Comparative study of bridge traffic loadings

between British standards and Eurocodes

Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 2020, 020037 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5062663
Published Online: 05 October 2018

M. A. Masrom, and L. D. Goh

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Tensile strength/yield strength (TS/YS) ratios of high-strength steel (HSS) reinforcing bars
AIP Conference Proceedings 1964, 020036 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5038318

A review: Soil structure interaction of railway structure in Malaysia permanent way

AIP Conference Proceedings 2020, 020019 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5062645

The effectiveness of glass fiber reinforced polymer retrofitting of reinforced concrete beam
under high temperature exposure
AIP Conference Proceedings 2020, 020042 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5062668

AIP Conference Proceedings 2020, 020037 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5062663 2020, 020037

© 2018 Author(s).
 Comparative Study of Bridge Traffic Loadings between
British Standards and Eurocodes
M. A. Masrom1,a) and L. D. Goh1,b)
1
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Pulau Pinang,13500 Permatang Pauh, Penang,
Malaysia
a)
Corresponding author: ashaarimasrom@ppinang.uitm.edu.my
b)
gohlyndee147@ppinang.uitm.edu.my

Abstract. The Commission of the European Community decided to eliminate technical obstacles to provide a more open
marketplace due to different design codes across countries in Europe. The good intention had caused the British Standards
(BS) adopted since year 1990 in many countries to be replaced by the Eurocodes (EC) in year 2010. The withdrawal of the
BS has induces a challenge to Malaysia’s practitioners in handling the bridge design in accordance to the EC. Hence, this
study provides a detail discussion on the essential of traffic loads in both design codes of BS and EC. The discussion
includes a new concept in EC whereby the variable actions are categorised into four representative values which are
explicated in this study. The differences in the application of partial safety factor in both codes are also presented in this
study. A simply supported bridge is employed in this study as a demonstration for a comparative study to highlight the
difference in the implementation between the two approaches. The grillage analysis is utilised to model the seven different
span lengths of bridge using the STAAD.Pro. From result, it is found that the nature of UDL governs for the maximum
moment differently depending on the loaded bridge length. The modified adjustment factor also provides a significant
effect to the analysis.

INTRODUCTION

There are many studies conducted on the resistance of highway bridges in carrying various traffic loadings as the
primary source of stress on the structure for example as found in study by Lenner and Sykora [1]. These traffic loads
are considered in bridge analysis and design according to the specific design code adopted in the country of practice.
In general, since Malaysia has a historical background as a British colony, thus British Standards (BS) had been
adopted extensively in Malaysia. As a brief history, Public Works Department Malaysia (JKR) started with the
adoption of the limit state philosophy in BS153 Part 3A, and then followed by BS5400 for design and construction of
steel, concrete and composite bridges. The design code includes the standard and specification in calculating bridge
load, fatigue load and the application of principle limit state in bridge. Subsequently, the United Kingdom (U.K.)
Departmental Standard BD 37/01 was adopted for bridge loading analysis, which was incorporated into the Design
Manual for Roads and Bridges (DRMB) later [2]. However, starting April 2010, British Standards Institute no longer
supports BS and it was mandatory that a withdrawal of all BS codes to be adhered and replaced by Eurocodes (EC)
[3]. EC are the improved version of BS with intention of improving the competitiveness of the construction industry
and removing obstacles arising from different nationally codified practices for the assessment of structural reliability.
In Malaysia, The Institution of Engineers Malaysia (IEM) took the initiative and led in preparing the Malaysian
Standards MS EN Eurocodes to replace the existing BS codes. Although up to date, the enforcement of the total
implementation of EC in Malaysia is yet to be implemented by the relevant authorities, but industry practitioners and
local universities have taken initiatives to study on the EC during the transition period. Since Malaysia will soon
impose a full enforcement on the application of EC in the construction industry, hence, a better understanding on the
difference between the two design codes should be emphasised. Moreover, there is a limited related literature
discussing on the comparative study on the traffic load for bridges between the BS and EC. This study focuses on the

Advances in Civil Engineering and Science Technology

AIP Conf. Proc. 2020, 020037-1–020037-9; https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5062663
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1738-0/$30.00

020037-1
necessity of the traffic loads on bridges from both BS and EC approaches. A comparative study is also demonstrated
through a simply supported bridge using the grillage analysis.

BASIS OF TRAFFIC LOADINGS IN THE CODES

Most of the bridges are designed to carry normal and abnormal traffic loading. BS defined these loads as HA and
HB loadings, while EC defined as Load Model 1 (LM1) and Load Model 3 (LM3), as the normal and abnormal traffic
loadings respectively. LM1 and HA loadings for both codes are intended to cover flowing, congested or traffic jam
situations with a high percentage of heavy lorries. LM1-UDL for EC is a system of uniformly distributed loads (UDL)
having a weight density per square meter of α qi×qki while BS is based on weight density per unit length. The
comparison of the normal and abnormal traffic loadings from both design codes is summarised in Table 1. In addition,
the U.K. National Annex (NA to BS EN 1991-2:2003) [4] in comparison to recommended values in EN 1991-2 [5]
are also included in Table 1. The loaded length considered in the design provides significant difference between the
BS and EC. The intensity of the UDL in BD37 reduces rapidly as the loaded length increases to about 30 m and
gradually thereafter. In EN1991-2, the load intensity for the UDL remains constant with loaded length and has the
dominant effect in the case of longer length. The KEL and TS are two parameters that are utilised to obtain equivalence
between the loading effects obtained from actual vehicles and those obtained from the loading model [6]. These loads
must be placed in such a position so as to cause worst effects. In other words, it is a parameter to provide the similar
UDL to imitate the bending and shearing effects of the actual traffic loads. The TS system is comprising of two
concentrated axle loads, one per notional lane i, representing a tandem system weighing 2×ߙQi×Qki. KEL is
comprising of 120 kN load that need to be applied at each lane. Both HA and LM1 loadings must be multiplied by the
lane factor as provided in Table 2.

TABLE 1. Traffic loading comparison values

Type of Traffic BS Standard (BD Eurocode Standard (EN NA to BS EN 1991-2:2003
Loading 37/01)[7] 1991-2)
Normal traffic HA Loading LM1(Load Model 1) LM1(Load Model 1)
(UDL + KEL) (UDL + TS) (UDL + TS)
Refer Table 2 for detail Refer Table 2 for detail Refer Table 2 for detail
Abnormal HB LM3 (SV) LM3 (SV1)) LM3 (SOV 2))
traffic
Class of Roads Annex A in the codes
Motor way and 45 unit provide the detail SV80,SV100, SOV250,SOV350,
trunk roads (180 tonnes) guideline to defines SV196 SOV450 SOV600
standardized models of
Principal roads 37.5 unit special vehicles that can SV80, SV100 -
(150 tonnes) be used for the design of
road bridges. -
Other public 30 unit SV80
roads (120 tonnes)
*Note: UDL= Uniformly distributed load, TS = Tandem System, KEL= Knife edge load, SV= Special Vehicle, SOV=Special Order Vehicle,
1)
Accordance to Special Types General Order (STGO) Regulations,
2)
Accordance to the Special Order (SO) Regulations

The lane factor, βi, of KEL and UDL has considered similar value as in BD37. On the other hand, the UDL and TS
in EC are associated to their respective lane factor values which are defined as αq and αQ respectively. The adjustment
factors αQi and αqi depend on the class of the route and on the expected traffic type. In the absence of specific
indications, they are assumed as 1.0. It is observed that the U.K. National Annex has modified the αq-factor and
resulting to a constant intensity of 5.5 kN/m2 for UDL in all lanes. The application of the constant intensity of UDL
in all lanes across the carriageway offers considerable simplicity in the analysis of bridges to determine critical load
effects. Meanwhile, the αQ-factor values for the TS load remains unchanged as recommended in EN 1991-2. For the
abnormal traffic loading, Table 1 describes how HB and LM3 could be applied for the design purposes of different
classes of roads. The EC (EN 1991-2) provides a detail guideline in Annex A in the code to define the standardised
model of special vehicles (SV) that can be customised by specified country. U.K. National Annex defines its own SV

020037-2
vehicle and further defines for SOV vehicle as shown in Table 1. Basic longitudinal configuration for each SV model
vehicle can be referred in NA to BS EN 1991-2:2003.

TABLE 2. LM1 and HA with α and β-lane factor values

EN 1991-2:2003 NA to BS EN 1991-2:2003 BS Standard (BD37/01)

Lane TS/axle UDL TS/axle UDL KEL UDL

Qik αq qik αQ Qik αq qik βi βi1) W2)
αQ
(kN) (kN/m2) (kN) (kN/m2) (kN) (kN/m)
0.6111 The lane factor 120 The lane The UDL
Lane 1 1.0 300 1.0 9.0 1.0 300 9.0 value is varying factor value value is
2.2 depends on 120 is varying varying
Lane 2 1.0 200 1.0 2.5 1.0 200 2.5
loaded length depends on depends on
2.2 120
Lane 3 1.0 100 1.0 2.5 1.0 100 2.5 loaded loaded
2.2 120 length length
Other - - 1.0 2.5 - - 2.5
Remaining - - 1.0 2.5 - - 2.2 2.5 No remaining area defined in BD37/01
area (qrk)
1)
Refer Table 14 in BD37/01 for detail, 2) Refer Clause 6.2 and Table 13 in BD37/01 for detail

By comparing the abnormal traffic load between BD37 and U.K. NA, it is noteworthy that there is a reduction
from 150 tonnes and 120 tonnes to 100 tonnes and 80 tonnes accordingly based on road classes on maximum gross
weight for principal and public roads. However, the maximum gross weight for motor way and trunk roads classes is
observed to increase from 180 tonnes to 196 tonnes. There are another two load models mentioned in EC, viz. LM2
and LM4. LM2 is a single axle load applied on specific tyre contact area which covers the dynamic effects of the
normal traffic on short structural members predominantly in the range of loaded lengths from 3 m to 7 m. Meanwhile,
LM4 is a crowd loading that intended only for general verification and applied particularly for bridges located in or
near towns when its effects are not considered in LM1. Nevertheless, these two load models are not discussed further
in this paper and further references can be made in EN 1991-2. In brief, the shifting of bridge codes application from
BD37 to EN 1991 especially in Malaysia would give some implications on the analysis and design of road bridges.
Perhaps, it would also give some implications towards the cost aspect on bridges construction in Malaysia in future.

COMPARISON OF PARTIAL FACTORS BETWEEN THE CODES

Figure 1 illustrates the partial safety factor (p.s.f) contain in ultimate limit state philosophy that has been adopted
in both codes. It is appropriate first to note the use of the term actions in the EC. In the past, the term loads have
traditionally been used in BS. For variable actions, EC introduces a new concept of four representative values for
variable action to bridge designers which provide the main differences towards BS. These representative values are
used in the different combinations of actions. They have different probabilities of occurrence. They are called as the
characteristic, combination, frequent and quasi-permanent values. The characteristic value is the main representative
value, and also is the value generally specified in the various parts of EN 1991. It is a statistically extreme value: in
the calibration of the basic highway traffic loading model, LM1, it is a 1000-year return period value [8] (see EN 1991-
2: 2003, Table 2.1) [9]. The combination, frequent and quasi-permanent values of the variable action are found by
multiplying the characteristic value by ψ0, ψ1, and ψ2 respectively. For bridge design, recommended ψ-factors are
given in EN1990:2002, A2.2. The U.K. National Annex modifies the values for road bridges and footbridges. Both
codes have a provision of p.s.f that to be multiplied by the characteristic load in order to obtain the design load values.
In fact, the p.s.f that take into account for load effects (i.e moment, shear, and displacement) have also introduced in
process to determine the design load effects in the codes. Yet, different approaches are adopted in considering the p.s.f
for load effects in each code. By comparing the p.s.f (ߛ௙௅ and ߛி ) for the characteristic/nominal load in both codes, it
can be noted that these p.s.f are the functions of the other two p.s.f (refer to Fig. 1). These function values ( ߛ௙ଵ ǡ ߛ௙ଶ ǡ ߛ௙
and ߛௌௗ ) are not stated in the codes. The first function which refers to ߛ௙ଵ and ߛ௙ in BS 5400 and EC respectively has
brought a similar meaning. On the other hand, the second function which refer to ߛ௙ଶ and ߛௌௗ giving a contrast meaning
between one another. The ߛௌௗ (one of the function of ߛி ) is actually a p.s.f for action effects, E. Thus, it is noteworthy
that the ߛௌௗ in EC has a similar role as compared to ߛ௙ଷ in BS 5400 [10] due to their similar definition. But both of
them are considered in different positions in a design flow as illustrated in Figure 1. The p.s.f of ߛ௙ଷ in a post structural
analysis is to be multiplied by the load effect, S. Meanwhile, the ߛௌௗ in reality, is taken into account indirectly via

020037-3
multiplying the representative action, Frep, with ߛி prior to the structural analysis. In addition, it can be remarkable
that the ߛ௙ଶ from BS 5400 seems to carry the identical function to ψ0-factor in EC. And again, ߛ௙ଶ and ψ0-factor are
considered in different position in a design flow as illustrated in Figure 1.

Design Load i) inaccurate assessment of the effect of loading *Note: The application of partial
factors is generally simplified in
effects, Sd ii) unforeseen stress distribution in the structure the British codes by combining Jf1
iii) variation in dimensional accuracy achieved in and Jf2 into a single partial factor
= construction Where linear relationships can be denoted JfL (or more specifically
JQ for live loads and JG for
ߛ௙ଷ assumed between loading and load effects. permanent loads).
iv) inherent inaccuracies in the calculation model.
x

BS 5400
Load effects, S

Structural Possibility of unfavourable

analysis deviation of the load from their
function of ߛ௙ଵ nominal values.
similar function

Design = Nominal Load, x ‫ߛ כ‬௙௅ Ǣ ሺߛொǡ ߛீ ሻ

Load Qk
function of ߛ௙ଶ The reduced probability that
various loading acting together
that will all attain their nominal
values simultaneously.

*Note: The application of partial

Action Design Action factors is generally simplified in the
x
function of

similar function
effects, E ߛௌௗ Eurocodes by combining Jf and JSd
effects, Ed into a single partial factor denoted
JF (or more specifically JQ for
variable actions and JG for
Structural Model uncertainty in actions permanent actions).
function of
analysis and action effects
Possibility of unfavourable
Design Characteristic deviation of the action values
= action, Fk x ߰ x ‫ߛ כ‬ி Ǣ ሺߛொǡ ߛீ ሻ ߛ௙
material from the representative
Action, Fd
values.

Representative
action, Frep

EUROCODE
similar function

߰௖ ߰଴ ߰ଵ ߰ଶ

The characteristic value is the Frequent value - The value that is

main representative value. It is a exceeded ‘occasionally, but not too
statistically extreme value.ሺ߰௖ ൌ ͳሻ often’ – perhaps weekly or
monthly.ሺ߰ଵ ൑ ͳሻ

Quasi-permanent value - The value

Combination value - To address that is generally exceeded most of
the reduced likelihood that the time. For traffic loads on
extreme values of more than one bridges and wind actions, the
variable action will occur recommended quasi-permanent
simultaneously. ሺ߰଴ ൑ ͳሻ value is therefore zero. ሺ߰ଶ ൌ Ͳሻ

FIGURE 1. Comparison of partial factor for action/load under limit state design

020037-4
 The values of ߛ௙௅ and ߛி in both codes for highway traffic action (denoted as ߛொ ) and permanent action (denoted
as ߛீ ) are under the ultimate limit state (ULS) and serviceability limit state (SLS). The values are tabulated in Tables
3 and 4 respectively. Meanwhile, Table 5 has summarised for the p.s.f of the design load effects for the concrete
bridges in both codes.

TABLE 3. Highway traffic partial factors, ߛொ of the codes

CODE JSLS JULS
BS 5400-2:1978 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.3
(HA) (HA+HB30) (HA) (HA+HB30)
EN-1990:2002 1 1) 1.35
NA to BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005[11] 1 2) 1.35
1)
Will be multiplied by the characteristic values (*1.0TS + *1.0UDL) under gr1a and frequent values
(*0.75 TS + *0.40 UDL) under gr5
2)
Will be multiplied by the characteristic values (*1.0TS + *1.0UDL) under gr1a and frequent values
(*0.75 TS + *0.75 UDL) under gr5
*ψ factors for bridges, taken from the Table A2.1 and Table NA.A2.1 of the respective codes annex

TABLE 4. Permanent loads partial factors, ߛீ of the codes

NA to BS
LOAD BS 5400-2:1978 EN-1990:2002 EN1990:2002
+A1:2005
JSLS JULS JSLS JULS JSLS JULS
Concrete Self weight 1.0 1.15 1.0 1.35 1.0 1.35
Steel Self weight 1.0 1.05 1.0 1.35 1.0 1.2
Super-imposed dead load 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.35 1.0 1.2
Deck Surfacing 1.2 1.75 1.0 1.35 1.0 1.2

TABLE 5. Partial factors of load effects for the concrete bridges

Jf3 JSd
CODE
SLS ULS SLS ULS
3)
BS 5400-2:1978 1.0 1.1 - -
EN-1990:2002 - - _4) _4)
NA to BS EN1990:2002+A1:2005 - - _4) _4)
3)
Plastic method 1.15
4)
The design load effects of Eurocodes have taken into account into a single partial factor denoted ߛி
(or more specifically ߛொ for variable actions and ߛொ for permanent actions) as illustrated in Figure 1

METHODOLOGY

This paper aims to compare the results of the bridge design between the BS and EC codes. A precast simply
supported bridge consisting of seven different span lengths (refer Table 6) has been modelled. The grillage modeling
technique is employed in this study. The bridge cross section is set to be identical at all spans as depicted in Figure 2.
Four notional lanes with 3 m width are considered in the grillage analysis. The 200 mm thick deck slab is modelled
as lumped transversal beams at 2 m spacing. The longitudinal main girders are modelled with the properties of the
composite concrete post-tensioned T-beam (PTT) according to Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR) standard as shown in Table
6. There are two cases of highway traffic loads specified by both codes are utilised in this study using STAAD.Pro.
The two cases are (i) solely the normal traffic load, and (ii) the combination of normal and abnormal traffic loads. The
arrangement of the abnormal traffic load and KEL/TS system has positioned in a manner to produce the worst effect
for the maximum bending moment (BM) and maximum shear force (SF) to the design purpose. The permanents loads

020037-5
are comprised of dead loads and superimposed dead loads. The specific weight of material for permanent load such
as in-situ concrete, precast concrete and premix (deck surfacing) is taken as 24 kN/m 3, 25 kN/m3 and 22.6 kN/m3,
respectively. For EC, the NA to BS EN1990:2002 +A1:2005 is included in the analysis in order to compare the effect
of modified p.s.f and adjustment factors towards recommended values in EN-1990:2002.

TABLE 6. Standard composite concrete post-tensioned T-beam (PTT) to JKR

Area
Section No. Span (m) Depth (mm) (x106mm2) Yb (mm) Zb (x106 mm3) Zt (x106 mm3)
PTT 1 25 1800 1.09 971.4 332.12 389.37
PTT 2 28 1900 1.15 1022 364.57 429.91
PTT 3 30 2000 1.20 1073 398.24 472.28
PTT 4 32 2100 1.26 1124 437.05 516.5
PTT 5 35 2300 1.37 1225 511.06 610.45
PTT 6 40 2700 1.59 1428 667.7 820.41
PTT 7 45 2850 1.67 1503 733.12 906.72

FIGURE 2. Details of the main components of the bridge cross section employed

ANALYSIS OF RESULT

It is appropriate to note that all the maximum moment values are generated by only the HA loading and LM1 as
in accordance to BD37 and EC, respectively. Figure 3 presents the effects of the unfactored load, UF, specifically for
moments. The ratio, RBM of UF moment is utilised in order to make a comparison between the codes. This ratio is
calculated based on normalising the maximum moment values resulting from EN-1990:2002 with maximum moment
values from BD37. Similarly, the maximum moment values resulting from BS EN are also normalised with BD37.
The ratio values are observed based on the combination of traffic and permanent actions as depicted in Figure 3.

Comparison of UF load effects (Moment)

1.10
RBM (Moment Relative To/BD 37)

1.08 EN/BD 37 (Traffic +

Permanent action)
1.06
BS EN/BD 37 (Traffic
+ Permanent action)
1.04
datum line
1.02

1.00
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
Span (m)

FIGURE 3. The ratio UF RBM= UF BM(EC)/ UF BM(BD37)

020037-6
 From Figure 3, it is observed that the RBM values are larger than 1.0 (datum) in all spans for both EN and BS EN.
This indicates that the moment values in EC are larger than BD37 under the UF condition. In other words, the EC is
more conservative as compared to BD37 under the UF condition. This pattern is resulted from the TS system that has
governed the maximum moment at critical position on the bridges. BD37 applies a high UDL combined with a
relatively low single KEL (120 kN). The EC loading is influenced principally by the 300 kN axle TS, with the UDL
contributing a relatively smaller amount. The BS EN is more conservative than EN due to the adjustment factor, αq,
that has been incorporated (see Table 2) which resulting in more onerous UDL values in accordance to BS EN than
EN.
Figure 4 shows the results of utilising the load in SLS. It can be signified that the EN is unconservative relative to
BD37 for the entire bridge span. Meanwhile, the result has proved that the BS EN loading would be unconservative
for loaded length below 30 m while slightly conservative for cases of 30 m and above loaded length. The finding is
obtained when considering the p.s.f under the SLS condition. By referring to the p.s.f values in Tables 3 and 4, BD37
provides relatively high p.s.f values in both permanent and traffic actions than EC under the SLS condition. However,
this effect of p.s.f is not the dominant factor in governing the maximum moments as compared to the influence of TS
loading for BS EN at 30 m and above loaded length. Aforementioned, the intensity of the UDL in BD37 reduces
rapidly as the loaded length increases to about 30 m and gradually thereafter. In EN1991-2, the load intensity for the
UDL remains constant with any loaded length and it is observed to show higher dominancy effect at longer lengths.
Therefore, the value of maximum moments is governed by HA-UDL in BD37 for case of loaded length below 30 m.

Comparison of SLS load effects (Moment)

1.03
RBM (Moment Relative To/BD 37)

1.02
1.01
1.00
0.99
0.98 EN/BD 37 (Traffic +
0.97 Permanent action)
0.96 BS EN/BD 37 (Traffic +
0.95 Permanent action)

0.94 datum line

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
Span (m)

FIGURE 4. The ratio SLS RBM = SLS BM(EC)/ SLS BM(BD37)

Figure 5 presents the result when utilising the ULS load. Similarly, to BS EN under SLS case, it can be notified
that EC approach is unconservative for loaded length below 30 m while slightly conservative at 30 m and above loaded
length under the ULS condition. This is due to the bunching effect of all p.s.f that has been considered under this
particular condition. By referring to the p.s.f values in Tables 3 and 4, BD37 approach considers relatively higher p.s.f
values for traffic actions than EC approach. On the other hand, the p.s.f of permanent action for BD37 is relatively
lower than EC except on the p.s.f of deck surfacing. In addition, by recalling the application of p.s.f (γf3 in BD37 and
γSd in EC) that has been considered in a different manner during the analysis stage as discussed in Figure 1, it has
contributed to the plotted ratio’s pattern in the comparison result. The bunching effect of all p.s.f under ULS also
resulted to the onerous loading in EC, as compared to BD37. And again, the nature of UDL intensity in BD37 (reduces
rapidly as the loaded length increases to about 30 m and gradually thereafter) governed the value of maximum
moments below 30 m loaded length as observed in BS EN approach under the SLS condition as discussed.

020037-7
 Comparison of ULS load effects (Moment)
1.06

RBM (Moment Relative To/BD 37)

1.04
1.02
1.00
EN/BD 37 (Traffic +
0.98 Permanent action)
0.96 BS EN/BD 37 (Traffic +
Permanent action)
0.94
0.92
datum line
0.90
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
Span (m)

FIGURE 5. The ratio ULS RBM= ULS BM(EC)/ ULS BM(BD37)

CONCLUSIONS

This study discusses on the comparison study of the traffic loadings on bridges for BS and EC approaches. The
findings from this study contribute to the pool of knowledge in bridge design especially for bridge designers in
Malaysia who intend to adopt the EC approach to replace the current practice approach of using BS5400 in considering
the traffic loadings. The following conclusions are highlighted from this study:

1) EC introduces a new concept for bridge designers to include variable actions that are not introduced in BD37.
The new concept is categorised into four representative values (characteristic, combination, frequent and quasi-
permanent) of variable actions that are applied in different combinations of actions. These four representative
values have different probabilities of occurrence.
2) The p.s.f of load/action effects are considered in different position in both codes as given in Figure 1. The γf3
in BD37 is a p.s.f that to be multiplied by the load effect, S, in a post structural analysis. Meanwhile, the γSd for
EC in reality is taken into account indirectly via multiplying the representative action, F rep, with γF prior to the
structural analysis. It can be remarkable that the γf2 in BS5400 seems to carry the identical function as compared
to ψ0-factor in EC but they are considered in different position in a design flow.
3) It is found that the TS system with the nature of UDL intensity (remained constant with loaded length and has
the dominant effect at longer lengths) in EC has governed for the maximum moment at critical position on the
bridges for span 30 m and above. Meanwhile, a relatively low single KEL (120 kN) with the nature of UDL
intensity (reduced rapidly as the loaded length increased to about 30 m and gradually thereafter) in BD37 has
governed the maximum moment at critical position on the bridges for span below 30 m length. This factor
indicates a major difference between the two codes.
4) The modified adjustment factor, αq, of UDL (which considerably higher than EN values) given in BS EN
imparted higher ratio values of RBM than EN in all conditions (UF, SLS and ULS). In contrast, the modified
p.s.f of the permanent action given in BS EN is relatively lower than EN while the p.s.f value for traffic actions
remains unchanged. However, the modified adjustment factor, αq, that given in BS EN is dominant in providing
the ratio RBM pattern in all conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to acknowledge Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) for financial support in this research
work.

REFERENCES

1. R. Lenner, M. Sýkora, Partial Factors for Loads Due to Special Vehicles on Road Bridges, Engineering Structures
106, 137-146 (2016).

020037-8
2. C. J. See, Overview of Structural Eurocode Adoption in Bridge Design, Technical Update JKR 20400-0105-16
Issue 4, (2016).
3. J. Chiang, Structural Eurocodes to Replace British Standards in Malaysia, SeGi Review 8, 5-21 (2015).
4. EN1990: Basis of structural design (European Standard Institution, UK, 2002).
5. NA to BS EN 1991: Part 2. UK National Annex for Eurocode - Actions on structures: Traffic loads on bridges
(European Standard Institution, UK, 2003).
6. P. Dawe, Research Perspective: Traffic loadings on highway bridges, Thomas Telford Ltd, London, 2003. p.22.
7. BD37/01: Part 14. Design manual for roads and bridges - Loads for highway bridges (British Standards Institution,
UK, 2002).
8. Y. Bouassida, and E. Bouchon, Bridge Design to Eurocodes Worked examples, edited by A. Athanasopoulou
(European Union, Italy, 2012), 24.
9. EN 1991: Part 2. Actions on structures - Traffic loads on bridges (European Standard Institution, UK, 2003).
10. BS 5400: Part 2. Steel, concrete and composite bridges - Specification for loads (British Standards Institution, UK,
1978).
11. NA to BS EN1990+A1: UK National Annex for Eurocode - Basis of structural design (European Standard
Institution, UK, 2005).

020037-9