Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey

Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis

UNIT 3:
Traffic Loads on Highway Bridges – BS EN 1991 - 2

(Study time allocation = 10 hours)

1. Introduction
The current national standards will be withdrawn by December 2009 and will be
replaced by the 10 parts Structural Eurocodes. The first part (BS EN 1990)
establishes the basis of structural design, Eurocode 1 (BS EN 1991) includes various
loading requirements for the design of new highway bridges and structures. EN
1991-2 (2003) defines imposed loading models and representative values associated
with highway traffic, pedestrian, and railway traffic actions (loading). These are
described in detail in this unit.

2. Termenologies
The general definitions and terms are provided in EN 1990, whereas the terms
specific to the traffic loading are defined in En 1991. A few commonly used terms,
relevant to the highway bridge loads, are reproduced here for reference purposes.

2.1. Deck
Part of a bridge which carry the traffic loading over piers, abutments and other
walls.

2.2. Tandem system

Assembly of two consecutive axles considered to be simultaneously loaded.

2.3. Action (F)

An action is termed as a force (load), or imposed deformation (caused by
temperature changes, uneven settlement, etc.), applied to the structure.

2.3.1. Permanent Action (G)

Action that is likely to persist through the design life of a structure and for which
variation in magnitude with time is negligible.

2.3.2. Variable Action (Q)

Action for which variation in magnitude with time is neither negligible nor
monotonic.

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.3.1

Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey

For normal conditions of use, the traffic actions and pedestrian loads should be
considered as variable actions.

2.3.3. Accidental Action (A)

An action, usually of shorter duration but of high magnitude, that is unlikely to
occur on a given structure during the design working life.
Static equivalent actions (loads) generated due to collision of road vehicles and
trains either over or under the bridge (i.e. on the bridge deck and parapets, or
bridge supports respectively) are categorised as accidental actions.

2.3.4. Geotechnical Action

Action transmitted to the structure by t he ground, fill or ground water.

2.4. Effect of Action (E)

Effect of actions on structural member, e.g. moment, stress, strain, or on the
whole structure, e.g. deflection and rotation, etc.

2.5. Design situations

Sets of physical conditions representing the real conditions occurring during a
certain time interval for which the design will demonstrate that relevant limit
states are not exceeded.

2.5.1. Transient Design Situations

Design situation that is relevant during a period much shorter than the design
working life of the structure and which has a high probability of occurrence. This
generally refer to the conditions of temporary use, e.g. during repair and
maintenance.

2.5.2. Persistent Design Situations

Design situation that is relevant during a period of the order of the same
magnitude as the design working life of the structure. This generally refer to the
conditions of normal use.

2.5.3. Accidental Design Situations

Design situation involving exceptional conditions of the structure or its
exposure, including fire, explosion, impact or local failure.

2.6. Carriageway for Highway Bridges (w)

Carriageway is that part of the running surface, supported by a single structure,
which includes all traffic lanes, hard shoulders, hard strips and marker strips.

The carriageway width is the width between raised kerbs. If raised kerbs are not
present, the carriageway width is the width between inner limits of vehicle restraint
systems.

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.3.2

Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey

If permanent vehicle restraint system is used at central reservation, i.e. it is not

de-mountable; the distance between the vehicle restraint systems should not be
included in calculating carriageway width.

2.7. Notional lanes

Notional lanes are defined as the notional part of a carriageway used solely for the
purpose of applying specified live loads. These are measured in a direction at right
angles to the line of raised curbs, lane markers or edge marking.

The width of a notional lane, w1, and the number of lanes, n1, are established using
Table 4.1 of BS EN 1991-2 (Table 2.1 of the handouts).

Table 2.1: Width and Number of notional lanes for various carriageway widths

Note that the minimum carriageway width for two notional lanes has been increased
from 5m (in BS5400-2) to 5.4m (in EN1991). Similarly, the maximum notional lane
width has been reduced from 3.65m (from BS5400-2) to 3m (in EN1991). The
concept of remaining area is introduced in EN1991 by fixing the notional lane width at
3m (one exception to this, see table 2.1).

Whilst calculating the no. of notional lanes, if the bridge is divided into two parts
through the use of permanently fixed central reservation, the notional lanes are
calculated separately for each part and added up to obtain total no. of notional lanes.
If the central reservation is de-mountable (e.g. during repairs or future extensions)
then the total width (including the central reservation) must be considered as a
carriageway.

As in the case of BS5400, the notional lane numbers are interchangeable and
must be selected to give most adverse effect for the selected limit state. The lane
giving most unfavourable effect is numbered as Lane Number 1, The lane giving
second most unfavourable effect is numbered as Lane number 2, and so on.

If the carriageway consists of two separate parts, e.g. separated by permanent

central reservation, only one numbering should be used for the whole carriageway,
e.g. lane number 1 can only exist once for the entire carriageway. Keeping in mind
that the notional lane numbers are interchangeable, multiple cases of notional lane
numbering will be necessary for the design of individual elements of the deck.

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.3.3

Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey

3. Vertical Traffic Actions

The application and intensity of the traffic loads depends upon:

i. The carriageway width

ii. The loaded length
iii. The number of loaded lanes

Although four load models are defined in EN1991-2, the two most prominent load
models are LM1 and LM2. The LM3 is the loading model for special vehicles, which
is to be used for bridges on main routes where abnormal loads are permitted. LM4 is
a crowd loading for bridges, e.g. located in or near towns. Whilst load models 1, 2
and 3 are intended for both general and local verifications of limit states and for all
types of design situations, load model 4 is intended only for general verification (i.e.
for global analysis) only for some transient design situations.

3.1. Load Model 1

Load model 1 consists of two partial systems.

3.1.1. Uniformly Distributed System (UDL System)

UDL system consists of a UDL load applied on the unfavourable areas of the influence
surface, both longitudinally and transversally. The magnitude of the load is given by
αqqk
Where αq are adjustment factors, and qk is the weight per square metre of the notional lane.

3.1.2. Tandem System (TS)

The TS consists of a double axle concentrated loads, with each axle weight given by
αQQk
Where αQ are adjustment factors, and Qk is the weight of each axle of the TS.

3.1.3. Application of Load Model 1

Load Model 1 should be applied on each notional lane and on the remaining area. Only one
complete tandem system is applied per notional lane. The magnitude of UDL and TS is
dependent on the notional lane number, given in Table 4.2 of the code (Table 2.2 of the
handouts). These values include the effects of dynamic amplification.

Table 2.2: Width Load model 1: Characteristic values

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.3.4

Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey

BS EN 1991-2 optimised the LM 1 for up to 200m loaded lengths, and considers its use being
somewhat conservative for longer lengths. However, National Annex recommended the use of
this model for loaded lengths of up to 1500m.

The values of adjustment factors depend upon the expected traffic and on class of routes.
These are taken as 1.0 unless specified otherwise. The exact values for the adjustment factors
are left for national annexes but the values of αQ is restricted to a minimum of 0.8, whereas αq
is limited to a minimum of 1.0 for 2nd and subsequent notional lanes (BS EN 1991-2). Values
for the adjustment factors are defined in National Annex Table NA 1 (Table 2.3 of handouts).

Table 2.3: Adjustment factors for Load model 1.

For the assessment of general (global) effects, each tandem system is centrally travelled
along the notional lane as shown in the following figure (Fig. 2.4a of EN1991-2).

Figure 2.1: Application of Load Model 1 for General assessment.

BS EN1991-2 allows the general effects to be calculated using the following two alternative
simplified rules for the given special circumstances and subject to conditions provided in the

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.3.5

Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey

national annex. The UK National Annex does not permit their use for bridges designed in the
UK.
a) For bridges with carriageway width of three or more notional lanes, a tandem system
with following axle weight can be used to replace the second and third tendon system.
The first tandem system will remain unaffected.
(200 αQ2 + 100 αQ3) kN
b) For span lengths greater than 10m, each tandem system in each notional lane is
replaced by one axle concentrated load of weight equal to the total weight of the two
axles.

For local verifications, a tandem system will be applied at the most unfavourable location. If
two tendon systems are applied on adjacent notional lanes, they may be brought closer, as
shown in Fig. 2.2 (Figure 4.2b of EN1991-2).

Figure 2.2: Application of tandem system for local verifications.

In both, general and local verifications, the contact surface of each wheel of tandem
system can be taken as 0.4m x 0.4m square, as shown in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3: Contact surface for each wheel of tandem system.

For local verifications, the loads may be considered as uniformly distributed over the
contact area. The dispersion through the pavement and concrete slabs should be
taken at a spread-to-depth ratio of 1 horizontally to 1 vertically down to the level of
the centroid of the slab. For orthotropic decks, this dispersion is taken down to the
level of the middle plane of the structural top plate. In this case, the transverse
distribution of the load among the ribs of the orthotropic deck is not considered.

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.3.6

Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey

3.2. Load Model 2

Load model 2 consists of a single axle load, βQ Qak, with Qak equal to 400 kN,
distributed equally between the two wheel. One or both of the wheels may be applied
at a location on carriageway to give adverse effects in the member under
consideration.

The UK National Annex has fixed the value of βQ equal to αQ1, which is ‘1.0’. This
was also the recommendation of BS EN 1991-2:2003. The load model 2 is shown in
Fig. 2.4.

Where, X = Bridge longitudinal axes

1 = Kerb

Figure 2.4: Load Model 2

BS EN 1991-2 have allowed National Annex to define the size of wheel (equal to the
LM1) but recommended 0.35m x 0.6m, as shown in Fig. 2.4. The UK National
Annex have restricted the wheel size equal to LM1, i.e. a square of sides equal
to 0.4m, as shown in Fig. 2.3.

Dynamic amplification factors are included in the above values, which are based on
pavement of good quality. Additional amplification factor, Δφfat, must be taken into
account for any cross-section within 6m from the expansion joint (Cl. 4.3.3(3) and Cl.
4.6.1(6) of BS EN 1991-2).

Where D = diatance (in m) of the cross-section under consideration from the

expansion joint.

For local verifications, the loads may be considered as uniformly distributed over the
contact area. The dispersion through the pavement and concrete slabs should be
taken at a spread-to-depth ratio of 1 horizontally to 1 vertically down to the level of
the centroid of the slab. For orthotropic decks, this dispersion is taken down to the

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.3.7

Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey

level of the middle plane of the structural top plate. In this case, the transverse
distribution of the load among the ribs of the orthotropic deck is not considered.

3.3. Load Model 3

Load model 3, also termed as ‘Special Vehicle’ is to be used for main routes, where
these vehicles will be permitted. The exact model and its conditions of use are left
down to the National Annex, but a standard models and their condition of use are
defined in Annex A of BS EN 1991-2.

The Special vehicles (LM3) to be used for bridges in the UK are defined in the UK
National Annex (NA 2.16). These are not the actual vehicles but calibrated such that
they simulate the effects of actual vehicle, including the dynamic effects.

NA 2.16 defines three SV (special vehicle) model for STGO (special type general
order) and four SOV (Special order vehicles) models. The axle weights and position
of these vehicles and the condition of their use is specified in the NA 2.16, but the
choice of a particular SV and SOV are to be decided for the individual project.

3.4. Load Model 4

Load model 4, also termed as ‘Crowd Loading’ consists of a uniformly distributed
load equal to 5 kN/m2. This value includes the effect of dynamic amplification.

This load is applied on relevant parts of the length and width of the road bridge deck,
including central reservation where relevant. As explained earlier, this loading is
intended only for general verification, and should be associated only with transient
design situations.

4. Horizontal Traffic Actions

4.1. Breaking and acceleration forces
The breaking and acceleration forces (Qlk) are longitudinal forces acting at the
surface level of the carriageway. These may exist on a bridge due to the breaking or
acceleration of the traffic on the bridge. These are a function of the vertical forces
applied on the bridge. The breaking and acceleration forces are considered equal in
magnitude but opposite in direction, i.e. Qlk may be negative as well as positive.

Being a function of the vertical forces, the magnitude of Qlk, is different depending
upon the nature and magnitude of vertical traffic load. The magnitude of these forces
are calculated as per sub-sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2.

4.1.1. Corresponding to LM 1,
The characteristic value of Qlk, limited to 900 kN for the total width of the bridge, is
calculated as follows;

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.3.8

Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey

Where L is the length of the deck, or the part of it under consideration.

This force may be applied on Lane No. 1, where highest magnitude of the LM1 is
applied.

4.1.2. Corresponding to LM3,

The UK’s National Annex defines the longitudinal force as the more severe of either
breaking or acceleration force.

The characteristic value of longitudinal breaking force on individual axles, Qlk,S,

expressed in kN, of special vehicles (both SV and SOV) is given by;

Qlk , S = δw

Where δ is the deceleration factor and w is the basic axle load of the relevant SV or
SOV vehicle in kN. The value of δ is defined in the UK National Annex as follows

Table 2.4: Value of deceleration factor, δ .

Description Deceleration factor, δ
SV80 0.5

SV100 0.4

SV196 0.25

All SOV Vehicles 0.2

It should be noted that the deceleration factor, δ, decreases with the increase in axle
weight. This may be related to the lower operating speeds of such heavy vehicles.
Lower factor for SOV is due to the fact that these will generally be escorted.

The characteristic value of acceleration force is taken as 10% of the gross weight of
the SV or SOV vehicle and distributed between the axles and wheels in the same
proportion as the vertical loads.

4.1.3. Horizontal force transmitted by expansion joints

The horizontal force transmitted by expansion joints, or applied to structural members
that can be loaded by only one axle, is calculated as follows (Cl. 4.4.1(6) of BS EN
1991-2, NA2.19)

4.2. Centrifugal Forces

The centrifugal forces are important only for horizontally curved bridges, with a radius
of less than 1500m, supported on slender piers.

The centrifugal force, Qtk, is taken as a transverse force acting at the finished
carriageway level and radially to the axis of the carriageway. This may be applied as
a point load at any deck cross-section.

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.3.9

Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey

Similar to the longitudinal forces, the centrifugal forces also depends upon the
vertical forces.

4.2.1. Corresponding to LM 1,
The characteristic value of Qtk, including dynamic effects, is given by the following
Table (Table 4.3 of BS EN 1991-2).
Table 2.5: Characteristic values of centrifugal forces.

Where r is the horizontal radius of the carriageway centre line.

Qv is the total maximum weight of vertical concentrated loads of the tandem
system of LM1, i.e.

4.2.2. Corresponding to LM 3,
BS EN 1991-2 does not specify any values for centrifugal forces corresponding to
LM3. UK National Annex defines these values in cl.NA2.18.2 for both SV and SOV
vehicles.

4.3. Transverse Forces due to Skewed Breaking / Acceleration

Transverse force may also be generated due to skewed breaking or acceleration on
the bridge.

BS EN 1991-2 quantifies this force, Qtrk, as 25% of the longitudinal breaking or

acceleration force, Qlk. UK National Annex (NA2.20) defines the minimum value for
Qtrk as 50% of the Qlk for loaded length of upto 120m. For Loaded length more than
120m, the minimum value of Qtrk is taken as 280 kN.

The transverse force should be applied simultaneously with Qlk at the finished
carriageway level.

5. Actions for Accidental Design Situations

The following accidental situations may exist during the service life and should be taken into
account whilst designing a bridge.
• Collision of traffic under bridge with bridge supports, i.e. piers, abutments, etc.
• Collision of traffic under bridge with soffit of bridge or bridge deck.
• Vehicle collision with kerbs, vehicle parapets, and safety barriers.
• The presence of heavy wheels / vehicle on footways.

The collision forces from vehicles are categorised based on their point of application, i.e.
under / over the bridge superstructure.

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.3.10

Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey

5.1. Actions from vehicles under the bridge

5.1.1. Collision forces on Piers or Abutments
For a highway bridge crossing another road, the longitudinal and lateral forces may be
generated by an abnormal height vehicle collision with piers or abutments. BS EN 1991-2
recommends a minimum of 1000 kN force in the direction of vehicle travel (longitudinally for
a square bridge) or a 500kN force perpendicular to the vehicle travel (lateral direction for a
square bridge), applied at a height of 1.25m above the adjacent ground level. The actual
values for these loads, position, and conditions of applications are left to the National
Annexes.
For a highway bridge crossing over a water channel, the accidental longitudinal and lateral
forces may be generated due to collision of ships. Similarly the accidental forces in the case of
a bridge crossing over rail traffic may include derailed railway vehicle. These are explained in
appropriate detail in BS EN 1991-1-7 and its National Annex.

5.1.2. Collision forces on Decks

The abnormal / illegal height vehicle, or a crane swinging up on a vehicle, may collide with
deck soffit / other structural members of the bridge. Many of the situations can be controlled
by preventative or protective measures rather than considering these forces in design. Where
relevant, force due to vehicle collision with bridge deck / soffit should be accounted for in the
design. The values and applicability condition for these are specified in BS EN 1991-1-7 and
its National Annex.

5.2. Actions from Vehicles on the bridge

5.2.1. Vehicles on footways / cycle tracks on road bridges
In accidental situations, a vehicle may end up on a footway / cycle track of a road bridge. This
situation should be accounted for during the design, if appropriate level of containment is not
provided.

One accidental axle load, corresponding to αQ2Q2k (See Sec. 3.1), should be placed, and
oriented, on the deck to give most adverse effect adjacent to the safety barrier / parapet. A
single wheel alone may be considered for this purpose where necessary.

5.2.2. Collision forces on Kerbs

A lateral force of 100kN acting at a depth of 0.05m below the top of kerb is considered
sufficient for vehicle collision with kerb or pavement upstrands. This force is distributed over
a 0.5m length of kerb / upstrand and may be dispersed, for rigid structural members (such as
concrete), at 45 degree angles up to the point under consideration.

BS EN1991-2 also recommends a vertical load of 0.75 αQ1Q1k to be applied simultaneously

with the lateral load, if this generates more adverse effects.

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.3.11

Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey

Figure 2.5: Vehicle collision forces on kerbs

5.2.3. Collision forces on vehicle restraint systems / Vehicle Parapets

In the case of a vehicle collision on restraint systems, the horizontal and vertical forces are
generated which are transmitted to the deck. These forces should be taken into account during
the design of bridge deck / superstructure. The magnitude of these forces depends upon the
applied impact, the rigidity of the restraint system, and the stiffness of the connection between
the vehicle restraint system and the part of bridge on which this is connected.

National Annex (NA2.30) defines these values for various containment levels (see Table
NA.6).

The above force should be distributed uniformly over 3m length at the top of the traffic face
of the vehicle restraint system.

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.3.12

Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey

The vertical forces acting simultaneously with the collision forces is taken as 0.75 times the
loading given by load model 1, and the full accidental wheel / vehicle loading. The three set
of force are applied to get the most adverse effect on the part of the structure under
consideration.

The structure supporting the vehicle parapets should be designed to sustain locally an
accidental load effect corresponding to at least 1.25 times the characteristic local resistance of
vehicle parapet, and need not to be combined with other variable loads.

6. Traffic Load Grouping (Combinations)

Table NA.3 from the National annex of BS EN 1991-2 defines six different group of
loads to be taken into account for the design of highway bridges. These groups (to be
applied individually and independently) give the characteristic actions for combination
with non-traffic loads. Each group consists of the full characteristic value for one type
of load in combination with reduced values for some other loads.

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.3.13

Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey

Other representative values for the multi-component action using frequent values
instead of the characteristic values are given in Table 4.4b of BS EN 1991-2. This

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.3.14

Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey

involves the frequent value for key load models applied individually in separate
combinations.

7. Self Assessment Tasks

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.3.15