BS EN 1991-1-7:2006
The Standards referred to in Section 7.2 are listed above.

Impact from derailed trains with structures spanning across or alongside railway lines is included in
BS EN 1991-1-7:2006. There are two classes of structure that could be subjected to derailment impact
and the class of structure depends on the number of potential injuries to the occupants of the structure
in the event of collapse:
Class A structures are those that span across or near to the operational railway that are either
permanently occupied or serve as a temporary gathering place for people or consist of more
than one storey of the structure.
Class B structures are massive structures that span across or near the operational railway such
as bridges carrying vehicular traffic or single storey buildings that are not permanently
occupied or do not serve as a temporary gathering place for people.
BS EN 1991-1-7:2006 gives specific, static equivalent actions for class A structures adjacent to
railway lines where the line speed does not exceed 120km/h noting that the values may be reduced
where the elements are protected or the line speed is below 50km/h.
The resulting design loading (i.e. no partial factors to be applied to the actions) is summarised in Table
22:
Distance from Rail (d)
Force in the Direction

of the Track
d<3m
3m<d<5m
d>5m
Specified by project
Fdx = 4000kN
Fdx = 0kN
Force
Perpendicular to
the Track
Direction
Fdy = 1500kN
Fdy = 0kN
Height above Track for

Point of Application
1,80m
N/A
Table 22: Eurocode Collision Loading (Class A Structures)

For a bridge spanning across or close to the railway, class B is appropriate and pier impact must be
considered. For class B structures the equivalent static actions must be determined for the individual
project. The draft NA does not provide a design value for impact with class B structures but instead
leaves the design value to be determined for individual projects on the basis of a risk assessment.
Assuming the risk based approach is undertaken in accordance with the informative information in BS
EN 1991-1-7:2006 Annex B, this is likely to be time consuming and expensive and the project sponsor
may decide that the class B structures are to be designed to resist specified loads (for example the class
A actions or the minimum robustness requirements contained within British Standards.
The Eurocode class A actions parallel to the tracks are significantly more onerous than the collision
loading for railway traffic currently recommended for situations where the line speed does not exceed
200km/h in GC/RC5510 Appendix H. The actions perpendicular to the track are more onerous in
accordance with British Standards and tend to be the critical design criteria for the design of piers.
64

It must be noted that:

the Eurocodes consider the hazard zone within 5,0m of the track centreline compared to 4,5m
from the cess rail in the case of the British Standards (note that the UK National Annex
requires the British Standards definition define the hazard zone).
the applicable speed is 120km/h in accordance with the Eurocode compared to 200km/h in the
British Standards.
A ULS partial safety factor fL or Q=1,00 should be applied to all impact loading for design to the
Eurocode and when using the GC/RC5510 recommendations. f3=1,10 should be applied the impact
loading for design to GC/RC5510 to get the design load effect from the stated design force.
The GC/RC5510 loading recommendations are summarised in Table 23:
Distance from Rail (d)
Force in Any Direction
d<4,5m
d>4,5m
2000kN or 500kN
F = 0kN
Height above Ground for Point

of Application
1,2m or 3m
N/A
Table 23: GC/RC5510 Collision Loading

Table 24 below compares the shear and moment at the base of a pier, assumed effectively a cantilever
from a base 1,0m below rail level.
Standards
GC/RC5510
BS EN 1991-1-7
(Class A)
Comparison
factor (CF)
Parallel to Tracks
Moment (kNm)
4840
11200
Shear (kN)
2200
4000
0,432
0,550
Perpendicular to Tracks
Moment (kNm)
Shear (kN)
4840
2200
4200
1500
1,152
1,467
Table 24: Comparison of Design Criteria for a Typical Pier in the Hazard Zone
In the absence of further guidance in the National Annex, or from the UK Railway Industry, and on
the assumption that the design values for class A structures are adopted for class B structures, there are
potentially significant cost implications for the design of class B structures.
65

Vertical Deformation and Rotation
British Standards
BS 5400-1:1998
BS 5400-2:2006
BS 5400-3:2000
BS 5400-4:1990
GC/RC5510
UIC776-3R

BS EN 1990(A1):2002
BS EN 1991-1-1:2002
BS EN 1991-2:2003
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004
BS EN 1993-1-1:2005

The maximum vertical deformation and rotation of the typical railway bridges selected for this study
were calculated to the current British Standards and compared with the Eurocode values. The applied
actions considered were the SLS (Characteristic) transient railway actions (LM71 / RU) and associated
permanent actions.
Table 25 summarises the calculated deflections and compares the values:
Deck
Type
Span
1
2
3
4
5*
15m
35m
24m
20m
7m
British Standards
Mid span
End of
Deflection Deck
Rotation
33,8mm
0,0090rad
50,2mm
0,0057rad
44,5mm
0,0074rad
30.9mm
0.0051rad
6,7mm*
0,0031rad
Eurocodes
Mid span
Deflection
32,3mm
49,9mm
43,9mm
34.6mm
5,8mm*
End of
Deck
Rotation
0,0086rad
0,0057rad
0,0073rad
0.0049rad
0,0026rad
Comparison Factor
Mid span
End of
Deflection
Deck
Rotation
1,046
1,047
1,006
1,000
1,014
1,014
0,89
1.041
1,15
1,12
Table 25: Comparison of Deflections for the Typical Decks Studied

*Note: deflection in Table 25 has been calculated under characteristic actions, however the
deformation should be considered under the quasi-permanent load case in accordance with BS EN
1992-1-1:2004 Clause 7.1. Deflections and rotations include live load and are total values excluding
any pre-stress. For Deck type 5 (pre-stressed concrete deck) the total deflection should be considered
as summarised in Table 26:
Deck Type 5
Prestress Deflection
Perm Load Deflection
Live Load Deflection
Total Deflection
British Standards
Mid span Deflection
-3,45mm
1,07mm
5,60mm
3,21mm
Eurocodes
Mid span Deflection
-3,14mm
0,93mm
4,87mm
2,67mm
Comparison
Factor
1,10
1,15
1,15
1,20
Table 26: Summary of Deck Type 5 (Pre-stressed Concrete Beams) Deflections

The differences in the deformations of the steel structures were a maximum of 1,046 for the vertical
deformation and 1.047 for the rotation. The minimum comparison factor was 1,000. The small
differences are mainly attributable to the different partial factors on the actions. There are also
differences in the modulus of elasticity (E) specified in the codes: 205kN/mm2 in current British
Standards compared to 210kN/mm2 in the Eurocodes. For equal load effects, the Eurocode would
therefore give smaller deflections.
66

The differences were greater for the reinforced concrete structure. The comparison was 1,15 for the
vertical deformation and 1,12 for the rotation. This is attributed to the differences in the short term
modulus of elasticity specified in the codes (for fcu = 50MPa, E = 34kN/mm2 in current British
Standard compared with an E 37kN/mm2 in the Eurocodes), the different partial factors on the actions
and how the codes calculate the effective, cracked section properties.
The comparison for the composite concrete and steel structure was 0,89 for the vertical deformation
and 1,041 for the rotation. This is attributed to the differences in the modulus of elasticity specified in
the codes (as above) and the different partial factors on the actions.
Although there are differences, they should not result in any significant changes in the costs of
construction of railway structures due to increase in the size of structural elements.
67

Wind Effects
British Standards
BS 5400-2:2006

BS EN 1991-1-4:2005
BS EN 1990:2002(A1) Annex A2
BS EN 1991-1-1:2002
BS EN 1991-2:2003

The calculation and application of wind actions on typical railway bridges (see Part 2) was studied to
complete the work undertaken by Scott Wilson for Network Rail. Only the wind action on railway
structures and wind coexistent with railway traffic actions has been considered. A full review of BS
EN 1991-1-4:2005 and the draft National Annex to BS EN 1991-1-4:2005 dated 23rd June 2005, has
not been undertaken.
The wind actions were calculated in accordance with the current British Standard and the Eurocodes
for the typical railway structures and compared. It is noted that the draft National Annex modifies key
clauses of the Eurocode and the study has considered the proposed modifications in the National
Annex, in the calculations for this study. Explanation of the differences between the published
Eurocode and the amendments made in the National Annex, should be available from the BSI
committee responsible for BS EN 1991-1-4:2005 (B525/1). For the purposes of this study, it was
assumed that the structures are located in a rural location near Sheffield, 50km from the sea at an
altitude of 30m with the bridge 10m above the ground and topography factors were not considered.
The approach to the calculation of the wind actions is similar for both the current British Standard and
the Eurocode in that the basic wind velocity is factored to account for environmental conditions and
the probability of occurrence. However, the factors accounting for the environmental conditions are
not directly comparable. The Eurocode combines a number of the individual factors contained in the
current British Standard. For example, the Eurocode roughness factor is a function of the altitude,
terrain and wind direction, all of which are separate factors in the current British Standard.
The Eurocode also includes factors not considered in the current British Standard, including the
application of a seasonal factor and, in calculating the peak velocity pressure, the Eurocode considers
wind turbulence. The draft National Annex simplifies the calculation of the peak velocity pressure
and provides figures and correction factors. The resultant environmental factors can be compared to
the British Standard, BS 5400-2:2006, environmental factors, which is the product of several factors
squared (Sg.Sp.Sa.Sd)2. The resulting value can be considered to be equivalent to the Eurocode
exposure factor Ce. Therefore the dynamic pressure head, q, based on the calculation method in the
British Standard can be expressed as 0,5..vb2.ce. The comparison factor for the environmental factors
or wind pressures, considering the assumed location and environment for the typical structures, was
1,01.
Furthermore, different terminology is used in the Eurocode, for example, what is referred to as
topography in the current British Standard is referred to as orography in the Eurocode.
69

The principal difference between the Eurocode and the current British Standard is in the calculation of
wind actions on railway bridges with railway vehicles on them. The key factors contributing to this
difference are:
The maps showing the basic wind speed are not the same, with the Eurocode values for the
fundamental basic wind velocity generally less than the basic wind speed to BS 5400-2:2006.
The Eurocode has a maximum wind speed in this situation whereas the current British
Standard does not.
The height of the railway vehicles is also greater in the Eurocode than the current British
Standard.
The calculation of the wind force (drag) coefficients is different.
The ULS combination factors are different and a combination including transient railway
traffic loading as the primary action acting together with wind as a secondary action is
possible.
Some important aspects affecting the limiting values of wind speed on railway bridges coincident with
railway traffic are as follows:
The Eurocode recommends a cut off limiting the fundamental value of the characteristic basic
wind velocity to a value of 25m/s. Depending on the location of the structure and assuming
orography is not significant, this equates to a peak velocity pressure of approximately 980kPa
which is the equivalent pressure due to a maximum characteristic gust wind speed of 40m/s in
the current British Standard.
The limiting fundamental value of the basic wind velocity in the Eurocode is appropriate, as
the maximum gust speed for overturning of trains, clause B10.1 b), of GM/RT2149
'Requirements for Defining and Maintaining the Size of Railway Vehicles', sets a limit of 35
m/s in order to limit pantograph sway when trains are operating at maximum speed and
maximum cant deficiency.
Furthermore GM/RT2142 'Resistance of Railway Vehicles to Roll-Over in Gales', sets limits
on wind speed of 40.8 m/s for typical passenger trains and 31 m/s for typical freight trains.
However, this standard is under review and the values are being revised to 36.5 m/s and 30.5
m/s respectively.
Network Rail Company Standard RT/LS/S/021, Issue 2, October 2004, 'Weather - Managing
the operational risks', sets a limit of wind gust speed of 90 mph (40 m/s), at which train
services should be suspended.
Although, for the design of bridges, there is a case for adopting the lower limits set for train operation
in GM/RT2142, additional conservatism is achieved by adopting a higher value. Therefore, a higher
limit for the maximum characteristic gust wind speed of 40 m/s is recommended for adoption in the
National Annex to BS EN 1991-1-4:2005. Note that for all locations, with the exception of central
and northern Scotland, the fundamental basic wind velocity (specified on the wind action contour map
in the National Annex to BS EN 1991-1-4:2005) is less than the 25m/s limiting value specified in BS
EN 1991-1-4:2005.
Where the fundamental value of the basic wind velocity exceeds the limiting value in the Eurocode,
the limiting value should be used when wind and railway traffic acting together is considered. If the
railway traffic action is the leading action, the combination factor for the maximum wind force with
traffic action is 0 = 0,75. The maximum wind force 0 FWk that can act simultaneously with railway
traffic is limited to 0 FW**. In the latter case, a combination factor with a value 0 = 1,00 applies.
70

The height of the railway vehicles in the Eurocode is greater than for the current British Standard.
When calculating the wind area, the depth to be considered, in both the Eurocode and the current
British Standard, is the height of the train plus the depth of the bridge below the rails. The comparison
factor for the wind area is a minimum of 0,93.
The effective depth of the bridge considered, d, also affects the b/d ratio used in calculating the force
(drag) coefficients. The current British Standard and the Eurocode have different relationships and are
not directly comparable. The Eurocode calculates the force coefficient on the total depth of the
structure plus the vehicle height whereas the current British Standard calculates the drag coefficient
based on the vehicle height only. As the two charts used to determine the coefficients are different,
the effect of the difference is difficult to determine without further analysis. However, the force factor
in the Eurocode is generally greater than the drag coefficient calculated using the current British
Standard. The drag factor comparison factors range between 0,80 and 1,00 where there is no live load
and between 0,73 and 1,05 with live load.
71

9.1
Wind - Ultimate Limit State
In accordance with BS EN 1990:2002 the design effect, Ed, is calculated from equation (6.10). The
recommended values of the partial factors, load classification factor, combination factors and dynamic
factors, specified in BS EN 1990:2005(A1) Annex A2, BS EN 1991-1-1:2002 and BS EN 19912:2003, are summarised in Table 27. The wind action partial factors are as recommended in the
Eurocode and not as set out in the draft National Annex.
(G or Q)
Action
Permanent
Transient
Self weight (steel)

Superimposed
Ballast
Other
LM71
Wind + live
load#5
Ballast
depth
factor
Leading
Action
1,00
1,00
0,80
0,75
0,80*
0,50
1,20
1,35
1,35
1,45
1,50
30%
1,10
Table 27: Eurocode ULS Partial and Combination Factors used for Wind Study
* decks considered are single track or decks where a single track effect governs.
#
assumes the fundamental value of the basic wind velocity is less than the limiting value (see above)
In accordance with BS 5400-1:1998 the design load effect, S*, is calculated from the equations in
clauses 2.3.1 and 2.3.2. The values of the partial factors and dynamic factors specified in BS 54002:2006 are summarised in Table 28:
Action
Permanent
Transient
Self weight (steel)

Superimposed
Ballast
Other
RU shear
RU bending
Wind + live load
Wind only
f3
1,10
1,10
1,10
1,10
2
3
1,10
1,10
Combination 1 fL
1,05
1,75
Combination 2 fL
1,05
1,75
1,20
1,40
1,20
1,20
1,10
1,40
Table 28: British Standards ULS Partial and Combination Factors used for Wind Study
Following the completion of this study, the partial factor for wind load has been confirmed as 1,70 in NA EN
1990(A1):2005..
72

9.1.1
Summary of ULS Wind Combination Results
The results in Table 29 present the comparison between the total wind (horizontal effect, Fhz) and
coexistent railway traffic action (vertical load affect, Fvt) for the deck types considered in the typical
railway structure studies.
Deck 2
Railway
traffic
Wind
Wind
5064
Deck 3
2
2
3178
Railway
traffic
Wind
Wind
3708
Deck 4
2
2
2756
Railway
traffic
Wind
Wind
3215
Deck 5
2
2
1383
Railway
traffic
Wind
Wind
1614
Deck 6
2
2
1573
Railway
traffic
1836
143
254
62
181
64
176
6
53
17
87
0,75
2756
162
0,97
0,80
4197
185
431
1,03
0,75
5246
324
0,97
0,80
3072
80
310
1,03
0,75
3840
232
0,97
0,80
2664
88
312
1,03
0,75
3330
233
0,97
0,80
1337
8
85
1,03
0,75
1672
64
0,97
0,80
1520
27
116
1,03
0,75
1902
87
0,97
Combination
Table 29: Summary of ULS Wind Combination Results
73
1,03
0,62
0,81
0,80
Note that the railway actions have = 1,10 applied, but no dynamic factor.
Comparison
Factor
4341
Fhz
2
2
Comparison
Factor
2661
2205
50
215
Fvt
Fhz (wind)
Railway
traffic
Wind
Wind
Total Load
2281
31
173
Fvt (LM71)
2
2
Combination
factor
Wind
Wind
Eurocodes
Wind only
Wind &
railway traffic
Wind &
railway traffic
Wind only
Wind &
railway traffic
Wind &
railway traffic
Wind only
Wind &
railway traffic
Wind &
railway traffic
Wind only
Wind &
railway traffic
Wind &
railway traffic
Wind only
Wind &
railway traffic
Wind &
railway traffic
Wind only
Wind &
railway traffic
Wind &
railway traffic
Structure
Deck 1
Total Load
Leading
Action
Fhz (wind)
British Standard
Actions
Fvt (RU)
Action
0,77
0,59
0,77
0,58
0,73
0,57
0,70
0,62
0,64
0,75

9.2
Wind - Serviceability Limit State
In accordance with BS EN 1990:2002, the design effect, Ed, is calculated from equation (6.14b) (i.e.
for the characteristic combination of actions). The recommended values of the partial factors, load
classification factor, combination factors and dynamic factors, specified in BS EN 1990:2005(A1)
Annex A2, BS EN 1991-1-1:2002 and BS EN 1991-2:2003, are summarised in Table 30. The wind
action partial factors are as recommended in the Eurocode and not as recommended in the draft
National Annex:
(G or Q)
Action
Permanent
Transient
Self weight (steel)

Superimposed
Ballast
Other
LM71
Wind + live load#
Ballast
depth
factor
Leading
Action
1,00
1,00
0,80
0,75
0,80*
0,50
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
30%
1,10
Table 30: Eurocodes SLS Partial and Combination Factors used for Wind Study
*single track only is considered in the comparison.
#
assumes the fundamental value of the basic wind velocity is less than the limiting value (see above)
clauses 2.3.1 and 2.3.2. The values of the partial factors and dynamic factors specified in BS 54002:2006 are summarised in Table 31:
f3
Action
Permanent
Transient
Self weight (steel)

Superimposed
Ballast
Other
RU shear
RU bending
Wind + live load
Wind only
1,00
1,00
Combination 1
fL
1,00
1,20
Combination 2
fL
1,00
1,20
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,10
1,00
1,00
2
3
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
Table 31: British Standards SLS Partial and Combination Factors used for Wind Study
74

9.2.1
Summary of SLS Wind Combination Results
The results in Table 32 highlight the total wind (horizontal effect, Fhz) and coexistent railway traffic
action (vertical load affect, Fvt) for the deck types considered only.
Railway
traffic
Wind
Wind
1901
2
2
3288
Railway
traffic
Wind
Wind
3617
2
2
2408
Railway
traffic
Wind
Wind
2649
2
2
2088
Railway
traffic
Wind
Wind
2296
2
2
1048
Railway
traffic
Wind
Wind
1153
2
2
1192
Railway
traffic
1311
Fhz
Combination
Fvt
Deck 6
Fhz (wind)
Deck 5
Fvt (LM71)
Deck 4
Deck 3
Fhz (wind)
Deck 2
Comparison
Factor
1728
Comparison
Factor
2
2
Total Load
Wind
Wind
Total Load
Wind only
Wind &
railway traffic
Wind &
railway traffic
Wind only
Wind &
railway traffic
Wind &
railway traffic
Wind only
Wind &
railway traffic
Wind &
railway traffic
Wind only
Wind &
railway traffic
Wind &
railway traffic
Wind only
Wind &
railway traffic
Wind &
railway traffic
Wind only
Wind &
railway traffic
Wind &
railway traffic
Structure
Deck 1
Eurocode
Leading
Action
Combination
factor
UK
Actions
Fvt (RU)
Action
26
143
0,80
1521
33
143
1,14
0,77
1,00
0,75
1901
108
1,00
0,80
2894
123
288
1,14
0,75
3617
216
1,00
0,80
2119
53
207
1,14
0,75
2649
155
1,00
0,80
1837
59
208
1,14
0,75
2296
156
1,00
0,80
922
6
57
1,14
0,75
1153
43
1,00
0,80
1049
18
77
1,14
0,75
1311
58
1,00
118
210
51
150
53
146
5
44
14
72
Table 32: Summary of SLS Wind Combination Results
75
0,96
0,73
0,96
0,72
0,90
0,70
0,87
0,77
0,79
0,92

9.3
Discussion
For design load combinations involving wind in the current British Standard, load combination 2
considers two load situations: wind only and wind plus traffic.
9.3.1
Wind Only
The ULS partial load factors in the British Standard where wind acts alone are fL = 1,40 and f3 = 1,10
giving an equivalent ULS factor = 1,54. The Eurocode partial factor value for wind alone is fL =
1,506. Therefore the comparison factor (assuming the actions are equal) for the applied ULS factors is
1,03.
The SLS partial factors for this case are all 1,00 ( i.e. the characteristic values). For the typical
structures considered, subject to wind only, the Eurocode is more onerous with comparison factors
ranging between 0,77 and 0,96 at SLS (characteristic) and 0,62 and 0,77 at ULS. The differences are
primarily due to a greater wind force coefficient in the Eurocode.
9.3.2
Wind (Leading) and Railway Traffic
(i)
ULS
Where traffic is considered acting with the wind, for the wind component, the ULS partial factors in
the British Standard are fL = 1,10 and f3 = 1,10, which is equivalent to a ULS factor of 1,21. For the
railway traffic component the factors are fL = 1,20 and f3 = 1,10 which is equivalent to a ULS factor
of 1,32.
The current British Standard only considers the case where wind is the leading action. The equivalent
Eurocode partial factor at ULS considered is Q = 1,506 for the wind action, not the value of 1,70
recommended in the draft National Annex for BS EN 1990 (A1):2005, Annex A2. Applying the load
classification factor = 1,1 to the railway traffic component, along with a partial factor Q = 1,45 and
a combination factor 0 = 0.80, results in an equivalent factor of 1,28 at ULS. Assuming the actions
are equal, the comparison factors for the applied ULS actions are 0,81 for the wind and 1,03 for the
railway actions.
For the typical structures considered, the wind applied in accordance with the Eurocodes is generally
greater than the current British Standard with comparison factors between 0,57 and 0,81 at ULS. The
differences are due to, a greater wind force coefficient, partial factor and, wind area, in the Eurocode.
(ii)
SLS
The SLS partial factors are 1,00 and the combination factors are the same as for the ULS. For the
typical structures considered, the wind applied in accordance with the Eurocodes is generally greater
than the current British Standard with comparison factors between 0,70 and 1,00 at SLS
(characteristic). The differences are due to, a greater wind force coefficient, partial factor and, wind
area, in the Eurocode.
Where the railway loading is the leading action, the comparison factor for the SLS vertical load is 1,00
and where the wind is the leading action, the comparison factor is 1,14. The difference is attributed to
the load combination factor applied in the Eurocode.
1990(A1):2005..
76

9.3.3
Railway Traffic (Leading) and Wind
The Eurocode allows wind to be combined when the railway traffic is the leading action. In this case
the Eurocode ULS factors are Q = 1,45 for the railway traffic component and application of the load
classification factor = 1,1, gives an overall equivalent factor at ULS of 1,60. The coexistent wind
action partial factors are Q = 1,507 and 0 = 0,75 which is equivalent to a ULS factor of 1,13.
The SLS partial factors are equal to 1,00 and the combination factors are the same as for the ULS.
As the load combination involving railway traffic as the leading action and wind as the accompanying
action does not exist in the current British Standard, it is not possible to make an equivalent
comparison. This additional case could lead to an increase in the size of structural elements which are
primarily designed to resist railway traffic actions but which are susceptible to wind actions. The
design of wind susceptible structural elements to the British Standard would normally involve
designing the element to resist the railway traffic actions. The element would then be checked to
establish that the stresses due to wind, combined with the reduced stresses due to railway traffic
actions within combination 2, are within the permissible limits.
For design to the Eurocodes, structural elements such as bearings, transverse bracing, main girders,
stiffeners (end and intermediate U frames) and their connections, may have to be enlarged to carry full
railway traffic as the leading action coexistent with wind as the accompanying action. The change in
the section sizes for the structural elements of continuous bridges or integral (e.g. portal frame)
structures, could be subject to a further increase in stress if thermal effects are also considered. This is
explained in section 10.
It is recommended that the partial factor adopted in the National Annex, Q, is taken as 1,50 rather than
the recommended value of 1,70 in the draft National Annex, to avoid further conservatism. (Refer to
footnote).
1990(A1):2005.
77

10
Temperature Effects
British Standards
BS 5400-2:2006

BS EN 1991-1-5:2003
BS EN 1990:2002(A1) Annex A2
BS EN 1991-1-1:2002
BS EN 1991-2:2003

There are two temperature effects to consider:
Global effects (expansion and contraction)
Effects of temperature difference
10.1
Ultimate Limit State Actions
In accordance with BS EN 1990:2002, the design effect, Ed, is calculated from equation (6.10). The
recommended values of the partial factors, load classification factor, combination factors and dynamic
factors specified in BS EN 1990:2002(A1) Annex A2, BS EN 1991-1-1:2002 and BS EN 19912:2003, are summarised in Table 33:
(G or Q)
Action
Permanent
Transient
Self weight
(steel)
Superimposed
Ballast
Other
Settlement
LM71
SW/0
Temperature
global
Temperature
difference
Ballast
depth
factor
Leading
Action
1,0
1,0
1,0
0,80
0,80
0,60
0,80*
0,80*
0,60
1,0
0,60
0,60
1,20
1,35
1,35
1,20
1,45
1,45
30%
1,10
1,10
1,508
1,508
3
3
*decks considered are single track or decks where a single track effect governs.
Table 33: Eurocode ULS Partial and Combination Factors used for Temperature Study
Following the completion of this study, the partial factor for thermal load has been confirmed as 1,55 in NA EN
1990(A1):2005.
78

clauses 2.3.1 and 2.3.2. The values of the partial factors and dynamic factors for railway traffic live
load specified in BS 5400-2:2006 are summarised in Table 34:
Action
1,10
Combination 1
fL
1,05
Combination 3
fL
1,05
1,10
1,75
1,75
1,10
1,10
1,20
1,20
1,20
1,20
1,40
1,20
1,40
1,20
f3
Permanent
Transient
Self weight (steel)

Superimposed
Ballast
Other
Settlement
LM71 shear
LM71 bending
SW/0
Temperature
Global
Temperature
difference
2
3
1,10
1,10
1,30
1,10
1,10
1,00
Table 34: British Standards ULS Partial and Combination Factors used for
Temperature Study
10.2
Serviceability Limit State Actions
In accordance with BS EN 1990:2002, the design effect, Ed, is calculated from (6.14b) (i.e. for the
characteristic combination of actions). The recommended values of the partial factors, load
classification factor, combination factors and dynamic factors, specified in BS EN 1990:2002(A1)
Annex A2, BS EN 1991-1-1:2002 and BS EN 1991-2:2003, are summarised in Table 35:
(G or Q)
Action
Permanent
Transient
Self weight
(steel)
Superimposed
Ballast
Other
Settlement
LM71
SW/0
Temperature
global
Temperature
difference
Ballast
depth
factor
Leading
Action
1,00
1,00
1,00
0,80
0,80
0,60
0,80*
0,80*
0,60
1,00
0,60
0,60
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
30%
1,10
1,10
3
3
1,00
1,00
*decks considered are single track or decks where a single track effect governs.
Table 35: Eurocode SLS Partial and Combination Factors used for Temperature Study
clauses 2.3.1 and 2.3.2. The recommended values of the partial factors and dynamic factors specified
in BS 5400-2:2006, are summarised in Table 36:
79

f3
Action
Permanent
Transient
Self weight (steel)

Superimposed
Ballast
Other
Settlement
LM71 shear
LM71 bending
SW/0
Temperature
global
Temperature
difference
1,00
1,00
Combination 1
fL
1,00
1,20
Combination 3
fL
1,00
1,20
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,10
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,10
1,00
1,00
2
3
1,00
1,00
1,00
0,80
Table 36: British Standards SLS Partial and Combination Factors used for
Temperature Study
10.3
The movement of the decks was calculated assuming simply supported spans fixed in position at one
end. Structures were assumed to be in a rural location near Sheffield, 50km from the sea at an altitude
of 30m and the bridge 10m above the ground. The temperature assumed when constructing the bridge
is (specified as) T0, = 10C. The global temperature was considered as the leading effect with no
coexistent load (i.e. only expansion and contraction was calculated for the typical deck types
considered). A 120 year return period was considered.
The results are summarised in Table 37. Temperature is considered as the leading action.
For the Eurocode calculations of the movement allowance required for bearings and expansion joints,
the temperature range considered is the difference between the specified temperature at time zero , T0,
and the maximum / minimum effective bridge component of temperature, Te, modified by +/- 10C.
i.e. Where the installation temperature is specified, the range of uniform contraction, TN,con = T0
Te.min + 10 C and the range of uniform expansion, TN,exp = Te.max - T 0 - 10 C.
Note that had the temperature range not been specified, the maximum / minimum effective bridge
component, Te should be modified by +/- 20C.
Deck
Span
1
2
3
4
5
6
15m
35m
24m
20m
7m
8m
British Standards
Contraction
Expansion
(mm)
(mm)
SLS
ULS
SLS ULS
-5,2
-6,9
6,8
9,0
-12,2 -16,1 16,0 21,1
-8,6
-11,4 11,5 15,2
-5,3
-7,0
6,0
7,9
-1,7
-2,2
1,9
2,6
-1,9
-2,5
2,2
2,9
Eurocodes
Contraction
(mm)
SLS
ULS
-7,2
-10,8
-16,8
-25,2
-11,5
-17,3
-6,0
-9,0
-2,0
-3,0
-2,3
-3,5
Expansion
(mm)
SLS ULS
9,5
14,3
22,3 33,4
15,8 23,8
7,0
10,5
2,3
3,5
2,3
4,0
Comparison Factor
Contraction Expansion
(mm)
(mm)
SLS ULS SLS ULS
0,72 0,64
0,72
0,63
0,73 0,64
0,72
0,63
0,75 0,66
0,73
0,64
0,88 0,78
0,86
0,75
0,85 0,73
0,83
0,74
0,83 0,71
0,85
0,73
Table 37: Summary of Expansion and Contraction with T0 Specified (+/- 10C)
80

If the expansion and contraction range is to be included on bearing schedules, DT*d, further
modifications are required in accordance with BS EN 1993-2 Annex A.4:
T*d = TK + Tg + T0
where TK is the maximum contraction range or maximum expansion range as appropriate (TN,exp
or TN,exp in accordance with BS EN 1991-1-5).
Tg = 5 C to allow for the temperature difference in the bridge
T0 = between 0 C and 30 C to take into account the uncertainty of the position of the bearing
at the reference temperature.
If the Eurocode adjustment factor for modified temperature T0 is not applied (i.e. if calculating effects
of resisting the movement due to thermal effects, the differences are summarised in Table 38.
Deck
Span
1
2
3
4
5
6
15m
35m
24m
20m
7m
8m
British Standards
Contraction
Expansion
(mm)
(mm)
SLS
ULS
SLS
ULS
-5,2
-6,9
6,8
9,0
-12,2 -16,1 16,0
21,1
-8,6
-11,4 11,5
15,2
-5,3
-7,10 6,0
7,9
-1,7
-2,2
1,9
2,6
-1,9
-2,5
2,2
2,9
Eurocodes
Contraction
(mm)
SLS ULS
-5,4
-8,1
-12,6 -18,9
-8,6
-13,0
-4,0
-6,0
-1,3
-2,0
-1,5
-2,3
Expansion
(mm)
SLS ULS
7,7
11,6
18,1 27,1
13,0 19,4
5,0
7,5
1,6
2,4
1,8
2,8
Comparison Factor
Contraction Expansion
(mm)
(mm)
SLS ULS SLS ULS
0,96 0,85
0,88
0,78
0,97 0,85
0,88
0,78
1,00 0,88
0,88
0,78
1,33 1,17
1,20
1,05
1,31 1,10
1,19
1,08
1,27 1,09
1,22
1,04
Table 38: Summary of Expansion and Contraction with T0, not applied
If a deck is not free to expand or contract then the induced force in the deck will be proportional to the
expansion or contraction figures above.
10.4
Discussion
Values of the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) for concrete and composite structures are
different in accordance with British Standards and the Eurocode: CTEBS = 1,2x105 whereas CTEEN =
1,0x105 in the Eurocode. This leads to small differences in the calculated expansion and contraction.
The comparison factor (CTEBS/CTEEN) for thermal expansion coefficients is 1,20 for concrete and
composite structures. There are also differences in the partial safety factors that lead to differences at
the limit states:
The British Standard ULS partial load factors for a global temperature effect alone are fL = 1,30 and
f3 = 1,10 giving an equivalent ULS factor = 1,43. The Eurocode value for temperature, Q = 1,509.
Therefore the comparison factor for the applied ULS factors is 0,95. The SLS factors for this case are
all 1,00 (i.e. the characteristic values).
In accordance with the Eurocode, the temperature range calculated from time zero, T 0, is modified by
adding up to a further 20 C to the temperature range. This leads to bigger bearings. For example, if
the installation temperature T0 was specified as 10C, then for the 35m long E-type considered, the
SLS movement range calculated in accordance with the Britsish Standards will be 28,2mm compared
to 39,1mm required in the Eurocode (CF=0,72).
1990(A1):2005.
81

Where the Eurocode temperatures were not modified, the resulting movement was similar to the
current British Standard values with the comparison factors ranging from 0,88 to 1,33 at SLS and 0,78
to 1,17 at ULS (i.e. the current British Standards are slightly more conservative in most cases
considered). This was primarily due to the difference in the coefficient of thermal expansion for
concrete and the different partial factors.
It is recommended that the partial factors remain as recommended in the draft National Annex for BS
EN 1990:2005(A1), Annex A2, but that the modification to the temperature range is not made where
the temperature at the time when execution will take place has been assessed with sufficient accuracy.
10.5
Thermal Gradient Effects
A continuous, three span bridge was considered (parametric study) and the effect of the temperature
difference was taken into account. Bending moments and shear forces were calculated at the mid span
of the centre span and at a pier.
10.5.1
Temperature Only
The temperature gradients through the sections, and hence the theoretical locked in stresses, moments
and axial force, are the same in accordance with the current British Standard and the Eurocode.
However, the Eurocode is more conservative as the applied partial factors on the thermal effects are
greater than those in the current British Standard.
(i)
ULS
The British Standard partial load factors for the effects of temperature gradients are fL = 1,00 and f3 =
1,10 giving an equivalent factor = 1,10. The Eurocode value for the partial factor Q = 1,5010.
Therefore the comparison factor for the applied factors is 0,73.
(ii)
SLS
The British Standards partial factors for this case are fL = 0,80 and f3 = 1,00 giving an equivalent
factor = 0,80. The Eurocode value for the partial factor Q = 1,00. Therefore the comparison factor
for the applied factors results is 0,80.
10.5.2
Temperature Coexistent with Railway Loading, Temperature Leading Action
(i)
ULS
Where the railway traffic actions are coexistent with the temperature effects (temperature is the
leading action) the British Standard partial load factors are fL = 1,20 and f3 = 1,10, giving an
equivalent factor = 1,32. For the Eurocode, applying the load classification factor = 1,10 to the
railway traffic component along with the partial factor Q = 1,45 and the combination factor 0 = 0,80,
results in an equivalent factor of 1,28. Therefore the comparison factor for the applied factors is 1,03.
10
1990(A1):2005..
82

(ii)
SLS
Where the railway traffic actions are coexistent with the temperature effects (temperature is the
leading action) the British Standard partial load factors are fL = 1,00 and f3 = 1,00 giving an
equivalent factor = 1,00. For the Eurocode, applying the load classification factor = 1,10 to the
railway traffic component along with the partial factor Q = 1,00 and the combination factor 0 = 0,80,
results in an equivalent factor of 0,88. Therefore the comparison factor for the applied factors is 1,14.
10.5.3
Temperature Coexistent with Railway Loading, Railway Loading Leading

Action
The Eurocode allows temperature effects to be combined when the railway traffic is the leading action,
along with other actions, including wind. The most onerous Eurocode combination at ULS will be
railway traffic as the leading action, wind accompanying (0) and thermal secondary (1). The ULS
partial factors are Q = 1,45 for the railway traffic component and a load classification factor = 1,1,
which results in an overall equivalent ULS factor of 1,60. The coexistent wind action partial factors
are Q = 1,5011 and 0 = 0.75 which equates to a ULS factor of 1,13. The partial factors for the
coexistent thermal actions are Q = 1,5012 and 1 = 0.60 which results in an equivalent ULS factor of
0,90.
The SLS partial factors are equal to 1,00 and the combination factors are the same as the ULS
combination factor values; 1,00 for the railway traffic, 0,75 for the wind actions, and 0,6 for the
thermal effects.
As no equivalent combination (railway traffic as the leading action and temperature accompanying)
exists in the current British Standard, no comparison is possible. This combination could lead to
increases in the size of structural elements of continuous bridges or integral (e.g. portal frame)
structures, primarily designed to resist railway traffic actions but that are susceptible to wind and
thermal actions.
10.5.4
Conclusion
Although the effects of temperature gradients rarely govern the design of continuous bridges at ULS,
they often contribute significant components of stress that must be accounted for at SLS. Together
with the increased design stresses from the coexistent railway traffic load, this will lead to changes in
the size of structural elements and their connections, compared to the current British Standard. This
implies that a greater margin of capacity will be provided compared to current practice where SLS
governs the design.
11
1990(A1):2005.
12
1990(A1):2005..
83

11
Groups of Loads
The Eurocodes for loading include a different approach to that traditionally considered in design using
British Standards. Rather than relying on the designer to combine the primary railway live loads
(vertical forces) with the applicable secondary live loads (traction, braking, centrifugal force and
nosing force) for the element being designed as individual load components, BS EN 1991-2:2003
provides a table with a number of groups of coexistent loads to consider, depending on the number of
loaded tracks. When using the groups of loads instead of combining the loads individually, all of the
groups in the table, which is replicated below, must be considered where relevant (e.g.SW/2 not used
in UK). The partial load factors and combination factors are then applied to the load group as a whole,
using the same factors that would be applied to the individual components. Effectively each load
group may be considered as a single action equivalent to the collective effects of the individual load
components.
Figure 16: BS EN 1991-2 Table 6.11 Groups of Loads

For design of railway bridges in accordance with Table A2.3 of BS EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005 (Annex
A2), combinations may include either:
Load groups (leading action) + other operating actions (leading action) + non-railway traffic
loads (accompanying actions) or
Individual components of rail traffic actions considered as a single (multi-directional) leading
action + non-railway traffic loads (accompanying actions)
Non-railway loads may also be considered as leading actions and combined with groups of loads or
individual components of traffic actions as accompanying actions.
84

In the design of typical superstructures such as those considered in this study, using the groups of
loads rather than determining the critical railway traffic actions individually, would not have resulted
in any difference in the design details or the margin of capacity.
In the design of certain elements to BS EN 1991-2:2003 table 6.11 (Figure 16 above), such as bearings
and substructures, where horizontal forces perpendicular to and parallel with the track govern the
design, the use of groups of loads will result in a lower net force, as one of the applied horizontal
forces may be reduced by 50%, and hence a reduced margin of capacity. The origin of these reduction
factors is unknown. This contradicts BS EN 1991-2:2003 cl 6.8.2(1) NOTE which states that in some
cases it is necessary to consider other appropriate combinations of unfavourable individual traffic
actions.
BS EN 1991-2:2003 table 6.11, is potentially confusing, as the non-critical (favourable) load effects
are specified a value (1,0, 0,5 or zero). The draft UK National Annex acknowledges this point and
states that where economy is not adversely affected the values of zero or 0,5 may be increased to 1,0
to simplify the design process. It will be the decision of the infrastructure owner to decide whether
factors less than unity can be used in design.
BS EN 1991-2:2003 also allows the vertical force component to be reduced by applying a factor of 0,5
if it is a favourable effect. With this factor applied to the vertical actions it may not be logical to
consider the maximum coexistent horizontal forces and this should be taken into account by designers
for the design of individual structural elements.
On balance, it is therefore recommended that the draft UK National Annex includes a requirement
stating that in all situations, the values of zero or 0,5 should be increased to 1,0 to simplify the design
process and to adequate robustness for the design of all structural elements. This is usually the case
when considering the design of individual components to British Standards and hence there would be
no effect on design using the Eurocodes.
85
RSSB Research Programme

Block 2 Angel Square
1 Torrens Street
London
EC1V 1NY
research@rssb.co.uk
www.rssb.co.uk/research/rail_industry_research_programme.asp

Rail Traffic Load Combination Factor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rail Traffic Load Combination Factor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Programme

Chapters and Appendices

Recommended Values where National Choice is Allowed in BS EN 1990:2002.

Part 1 - Enhancement of Previous Studies

Load Comparison Factor

Comparison of Design Load Effects

Partial and Combination Factors

Variation of Load Classification Factor, .

Variation of Dynamic Load Factor, .

Live Load Surcharge on Substructures

Differences in Applied Actions

Vertical Deformation and Rotation

Wind - Ultimate Limit State

Wind - Serviceability Limit State

Ultimate Limit State Actions

Serviceability Limit State Actions

Global Temperature Effects

Thermal Gradient Effects

Applicable British Standards, Eurocodes, National Annexes and Other

DRAFT National Annex to BS

National Annex to BS EN 19911-5:2003

DRAFT National Annex to BS

National Annex to BS EN 19911-3:2003

DRAFT National Annex to BS

National Annex to BS EN 19911-5:2003

National Annex to BS EN 19921-1:2004

Draft, dated 07/08/03.

National Annex to BS EN 19922:2005

DRAFT National Annex to BS

DRAFT National Annex to BS

National Annex to BS EN 19942:2005

ISBN No. 978-0-7277-3160-9

First Published 2007

ISBN No. 978-0-7277-3159-3

NETWORK RAIL REPORT

Designers Guide to BS 1992-2

First Published 2007

(referenced throughout this

UIC776-3 1st Edition

Directive 2001/16/EC of the

Table 1: Documents and Standards Referenced Throughout the Study

Limit state for fatigue failure of

end of any part, measured in the

Design of Railway Structures to the

Relevant Standards (refer to

Summary of Recommended Values, New Studies and Commentary

Recommending values where

Draft National Annex to BS EN

National Annex to BS EN 19911-1:2002

The values in the draft National Annex are recommended.

Confirming the appropriateness

Note only the factors considered

Draft National Annex BS EN

Design of Railway Structures to the

Relevant Standards (refer to

Summary of Recommended Values, New Studies and Commentary

Typical bridge designs

The values in the draft National Annex are recommended.

National Annex BS EN 19922:2005 dated 31/12/2007

The values in the draft National Annex are recommended.

Draft National Annex BS EN

The values in the Eurocode are recommended.

National Annex not available

Investigating the sensitivity of