The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference

DURABILITY OF BRIDGES ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF

THE EUROPEAN REGULATORY DOCUMENTS
Mindaugas Paknys
Kelprojektas, Kaunas, Lithuania
I. Kanto St. 25, [email protected]
Abstract. Structures belonging to transport infrastructure are used under complex conditions. They are constantly affected by the
dynamic and mechanical impact caused by vehicles, atmosphere, pollution and other environmental factors.
When adopting European design standards in their work, the engineers had to understand and apply the new requirements for new
bridge structures and rehabilitation design. Serious problems arise when estimating and guaranteeing a reasonable operation term for
the structures under reconstruction.
The report will discuss the European regulatory documents which are used in Lithuania for ensuring the structural durability of
bridges.
Keywords. Bridges, durability, service life, reliability.

INTRODUCTION
Bridges are public structures. They have to remain in service for decades, be reliable and sustain
their suitable conditions for a certain period of time.
The idea originating from Western Europe to prepare the design rules and technical specifications
which could be used among the European Union members reached the Baltic countries. For such a
country like Lithuania it is a great opportunity to adopt knowledge and ideas which are placed in a
huge set of European documents for structural engineering.
The article will discuss the European regulatory norms which could be used to ensure the structural
durability of bridges. The paper will give an overview of the Eurocode documents by selecting the
issues related to durability. The European documents for concrete protection and corrosion
protection of steel structures will also be mentioned.
Lithuania has rather unfriendly weather conditions on road structures. The mean day temperature
varies from minus -34 C0 in winter to plus +29 C0 in summer. The temperature amplitude could
reach 280 per day. A huge influence on structures is made by freeze-thaw attacks on concrete
elements. Snow and ice are quite frequently melted on bridges using de-icing salts every year,
resulting in chloride penetration becoming a huge problem in relation to durability.
OVERVIEW OF THE EXISTING NORMS IN LITHUANIA
In Lithuania most of the bridges were built during the Soviet time and were designed according to
the Russian Code S 200-62 Design Specifications of Rail, Road and City Bridges and Culverts
which was released in 1959 in Moscow. This norm was changed by SNiP 2.05.03-84 Bridges and
Culverts in 1986. Later in 1997 then SNiP 2.05.03-84 have been updated the Lithuanian Road
Administration released the temporary Lithuanian norm PNT-T-97 Design Standard and Regulation
for Highway Bridges. This release presents live load models taken from the Eurocode; however, the
included partial factors are still made according to the previous Russian norms.
The Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania released the norms for structural
designers in the Lithuanian language during the period from 2003 to 2005. However, these norms
failed to provide detailed information on bridge design and only the norms for concrete structures
were adopted.
We have been using a combination of Eastern and Western European structural design approaches
until 2010. Nevertheless, both of these norms were based on the limit state design method.
According to the Foreword section of the Eurocode documents, conflicting national standards shall
be withdrawn by March 2010 at the latest. Finally, at this moment the Eurocode documents related
to bridge design have national Annexes and are fully applicable here in Lithuania.

The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference

We are glad to have the Eurocode, the approaches of which can be used for structural Bridge
design, as all the documents we have had in our country previously failed to cover all the issues
related to Bridges.
The Eurocode provides guidelines on the reliability based design which could be used for
assessment studies of existing deteriorated bridges. This is quite a new design method here in
Lithuania. This method has not yet been implemented in bridge design process. Hopefully, we will
be able to use and access more knowledge about the reliability approach in the nearest future.
1 STRUCTURAL DURABILITY IN THE EUROCODE HEAD DOCUMENT EN 1990
1.1 Basic Requirements
This document is the head document of the Eurocode suite. It establishes requirements for safety,
serviceability and durability of structures (EN 1990/Clause 1.1(1))[1].
Durability is mentioned in Clause 2.1 of EN 1990 which defines basic requirements for the design,
execution and maintenance. It says that the structure and structural members should be designed,
executed and maintained in such a way that during their intended life with appropriate degrees of
reliability and in economic way they have adequate structural resistance, serviceability and
durability.
Clause 2.2 Reliability Management of EN 1990 explains the conceptual approach of achieving
different levels of structure reliability. The term reliability with regard to the structure or a
structural member should be considered as its ability to fulfill the specific requirements, including
the design working life for which it has been designed.
The Eurocode is based on the concept of limit states and their verification using the partial factor
method. With partial factors for loads and materials provided by EN 1990 with appropriate load
combination rules structures will be designed with a reliability level which exceeds =3,8 for a 50
year reference period (EN1990/Table B2). The reliability index is related to the probability of
structural failure Pf and is mentioned in Annex C of EN1990.. If the reliability index corresponds to
the value =3.8, this leads to probability to failure Pf=7.24 x 10-5. The reliability index or
probability to failure Pf could be calculated by different probability-based design methods defined
in Annex C of EN1990. In fundamental case, based on the assumptions of normal distribution of
variables, the reliability index could be expressed by formula =g/g; where g is the mean safety
margin and g is the standard deviation.
The reliability design could be used for rehabilitation projects. This can provide prediction of the
structural reliability factor for the intended life time use of the structure. More information about the
assessment of existing structures using the reliability approach could be found in the international
standards ISO 2394[8] and ISO 13822[7]. These standards are not accepted as the national standards
here in Lithuania. As mentioned above, we have no practice on probability-based design for bridges
here in Lithuania. From the existing practice for the assessment of the bridges we use traditional
procedures like survey of the site, soil investigation, taking samples of materials for examination of
material mechanical properties and proceeding structural analysis. By combining all the factors
gained from different kinds of investigations, the engineers make decisions for structural
intervention.
1.2 Design Working Life
The document estimates the working life of bridges to be 100 years. The Eurocode indicates that
working life is the term of use for which a structure or part of it is to be used for its intended
purpose with anticipated maintenance but without major repair being necessary. Some parts of the
structure should not necessarily have the same working life, e.g. the structural bearings or
waterproofing layer may have to be regularly replaced (EN1990/Table 2.1category 2). The working
life applies to the bearing structures (deck, piers and foundations). The design working life is

The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference

indicated for different kind of structures in Table 1. Table 1 is reproduced from Table 2.1 of
EN1990.
Table 1.Indicative Design Working Life
Design working
life category
1
2

Indicative design
working life (years)
10
10 to 25

Examples

Temporary structures(1)
Replaceable structural parts. e.g. gantry girders,
bearings
3
15 to 30
Agricultural and similar structures
4
50
Building structures and other common structures
5
100
Monumental building structures, bridges, and
other civil engineering structures
(1) Structures or parts of structure that can be dismantled with a view to being re-used should
not be considered as temporary.

1.3 Durability
According to Clause 2.4.(1) of EN 1990 the durability of a structure is its ability to remain fit for
use during the design working life given appropriate maintenance.
The evaluation of the structure could be represented in Figure 1. This picture and the explanations
were taken from the Designer Guide to EN 1990[11]. Life time evaluation can be expressed as limit
state level which is a function of time. It can be expressed as financial, mechanical, reliability or
other unit. In all cases, after a certain period of time, the limit state level decreases, e.g. due to
corrosion of steel, carbonation of concrete, or repeated (irreversible) openings of cracks in concrete
members.
Performance
indicator
"Normal" maintenance

Repair

Initial
value
SLS
Serviceability
level

ULS

Time
Visible
damage

Failure

Fig.1. Evaluation of Structure in its Life Time

Figure 1 shows the structure reaching serviceability (SLS) stage it needs to be repaired so it could
be operated for a second life time period. Having applied appropriate maintenance the structure is
able to withstand expected structure life time.
Clause 2.3 of EN1990 includes interrelated factors which will be considered to ensure adequately
durable structure. Factors are conceptual and must be verified before the design. One of the factors
states that the maintenance during the intended life must be verified. Maintenance regime must
be a part of the design. The structure must be designed so that maintainable parts could be easily
reachable.

The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference

1.4 Maintenance Regime

The Eurocode recommends include the maintenance regime in the project design. We have a
slightly different situation here in Lithuania. We are not providing the regime by only estimating the
life time for main structural parts like foundations, piers, abutments and deck. The maintenance is
defined by the regulation rules which were released by the owners of the structures. For example,
Lietuvos Geleinkeliai (Lithuanian Railways) which maintains rail bridges released the inspection
instruction (147/K). This instruction gives guidelines for frequency of inspections and maintenance
principles. The Lithuanian Road Administration released the Bridge Technical Inspection Rules
TTPT 10 for road bridges and these rules also define the frequency of inspections and maintenance
principles.
2 REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURAL DURABILITY
I would like to mention the Eurocode 2[3] (EN1992-1-1, EN1992-2) and concrete protection and
repair standard EN 1504. These standards hold the most influence on the design of durable concrete
bridges.
2.1 Eurocode 2
The Eurocode 2 describes durability in traditionally known ways but requirements are harmonized
and deal with other related European standards.
Reinforced concrete deteriorates due to the corrosion of steel reinforcement inside of it. The useful
life of reinforced concrete members is controlled by the thickness and quality of protective concrete
layer outside the concrete reinforcement called the cover, and by the width of the cracks in the
concrete that occur in service.
The width of the protective cover can be calculated according to the structure design life with
anticipated exposure conditions. As bridges tend to be in service for 100 years, due to the exposure
conditions and according to the Code the cover in Lithuania usually varies from 40 to 50mm.
Concrete quality is related to the environmental conditions which are defined in the European
standards EN 206-1 and EN 1992-1-1. The recommended concrete quality classes related to bridge
structures are provided in Table 2 and Figure 2.
Crack width is controlled by the Code and you can find the exact values in 1992-2/Table 7.101N.
The crack width in reinforced concrete is calculated with quasi-permanent combination of actions
and must be controlled to 0.3mm. According to frequent combination of actions the width of cracks
for prestressed concrete is limited to 0.2mm. In the case of prestressed concrete the elements with
exposure classes XD or XS decompression must be checked under frequent combination of actions.
The durability of concrete structures should also be ensured by the fatigue verification. The
verification methods are provided in the Codes EN1992-1-1/Clause 6.8 and EN1992-2/Clause 6.8.
The Code specifies general, equivalent and simplified methods for fatigue assessment. Also,
there is no need for fatigue verification in defined cases. As example for bridge foundations, piers
and columns not rigidly connected to superstructure, retaining walls and abutments, foot bridges
(except sensitive to wind actions), buried arch and frame structures with appropriate earth cover.
There is also no need to verify fatigue for prestressing and reinforcing steel in section regions where
only compressive stress occurs under frequent combination.
The simplified method is defined in Clause 6.8.6 of EN1992-1-1. According to the definition, if
under frequent combination of actions the stress ranges of reinforcement or prestressing steel do not
exceed 70MPa and 30MPa respectively for not welded and welded reinforcement, the fatigue is
deemed to be satisfactory. This method is quite simple but less economic than other methods.
The general method provided in Clause 6.8.3 of EN-1992-1-1 is called the Verification
procedure for reinforcing and prestressing steel. This method is the most precise. It is based on
the S-N curves for reinforcing and prestressing steel. The S-N curves shows the damage state of the

The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference

steel which has been produced by a number of single range stress cycles. The values of these curves
are provided in Tables EN 1992-1-1/Tables 6.3N and 6.4N.
The equivalent method provided in Clause 6.8.5 of EN-1992-1-1 is called the Verification using
damage equivalent stress range. This method is less accurate than the general method but at the
same time much simpler. It also uses Tables EN 1992-1-1/Tables 6.3N and 6.4N to determine the
equivalent amplitude stress range s.Rsk(N*). This value must not be exceeded by the stress range
received from section analysis s.equ(N*). This verification method is also related only to steel
fatigue assessment.
The concrete fatigue is also provided by the Code. The verification procedures could be found in
Clause 6.8.7 of EN1992-1-1, Clause 6.8.7 of EN1992-2, and Annex NN.3.2 of EN1992-2.
Table 2. Suggested concrete classes for bridge structural and non-structural parts
Bridges
Sidewalk (pavement) elements
Deck:

Overpass
C35/45/XC4/XD3/XF4
C30/37/XC3/XD1/XF2

Sidewalk (pavement) elements

C35/45/XC4/XD3/XF4
Deck:
- when the bottom surface of a bridge deck C35/45/XC4/XD3/XF4
is located within 6m above a road
- there is no road beneath the bridge
C30/37/XC3/XD1/XF2
Abutment:
Abutment:
- surfaces beneath the expansion joints C35/45/XC4/XD3/XF4
- surfaces beneath the expansion joints and C35/45/XC4/XD3/XF4
- otherwise
C30/37/XC3/XD1/XF2
surfaces within 6m (vertically and
- water submerged
C30/37/XC3/XD1/XF4
horizontally) of a carriageway where deicing salts are used
- otherwise
C30/37/XC3/XD1/XF2
Piers:
C30/37/XC3/XD1/XF2
Piers:
- submerged
C30/37/XC3/XD1/XF4
- surfaces within 6m (vertically and C35/45/XC4/XD3/XF4
horizontally) of a carriageway where deicing salts are used
- otherwise
C30/37/XC3/XD1/XF2
Pile cap
C30/37/XC2/XF3
Foundation concrete classes for normal/usual environment and non-aggressive soil
conditions. In other cases, where organic acids and carbon dioxide in ground water
Piles
C25/30/XC2
and sulphates and sulphuric acid are found in soils, another environmental and
concrete classes should be used.
Approach slab
C30/37/XC2/XF3
Approach slab footing (sleeper beam) C25/30/XC2/XF2
Concrete leveling course on bridge
under waterproofing:
C25/30/XF2
Retaining walls:
- surfaces within 6m (vertically and
C35/45/XC4/XD3/XF4
horizontally) of a carriageway where
de-icing salts are used
- otherwise
C30/37/XC4/XD1/XF2
Embankment strengthening elements
(toe block, tiles, stairs):
C35/45/XC4/XD3/XF4
Pavements and curbs bridge:
C35/45/XC4/XD3/XF4
Water outlet systems (wells,
sedimentation tanks, gutters)
C35/45/XC4/XD3/XF4

C35/45/XC4/XD3/XF4
Sidewalks

C35/45/XC4/XD3/XF4

C35/45/XC4/XD3/XF4
Structures under
expansion joints

C30/37/XC2/XF3
Approach slab
C25/30/XC2/XF2
Sleeper beam

Concrete deck
C30/37/XC3/XD1/XF2
Deck
C30/37/XC4/XD1/XF2

6,0m

C30/37/XC3/XD1/XF2

C35/45/XC4/XD3/XF4
C25/30/XC2

Land surface

C35/45/XC4/XD3/XF4
Slope tiles
C30/37/XC2/XF3

C35/45/XC4/XD3/XF4
Toe block

C25/30/XC2

Fig. 2. Example of viaduct concrete classes

The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference

2.2 Concrete Repair and Protection Standard EN1504

This document gives specifications for products and systems for the repair and protection of
concrete structures. It has 10 parts: from EN1504-1 to EN1504-10. This suit is quite helpful in the
design process. It helps to define the required protection related to the project requirements.
The surface protection system for concrete part 2 (EN 1504-2) defines three surface protection
methods for protection against ingress, see Figure 4:

Fig. 4.From the left: hydrophobic impregnation (H), typical impregnation (I), typical coating (C)

We usually use typical coating method (C) for abutment, piers, bottom of the deck and sidewalks in
our projects. By placing this coating on the concrete surface we expect to reduce ingress from
chlorides and development of carbonization process by 30% and at the same time postpone the
anticipated maintenance. It is not recommended to select hydrophobic impregnation 1.1(H), because
active compounds may be used, e.g., silanes or siloxanes. These compounds will dry out the
concrete and, thus, increase the rate of carbonation.
The execution requirements for the protection and repair works could be found in Part 10 of this
document. A lot of information from this document could be used for the specification preparation.
I would like to provide a simple example of concrete protection systems used in the concrete bridge
over the Kriauna River in Lithuania. See Figures 5 and 6.
5 mm coating based on epoxy resin
top of coating is sprinkled with
quartz sand. Requirements for methods
1.3(C), 5.1(C),6.1(C).

Deck detail - "A"

SIDEWALK

TRAFFIC LANE

1900

7700

SIDEWALK
3400

"B"

"A"

Deck facade protected

by typical coating, method 1.3 (C).
Adittional requirements provided
for crack bridging ability A2/B2 (EN 1062-7).

5 mm coating based on epoxy resin

top of coating is sprinkled with
quartz sand. Requirements for methods
1.3(C), 5.1(C),6.1(C).

Bottom of the deck protected

by typical coating, method 1.3 (C).
Minimum requirements of EN 1504-2
tables 1 to 5 must be satisfied.

Deck facade protected

by typical coating, method 1.3 (C).
Adittional requirements provided
for crack bridging ability A2/B2 (EN 1062-7).

Fig. 5.Bridge section over the KriaunaRiver, Lithuania. Example of application of concrete protection according to
EN1504

The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference

Two asphalt layers with

polymer modyfied bitumen - 80mm

Railings

Membrane protection layer - asphalt 20mm

Sidewalk precast conrete slab

100

Screed layer - cementitious mortar

30

10

Two layers - poliester reinforced

SBS modified membrane
Screed layer C25/30/XF2 - 30mm

50

Screed layer C25/30/XF2 - 30mm

5
R1

Concrete slab

Concrete slab

20

Two layers - poliester reinforced

SBS modified membrane

Fig. 6.Deck details A and B

3 STRUCTURAL DURABILITY OF STEEL BRIDGE MEMBERS

Corrosion protection and fatigue are the two main aspects which influence steel durability. In the
next two chapters I would like to briefly mention the Eurocode 3[4] for fatigue assessment and
International standard suite ISO 12944[10] Corrosion Protection of Steel Structures by Protective
Paint Systems.
3.1 Fatigue Assessment to Eurocode 3
The Code provides comprehensive data for assessing fatigue. The listed codes (EN 1991-2[2], EN
1993-1-1[4], EN 1993-1-9 and EN 1993-2) must be used for the calculation of steel fatigue for
bridges.
There are two fatigue concepts provided by the code: damage tolerant and safe life concept.
The damage tolerant concept is based on the equivalent stress range for 2 x 106 cycles (E,2,E,2)
which are taken from structural stress range analysis (where fatigue load models are used) and
additional equivalent factors (, 2) adopted. Latter stress then must be compared and not exceed
stress ranges (c,c) which can be withstood for 2x106 cycles without fatigue failure. Stress
values (c,c) are numerically equal to Detail Category in 1993-1-9/Table 8.1 to 8.10.
The safe life concept is based on the fatigue strength (EN1993-1-9/Clause 7) by using the S-N
curves. This method enables estimating the number of cycles before damage of appropriate detail
given in 1993-1-9/Table 8.1 to 8.10.
There are some limitations in using the Code data for assessment of fatigue. I would like to mention
one of them: EN 1993-1-9/Clause 1.1(4) states that this part is applicable for steel which satisfies
ductility requirements according to EN 1993-1-10. There is a problem for application of the existing
structures because most of the steel mechanical properties here in Lithuania came from the Russian
GOST standards.
3.2 Steel Corrosion Protection
Steel corrosion is one of the most influencing durability factors. Using weathering steel is not
accepted in Lithuania, thus, we define steel protection from corrosion by applying coating. For the
specification of the appropriate coating we use the International Standard ISO 12944 Corrosion
Protection of Steel Structures by Protective Paint Systems which was published in 1998. The
standard is recognized as European Standard and puts obligations on our country as well. This
document gives guidelines on the preparation of project specifications, paint system specifications,

The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference

paint work specifications and inspection and testing specification. Various Annexes deal with
particular aspects, such as planning of the work, reference areas and inspection and also provide
models and forms intended to facilitate the work. The document gives references to the
International Standards ISO 4628 and ISO 8501 to ISO 8504 which describe the steel surface
evaluation and preparation aspects.
According to ISO EN 12944-2, the atmospheric classification is provided for weathered and buried
structures. Mostly, we define C5-I corrosion category for the steel deck in Lithuania, except near
the sea where we define C5-M extremely high marine environment.
We give no strict demands of witch method for surface cleaning should be used. The abrasive blastcleaning is mostly applied here in Lithuania. The surface preparation of level S2.5 for structural
steel parts is used for almost all newly built or rehabilitation objects.
We define the paint system for all coating with high expected durability (15 years) according to EN
12944-1. Before the final decision we have consultations with various related companies
(producers, painting executors) to find the appropriate paint system for an appropriate object.
Practice shows that the system is the best when experienced workmanship is coordinated with and
already known and examined paint system.
Most of the bridge railings are hot dip galvanized. For specification of this procedure we use
international standard ISO 1461 which is also accepted as European standard.
Not all structures could be reliably protected by the protective coating. These are the structures that
are buried in ground. Sometimes it makes sense to enlarge steel thickness, for example, sheet piles.
Clause 4 of EN 1993-5 provides Tables from which it is possible to select appropriate rusting speed
for the structure. It is suggested to use rusting speed for weathered steel: 0.01mm/year under normal
conditions and 0.02mm/year for marine structures. 1993-5/Table 4.1 specifies the life time rusting
depth for structures buried in ground. For example, the Code defines that during a period of 100
years the rusting speed may vary from 1.2mm to 5.75mm depending on the aggressiveness of the
environment.
4 STRUCTURAL DURABILITY FOR COMPOSIT STEEL AND CONCRETE
STRUCTURES
Composite steel and concrete structures are represented in the Eurocode 4[5]. Durability of these
structures is equivalent to those represented in the Eurocodes 2[3] and Eurocode 3[4].
Fatigue is the main issue related to durability mentioned in the Eurocode 4. The only complete set
of provisions on fatigue in the Eurocode 4[5] is for stud shear connectors. Fatigue in reinforcement,
concrete and structural steel is covered mainly by cross-reference to EN 1992 and EN 1993.
5 STRUCTURAL DURABILITY FOR TIMBER BRIDGES
Most of the built timber bridges in Lithuania are foot bridges. An extensive protection concept is
needed to design a durable bridge which could be in service for significant life period. Rules for
design of timber bridges could be found in the Eurocode 5[6]. This document provides conception
for timber protection and fatigue verification. Clause 4 of EN 1995-2 provides general principals of
ensuring durability of timber and steel parts. Annex A of EN 1995-2 provides the fatigue
verification procedure.
Eurocode does not exclude durability of timber bridges. Therefore it must be designed for 100 year
service period. As example could be Norway technology for glued-laminated timber bridges. It
provides double pressure impregnation with salt before gluing separate lamella pieces and creosote
after member is finally shaped. Moreover all timber members must be covered by steel sheets
afterwards. Unfortunately this technology is not used here in Lithuania because creosote is
forbidden in European countries.

The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference

CONCLUSIONS
- In Lithuania most of the bridges are designed according to Russian Codes released in Soviet times.
The Codes were quite strong enough but durability measures had some lacks. Most of the concrete
bridges built in Soviet times have poor concrete quality, insufficient concrete cover to
reinforcement and no concrete surface protection provided.
- From 1997 transition period to Euro norms have started after release of temporary Lithuanian
standard PNT-T-97 Design Standard and Regulation for Highway Bridges. The standard has been
introduced with Eurocode load models.
- From 2004 engineers have started to use Eurocode as basic structural design code for design of
bridges. Implementation of European standards for steel and concrete protection has started at the
same time.
- The Eurocode provides durability concept, life time of structures, particular measures for steel,
concrete and conceptual measures for timber bridges.
- Standards for concrete and steel surface protection and repair give detailed material and execution
specifications.
- The Eurocode provides approaches on reliability design. This is probability-based design concept
and could be used for assessment of existing structures and predicting their service time. The
concept is quite new in Lithuania and has not been yet implemented for bridge design.
REFERENCES
1. EN 1990, Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design.
2. EN 1991, Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures.
3. EN 1992, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures.
4. EN 1993, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures.
5. EN 1994, Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures.
6. EN 1995, Eurocode 5: Design of Timber Structures.
7. International Organization of Standardization. Basis of Design of Structures Assessment of Existing Structures.
ISO Geneva, ISO 13822.
8. International Organization of Standardization. General Principles on the Reliability of Structures. ISO, Geneva, ISO
2394.
9. EN 1504, Products and Systems for the Protection and Repair of Concrete Structures.
10. EN ISO 12944, Paints and Varnishes Corrosion Protection of Steel Structures by Protective Paint Systems.
11. H. Gulvanessian, J-A Calgaro and M Holicky.Desginers Guide to EN 1990.Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design.
12. Stra. Eurocode 2 Application to Concrete Highway Bridges.
13. C. R. Hendy and D. A. Smith.Designers Guide to EN 1992-2. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures. Part 2:
Concrete Bridges.
14. C. R. Hendy and C. J. Murphy.Designers Guide to EN 1993-2.Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures. Part 2: Steel
Bridges.
15. C. R. Hendy and R. P. Johnson. Designers Guide to EN 1994-2.Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Steel and
Concrete Structures. Part 2: General Rules and Rules for Bridges.
16. Bjornman Lagerblad Carbon Dioxide Uptake during Concrete Life Cycle State of the Art. Report 2. 2005.