Helsinki University of Technology (HUT) Bridge Engineering (BE) Risto Syrj

LECTURE NOTES Rak-11.107 Bridges and Foundation Structures 031110 1 (15)

VERTICAL TRAFFIC LOADS ON BRIDGES ACCORDING TO EUROCODES

Risto Syrj

CONTENTS ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION 1. 2. 3. 4. ROAD TRAFFIC ACTIONS ACTIONS ON FOOTWAYS, CYCLE TRACKS AND FOOTBRIDGES RAIL TRAFFIC ACTIONS COMBINATIONS OF ACTIONS 2 2 3 7 9 12 14 15

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

HUT/BE/S

Risto Syrj

2 (15)

ABSTRACT This is the second seminar presentation of the Seminar on Eurocodes, presented 13.03.2003. The course was arranged in Laboratory of Bridge Engineering in the Helsinki University of Technology in spring 2003 and was for under- (Rak-11.146) and postgraduate students (Rak11.163). Aim in this paper is Loading, Bridges and is based on several parts of pre (pr) Eurocodes by European Committee for Standardization (CEN): prEN 1990, Basis of structural design [1], EN 1990 prAnnex A2, Application for Bridges (Normative) [2] and prEN 1991-2, Traffic loads on Bridges [3]. Above-mentioned pars are presented in general level. Vertical traffic load actions for road, foot- and railway bridges and these loads in combination of actions (limit state design) are studied. Eurocodes are compared to Finnish standards. Effects of load models (characteristic values) are clarify by maximum bending moment curves for single span bridge. INTRODUCTION Traffic loads on Bridges is second part of Actions of structures in Eurocode EN 1991 [3]. It consist of traffic actions and other actions specially for road and railway bridges and actions on footways, cycle tracks and footbridges. Basis of structural design (prEN 1990) [1] (presented in previous seminar presentation [6]) consist of general directions of limit state design (partial factor method). Application for Bridges [2] is prAnnex 2 of Basis of structural design. It consist of combinations of actions and parameters used in limit state design. Traffic loads on bridges in Finnish standards are defined in two Finnish publications Associations of Finnish Civil Engineers: Standard for Loading on Structures RIL 144-2002 [8] Finnish Road Administration: Loads on Bridges [9] Effects of Eurocodes to Finnish bridge design have concerned in two Finnish masters thesis required for a diploma: Mikkonen, Esa: Effects of Eurocodes on the Structural Design of Steel Structures of Road Bridges in Finland [7] Honkanen, Hannu: Effect of European Standards on the Design of Composite Bridges [5] Eurocodes concerning to wood bridges is presented in Nordic wood bridge project [4]. Loads due to traffic give rise to vertical and horizontal, static and dynamic forces. Special names are given due to character of load, for example accidental load. Loads are described by load models (LM). 1 They have been selected (and calibrated) so that their effects, with dynamic increments taken into account where indicated, represent the effects of actual traffic. Load models which can act at the same time are constituted group of loads (gr). In this paper only vertical traffic load actions for road, foot- and railway bridges are studied. Dynamic effects either group of loads are not studied. Vertical traffic loads in combination of actions (limit state design) are presented.
1

Load models do not describe actual loads.

HUT/BE/S

Risto Syrj

3 (15)

1. ROAD TRAFFIC ACTIONS Four models of vertical loads should be taken into account for load carrying structures (LM1, LM2, LM3 and LM4). Load models for abutments and walls adjacent to bridges are defined separately and arent discussed in this connection.2 Load Model 13 consist of tandem system (TS) and uniformly distributed load (UDL) as shown in Figure 1. Tandem system have two axel loads
Qik = Qi Qik

(1)

where i is lane number ( Z+) or remaining area (r) and Qi is adjustment factor. Uniformly distributed load is
qik = qi qik

(2)

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

*) For lane width wl = 3 m.

Figure 1. Load Model 1.

2 3

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

HUT/BE/S

Risto Syrj

4 (15)

Table 1. Load model 1.

Location

Lane Number 1 Lane Number 2 Lane Number 3 Lane Number 4 Remaining area

Eurocode [3] Tandem system: UDL system Two axle loads 2 Qik with wheelbase 1,2 m Qik [MN] qik [MN/m2] 0,3 0,0090 0,2 0,0025 0,1 0,0025 0 0,0025 0 0,0025

Finnish Standard [9] UDL system Tandem system: Three axle loads 3 Fik with wheelbases 2,5 m, 6 m Fik [MN] pik [MN/m2] 0,21 0,003 0,21 0,003 0 0,003 0 0,003 0 0

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

(3)

where Q is adjustment factor, equal to Q1, and Qak = 0,4 MN (a)

which includes dynamic amplification. When relevant, only one wheel may be taken into account. Load Model 2 can be predominant in the range of loaded length 3 m to 7 m. Corresponding Finnish load models (LM2 and LM3) have smaller load and contact areas.6

X: bridge longitudinal axis direction 1: kerb

Figure 2. Load Model 2.

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

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

HUT/BE/S

Risto Syrj

5 (15)

of Finnish standard are taken into account. Models 1 of both standards is also divided in tandem and uniformly distributed load systems. Adjustment factors are assumed to be

Qi qi
300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0

=1

(b)

M max [MNm]

50

100

150

200

250

Order is same as right end of curves: EC LM1 EC LM1 UDL EC LM4 FS LM1 (Lk I, kk 1) FS LM1 UDL (Lk I, kk 1, p) FS LM1 TS (Lk I, kk 1, F) EC LM1 TS EC LM2 l [m] FS LM2 (Lk I, kk 2)

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

Maximum moments of single span bridge with several lanes (width of each 3 m) as a function of span length due to Eurocode and Finnish Standard are shown in Figure 4. Concentrated loads on separate lanes are situated in the same longitudinal location. Both Load Models 1 and 2 of Eurocode and Finnish Standard are taken into account.
500 400 300 200 100 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 l [m] M max [MNm] Order is same as right end of curves: EC LM1, LM2 4 lanes EC LM1, LM2, 3 lanes FS LM1, LM2, 4 lanes EC LM1, LM2, 2 lanes FS LM1, LM2, 3 lanes EC LM1, LM2, 1 lane FS LM1, LM2, 2 lanes FS LM1, LM2, 1 lane

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

Load Model 37 consists of a set of assemblies of axle loads representing special vehicles, which can travel on routes permitted for abnormal loads. The National Annex may define Load Model 3 and its conditions of use. Annex A of Traffic loads on Bridges8 [3] gives guidance on standard models and their conditions of applications.

7 8

prEN 1991-2 4.3.4, p. 39 [3]. prEN 1991-2 Annex A 2, p. 121 - 125 [3].

HUT/BE/S

Risto Syrj

6 (15)

The special vehicle load classes 1200/X, with same total weight as heavy special load model 1 (Ek 1) 9 in Finnish Standard, are presented in Table 2. (These load models dont include dynamic amplifications.) Arrangement of axel-lines and definition of wheel contact areas of special vehicle classes 1200/X is shown in Figure 5. Maximum moments of these load models of single span bridge (with one lane) as a function of span length are shown in Figure 6; also Tandem Systems of Load Model 1 of both standards are shown.
Table 2. Special vehicle with total weight of 1,2 MN in Eurocode and in Finnish standard.

Notation Axle loads n Q [MN] Axle spacing m ei [m]

Eurocode, Annex A [3] 1200/150 1200/200 8 0,15 6 0,2 7 1,5 5 1,5

Finnish Standard [9] Ek 1 4 0,3 1,2; 8...15; 1,2

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

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 l [m] M max [MNm]

Order is same as right end of curves: EC LM3 SV 1200/200 EC LM3 SV 1200/150 FS SV (Lk I, Ek 1) FS LM1 TS (Lk I, kk1, F) EC LM1 TS

Figure 6. Maximum moments due to special vehicles.

Load Model 410 is a crowd loading (front cover Figure), uniformly distributed load qk, LM4 = 0,005 MN/m2 (c)

which includes dynamic amplification. This load model is particularly relevant for bridges located in or near towns and should be used only for some transient design situations.

10

In Finnish: Raskas erikoiskuorma 1 (kuormaluokassa I) [9]. prEN 1991-2 4.3.5, p. 39 [3].

HUT/BE/S

Risto Syrj

7 (15)

2. ACTIONS ON FOOTWAYS, CYCLE TRACKS AND FOOTBRIDGES

Three models of vertical loads, mutually exclusive, should be taken into account: a uniformly distributed load qfk, a concentrated load Qfwk and loads representing service vehicles Qserv. The uniformly distributed load and the concentrated load should be used for road and railway bridges as well as footbridges11, where relevant. The characteristic value of uniformly distributed load 12 may be defined in the National Annex. Load Model 4 for road bridges may be used where crowd risk exists.13 Otherwise recommended value is
q1, l l1 p q fk = q0 + 0 , l = ]l1, l 2 [ l0 + l q2 , l l 2

(4)

where l is loaded length in meters and q0 = 0,002 MN/m2 q1 = 0,005 MN/m2 q2 = 0,0025 MN/m2 p0 = 0,120 MN/m l0 = 30 m l1 = 10 m l2 = 210 m

(d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)

Uniformly distributed load according to Eurocode and Finnish standard as a function of span length is shown in Figure 7.
0,006 0,005 0,004 0,003 0,002 0,001 0 0 q [MN/m ]
2

Order is same as right end of curves: EC RoadLM4 FS FootLM1 (kk 1) EC FootUDL

l [m] 250

50

100

150

200

Figure 7. Uniformly distributed load.

The characteristic value of concentrated load14 should be taken equal to Qfwk = 0,01 MN (k)

11 12

Load models may not be appropriate for large footbridges, when width is more than 6 m [3]. prEN 1991-2 5.3.2.1, p. 60 [3]. 13 This load model should be used for abutments and walls adjacent to bridges (prEN 1991-2 5.9, p. 64) [3]. 14 prEN 1991-2 5.3.2.2, p. 60 [3].

HUT/BE/S

Risto Syrj

8 (15)

acting on a square surface of sides 0,1 m. Where, in a verification, general and local effects can be distinguished, the concentrated load should be taken into account only for local effects. If, for a footbridge, a service vehicle is specified, concentrated load should not be considered. Finnish standards havent corresponding load model (CL), but service vehicle (LM2) should be used. When service vehicles15 are to be carried on a footbridge or footway, one service vehicle Qserv shall be taken into account. Service vehicle load model may be defined in the National Annex or used accidental loading model show in Figure 8. This load model has the same magnitude of axel loads as Finnish load model 2 for footbridge [9], but the wheel base, track and contact areas are different16.

x: Bridge axis direction Qsv1 = 0,08 MN Qsv2 = 0,04 MN

Figure 8. Accidental loading.

Maximum moments of single span bridge as a function of span length due to Eurocode and Finnish Standard are shown in Figure 9. Horizontal clearance is 3,5 meters. All Load Models of Eurocode and Finnish Standard are taken into account. Effects of Service vehicles are very close together by using Eurocode and Finnish standard (LM2). 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 l [m] 250 M max [MNm] Order is same as right end of curves: EC RoadLM4 FS LM1 (kk 1) EC UDL FS LM2 (kk2) EC SV EC CL

Figure 9. Maximum moments due to actions on footbridge.

15 16

prEN 1991-2 5.3.2.3, p. 61, and 5.6.3, p. 63 [3]. In Finnish standard wheel base is 2 m, track is 1,7 m and contact area side in transverse direction is 0,4 m [9].

HUT/BE/S

Risto Syrj

9 (15)

3. RAIL TRAFFIC ACTIONS

Eurocode for railway bridges applies to rail traffic on the standard track gauge17 and wide track gauge18 . It is not applicable for tramways and other light railways; the loading and characteristic values of actions for these types of railways should be specified for the particular project or they may be defined in the National Annex. In Finnish standard load model for tramcar is given [8]. Rail traffic actions are defined by means of load models. Five models of vertical railway loading are given19: Load Model 71 to represent normal rail traffic on mainline railways, Load Model SW/0 for continuous bridges to represent normal rail traffic on mainline railways, Load Model SW/2 to represent heavy loads, Load Model HSLM to represent the loading from passenger trains at speed exceeding 200 km/h and Load Model unloaded train to represent the effect of an unloaded train. All the load models represent static effects for the Persistent Design Situation. In the case of Transient Design Situation the characteristic values of Load Models are using.20 The load arrangement and the characteristic values of Load Model 7121 is shown in Figure 10. The Characteristic values shall be multiplied by a factor

= {0,75; 0,83; 0,91; 1,00; 1,21; 1,33; 1,46}

(l)

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

(1) No limitation
17 18

Figure 10. Load Model 71.

1435 mm. > 1435 mm (for example railways in Finland: 1524 mm). 19 Application of traffic loads on railway bridges are described in prEN 1991-2 6.8 [3]. 20 prEN 1991-2 Annex H, p. 162 [3]. 21 prEN 1991-2 6.3.2, p. 66 [3]. 22 Finnish standard LM71-35.

HUT/BE/S

Risto Syrj

10 (15)

Load Models SW/0 and SW/223 are shown in Figure 11 and the characteristic values of the vertical loads and distances in Table 3. Load Model SW/0 shall be multiplied by the factor (constant l).

Figure 11. Load Models SW/0 and SW/2. Table 3. Characteristic values and distances of Load Models SW/0 and SW/2.

Load Model SW/0 SW/2

qvk [MN/m] 0,133 0,150

a [m] 15 25

c [m] 5,3 7,0

The effect of lateral displacement of vertical loads in the case of Load Models 71 and SW/0 shall be considered by taking the ratio of wheel loads on all axles as up to 1,25:1,00 on any one track. The resulting eccentricity e is shown in Figure 12.

(1) uniformly distributed load and point loads on each rail as approopriate (2) LM 71 (and SW/0 where required) (3) transverse distance between wheel loads
Figure 12. Eccentricity of vertical loads.24

Load Model HSLM 25 is using only in dynamic analysis and comprises of two separate Universal Trains with variable coach lengths, HSLM-A and HSLM-B. Limits of validity of Load Model HSLM are given in Annex E26. Load Model unloaded train 27 consist of a vertical uniformly distributed load with a characteristic value of

qUT = 0,01 MN/m

23 24

(m)

prEN 1991-2 6.3.3, p. 67 [3]. When r = 1435 mm, emax = 79,7 mm. In Finnish standard e = 200 mm [9]. 25 prEN 1991-2 6.4.6.1.1, p. 82 [3]. 26 prEN 1991-2 Annex E, p. 139 - 147 [3]. 27 prEN 1991-2 6.3.4, p. 68 [3], and EN 1990 prAnnex A2 2.2.4(2), p. 8, 9 [2].

HUT/BE/S

Risto Syrj

11 (15)

Maximum moments of single span bridge as a function of span length due to Eurocode and Finnish Standard are shown in Figure 13. Load Models 71 ( = 1,00), SW/2 and unloaded train of Eurocode and load model LM 71-35 and load model for tram (a and b)28 of Finnish Standard are taken into account [8].
1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 l [m] M max [MNm]

Order is same as right end of curves: FS LM71-35 EC LM 71 EC LM SW/2 FS Tram a EC LM UT FS Tram b

Figure 13. Maximum moments due to rail traffic actions.

28

HUT/BE/S

Risto Syrj

12 (15)

4. COMBINATIONS OF ACTIONS

In combination of actions using in limit state design two kind of parameters are needed: 1. is a partial factor for the action which takes account of the possibility of unfavourable deviations of the action values from the representative values and 2. are factors of three kinds: a) 0 is factor for combination value of a variable action, b) 1 is factor for frequent value of a variable action and c) 2 is factor for quasi-permanent value of a variable action. Characteristic values includes adjustment factors (, ). Partial factors of unfavourable traffic actions in Eurocode and in Finnish standard are shown in Table 4. When traffic action is favourable partial factor is

=0

(n)

Three sets (A, B and C) are including in Table 4. Static equilibrium (EQU 29 ) should be verified using set A. Design of structural members (STR30) not involving geotechnical actions should be verified using set B. Design of structural members (STR) involving geotehcnical actions and resistance of the ground (GEO31) should be verified using alternative approach with set B and / or C.32 Recommended values of factors for vertical traffic actions in Eurocode are shown in Table 5. Finnish standard havent independent factors in the case of ultimate limit state - the effects of they are taken into account in partial factors. When traffic action is favourable

=0
Partial factors may be set by and factors may be altered in the National Annex.
Table 4. Partial factors of traffic actions in Eurocode and in Finnish standard. Partial factor Notation Set

(o)

Eurocode [2] AA), B 1,35 1,35 1,45

Finnish standard [9]

QI) B)

CC) 1,15 1,15 1,25

q1
HSLM Other LMs 1,4 1,8 1,8 1,6

Road traffic Pedestrian traffic Rail traffic A) EQU. B) STR/GEO. C) STR/GEO.

29 30

See prEN 1990 6.4.1(1)a), p. 44 [1]. See prEN 1990 6.4.1(1)b), p. 44 [1]. 31 See prEN 1990 6.4.1(1)c), p. 44 [1]. 32 Three alternative approaches are mentioned in EN 1990 prAnnex A2 2.3.1(5), p. 15 [2].

HUT/BE/S

Risto Syrj

13 (15)

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

factor

Eurocode [2] Symbol TS UDL Pedestrian + cycle-track III)

Finnish standard [9]

iI)

Road gr1a (LM1 + 0,75 0,75 0 bridges33 pedestrian or 0,40 0,40 0 cycle track)II) 0,40 0,40 0 gr1b (Single axle) 0 0,75 0 gr2 (Horizontal forces) 0 0 0 gr3 (Pedestrian loads) 0 0 0 gr4 (LM 4 - Crowd loading) 0 0,75 0 gr5 (LM 3 - Special vehicles) 0 0 0 Footgr1 0,40 0,40 0 0,3 bridges34 Qfwk 0 0 0 gr2 0 0 0 IV) Railway Individual LM71 0,80 0 IV) bridges components SW/0 0,80 0 SW/2 0 1,0 0 Unloaded train 1,0 IV) HSLM 1,0 0 35 Groups of loads gr11...17 0,80 0,80 0 gr21...24, 26, 27, 31 0,80 0,70 0 36 Quasi-permanent combination in serviceability limit state. I) II) values are given for roads with traffic corresponding to adjusting factors Qi, qi, qr, Q equal to 1. III) The combination value of pedestrian and cycle-track load is a reduced value. IV) 0,8 if 1 track only is loaded, 0,7 if 2 tracks are simultaneously loaded and 0,6 if 3 or more tracks are simultaneously loaded.

33 34

Group of loads: see prEN 1991-2, Tables 4.4a, p. 43, and 4.4b, p. 44 [3]. Group of loads: see prEN 1991-2, Table 5.1, p. 62 [3]. 35 Group of loads: see prEN 1991-2, Table 6.11, p. 118 [3]. 36 In Finnish: Kyttrajatilan pitkaikaiset vaikutukset.

HUT/BE/S

Risto Syrj

14 (15)

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

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

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

LM1

Uniformly distributed load on the first lane is in Eurocode three times Finnish value (Lk I, kk 1). Tandem system loads, or bending moments for single span beam due to them, in the case of one, three or more lanes are nearly equal in accordance with Eurocode and in Finnish standard. Axle load is in Eurcode about 1,5 times corresponding Finnish value (Lk I, kk 2). Special vehicle load classes 1200/150 and 1200/200 are corresponding to Finnish heavy special load model (Ek 1). Crowd loading, used in or near towns, havent corresponding model in Finnish standard.

LM2 LM3 LM4

Actions on Footways, Cycle Tracks and Footbridges

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

UDL

Uniformly deformed load is LM4 of road bridges or load magnitude is function of loaded length. For bridges, which loaded length is longer than 30 m, Finnish load value is between values of Eurocode models mentioned above. Concentrated load should be used, where service vehicle is not specified. Finnish standards havent corresponding load model. Special vehicle in Eurocode and in Finnish standard (kk 2) are almost similar.

CL SV

Rail Traffic Actions

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

LM 71

Load Model 71 to represent normal rail traffic on mainline railways. Finnish standard have corresponding load models for only to this model. Finnish standard use LM71-35, which means that = 1,46. Load Model SW/0 for continuous bridges to represent normal rail traffic on mainline railways. Load Model SW/2 to represent heavy loads. Load Model HSLM to represent the loading from passenger trains at speed exceeding 200 km/h (dynamic analysis). Load Model unloaded train to represent the effect of an unloaded train.

LM SW/0 LM SW/2 LM HSLM LM UL

HUT/BE/S

Risto Syrj

15 (15)

Combinations of Actions

Characteristic values includes adjustment factors (, ). Finnish standard havent these factors. Expressions for design values are given for separate ultimate limit state cases (EQU, STR, GEO) by using design case sets (A, B and C), where partial factors () are defined. Partial factor in Finnish standard for road and pedestrian traffic (without heavy special load model) is about 33% higher than corresponding Eurocode value in the case of static equilibrium (EQU), and for rail traffic corresponding Finnish value is about 10% higher. In the combinations of actions vertical traffic load is normally leading variable action. Hence factor for combination value of vertical traffic action (0) is needed seldom. 37 In serviceability limit state factor for frequent value of vertical traffic action (1) decrease leading variable action.38 Factor for quasi-permanent value of a vertical traffic actions (2) is zero.39 Finnish standard have value only for quasi-permanent combination in service limit state (i = 0,3); in the other cases values are including in partial factors. The final design practice or mode in Finland due to Eurocode is determined until Finnish national annexes are ready. Adjustment, partial and factors may be specify in the national annexes.
REFERENCES

[1] [2] [3] [4]

[5] [6]

[7]

[8] [9]

European Committee for Standardization (CEN): prEN 1990. Basis of structural design. Final draft. Brussels 2001. 89 p. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): EN 1990 prAnnex A2. Application for Bridges (Normative). Brussels 2002. 29 p. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): prEN 1991-2. Actions on structures Traffic loads on bridges. Brussels 2002. 162 p. Haakana, P., Jutila A., Kiviluoma, R., Rautakorpi, H., Salokangas, L.: Tutkimusprojekti puusiltojen kehittminen, puusiltojen suunnitteluperusteet ja menetelmt. Julkaisu nro 9. Otaniemi 1994. 66 p. Honkanen, Hannu: Euronormien vaikutus liittorakenteisten siltojen suunnitteluun. Masters thesis required for a diploma. Espoo 2000. 101 p. Junnonen, J.: Loading, Buildings - Seminar Presentation 13.3.2003. Seminar in Bridge Engineering, Spring 2003. Eurocodes. Helsinki University of Technology. 15 p. Mikkonen, Esa: Euronormien vaikutus tiesiltojen tersrakenteiden suunnitteluun Suomessa. Masters thesis required for a diploma. Oulu 1996. 91 p. Suomen Rakennusinsinrien Liitto RIL r.y.: Rakenteiden kuormitusohjeet, RIL 144-2002. Helsinki 2002. ISBN 951-758-430-X. 205 p. Tielaitos: Siltojen kuormat. Helsinki 1999. TIEL 2172072-99. ISBN 951-726538-2. 31 p.

37 38

See Equations 6.10 in prEN 1990 6.4.3.2, p. 46, and Equations 6.14 in 6.5.3, p. 48, 49 [1]. See Equations 6.15 in prEN 1990 6.5.3, p. 49 [1]. 39 See Equations 6.16 in prEN 1990 6.5.3, p. 49 [1].