You are on page 1of 10


M. Heiden1, H. Bokan2, Lus Simes da Silva3 , R. Greiner4, M. Pircher5 e H. Pircher6

SUMMARY The recent expansion of the high-speed rail network in Europe and the Far East has led to the need to reevaluate the design criteria for high-speed railway bridges. In particular, the evaluation of the dynamic effects associated with train-bridge interaction originated new safety and passenger comfort criteria that translated into maximum limits for the acceleration for the interacting structural system of the bridge and the moving train. Motivated by the launch of the Portuguese high-speed railway project, it is presented and discussed in the present paper: (i) the organization of part 2 of Eurocode 1 and the annex A2 of Eurocode 0, with special emphasis on the design checks associated with dynamic effects and train-bridge interaction; (ii) a discussion some additional rules recently imposed in the German regulations; (iii) the application of these rules to a composite trussed railway bridge currently being designed for the German rail network. 1. INTRODUCTION The set of design rules applicable for the design against static loading must for high speed railway bridges be expanded in order to fulfil the structural requirements for the design against dynamic forces. The rules for dynamic analysis in accordance with the Eurocode [1,2] will be described in this paper as well as the corresponding proceedings in accordance with the German regulation [3]. Currently the new ICE-train lines in Germany are being

1 2

Project Engineer, TDV GesmbH., Graz, Austria Project Engineer, TDV GesmbH., Graz, Austria 3 Professor Associado com Agregao, Universidade de Coimbra, Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Coimbra 4 Professor, Technical University Graz, Institute for Steel, Timber and Shell Structures, Graz, Austria 5 Research Associate, Univ. Of West Sydney, Sydney, Australia 6 Managing Director, TDV GesmbH., Graz, Austria


IV Congresso de Construo Metlica e Mista

investigated for their suitability for travel with velocities up to 300km/h. This paper further reports on the outcome of the dynamic analysis of an interesting steel truss bridge with concrete deck. Using this bridge as an example some dynamic design criteria of the abovementioned standards will be discussed. 2. ORGANIZATION OF THE EUROCODE RELATED TO HIGH SPEED RAILWAY BRIDGE DESIGN The principle design rules of railway bridges on a high-speed route differ from the design of railway bridges on conventional routes. The following additional checks become necessary: Verification of maximum peak deck acceleration under the rail track. Stresses according to dynamic loading must not exceed given stress limits. Check for fatigue failure. Verification of maximum acceleration in the coach. Reduction of other permitted deformation criteria. The limits for coach acceleration are influenced by concerns regarding passenger comfort. The rest of the other criteria are related to the structural integrity of bridge structures. The design of high-speed railway bridges is regulated in two different parts of the Eurocode: EN1990-Annex A2 [1] containing principal bridge performance criteria and EN1991-2 [2] containing the requirements related to loading, dynamic increment of loading, requirements for a dynamic analysis [6]. 2.1. Requirements for Dynamic Calculations in Accordance with EN1991-2 The organization of the EN1991-2 [2] can be divided into seven parts: Verification whether dynamic analysis required; Loading and load combination; Velocities to be considered; Structural bridge parameters (eg. damping, mass, stiffness); Modeling of the excitation and the dynamic behavior; Verification of the limit states; Additional check against fatigue failure; 2.1.1 Verification whether dynamic analysis required EN1991-2 [2] provides a flow chart considering speed, bridge type, span arrangement, first bending and first torsional mode. For bridges with a behavior similar to a simply supported beam, a dynamic analysis might not be necessary as indicated by a span and frequency depending diagram. For all other structures and velocities greater than 200km/h a complete dynamic analysis is deemed necessary 2.1.2 Loading and load combination So-called HSLM universal train types (eg. Figures 1 and 2) are defined to serve as loading models for the dynamic analysis. Depending on the type of structure and span arrangement two different sets of train types (HSLM-A and HSLM-B) are available. In

Estudos Especiais


addition all real trains and train combinations using the investigated line have to be investigated as well. Only one track has to be loaded by moving trains
D 4*P (1) 3*P (2) d 3.525 2*P (3) NxD 2*P (3) D D 3*P (2) d 3.525 3 4*P (1) 11 9

(1) (2)

Power Car (leading and trailing power cars identical) End coach (leading and trailing end coaches)
N x 170kN

Fig. 1 HSLM-A Load Train Types according to the EUROCODE

Fig. 2 HSLM-B Load Train Types according to the Eurocode 2.1.3 Velocities to be considered A certain range of train velocities must be investigated and possible resonance effects within this range must be located. The maximum velocity of this range to be considered in the calculation is commonly set at 1.2 times the maximum line speed. For simply supported beams the spacing of axle groups is considered as a parameter for the determination of possible resonance speeds. In the vicinity of such possible resonance speeds, the interval of the investigated train speeds should be smaller. 2.1.4 Structural bridge parameters Damping characteristic, mass and stiffness govern the dynamic properties of the bridge response to a moving train. According to EN1991-2 [2] damping has to be chosen according to tables taking into account material and span length. For the determination of the bridge and train mass and the stiffness of the bridge an upper and a lower estimation should be used for the dynamic analysis. Damping has a significant influence on the response in the event of resonance effects [7]. The variation of stiffness is often performed by varying the EModulus which shifts the resonance speed. 2.1.5 Modeling of the excitation and the dynamic behaviour According to EN1991-2 [2] the dynamic effects of the moving train can be simulated by sets of moving concentrated loads. These sets are defined to include the interaction between vehicle and structure and the effects of moving masses. The structural bridge model has to be accurate enough to take account for all possible vibration modes. Therefore the design engineer has to decide on the particular model characteristics to account for all existing local and global effects. [4] provides a scheme for modeling the train-bridge interaction to be used as a guide line where necessary.


IV Congresso de Construo Metlica e Mista

2.1.6 Verification of the limit states The acceleration of the bridge deck generated by high speed trains along the track axis has to be checked at the Serviceability Limit State (SLS) to avoid the risk of ballast instability and in extremis a reduction in wheel/rail contact forces [6]. The limitation is 0.35g for ballasted track and 0.5g for direct fastened decks. In addition a maximum loading check has to be carried out, which means that the maximum of the most unfavorable case of normal rail bridge loading and the most unfavorable case of the high speed rail traffic loading has to be taken for the design. 2.1.7 Additional check against fatigue failure Where the frequent operating speed of the train is close to a resonant speed additional fatigue checking has to be performed. 2.2 Principal Bridge Performance Criteria in Accordance with EN1990-Annex A2 [1] To allow stability, track continuity and to guarantee wheel track contact the following safety criteria have to be kept: Maximum vertical acceleration of the deck. Maximum variation of cant (deck twist). Maximum end rotation (vertical deformation of the deck). Maximum horizontal deformation. Limits for the variation of cant, the horizontal deformations and the vertical acceleration are given in EN1990, Annex A2 [1]. The limit criteria of the maximum end rotation is not given explicitly but reference is made to [2] where the requirements are stated to be the same for dynamic and static analysis. In the previous edition of this Code [13] limits for maximum allowable end rotations were defined. It has been found in the past that end rotation can become a governing design factor for bridges with relatively deep main girders [7]. 3. RULES IMPOSED IN GERMAN REGULATIONS The German regulations RIL 804 [3] are quite similar to the Eurocode [1,2]. In addition to the design rules comments and explanations are also given in [3]. Nevertheless, there are some significant differences listed in the following: Eight normative design trains (ICE1,-2, -3, Thalys2, Eurostar,ETR-Y500, Talgo AV2, Virgin) are defined in the German regulations in addition to the HSLM-trains. A different verification flow chart is given to decide if dynamic analysis is required. A different calculation method for finding the maximum resonance speed is used in the German standard where the total wagon length is used as opposed to the axle distance in the Eurocode. The vertical acceleration has to be checked for certain discrete positions on the bridge. In comparison the Eurocode requires all points on the bridge structure below the rail track to be checked. In the German regulations the dynamic results (forces, deflections and accelerations) are multiplied by an additional factor to cover track irregularities.

Estudos Especiais


In contrary to the EUROCODE , which provides several limiting criteria, only the maximum vertical acceleration is limited by the German regulations. If results from a dynamic analysis become governing then the German regulations require that they must also be used for the SLS and ULS checks.

4. APPLICATION EXAMPLE: COMPOSITE TRUSSED RAILWAY BRIDGE 4.1. Outline The bridge described in the following serves as an application example to illustrate some of the abovementioned issues. Consider a 15 span truss bridge with a concrete deck. Figure 3 shows the first 4 of the 15 spans with a total length of 868m. The bridge consists of 6 double span girders and one three span girder in the middle of the bridge. The structure is part of the new railway line for the ICE (German High-Speed Train) between Ebensfeld and Erfurt in Germany. The design of this innovative structural system was completed by the design office M. Cerin in Salzburg. Design checks according to the German regulations [3] were required by the owner.

Fig. 3 First 4 spans of the 15 span application example The dynamic analysis was restricted to a representative two span system as shown in Figure 4. The small effects of interacting adjacent double spans were ignored. Cracked concrete above the mid-pier was taken into account as shown in Figure 5. For the dynamic analysis the mathematical model was refined in comparison to the static analysis. The concrete deck was split into 11 longitudinal girders (Figure 6) which were connected with cross-girders. The two main girders above the truss web are composite beams, all others are pure concrete beams. The dynamic computer analysis for this project was carried out with the software system RM2000 [8] including features described in [9,10]. Features for modal analysis as well as time integration [11] are implemented in this software system and have been used for this project. The results for the lowest five eigenmode are summarized in Table 1. Modes 1 to 3 are longitudinal and horizontal modes which have negligible influence on the maximum vertical acceleration of the bridge deck. Modes 4 and 5 determine the dynamic behavior due to vertical train loading. It can be seen from the results of the maximum vertical acceleration of the wings of the cross-section which will be demonstrated below that the lateral vibration interfering with the vertical vibration (mode 5) play an important role. The German loading specifications [3] give axle loads and axle layouts of the 8 different norm-trains which are applied as a moving load (see also Figure 6). This results in a time dependent response, which allows the check of the design criteria, especially the vertical acceleration. The dynamic analysis was checked along all nodes of the structure. In accordance with [3], the maximum vertical acceleration has to be checked just in a number of specified points. These points of the application example are the points 141,741 at the middle of span 1 and the points 161,761 at the middle of span 2 (right & left rail) (Figure 5)).


IV Congresso de Construo Metlica e Mista

wings of cross-section




Fig. 4 Typical cross-section and structural system

Cracked Concrete

Span 57.0 m

Span 57.0 m

730 130 330

735 135

741 141 341

746 141

751 151 351

756 156

761 161 361

76a 167

771, 772 171, 172 372

Fig. 5 Representative two span system for the dynamic analysis and special investigated nodes

Fig. 6 Loading scheme of the moving load analysis

Estudos Especiais


Table 1: Results of the Eigenmode calculation for the original design and the additional three alternatives
EM 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th ND
0.71 0.98 1.34 1.75 1.97

0.71 1.00 1.36 1.75 2.01

0.71 1.00 1.36 1.75 1.98

0.71 1.02 1.41 1.76 2.33

Description of Eigenmode
st 1 long. mode, no vert.bending components

1 horiz. mode, no vert. bending components st 1 horizontal bending mode

st 1 vertical eigenmode, only vertical bending


1 torsional mode


Legend: EM.eigenmode, ND....normal design, UC.... uncracked concrete, SC...supported cantilever, BB...bottom bracing

4 eigenmode


5 eigenmode


Fig. 7 First bending and torsional mode 4.2. General Results For the dynamic analysis of the given train speeds between 150km/h and 360km/h were investigated. For the given structure modal damping of 0.5% can be assumed according to Eurocode [2] what is identical to the requirement of the German Standard [3]. The dynamic effects due to load trains HSLM-A1 to HSLM-A10 [2] (Figure 1) as well as the load trains given in [3] were investigated for the purpose of this paper. According to [3] the governing results of the dynamic analysis are the maximum vertical accelerations in a set of given points as shown in Figure 5. For the points labeled NODE 141 and NODE 161 the accelerations are shown in Figure 8 for the German load trains. The limit of 0.5g is exceeded slightly at NODE 141 for a train speed of 330km/h. However, longitudinal load distribution

Results node 141

Results node 161

Fig. 8 Maximum vertical accelerations at NODE 141 and NODE 161


IV Congresso de Construo Metlica e Mista

due to indirect load introduction was not taken into account for this particular analysis run. Taking into account this effect smoothes out the peak at this velocity and reduces the maximum vertical acceleration to an acceptable level. Figure 8 also illustrates that there are two ranges of train velocities for most load train constellations where resonance effects can be observed, namely at 240km/h and 330km/h. Detailed results of these analyses can be found in [12]. 4.3. Wings of Cross-Section Figure 9 shows the maximum vertical acceleration of the deck of all structural nodes in the bridge. From these results it could be seen that these maximum vertical accelerations occurred at the wings of the cross-section at mid span (Figure 4) around NODE 351 as shown in Figure 5. The high vertical acceleration in this particular area is caused by the lateral vibration interacting with the torsional vibration. The questions arises whether this high acceleration of the wings of the cross-section area is covered with the design criteria?

EUROCODE envelope

GERMAN envelope

Fig. 9 Comparison EC-German maximum vertical acceleration 4.4.Variant Study For the purpose of this paper a number of design variants were investigated. Due to the time-consuming nature of the analysis the following alternatives were limited to one loading train, the ICE3 of the German Railway Company. The following alternatives were analysed: analysis without cracked concrete area over the mid pier. analysis with additional supported cantilevers at each truss node (21 additional beam elements on each side of the bridge. analysis with additional bottom bracing to check if the increased torsional stiffness has a significant influence on the maximum vertical accelerations. All alternatives were then compared with the results of the original design described above with cracked concrete over the mid pier: Figure 10 shows the maximum results of the vertical acceleration for the cantilever NODE 351 for the above mentioned alternatives together with the results for the original

Estudos Especiais


design. It is obvious, that the bottom bracing has no significant influence on the final acceleration results. The analyses with the un-cracked concrete slab and the supported cantilever elements show the significant influence of the cracked concrete above the piers. Not only the overall maximum results are affected, but also the results of the investigated nodes below the rail in the respective mid spans. As seen from Figure 11 where the maximum vertical accelerations are shown for the nodes in mid span below the rail (NODE 161 and NODE 761) the distinct ranges of resonance effects are less apparent in comparison to the original design.

Fig. 10 Comparison alternatives, maximum vertical acceleration at NODE 351

Results node 161

Results node 761

Fig. 11 Comparison alternatives: maximum vertical acceleration NODE 161 & NODE 761 5. CONCLUSIONS The design rules of the Eurocode against dynamic forces due to high-speed rail loading are quite similar to the design rules of the German regulations. This paper gives an overview on the main features of both codes and also points out the differences between the two. To illustrate the dynamic design according to the German regulation an application example is presented. The example consists of a composite trussed railway bridge. It was found that this type of structure complies with all requirements. The influence of the cracked concrete above the piers was shown to be significant. Vertical accelerations at the wings of the cross-section were found to be very high but did not necessitate design changes according to the German regulations. Design alternatives and their influence on the dynamic behaviour of the bridge were also presented.


IV Congresso de Construo Metlica e Mista

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge that the work for this paper was funded by the F.F.F. on behalf of the Austrian Government as part of the research project FEMBRIDGE. REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] prEN 1990-Draft, Annex A2: Application for bridges, August 2001. prEN 1991-2 EUROCODE 1 Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges, July 2002 (Conversion of ENV-1991-3 into 1991-2) (final draft). RIL804 (Modul 804.3301) Eisenbahnbrcken, Dynamische Effekte bei Resonanzrisiko, Germany, 2003. UIC leaflet: UIC 776-2R Design requirements for rail-bridges based on interaction phenomena between train, track, bridge and in particular speed. (July 2002.). DIN-Fachbericht 101: Einwirkungen auf Brcken, 2.Auflage 2003 Bucknall, I., New Eurocode Requirements for the Design of High Speed Railway Bridges, IABSE Symposium, 2003, Antwerp. Heiden, M., Pircher, M., Pircher, H. and Janjic, D., Rolling Stcok Analysis of Various Railway Bridges in Austria, Proceedings: IABSE-Symposium 2003, Antwerp, pp. 116117. TDV GesmbH. (2001) RM200 Technical Description, Graz, Austria. Pircher, M., Janjic, D., Pircher, H., Bridge, R.Q., Towards a Holistic Approach to Bridge Design, Proceedings: IABSE-Symposium 2002, Melbourne, pp. 236-237. Pircher, H., Janjic, D., FEMBRIDGE Technical Project Description, 2001, TDVAustria. Zienkiewicz, O.C., Taylor, R.L. The Finite Element Method, Fifth Edition, McGrawHill Book Company, London, 2001. TDV-Austria, Final Report of the Rolling Stock Analysis of the Itztalbridge, August 2003. ENV 1991-3 Anhang G Grundlagen fr Entwurf, Berechnung und Bemessung zustzliche Regelungen zu ENV 1991-1 fr Eisenbahnbrcken einschlielich Gebrauchstauglichkeits-kriterien, 1995.