EN 1991-2:2003

2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 2: Traffic loads on bridgesEurocode 1: Osnove projektiranja in vplivi na konstrukcije – 2. del: Prometna obtežba mostovEurocode 1: Actions sur les structures - Partie 2: Actions sur les ponts, dues au traficEurocode 1: Einwirkungen auf Tragwerke - Teil 2: Verkehrslasten auf BrückenTa slovenski standard je istoveten z:EN 1991-2:2003SIST EN 1991-2:2004en93.040Gradnja mostovBridge construction91.010.30Technical aspectsICS:SIST ENV 1991-3:19991DGRPHãþDSLOVENSKI
STANDARDSIST EN 1991-2:200401-september-2004

EUROPEAN STANDARDNORME EUROPÉENNEEUROPÄISCHE NORMEN 1991-2September 2003ICS 91.010.30; 93.040Supersedes ENV 1991-3:1995English versionEurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 2: Traffic loads onbridgesEurocode 1: Actions sur les structures - Partie 2: Actionssur les ponts, dues au traficEurocode 1: Einwirkungen auf Tragwerke - Teil 2:Verkehrslasten auf BrückenThis European Standard was approved by CEN on 28 November 2002.CEN members are bound to comply with the CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations which stipulate the conditions for giving this EuropeanStandard the status of a national standard without any alteration. Up-to-date lists and bibliographical references concerning such nationalstandards may be obtained on application to the Management Centre or to any CEN member.This European Standard exists in three official versions (English, French, German). A version in any other language made by translationunder the responsibility of a CEN member into its own language and notified to the Management Centre has the same status as the officialversions.CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and UnitedKingdom.EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATIONCOMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATIONEUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNGManagement Centre: rue de Stassart, 36
B-1050 Brussels© 2003 CENAll rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reservedworldwide for CEN national Members.Ref. No. EN 1991-2:2003 E

(2, 3).786.4.5.1 Field of application.786.4.5.2 Definition of the dynamic factor .786.4.5.3 Determinant length L.796.4.5.4 Reduced dynamic effects.826.4.6 Requirements for a dynamic analysis.836.4.6.1 Loading and load combinations.836.4.6.2 Speeds to be considered.876.4.6.3 Bridge parameters.886.4.6.4 Modelling the excitation and dynamic behaviour of the structure.896.4.6.5 Verifications of the limit states.916.4.6.6 Additional verification for fatigue where dynamic analysis is required.926.5 HORIZONTAL FORCES - CHARACTERISTIC VALUES.936.5.1 Centrifugal forces.936.5.2 Nosing force.976.5.3 Actions due to traction and braking.976.5.4 Combined response of structure and track to variable actions.986.5.4.1 General principles.986.5.4.2 Parameters affecting the combined response of the structure and track.996.5.4.3 Actions to be considered.1016.5.4.4 Modelling and calculation of the combined track/structure system.1026.5.4.5 Design criteria.1046.5.4.6 Calculation methods.1056.6 AERODYNAMIC ACTIONS FROM PASSING TRAINS.1086.6.1 General.1086.6.2 Simple vertical surfaces parallel to the track (e.g. noise barriers).109

FOR REAL TRAINS.132ANNEX D (NORMATIVE) BASIS FOR THE FATIGUE ASSESSMENT OFRAILWAY STRUCTURES.134D.1 ASSUMPTIONS FOR FATIGUE ACTIONS.134D.2 GENERAL DESIGN METHOD.135D.3 TRAIN TYPES FOR FATIGUE.135ANNEX E (INFORMATIVE) LIMITS OF VALIDITY OF LOAD MODELHSLM AND THE SELECTION OF THE CRITICAL UNIVERSAL TRAINFROM HSLM-A.141E.1 LIMITS OF VALIDITY OF LOAD MODEL HSLM.141E.2 SELECTION OF A UNIVERSAL TRAIN FROM HSLM-A.142ANNEX F (INFORMATIVE) CRITERIA TO BE SATISFIED IF A DYNAMICANALYSIS IS NOT REQUIRED.150

1 Agreement between the Commission of the European Communities and the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN)concerning the work on EUROCODES for the design of building and civil engineering works (BC/CEN/03/89).

2 According to Art. 3.3 of the CPD, the essential requirements (ERs) shall be given concrete form in interpretative documents forthe creation of the necessary links between the essential requirements and the mandates for harmonised ENs and ETAGs/ETAs.3 According to Art. 12 of the CPD the interpretative documents shall :a) give concrete form to the essential requirements by harmonising the terminology and the technical bases and indicating classesor levels for each requirement where necessary ;b) indicate methods of correlating these classes or levels of requirement with the technical specifications, e.g. methods ofcalculation and of proof, technical rules for project design, etc. ;c) serve as a reference for the establishment of harmonised standards and guidelines for European technical approvals.The Eurocodes, de facto, play a similar role in the field of the ER 1 and a part of ER 2.

country specific data (geographical, climatic, etc.), e.g. snow map,– procedure to be used where alternative procedures are given in the Eurocode.It may also contain– decisions on the application of informative annexes,– references to non-contradictory complementary information to assist the user toapply the Eurocode.Links between Eurocodes and harmonised technical specifications (ENs and ETAs)for productsThere is a need for consistency between the harmonised technical specifications forconstruction products and the technical rules for works4. Furthermore, all theinformation accompanying the CE Marking of the construction products which refer toEurocodes should clearly mention which Nationally Determined Parameters have beentaken into account.Additional information specific to EN 1991-2EN 1991-2 defines models of traffic loads for the design of road bridges, footbridgesand railway bridges. For the design of new bridges, EN 1991-2 is intended to be used,for direct application, together with Eurocodes EN 1990 to 1999.The bases for combinations of traffic loads with non-traffic loads are given in EN 1990,A2.
4 see Art.3.3 and Art.12 of the CPD, as well as clauses 4.2, 4.3.1, 4.3.2 and 5.2 of ID 1 (Interpretative Document Nr. 1).

and
equal to 1, are deemed to represent the mostsevere traffic met or expected in practice, other than that of special vehicles requiringpermits to travel, on the main routes of European countries. The traffic on other routesin these countries and in some other countries may be substantially lighter, or bettercontrolled. However it should be noted that a great number of existing bridges do notmeet the requirements of this EN 1991-2 and the associated Structural Eurocodes EN1992 to EN 1999.It is therefore recommended to the national authorities that values of the adjustmentfactors
and
be chosen for road bridge design corresponding possibly to severalclasses of routes on which the bridges are located, but remain as few and simple aspossible, based on consideration of the national traffic regulations and the efficiency ofthe associated control.For railway bridges, Load Model 71 (together with Load Model SW/0 for continuousbridges), defined in 6.3.2, represent the static effect of standard rail traffic operatingover the standard-gauge or wide-gauge European mainline-network. Load Model SW/2,defined in 6.3.3, represents the static effect of heavy rail traffic. The lines, or sections oflines, over which such loads shall be taken into account are defined in the NationalAnnex (see below) or for the individual project.Provision is made for varying the specified loading to cater for variations in the type,volume and maximum weight of rail traffic on different railways, as well as for differentqualities of track. The characteristic values given for Load Models 71 and SW/0 may bemultiplied by a factor
for lines carrying rail traffic which is heavier or lighter than thestandard.In addition two other load models are given for railway bridges : load model "unloaded train" for checking the lateral stability of single track bridgesand load model HSLM to represent the loading from passenger trains at speeds exceeding200 km/h.Guidance is also given on aerodynamic actions on structures adjacent to railway tracksas a result of passing trains and on other actions from railway infrastructure.Bridges are essentially public works, for which :– the European Directive 89/440/EEC on contracts for public works is particularlyrelevant, and– public authorities have responsibilities as owners.

factors
factor4.3.3(4) NOTE2Selection of wheel contact surface for LM24.3.4(1)Definition of Load Model 3 (special vehicles)4.4.1(2) NOTE2Upper limit of the braking force on road bridges4.4.1(2) NOTE3Horizontal forces associated with LM34.4.1(3)Horizontal forces associated with Load Model 34.4.1(6)Braking force transmitted by expansion joints4.4.2(4)Lateral forces on road bridge decks4.5.1 – Table4.4a Notes aand bConsideration of horizontal forces in gr1a4.5.2 NOTE 3Use of infrequent values of variable actions4.6.1(2) NOTE2Use of Fatigue Load Models4.6.1(3) NOTE1Definition of traffic categories4.6.1(6)Definition of additional amplification factor (fatigue)4.6.4(3)Adjustment of Fatigue Load Model 34.6.5(1) NOTE2Road traffic characteristics for the use of Fatigue Load Model 44.6.6(1)Use of Fatigue Load Model 54.7.2.1(1)Definition of impact force and height of impact4.7.2.2(1)NOTE 1Definition of collision forces on decks4.7.3.3(1)NOTE 1Definition of collision forces on vehicle restraint systems4.7.3.3(1)NOTE 3Definition of vertical force acting simultaneously with the horizontalcollision force4.7.3.3(2)Design load for the structure supporting a vehicle parapet4.7.3.4(1)Definition of collision forces on unprotected vertical structuralmembers4.8(1) NOTE 2Definition of actions on pedestrian parapets4.8(3)Definition of design loads due to pedestrian parapets for thesupporting structure4.9.1(1) NOTE1Definition of load models on embankmentsSection 5 : Actions on footways, cycle tracks and footbridges5.2.3(2)Definition of load models for inspection gangways5.3.2.1(1)Definition of the characteristic value of the uniformly distributed load5.3.2.2(1)Definition of the characteristic value of the concentrated load onfootbridges5.3.2.3(1)PNOTE 1Definition of service vehicles for footbridges5.4(2)Characteristic value of the horizontal force on footbridges

factor6.3.3(4)PChoice of lines for heavy rail traffic6.4.4Alternative requirements for a dynamic analysis6.4.5.2(3)PChoice of dynamic factor6.4.5.3(1)Alternative values of determinant lengths6.4.5.3Table 6.2Determinant length of cantilevers6.4.6.1.1(6)Additional requirements for the application of HSLM6.4.6.1.1(7)Loading and methodology for dynamic analysis6.4.6.1.2(3)Table 6.5Additional load cases depending upon number of tracks6.4.6.3.1(3)Table 6.6Values of damping6.4.6.3.2(3)Alternative density values of materials6.4.6.3.3(3)NOTE 1NOTE 2Enhanced Young's modulusOther material properties6.4.6.4(4)Reduction of peak response at resonance and alternative additionaldamping values6.4.6.4(5)Allowance for track defects and vehicle imperfections6.5.1(2)Increased height of centre of gravity for centrifugal forces6.5.3(5)Actions due to braking for loaded lengths greater than 300 m6.5.3(9)PAlternative requirements for the application of traction and brakingforces6.5.4.1(5)Combined response of structure and track, requirements for non-ballasted track6.5.4.3.(2)NOTES 1 & 2Alternative requirements for temperature range6.5.4.4(2)NOTE 1Longitudinal shear resistance between track and bridge deck6.5.4.5Alternative design criteria6.5.4.5.1(2)Minimum value of track radius6.5.4.5.1(2)Limiting values for rail stresses6.5.4.6Alternative calculation methods6.5.4.6.1(1)Alternative criteria for simplified calculation methods6.5.4.6.1(4)Longitudinal plastic shear resistance between track and bridge deck6.6.1(3)Aerodynamic actions, alternative values6.7.1(2)PDerailment of rail traffic, additional requirements

For some models only, applicability conditions are defined in EN 1991-2. For the design of buriedstructures, retaining walls and tunnels, provisions other than those in EN 1990 to EN 1999 may benecessary. Possible complementary conditions may be defined in the National Annex or for the individualproject.(4) EN 1991-2 is intended to be used in conjunction with EN 1990 (especially A2) andEN 1991 to EN 1999.(5) Section 1 gives definitions and symbols.(6) Section 2 defines loading principles for road bridges, footbridges (or cycle-trackbridges) and railway bridges.(7) Section 3 is concerned with design situations and gives guidance on simultaneity oftraffic load models and on combinations with non-traffic actions.(8) Section 4 defines :– imposed loads (models and representative values) due to traffic actions on roadbridges and their conditions of mutual combination and of combination withpedestrian and cycle traffic (see section 5) ;– other actions specifically for the design of road bridges.(9) Section 5 defines :– imposed loads (models and representative values) on footways, cycle tracks andfootbridges ;– other actions specifically for the design of footbridges.(10) Sections 4 and 5 also define loads transmitted to the structure by vehicle restraintsystems and/or pedestrian parapets.

The Eurocodes were published as European Prestandards. The following European Standardswhich are published or in preparation are cited in normative clauses or in NOTES to normative clauses :EN 1990Eurocode : Basis of Structural DesignEN 1991-1-1Eurocode 1 : Actions on structures : Part 1-1 : General actions -Densities, self-weight imposed loads for buildingsEN 1991-1-3Eurocode 1 : Actions on structures : Part 1-3 : General actions -Snow loadsprEN 1991-1-4Eurocode 1 : Actions on structures : Part 1-4 : General actions -Wind actionsprEN 1991-1-5Eurocode 1 : Actions on structures : Part 1-5 : General actions -Thermal actionsprEN 1991-1-6Eurocode 1 : Actions on structures : Part 1-6 : General actions -Actions during executionprEN 1991-1-7Eurocode 1 : Actions on structures : Part 1-7 : General actions -Accidental actionsEN 1992Eurocode 2 : Design of concrete structuresEN 1993Eurocode 3 : Design of steel structuresEN 1994Eurocode 4 : Design of composite steel and concrete structuresEN 1995Eurocode 5 : Design of timber structuresEN 1997Eurocode 7 : Geotechnical designEN 1998Eurocode 8 : Design of structures for earthquake resistanceEN 1999Eurocode 9 : Design of aluminium structures1.3 Distinction between Principles and Application Rules (1) Depending on the character of the individual clauses, distinction is made in EN1991-2 between Principles and Application Rules.

(2) The Principles comprise :– general statements and definitions for which there is no alternative, as well as ;– requirements and analytical models for which no alternative is permitted unlessspecifically stated.
(3) The Principles are identified by the letter P following the paragraph number.
(4) The Application Rules are generally recognised rules which comply with thePrinciples and satisfy their requirements.
(5) It is permissible to use alternative design rules different from the Application Rulesgiven in EN 1991-2 for works, provided that it is shown that the alternative rules accordwith the relevant Principles and are at least equivalent with regard to the structuralsafety, serviceability and durability which would be expected when using theEurocodes.
NOTE
If an alternative design rule is substituted for an Application Rule, the resulting design cannot beclaimed to be wholly in accordance with EN 1991-2 although the design will remain in accordance withthe Principles of EN 1991-2. When EN 1991-2 is used in respect of a property listed in an annex Z of aproduct standard or an ETAG5, the use of an alternative design rule may not be acceptable for CEmarking.
(6) In EN 1991-2, the Application Rules are identified by a number in brackets e.g. asthis clause.1.4 Terms and definitionsNOTE 1
For the purposes of this European Standard, general definitions are provided in EN 1990 andadditional definitions specific to this Part are given below.NOTE 2
Terminology fo
...