DESIGN TO EUROCODES

INTRODUCTION, PRINCIPLES, EN1990 AND 1991

(mainly for bridges)

Paul Jackson

1. INTRODUCTION

This paper gives a brief introduction to Eurocodes, Complete coverage is not possible in the
available time and space so order so it concentrates on principles, basics and things which are
not well explained. Much of the detail you will have to get from the documents themselves but
we hope this will make them easier to follow. We will also concentrate on the material you need
to design relatively simple bridges although the principles are applicable to all structures.
Where it is likely to be helpful, we will refer to differences from and similarities with BS 5400 but
try not to do this enough to annoy those who are not familiar with that.

1.1 Split of Material Between Documents

To those new to Eurocodes, but not bridge design to UK based codes, the most notable
difference from past codes is the way the material is split between the documents. The
Eurocode system has a code for each material giving principles and rules plus rules for
buildings and then a Part 2 which covers bridges but which only gives rules where they are
different from or additional to those in Part 1. The same principle also applies to EN 1991 which
gives the “Actions”. “Actions” essentially means “loads” and is technically more correct as some
of the “actions” we have to design for, such as temperature effects, are not really “loads”. EN
1990, which gives the general principles and combinations and factors, is slightly different in
that the bridge specific part appears in Annex A2 whilst building specific values are in A1.

The Scope of EN 1992-2 is the design of Concrete Bridges. There is no definition of a bridge
but many transport authorities are taking it to include all their (non building) structures, including
culverts and retaining walls.

At present, the Scope of the ENs explicitly excludes the assessment of existing structures
although there is a proposal for assessment parts and indeed both the UK HA and Network Rail
assessment standards include some provisions taken from the Eurocodes. One reason they
are not planning adopting Eurocodes for assessment is that assessing to different standards
from those used for design inevitably throws up spurious failures. It therefore seems likely that
at some time in the future, when structures designed to Eurocodes start to be assessed,
Eurocodes will be used in assessment.

One major difference between the Eurocode system and BS 5400 is that it does include
coverage of Geotechnics. This coverage is also largely consistent with the coverage of other
materials, using limit state principles and partial safety factors. This is not covered here but will
be referred to.

The Eurocodes aim to be consistent across materials, in both content and presentation. All the
material parts use the same main section headings. This helps the composite EN 1994
considerably: some other composite standards have to cope with very different steel and
concrete standards.

Design to Eurocodes Gifford

Introduction Principles, EN 1990 and 1991 Page 1 Paul Jackson, September 2010
1.2 National Documents

At the previous draft (ENV) stage, Eurocodes had “National Application Documents” which
could, and sometimes did, change everything. It was hoped to bring practice across Europe
more into line but the current Eurocodess do still have “National Annexes” (NAs). You use the
National Annexe from the country where the bridge will be. The NAs are quite restricted in what
they can do, which is:

• Give values for “NDPs” (Nationally Determined Parameters) which are identified in the ENs
• Give direction where National Determination Specifically allowed
• Decide which Annexes can be used
• Refer to NCCIs (Non Contradictory Complimentary Information)

This means that (unlike at ENV stage) it should be apparent from reading a Eurocode when the
NA is likely to change it. The general policy (although not quite always followed) is that there
should be “recommended values” for Nationally Determined Parameters. This is to facilitate use
of the Eurocodes in non member states. Across Europe, the general trend is that the smaller
states have smaller NAs and are less inclined to depart from recommended values. Outside
Europe, unless a client for example specified otherwise, you would normally use recommended
values. This has the curious effect that using Eurocodes outside Europe can actually be easier
than inside! There are however, some national factors that can’t have default “recommended”
values, notably those for climatic actions (temperature and wind). Here the designer or client
would have to obtain their own values appropriate for the relevant climate.

The general policy (again not quite always followed) is that EN 1992-2 should only depart from
Part 1 where there are bridge-specific reasons. This should give readers of EN 1992-1 some
idea where 1992-2 will change it.

In the UK, we also have BSi “PDs” “Published Documents”. These give background to
decisions in the NA on the cases where national determination is allowed as well as (particularly
in the case of the bridge documents) “NCCI” and some advice on application. Although they
would have been allowed to, the NAs do not give specific references to the PDs for individual
clauses, partly for the practical reason that the NAs were written before the PDs. At the time of
writing, the exact status of PD material in the HA system is not entirely clear. For example, if
you follow the EN and NA but not the PD, it is not clear if this counts as a “Departure from
Standard”.

It will be seen that the above means we potentially have 6 documents to do the job of BS 5400
Part 4 (or strictly, for HA jobs, Part 4 and BD 24): EN 1992-1, EN 1992-2 and both their
attendant NAs and PDs. These will all be combined in the “Concise EC2-2” to be published by
the Concrete Centre. In common with this course, this publication follows UK practice but
identifies where it obtains things from UK documents so that readers will know when they need
to refer to other documents if working outside the UK. The PDs should be non-contradictory so
you could use them outside the UK but there is no guarantee they do not contradict other NAs.

Also in common with these notes, the Concise EC2-2 does not claim to cover everything you
need for more exotic structures or analyses, e.g. cable stayed box girders or non-linear
analysis.

In the EU and CEN system, safety is still a national responsibility so there are more NDPs in EN
1990. In EN 1992, and all the material codes, NDPs and other allowance for National
Determination arise where agreement was not reached and are a good indication of the more

Design to Eurocodes Gifford

Introduction Principles, EN 1990 and 1991 Page 2 Paul Jackson, September 2010
 controversial parts of the documents. Only very few are really due to differences between
countries except in dominant opinion.

1.3 Clause Numbering

Clauses which are added or changed by EN 1992-2 have numbers which match EN 1992-1 but
with “100” added to the number so they can be identified. Hence, references to clause numbers
do not need to state which part they are in. Thus if it is stated that redistribution is controlled by
EN 1992 clauses 5.5 (1,2,3 and 104) you know that 1,2 and 3 are in Part 1 but 4 is in Part 2.
Similarly, NA clause numbers have “NA” at the start. Clauses starting “A” come from Annex A
and NA.A would indicate annex A in the NA. Annexes which are in Part 2 have double letters.
Thus 1992-1 has annexes A-J but 1992-2 adds KK onwards. This might sound clumsy but is
actually quite helpful.

Eurocodes generally distinguish principles which have to be followed (marked with a “P” after
the clause number) from rules which provide a way of complying with the Principles. In theory
you could use other means of ensuring compliance. However, in practical application the
distinction is less significant than it may appear. Under Highways Agency procedures, for
example, use of other methods to comply with the Principles would still count as a Departure
from Standard.

1.4 Languages and Reference to Documents

CEN does not itself publish Eurocodes, the member institutions do. In the UK this is BSi and
they add the “BS” prefix, thus “EN 1990” becomes “BSEN 1990”. Other countries also publish,
often in English as well as their own language, adding their own prefix. Officially the English,
French and German versions are equal status to the extent that you can cite them in a Contract
without saying which governs, but all others are translations. All versions, including the English
one, use decimal commas rather than points. They also use the same variable and subscript
notation which very predominantly follow English language or convention. Defined variable are
identified by being in italics.

There does not yet appear to be a clear convention on how you refer to ENs: e.g. as ENs or
BSENs. Use of “EN” makes formal references awkward as any one document can have a
dozen plus publishers all of which add a prefix. Use of “BSEN 1990” is ambiguous as it is not
clear if it means “EN 1990 and I happen to be using one published by BSi” or “EN 1990 with UK
NA”. In these notes, the BS is dropped except where it is specifically meaning “with UK NA.”
Note, however, that in the UK NAs it refers to “BSEN” when it specifically does not mean as
modified by NA. Other NAs do the same but you only need the NA, not the EN itself, from the
appropriate country.

1.5 Supporting Standards

The Eurocodes are meant for use with EN standards for materials such as reinforcement,
prestress, cement and concrete. Most of these have been implemented ahead of the
Eurocodes themselves. In the UK we are already using 500 grade reinforcement and EN 206
for concrete, albeit the latter implemented by BS 8500 which is written as stand alone so you do
not have to read EN 206. There are also product standards for precast concrete, in our case
EN 15050 (bridge elements) and also EN 14844 (box culverts). Both these give information
which is relevant to design. EN 15050 sometimes contradicts EN 1992-2 by allowing simpler
approaches. Strictly this is a fault and the EN 1992 normative clauses take precedence so it
appears you would have to apply for a Departure from Standard to use the EN 15050 approach.
There is also a peculiarity to be aware of that although UK authorities regard any culvert

Design to Eurocodes Gifford

Introduction Principles, EN 1990 and 1991 Page 3 Paul Jackson, September 2010
 passing under (or even sometimes not passing under) a highway or railway as a “bridge”, the
drafters of EN 14844 did not anticipate use of EN 1992-2.

2. EN 1990

Like BS 5400 Part 1, EN 1990 covers general principles. However, unlike BS 5400 Part 1, it
also gives the load (or rather Action) factors and combinations. Hence, unlike BS 5400 Part 1,
you will need a copy. In practice, the factors you need are in the NA to Annex A2 (for bridges
ad A1 for buildings.

The general principle of Action factors is that:

Fd = γf Frep = γfyFk

In words: design action (load) equals gamma (load) factor times representative load.
Representative load = psi factor times characteristic load.

γf becomes γg for permanent actions and γq for variable actions. As in BS 5400, the factor for
permanent actions can have high or low values but there is no equivalent for variable actions as
they can be zero. The factors for permanent actions are known as γg,sup and γg,inf. Like, BS
5400 (although not BS 8110) γg,inf is only applied when it is a worse case to apply it to the whole
load, e.g. you do not normally consider alternate spans with γg,sup and γg,inf. There is a
separate “equ” condition where variations are considered. This is a more formalised equivalent
to the “overturning” check in BS 5400. It uses a reduced load factor for adverse effects, see
Table NA. A.2.4(A).

y is roughly equivalent to γf2 in BS 5400 and is always 1.0 for permanent actions. Values for
variable actions are:

y0 = combination value (most directly equivalent to γf2 in BS 5400)

y1 = frequent value, used for some SLS checks and also for leading (see later for
what this means!) variable actions acting with accidental actions
y2 = quasi permanent value, used for some SLS checks and for other variable
actions acting with frequent leading variable action.

Unlike BS 5400’s γf2 , values for this are given separately and not absorbed into other factors.

Note that the traffic load is split into groups and different parts of the traffic action in a group can
be applied with different y factors.
Strictly, the load effects are multiplied by γsd which is equivalent to BS 5400’s γf3. However, this
is virtually always absorbed into the load factor which then has a capital suffix, e.g. γg becomes
γG. The full version of the safety factor format “recommended” by EN 1992-2 for non-linear
analysis does consider the factors separately but use of this is discouraged by the NA to 1992-2
and the NA to 1990 gives γG and γQ, not γg, γq,. It does give a value for γsd although, since it
does not give values for γg, and γq, it is not clear how you would use it.

Design to Eurocodes Gifford

Introduction Principles, EN 1990 and 1991 Page 4 Paul Jackson, September 2010
 EN1990 does not have the very large γG for surfacing that BS 5400 had but the same effect is
obtained by applying the factor to the thickness. This is given in EN 1991-1.1 NA clause
5.2.3(3).

The approach for combinations of variable actions is that each type of variable action (e.g.
traffic, wind, temperature effects etc.) is considered in turn as a “leading variable action” and
combined with all others at their combination values, with the y factor applied, normally y0 at
ULS. This gives a lot of combinations for bridges. However, the problem is reduced since:

1. Actions that cannot exist simultaneously due to physical or functional reasons do not
have to be considered. Examples might be snow and maximum temperature, or loads
which are physically in the same place.
2. Traffic actions are split into Groups only one of which has to be considered at a time:
that is they are combined only with non-traffic actions, not with other traffic actions.
Note that although they use y factors from 1990 A2 NA, the Groups are given in 1991-
2, not 1990 and that separate Tables are given for Characteristic and Frequent Loads.
In the case of highways bridges, former are in the NA but latter are in the EN.
3. The re are a lot of “0s” and “-s” in the Table of y factors.
4. It is usually apparent that most of the combinations will not be critical, leaving only 1 or 2
that are.
5. EN 1990 A2.2.2 (Highway) and A2.2.3 (Footbridges) says that the combination of wind
and thermal actions can generally be ignored and this is explicitly confirmed for the UK
in the NA. This is justified as extreme wind and temperature require different weather
so, even though wind and thermal effects can be combined in real life, the extremes
could not and it is safe to consider them separately. There is no equivalent statement in
A.2.2.4 (railway) although there is no obvious reason for this.
6. EN 1990 A2.2.2, 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 for highway bridges, footbridges and railway bridges
respectively give details of more combinations which do not have to be considered.
7. EN 1990 Table A2.1 and A2.2 (confirmed by NA) says that the y0 factor for thermal
effects can generally be reduced to zero at ULS. This is because the load effects are
not significant at ULS so it might be argued you could do this even if it was not specified,
significant because as with point 5 above, it is not repeated for Rail structures in Table
A2.3.

EN 1990 does allow for a reduced dead load to be applied with the live load combination in
which case you also have to check the full dead load with a combination with a reduced value
for what then becomes main rather than leading variable action. However, the NA does not
allow this approach for bridges, Table NA.A2.4(A).

Despite the very different and perhaps daunting appearance, the combinations end up very
similar to BS 5400. The most notable difference is that, there is no increased normal traffic on
its own case which means there is often one less combination to consider.

The building part does not give as many short cuts. Hence unlike with bridges, you may have
more combinations to consider than in the past.

3. EN 1991-1

This and its various parts give the actions which are common to all structures. The parts are:

Design to Eurocodes Gifford

Introduction Principles, EN 1990 and 1991 Page 5 Paul Jackson, September 2010
 1.1 Densities, Self-weight and Imposed Loads
1.2 Actions on Structures Exposed to Fire
1.3 Snow Loads
1.4 Wind Actions
1.5 Thermal Actions
1.6 Actions During Execution
1.7 Accidental Actions Due to Impact and Explosions

Note:

1.7 includes density information that BS 5400 did not give, although it referred to BS 648.

The EN 1990 NA specifically says you do not normally have to consider snow for bridges
although it indicates there could be exceptions, possibly including lifting bridges.

Wind loading is not normally critical for short span bridges.

1.5 gives options but when implemented with the UK NA it is close to BS 5400.

1.7 gives accidental actions. Note that these are used with different material as well as load
factors from normal actions. Whereas our old BD 60 gives only one set of vehicle impact loads
for columns and decks, EN 1991-7 gives different figures for different types of road, going right
down to Urban and Courtyards and car parks. There is a risk assessment approach in the NA.

Parapet impact loads, although counted as accidental actions, are given by EN 1991-2, not
1991-1-7.

Because the documents are meant to cover all structures, not just bridges, they cover a lot of
information that is not in BS 5400. However, some of it can be useful. For example, if you
were designing a covered footbridge you would find the ENs give more comprehensive
coverage than BS 5400.

4. EN 1991-2

This covers traffic loads. The following does not give full details but does give some principles
and explanations which should make the documents easier to follow.

4.1 Normal Highway Traffic: Load Model 1

This represents normal traffic: “Authorised Weight” regulation vehicles in the UK. The load
includes dynamic effects. It consists of a uniformly distributed load (udl) with a “tandem axle” in
addition. The tandem axle is much more severe than the BS 5400 knife edge load which
enables a constant udl to be used. It is therefore simpler than the BS 5400 loading and does
not use the concept of “loaded length”. Be aware, however, when designing multi-span
structures, that this means the critical load case is likely to have more spans loaded, e.g.
alternate spans loaded for the whole length of a viaduct. In BS 5400, the reduction in intensity
made this unlikely to be critical.

The load is applied in each “notional” lane. The number of notional lanes is decided only by the
width of the carriageway and not by the lane markings. The idea of using lanes is to obtain an

Design to Eurocodes Gifford

Introduction Principles, EN 1990 and 1991 Page 6 Paul Jackson, September 2010
 integer number of vehicles across the width of the bridge. The reason for using notional lanes
rather than marked lanes is to allow for changes of use, temporary contra-flow schemes, etc. The
lanes are usually 3m wide but the remaining area is loaded with a separate remaining area udl.
This is much simpler than the treatment of lane width and lateral bunching in BS 5400 which
contained historical anomalies. However, again beware of the implications. You may need to
consider more than one set of lane and remaining area positions for the same structure for different
load cases. There is also a special case for carriageway widths between 5.4 and 6m which have
two equal lanes. Since the udl is defined per square metre, this means they have a slightly lesser
udl when expressed per metre of lane.

There is only one tandem system in each lane and only tandem systems in 3 lanes. They are
normally on centre to the lane transversely but for local verifications they can be brought closer
together, with wheels at 0.5m centre to centre instead of 1.0 which normally arises with 3m lanes.
It is not entirely clear, but it appears you do not have to consider this for combined global and local
effects.

EN 1991 tells you to number the lanes according to the load effects they produce. The lane
numbers can be different for different checks: e.g. heaviest loaded might be centre or edge when
considering different beams.

Unlike BS 5400, EN 1991 does not consider the statistical issues which result in long spans not
needing to be designed for the maximum physically possible load. Its Scope is strictly limited to
loaded lengths of up to 200m. Use above this length is, however, conservative and the NA extends
it to 1500m.

With recommended values, EN 1991-2 gives one very heavily loaded lane and significantly less
load in other lanes. However, the NA changes it substantially so it is much closer to BD 37. This
gives the same udl not only in all lanes but also in the remaining area.

4.2 Local Effects: LM2

Although the tandem axle in Load Model 1 is quite severe, there is also a separate single axle
Load Model 2. Only one of these is applied but it can be in any position in the carriageway. It
allows for a bigger dynamic effect than Load Model 1. Unlike the other Eurocode traffic loads,
you do have to consider one wheel on its own if it is more severe than the whole axle.

In EN 1991-2 wheel contact shapes are different for LM 1 and 2, which could result in one being
critical for one set of reinforcement but the other for the other. However, the UK NA changes
them to both be 0.4m square. The contact area is bigger than in BS 5400 and the spread
through the surfacing, as well as concrete slab, is at 45˚ (EN 1991 4.3.6). This can make them
less severe relative to BS 5400 than might be anticipated from their actual values.

Note that LM2 is only considered on its own, not with either other traffic loads or other variable
actions (1990 A2.2.2(2)).

The use of severe local loads means LM 1 and 2 do fully cover normal traffic and, unlike BS
5400, there is no need for special rules for transverse spanning members etc.

Design to Eurocodes Gifford

Introduction Principles, EN 1990 and 1991 Page 7 Paul Jackson, September 2010
4.3 Load Model 3 and Abnormal Vehicles

At ENV stage, EN 1991 contained a Load Model 3 to represent abnormal vehicles. However,
insufficient agreement was reached to make this Normative. It has been moved to an
informative annex but the UK abnormal vehicles are now in the NA. The vehicles in the UK NA
will be familiar to those who have used BD 86/07. They are more realistic than the HB used in
BS 5400 and cover the old AIL as well as HB. The NA does not tell you which vehicles are
applied to which roads; this has to be agreed for individual Projects although it may be in the HA
IAN. Unlike LM1 and 2, the dynamic factor is given separately in Table NA.2 which is simpler
than the factor in BD 86/07. It is constant for a given axle weight so you might ask why it was
not absorbed into the load. The reason is that it enables the NA rules for loads behind
abutments to phase it out with depth.

There are two types of vehicles “SV” and “SOV”. The latter are “Special Order Vehicles” and
are equivalent to AILs in the old system which were not covered in BS 5400. The tank
transporter from BD 86 is not included as it is not critical; although it could be more critical for
local effects than the SV or SOV it is covered by LM2. The SV 150 and train are also omitted.

Only one vehicle of either type is applied to the structure at a time and the whole vehicle is
applied even if some of the axles have relieving effects. Strictly, it says (NA 2.14.4(1)) that only
one vehicle is applied to any one “superstructure”, implying that substructures supporting two
superstructures might have to be designed for two such loads. If designing a structure where
this arises, the requirement for this should be agreed when the vehicles to be considered are
decided.

The vehicles are applied in the worst position and are combined with LM1 loads elsewhere but
at their frequent values (normally 0.75 from EN 1990 NA.A2.1). They can either fit in or straddle
notional lanes. Although they only just fit the lanes, fitting in the lane will normally be the worst
case because of the greater LM1 load that is then applied with them. It is only for things like
transverse bending, where the LM1 load could have a relieving effect, that the straddling case is
likely to be the worst case although it would arise on a slip road between 5.2 and 6m wide. In
the lane with the SV or SOV vehicle, the LM1 model is applied from 5m from the centreline of
the axle of the SV/SOV. It appears this should mean the edge of the tandem axle wheels and
the start of the udl is at 5m although the diagrams show it slightly closer. Note that the lanes of
LM1 are interchangeable and (as in BD 37!) the case shown in the Figures is not often critical:
you would normally have lane 1 next to the LM3 lane.

4.4 Load Model 4: Crowds

This exists in EN 1991-2 mainly because the lane loading on lanes other than lane 1 is less
severe than crowd loading so this has to be considered if it is likely. Since the UK NA increases
the lane loading, it appears LM4 is only relevant if you consider it necessary to consider crowds
on central reserves which are not footways. It is more significant if you are not using the UK NA.

4.5 Footway Loading

The EN uses a more severe load for footways on highway bridges than for footbridges but the
NA makes them the same. The load reduces if the loaded length exceeds 30m but you have to
consider crowd load (based on LM4) if they are considered likely. This makes no difference to
load for lengths below 30m. The groups in EN 1991-2 NA mean that only 0.6 footway is
combined with LM1 and none with LM3.

Design to Eurocodes Gifford

Introduction Principles, EN 1990 and 1991 Page 8 Paul Jackson, September 2010
4.6 Rail Loading

Although it uses different names, the rail loading is basically the same as BS 5400 as they are
both based on UIC documents. The EN treatment of dynamic factors appears more
complicated. However, this is because BS 5400 only fully covers certain cases and you actually
need a UIC document to tell if your structure complies. The EN gives a flow chart to tell you if
dynamic analysis is needed. Generally, it will not be needed except for structures which are not
covered by BS 5400.

Paul Jackson
Gifford LLP
September 2010

Design to Eurocodes Gifford

Introduction Principles, EN 1990 and 1991 Page 9 Paul Jackson, September 2010