Vde 2015 0091

HANDBOOK
DESIGN GUIDE FOR LOAD AND

CALCULATION BASIS FOR BRIDGES
CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING
APRIL 2015
DESIGN GUIDE FOR LOAD AND CALCULATION BASIS FOR BRIDGES
PREFACE
The handbook on "Design guide for load and calculation basis for bridges" has been prepared with
a view to giving an introduction to the load and calculation basis for road and footbridges in the
Eurocodes, including the preparation of supporting texts, i.a. in the form of action combination
tables.
Furthermore, to the extent required, the purpose is to specify supplementary guidelines where the
Eurocodes including the national annexes are not adequate, e.g. relating to the documentation of
pedestrian comfort and to the load capacity calculation and classification of bridges.
Together with these guidelines, Eurocodes with ancillary national annexes constitute the load and
calculation basis for both the design of new road and footbridges and the load capacity calculation
and classification of existing road and footbridges.
This April 2015 version replaces the design guide of July 2010. The April 2015 version incorporates
the changes caused by the compilation of action combinations (STR/GEO) (Set B) and (STR/GEO)
(Set C) in the updated versions of DK NA to DS/EN 1990 and DS/EN 1990/A1, including the
introduction of 0 on strengths and resistances. In addition, consequential amendments have been
implemented as a result of updated versions of DK NA to DS/EN 1992-1-1, DS/EN 1993-1-1 and
DS/EN 1997-1, etc. Finally, printing errors and the like have been corrected.
April 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
1.1
1.1.1
1.2
2
3
4
INTRODUCTION
Background
Existing bridges
Scope
STANDARD BASIS STRUCTURE
BRIDGE GROUPS
PROCEDURE FOR THE CLASSIFICATION AND LOAD CAPACITY ASSESSMENT OF
EXISTING BRIDGES
6
6
7
7
8
9
9
5
5.1
5.1.1
5.2
5.2.1
5.3
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.3.3
5.3.4
5.3.5
5.3.6
5.4
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.4.3
5.4.4
5.5
5.5.1
5.5.2
5.5.3
5.5.4
BASIS OF CALCULATION
Major general requirements
Lifespan, replacement of structural parts and inspectability
Safety regulations
Robustness
Ultimate limit state
Action combinations
Actions
Loads and sectional forces not caused by static effects
Materials with time-dependent and irreversible properties
Bearing friction
Fatigue, load models
Serviceability limit state
Requirements for the serviceability limit state
Action combinations
Bearing friction
Requirements for rigidity and pedestrian comfort
Requirements for rigidity and pedestrian comfort for footbridges
Load intensities and load conditions
Load models and analysis methods
Documentation of comfort criteria for road bridges with pedestrian traffic
10
10
10
10
11
12
12
13
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
18
19
21
6
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
LOAD REGULATIONS
Dead load
Geometric imperfections
Load from vehicles on bridges for pedestrian and cycle track traffic
Bridges in Group IV
Yield of support structures
Determining the values for bearing friction
Temperature
Wind load
Snow load
Wave and current loads
Ice load
Collision actions from vehicles
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
April 2015
6.12.1 Collision actions for substructures

6.12.2 Collision forces for bridge decks
6.13 Collision loads from trains
6.14 Collision
6.15 Earthquake load horizontal mass load
6.16 Fire
6.17 Loads during construction
23
24
24
24
24
25
25
7
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.4.1
7.4.2
GEOMETRY AND MATERIAL PARAMETERS, EXISTING BRIDGES

Reductions of cross-sectional areas
Material parameters
Correction of partial coefficients
Determining the material parameters by means of testing
Without prior knowledge
Control on the basis of prior knowledge
26
26
26
26
27
27
27
8
8.1
8.2
8.2.1
8.3
8.4
8.4.1
8.4.2
8.5
8.6
8.6.1
8.6.2
8.6.3
8.7
8.8
8.9
8.9.1
8.9.2
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Basis
Structural analysis
Calculation of sectional forces
Material partial coefficients
Material parameters for loose reinforcement, existing bridges
Characteristic reinforcement strengths
Determination of reinforcement strengths
Material parameters for tensioned reinforcement , existing bridges
Material parameters for concrete, existing bridges
Characteristic concrete strengths
Definition of concrete strengths
Definition of concrete strengths on the basis of cores bored out
Fatigue
Tension requirements
Control of crack widths
28
28
28
28
29
30
30
31
32
32
32
33
34
34
34
35
35
35
9
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.4.1
9.4.2
9.5
9.6
9.6.1
9.6.2
9.7
STEEL STRUCTURES
Basis
Structural analysis
Material parameters for structural steel, existing bridges
Characteristic strength parameters
Determination of strength parameters
Fatigue
Design for fatigue
Fatigue calculation, existing bridges
37
37
37
37
38
38
38
39
39
39
39
40
10
COMPOSITE STRUCTURES, CONCRETE STEEL
10.1 Basis
10.2 Structural analysis
41
41
41
April 2015
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7

Material parameters, existing bridges
Fatigue
41
41
41
41
41
11
TIMBER STRUCTURES
11.1 Basis
42
42
12
12.1
12.2
12.3
BRICKWORK AND GRANITE

Basis
Material parameters for granite, existing bridges
42
42
42
42
13
13.1
13.2
13.3
FOUNDATION AND GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNS

Basis
Design method and material partial coefficients
Calculation of supporting walls and sheet piling
43
43
43
43
14
BEARINGS
14.1 Basis and calculation
14.2 Material partial coefficients
44
44
44
15
44
JOINTS
Annexes
Annex 1 Road bridges, action combination tables
Annex 2 Footbridges, action combination tables
Annex 3 Road bridges, assessment of load capacity and classification, action combination tables
April 2015
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
Together with these guidelines, Eurocodes with ancillary national annexes constitute the load and
calculation basis for both the design of new road and footbridges and the load capacity calculation
and classification of existing road and footbridges.
The guidelines refer to the following bridge-specific Eurocodes including national annexes (NA) and
Appendix to national annexes:
1. Bridge-specific Eurocodes
DS/EN 1990/A1 Annex A2 Application for bridges, including DK NA
DS/EN 1991-2 Actions on structures Part 2 Traffic loads on bridges, including DK NA
DS/EN 1992-2 Design of concrete structures Part 2 Concrete bridges - design and detailing
rules, including DK NA
DS/EN 1993-2 Design of steel structures Part 2 Steel bridges, including DK NA
DS/EN 1994-2 Design of composite steel and concrete structures Part 2 General rules and
rules for bridges, including DK NA
DS/EN 1995-2 Design of timber structures, Part 2 Bridges, including DK NA

2. Appendix bridges to the EN 1991-1 series on loads
DS/EN 1991-1-1 DK NA, Part 1-1 General actions Densities, self-weight, imposed loads for
buildings
Appendix bridges: Section 5.2.3 Additional provisions specific for bridges
DS/EN 1991-1-4 DK NA, Part 1-4 General actions Wind actions
Appendix bridges: Section 8 Wind actions on bridges
DS/EN 1991-1-5 DK NA, Part 1-5 General actions Thermal actions
Appendix bridges: Section 6 Temperature changes in bridges and Annex B Temperature
differences for various surfacing depths
DS/EN 1991-1-6 DK NA Part 1-6 General actions Actions during execution
Appendix bridges: Annex A2 Supplementary rules for bridges
DS/EN 1991-1-7 DK NA, Part 1-7 General actions Accidental actions
Appendix bridges: Section 4 Impact
Annex DK: Ice load.
Reference is also made to:
3. Eurocodes: General rules (and rules for building constructions) with the ancillary national
annexes:
DS/EN 1992 DS/EN1996 and DS/EN 1999
DS/EN 1997-1 Geotechnical design

4. Part standards to the DS/EN 1993-series Steel structures:
DS/EN 1993-1-11 Design of steel structures Part 1-11 Design of structures with tension
components, including DK NA
DS/EN 1993-1-12 Design of steel structures Part 1-12 Supplementary rules for the
extension of DS/EN 1993 up to steel grade S 700 including DK NA
DS/EN 1993-5 Design of steel structures Part 5 Piling, including DK NA
April 2015
Note 1.1-1
National annexes to bridge-specific Eurocodes may contain sections rendering void national choices to the Eurocodes General
rules.
References to Eurocodes and National Annexes also apply to current annexes and revisions.
As regards the load capacity calculation and classification, reference is also made to:
5. "Reliability-Based Classification of Load Carrying Capacity of Existing Bridges", Report 291,
Danish Road Directorate 2004.
Finally, reference is made to the Railway Standard for bridges with railway tracks:
6. BN1-59 Load and calculation directions for bridges with railway tracks and earth structures.
Note 1.1-2
The railway standard BN1-59 and these guidelines should be based on the same template concerning the load and basis of
calculation as well as the material-specific sections.
1.1.1
Existing bridges
Sections that contain specific rules on the calculation of existing bridges are framed as this text.
Note 1.1.1-1
The rules shall also be applied to new bridges in connection with the documentation of whether the bridges have the required
load bearing capacity classes, see also section 5.3.2.
Action combinations to be used in connection with the verifications are stated in Annex 3.
1.2
Scope
These guidelines include all road and footbridges in connection with public roads and paths.
The load and calculation basis applies to bridges with loaded lengths (influence lengths) of less than
200 m.
The rules for load capacity and classification of large bridges with large spans, however, apply to
loaded lengths greater than 200 m, see Annex A in DS/EN 1991-2 DK NA.
Loads in connection with the construction are not dealt with in detail in these guidelines.
April 2015
2 STANDARD BASIS STRUCTURE

The standard basis structure on the basis of Eurocodes and associated national annexes is
illustrated in the following list of documents with the highest-ranking documents at the top (a, b,
c....).
1. Safety (partial coefficients, action combinations)
a. DS/EN 1990/A1 DK NA including amendments in relation to DS/EN 1990 DK NA
b. DS/EN 1990/A1 Basis of structural design Annex A2 Application for bridges
c. DS/EN 1990 DK NA
d. DS/EN 1990 Eurocode Basis of structural design
2. Traffic load on road and footbridges
a. DS/EN 1991-2 DK NA
b. DS/EN 1991-2 Traffic load on bridges
3. Other loads
a. Annex:2009 to DS/EN 1991-1-X DK NA for bridge-specific loads including deviations in
relation to DS/EN 1991-1-X DK NA
b. DS/EN 1991-1-X DK NA
c. DS/EN 1991-1-X.
4. Design: Design standards
a. DS/EN 199X-2 DK NA including amendments in relation to DS/EN 199X-1-1 DK NA
b. DS/EN 199X-2 (Concrete bridges, steel bridges, etc.)
c. DS/EN 199X-1-1 DK NA (plus any part standards, e.g. for steel)
d. DS/EN 199X-1-1 (General rules and rules for buildings).
The design hierarchical structure is also illustrated in Figure 2.1, exemplified on the basis of DS/EN
1992 Design of concrete structures.
DS/EN
1992-2 DK NA
DS/EN 1992-2 Concrete bridges
DS/EN 1992-1-1 DK NA
DS/EN 1992-1-1 Design of concrete structures, Part 1-1

General rules and rules for buildings
Figure 2.1 The hierarchical structure of the standard basis is illustrated for DS/EN 1992 Design of
concrete structures.
The standard basis system of documents is structured to the effect that the basic Eurocode
containing general rules and rules for buildings is found at the bottom. Above this, the national
April 2015
annex (NA) to the general rules and buildings is located, which contains the national choice of
design parameters and any additional non-conflicting provisions.
Above these documents the bridge-specific Eurocode is found, for example relating to traffic load
on bridges, concrete bridges or steel bridges indicating amended or additional rules for bridges in
relation to the basic Eurocode.
A national annex has also been prepared for the bridge-specific Eurocode. This national annex is at
the top of the hierarchy, and as a result it may contain rules that render void rules in the national
annex for buildings. However, this is an exception.
3 BRIDGE GROUPS
Bridges are divided into the following four bridge groups:
Group I:
Bridges for public roads with normal traffic and for private common roads that
may be juxtaposed with regard to load.
The group includes all bridges, which for the whole of their lifespan are expected
to be able to transfer heavy dense traffic within the limits of the Danish Highway
Code, including transfer of heavy special transportation according to specific
guidelines.
Group II:
Bridges on public roads and private common roads with low traffic density.
Secondary road sections with only one lane as well as two-lane roads with low
traffic density, where no requirement for heavy special transportation is expected,
can be considered low-traffic density roads.
Group III:
Bridges intended exclusively for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, termed footbridges.
Group IV:
Bridges for private common roads and public roads with limited vehicle load. Also
bridges without public access, but in public areas.
The group includes e.g. bridges in residential areas and gravel road bridges over
motorways.
4 PROCEDURE FOR THE CLASSIFICATION AND LOAD

CAPACITY ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING BRIDGES
The procedure for classification and load capacity assessment of existing bridges is described in
DS/EN 1991-2 DK NA, Annex A (separate document). This standard gives an account of the overall
approach, types of load capacity assessments, classification of vehicles and passage types (normal
and conditional).
April 2015
5 BASIS OF CALCULATION
5.1
Major general requirements
5.1.1
Lifespan, replacement of structural parts and inspectability
General requirements for expected lifespan of bridges are listed in A2.1.1(1) in DS/EN 1990/A1
Annex A2 DK NA. Bridges in groups I and II shall be designed on the basis of an expected 120-year
lifespan for road bridges and 100 years for footbridges.
Also, the first 25 years shall be without substantial repairs.
Structural parts for which, according to experience, a 120 or 100-year lifespan cannot be expected,
shall be able to be replaced/reinforced without significant intervention in the design.
To the extent possible, the structures shall be designed so that all the major structural elements
are available and inspectable.
5.2
Safety regulations
The basic safety regulations for road and footbridges consist of DS/EN 1990 including DK NA
together with DS/EN 1990/A1 including DK NA.
Bridges with a span exceeding 6 m shall be attributed to consequence class CC3.
Small bridges with a span of up to 6 m may, however, be attributed to consequence class CC2, if
they do not cross railways or over/under main arteries.
In addition, secondary structural elements, which do not contribute to the structural function of
the main structure, and where it can be demonstrated that any failure will not influence the main
structure load capacity, shall be attributed to consequence class CC2. An example could be
secondary elements of a bridge deck structure transferring the loads to the main bearing elements.
Note 5.2-1
In relation to DS/EN 1990 DK NA, the following applies:
10
The original table B2 in Annex B for minimum values for security indexes applies
Section B4 concerning project planning control does not apply
Section B5 does not apply. The text in DS/EN 1990 DK NA applies
Section B6 does not apply. The text in DS/EN 1990 DK NA applies
The original table C2 in Annex C for 'target' values for security indexes applies
Annex D concerning design supported by testing applies, but with the addition that the assumed safety level in DS/EN 1990
applies, and not the safety level in DS/EN 1990 DK NA
Annex E in DS/EN 1990 DK NA concerning additional rules for robustness applies
Annex F in DS/EN 1990 DK NA concerning additional rules for determining partial coefficients applies.
April 2015
Other security methods than the partial coefficient method are permitted for existing bridges,
applied according to an agreement with the Infrastructure Manager.
Note 5.2-2
The following safety indexes can be considered normative in the use of probability-based methods to verify the load capacity of
existing bridges (likelihoods of failure with a 1-year reference period), see also NKB report 55, Guidelines for loading and safety
regulations for structural design, the Nordic Committee on Building Regulations, 1987:
Limit state
Safety index
Likelihood of failure
(1 year)
Failure, main bearing elements (forecast failure)
4.8
10-6
(failure without warning: 5.2)

4.3
10-5
Fatigue
4.8
10-6
Fatigue where joints can be inspected and repaired
4.3
10-5
Comfort requirements
2.3
10-2
2.3
10-2
Failure, secondary elements (if any possible collapse

will not influence the bridge overall safety or road
safety)
It should be noted that the above safety indexes are approximately equivalent to a lower
consequence class than for new bridges, which are attributed to consequence class CC3.
5.2.1
Robustness
The structures shall meet the robustness requirement in Annex E in DS/EN 1990 DK NA.
Note 5.2.1-1
Reference is made to DS/INF 146:2003 "Robustness - Background and principles" for a more detailed description of the principles
behind the robustness requirements in Annex E in DS/EN 1990 DK NA.
Note 5.2.1-2
Extra attention in the preparation of the Project Material and in connection with the construction should be paid to details in
structures where workmanship errors will have a particularly large impact on safety and durability and where inspection is
complicated and/or will not be conducted at regular intervals.
April 2015
11
5.3
5.3.1
Action combinations
Partial coefficients on the action side and action combination to be used for the ultimate limit state
are specified in EN 1990/A1 Annex2 DK NA.
For information and support, the action combinations are printed in a table, see Annex 1 for Road
bridges and Annex 2 for Footbridges.
Note 5.3.1-1 Action combinations for the ultimate limit state
Action combinations in the ultimate limit state, including the fatigue limit state, are set out in Figure B1.1 in Annex 1 and Figure
B2.1 in Annex 2, whereas action combinations for accident action conditions and seismic action conditions are specified in Figures
B1.2 and B2.2.
It should be pointed out that the factor KFI,which takes into account the consequence class, is not included in Figure B1.1 and
Figure B2.1, and shall therefore subsequently be applied to all unfavourable actions, see the note text. For a detailed description
of the background of how the factor KFI is implemented, refer to DS/INF 172:2009 "Background investigations in relation to the
drafting of National Annexes to EN 1990 and EN 1991 Reliability verification formats, combination of actions, partial coefficients,
fatigue, snowload, windload, etc."
The general action combination for the ultimate limit state used for strength verification is composed of STR/GEO (Set B),
equation 6.10b, see DS/EN 1990/A1 Annex2 DK NA.
Two values are provided for the weight partial coefficient in general (structural elements etc.). In this connection it is important to
note that it is the total resulting effect from a single source which determines whether one or the other partial coefficient shall be
applied to this effect. If the overall effect is unfavourable, 1.00 shall be applied, whereas 0.90 shall be applied if the overall effect
is favourable.
The factor KFI for consequence class shall, as a starting point, be applied to the action side (all unfavourable action contributions).
However, structures which are affected by geotechnical actions should also be verified for the same action combinations, but with
K FI applied on the material side instead. This implies that KFI shall be applied to all incoming strength parameters and load-bearing
capacities, see DS/EN 1990, DS/EN 1990/A1 and DS/EN 1997-1. To manage this aspect, a factor 0 has been introduced in the
aforementioned DK NAs and DK NAs to material standards.
Equation 6.10a in STR/GEO (Set B) ensures adequate safety where the permanent load is dominant. For equation 6.10a, a special
action condition shall be documented for structures affected by geotechnical actions, where the factor on all permanent actions is
set to 1.0, while the partial coefficient of the construction materials used shall be increased by 1.25 KFI, while the partial coefficient
on soil parameters and geotechnical resistances is set to 1.0. Reference is made to DK NA to DS/EN 1990/A1. A detailed
description of STR/GEO and equation 6.10a, etc. can be found in DS/EN 1990, section 6.4.
Finally, the action combination EQU (Set A) is mentioned, which ensures adequate security against overturning and lifting,
including lifting in bearings which may result in overturning of the bridge. No forces are included in this demonstration. In other
words, it is a demonstration of adequate safety against instability in the context of a rigid-body motion.
In contrast to STR/GEO, in this demonstration all inherent destabilising/unfavourable actions shall be applied to the high partial
coefficient, and the low partial coefficient shall be applied to all inherent stabilising/favourable actions. In other words, all partial
contributions are considered in the context of whether they are unfavourable or favourable.
In the context of the EQU action combination, attention shall be drawn briefly to the so-called "paradoxical problem". The
paradoxical problem is related to the results of documentation according to EQU may be that a bearing capable of absorbing
tension shall be mounted. In other words, a structural element with a strength to ensure equilibrium is required. If you are
12
April 2015
performing a similar demonstration according to STR/GEO, the result may be that there is no need that a bearing can absorb
tension or that the tension to be absorbed is smaller. In this case, the EQU demonstration applies to design of the bearing strength
as regards absorption of tension.
As can be seen from the above, in many cases EQU will not provide the design for the permanent bridge structure, but may be
relevant to examine at the construction stage.
The EQU action combinations are also used for uplift (UPL) and hydraulic heave (HYD) for geotechnical structures which include
strength, see DS/EN 1997-1 DK NA. In that context, it should be noted that DK NA to DS/EN 1990, DS/EN 1990/A1 and DS/EN 19971 introduce a special action combination for UPL, which is not included in Annex 1-3. The action combination and the conditions
linked to its use are described in more detail in DK NA to DS/EN 1997-1.
Action combinations for classification and assessment of load capacity of existing bridges are listed
in Annex 3.
Note 5.3.1-2
Action combinations for the ultimate limit state in connection with assessing the load capacity and
classification follow the same principles as for new bridges.
5.3.2
Actions
The traffic loads to be used for road and footbridges appear from DS/EN 1991-2 including DK NA.
Design of new bridges for heavy transport
Under DS/EN 1991-2 DK NA, in addition to the basic traffic loads, new bridges shall be designed for
heavy transport to the effect that they as a minimum obtain the following bridge class under
normal passage:
Bridge group I: Class 150

Bridge group II: Class 80
Cycle paths and footpaths on road bridges: Class 60 for path areas separated from the
carriageway area by a kerb upstand and not assumed to be included as part of the carriageway
area in the future other than during any repair work.
By this design, use an impact factor corresponding to speeds greater than 45 km/h.
Design for heavy transport shall cover the entire bridge. For concrete bridges, the control of crack
widths can be omitted in connection with the design; see section 8.9.2.
The design shall be documented by calculations and as a result of the design, the bridge class for all
passage types, including conditioned passages (types 1, 2 and 3) shall be stated on the drawings
and the calculation documentation.
The load models to be used in the design and classification are set out in Annex A to DS/EN 1991-2
DK NA.
The load models for classification and assessment of load capacity of existing bridges are listed in
Annex A to DS/EN 1991-2 DK NA.
Other loads are mentioned in the subsequent section 6 with reference to relevant Eurocodes.
Person load, gr4 ('crowd' load)
Unless special conditions apply, e.g. if the bridge is located close to places where many people
move, gr4 Person load (crowds of people - 'crowd' load) should not usually be considered.
April 2015
13
Bridges in urban areas located close to bus and train stations as well as other public gathering
places can be mentioned as an example of where gr4 Person load should be included. Also bridges,
likely to be used in the context of public events.
5.3.3
Loads and sectional forces not caused by static effects
Loads and sectional forces not directly caused by external static effects will only be included in the
ultimate limit state, insofar as they influence the final failure capacity.
Examples thereof are loads and sectional forces from temperature changes, settlement of support
structures, concrete creep and shrinkage and bearing friction.
The background is that such loads and sectional forces for certain types of structure will be
"triggered" in connection with the development of plastic deformations in the design.
Where the development of plastic deformation is limited or not acceptable, these loads and
sectional forces shall be included.
5.3.4
Loads and sectional forces resulting from creep and shrinkage in concrete and composite structures
(steel-concrete) shall be considered permanent loads if they are included in the ultimate limit state.
Other construction materials with analogue time-dependent (or climate-dependent) material
properties, such as timber and aluminium, shall be treated in a similar way.
5.3.5
Bearing friction
Loads and sectional forces resulting from friction/rolling friction in movable bearings shall be
considered permanent load if they are included in the ultimate limit state.
If load effects from bearing friction are unfavourable, the frictional forces are calculated on the
basis of bearing reactions from the most adverse action combination. Frictional forces are not
included if they are favourable.
5.3.6
Fatigue, load models
Structures shall be examined for fatigue under the action combinations listed in DS/EN 1990/A1 DK
NA Annex A2. See also Annex 1 and Annex 2 in which action combinations are given for information
in developed form.
Number of passages appear from DS/EN 1991-2 including DK NA. Where there is an atypical action
on the bridge, e.g. especially much heavy traffic, the fatigue load including the number of
passengers shall be determined individually in each case.
Note 5.3.6-1
FLM 1 is used to demonstrate global effects. Maximum/minimum tensions are calculated and compared with the calculative
(constant) stress amplitude, which expresses the resistance to fatigue at a given number of stress cycles.
FLM 4 can be used to document both local and global effects where stress spectres and S-N curves are used for calculating the
resistance. However, it is a precondition that the effect of simultaneous presence of more lorries on the deck can be disregarded.
If this condition is not met, FLM 1 should be used.
FLM 5 is used in special cases only according to agreement with the Infrastructure Manager. FLM 5 models the actual load and can
be used for both local and global effects, in which stress spectres and S-N curves are used for calculating the resistance.
14
April 2015
5.4
5.4.1
Requirements for the serviceability limit state
Bridge structures shall comply with the requirements specified in the material standards for the
serviceability limit state supplemented by any requirements as set out in this guidance. See also
section A2.4.2 in DS/EN 1990/A1 Annex A2.
Note 5.4.1-1
The requirements for the serviceability limit state may be the following, e.g.:
General requirements:
o
Rigidity
Pedestrian comfort (dynamic properties)
Uplift of bridge ends (uplift in bearings influencing road safety)
Concrete structures and structural elements: Stress, crack widths and deformation
Steel structures and structural elements: Starting flow of material, starting folding, slippage in joints.
5.4.2
Action combinations
Action combinations in the serviceability limit state are set out in DS/EN 1990/A1 Annex A2 DK NA,
see also Figures B1.3 and B1.4 in Annex 1 and Figures B2.3 and B2.4 in Annex 2, where the action
combinations are printed in full for support.
Action combinations to be used in connection with calculation of load capacity and classification in
the serviceability limit state appear from Figure B3.2 and Figure B3.3 in Annex 3.
To document the requirements of the serviceability limit state, the shock allowance can be
reduced to 1.10 for the standard vehicles.
5.4.3
Loads and sectional forces resulting from creep and shrinkage in concrete shall be included in the
serviceability limit state as permanent loads.
Other materials with analogue time-dependent (and climate-dependant, etc.) material properties,
such as timber and aluminium, shall be treated in a similar manner.
5.4.4
Bearing friction
Loads and sectional forces derived from friction/rolling friction in moving bearings shall be included
in the serviceability limit state, usually as a permanent load unless other special conditions are
having any influence.
Calculation of load effects from bearing friction shall be based on the bearing reactions in a quasipermanent state, see Annex 1 and Annex 2, unless other aspects of the load nature are at work.
Frictional forces are not included if they are favourable.
April 2015
15
5.5
Requirements for rigidity and pedestrian comfort
5.5.1
Requirements for rigidity and pedestrian comfort for footbridges
Footbridges shall be designed so that
1. vertical as well as horizontal vibrations shall be reduced to an acceptable level
2. 'lock-in' phenomena for horizontal transverse vibrations do not appear in connection with
relevant load situations
3. forced vertical vibrations as a result of coordinated jumping (vandalism) do not cause failure or
damage to the bridge.
Note 5.5.1-1 Background material
The instructions for demonstrating pedestrian comfort described in this section are based on the following reports, in that [2] to a
certain extent forms the basis of [1]:
[1] Design of Lightweight Footbridges for Human Induced Vibrations, JRC, First Edition, May 2009
[2] Footbridges, Assessment of Vibration Behaviour of Footbridges under Pedestrian Loading, Technical Guide, Setra, October
2006
Reference is also made to the following publications:
[3] S. ivanovi, A. Pavic, P. Reynolds: Vibration serviceability of footbridges under human-induced excitation: a literature
review, Journal of Sound and Vibration 279 (2005), 1-74
[4] S. Eilif Svensson: Pedestrian bridges. Dynamic crowd loading. Bygningsstatiske Meddelelser no. 3, 2007
[5] H. Bachmann et.al.: Vibration problems in structures, Birkhuser Verlag, Basel 1997
[6] H. Bachmann, W. Ammann: Vibrations in structures induced by man and machine, Report 3e, IABSE 1987
[7] ISO 10137:2007 Bases for design of structures - Serviceability of buildings and walkways against vibrations
[8] S. Krenk: Person load on pedestrian bridges, 8 February, 2009
For each load condition, footbridges shall be attributed to a comfort class with a related
acceleration requirement. The comfort classes to be used for pedestrian traffic are defined in
Figure 5.5.1-1.
It should be noted that the table does not include control of the 'lock-in' phenomenon of horizontal
transverse vibrations, which are dealt with separately.
Requirements for max. acceleration [m/s2]
Comfort class
Vertical vibrations
Horizontal transverse vibrations
High
0.50
0.10
Normal
0.70
0.20
Low
1.00
0.40
Figure 5.5.1-1 Comfort classes for pedestrian traffic
Note 5.5.1-2
The acceleration requirements for comfort class 'Normal' correspond to the requirements listed in A2.4.3.2 in DS/EN 1990/A1.
If the requirements should be used for indoor bridges between buildings, the requirements should be tightened corresponding to
the comfort requirements generally applicable to indoor structures. Reference is made to the specialist literature on this matter.
In cases where the specified acceleration requirements for any given load condition cannot be met,
the comfort problem shall be remedied either by increasing the structure damping, e.g. in the form
of installing tuned mass dampers or by increasing the structure's natural frequency, so that it falls
outside the critical range.
16
April 2015
Note 5.5.1-3
The determination of pedestrian comfort requirements depends on i.a.:

o
The subjective expectation for the extent of vibrations as a result of:
The origin of the load, i.e. walking, running or coordinated jumping. In the case of running or jumping, larger responsive
action is expected, meaning that the acceptance limit may be increased
The appearance of the structure, i.e. whether it seems rigid or loose such as tensioned "strands" or similar
The nature of the load (large or small load intensity)
The frequency of unacceptable load situations as there can be several different situations. The more people using the bridge
on a daily basis, the more stringent the requirements in the normal operating situation
The location of the structure. If the bridge is only used by few people, the acceptance limit can be eased.
Note 5.5.1-4 Vertical vibrations

Unpleasant vertical vibrations are ascertained typically for bridges with natural frequencies at the following intervals:
Primarily: 1.3-2.3 Hz (~ walking frequency)
Secondarily: 2.5-4.6 Hz (~ 2nd harmonic vibration from walking, and ~ running frequency) for bridges with low rigidity and
damping, or where running also takes place.
For special bridge types with more closely spaced inherent frequencies in the critical area and low dead weight, the stated
acceleration requirements should be checked for all relevant natural frequencies. Examples are structures that to a larger degree
may be characterised as tensioned "strands" rather than beams, certain types of bridge carried by cables and structures with
flexible supporting structures.
In rare cases, for particularly light structures with the lowest natural frequency larger than 5 Hz and with small damping, unwanted
vibrations of higher load-harmonic contributions from running and walking may be estimated.
Note 5.5.1-5 Horizontal transversal vibration
Unpleasant transverse vibration may typically occur in cases where the bridge deck has little rigidity (and damping) across, and
where natural frequencies across are located in the interval from 0.5-1.2 Hz (~ walking frequency), and to a lesser extent in the
interval 2.6-3.4 Hz.
Special structures such as footbridges mounted as structures carried by cables or arch bridges with long spans, or bridges with
special supporting factors in the transverse direction can be mentioned as examples.
The 'Lock-in' phenomenon for transverse vibrations is connected with pedestrians having a tendency to compensate for horizontal
movements of the bridge once they reach a certain size, by swaying in sync with the bridge movement and thus increase the
movement. The 'lock-in' phenomenon may occur when the horizontal acceleration exceeds the critical threshold for 'lock-in' alock-in
= 0.10 - 0.15 m/s2. The number of persons NL needed to trigger this phenomenon can be determined by a formula developed on
the basis of experience gained from the Millennium Bridge, reproduced in [1].
Note 5.5.1-6 Horizontal longitudinal vibrations
In rare cases there may be unpleasant longitudinal vibrations, particularly in the frequency interval 1.3-2.3 Hz (~ walking
frequency). The problem with longitudinal vibrations is usually linked with very yielding supportive factors, for example slender
columns or special bearing designs.
Longitudinal vibrations should be prevented by establishing sufficiently rigid supportive structures and establishing fixed bearings.
April 2015
17
5.5.2
Load intensities and load conditions
In the context of demonstration of comfort criteria, a distinction shall be made between different
traffic intensities, see Figure 5.5.2-1.
Traffic load class
Load intensity
Number of persons P per m2
Very weak
0.10, but at least 15P/(BxL)
Light
Dense
Very dense
1.00
Extraordinarily dense
>1.50
Figure 5.5.2-1 Traffic load classes and load intensities. B [m] is the bridge width, and L [m] the
bridge length.
Note 5.5.2-1
At least 15 persons distributed over the bridge area correspond approximately to a load situation where a group of two or three
persons keep step across the bridge.
The relevant load conditions for the specific project shall be agreed with the Infrastructure
Manager. In this context, future-proofing of the structure should be taken into account.
The load conditions outlined with corresponding comfort requirements shall reflect the use and
location of the bridge. The following shows two examples of possible load conditions for footbridges with low traffic intensity in the countryside, see Figure 5.5.2-2, and for a footbridge in an
urban area, see Figure 5.5.2-3.
Load
Traffic load class
Comfort
Comment
conditions
class
1
Dense
Low
Bridge inauguration
2
Very low
Normal
Daily operation
3
Coordinated jumping N=5P
Ultimate limit and serviceability limit state
Figure 5.5.2-2 Load condition, example of a footbridge in the countryside
Load
conditions
1
2
3
Traffic load class

Very dense
Light
Dense
Comfort
class
Low
High
Normal
Comment
Bridge inauguration
Daily operation
Access road to football matches and
summer concerts
4
Coordinated jumping N=5P
Ultimate limit and serviceability limit state
Figure 5.5.2-3 Load conditions, example of a footbridge in an urban area
Coordinated jumping (vandalism)

Footbridges shall be designed for the maximum load which coordinated jumping may result in. It
shall be demonstrated that the structure is sufficiently safe in the ultimate limit state (ULS) with the
usual partial coefficients on traffic load and materials together with factor KFI corresponding to the
said consequence class. The load should not be combined with other variable loads. It shall further
be demonstrated that tension requirements and any crack width requirements for concrete
structures applying to frequent action combinations are met for this load condition, in that the
18
April 2015
partial coefficient 1.0 is used. Such documentation is supplementary in relation to the normal
documentation of static loads.
Note 5.5.2-2
If it can be demonstrated that no unacceptable vibrations from coordinated jumping during a 20-second period are generated, this
load condition may be disregarded. The background is that the attempt to initiate forced vibrations will be abandoned as it
requires too much effort.
Rhythmic person load

In exceptional cases, the footbridge may be placed in a location where the bridge may be to be
exposed to rhythmic person load in connection with the holding of concerts, etc. Fulfilment of
comfort requirements for this load condition will normally imply that the structure shall be
designed so that the structure's natural frequency falls outside the critical area.
If rhythmic person load is relevant to the footbridge, the use of a low comfort class in connection
with the design of comfort requirements is recommended. Further, it shall be demonstrated that in
this load condition the design is safe enough in the ultimate limit state (ULS) with the usual partial
coefficients for traffic load and materials and together with factor KFI corresponding to the relevant
consequence class.
Note 5.5.2-3 Load from running persons
Under [1] and [2], load conditions with running persons can be disregarded, because experience shows that they do not give rise
to discomfort beyond what is expected by the subjective tolerance threshold, i.a. due to the uncorrelated nature of the load
effect.
5.5.3
Load models and analysis methods
The following load models and analysis methods can be used:
1. Harmonic load model according to [1], Section 4.5.1.2 with ancillary Figure 4-8
2. Spectral load model based on response spectra according to [1], section 4.5.2 (simplified
method)
3. Control of the 'lock-in' phenomenon according to [1], section 4.6
4. Load model for coordinated jumping (vandalism)
5. Load model for rhythmic person load.
Note 5.5.3-1 Uncertainties associated with dynamic analyses
It should be noted that the dynamic analysis is associated with considerable uncertainty in relation to the actual response of the
bridge, in which the variation in number, weight, walking pace of the persons on the bridge and their arrival on and departure
from the bridge come into play.
In addition, there is uncertainty associated with the actual natural frequency of the structure and the damping for the load
situation in question, see e.g. [1].
Note 5.5.3-2 Harmonic load model according to [1]
In the harmonic load model for vertical vibrations, it is assumed that the weight of a person is 700 N (70 kg) and a Fourier
coefficient 1 = 0.40 for the first harmonic vibration. 1 = 0.05 is assumed for horizontal transverse vibrations.
Note 5.5.3-3 spectral load model according to [1]
Attention is drawn to the simulation requirements forming the basis of the equations in [1], section 4.5.2.
April 2015
19
Load model for coordinated jumping (vandalism) and rhythmic person load
The dynamic analysis for determining the maximum vertical acceleration and dynamic addition can
be based on a load model in which the persons are represented by a harmonic time variation of the
load with a period Tp corresponding to the frequency fp = 1/Tp. The course is represented by the
fundamental frequency fp and the higher harmonic frequencies with frequencies fj = jfp, where j=1,
2, 3, etc. In this case, the vertical load is described by a Fourier series of the type:
F(t) G (1 jsin(2fjt - j))

j1
where j is the coefficients corresponding to the frequencies fj. G is the weight of a person in kN.
The following Fourier coefficients for the various load conditions can be used in the analysis:
Load conditions
1
2
3
1.60
1.00
0.20
0.50
0.14
0.04
Figure 5.5.3-1 Fourier coefficients.

The phase angles j can be set to 1 = 0, 2 = 3 =/2 for rhythmic person load and for coordinated
jumping, see [5] to 1 = 0, 2 = 3 = (1-fptp), where fp is the jumping frequency and tp is the time
the feet are in contact with the bridge.
Fourier coefficients for horizontal loads in connection with rhythmic person load can be set to 10%
of the coefficients for vertical loads.
Coordinated jumping shall be assumed to take place in the most critical position on the bridge with
a frequency fp in the interval 1.7-3.0 Hz. The weight of the person shall be set to 800 N (80 kg). A
total number of N=5P persons shall be assumed, see Figures 5.5.2-2 and -3.
The load from the individual persons is assumed to be fully correlated, corresponding to the total
effect of N persons increasing proportionately by N.
Note 5.5.3-4
In the context of demonstrating the load condition with coordinated jumping in the serviceability state limit, attention should be
paid to the fact that in extreme cases forced vibrations in prestressed concrete structures can give rise to stress relief of the
bending moment from permanent load and thus unacceptable cracks, which in terms of reinforcement should be taken into
account.
In addition, as a general preventive measure it should be ensured that the bearings are constructed and anchored in a sufficiently
robust manner, so that they are secured against vertical and sideways movements.

If the bridge is located so that it can be used as a place in connection with the holding of concerts,
it shall be designed for rhythmic person load. Rhythmic person load shall be assumed to be able to
be present with a frequency fp in the interval 1.5-2.5 Hz.
The weight of the person shall be set to 700 N (70 kg). 2-4P per m2 shall be assumed for the areas
in question depending on the conditions of the specific project. The load shall be assumed to be
fully correlated.
20
April 2015
Determination of inherent frequency

Reference is made to [1] on the determination of inherent frequencies, including an assessment of
actual rigidity and consideration for additional volume from pedestrians.
Determination of the structure damping
The structure damping cannot be determined precisely in advance and may vary depending on the
load frequency and intensity. Reference is made to [1] for determining the structure damping and a
further discussion.
5.5.4
Documentation of comfort criteria for road bridges with pedestrian traffic
A road bridge with intensive pedestrian traffic should be designed so that the comfort criterion is
met, corresponding to normal comfort class for footbridges, maximum acceleration 0.7 [m/s2].
Calculation of accelerations for road bridges with pedestrian traffic
A simple but not necessarily comprehensive dynamic analysis can be made by using a vehicle with a
total weight F [kN], which is led along the main span of the bridge at a constant speed v [m/s].
If there are no load restrictions on the section at the bridge location, the vehicle can be modelled
as a single force F = 240 kN, alternatively, a 3-axle vehicle with an axle load of 80 - 100 - 60 kN with
corresponding wheel bases at 3.0 - 1.3 m. If a load restriction is imposed, the value of F may be
reduced correspondingly.
The speed, v, is determined on the basis of local conditions at the bridge location. In case of speed
limits on the section, e.g. 50 km/h, a maximum speed corresponding to the current limit is used,
otherwise, a speed equivalent to 70 km/h is used.
For values of f1 greater than 4 Hz, the calculated maximum acceleration may be reduced by a
contribution that varies linearly from 0 at 4 Hz to a 70% reduction at 5 Hz.
In the dynamic analysis, the same normative values for the damping ratio may be used as indicated
above.
April 2015
21
6 LOAD REGULATIONS
6.1
Dead load
Reference is made to DS/EN 1990 including DK NA, DS/EN 1991-1-1 including DK NA, and Appendix
Bridges: Section 5.2.3 concerning the determination of the characteristic values for the specific
weight of supplied materials, bridge equipment etc. If the variation of dead load from covering soil,
levelling courses, surfacing, etc. exceeds the limits set out in the above standards, the following
shall be taken into account as described in the relevant standards.
For existing bridges, see also section 7 of this guidance.
6.2
Geometric imperfections
The horizontal mass action in its earlier meaning has been omitted and replaced by an earthquake
load in the seismic load condition, see DS/EN 1990/A1 DK NA and Figure 1.2 in Annex 1,
respectively Figure 2.2 in Annex 2. This means that it can no longer be assumed that the horizontal
mass action takes into account the geometrical imperfections, which is why they shall now be
included directly in the calculations, see the relevant rules in the respective material standards.
6.3
Load from vehicles on bridges for pedestrian and cycle track traffic
For bridges in Group III, loads from service vehicles (cleaning, snow removal), emergency vehicles
(ambulances, fire engines), or other types of vehicles shall be determined in connection with the
design.
If there is no information or information cannot be provided on present and future vehicles, and
vehicles are not prevented from crossing the bridge in an effective way by means of stairs or other
types of obstacles unless otherwise agreed with the Infrastructure Manager the defined vehicle
in section 5.6.3(2) in DK NA to DS/EN 1991-2 shall be used as characteristic vehicle load. In this
event the investigation with this vehicle as accident load is omitted.
6.4
Bridges in Group IV
As a minimum the same load as for Group III shall be applied. In addition on the basis of the
intended use of the bridge in all of its estimated lifespan a vehicle load in the form of a vehicle
with shock allowance at 75% of the heavier/critical axle should be determined. The bridge is
subjected to this vehicle in a separate load condition as the only traffic load, unless other specific
load conditions apply. 50% of the sum of the static axle load for the braking axles is assumed to be
the braking power.
At both ends, the bridge should be provided with a sign indicating the permissible vehicle load, see
"Road Standards for Road Marking".
6.5
On the basis of the geotechnical investigations, a calculation is made of the most likely values of
the individual supporting structures movements in the serviceability limit state (frequent, quasipermanent and characteristic action combinations).
22
April 2015
For determining constraining forces in concrete structures, a reduction of the tensions, resulting
from the concrete creep from permanent loading, shall be included.
6.6
Determining the values for bearing friction
As the starting point for studies in the ultimate limit state and the serviceability limit state, an
(upper) nominal value of bearing friction/rolling friction is used. Possible changes over time of
material properties shall be taken into consideration, including the influence of any contamination
and corrosion. If frictional forces are favourable, bearing friction/rolling friction is set to 0 as a
starting point. Reference is also made to A.3.6 in Annex A in DS/EN 1993-2 including DK NA.
6.7
Temperature
Temperature changes are determined in accordance with DS/EN 1991-1-5 including DK NA, as well
as Appendix Bridges: Section 6 and Annex B.
6.8
Wind load
Reference is made to DS/EN 1991-1-4 including DK NA, and Appendix DK NA Bridges: Section 8.
In connection with classification and load capacity calculation, wind load can usually be
disregarded.
6.9
Snow load
For road and footbridges under Danish conditions, action combinations where snow load is
dominant may usually be regarded as less critical than action combinations where traffic load is
dominant, for which reason demonstration can be omitted for snow load.
6.10 Wave and current loads

The characteristic loads shall be determined at a level which, with a probability of 0.98, is not
exceeded in the course of a year.
For the determination of characteristic loads see for example DS 449:1983, standard for pile
supported offshore steel structures.
6.11 Ice load

Ice load shall be determined in accordance with Appendix DK: Ice load taking into account local
conditions and design of the structure.
6.12 Collision actions from vehicles

Collision actions from vehicles appear from DS/EN 1991-1-7 including DK NA, and Appendix
Bridges: Section 4 Impact.
6.12.1 Collision actions for substructures
The equivalent static loads equivalent to category 'motorways' shall also be used for bridges over
public roads in open land. In urban zones, loads increased in relation to those specified in DS/EN
1991-1-7 shall be used.
April 2015
23
Collision forces on the bridge supporting structures may be disregarded if it can be demonstrated
that they are fully protected by safety barrier structures which can either reject vehicles so that a
collision does not occur, or can absorb impact energy in the event of a collision.
6.12.2 Collision forces for bridge decks
The equivalent static loads equivalent to category 'motorways' shall also be used for bridges over
public roads in rural area. In urban zones, loads increased in relation to those specified in DS/EN
1991-1-7 shall be used.
As an alternative, by appropriate geometric design, collisions with high vehicles can be prevented.
Examples of such security-promoting measures may be: Relative increase of the vertical clearance
in relation to the vertical clearance of more robust bridges nearby, an extra large increase of the
vertical clearance if the bridge is not "covered" by more robust bridges.
6.13 Collision loads from trains

By building new bridges across the carriageway, the clearance requirements specified in BN1-59
shall be observed. If the requirements for clearances are met, documentation that the bridge can
absorb collision load from trains can be disregarded.
If the requirements cannot be met, the collision load shall be determined in cooperation with
Banedanmark or other Infrastructure Manager. Alternatively, preventive protective measures e.g.
in the form of protective rails or the like shall be arranged. The effect of such measures shall be
documented by using risk analyses.
6.14 Collision
Where there is a risk that a vessel can collide with a concrete structure, it shall be designed for
collision load. Both collision with columns and collision with the bridge superstructure shall be
assessed.
For determining loads, reference is made to DS/EN 1991-1-7 including DK NA and Appendix
Bridges: Section 4 Impact.
See also the text added in Appendix Bridges: Section 4 Impact regarding acceptable risk level for
bridges in consequence class CC3 exposed to accidental actions (except fire), which makes it
possible to make the design more cost effective for accidental actions. This may have particular
relevance where there is a risk of ship collision.
6.15 Earthquake load horizontal mass load

The horizontal mass load in its former sense is omitted and replaced by an earthquake load in the
seismic case, see DS/EN 1990/A1 Annex 2 DK NA. For action combinations, see Annexes 1 and 2 of
these guidelines.
24
April 2015
6.16 Fire
Usually, fire impacts to bridge structures may be disregarded.
For bridge structures where the risk of fire and its consequences cannot be ignored, the resistance
to fire should be assessed.
In the calculation reference is made to DS/EN 1991-1-2 including DK NA, to the respective materialspecific part standards for demonstration of the capacity to load of concrete, steel, etc. and to the
specialist literature.
6.17 Loads during construction

Special loads in conjunction with the construction phase are specified in DS/EN 1991-1-6 including
DK NA, as well as Appendix Bridges: Annex A2.
Note 6.17-1
The load basis for ordinary concrete bridges appears from the General Work Specification for concrete bridges, Concrete Bridges
GWS. For large bridges constructed as a cantilevered structure, incremental launching or similar, supplementary load and
calculation provisions shall be provided in each case.
However, the starting point should be that the provisional supporting structures shall be designed as permanent structures, i.e.
without reduction of loads and safety.
April 2015
25
7 GEOMETRY AND MATERIAL PARAMETERS, EXISTING

BRIDGES
Geometric sizes forming part of the control calculations are permitted to be determined on the
basis of the existing project drawings. If such drawings do not exist, a measurement of the bridge
shall be made.
7.1
Reductions of cross-sectional areas
In the events of reductions of cross-sectional areas resulting from corrosion and wearing-down of
concrete, the size of such reductions shall be determined by detailed measurements. If detailed
measurements cannot be made, the remaining areas shall be determined conservatively on the
basis of available random sample measurements.
7.2
Material parameters
The characteristic values for the material parameters shall be determined on the basis of the
project material including the corrections described in this chapter and subsequent material
sections.
Basically, the following shall be allowed for:
If wearing-down and corrosion of structural elements influencing the building's load capacity
safety are ascertained by general and special inspections, allowance shall be made for the
resulting of possible capacity reductions, both current and future reductions.
The age of materials.
Note 7.2-1
Old steel types (e.g. of the type soft iron) may tend to age, in particular as a result of cold deformation (e.g. in connection with
cutting out rivet holes).
The oldest welded structures from the 1930s to the 1950s may entail an increased risk of brittle fractures at low temperatures in
combination with varying loads.
Old types of reinforcement: In rare cases, there can be brittle fractures in old reinforcement types in connection with impact load
and shock impact. Reference is made to the specialist literature concerning this issue.
7.3
Correction of partial coefficients
As a starting point, the partial coefficients listed in the design standards shall be used. Depending
on the basis for the determination of the material parameters in the original project material,
possible corrections of the material partial coefficients may be required as described in the
subsequent material sections.
Note 7.3-1
The partial coefficients for materials are organised as a product of four factors as described in Annex F of DS/EN 1990 DK NA:
M= mR = m123, where
R
partial coefficient related to load capacity model with known strength parameters
m
partial coefficient for strength parameter - including any uncertainty related to conversion from the laboratory to a real
structure
1
takes into account the nature of the failure (forecast/ductile with/without reserve, without forecast/brittle)
26
April 2015
2
3
part partial coefficient for uncertainty in the calculation model depending on the coefficient of variation of the calculation
model
takes into account the scope of construction site or work place control (control class: strict, normal, relaxed)
7.4
Determining the material parameters by means of testing
7.4.1
Without prior knowledge
Determination of characteristic values of material parameters where prior knowledge is not

available shall be made in accordance with DS/EN 1990, Annex D.
Note 7.4.1-1
Determination of concrete strength (cylinder strength) can be done by measuring samples from the structure or by indirect
methods applied to the structure, provided that the relation between the values thus determined and the cylinder strength can
be documented, see section 8.6.3 in respect of such documented relation. For concrete strengths determined on the above basis,
m can be reduced by a factor 0.95.
7.4.2
Control on the basis of prior knowledge
Control of material parameters where prior knowledge is available from the project material shall
be carried out in accordance with Annex D in DS/EN 1990. The performance of such control means
that 3 is permitted to be determined as 3 = 0.95 corresponding to strict control for concrete
structures.
Note 7.4.2-1
The determination of concrete strengths on the basis of Annex D in DS/EN 1990 is subject to the same assumptions as set out in
Note 7.4.1-1.
For steel structures a reduction of 3 may only be used in special cases where there detailed documentation of material strengths
and the quality of steel works are already available from the time of construction.
April 2015
27
8 CONCRETE STRUCTURES
8.1
Basis
Calculation and capacity verification of concrete structures shall be made in accordance with DS/EN
1992-1-1 including DK NA and DS/EN 1992-2 including DK NA.
Cast-in non-injected cables are not permitted for road and footbridges.
8.2
Structural analysis
Structural analysis and calculation models are dealt with in section 5 of DS/EN 1992-1-1 and DS/EN
1992-2.
8.2.1
Calculation of sectional forces
For the calculation of sectional forces, calculation models reflecting the structure's actual function
regarding distribution of the sectional forces should be used. Where the rigidity of the supplied
structural elements can significantly impact the sectional force distribution, the calculation shall be
made on the basis of different assumptions, e.g. corresponding to a non-cracked or cracked cross
section.
FE models should be structured so as to provide a realistic picture of tensions in critical areas with
concentrated forces and large tension concentrations.
In the calculation of sectional forces and deformations, the stage of construction should be taken
into consideration.
Sectional forces from temperature changes shall be calculated with a concrete modulus of elasticity
corresponding to the short-term condition.
Note 8.2.1-1 Creep and shrinkage
Creep and shrinkage are dealt with in DS/EN 1992-1-1 and DS/EN 1992-2 including DK NA.
In cases where an estimate assessment of the final deformations resulting from concrete creep and shrinkage, and where the
structures are not very slender, or as regards the creep, the load impact is a very short or a very long time after the cast, the
following can be assumed:
A shrinkage strain of:
sv, -15 x 10-5
kr, 2el
A creep strain of:
in that the elastic strain el is determined on the basis of a coefficient of elasticity of 3 x 104 MN/m2.
If more precise calculations of creep and shrinkage are wanted, reference is made to the specialist literature. For high-strength
concrete and 'high performance concrete' some calculation methods are specified in Annex B to DS/EN 1992-2.
In the calculation of column and wall load capacity, allowance should be made for the foundation
yielding and the supportive factors in the superstructure. In addition, permanent bending
out/movements from elastic compression as a result of prestress, shrinkage, creep, etc. and
temperature variations (second-order effect) should be taken into account. Finally, uncertainty
should be allowed for included parameters in cases where the results are sensitive to parameter
variations.
In the context of classification and calculation of load capacity of existing concrete bridges, it is
28
April 2015
permitted to use plastic analysis if it can be proved that the assumed redistribution of sectional
forces can take place. In addition, it shall be demonstrated that the tension requirements of the
serviceability limit state are complied with.
8.3
The partial coefficient on the material side is to be determined in accordance with EN 1992-1-1 DK
NA corresponding to the description of the selected control class in the work description. A strict
control class shall be used, unless otherwise agreed with the Infrastructure Manager. The
conditions associated with the selection of control class shall be respected.
Note 8.3-1
Partial coefficients are usually determined as:
1.
s = 1.203 0 for reinforcement
2.
c = 1.453 0 for reinforced concrete
3.
c = 1.603 0 for unreinforced concrete.
where 3 depends on the selected control class since a modified control class is not used for concrete structures:
1.
Normal control class 3 = 1.00
2.
Strict control class 3 = 0.95
The rules for reduction of partial coefficients specified in informative Annex A to DS/EN 1992-1-1
may not be used, see DK NA to DS/EN 1992-1-1. The same applies to the rules set out in Annex C to
EN 13369+A1/AC:2007 for prefabricated concrete products.
For materials included in structures from before 1974, where the control class concept had not
been implemented, as well as for materials included after 1974, where a stricter control class
cannot be documented, the partial coefficients shall be determined corresponding to normal
control class (3 = 1.00).
For reinforcing steel produced before 1945, m12 = 1.25 shall be used corresponding to a 10%
coefficient of variation, unless the yield stress is determined on the basis of testing.
Note 8.3-2
For reinforcing steel produced before 1945, the result is thus s = 1.253 = 1.251.0 = 1.25, since a normal control class shall be
assumed, see the above.
April 2015
29
8.4
Material parameters for loose reinforcement, existing bridges
8.4.1
Characteristic reinforcement strengths
Note 8.4.1-1
In DS/EN 1992-1-1 DK NA, the characteristic material strengths are defined as 5% quantile values, as was the case in DS 411:1999,
and the partial coefficients are determined on the basis of this assumption.
Previous editions of DS 411, 2nd edition 1973 and 3rd edition 1984, define the characteristic material strengths for reinforcement
as the guaranteed strength values, which were assumed to be equal to the 0.1% quantile.
It is permissible to benefit from conversion from the 0.1% quantile value of the characteristic
strength into a 5% quantile value, provided it can be demonstrated that a 0.1% quantile value was
initially used.
In general, the assumptions in DS/EN 1992-1-1 DK NA for the determination of s shall be
observed. In this context it should be noted that s shall be corrected if a deviation from these
assumptions has an unfavourable effect in terms of safety.
Note 8.4.1-2
As a starting point, it would be safe to use a characteristic material strength corresponding to 0.1 % of the quantile value directly
in the calculations.
The conversion from a 0.1% quantile value into a 5% quantile value is made by multiplying s by the following adjustment factor:
(1.65 k )
where the parameter k depends on the quantile originally used. In the case of a 0.1% quantile value, k = 3.09.
is the current coefficient of variation. For 0.05, the above adjustment factor is used directly. It should be noted that the
smaller values, the closer to 1.0 is the adjustment factor.
For 0.05, the following partial coefficients are obtained for different values of :
m12 = 1.20 (1.653.09)
0.05
1.12
1.123
0.04
1.13
1.133
0.03
1.15
1.153
0.02
1.17
1.173
0.01
1.18
1.183
0.00
1.20
1.203
For > 0.05 the above adjustment factor may only be used if the initial value of m12 at 1.20 in EN 1992-1-1 DK NA is adjusted
simultaneously.
Examples of corrections for >0.05:
30
For = 0.10 the result is m12 = 1.25 e

(1.65 3.09)
(1.65 3.09)
(1.65 3.09)
= 1.08
and s = 1.083
= 1.05
and s = 1.053
= 1.02
and s = 1.023
April 2015
8.4.2
Determination of reinforcement strengths
The reinforcement types with associated reinforcement strengths usually appear from the project
material. In a conversion into current standards, the initial standard basis for the determination of
the strengths shall be identified.
Note 8.4.2-1
For reinforcement types designed according to older standards based on permissible tensions a safety factor of 2.0 on yield
stress was normally used. Attention is drawn to the reinforcement symbols used on the drawings which could easily be confused.
Round bars normally correspond to steel Fe 360. In rare cases, however, round iron with strengths corresponding to Fe 430
and Fe 510 may occur.
In addition, Danish corrugated bar FKF42/Ks 410, KS50 and KS60 (Norwegian and Swedish corrugated bar) may have been
used, which is shown on the drawings with a different symbol and usually have a higher strength than Danish corrugated
bar. In addition, in recent times there is a stronger quality of Danish corrugated bar Ks 550.
For Tentor steel different permissible tensions were initially used, depending on whether the structure was indoor or
outdoor. It should be noted that the Tentor steel strength parameters have varied a little over time. Further, the strength
usually depends on the diameter.
Figure 8.4.2-1 below lists characteristic tensile yield stress for the most frequent reinforcement types in old bridges.
Yield stress [MPa]
Type
Description
d 16mm
d > 16mm
Smooth
Fe 360
St. 37
235
225
reinforcement
Fe 430
St. 44
275
265
Fe 510
St. 52
355
345
Corrugated bar
Tentor steel
Ks 410
410
Ks 550
550
550
Tentor steel
510
Tentor 52
510
Tentor 56
550
Figure 8.4.2-1 Characteristic tensile yield stress.

Figure 8.4.2-2 specifies the relationship between permissible tension and type of reinforcement usually present in the event that
only the permissible tension appears from the project documentation.
Permissible tension (kg/cm2)
Type
1000
Fe 360
1100
Fe 360
1200
Fe 360
1300
Fe 360
2100
Ks 410
2200
T*)
2500
2600
*)
Tentor 52 which was used from the 1950s and up to the beginning of the 1960s.
Figure8.4.2 -2 Connection between permissible tension and reinforcement types.

In addition to these, other types of steel may occur, such as Isteg steel (two intertwined round bars) and vindelstl (a twisted rod
with a cross-shaped cross section): Characteristic tensile yield stress 400 MPa, characteristic modulus of elasticity 1.7 x 105 MPa.
Reference is also made to specialist literature of that time on reinforcement types and strength parameters, etc.
April 2015
31
For concrete structures from before 1919, the characteristic tensile yield stress shall not be set
higher than 200 MPa, unless it is determined on the basis of testing.
Note 8.4.2-2
For old concrete structures, flat iron stirrups that are open on top have often been used. Reduced adhesion should be expected
for such stirrups.
8.5
Material parameters for tensioned reinforcement , existing bridges
Conversion of original characteristic strengths into 5% quantile values is permitted according to

the same guidelines as for untensioned reinforcement.
Control calculations shall be based on the data used in the design, and which would normally have
been guaranteed by the steel supplier. The steel line of action can be designed on the basis of the
characteristic values for the proportional limit, the modulus of elasticity, the 0.2% tension
(alternatively the tension corresponding to a 1% deformation), the ultimate stress and the rupture
strain.
8.6
Material parameters for concrete, existing bridges
8.6.1
Characteristic concrete strengths
Original characteristic concrete strengths referring to the 10% quantile shall be converted to a 5%
quantile value. Direct application of the 10% quantile values without conversion is not allowed
since this will be considered unsafe.
Note 8.6.1-1
In DS/EN 1992-1-1 DK NA, the characteristic material strengths are defined as 5% quantile values, as was the case in DS 411:1999,
and the partial coefficients are determined on the basis of this assumption. In previous versions of DS 411, 2nd edition 1973 and
3rd edition 1984, the characteristic material strengths are defined as 10% quantile values.
The conversion from a 10% quantile value of the characteristic strength into a 5% quantile value is performed by multiplying c by
the following factor, see DS 409:
(1.65k )
where k = 1.28, and is the coefficient of variation, which can be set equal to 0.15, if not otherwise stated. (As a starting point,
values of less than 0.15 should not be used).
For = 0.15 the following is obtained e.g.:
m12 = 1.45 e
(1.651.28)
= 1.53
c = 1.533
In general, the assumptions in DS/EN 1992-1-1 DK NA for the determination ofc shall be
respected, and it should be noted that c shall be corrected if a deviation from these assumptions
has an adverse safety effect.
32
April 2015
8.6.2
Definition of concrete strengths
The following conversion formula is permitted to be used in the conversion from "guaranteed
medium strength" C into characteristic compressive strength fck:
fck = 0.80C (fck: 5% quantile value)
Note 8.6.2-1
For concrete structures projected after 1973, the compressive strength is usually indicated by means of the characteristic cylinder
strength in the form of a quantile value.
For concrete structures projected before 1973, the concrete design compressive strength (usually with reference to the 28-day
strength) is specified in different ways, as it is often a question of what can be described as "guaranteed medium strengths"
(minimum requirements for the medium strength, determined on the basis of a certain number of samples):
as the cube strength T (compression testing of cubes with a side line of 200 mm)
as the bending capacity B (bending test of a special test beam)
as the cylinder strength C
The following correlation between these forces can be used:
T = 0.80 B
C = 0.80 T
It should be noted that the general specifications (AAB) for the Construction of Concrete Bridges, part 351, the Danish Road
Directorate November 1969 i.e. before 1973 operates with the characteristic cylinder compression strength bk on the basis
of the 10% quantile value.
For concretes characterised by a mixing ratio, the following conversion list is permitted to be used,
where fck is the 5% quantile value.
Mixing ratio (volume)
cement/sand/stone
1:2:3
1:3:5
1:2:3
1:4:7
fck
(MPa)
15
11
10
8
Note 8.6.2-2
The concrete strength depends on the original concrete recipe (the cement fineness, pozzolanic composition) processing and
construction, and current state as a result of age and external environmental impact.
If the concrete is considered to be intact, in control calculations for concrete structures built before 1945 a 50% increase of the
initial design strength may be reckoned with. For intact concrete structures from before 1990, a strength increase of 25% may
be reckoned with. For low W/C concrete with microsilica and fly ash the strength increase is very modest, for which reason only
a 10% increase for new concrete structures older than 5 years may be reckoned with.
For structures where the load bearing capacity of the critical element directly depends on the concrete strength (columns,
displacement in beams, etc.), it should be thoroughly assessed whether cores should be sampled of the critical element for
compression testing in the laboratory as the basis for including the strength increase.
April 2015
33
8.6.3
Definition of concrete strengths on the basis of cores bored out
For cores bored out used in the determination of the concrete strength, the strengths measured
shall be converted according to the following formula:
fc,meas,con = k1k2k3fc, meas
where
fc, meas: The measured strength of the current cylinder bored out
fc, meas,con: The measured strength converted into the strength of a reference cylinder where h
= 300 mm, d = 150 mm
k1: Factor that corrects for the cylinder bored out has another relation between height and
diameter than 2. On the assumption that the relation between cylinder height and cylinder
diameter is between 1 and 2, and that the cylinder diameter is between 70 mm and 150 mm,
this factor can be assumed to be: k1 = 0.2 h/d +0.60
k2: Factor that corrects for the use of another cylinder diameter than corresponding to the
reference cylinder diameter of 150 mm. For diameter d = 70 mm the factor is 0.90, for d = 100
mm the factor is 0.95, and for d = 250 mm, the factor is 1.00
k3: Factor that corrects for the cylinder bored out not being intact in relation to a similar cast
cylinder with the same measurements. This factor should be set to 1.10 for d = 150 mm, 1.15
for d = 100 mm, and 1.20 for d = 70 mm.
As regards the determination of characteristic values of the concrete strength on the basis of test
results and of partial coefficients, reference is made to sections 7.4.1 and 7.4.2.
8.7
As regards the calculation of capacities, reference is made to section 6 of DS/EN 1992-1-1 and
DS/EN 1992-2.
It should be noted that the brittle fracture safety shall be demonstrated in accordance with section
6.1 of DS/EN 1992-2 including DK NA.
Attention is also drawn to the following choices in the national annexes:
Additional rules, e.g. for calculation of in-plane stress condition, see DS/EN 1992-1-1 DK NA,
which may be relevant to box girders
Additional rules for contributions from up-bent tensioned reinforcement by determining the
shear capacity, see DS/EN 1992-2 DK NA
It shall be demonstrated that the overall stability of the structure is present.
8.8
Fatigue
The risk of fatigue shall be assessed in accordance with section 6.8 of DS/EN 1992-1-1 and DS/EN
1992-2.
To demonstrate the fatigue capacity, the partial coefficients for concrete and reinforcement shall
be increased, see DS/EN 1992-1-1 DK NA.
Note 8.8-1
Attention is drawn to the reduction factor, which shall be applied to the fatigue strength of bent iron.
34
April 2015
8.9
8.9.1
Tension requirements
Tension requirements are listed in DS/EN 1992-1-1 including DK NA and DS/EN 1992-2 including DK
NA.
Requirements for tensions for existing concrete bridges shall basically meet the same requirements
as for new concrete bridges. However, deviations may be accepted in exceptional cases if they are
well founded and well-documented, including not being estimated to have neither safety nor
durability consequences.
In connection with load capacity calculation and classification, the tension limit for concrete
compression stress in the characteristic action combinations may be increased to c 0.80fck for
bridge classes 100 (normal passage).
For bridge classes 60 in normal passage, it is required that concrete compression stresses meet
the requirement c 0.60fck.
Note 8.9.1-1
Tension requirements for characteristic action combinations are designed to ensure that structures are not damaged in the form
of irreversible starting plastic deformations in the context of heavy transport passages. The limit of 0.80fck has been set relatively
high because generally, there is a short-time effect in relation to the passage of heavy transport.
8.9.2
Control of crack widths
Bridge structures shall be designed so that cracks are distributed and crack widths are limited. In
the design, forces from creep and shrinkage and relaxation shall be taken into account.
Crack width requirements are listed in DS/EN 1992-2 DK NA.
The crack width requirement for cast-in and post-injected tensioned reinforcement stated in DS/EN
1992-2 DK NA may be interpreted in the following way, see Figure 8.9.2-1 below.
In a crack-width context, prestressed structural parts are included in the parts of the structure,
which are prestressed by means of cables and lines, typically a bridge superstructure in the
main load direction corresponding to the prestress. The load direction perpendicular to the
prestressed main load direction is not considered prestressed if there is only untensioned
reinforcement
The crack width requirements for the prestressed structural elements apply perpendicular on
the prestress in areas in which the prestressed reinforcement is closer to the concrete surface
than 400 mm calculated from the centre of the prestressing cable or line, i.e. for a bridge
superstructure, typically on the upper side above supporting structures and on the lower side,
at the span centre. For other areas, the crack width requirements for untensioned
reinforcement bridges may be used
Where the prestress is located closer than 400 mm on the concrete surface, stricter crack
width requirements apply to the transverse untensioned reinforcement in the deck upper side
and the deck underside on and in the box girder bodies. The extent of the area around cables
and lines in the transverse direction covered by the stricter requirements shall be determined
as the area in which cables and lines are located, extended by a 400 mm wide belt on each side
of the area from the centre of the outer cable/line. That means that the top flange and bottom
flange of a box girder are not subject to the stricter requirements for a centre section between
the bodies if cables/lines everywhere are located within the bodies
April 2015
35
The crack width applies to the concrete surface corresponding to the recommended cover
thickness, excluding tolerance.
Figure 8.9.2-1
There are no specific requirements for crack widths in control calculations of existing structures.
The crack width requirement may be assessed in each case on the basis of durability
contemplations and the requirement for the remaining lifetime of the building. If relevant, the
crack width requirement shall be determined and checked for frequent action combinations.
For bridge classes 50 (normal passage), the crack width requirements stated in DS/EN 1992-2 DK
NA shall, however, be met.
Crack widths for large covers

It can be assumed that the crack width requirements in DS/EN 1992-2 DK NA correspond to the
prescribed cover cnom = cmin + cdev.
If a cover larger than the prescribed is used, the calculated crack width may be corrected as
follows, in that it shall be verified that the corrected crack width is less than or equal to the crack
width requirement corresponding to the prescribed cover:
wk = wmax c1/c2, but min 0.7 wmax
where
wk
wmax
c1
c2
36
The corrected crack width

Max crack width calculated on the basis of the current cover c2
Prescribed cover cnom = cmin + cdev
Actual nominally cover
April 2015
9 STEEL STRUCTURES
9.1
Basis
Calculation and capacity documentation of steel structures shall be made in accordance with DS/EN
1993-2 including DK NA and the part standards DS/EN 1993-1-1 - EN 1993-1-10 including DK NA.
Also, DS/EN 1993-1-11 and 1993-1-12 including DK NA apply.
9.2
Structural analysis
Structural analysis and calculation models are discussed in section 5 in DS/EN 1993-2.
In connection with classification and load bearing capacity calculation of existing steel bridges, it is
permitted to include redistribution of sectional forces provided it can be demonstrated that the
necessary plastic deformations can be developed. In addition, it shall be demonstrated that the
tension requirements of the serviceability limit state are complied with.
9.3
The partial coefficient on the material side is to be determined in accordance with DS/EN 1993-2
DK NA corresponding to the description of the selected control class in the work description. A
normal control class shall be used, unless otherwise agreed with the Infrastructure Manager.
Note 9.3-1
1.
M0 = 1.103 0 (cross-section resistance)
2.
M1 = 1.203 0 (stability)
3.
M2 = 1.353 0 (ultimate stress, bolts, welded seams)
4.
M3 = 1.353 0 (friction joint, fracture, category C)
5.
M3,ser = 1.203 0 (friction joint, serviceability limit state, category B)
6.
M4 = 1,103 0 (bearing capacity of injection bolts)
7.
M5 = 1.103 0 (joints in trusses made of hollow sections)
8.
M6,ser = 1.103 0 (Charnier dowels, serviceability state limit)
9.
10.
M7 = 1.203 0 (prestress, high-strength bolts)

Mf = 1.00 1.15 (Damage tolerant); 1.15 1.35 (Visual inspection + repair option); 1.54 1.88 (Safe lifespan without
inspection and repair option)
where 3 depends on the control class selected:

1.
Normal control class: 3= 1.00
2.
Strict control class:
3 = 0.95
3 = 1.00 for welded joints.
Strict control requires independent third-party control of materials and construction.
For structural steel included in structures built before 1974 and for structural steel included after
1974, where a strict control class cannot be demonstrated, the partial coefficient shall be fixed
corresponding to normal control class (3 = 1.00).
For steel from before 1900 and for the oldest welded steel structures from the 1930s to the 1950s,
M0 and M1 shall be increased by a factor 1.0/0.9= 1.11, corresponding to a ductile collapse
without reserve for yield stress and modulus of elasticity.
For structural steel produced before 1945, all partial coefficients shall be increased by a factor
1.06 corresponding to a 10% coefficient of variation unless stress parameters are determined on
the basis of testing.
April 2015
37
Note 9.3-2
For structural steel produced before 1945, the partial coefficients are generally increased by a factor 1.06, which in the first three
instances above, see Note 9.3.1, provides the following resulting M, in that 3 =1.00:
1. M0 = 1.061.103 0 = 1.171.00 0 = 1.170
2. M1 = 1.061.203 0 = 1.271.00 0 = 1.270
3. M2 = 1.061.353 0 = 1.431.00 0 = 1.430
For structural steel produced before 1900, 1 is increased to 1.00 in case 1, which gives:
1. M0 = 1.061.111.103 0 = 1.291.00 0 = 1.290
2. M1 = 1.061.111.203 0 = 1.411.00 0 = 1.410
This increase also applies to the oldest welded steel structures from the 1930s to the 1950s.
9.4
Material parameters for structural steel, existing bridges
9.4.1
Characteristic strength parameters
According to DS/EN 1990 including DK NA and DS/EN 1993-1-1 and other standards in the DS/EN
1993-series including DK NA, 5% quantile values shall be used as characteristic strengths (with the
exception of fatigue strength).
Note 9.4.1-1
The characteristic values specified in Figure 9.4.2-1 for the upper yield stress and the tensile strength may on the safe side be
estimated as corresponding to the 5% quantile, corresponding to the assumptions in the determination of m in DS 412.
If it can be documented that the steel is delivered with strength parameters corresponding to another second quantile value, the
strength may be adjusted by using a similar methodology as described in note 8.4.1.
In general, the assumptions as they appear from DS/EN 1993-1-1 DK NA and other part standards
shall be observed for the determination of m. Further, it should be noted that m shall be
corrected if a deviation from these assumptions has an adverse safety effect.
9.4.2
Determination of strength parameters
If the project material does not contain more detailed information, the characteristic upper yield
stress (guaranteed minimum values) specified in Figure 9.4.2-1 and tensile strengths for structural
steel from 1941 until today may to be used.
Note 9.4.2-1
For structural steel from before 1919, the characteristic strength parameters should not be set higher than corresponding to
"Usual quality", unless they can be determined on the basis of testing. In some cases, soft iron may have been used, for which
recommended strength values cannot be immediately stated.
Steel bridges built after 1919 may usually be assumed to have been made of soft steel with strength properties corresponding to
St37 as a minimum.
For steel produced before 1941 it is recommended that additional material analyses and determinations of strengths are
performed if the Project Material does not contain more detailed information.
38
April 2015
Used in a standard from

Description
Usual commercial quality
St33
St37, -1, -2, -3
St37, -A, -B, -C, -D
Fe360
St42A
St42, -1, -2, -3
St441)
St42, -B, -C, -D
Fe 430
St50, -B, -C, -D
St52-3
Fe510
1)
Before
1941
x
1941
1976
Yield stress
1983
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Tensile
strength
t<16
16<t<40
t>40
200
190
180
320
235
235
235
260
260
2751)
270
275
340
340
355
225
235
225
250
250
2651)
260
265
330
330
345
215
225
215
240
240
2551)
250
255
320
320
335
360
360
360
410
410
430
410
430
490
510
510
For certain types of St44 there may be significantly lower yield stresses than indicated in the table.
Figure 9.4.2-1 Characteristic upper yield stresses and tensile strengths for structural steel (MPa).
9.5
Calculation of capacities of cross-section and elements is carried out in accordance with section 6,
and joints in accordance with section 8, of DS/EN 1993-2 including DK NA and the fundamental part
standards DS/EN 1993-1-1 - DS/EN 1993-1-12.
9.6
Fatigue
9.6.1
Design for fatigue
The fatigue examination shall be carried out in accordance with DS/EN 1993-2 including DK NA
(section 9 and Annex C) as well as DS/EN 1993-1-9 including DK NA.
As a starting point, design of bridge decks to resist fatigue should not be based on a 'Damagetolerant design'.
If there is no possibility of inspecting and repairing welding seams, the design shall be based on
'Safe Lifespan II'. This also applies if any repair will be associated with high costs and road user
nuisances.
If there is a possibility of regular visual inspection and any repair, the design can be based on 'Safe
Lifespan I'.
In the design, the combined effect of the deck structure and the cover may only be considered if
such combined effect can be documented.
9.6.2
Fatigue calculation, existing bridges
Fatigue calculation of existing bridges shall be performed by the same methods applying to new
bridges. However, a more realistic picture of past and future traffic intensity based on available
and verifiable traffic data can be used as a starting point.
April 2015
39
Control measurements and verification of calculation model

Note 9.6.2-1
In many cases, calculation measurements on the actual bridge for the verification of the calculation models may lead to lower
tensions and hence to longer remaining life expectancies. This is due i.a. to the uncertainty surrounding the dynamic additions.
9.7
The requirements for the serviceability limit state and assumptions regarding calculation models
can be found in section 7 of DS/EN 1993-2 including DK NA.
40
April 2015
10 COMPOSITE STRUCTURES, CONCRETE STEEL

10.1 Basis
Calculation and documentation of composite structures shall be performed in accordance with
DS/EN 1994-1-1 including DK NA and DS/EN 1994-2 including DK NA.
10.2 Structural analysis

Structural analysis and calculation models are dealt with in section 5 of DS/EN 1994-2 and DS/EN
1994-1-1 including DK NA.

Reference is made to the relevant sections in DS/EN 1994-2 including DK NA. Partial coefficients on
the material side for concrete and reinforcement, respectively steel, shall be determined
corresponding to the control class selected in the work description.
For materials included in structures built before 1974 and for materials included after 1974, where
a strict control class cannot be demonstrated, the partial coefficient shall be fixed corresponding
to normal control class (3 = 1.00).
In addition, reference is made to the requirements in the above sections 8.3 and 9.3 respectively
for concrete and steel.
10.4 Material parameters, existing bridges

Reference is made to the requirements in the above sections 8.4-8.6 and 9.4 respectively for
concrete and steel.
10.5 Ultimate limit state

Calculation of capacities of cross-sections and elements is made in accordance with section 6 of
DS/EN 1994-2 including DK NA.
10.6 Fatigue
The fatigue examination shall be performed in accordance with section 6.8 of DS/EN 1994-2
including DK NA.
10.7 Serviceability limit state

The requirements for the serviceability limit state and assumptions regarding calculation models
may be found in section 7 of DS/EN 1994-2 including DK NA.
The requirements for the serviceability limit state for existing composite structures in connection
with load capacity calculation and classification are the same as for new composite structures with
the modifications mentioned in the above section 8.9 for concrete structures.
April 2015
41
11 TIMBER STRUCTURES
11.1 Basis
Calculation and design of timber bridges shall be made on the basis of DS/EN 1995-2 including DK
NA and DS/EN 1995-1-1 including DK NA.
12 BRICKWORK AND GRANITE

12.1 Basis
Calculation and documentation of capacity of brick structures shall be made in accordance with
DS/EN 1996-1-1 including DK NA.

Partial coefficients shall be determined according to DS/EN 1996-1-1 including DK NA.
Note 12.2-1
1.
m = 1.703 0for compression strength and coefficient of elasticity
2.
m = 1.703 0 for bending capacity strength and the mortar adhesion (cohesion)
3.
m = 1.303 0 for friction coefficient.
For brickwork from before 1945, the brickwork compression strength and coefficient of elasticity
should be determined corresponding to a 15% coefficient of variation.
Note 12.2-2
By way of example, for brickwork from before 1945, the result for compression strength and coefficient of elasticity is:
1. m = 1.853 0 for compression strength and coefficient of elasticity
The same procedure shall be used for granite.
12.3 Material parameters for granite, existing bridges

For granite, the following characteristic values are used for the basic material:
Compressive strength: 40 MPa
Bending tensile strength: 15 MPa
42
April 2015
13 FOUNDATION AND GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNS

13.1 Basis
Calculation of foundations and geotechnical constructions shall be carried out in accordance with
DS/EN 1997-1 including DK NA. Attention is drawn in particular to Annex A where the national
choices of partial coefficients are listed. On the load side, the partial coefficients and action
combinations are a reproduction from DK NA to DS/EN 1990 and DS/EN 1990/A1.
Design of sheet pile walls and steel piles shall be carried out in accordance with DS/EN 1993-5
including DK NA.
13.2 Design method and material partial coefficients

Reference is made to DS/EN 1997-1 DK NA concerning design method and determination of partial
coefficients for all included materials and components.
13.3 Calculation of supporting walls and sheet piling

In connection with the design of supporting and sheet pile walls, it shall be ensured that the earth
pressure distribution in each case reflects the critical failure for the supporting wall and the sheet
pile wall. In addition, it shall be ensured that the supporting wall/sheet pile wall as well as anchors
and supports are able to absorb the forces throughout the course of fractions in the critical load
conditions.
In the determination of water pressure behind an earth-pressure impacted structure, allowance
shall be made for the drain conditions at the wall. If drainage cannot be expected to be active in
the entire extent of the yield line pattern on the wall back, it shall be estimated that water level can
be up to the top of the wall. At the same time, a possible reduction of the wall's stabilising passive
earth backstop shall be taken into account as a result of any heaving hydraulic upward gradients
due to ground water flow on the wall's passive side. In any event, the wall shall be checked for full
water pressure in the accident load case.
For the design of walls with no deformation in the ultimate limit state, the pressure at rest and any
compacting pressure at the top shall be used. For the investigation of geotechnical stability of both
rigid and flexible walls in the ultimate limit state, walls shall be examined for earth pressure
corresponding to usual calculated active and passive fraction conditions in soil.
In connection with the documentation of robustness of anchored sheet pile walls, at least one load
condition with a loss of anchor shall be considered.
April 2015
43
14 BEARINGS
14.1 Basis and calculation
In connection with drawing up of technical specifications for bridge bearings, including the making
of requirements in connection with the installation and preparation of bearing tables, the
guidelines in Annex A to DS/EN 1993-2 shall be followed.

Material partial coefficients for constituent materials included in the bearing structure appear from
the bearing standards/product standards in the DS/EN 1337 series, but from DS/EN 1993-2,
however, as regards the anchoring of bearings.
Note 14.2-1
The definition of material partial coefficients for bearings is assumed to have taken as its basis the safety system described in
DS/EN 1990 (and DS/EN 1990/A1) with the values recommended for partial coefficients on the load side and the material side,
respectively. This means that values of the calculated load bearing capacity of the bearings, as shown typically in bearing
catalogues with reference to the rules in the DS/EN 1337 series cannot therefore be directly applied under Danish conditions
where the material partial coefficients are changed in the NAs in relation to the recommended values in Eurocodes, e.g. for steel.
Catalogue values for bearing load capacities shall be converted so that they tally with the Danish
rules on determination of safety. If no separate statement is prepared for the load bearing capacity
of a bearing documenting that the safety on the material side complies with the Danish rules on
determining safety, the conversion may be made by reducing the calculated load capacity by a
factor (1.00/1.10), corresponding to a 10% increase in the material partial coefficient.
15 JOINTS
In connection with the drawing up of technical specifications for bearings for bridges, including the
making of requirements in the context of the installation and establishment of calculated joint
movements, reference is made to Annex B of DS/EN 1993-2 which provides guidelines for this
purpose.
44
April 2015
ANNEX 1 Road bridges, action combination tables
April 2015
45
Limit state
Equation
STR/GEO
1)
(Set B+C)
6.10a
Action combinations
2)
EQU, UPL, HYD

3)
(Set A)
6.10b
Fatigue
6.10
19
1.25
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.10
1.00
1.00
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.10
1.00
favourable, Gj,inf
8)
Settlements
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Prestress
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4)
1.10
Permanent load
Weight in general (structural elements, wearing
course and equipment)
1) 3)
unfavourable, Gj,sup
2)
favourable, Gj,inf
Weight of soil and
(ground)water, geotech1) 2) 3)
nical structures
Variable load
Traffic load
gr1a
5)
7)
LM1 + load on
footpath and cycle
track
Tandem load, TS
1.40
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
Evenly distributed
load, UDL
1.40
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
Load on footpath
and cycle track
(reduced value)
1.40
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
gr1b
Single axle load
1.40
gr2
Braking and acceleration forces,

centrifugal forces
1.40
gr3
Load on footpath
6)
and cycle track
1.40
gr4
LM4 - Person load,

'crowd' load
1.40
Wind action, FWk
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.50
0.90
1.12
0.90
4)
1.30
Ice load
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.50
0.90
0.90
4)
1.30
1.00
Wave and current load
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.12
0.90
1.50
0.90
4)
Temperature, Tk
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.50
4)
1)
STR/GEO (Set B+C) is based on Table A2.4 (B+C) in DS/EN 1990/A1 DK NA. The characteristic values of all permanent loads from a single source shall be
multiplied by GJ,sup if the total resulting effect from the source is unfavourable, and by GJ,inf if the total effect is favourable. For example, all loads
resulting from the design weight are considered to be from one source. KFI which takes into account the consequence class shall s in STR/GEO (Set B)
be multiplied for all unfavourable loads, but not for favourable load.
For structures affected by geotechnical actions, verification shall be made for all action combinations where KFI is multiplied on the material side for all
incoming strength parameters and load bearing capacities, see DK NA to DS/EN 1990, DS/EN 1990/A1 and DS/EN 1997-1.
2) For equation 6.10a, a special action condition shall be documented where the factor on all permanent actions is set to 1.0, while the partial coefficient of
the construction materials used shall be increased by 1.25 KFI, and the partial coefficient on soil parameters and geotechnical resistances is set to 1.0, see
DK NA to DS/EN 1990, DS/EN 1990/A1 and DS/EN 1997-1.
3) EQU (Set A) is based on Table A2.4 (A) in DS/EN 1990/A1 DK NA. The characteristic values of permanent loads shall be multiplied by GJ,sup provided the
46
April 2015
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
load seems destabilising/unfavourable, and by GJ,inf provided it is stabilising/favourable. KFI which takes into account the consequence class, shall in
EQU (Set A) be multiplied for all unfavourable loads, but not for favourable loads.
As STR/GEO action combination 1-9 for variable loads.
The table lists Q,1 for the dominant variable load and Q,i 0,i for the other variable loads.
Footpath/cycle track: If there are more footpaths and cycle tracks on the bridge, the load is only applied to the number of footpaths and cycle tracks that
result in the most unfavourable load effect. gr3 can be disregarded if gr4 is considered.
In the table, the group index, gri, refers to the traffic load of the dominant load component specified in Table 4.4a of DS/EN 1991-2.
If settlements are favourable, partial coefficient 0 is used.
Figure B1.1 Road bridges. Action combinations in the ultimate limit state (permanent and shortterm load situations) and the fatigue limit state (repeated alternating loads).
April 2015
47
Limit state
Equation
Action combinations
Permanent load
Accident load conditions

6.11b
1)
Seismic load conditions

6.12b
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Tandem load, TS
Evenly distributed load,
UDL
Load on footpath and cycle
track (reduced value)
0.75
0.40
0.30
0.30
0.40
0.30
Single axle load

Braking and acceleration
forces, centrifugal forces
Load on footpath and cycle
track
LM4 - Person load,
'crowd' load
0.20
-
0.20
-
0.50
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.20
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Weight in general (structural

elements, wearing course and
equipment)
favourable, Gj,inf
Weight of soil and (ground)water,
geotechnical structures
favourable, Gj,inf
Settlements
Prestress
1)
Variable load
2)
Traffic load
gr1a
gr1b
gr2
gr3
gr4
LM1 + load on footpath

and cycle track
Wind action, FWk

Ice load
Temperature, Tk
3)
Accident load
Seismic load
1)
2)
3)
Ad
AEd
Action combinations for accident load conditions and seismic load conditions are based on Table A2.5 in DS/EN 1990/A1 DK
NA.
In the table, the group index, gri, refers to the traffic load to the dominant load component specified in Table 4.4a of DS/EN
1991-2.
Accident loads can be impact, collision, vehicle on pavement, loss of an element, (fire) etc.
Table B1.2 Road bridges. Action combinations in accident load conditions and seismic load
conditions
48
April 2015
Limit state
Equation
Action combinations

Characteristic action combinations
1
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
favourable, Gj,inf
Weight of soil and
(ground)water, geotechnical
structures
1.00
1.00
1.00
favourable, Gj,inf
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Permanent load
equipment)
Settlements
Prestress
6.14b
5
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Variable load
1)
Traffic load
gr1a
LM1 + load on footpath and cycle track

Tandem load, TS
gr1b
gr2
1.00
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
Evenly distributed
load, UDL
1.00
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
Load on footpath and

cycle track (reduced
value)
1.00
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
1.00
-
1.00
1.00
Single axle load

Braking and acceleration forces,
centrifugal forces
gr3

2)
cycle track
gr4
LM4 - Person load,
'crowd' load
Wind action, FWk
1.00
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
1.00
0.60
0.60
0.60
Ice load
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
1.00
0.60
0.60
1.00
0.60
0.60
Temperature, Tk
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
1.00
1)
2)
The table is based on Table 4.4a in DS/EN 1991-2, where the group index, gri, of the traffic load refers to the dominant load
component listed in Table 4.4A.
gr3 can be disregarded, if gr4 is considered.
Table B1.3 Road bridges. The serviceability limit state, characteristic action combinations.
April 2015
49
Limit state
Equation
Action combinations

Frequent action combinations
Quasi-permanent
6.16b
1
6.15b
5
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Weight of soil and (ground)water, geotechnical structures

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
favourable, Gj,inf
Settlements
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Prestress
Variable load
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Permanent load
equipment)
favourable, Gj,inf
1)
Traffic load
gr1a
LM1 + load on footpath and cycle track
Tandem load, TS
0.75
Evenly distributed
load, UDL
0.40

cycle track (reduced
value)
0.40
Single axle load

Braking and
acceleration forces,
centrifugal forces
gr3
cycle track
gr4
LM4 - Person load,
'crowd' load
Wind action, FWk
0.75
-
0.40
0.75
0.20
Ice load
0.20
-
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.50
gr1b
gr2
Temperature, Tk
1)
The table is based on Table 4.4b in DS/EN 1991-2. In the table, the group index, gri, refers to the traffic load of the dominant
load component specified in Table 4.4a of DS/EN 1991-2.
Table B1.4 Road bridges. Serviceability limit state, frequent and quasi-permanent action
combinations.
50
April 2015
ANNEX 2 Footbridges, action combination tables
April 2015
51
Limit state
Equation
Action combinations
Permanent load
1) 3)
equipment)
2)
favourable, Gj,inf
Weight of soil and (ground)wat1) 2) 3)
er, geotechnical structures
favourable, Gj,inf
7)
Settlements
Prestress
5)
Variable load
6)
Traffic load
gr1 Evenly distributed load
UDL
Horizontal load, Qflk
gr2 Service vehicle, Qserv
Concentrated wheel
pressure, Qfwk
Wind action, FWk
Ice load
Temperature, Tk
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
STR/GEO
1)
(Set B+C)
6.10a
2)
6.10b
4
EQU, UPL,
HYD
3)
(Set A)
6.10
17
1.25
1.00
1.00 1.00
0.90 0.90
1.00
0.90
1.00
0.90
1.00
0.90
1.00
0.90
1.00
0.90
1.10
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.10
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4)
1.10
4)
1.30
1.30
1.00
1.40
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
1.40
1.40
1.40
-
1.40
0.56
-
0.56
-
0.56
-
0.56
-
0.45
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.45
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.50
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.50
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.50
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.50
0.45
0.90
0.90
0.90
4)
4)
4)
STR/GEO (Set B+C) is based on Table A2.4 (B+C) in DS/EN 1990/A1 DK NA. The characteristic values of all permanent loads from a
single source shall be multiplied by GJ,sup if the total resulting effect from the source is unfavourable, and by GJ,inf if the total effect is
favourable. For example, all loads resulting from the design weight are considered to be from one source. KFI which takes into
account the consequence class shall be multiplied in STR/GEO (Set B) for all unfavourable loads, but not for favourable loads.
For structures affected by geotechnical action, verification shall be made for all action combinations where KFI is multiplied on the
material side for all included strength parameters and load bearing capacities, see DK NA to DS/EN 1990, DS/EN 1990/A1 and DS/EN
1997-1.
For equation 6.10a, a special action condition shall be documented where the factor on all permanent actions is set to 1.0, while the
partial coefficient of the construction materials used shall be increased by 1.25 KFI, and the partial coefficient on soil parameters and
geotechnical resistances is set to 1.0, see DK NA to DS/EN 1990, DS/EN 1990/A1 and DS/EN 1997-1.
EQU (Set A) is based on Table A2.4 (A) in DS/EN 1990/A1 DK NA. The characteristic values of permanent loads shall be multiplied by
GJ,sup where the load seems destabilising/unfavourable, and by GJ,inf where it is stabilising/favourable. KFI which takes into account
the consequence class, shall be multiplied for all unfavourable loads, but not for favourable loads in EQU (Set A).
The table lists Q,1 the dominant variable load and Q,i 0,i for the other variable loads.
In the table, the group index, gri, refers to the traffic load to the dominant load component specified in Table 5.1 in DS/EN 1991-2.
If settlements are favourable, the partial coefficient 0 shall be used.
Table B2.1 Footbridges Action combinations in the ultimate limit state (permanent and short-term
load situations) and the fatigue limit state (repeated alternating loads).
52
Fatigue
April 2015
Limit state
Equation
Action combinations
Accident load conditions

6.11b
Seismic load condition

6.12b
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.40
-
0.30
-
Concentrated wheel pressure, Qfwk

Wind action, FWk
0.20
0.20
Ice load
0.50
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
Permanent load
Weight in general (structural elements,
wearing course and equipment)
favourable, Gj,inf
favourable, Gj,inf
Settlements
Prestress
Variable load
2)
Traffic load
gr1
Evenly distributed load UDL

gr2
Service vehicle, Qserv

Temperature, Tk
3)
Accident load
Ad
Seismic load
AEd
1)
2)
3)
1.00
1.00
Action combinations for accident load conditions and seismic load conditions are based on Table A2.5 in DS/EN 1990/A1
DK NA.
In the table, the group index, gri, refers to the traffic load to the dominant load component specified in Table 5.1 in
DS/EN 1991-2.
Accident loads may be unintentional vehicle load on path areas, impact, loss of an element, (fire), etc.
Table B2.2 Footbridges. Action combinations in accident load conditions and seismic load
conditions.
April 2015
53
Limit state
Equation
Action combinations
Permanent load
Weight in general (structural parts,
surfacing and equipment)
favourable, Gj,inf
favourable, Gj,inf
Settlements
Prestress

Characteristic action combinations
1
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
6.14b
4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
Variable load
1)
Traffic load
gr1

gr2

1.00
1.00
Concentrated wheel
pressure, Qfwk
1.00
Wind action, FWk

Ice load
0.30
0.60
0.30
0.60
1.00
0.60
0.60
1.00
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60

Temperature, Tk
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
1.00
0.60
0.60
1.00
1)
In the table, the group index, gri, refers to the traffic load to the dominant load component specified in Table 5.1 in DS/EN
1991-2.
Table B2.3 Footbridges. The serviceability limit state, characteristic action combinations.
54
April 2015
Limit state
Equation
Action combinations
Permanent load
Weight in general (structural parts,
surfacing and equipment)

Frequent action combinations
1
6.15b
3
Quasi-permanent
6.16b
1
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
favourable, Gj,inf
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
favourable, Gj,inf
Settlements
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Prestress
Variable load
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Traffic load
gr1
0.40

0.40
-

Concentrated wheel
pressure, Qfwk
Wind action, FWk
0.20
Ice load
0.20
-
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.50
1)
gr2
Temperature, Tk
1)
In the table, the group index, gri, refers to the traffic load to the dominant load component specified in Table 5.1 in
DS/EN 1991-2.
Table B2.4 Footbridges. Serviceability limit state, frequent and quasi-permanent action
combinations.
April 2015
55
ANNEX 3 Load capacity calculation and classification, action combination tables
56
April 2015
Limit state
Equation
Action combinations
Permanent load
1) 3)
equipment)
favourable, Gj,inf
1) 2) 3)
2)
favourable, Gj,inf
Settlements
Prestress
7)
Variable load
6)
Traffic load
Standard
vehicles
STR/GEO
1)
(Set B+C)
6.10a
2)
EQU, UPL,
HYD
3)
(Set A)
6.10
6.10b
1
18
1.25
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.10
1.00
1.00
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.10
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4)
1.10
1.30
-
5)
1.40
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
Surface load
Surface load (large bridges with
large spans)
Actual vehicle
(direct assessment)
0.56
-
1.40
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
Horizontal loads
(braking force, etc.)
1.20
8)
(1.15)
-
1.40
Wind action, FWk

Ice load
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.50
0.90
0.90
1.50
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
4)

Temperature, Tk
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.50
0.90
0.90
1.50
4)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
Fatigue
Standard vehicle A
Standard vehicle B
4)
1.30
1.00
4)
STR/GEO (Set B+C) is based on Table A2.4 (B+C) in DS/EN 1990/A1 DK NA. The characteristic values of all permanent loads from a single source shall be
multiplied by GJ,sup if the total resulting effect from the source is unfavourable, and by GJ,inf if the total effect is favourable. For example, all loads
resulting from the design weight are considered to be from one source. KFI which takes into account the consequence class shall be multiplied for all
unfavourable loads, but not for favourable loads in STR/GEO (Set B).
For structures affected by geotechnical action, verification shall be made for all action combinations where KFI is multiplied on the material side for all
included strength parameters and load bearing capacities, see DK NA to DS/EN 1990, DS/EN 1990/A1 and DS/EN 1997-1.
For equation 6.10a, a special action condition shall be documented where the factor on all permanent actions is set to 1.0, while the partial coefficient of
the construction materials used shall be increased by 1.25 KFI, and the partial coefficient on soil parameters and geotechnical resistances is set to 1.0, see
DK NA to DS/EN 1990, DS/EN 1990/A1 and DS/EN 1997-1.
EQU (Set A) is based on Table A2.4 (A) in DS/EN 1990/A1 DK NA.
The characteristic values of permanent loads shall be multiplied by GJ,sup where the load seems destabilising/unfavourable, and by GJ,inf where it is
stabilising/favourable.
KFI which takes into account the consequence class, shall be multiplied for all unfavourable loads, but not for favourable loads in EQU (Set A).
The table lists Q,1 the dominant variable load and Q,i 0,i for the other variable loads.
In action combinations 4-8, standard vehicles, surface loads on large bridges and actual vehicle, respectively, shall be viewed separately in a direct
assessment.
If settlements are favourable, the partial coefficient 0 shall be used.
If the vehicle is weighed, the partial coefficient can be reduced to 1.15.
Figure B3.1 Road bridges, classification and assessment of load bearing capacity. Action
combinations in the ultimate limit state (permanent and short-term load situations) and
the fatigue limit state (repeated alternating loads).
April 2015
57
Limit state
Equation
Action combinations

Characteristic combinations
6.14b
1
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
favourable, Gj,inf
Settlements
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Prestress
Variable load
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Standard vehicle A
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Standard vehicle B
Surface load
1.00
0.40
0.75
0.40
0.75
0.40
0.75
0.40
0.75
0.40
0.75
0.40
Surface load (large bridges with

large spans)
1.00
Actual vehicle
(direct assessment)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Horizontal loads
Wind action, FWk
1.00
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
1.00
0.60
0.60
0.60
Ice load
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
1.00
0.60
0.60
1.00
0.60
0.60
Temperature, Tk
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
1.00
Permanent load
equipment)
favourable, Gj,inf
1)
Traffic load
Standard
vehicles
1)
In action combinations 4-8, standard vehicles, surface loads on large bridges and actual vehicle, respectively, shall be viewed
separately in a direct assessment.
Figure B3.2 Road bridges, load bearing capacity assessment and classification. The serviceability
limit state, characteristic action combinations.
58
April 2015
Limit state

Frequent combinations
6.15b
Equation
Action combinations
Permanent load
Quasi-permanent
6.16b
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.75
Surface load
Surface load (large bridges
with large spans)
Actual vehicle
(direct assessment)
0.40
1.00
Horizontal loads
0.20
-
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.20
0.50
0.60
0.50

elements, surfacing and
equipment)
favourable, Gj,inf
Weight of soil and (ground)water, geotechnical structures
favourable, Gj,inf
Settlements
Prestress
Variable load
Traffic load
Standard
vehicles
Standard vehicle A
Standard vehicle B
Wind action, FWk

Ice load
Temperature, Tk
Figure B3.2 Road bridges, load bearing capacity assessment and classification. Serviceability limit
state, frequent and quasi-permanent action combinations
April 2015
59
Niels Juels Gade 13

PO Box 9018
DK-1022 Copenhagen K
Tel +45 7244 3333
vd@vd.dk
vejdirektoratet.dk
vejregler@vd.dk
vejregler.dk
EAN:

Vde 2015 0091

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Vde 2015 0091

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

HANDBOOK

DESIGN GUIDE FOR LOAD AND

CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING

DESIGN GUIDE FOR LOAD AND CALCULATION BASIS FOR BRIDGES

CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING

DESIGN GUIDE FOR LOAD AND CALCULATION BASIS FOR BRIDGES

CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING

DESIGN GUIDE FOR LOAD AND CALCULATION BASIS FOR BRIDGES

6.12.1 Collision actions for substructures

GEOMETRY AND MATERIAL PARAMETERS, EXISTING BRIDGES

CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING

DESIGN GUIDE FOR LOAD AND CALCULATION BASIS FOR BRIDGES

Material partial coefficients

BRICKWORK AND GRANITE

FOUNDATION AND GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNS

CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING

DESIGN GUIDE FOR LOAD AND CALCULATION BASIS FOR BRIDGES

DS/EN 1990/A1 Annex A2 Application for bridges, including DK NA

DS/EN 1991-2 Actions on structures Part 2 Traffic loads on bridges, including DK NA

DS/EN 1993-2 Design of steel structures Part 2 Steel bridges, including DK NA

DS/EN 1995-2 Design of timber structures, Part 2 Bridges, including DK NA

DS/EN 1992 DS/EN1996 and DS/EN 1999

DS/EN 1997-1 Geotechnical design

DS/EN 1993-5 Design of steel structures Part 5 Piling, including DK NA

CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING

DESIGN GUIDE FOR LOAD AND CALCULATION BASIS FOR BRIDGES

CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING

DESIGN GUIDE FOR LOAD AND CALCULATION BASIS FOR BRIDGES

2 STANDARD BASIS STRUCTURE

DS/EN 1992-2 Concrete bridges

DS/EN 1992-1-1 Design of concrete structures, Part 1-1

CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING

DESIGN GUIDE FOR LOAD AND CALCULATION BASIS FOR BRIDGES

4 PROCEDURE FOR THE CLASSIFICATION AND LOAD

CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING

DESIGN GUIDE FOR LOAD AND CALCULATION BASIS FOR BRIDGES

Major general requirements

CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING

DESIGN GUIDE FOR LOAD AND CALCULATION BASIS FOR BRIDGES

(failure without warning: 5.2)

Fatigue where joints can be inspected and repaired

Serviceability limit state

Failure, secondary elements (if any possible collapse

CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING

DESIGN GUIDE FOR LOAD AND CALCULATION BASIS FOR BRIDGES

Ultimate limit state

CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING

DESIGN GUIDE FOR LOAD AND CALCULATION BASIS FOR BRIDGES

Bridge group I: Class 150

CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING

DESIGN GUIDE FOR LOAD AND CALCULATION BASIS FOR BRIDGES

CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING

DESIGN GUIDE FOR LOAD AND CALCULATION BASIS FOR BRIDGES

Serviceability limit state

Yield of support structures

Pedestrian comfort (dynamic properties)

Uplift of bridge ends (uplift in bearings influencing road safety)

CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING

DESIGN GUIDE FOR LOAD AND CALCULATION BASIS FOR BRIDGES

Requirements for rigidity and pedestrian comfort

CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING

DESIGN GUIDE FOR LOAD AND CALCULATION BASIS FOR BRIDGES

The determination of pedestrian comfort requirements depends on i.a.: