For the examination of bridge superstructures, there is no single standard method in the literature for the design of structures, and possibility for their diagnosis after fire damage. Designers often overcome this problem by examining the fire curves used for tunnel fires, as the materials feeding the combustion are considered to be very similar. In contrast, in some articles, the use of localised fires in design and control is suggested by the authors. This is a standard method used in Eurocode. To solve the problem, two methods must be applied. Heskestad’s method describes the case where the flame does not reach the superstructure of the bridge, while Hasemi’s method describes the case where the flame does. Heskestad’s method is presented in the standard in a way that can be used by practising engineers. The great advantage of Hasemi’s method is that it can quantify the effects of several localised fires, each one separate from the other. This feature is very useful for the fire design of, for example, covered car parks and bridge structures. In such a test, the total heat flow on the lower plane of the slab or superstructure can be interpreted as the sum of the heat flows from each local fire. The standard, on the other hand, it does not provide additional assistance to designers in solving the problem. That is way, he should be able to determine the temperature of the structural element, a method which is not provided for in the standard. This problem leads to a fourth degree equation, which again leaves the designer on his own to solve. There is no formula for solving the fourth degree equation. In this case, it becomes more useful to find a sufficiently accurate approximate solution (Newton’s method) rather than an exact solution. In this article, we present in detail the possibilities of solving the local fire effect in order to enable practising engineers to use it.