PA Jackson, GM Walker page 1

DESIGN ILLUSTRATION CONCRETE BRIDGE DESIGN

Paul Jackson, Gifford, Southampton, UK
Graeme Walker, Gifford, Southampton, UK

Abstract
A worked example for an integral precast prestressed beam and in situ slab bridge designed to
the Eurocodes has been published as a design guide. The purpose of the guide is to help ease
the transition to designing to Eurocodes for UK bridge engineers, in conjunction with the
other guidance documents that have been produced. This paper introduces the design
example, discusses key issues it raised and makes comparisons with previous UK practice.

Introduction
The Concrete Bridge Development Group decided that an advisory publication[1] was needed
to help ease the transition to Eurocode design for UK bridge engineers. The guiding objective
of their publication was to help bridge engineers as much as possible, rather than to sell the
publication. Because of this, it was designed to complement, rather than compete with, other
publications. The only specifically concrete bridge publication known to be in preparation
was the Thomas Telford Guide[2]. This is a clause by clause guide. It was felt the most
helpful complementary document would be a complete design example. It was further
decided that a precast prestressed beam and in situ slab structure would be best to illustrate as
many aspects of the code as possible. An integral bridge was used because current thinking
favoured such designs.

At the time work was started in 2004, EN 1992-2 itself was not fully finalised, its NA was in
very early phases and the decision to issue PDs had not been made. It was intended,
however, to publish the design example in time for implementation which it was still
anticipated would be in time for the intended two year co-existence period before
withdrawal date in 2010. In the event, implementation got delayed but some of the
documents were delayed further. In particular, despite delay in finalising the example, it
proved necessary to complete the design example with only a draft of PD 6694-1
Recommendations for the design of structures subject to traffic loading to BS EN 1997-
1:2004[3]. This meant the coverage of specifically integral bridge issues could not be as
complete as originally hoped as it was this part of PD 6694-1 which was most subject to
change.

In this paper the design example will be described, some issues it raised discussed and
comparison will also be made with BS 5400 design. It is not possible to cover every stage of
the design process in this paper. Instead, it will concentrate on those areas which differ most
from previous practice or those where significant savings can potentially be made.

Scheme Design
The scheme chosen for the design example was a two span integral bridge, with equal spans
each having a length of 20.0m. The bridge carries a 7.3m wide carriageway with a 2.0m wide
P A Jackson, G M Walker 2

footway on either side. The superstructure consists of eight standard precast, pretensioned
concrete Y beams with a 160 mm deep in-situ reinforced concrete deck slab cast on ribbed
permanent GRC formwork. There are in-situ diaphragms at the abutments and pier.

The superstructure is made integral with the substructure. The foundations for the bridge
consist of precast concrete piles with in-situ pile-caps. The pile-caps at the abutments are
integral with the end diaphragms, while the pier wall is rigidly fixed to both its pile cap and
the central diaphragm, avoiding the need for bearings altogether and simplifying the
construction.

The integral abutments are small and the piles relatively flexible in order to avoid excessive
reactions resulting from thermal expansion of the deck. However, there is still sufficient fill
behind the abutment diaphragms to resist longitudinal acceleration and braking forces.

Transverse Section

Elevation (Half in Section)

Figure 1. Details of integral bridge

Model and Analysis

The global analysis of the deck was carried out using a grillage model with eight longitudinal
members at 1.5m centres representing the precast beams and associated sections of deck slab,
and transverse members at 1.85m centres. The restraint provided by the pier and abutments
were represented by rotational springs. The superstructure and sub-structure could have been
modelled together in a single 3D model, but the practicalities of the design process mean that
they may often be considered separately in this case, the PD6694-1[3], which was
particularly relevant to the substructure design, was not available when the design of the
superstructure commenced.
P A Jackson, G M Walker 3

The analysis also had to take into account the construction sequence and the resulting
distribution of load. As the bridge does not become continuous until the deck slab and
diaphragms are cast and the concrete set, all dead load for the main part of the bridge is
carried by the precast beams alone. Therefore, the load effects of the dead weight were
analysed using a simple line beam model, pinned at the abutments and pier, and the results
added to those of the grillage model. However, this approach was only considered for the
serviceability limit state (SLS) at the ultimate limit state (ULS) the strain discontinuity
between the precast and in-situ concrete is not worth considering and all results are obtained
from the grillage model.

The flexural stiffness of the concrete members used in the analysis was generally calculated
assuming uncracked cross-sections. However, BS EN 15050:2007[4], Annex D recommends
that cracked section properties be used for the reinforced concrete diaphragm over the pier for
the calculation of hogging moments, and this approach was used here.

Materials and Cover

Class C50/60 concrete was used for the precast beams and C35/45 used for all in-situ
concrete, with the associated material properties taken from BS EN 1992-1-1:2004[5], 3.1.

The exposure classes are specified in Section 4 of BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 and BS EN 1992-

2:2005[6] and in BS 8500-1:2006[7]. The example bridge is assumed to be passing over a
carriageway, and so this is classified as XD3 (exposed to spray containing chlorides). The
bridge soffit is more than 5 metres above the carriageway and so according to the UK
National Annex to BS EN 1992-2[8], NA.4.2(106) does not have to be classified as XD3,
though it does not explicitly specify what it should be classified as. XD1 (exposed to airborne
chlorides) would appear most suitable and is confirmed by BS 8500-1: 2006. The top of the
deck is protected by waterproofing and so the UK National Annex to BS EN 1992-2,
NA.4.2(105) allows this to be classified as XC3.

The minimum cover for durability is a factor of exposure class and concrete class and type.
The UK National Annex to BS EN 1992-1-1[9] specifies that minimum cover requirements
should be taken from BS 8500-1:2006, rather than Tables 4.3N, 4.4N and 4.5N of BS EN
1992-1-1:2004. To this minimum cover must be added an allowance for deviation. Values for
this were taken from the Highways Agencys Interim Advice Note 95/07 Revised guidance
regarding the use of BS 8500(2006) for the design and construction of structures using
concrete[10], which is slightly more onerous than the minimum values given in the UK
National Annex to BS EN 1992-1-1:2004.

The proposed European standard for prestressing steel, EN 10138 Prestressing Steels, has yet
to receive a positive vote. While it is likely to be published in the future, in the meantime BS
5896:1980[11] has been amended to cover 1860 grade 15.7mm strand.

Reinforcing steel is covered by BS EN 10080:2005[12] and BS 4449:2005[13] it is the latter

that specifies the required properties for the standardised grades.
P A Jackson, G M Walker 4

Actions
Actions can be divided into three main types permanent, variable and accidental actions.

Permanent actions include self weight, settlement and differential shrinkage. Material
densities for calculating self weight can be obtained from BS EN 1991-1-1:2002[14], Annex A.
Differential settlement was arbitrarily taken as 20mm for this example - A more rigorous
estimate should be calculated for a real structure. Generally, the effect of settlement need
only be taken into account at SLS, as there is sufficient ductility to justify ignoring it at ULS
(BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 2.3.1.3(3)). Differential shrinkage, due to the in-situ deck being cast
after the precast beams and so shrinking more relative to them, causes tension within the deck
slab, compression within the beams and an overall sagging of the deck. As with settlement,
provided the bridge has adequate ductility, this effect can be neglected at the ultimate limit
state (BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 2.3.2.2(2)). Shrinkage is discussed further later in this paper.

Variable actions comprise wind, thermal, construction and traffic loads. Wind loading on
heavy, short span bridges such as this is not a critical loadcase, and so was neglected in this
example.

BS EN 1991-1-5:2003[15] gives two options subject to National Determination for differential

temperature in bridges but, with the options specified in the UK National Annex to BS EN
1991-1-5[16], it is very similar to BS 5400-2:2006[17], having largely been based on this code.

Traffic loads differ more compared to BS 5400-2:2006, but are generally simpler. Before any
traffic loads can be applied, the carriageway must be divided up into notional lanes, as
specified in BS EN 1991-2:2003[18], Table 4.1. For the 7.3m wide carriageway considered in
the example, two 3.0m wide notional lanes and a remaining area 1.3m wide are defined. As
with BS 5400-2:2006, the positions of these notional lanes do not have to correspond with the
lane markings on the bridge. Instead, the lanes and the remaining area are positioned to create
the most severe load effect for each element under consideration.

Three traffic load models were applied to the bridge Load Model 1 (LM1), which is the
equivalent to HA loading in BS 5400-2:2006, LM 2, a single axle load, and LM 3, which
represents abnormal vehicles.

LM1 comprises a UDL and a double axle loading, referred to as a tandem system or TS
in each lane, and a UDL in the remaining area. Thanks to the nationally determined
adjustment factors given in the UK National Annex to BS EN 1991-2[19], this UDL takes a
constant value of 5.5kN/m2 across all lanes and the remaining area, irrespective of the number
of lanes or the loaded length. This greatly simplifies analysis.

Load Model 2 (LM2) is a single axle load, 33% heavier than one of the axles of the LM1
tandem system. However, LM2 is not combined with other traffic models so is generally only
critical for local effects for example, when considering transverse flexure or punching shear
in the deck slab of this design example.

Load Model 3 (LM3) represents Abnormal Vehicles. A series of load models are defined in
the UK National Annex to BS EN 1991-2:2003 for the design of UK road bridges. These will
P A Jackson, G M Walker 5

be familiar to those who have used BD 86/07[20]. There are three SV80, SV100 and SV196
representing STGO vehicles with maximum gross weights of 80t, 100t and 196t gross train
weight respectively, the last being a 150t vehicle with a separate tractor. There is also a
further series of models representing heavier Special Order Vehicles which are equivalent to
the old AIL vehicles whish were not covered by BS 5400. It should be noted that dynamic
amplification factors must be applied to the axle loads of LM3 these are already
incorporated into the other load models. The UK National Annex states that the choice of
load model should be determined for each individual project. The choice of SV196 for this
design example, which is assumed to be carrying a trunk road, is in line with the best current
guidance, the Highway Agencys Interim Advice Note 123/10 Use of Eurocodes for the
design of highway structures[21].

There is a fourth load model, LM4, which represents crowd loading. By inspection, this load
model, which comprises a UDL of 5kN/m2 across the entire deck, was not critical for this
bridge and so was not considered. It appears in the UK it will rarely be critical. It is required
in BS EN 1991-2:2003 because with the recommended values the LM1 UDL is less severe
than LM4 except in Lane 1.

Creep and Shrinkage

The analysis of creep and shrinkage is little changed from BS 5400-4:1990[22] but the
derivation of the free strains, particularly for shrinkage, is. BS 5400-4:1990 contained simple
figures in the main text for estimating prestress losses and a more detailed appendix which
often gave very different results, particularly for timescale. The approach in the BS 5400-
4:1990 appendix was based on the 1978 edition of the CEB/FIP model code but that in EN
1992 is based on the 1990 edition[23]. It splits shrinkage into drying and autogenous
components. This gives more realistic results as the two components have very different
sensitivities to the various variables considered. The newer approach also uses formulae
rather than diagrams which is more convenient when using spreadsheets.

SLS Design
The serviceability limit state (SLS) governs for most prestressed structures. Three sets of
checks can be required decompression, crack widths and stress limits. Reinforced concrete
elements only require crack widths and stress limits to be checked. However, SLS
considerations will rarely govern for reinforced concrete, particularly as the crack width
criteria are less onerous than in BS 5400-4:1990.

In a departure from previous practice, SLS checks even in prestressed concrete, are carried
out using cracked section analysis whenever the tensile flexural stress exceeds the effective
tensile strength, fct,eff. However, this will normally only arise when either there is no chloride
exposure so decompression does not have to be checked or when sections are being checked
which do not have tendons close to the tension face. Sections which are checked for
decompression and have tendons close to the tension face, such as here, will usually continue
to be analysed using an uncracked section. Where cracked sections are considered, it makes
the calculations more involved but this is generally not a problem as the cracked section
analysis can be done by computer. However, it does mean that the prestress can no longer be
calculated directly from a set of equations: as with crack width checks of RC, it is necessary
to assume a design and check it
P A Jackson, G M Walker 6

Decompression
For XD (chloride) exposure, the decompression limit is checked under the frequent load
combination (i.e. with a reduced frequent value of Load Model 1, and no Load Model 3
(abnormal vehicles), as specified in BS EN 1991-2, Table 4.4b). All concrete within a
distance from the tendons equal to the minimum cover distance required for durability
(cmin,dur) must remain in compression (UK National annex to BS EN 1992-2:2005, NA.2.2).
For the strand pattern shown in Figure 2, the concrete located cmin,dur (30mm) below the lowest
tendons remained in compression at midspan. If prestressing tendons had been included near
the top of the beam, then decompression of the concrete around these tendons due to hogging
over the pier would have had to have been checked as well.

In parallel with the development of the design example, the same bridge was designed to BS
5400 for comparison. It was found that in terms of prestressing requirements, the two designs
came out almost identical. However, if the bridge had been passing over a train track or fresh
water river, the soffit of the beams would not be exposed to chlorides. Under these
circumstances the UK National annex to BS EN 1992-2:2005, NA.2.2 does not require
decompression to be checked under the frequent load combination. Instead, only crack widths
need be checked under this load combination, with decompression being checked under the
less onerous quasi-permanent load combination (i.e. no traffic load since 2 = 0 for traffic
actions). It was found that in this case, the level of prestress could be reduced by
approximately 25%, or the beam section size reduced, either of which would result in
significant savings.

Transfer and tendon arrangement

Along with decompression in service, transfer will often govern the design. BS 5400 had an
explicit requirement for concrete that goes into tension at transfer, namely that the tension
should not exceed 1N/mm2. This normally required strand in the top of pretensioned beams.
EN 1992 has no equivalent and so the normal rules apply. Without the 1N/mm2 tension
allowance, this can be marginally more restrictive. However, there is an irony that the top
strand is there to comply with decompression criterion which only has to be complied with
because the top strand is there. If the strand is not provided, it would only be necessary to
check crack width at the top of the beam. This would enable you to dispense with the top
strand completely, but you would have to provide reinforcement in its place to control crack
widths. In purely material terms, this would probably be more economic, if only because the
reinforcement could easily be curtailed where it was not needed. However, in the practical
situation of precasting, it is not clear this would really represent a saving. For this particular
case, it was found that the use of reinforcement in the top of the beam made it possible to
eliminate debonding of the lower tendons, which would result in further cost savings. An
alternative approach would be to limit the top stress to fct,eff using strands nearer the top than
in Figure 2 but still located low enough down so that the decompression requirement is
complied with at transfer.
P A Jackson, G M Walker 7

Figure 2. Beam section showing strand positions

BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 5.10.2.2 places a limit on the maximum concrete stress at transfer of

60% of the characteristic concrete strength at the time of transfer. This may be increased to
70% if it can be justified by tests or experience that longitudinal cracking is prevented. It is
expected that precast concrete manufacturers will use this increase and it was used in this
example

BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 explicitly states that the maximum transfer stress is derived from a
characteristic value of concrete strength this is a departure from previous practice, where
BS 5400 was less specific and a value derived from a small number of cubes (often the lowest
of three) was commonly used. It is expected that in practice, rather than casting enough cubes
to derive an accurate characteristic strength each time, precasters will use a small number of
cubes in conjunction with historic records of the concrete variability that they achieve.

Stress limits
Because the same limit to compressive stress is used in prestressed and RC, the compression
limit in prestressed is higher than before. However, this will rarely give any advantage in this
type of structure. Cracked section properties will have to be used for prestressed sections
where the effective tensile stress is exceeded, but in practice this will cause little extra work
for most engineers who routinely use computer programs for such calculations anyway.

Crack widths
For the bridge deck in this example, crack widths only had to be checked in the hogging
region of the deck over the central pier (the hogging moment at the abutments being lower)
and in the top of the beam at transfer. In principle, crack width in the deck slab in the
transverse direction would also have to be considered but, because of the quasi permanent
combination considered, this would clearly not be critical. Two methods are presented for
checking crack widths. The method involving direct calculation looks somewhat complicated
due to the large number of parameters and so this method was used in the design example to
demonstrate and, hopefully, clarify the procedure.
P A Jackson, G M Walker 8

There is also a simplified method that avoids direct calculation and it is believed that this
method will be used by engineers in most instances. This method tends to be less
conservative, apparently because it is based on a lower cover value than is usual on bridges,
but for this particular example would have given the same bar spacing as the calculation
method. However, ULS and fatigue considerations governed rather than crack widths, as
might be expected for the reinforced concrete deck and diaphragms.

ULS Design
Flexure and shear
EN 1992 differs little from previous practice with regards to flexure unsurprising given that
flexure is the best understood aspect of concrete structural design.

There is a significant difference between EN 1992 and BS 5400-4:1990 with regards the
calculation of shear resistance. As will have been discussed elsewhere in this conference, the
EN 1992 approach will generally result in prestressed members having more shear links than
they would have required if designed to BS 5400-4:1990. However, for the design example,
this difference was not significant, as it was the requirement for interface shear reinforcement
between the precast beams and deck that governed the spacing of the shear links, with B12
bars at 75mm centres required close to the supports, compared to 250mm centres for flexural
shear resistance

Fatigue
EN 1992 provides three methods for verifying the fatigue resistance of the reinforcement.
The first is to calculate the cumulative fatigue damage due to the predicted cyclic load history
of the structure. This is unlikely to be practical for most structures.

BS EN 1992-1-1, 6.8.6(2) allows a simplified method (which cannot be used for the tendons)
whereby provided the stress range in the bars due to the cyclic (live load) portion of the
frequent load combination is less than a certain value, k1, the fatigue resistance can be
considered adequate. The recommended value of k1 = 70 MPa is retained by the UK National
Annex, but is increased (albeit in this particular case only to 85MPa) in PD 6687-2:2008[24],
Table 2A as discussed in the earlier paper on that document. For the design example, the
stress in the deck reinforcement over the pier was 128MPa, indicating that the area of steel
required for flexural resistance needs to be increased by 50% to provide adequate fatigue
resistance.

However, the alternative damage equivalent stress range method is significantly less
conservative, if more time consuming to carry out. The stress range in the bars or tendons due
to a special load model (Fatigue Load Model 3) is calculated. This stress range is then
multiplied by a series of factors that allow for site specific factors such as traffic volume or
design life. The fatigue resistance is deemed adequate if this modified stress range is less than
the permissible stress range for the bar or tendon at N* cycles. For the reinforcement over the
pier the permissible stress range is 141 MPa and the calculated damage equivalent stress
range is just lower than this, at 140 MPa. It can therefore be seen that significant reductions in
reinforcement may be possible through the use of the damage equivalent stress range method
compared to the simplified method.
P A Jackson, G M Walker 9

Pier Design
When considering the pier, the forces due to the loading on the bridge deck can be obtained
from the support reactions on the grillage model of the deck. In addition, the effects of
accidental vehicle impact on the pier must be considered. The loading used is similar in
principle to BD 60/04[25] and comprises two components which must be considered together,
a main and residual force. Two directions need to be considered forces parallel to and
perpendicular to the carriageway. However, only one direction should be considered at a
time. When considering the accidental loads, it must be remembered that action factors are
not used and different material partial factors are specified for accidental loads from those
used for ULS cases.

Imperfection in the construction of the pier means that axial loads can produce additional
moments. BS EN 1992-2:2005 requires that this is taken into account in the analysis in two
ways. Firstly, it is assumed that any axial load is applied with an eccentricity of 1/30th of the
depth of the section (but not less than 20mm). Secondly, the column is assumed to deviate
slightly from the vertical, while the axial force remains vertical. These effects produce
additional moments that are additive to those obtained from the grillage model of the deck.

Tall, thin piers may buckle under axial loading. The likelihood of this is related to the
slenderness of the member. Provided the slenderness of an axially loaded member is below a
limiting value then buckling does not need to be considered the pier considered in the
design example was relatively stocky, with a length to depth ratio of 10.2 and so buckling
could be neglected.

Conclusion and Comments

This paper has considered the design of a prestressed beam and slab concrete integral bridge
designed to the Eurocodes. This design has been published as a worked example and
accompanying commentary to assist UK bridge engineers in the transition to Eurocodes.
Some of the key conclusions that can be drawn from the design example are:

i) For structures subject to de-icing salt or marine environments, the design of

prestressed sections of highway bridges to BS EN 1992-2:2005 comes out very similar
to BS5400. It appears from other calibration work that this will always be the case for
normal structures where the tendons are reasonably close to the tension face at the
critical sections.
ii) Where not exposed to chlorides, significant savings can be made in the amount of
prestress required when compared to BS 5400.
iii) The simplified method for carrying out fatigue checks appears to be very conservative,
and significant savings in reinforcement quantities will be possible in many situations
if the damage equivalent stress range method is used instead.

However, the most important conclusion is that the design of concrete bridges to the
Eurocodes is no harder than it was to BS 5400, its just different.
P A Jackson, G M Walker 10

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Concrete Bridge Development
Group, and Alan Tovey in particular, in the development of this design example. Thanks also
go to the CBDG Technical Committee and to Barry Skinner of Bestech and Owen Brooker
and Charles Goodchild of TCC and others for their comments and input into the design
example as well as to Peter Takcs (now of Grontmij) for early work on the design and to
Stephen West for work on the geotechnical aspects.

References
[1] Jackson, P.A, Takcs, P.F., Walker, G.M. and West S. (2010). Integral Concrete
Bridges to Eurocode 2. Concrete Bridge Development Group and the Concrete
Society, UK.
[2] Hendy, C.R. and Smith, D.A. (2007). Designers Guide to EN 1992. Eurocode 2:
Design of concrete structures. Part 2: concrete bridges. Thomas Telford, UK.
[3] PD 6694-1 (2008 Draft for public comment). Recommendations for the design of
structures subject to traffic loading to BS EN 1997-1:2004. BSi, London, UK.
[4] BS EN 15050:2007. Precast concrete bridge elements. BSi, London, UK.
[5] BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 incorporating Corrigendum January 2008. Eurocode 2: Design
of concrete structures Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. BSi, London,
UK.
[6] BS EN 1992-2:2005 incorporating Corrigendum July 2008. Eurocode 2: Design of
concrete structures Part 2: Concrete bridges Design and detailing rules. BSi,
London, UK.
[7] BS 8500-1:2006. Concrete Complementary British Standard to BS EN 206-1 Part
1: Method of specifying and guidance for the specifier. BSi, London, UK.
[8] UK National Annex to BS EN 1992-2 (2007). UK National Annex to Eurocode 2:
Design of concrete structures Part 2: Concrete bridges Design and detailing rules.
BSi, London, UK.
[9] UK National Annex to BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 incorporating National Amendment
No.1 (2009). UK National Annex to Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures Part
1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. BSi, London, UK.
[10] Interim Advice Note 95/07 (2007). Revised guidance regarding the use of BS
8500(2006) for the design and construction of structures using concrete. The
Highways Agency, UK.
[11] BS 5896:1980 incorporating Amendment No. 1 (2007). Specification for high tensile
steel wire and strand for the prestressing of concrete. BSi, London, UK.
[12] BS EN 10080:2005. Steel for the reinforcement of concrete. BSi, London, UK.
[13] BS 4449:2005. Steel for the reinforcement of concrete Weldable reinforcing steel
Bar, coil and decoiled product Specification. BSi, London, UK.
[14] BS EN 1991-1-1:2002 incorporating Corrigendum No. 1 (2004). Eurocode 1: Actions
on structures Part 1-1: General actions Densities, self-weight, imposed loads for
buildings. BSi, London, UK.
[15] BS EN 1991-1-5:2003 incorporating Corrigendum No. 1 (2004). Eurocode 1: Actions
on structures Part 1-5: General actions Thermal actions. BSi, London, UK.
P A Jackson, G M Walker 11

[16] UK National Annex to BS EN 1991-1-5 (2007). UK National Annex to Eurocode 1:

Actions on structures Part 1-5: General actions Thermal actions. BSi, London,
UK.
[17] BS 5400-2:2006. Steel, concrete and composite bridges Part 2: Specification for
loads. BSi, London, UK.
[18] BS EN 1991-2:2003 incorporating Corrigendum No. 1 (2004). Eurocode 1: Actions on
structures Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. BSi, London, UK.
[19] UK National Annex to BS EN 1991-2:2003 incorporating Corrigendum No. 1 (2008).
UK National Annex to Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 2: Traffic loads on
bridges. BSi, London, UK.
[20] BD 86/07 (2007). The assessment of highway bridges and structures for the effects of
special types general order (STGO) and special order (SO) vehicles. The Highways
Agency, UK.
[21] Interim Advice Note 123/10 (2010). Use of Eurocodes for the design of highway
structures. The Highway Agency, UK.
[22] BS 5400-4:1990. Steel, concrete and composite bridges Part 4: Code of practice for
design of concrete bridges. BSi, London, UK.
[23] CEB/FIP model code 1990 (1993). Design Code. Thomas Telford, UK.
[24] PD 6687-2:2008. Recommendations for the design of structures to BS EN 1992-
2:2005. BSi, London, UK.
[25] BD 60/04 (2004). The design of highway bridges for vehicle collision loads. The
Highways Agency, UK,