Design of Railway Structures To The Structural Eurocodes

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 Chapters and Appendices 1 Recommended Values where National Choice is Allowed in BS EN 1990:2002. 24 S-1
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 3.1 4 Load Comparison Factor 42 42 43 43 43 44 45 46 50 53 53 55 55 58 61 61 64 66 69 72 73 74 75
Comparison of Design Load Effects 4.1 Partial and Combination Factors 4.1.1 Eurocodes 4.1.2 British Standards 4.1.3 Deck Types Variation of Load Classification Factor, . Variation of Dynamic Load Factor, .
4.2 4.3 5
Live Load Surcharge on Substructures 5.1 Differences in Applied Actions
Longitudinal Actions 6.1 6.2 Traction Braking
Accidental Actions 7.1 7.2 Derailment Effects Collision Effects
8 9
Vertical Deformation and Rotation Wind Effects 9.1 9.2 Wind - Ultimate Limit State 9.1.1 Summary of ULS Wind Combination Results Wind - Serviceability Limit State 9.2.1 Summary of SLS Wind Combination Results
9.3
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 78 78 79 80 81
10
Temperature Effects 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 Ultimate Limit State Actions Serviceability Limit State Actions Global Temperature Effects Discussion
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 84
11
Groups of Loads
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 5: Recommended Values in BS EN 1992-2 Table 6: Recommended Values in BS EN 1993-2 Table 7: Recommended Values in BS EN 1994-2 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 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
BS 5400-3:2000 Incorporating Corrigendum No. 1
May 2001
BS 5400-4:1990
June 1990
BS 5400-5:1979 Reprinted, incorporating Amendment No. 1
May 1982
BS 5400-10:1980:1980 Incorporating Amendment No. I
March 1999
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
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
DRAFT National Annex to BS 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
DRAFT National Annex to BS EN 1991-2:2003
National Annex to BS EN 19911-3:2003
DRAFT National Annex to BS EN 1991-1-4:2005
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004
BS EN 1992-2:2005
Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures Part2: Traffic Loads on Bridges Eurocode 1 Actions on structures Part 1-3: General actions Snow loads Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-4: General actions - Wind actions UK National Annex to Eurocode 1 - Part 1-4: General actions - Wind actions Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 1-5: General actions Thermal actions UK National Annex to Eurocode 1 Part 1-5: General actions Thermal actions Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 1-7: General actions Accidental actions UK National Annex to Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures Part2: Traffic Loads on Bridges UK National Annex to Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 1-3: General actions Snow loads UK National Annex to Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-4: General actions - Wind actions UK National Annex to Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 1-5: General actions Thermal actions Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings UK National Annex to Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete 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
DRAFT National Annex to BS EN 1993-1-1:2005
BS EN 1993-1-5:2006
BS EN 1993-1-8:2005
BS EN 1993-1-9:2005 DRAFT National Annex to BS EN 1993-1-9:2005 BS EN 1993-2:2006
DRAFT National Annex to BS 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
UK National Annex to Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. Concrete bridges Design and detailing rules Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures - Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings UK National Annex to Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures - Part 1-5: Plated Structural Elements Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures - Part 1-8: Design of Joints Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures - Part 1-9: Fatigue UK National Annex to Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures Part 1-9: Fatigue Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures - Part 2: Steel Bridges UK National Annex to Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures Part 2: Steel Bridges Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings Eurocode 4 Design of composite steel and concrete structures Part 2: General rules and rules for bridges UK National Annex to Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete 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 Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete 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 (referenced throughout this document as the High Speed TSI)
First Published 2007
July 2003
January 2008 May 2007 September 1999 July 1996
2001/16/EC
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
UIC776-3 1st Edition UIC776-1 5th Edition
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 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 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
BS EN EQU
Not Applicable Not Applicable BS EN 1990:2002
GEO
BS EN 1990:2002
Mott MacDonald NA Nom RSSB Seismic SLS STR
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable BS EN 1990:2002 Not Applicable BS EN 1990:2002
TSI UIC ULS
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Characters Character fL f3 Standard BS 5400-2:2006 BS 5400-3:2000 BS 5400-4:1990 BS 5400-5:1979 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
BS 5400-3:2000 BS 5400-4:1990 BS 5400-5:1979 BS 5400-3:2000 BS 5400-3:2000 BS 5400-3:2000 BS 5400-3:2000 BS 5400-3:2000 BS 5400-3:2000 BS EN 1990:2002 BS EN 1990:2002 BS EN 1990:2002 BS EN 1990:2002
l y mfw MR MULT
G
BS EN 1991-2:2003
BS EN 1991-2:2003
Qvk qvk M
BS EN 1991-2:2003 BS EN 1991-2:2003
BS EN 1992 (all) BS EN 1993 (all) BS EN 1994 (all) 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
Mcr d0 fub fu e1
p1
BS EN 1993-1-8:2005
BS EN 1994-1-1:2004
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
10
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) BS EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005 (Annex A2) Draft National Annex to BS EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005 (Annex A2) Summary of Recommended Values, New Studies and Commentary
Recommending values where national choice is permitted in BS EN 1990:2002
The values in the draft National Annex are recommended with the following exceptions: 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. 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. 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.
Confirming the appropriateness of the recommended values in the Eurocodes other than BS EN 1990 where national choice is permitted. Note only the factors considered in the design of typical elements agreed with RSSB have been considered. Typical bridge designs
BS EN 1991-1-1:2002 National Annex to BS EN 19911-1:2002
BS EN 1991-2:2003 Draft National Annex BS EN 1991-2:2003 dated 07/08/2003
The values in the draft National Annex are recommended.
12
Description of Investigation
Relevant Standards (refer to list of references for dates of publication) BS EN 1992-2:2005 National Annex BS EN 19922:2005 dated 31/12/2007
Summary of Recommended Values, New Studies and Commentary
Typical bridge designs
BS EN 1994-2:2005 National Annex not available
The values in the Eurocode are recommended.
Investigating the sensitivity of varying the line classification factor,
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.
Investigating the sensitivity of varying the dynamic factor,
13
Relevant Standards (refer to list of references for dates of publication) BS EN 1991-2:2003 Draft National Annex BS EN 1991-2:2003 dated 07/08/2003 BS5400-2:2006
Braking
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). 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).
Traction
Derailment
14
Relevant Standards (refer to list of references for dates of publication) BS EN 1991-2:2003 referring to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006
Collision with substructures
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 Draft National Annex BS EN 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
Relevant Standards (refer to list of references for dates of publication) BS EN 1991-2:2003 Draft National Annex BS EN 1991-2:2003 dated 07/08/2003 BS EN 1991-1-4:2005 Draft National Annex BS EN 1991-1-4:2005 BS 5400-2:2006
Wind effects
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.
Wind only
BS EN 1991-2:2003 Draft National Annex BS EN 1991-2:2003 dated 07/08/2003 BS EN 1991-1-4:2005 Draft National Annex BS EN 1991-1-4:2005 BS 5400-2:2006
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.
16
Relevant Standards (refer to list of references for dates of publication) BS EN 1991-2:2003 Draft National Annex BS EN 1991-2:2003 dated 07/08/2003 BS EN 1991-1-4:2005 Draft National Annex BS EN 1991-1-4:2005 BS 5400-2:2006
Wind coexistent with live load
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. 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).
Global Temperature Effects
BS EN 1991-2:2003 Draft National Annex BS EN 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
17
Relevant Standards (refer to list of references for dates of publication) BS EN 1991-2:2003 Draft National Annex BS EN 1991-2:2003 dated 07/08/2003 BS 5400-2:2006
Effect of temperature gradient
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. 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 Draft National Annex BS EN 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
Relevant Standards (refer to list of references for dates of publication) BS EN 1991-2:2003 Draft National Annex BS EN 1991-2:2003 BS 5400-2:2006
Comparison of the margin of capacity (utilisation) for the design of typical railway structural elements to current British Standards and the Eurocodes Steel plate girder structures
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.
BS EN 1993-2:2006 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
Relevant Standards (refer to list of references for dates of 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
Relevant Standards (refer to list of references for dates of publication) BS EN 1994-1-1:2004, BS EN 1994-2:2005, National Annex BS EN 1994-2:2005.
Composite steel and concrete structures
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. Changing the proposed partial factor values is not recommended.
Pre-stressed concrete structures
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, BS EN 1992-2:2005, National Annex 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. Changing the proposed partial factor values is not recommended.
Composite steel and concrete structures Filler Decks
BS EN 1994-1-1:2004, BS EN 1994-2:2005, National Annex 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
Relevant Standards (refer to list of references for dates of publication) BS EN 1997-1:2004 and National Annex BS EN 19971:2004
Substructures
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
Relevant Standards (refer to list of references for dates of 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
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 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 railway bridges of actions Serviceability requirements and criteria for the calculation of deformations A2.4.1(2) Not Given 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 Serviceability requirements and criteria given in A.2.4.2 and A.2.4.3 are for road bridges and footbridges.
Combination rules for snow loading on railway bridges Maximum wind speed compatible with rail traffic
A2.2.4(1)
A2.2.4(4)
Snow need not be considered BS EN 19911-4
To be completed. 40m/s (gust) in National Annex BS EN 1991-1-4
Deformation and vibration requirements for temporary railway bridges
A2.4.4.1(1) NOTE 3
Not given.
Not given
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
25
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 bt = 3,5 m/s2 Not given Peak values of deck A2.4.4.2.1(4)P Not considered in this df = 5 m/s2 acceleration for railway study bridges and associated frequency range Not given Limiting values of deck A2.4.4.2.2 Table t1 = 4,5mm Not considered in this t2 = 3,0mm 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 Not considered in this 7,5mm/3m. total deck twist for study railway bridges Not given Vertical deformation of A2.4.4.2.3(1) Not given Not considered in this ballasted and non study ballasted railway bridges Not given Limitations on the A2.4.4.2.3(2) Not given Not considered in this rotations of non study ballasted bridge deck ends for railway bridges Not given Additional limits of A2.4.4.2.3(3) Not given Not considered in this angular rotations at the study end of decks 1= 0,0035; Not given Values of i and ri A2.4.4.2.4(2) Not considered in this 2 = 0,0020; 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) Not considered in this recommended frequency for railway study value is: bridges fh0 = 1,2 Hz Not given Requirements for A2.4.4.3.2(6) Not given Not considered in this 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 Not considered in SW/2 0 1,00 0 in this study this study Not considered Not considered in Unloaded Train 1,00 in this study this study Not considered Not considered in 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 Not considered Not considered in Non public footpath loads 0,80 0,50 0 in this study this study Not considered Not considered in Real trains 1,00 1,00 0 in this study this study # Hz earth pressure 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 Aerodynamic effects 0,80 0,50 0 Not considered Not considered in 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) Not considered Not considered in Other Aerodynamic effects 0,80 0,50 0 in this study this study operating Not considered Not considered in Maintenance loading for 0,80 0,50 0 actions in this study non public footpaths this study Wind forces Fwk 0,75 0,50 0 To be suggested 0,75 0,50 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 To be suggested 0,60 0,60 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 Not considered Not considered in 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 G,sup G,inf
Concrete self weight Steel self weight 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 1,05 1,05 1,00 1,05
0,95 0,95 0,95 0,95 0,95 0,95
1,05 1,05 1,05 1,05 1,00 1,05
0,95 0,95 0,95 0,95 1,00 0,95
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
as defined in the relevant design Eurocode.

P
Rail traffic actions
1,45
(0 where favourable)
as defined in the relevant design Eurocode or for the individual project and agreed with the relevant authority Non (0 where given favourable)
P
Not considered in this study
1,45
Wind actions Thermal actions
1,50 1,50
(0 where favourable) (0 where favourable)
1,70 1,50
(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
Concrete self weight Steel self weight 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 Creep and shrinkage Settlement (linear analysis) Settlement (nonlinear analysis) Prestressing
1,35 1,35 1,35 1,35 1,35 1,35
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
1,35 1,20 1,35 (for ballast) 1,35 1,00 1,35
0,95 0,95 0,95 0,95 1,00 0,95
1,35 1,20 1,35
1,00 1,00 1,00
1,35 1,20 1,35
0,00 0,00 0,00
1,35 1,20
0,00 0,00
Rail traffic actions Earth pressure Wind actions No traffic actions applied simultaneously with wind Traffic actions applied simultaneously with wind Thermal actions
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
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
Not considered in this study P as defined in the relevant design Eurocode or for the individual project and agreed with the relevant authority 1,45 1,50 (0 where favourable) 1,00
1,50
1,70 0 where favourable 0 where favourable 1,50 0 where favourable
1,50
(0 where favourable) (0 where favourable) (0 where favourable)
1,50
1,50
1,50
1,50
30
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
Concrete self weight Steel self weight 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 Creep and shrinkage Settlement (linear analysis) Settlement (nonlinear analysis) Prestressing
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
Too few examples considered to recommend values. Engineering judgement and limited work conclude National Annex values reasonable.
1,00 1,00 1,00
1,00 1,00 1,00
1,35 1,20 1,35
0,00 0,00 0,00
Rail traffic actions Horizontal earth pressure Wind actions No traffic actions applied simultaneously with wind Traffic actions applied simultaneously with wind Thermal actions
P as defined in the relevant design Eurocode or for the individual project and agreed with the relevant authority 1,25 (0 where favourable) 1,30 (0 where favourable)
P as defined in the relevant design Eurocode or for the individual project and agreed with the relevant authority Not given (0 where favourable) Not given Not given
1,25 1,30
1,50
(0 where favourable) (0 where favourable) (0 where favourable)
1,70
1,50
1,50
1,50
1,30
1,50
1,50
31
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
Generally 3 should be used. Alternative values may be determined for the individual project.
should be used.
34
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 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. Table 3: Recommended Values in BS EN 1991-2
35
All references to BS EN 1991-2:2003 and National Annex BS EN 1991-2:2003 dated 3rd August 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 from 5 to 7m (L=7m: 231kN) 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 from 3 to 5m (L=5m: 100kN) 187 kN 187 kN from 5 to 7m (L=7m: 140kN) 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 Partial factors for materials for 2.4.2.4.(1) 1,15 1,15 1,15 ultimate limit states and fatigue S and S,fat. Partial factors for materials for 2.4.2.4.(2) 1,00 1,00 1,00 serviceability limit states C Partial factors for materials for 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 Table 5: Recommended Values in BS EN 1992-2
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. Table 6: Recommended Values in BS EN 1993-2 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 Table 7: Recommended Values in BS EN 1994-2 Note
Recommended Value 1,25
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 (i) Action Permanent Self weight (steel) Self weight (concrete) Superimposed Track Ballast Other LM71 Walkways Eurocodes Serviceability Limit State (G or Q) 1,35 1,35 1,35 1,35 1,35 1,45 1,50 Ballast depth factor Leading Action 0
30% varies varies 1,00 1,00 0,80 0,80
Transient
Table 8: Eurocode SLS Partial and Combination Factors used for Investigating and
43
(ii) Action
Ultimate Limit State (G or Q) Self weight (steel) Self weight (concrete) Superimposed Track Ballast Other LM71 Walkways 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 30% varies varies 1,00 1,00 0,80 0,80 Ballast depth factor Leading Action 0
Permanent
Transient
Table 9: Eurocode ULS Partial and Combination Factors used for Investigating and (iii) Action Permanent Self weight (steel) Self weight (concrete) Superimposed Track Ballast Other LM71 Walkways Derailment Accidental (Derailment) (G or Q) 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 30% varies varies 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,80 0,80 Ballast depth factor Leading Action 0
Transient
Table 10: Eurocode ACC Partial and Combination Factors used for Investigating and 4.1.2 (i) British Standards Serviceability Limit State f3 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 44 Combination 1 fL 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,20 1,00 1,10 1,00
Action Permanent
Transient
Self weight (steel) Self weight (concrete) Superimposed Track Ballast Other RU shear RU bending Walkways
2 3
Table 11: British Standards SLS Partial and Combination Factors used for Investigating and
(ii)
Ultimate Limit State f3 1,10 1,10 1,10 1,10 1,10 1,10 1,10 Combination 1 fL 1,10 1,20 1,20 1,75 1,20 1,40 1,50
Action Permanent
Transient
Self weight (steel) Self weight (concrete) Superimposed Track Ballast Other RU shear RU bending Walkways
2 3
Table 12: British Standards ULS Partial and Combination Factors used for Investigating and (iii) Derailment f3 1,10 1,10 1,10 1,10 1,10 1,10 1,10 1,10 Combination 1 fL 1,10 1,20 1,20 1,75 1,20 1,40 1,50 1,00
Action Permanent
Transient
Self weight (steel) Self weight (concrete) Superimposed Track Ballast Other RU shear RU bending Walkways Derailment
2 3
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; Light; Medium Heavy; Very heavy; All steel direct fastened (e.g. lightweight truss girder bridge) All steel direct fastened (e.g. all steel Z-type) All steel ballasted (e.g. all steel Z-type and standard box girder bridges) Steel main girders and concrete floor (e.g. standard Z, D and E-type bridges) 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.
2 3
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
46
Very Light Bridges Bending Moments ULS

40000.00
35000.00
30000.00
U (P/T) Bending Moment (kNm)
25000.00
20000.00
15000.00
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
10000.00
5000.00
0.00 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Span (m) 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
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 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 Span (m) 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 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
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 Span (m) 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
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
2500.00
U (P/T) Shear Force (kN)
2000.00
1500.00
1000.00
500.00
0.00 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Span (m) 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
Figure 4: ULS Shear in Very Light Bridge Main Girder for Variation of (Alpha)
Medium Bridges
4000.00
3500.00
3000.00
2500.00
2000.00
1500.00
1000.00
500.00
0.00 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Span (m) 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
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 Span (m) 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
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 Span (m) 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
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 Span (m) 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
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

Eurocodes (incl. National Annex) BS EN 1991-2:2003
Refer also to section Error! Reference source not found., Error! Reference source not found.. British Standards BS 5400-2:2006 RC/GC5510
The Standards referred to in Section 5 are listed above. 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 1,20 1,20
f3 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
Eurocodes (incl. National Annex) BS EN 1991-2:2003
British Standards BS 5400-2:2006 RC/GC5510
The Standards referred to in Section 6 are listed above. 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
ULS Comparison Factor
Structure Type
Span
British Standards
Eurocodes (not National Annex)
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
fL f3 (C1)
ULS Characteristic Value Value kN kN 511 1000 (maximum limit) 792
Leading ULS Action Value kN 816 1595
1,4
1,10 776 1,10 1155
1,10 1,45 1,00 1,10 1,45 1,00
0,95 0,72
35,0m 750 1,4 (maximum limit) 24,0m 708 1,4
1,10 1090
1,10 1,45 1,00
1263
0,86
20,0m 612 7m 300
1,4 1,4
1,10 942 1,10 462
660 231
1,10 14,5 1,00 1,10 1,45 1,00
1053 369
0,90 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
700
Force (kN)
500
300
BS5400:2 Traction EN1991-2 Traction
100
0 -100
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
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
1200
Force (kN)
1000
800
600
400
200
0 0 5 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. ULS Comparison Factor Structure Type Span British Standards Nominal fL f3 Value (C1) kN Eurocodes (not National Annex) ULS Characteristic Value Value kN kN Q Leading ULS Action 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 420 35,0m 810 24,0m 590
1,4 1,4 1,4
1,10 646 1,10 1247 1,10 908
310 700 480
1,10 1,45 1,00 1,10 1,45 1,00 1,10 1,45 1,00
512 1155 766
1,26 1,08 1,19
20,0m 510 7m 250
1,4 1,4
1,10 785 1,10 385
400 140
1,10 1,45 1,00 1,10 1,45 1,00
638 223
1,23 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
500
8000
Comparison of Characteristic (Nominal) Braking Action
450
7000
400
6000
350
5000
Force (kN)
Force (kN)
300
250
4000
200
3000
150
2000
100
BS5400:2 Braking EN1991-2 Braking

1000
50
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Loaded length (m)
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

500
12000
Comparison of ULS Braking Action
450
10000
400
350
8000
Force (kN)
300
250
Force (kN)
6000
200
4000
150
100
BS5400:2 Braking
2000
50
EN1991-2 Braking
0
0 0 2 4 6 8 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 Characteristic (Nominal) Braking and Traction Action
1100
1800
Comparison of ULS Traction & Braking Action

2000
900
1600
1400
Force (kN)
700
Force (kN)
1200
1000
500
BS5400:2 Braking
800
EN1991-2 Braking BS5400:2 Traction EN1991-2 Traction
300
600

400
100
200
0 -100
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Loaded length (m)
Loaded length (m)
Figure 13: Comparison between Characteristic (Nominal) & ULS Longitudinal Train Forces
60
7
7.1
Accidental Actions
Derailment Effects Eurocodes (incl. National Annex) BS EN 1991-2:2003
British Standards BS 5400-2:2006 GC/RT5110
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 EN 1991-2:2003 BS5400-2:2006 BS5400-2:2006 BS5400-2:2006
Design Situation / Case I II a b c
Applied Load
Applied Factors x 1,4 x 1,4 f3=1,10 f3=1,10 f3=1,10
LM71 (8No 250kN + 80kN/m) LM71 (8No 250kN + 80kN/m) Pair of 20kN/m udls + 100kN No rows of 4No 180kN 80kN/m
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
30000
Moment (kNm)
25000
Case 1 Case 2
20000
SLS (a) ULS (b) ULS (c)
15000
10000
5000
0 2 3 5 7 10 Span (m) 15 20 30 40 50
Figure 14: Design Moments due to Derailment Effects
62
Shears Due to Derailment Effects 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200
Shear (kN)
Case 1 Case 2 SLS (a) ULS (b) ULS (c)
1000 800 600 400 200 0 2 3 5 7 10 Span (m) 15 20 30 40 50
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 Eurocodes (incl. National Annex) BS EN 1991-1-7:2006
British Standards BS 5400-2:2006 GC/RC5510
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 Specified by project Fdy = 1500kN Fdy = 0kN
Height above Track for Point of Application
Specified by project 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) d<4,5m d>4,5m Force in Any Direction 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 0,432
Shear (kN) 2200 4000 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

Eurocodes (incl. National Annex) 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
British Standards BS 5400-1:1998 BS 5400-2:2006 BS 5400-3:2000 BS 5400-4:1990 GC/RC5510 UIC776-3R
The Standards referred to in Section 8 are listed above. 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 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
1 2 3 4 5*
15m 35m 24m 20m 7m
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
Eurocodes (incl. National Annex) BS EN 1991-1-4:2005 BS EN 1990:2002(A1) Annex A2 BS EN 1991-1-1:2002 BS EN 1991-2:2003
British Standards BS 5400-2:2006
The Standards referred to in Section 9 are listed above. 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. Action (G or Q) Ballast depth factor Leading Action 0 1
Permanent
Transient
Self weight (steel) Superimposed Ballast Other LM71 Wind + live load#5
1,20 1,35 1,35 1,45 1,50 30% 1,10 2 1,00 1,00 0,80 0,75 0,80* 0,50
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 Self weight (steel) Superimposed Ballast Other RU shear RU bending Wind + live load Wind only f3 1,10 1,10 1,10 1,10 1,10 1,10 Combination 1 fL 1,05 1,75 1,20 1,40 Combination 2 fL 1,05 1,75 1,20 1,20 1,10 1,40
Transient
2 3
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. Action Actions Leading Action British Standard Total Load Eurocodes Combination factor Comparison Factor Fhz (wind) 50 215 162 185 431 324 80 310 232 88 312 233 8 85 64 27 116 87 Fvt 1,03 0,97 0,77 0,59 1,03 0,97 0,77 0,58 1,03 0,97 0,73 0,57 1,03 0,97 0,70 0,62 1,03 0,97 0,64 0,75 1,03 0,97 Comparison Factor 0,62 0,81 Fhz Total Load 2205 2756 4197 5246 3072 3840 2664 3330 1337 1672 1520 1902 Fvt (LM71)
Combination
Fhz (wind) 31 173 143 254 62 181 64 176 6 53 17 87 73
Structure
Fvt (RU)
Deck 1
Deck 2
Deck 3
Deck 4
Deck 5
Deck 6
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
Wind Wind Railway traffic Wind Wind Railway traffic Wind Wind Railway traffic Wind Wind Railway traffic Wind Wind Railway traffic Wind Wind Railway traffic
2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1
2281 2661
0,80 0,75
4341 5064
0,80 0,75
3178 3708
0,80 0,75
2756 3215
0,80 0,75
1383 1614
0,80 0,75
1573 1836
0,80 0,75
Note that the railway actions have = 1,10 applied, but no dynamic factor. Table 29: Summary of ULS Wind Combination Results
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: Action (G or Q) Self weight (steel) Superimposed Ballast Other LM71 Wind + live load# 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 30% 1,10 3 1,00 1,00 0,80 0,75 0,80* 0,50 Ballast depth factor Leading Action 0 1
Permanent
Transient
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)
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 31: Action Permanent Self weight (steel) Superimposed Ballast Other RU shear RU bending Wind + live load Wind only f3 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 2 3 Combination 1 fL 1,00 1,20 1,00 1,10 Combination 2 fL 1,00 1,20 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
Transient
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. Action Actions Leading Action UK Total Load Eurocode Combination factor Comparison Factor Fhz (wind) 33 143 108 123 288 216 53 207 155 59 208 156 6 57 43 18 77 58 Fvt 1,14 1,00 0,96 0,73 1,14 1,00 0,96 0,72 1,14 1,00 0,90 0,70 1,14 1,00 0,87 0,77 1,14 1,00 0,79 0,92 1,14 1,00 Comparison Factor 0,77 1,00 Fhz Total Load 1521 1901 2894 3617 2119 2649 1837 2296 922 1153 1049 1311 Fvt (LM71)
Combination
Fhz (wind)
Structure
Fvt (RU)
Deck 1
Deck 2
Deck 3
Deck 4
Deck 5
Deck 6
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
Wind Wind Railway traffic Wind Wind Railway traffic Wind Wind Railway traffic Wind Wind Railway traffic Wind Wind Railway traffic Wind Wind Railway traffic
2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1
1728 1901
26 143
0,80 0,75
3288 3617
118 210
0,80 0,75
2408 2649
51 150
0,80 0,75
2088 2296
53 146
0,80 0,75
1048 1153
5 44
0,80 0,75
1192 1311
14 72
0,80 0,75
Table 32: Summary of SLS Wind Combination Results
75
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 (i) Wind (Leading) and Railway Traffic 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.
Following the completion of this study, the partial factor for wind load has been confirmed as 1,70 in NA EN 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).
Following the completion of this study, the partial factor for wind load has been confirmed as 1,70 in NA EN 1990(A1):2005.
77
10
Temperature Effects
Eurocodes (incl. National Annex) BS EN 1991-1-5:2003 BS EN 1990:2002(A1) Annex A2 BS EN 1991-1-1:2002 BS EN 1991-2:2003
British Standards BS 5400-2:2006
The Standards referred to in Section 10 are listed above. 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: Action (G or Q) Self weight (steel) Superimposed Ballast Other Settlement LM71 SW/0 Temperature global Temperature difference 1,20 Ballast depth factor Leading Action 0 1
Permanent
Transient
1,35 1,35 1,20 1,45 1,45 1,508 1,508
30% 3 3
1,10 1,10
1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0
0,80 0,80 0,60 0,60
0,80* 0,80* 0,60 0,60
*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
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 for railway traffic live load specified in BS 5400-2:2006 are summarised in Table 34: Action Permanent Self weight (steel) Superimposed Ballast Other Settlement LM71 shear LM71 bending SW/0 Temperature Global Temperature difference f3 1,10 1,10 1,10 1,10 1,10 1,10 1,10 1,10 2 3 Combination 1 fL 1,05 1,75 1,20 1,20 1,40 1,40 Combination 3 fL 1,05 1,75 1,20 1,20 1,20 1,20 1,30 1,00
Transient
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: Action (G or Q) Self weight (steel) Superimposed Ballast Other Settlement LM71 SW/0 Temperature global Temperature difference 1,00 Ballast depth factor Leading Action 0 1
Permanent
Transient
1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
30% 3 3
1,10 1,10
1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
0,80 0,80 0,60 0,60
0,80* 0,80* 0,60 0,60
*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 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 recommended values of the partial factors and dynamic factors specified in BS 5400-2:2006, are summarised in Table 36:
79
Action Permanent Self weight (steel) Superimposed Ballast Other Settlement LM71 shear LM71 bending SW/0 Temperature global Temperature difference
f3 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
Combination 1 fL 1,00 1,20 1,00 1,00 1,10 1,10
Combination 3 fL 1,00 1,20 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,80
Transient
2 3
Table 36: British Standards SLS Partial and Combination Factors used for Temperature Study 10.3 Global Temperature Effects
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.
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
Deck
Table 37: Summary of Expansion and Contraction with T0 Specified (+/- 10C)
Span
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. 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 Deck 1 2 3 4 5 6 10.4
9
15m 35m 24m 20m 7m 8m
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. 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).
Following the completion of this study, the partial factor for thermal load has been confirmed as 1,55 in NA EN 1990(A1):2005.
Span
Table 38: Summary of Expansion and Contraction with T0, not applied
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 (i) Temperature Coexistent with Railway Loading, Temperature Leading Action 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 = 1,509. Therefore the comparison factor for the applied factors is 0,73. 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
Following the completion of this study, the partial factor for thermal load has been confirmed as 1,55 in NA EN 1990(A1):2005..
82
(ii)
SLS
The British Standard partial load factors for the effects of temperature gradients 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 is 0,80. 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
Following the completion of this study, the partial factor for wind load has been confirmed as 1,70 in NA EN 1990(A1):2005. 12 Following the completion of this study, the partial factor for thermal load has been confirmed as 1,55 in NA EN 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

Design of Railway Structures To The Structural Eurocodes - Part 1

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Design of Railway Structures To The Structural Eurocodes - Part 1

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Research Programme

Live Load Surcharge on Substructures 5.1 Differences in Applied Actions

Longitudinal Actions 6.1 6.2 Traction Braking

Accidental Actions 7.1 7.2 Derailment Effects Collision Effects

BS 5400-3:2000 Incorporating Corrigendum No. 1

BS 5400-5:1979 Reprinted, incorporating Amendment No. 1

BS 5400-10:1980:1980 Incorporating Amendment No. I

DRAFT National Annex to BS 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

DRAFT National Annex to BS EN 1991-2:2003

National Annex to BS EN 19911-3:2003

DRAFT National Annex to BS EN 1991-1-4:2005

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 EN 1993-1-1:2005

BS EN 1993-1-9:2005 DRAFT National Annex to BS EN 1993-1-9:2005 BS EN 1993-2:2006

DRAFT National Annex to BS EN 1993-2:2006 BS EN 1994-1-1:2004

National Annex to BS EN 19942:2005

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

May 2005 July 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

First Published 2007

January 2008 May 2007 September 1999 July 1996

UIC776-3 1st Edition UIC776-1 5th Edition

January 1989 August 2006

Table 1: Documents and Standards Referenced Throughout the Study

Not Applicable Not Applicable BS EN 1990:2002

Mott MacDonald NA Nom RSSB Seismic SLS STR

TSI UIC ULS

Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Recommending values where national choice is permitted in BS EN 1990:2002

BS EN 1991-1-1:2002 National Annex to BS EN 19911-1:2002

BS EN 1991-2:2003 Draft National Annex BS EN 1991-2:2003 dated 07/08/2003

The values in the draft National Annex are recommended.