FINNISH NATIONAL ANNEX

TO

EN 1990-A2

Basis of structural design

Annex A2: Application for bridges ( Normative )

31 December 2004

Blue colour: NA in English

Green colour: NA in Finnish
Brown colour: NA in Swedish

Prepared by:
NA
Finnish Road Administration
Finnish National Annex to EN 1990-A2 3

National choice is allowed in EN 1990 Annex A2 through paragraphs:

– A2.1 (1) NOTE 3

– A2.1 (2) NOTE 1
– A2.1 (2) NOTE 2
– A2.2.2
– A2.2.2(2)
– A2.2.2(3)
– A2.2.2(5)
– A2.2.3(2)
– A2.2.3(3)
– A2.2.3(4)
– A2.2.4(1)
– A2.2.4(4)
– A2.2.5(2) NOTE 2
– A2.2.5(4) NOTE 1
– A2.2.6(1) NOTE 1
– A2.2.6(1) NOTE 2
– A2.3.1(1)
– A2.3.1(5)
– A2.3.1(7)
– A2.3.1(8)
– A2.3.1 Table A2.4(A) NOTES 1 and 2
– A2.3.1 Table A2.4(B)
– A2.3.1 Table A2.4(C)
– A2.3.2(1) ??????? ei lue national index
– A2.3.2 Table A2.5
– A2.3.2(2)
– A2.4.1(1)
– NOTE 1 (Table A2.6)
– NOTE 2
– A2.4.1(3)
– A2.4.3.2(1)
– A2.4.4.1(1) NOTE 3
– A2.4.4.2.1(4)
– A2.4.4.2.2 – Table A2.7 NOTE
– A2.4.4.2.2(3)
– A2.4.4.2.3(1)
– A2.4.4.2.3(2)
– A2.4.4.2.4(2) – Table A2.8 NOTE 3
– A2.4.4.2.4(3)
– A2.4.4.3.2(6) - HUOM. 1990-A2:ssa lukee A2.4.4.3.1(6)
Finnish National Annex to EN 1990-A2 4

A2.1 Field of application

(1) This Annex A2 to EN 1990 gives rules and methods for establishing combinations of actions
for serviceability and ultimate limit state verifications (except fatigue verifications) with
the recommended design values of permanent, variable and accidental actions and 7factors to
be used in the design of road bridges, footbridges and railway bridges. It also applies to actions
during execution. Methods and rules for verifications relating to some materialindependent
serviceability limit states are also given.

NOTE 1 Symbols, notations, Load Models and groups of loads are those used or defined in the relevant section
of EN 1991-2.

NOTE 2 Symbols, notations and models of construction loads are those defined in EN 1991-1-6.

NOTE 3 Guidance may be given in the National Annex with regard to the use of Table 2.1 (design working
life).

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX
(2) For bridges
-7that are not covered by EN 1991-2 (for example bridges under an airport runway, mechanically
- moveable bridges, roofed bridges, bridges carrying water, etc.),
-7carrying both road and rail traffic
and for
-7other civil engineering structures carrying traffic loads (for example backfill behind a
retaining wall),
particular rules or requirements should be specified.

NOTE 1 The particular rules or requirements may be referenced or defined as appropriate in the National Annex,
or for the particular project

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX
NOTE 2 If actions other than those considered in this Annex A2 need to be taken into account (e.g. due to mining
subsidence, particular wind effects, water, floating debris, flooding, mud slides, avalanches, fire and ice
pressure), combinations of actions may be supplemented as appropriate in the National Annex or for the particular
project. For seismic actions, see EN 1998. For water actions exerted by currents and debris effects, see
also EN 1991-1-6.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

A2.2.2 Specific combination rules for road bridges

NOTE The National Annex may refer to the infrequent combination of actions, used for certain serviceability
limit states of concrete bridges. The expression of this combination of actions is :

E d = E {G k , j ; P;ψ 1,inf q Qk ,1 ;ψ 1,i Qk ,i } j ≥ 1; i > 1 (A2.1a)

in which the combination of actions in brackets { } may be expressed as :

∑
j ≥1
Gk , j "+" P"+"ψ 1,inf q Qk ,1 "+" ∑ψ 1,i Qk ,i
i ≥1
(A2.1b)
Finnish National Annex to EN 1990-A2 5

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX
(2) Neither snow loads nor wind actions should be combined with :
– braking and acceleration forces on road bridges or the centrifugal forces or the associated
group of loads gr2,
– loads on footways and cycle tracks or with the associated group of loads gr3,
– crowd loading on road bridges (Load Model 4) or the associated group of loads gr4.

NOTE The combination rules for special vehicles with normal traffic (covered by LM1 and LM2) and other
variable actions may be defined as appropriate in the National Annex or agreed for the particular project. An
approach may be found in EN 1991-2 Annex A.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX
(3) Snow loads should not normally be combined with Load Models 1 and 2 or with the associated
groups of loads gr1a and gr1b.

NOTE Geographical areas where snow loads may have to be combined with groups of loads gr1a and gr1b in
combinations of actions (e.g. for certain roofed bridges) may be specified in the National Annex.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX
(5) Wind actions and thermal actions should normally not be taken into account simultaneously.

NOTE Depending upon the local climatic conditions a different simultaneity rule for wind and thermal actions
may be defined as appropriate in the National Annex or agreed for the particular project.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

A2.2.3 Specific combination rules for footbridges

(2) Wind actions and thermal actions should normally not be taken into account simultaneously.

NOTE Depending upon the local climatic conditions a different simultaneity rule for wind and thermal actions
may be defined as appropriate in the National Annex or for the particular project.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX
(3) Snow loads should normally not be combined with groups of loads gr1 and gr2 for footbridges.

NOTE Geographical areas, and certain types of footbridges (e.g. roofed bridges), where snow loads may have to
be combined with groups of loads gr1 and gr2 in combinations of actions may be specified in the National Annex.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX
(4) For footbridges on which pedestrian and cycle traffic is fully protected from all types of
bad weather, specific combinations of actions should be defined.
Finnish National Annex to EN 1990-A2 6

NOTE Such combinations of actions may be given as appropriate in the National Annex or agreed for the particular
project. Combinations of actions similar to those for buildings (see Annex A1), the imposed loads being
replaced by the relevant group of loads and the 7factors for traffic actions being in accordance with Table A2.2,
are recommended.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

A2.2.4 Specific combination rules for railway bridges

(1) Snow loads should normally not be taken into account in any combination for persistent design
situations nor for any transient design situation after the completion of the bridge.

NOTE Geographical areas, and certain types of railway bridges (e.g. roofed bridges), where snow loads may
have to be taken into account in combinations of actions may be specified in the National Annex.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

(4) No wind action greater than the smaller of FW** and ψ 0 FWk 7should be combined with traffic
actions.

NOTE The National Annex may specify the maximum wind speed(s) compatible with rail traffic for determining
FW** .

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

A2.2.5 Combinations of actions for accidental (non – seismic) design situations

(2) For an accidental design situation concerning impact from traffic (road or rail traffic) un-
der the bridge, the loads due to the traffic on the bridge should be taken into account in the
combinations as accompanying actions with their frequent value.

NOTE 1 For actions due to impact from traffic, see EN 1991-2 and EN 1991-1-7.

NOTE 2 The National Annex may specify additional combinations of actions for other accidental design situations
e.g. combination of road or rail traffic actions with avalanche, flood or scour effects etc.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX
(4) When accidental design situations on any bridge concern actions which are outside the
scope of EN1991 to EN1999, rules on combination with traffic actions should be defined.

NOTE 1 These combinations of actions may be defined as appropriate in the National Annex or for the particular
project.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX
Finnish National Annex to EN 1990-A2 7

A2.2.6 Values of ψ factors

(1) Values of ψ factors should be specified.

NOTE 1 The ψ values may be set by the National Annex. Recommended values of 7factors for the groups of
traffic loads and the more common other actions are given in :
– Table A2.1 for road bridges,
– Table A2.2 for footbridges, and
– Table A2.3 for railway bridges, both for groups of loads and individual components of traffic actions.

Table A2.1 – Recommended values of ψ factors for road bridges

NOTE 2 When the National Annex refers to the infrequent combination of actions for some serviceability limit
states of concrete bridges, the National Annex may define the values ofψ 1,inf g . The recommended values ofψ 1,inf g are
:
- 0,80 for gr1a (LM1), gr1b (LM2), gr3 (pedestrian loads), gr4 (LM4, crowd loading) and T (thermal actions) ;
- 0,60 for FW in persistent design situations
Finnish National Annex to EN 1990-A2 8

- 1,00 in other cases (i.e. the characteristic value is substituted for the infrequent value)

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

A2.3 Ultimate limit states

NOTE Verification for fatigue excluded

A2.3.1 Design values of actions in persistent and transient design situations

(1) The design values of actions for ultimate limit states in the persistent and transient design
situations (expressions 6.9a to 6.10b) should be in accordance with Tables A2.4(A) to (C).

NOTE The values in Tables A2.4 ((A) to (C)) may be altered in the National Annex (e.g. for different reliability
levels see Section 2 and Annex B).

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX
(5) Design of structural members (footings, piles, front walls of abutments, ballast retention
walls, etc.) (STR) involving geotechnical actions and the resistance of the ground (GEO, see
6.4.1) should be verified using one only of the following three approaches supplemented, for
geotechnical actions and resistances, by EN 1997 :

– Approach 1 : Applying in separate calculations design values from Table A2.4(C) and Table
A2.4(B) to the geotechnical actions as well as the actions on/from the structure ;

– Approach 2 : Applying design values of actions from Table A2.4(B) to the geotechnical
actions as well as the actions on/from the structure ;

– Approach 3 : Applying design values of actions from Table A2.4(C) to the geotechnical
actions and, simultaneously, applying design values of actions from Table A2.4(B) to the
actions on/from the structure.

NOTE The use of approach 1, 2 or 3 is chosen in the National Annex.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX
(7) Hydraulic and buoyancy failure (e.g. in the bottom of an excavation for a bridge foundation),
if relevant, should be verified in accordance with EN 1997.

NOTE For water actions and debris effects, see EN 1991-1-6. General and local scour depths may have to be as-
sessed for the particular project. Requirements for taking account of forces due to ice pressure on bridge piers etc.
may be defined as appropriate in the National Annex or for the particular project.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

(8) The γ P values to be used for prestressing actions should be specified for the relevant representative
values of these actions in accordance with EN 1990 to EN 1999.
Finnish National Annex to EN 1990-A2 9

NOTE In the cases where γ P values are not provided in the relevant design Eurocodes, these values may be defined
as appropriate in the National Annex or for the particular project. They depend, inter alia, on:
- the type of prestress (see the Note in 4.1.2(6))
- the classification of prestress as a direct or an indirect action (see 1.5.3.1)
- the type of structural analysis (see 1.5.6)
- the unfavourable or favourable character of the prestressing action and the leading or accompanying character of
prestressing in the combination.
See also EN1991-1-6 for loading combinations during execution.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

Table A2.4(A) - Design values of actions (EQU) (Set A)

Finnish National Annex to EN 1990-A2 10

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

Table A2.4(B) - Design values of actions (STR/GEO) (Set B)

Finnish National Annex to EN 1990-A2 11

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

Table A2.4(C) - Design values of actions (STR/GEO) (Set C)

Finnish National Annex to EN 1990-A2 12

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

A2.3.2 Design values of actions in the accidental and seismic design situations
(1) The partial factors for actions for the ultimate limit states in the accidental and seismic
design situations (expressions 6.11a to 6.12b) are given in Table A2.5.. ψ values are
given in Tables A2.1 to A2.3.

NOTE For the seismic design situation see also EN 1998.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

Table A2.5 - Design values of actions for use in accidental and seismic
combinations of actions
Finnish National Annex to EN 1990-A2 13

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX
(2) Where, in special cases, one or several variable actions need to be considered simultaneously
with the accidental action, their representative values should be defined.

NOTE As an example, in the case of bridges built by the cantilevered method, some construction loads
may be considered as simultaneous with the action corresponding to the accidental fall of a prefabricated
unit. The relevant representative values may be defined as appropriate in either the National Annex or for
the particular project.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

A2.4 Serviceability and other specific limit states

A2.4.1 General
(1) For serviceability limit states the design values of actions should be taken from
Table A2.6 except if differently specified in EN1991 to EN1999.

NOTE 1 γ factors for traffic and other actions for the serviceability limit state may be defined in the
National Annex. The recommended design values are given in Table A2.6, with all γ factors being taken
as 1,0.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

Table A2.6 - Design values of actions for use in the combination of actions
Finnish National Annex to EN 1990-A2 14

NOTE 2 The National Annex may also refer to the infrequent combination of actions.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX
(3) Where relevant, deformations should be calculated in accordance with EN 1991 to
EN 1999, by using the appropriate combinations of actions according to expressions
(6.14a) to (6.16b) (see Table A2.6) taking into account the serviceability requirements
and the distinction between reversible and irreversible limit states.

NOTE Serviceability requirements and criteria may be defined in the National Annex or for the particular
project.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

A2.4.3.2 Pedestrian comfort criteria (for serviceability)

(1) The comfort criteria should be defined in terms of maximum acceptable acceleration
of any part of the deck.

NOTE The criteria may be defined as appropriate in the National Annex or for the particular project.
2
The following accelerations ( m / s ) are the recommended maximum values for any part of the deck :
- 0,7 for vertical vibrations,
- 0,2 for horizontal vibrations in normal use,
- 0,4 for exceptional crowd conditions.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

A2.4.4 Verifications regarding deformations and vibrations for railway bridges

A2.4.4.1 General
(1) This clause A2.4.4 gives the limits of deformation and vibration to be taken into account
for the design of new railway bridges.

NOTE 1 Excessive bridge deformations can endanger traffic by creating unacceptable changes in vertical
and horizontal track geometry, excessive rail stresses and vibrations in bridge structures. Excessive vibrations
can lead to ballast instability and unacceptable reduction in wheel rail contact forces. Excessive
deformations can also affect the loads imposed on the track/ bridge system, and create conditions which
cause passenger discomfort.

NOTE 2 Deformation and vibration limits are either explicit or implicit in the bridge stiffness criteria
given in A2.4.4.1(2)P.

NOTE 3 The National Annex may specify limits of deformation and vibration to be taken into account for
Finnish National Annex to EN 1990-A2 15

the design of temporary railway bridges. The National Annex may give special requirements for temporary
bridges depending upon the conditions in which they are used (e.g. special requirements for skew bridges).

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

A2.4.4.2 Criteria for traffic safety

A2.4.4.2.1 Vertical acceleration of the deck

(4)P The maximum permitted peak values of bridge deck acceleration calculated along
each track shall not exceed the following design values :
i) γ bt for ballasted track ;
ii) γ df for direct fastened decks with track and structural elements designed for high
speed traffic
for all elements supporting the track considering frequencies (including consideration of
associated mode shapes) up to the greater of :
i) 30 Hz ;
ii) 1,5 times the frequency of the first mode of vibration of the element being considered
including at least the first three modes.

NOTE The values and the associated frequency limits may be defined in the National Annex. The recom-
mended values are:
γ bt = 3,5m / s 2
γ dfr = 5m / s 2

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

A2.4.4.2.2 Deck twist

(2) The maximum twist t [mm/3m] of a track gauge s [m] of 1,435 m measured over a
length of 3m (Figure A2.1) should not exceed the values given in Table A2.7 :

Figure A2.1 - Definition of deck twist

Table A2.7 – Limiting values of deck twist

NOTE The values for t may be defined in the National Annex.

The recommended values for the set of t are:
Finnish National Annex to EN 1990-A2 16

t1 = 4,5
t2 = 3,0
t3 = 1,5
Values for track with a different gauge may be defined in the National Annex.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX
(3)P The total track twist due to any twist which may be present in the track when the
bridge is not subject to rail traffic actions (for example in a transition curve), plus the
track twist due to the total deformation of the bridge resulting from rail traffic actions,
shall not exceed tT .

NOTE The value for tT may be defined in the National Annex. The recommended value for tT is 7,5
mm/3m.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

A2.4.4.2.3 Vertical deformation of the deck

(1) For all structure configurations loaded with the classified characteristic vertical
loading in accordance with EN 1991-2 § 6.3.2 (and where required classified SW/0 and
SW/2 in accordance with EN 1991-2 § 6.3.3) the maximum total vertical deflection
measured along any track due to rail traffic actions should not exceed L/600.

NOTE Additional requirements for limiting vertical deformation for ballasted and non ballasted bridges
may be specified as appropriate in the National Annex or for the particular project.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

Figure A2.2 - Definition of angular rotations at the end of decks

(2) Limitations on the rotations of ballasted bridge deck ends are implicit in EN 1991-2
§ 6.5.4.

NOTE The requirements for non ballasted structures may be specified in the National Annex.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

A2.4.4.2.4 Transverse deformation and vibration of the deck

(2) The transverse deflection h of the deck should be limited to ensure :
- an angular variation not greater than the values given in Table A2.8, or
- a radius of horizontal curvature less than the values in Table A2.8.
Finnish National Annex to EN 1990-A2 17

Table A2.8 - Maximum angular variation and minimum radius of curvature

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX
(3) The first natural frequency of lateral vibration of a span should have a minimum
value of f h 0 .

NOTE The value for fh0 may be defined in the National Annex. The recommended value is:
f h 0 = 1,2 Hz

A2.4.4.3.2 Deflection criteria for checking passenger comfort

(6) The values L/ 7given in figure A2.3 are valid for span length up to 120 m. For longer
spans a special analysis is necessary.

NOTE (The requirements for passenger comfort for temporary bridges may be defined in the National
Annex or for the particular project.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX
Annex A2 indicates through NOTES where additional decisions for a particular project may have to
be taken, directly or through the National Annex for the following clauses :

– A2.1.1(2) NOTE 1 EI LÖYTYNYT

– A2.1.1(2) NOTE 2 EI LÖYTYNYT
Finnish National Annex to EN 1990-A2 18

– A2.2.1(6)
– A2.2.1(8) NOTE 1 EI LÖYTYNYT
– A2.2.1(12) NOTE 1 EI LÖYTYNYT
– A2.2.2(2)
– A2.2.2(5)
– A2.2.3(2)
– A2.2.3(4)
– A2.2.5(4) NOTE 1
– A2.2.5(4) NOTE 2
– A2.2.6(1) NOTE 3
– A2.2.6 Table A2.3 Note 6 EI LÖYTYNYT
– A2.3.1(7)
– A2.3.1(8)
– A2.3.1 Table A2.4(B) NOTE 5
– A2.3.2(2)
– A2.4.1(3)
– A2.4.3.1(1)
– A2.4.3.1(3) NOTE 1
– A2.4.3.2(1)
– A2.4.4.2.3(1)
– A2.4.4.2.3(3)
– A2.4.4.3.1(2)
– A2.4.4.3.2(7) EI LÖYTYNYT
– A2.4.4.3.3(1)

A2.2 Combinations of actions

A2.2.1 General

(6)P The relevant design situations shall be taken into account where a bridge is brought into
use in stages.

A2.2.2 Specific combination rules for road bridges

NOTE The National Annex may refer to the infrequent combination of actions, used for certain serviceability
limit states of concrete bridges. The expression of this combination of actions is :

E d = E {Gk , j ; P;ψ 1,inf q Qk ,1 ;ψ 1,i Qk ,i } j ≥ 1; i > 1 (A2.1a)

in which the combination of actions in brackets { } may be expressed as :

∑
j ≥1
Gk , j "+" P"+"ψ 1,inf q Qk ,1 "+" ∑ψ 1,i Qk ,i
i ≥1
(A2.1b)

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX
(5) Wind actions and thermal actions should normally not be taken into account simultaneously.
Finnish National Annex to EN 1990-A2 19

NOTE Depending upon the local climatic conditions a different simultaneity rule for wind and thermal actions
may be defined as appropriate in the National Annex or agreed for the particular project.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

A2.2.3 Specific combination rules for footbridges

(2) Wind actions and thermal actions should normally not be taken into account simultaneously.

NOTE Depending upon the local climatic conditions a different simultaneity rule for wind and thermal actions
may be defined as appropriate in the National Annex or for the particular project.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX
(4) For footbridges on which pedestrian and cycle traffic is fully protected from all types of
bad weather, specific combinations of actions should be defined.

NOTE Such combinations of actions may be given as appropriate in the National Annex or agreed for the particular
project. Combinations of actions similar to those for buildings (see Annex A1), the imposed loads being
replaced by the relevant group of loads and the 7factors for traffic actions being in accordance with Table A2.2,
are recommended.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

A2.2.5 Combinations of actions for accidental (non – seismic) design situations

(4) When accidental design situations on any bridge concern actions which are outside the
scope of EN1991 to EN1999, rules on combination with traffic actions should be defined.

NOTE 1 These combinations of actions may be defined as appropriate in the National Annex or for the particular
project.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX
NOTE 2 Special requirements for accidental design situations involving ship collisions against bridge piers
should be agreed for the particular project. See EN 1991-1-7.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

A2.2.6 Values of ψ factors

(1) Values of ψ factors should be specified.

NOTE 3 The characteristic values of wind actions and snow loads during execution are defined in EN 1991-1-6.
Where relevant, representative values of water forces (Fwa) may be defined for the particular project.
Finnish National Annex to EN 1990-A2 20

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

A2.3.1 Design values of actions in persistent and transient design situations

(7) Hydraulic and buoyancy failure (e.g. in the bottom of an excavation for a bridge foundation),
if relevant, should be verified in accordance with EN 1997.

NOTE For water actions and debris effects, see EN 1991-1-6. General and local scour depths may have to be as-
sessed for the particular project. Requirements for taking account of forces due to ice pressure on bridge piers etc.
may be defined as appropriate in the National Annex or for the particular project.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

(8) The γ P values to be used for prestressing actions should be specified for the relevant representative
values of these actions in accordance with EN 1990 to EN 1999.

NOTE In the cases where γ P values are not provided in the relevant design Eurocodes, these values may be defined
as appropriate in the National Annex or for the particular project. They depend, inter alia, on:
- the type of prestress (see the Note in 4.1.2(6))
- the classification of prestress as a direct or an indirect action (see 1.5.3.1)
- the type of structural analysis (see 1.5.6)
- the unfavourable or favourable character of the prestressing action and the leading or accompanying character of
prestressing in the combination.
See also EN1991-1-6 for loading combinations during execution.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

Table A2.4(B) - Design values of actions (STR/GEO) (Set B)

Finnish National Annex to EN 1990-A2 21

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

A2.3.2 Design values of actions in the accidental and seismic design situations
(2) Where, in special cases, one or several variable actions need to be considered simultaneously
with the accidental action, their representative values should be defined.

NOTE As an example, in the case of bridges built by the cantilevered method, some construction loads
may be considered as simultaneous with the action corresponding to the accidental fall of a prefabricated
unit. The relevant representative values may be defined as appropriate in either the National Annex or for
the particular project.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

A2.4 Serviceability and other specific limit states

A2.4.1 General
(3) Where relevant, deformations should be calculated in accordance with EN 1991 to
EN 1999, by using the appropriate combinations of actions according to expressions
(6.14a) to (6.16b) (see Table A2.6) taking into account the serviceability requirements
and the distinction between reversible and irreversible limit states.

NOTE Serviceability requirements and criteria may be defined in the National Annex or for the particular
project.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

A2.4.3.1 Design situations associated with traffic categories

(1) The design situations (see 3.2) should be selected depending on the pedestrian traffic
to be admitted on the particular footbridge during its design working life.

NOTE The design situations may take into account the way the traffic will be authorised, regulated and
controlled, depending on the particular project.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX
(3) Depending on the deck area or the part of the deck area under consideration, other
traffic categories, associated with design situations which may be persistent, transient or
accidental, should be specified when relevant, including :
- presence of streams of pedestrians (significantly more than 15 persons) ;
- occasional festive or choreographic events.

NOTE 1 These traffic categories and the relevant design situations may have to be agreed for the particular
project, not only for bridges in highly populated urban areas, but also in the vicinity of railway and
bus stations, schools, or any other places where crowds may congregate, or any important building with
public admittance.
Finnish National Annex to EN 1990-A2 22

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

A2.4.3.2 Pedestrian comfort criteria (for serviceability)

(1) The comfort criteria should be defined in terms of maximum acceptable acceleration
of any part of the deck.

NOTE The criteria may be defined as appropriate in the National Annex or for the particular project.
2
The following accelerations ( m / s ) are the recommended maximum values for any part of the deck :
- 0,7 for vertical vibrations,
- 0,2 for horizontal vibrations in normal use,
- 0,4 for exceptional crowd conditions.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

A2.4.4.2.3 Vertical deformation of the deck

(1) For all structure configurations loaded with the classified characteristic vertical
loading in accordance with EN 1991-2 § 6.3.2 (and where required classified SW/0 and
SW/2 in accordance with EN 1991-2 § 6.3.3) the maximum total vertical deflection
measured along any track due to rail traffic actions should not exceed L/600.

NOTE Additional requirements for limiting vertical deformation for ballasted and non ballasted bridges
may be specified as appropriate in the National Annex or for the particular project.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

(3) Additional limits of angular rotations at the end of decks in the vicinity of expansion
devices, switches and crossings, etc. should be specified.
NOTE The additional limits of angular rotations may be defined in the National Annex or for the particular
project.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

A2.4.4.3 Limiting values for the maximum vertical deflection for passenger comfort

A2.4.4.3.1 Comfort criteria

(2) The levels of comfort and associated limiting values for the vertical acceleration
should be specified.

NOTE These levels of comfort and associated limiting values may be defined for the particular project.
Indicative levels of comfort are given in Table A2.9.

Table A2.9 - Indicative levels of comfort

Finnish National Annex to EN 1990-A2 23

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX

A2.4.4.3.3 Requirements for a dynamic vehicle/bridge interaction analysis for checking

passenger comfort

(1) Where a vehicle/bridge dynamic interaction analysis is required the analysis should
take account of the following behaviours :
i) a range of vehicle speeds up to the maximum speed specified,
ii) characteristic loading of the Real Trains specified for the particular project in
accordance with EN1991-2 § 6.4.6.1.1.
iii) dynamic mass interaction between vehicles in the Real Train and the structure,
iv) the damping and stiffness characteristics of the vehicle suspension,
v) sufficient vehicles to produce the maximum load effects in the longest span.
vi) a sufficient number of spans in a structure with multiple spans to develop any
resonance effects in the vehicle suspension.

NOTE Any requirements for taking track roughness into account in the vehicle/bridge dynamic interaction
analysis may be defined for the particular project.

Finland:

XXXXXXXXX