9 views

Uploaded by Hania O. Almd

Chapter 6 of the future European Code 1991-2 deals with the dynamic behaviour of railway bridges. Under certain
conditions the quasistatic method can be used to elaborate the design forces. But in many cases time history
analyses are requested, using each of 10 HSLM-A model trains and traveling speeds at regular intervals in the
speed - range 150 – 300 km/ h. The most important limiting factor is the allowable maximum deck acceleration,
which is a major criterion for interoperability certification

Chapter 6 of the future European Code 1991-2 deals with the dynamic behaviour of railway bridges. Under certain
conditions the quasistatic method can be used to elaborate the design forces. But in many cases time history
analyses are requested, using each of 10 HSLM-A model trains and traveling speeds at regular intervals in the
speed - range 150 – 300 km/ h. The most important limiting factor is the allowable maximum deck acceleration,
which is a major criterion for interoperability certification

© All Rights Reserved

- XML
- Steel Frame Design Examples
- Pvelite Output
- IRJET-Comparative Study on Analysis and Design of Regular Configuration of Building by Staad.Pro and Etabs
- foundation new
- Unit4-SP
- AISC 360-10 Example 001
- Out-Of-plane Shear Strength of Steel-concrete Sandwich Panels
- Elementary Reinforced Concrete
- Phd Steel Box Thesis
- Lifting Beam Calculation
- Design of RC Building
- Aimin 2004
- Composite Beams
- THIN WALL BEAMS.pptx
- Notes 02
- Example 1
- curved beams
- TPC Questions MCQ
- Ddpa 2052 Bending Moment

You are on page 1of 9

Dr. Rainer Flesch, Arsenal Research GmbH., Faradaygasse 3, A-1030 Vienna, Austria

DI Roman Geier, Arsenal Research GmbH., Faradaygasse 3, A-1030 Vienna, Austria

ABSTRACT

Chapter 6 of the future European Code 1991-2 deals with the dynamic behaviour of railway bridges. Under certain

conditions the quasistatic method can be used to elaborate the design forces. But in many cases time history

analyses are requested, using each of 10 HSLM-A model trains and traveling speeds at regular intervals in the

speed - range 150 300 km/ h. The most important limiting factor is the allowable maximum deck acceleration,

which is a major criterion for interoperability certification.

The expense for dynamic analysis is considerable and should be limited to cases where it is absolutely

necessary. At the moment all existing experience, whether dynamic analysis is necessary or quasistatic method is

sufficient, is put together into practice oriented diagrams. Additional parametric studies will be carried out in near

future. Further, recommendations will be elaborated, whether a detailed 3D model is necessary or a beam model

can be used. It is very important to calibrate the FE models using calculated as well as measured maximum deck

accelerations. Hence, first measurements during 160 250 km/ h rides were carried out at a 3 span prestressed

RC bridge in 2002. Further measurements are planned for 2004.

1.

INTRODUCTION

Paragraph 6 of prEN 1991-2 addresses the dynamic behaviour of railway bridges. If dynamic influences are

assumed to be of minor importance, quasi-static calculations can be carried out. In this case the results of static

calculations are simply multiplied by the dynamic increment . But in many cases extensive time history

analyses are prescribed. For dynamic loading different train configurations have to be used, especially 10 HSLMA train models. In order to elaborate the worst case, the train speed is varied in the range 150 300 km/ h in 10

km/ h steps. Hence around 100 time history calculations become necessary, sometimes also in situations where

the specialist has big doubts, if such an effort is really justified. By the way, the big effort results more from

analysis and handling of the results for presentation, than from the calculations itself. Further, the greater part of

practical engineers have still their problems with advanced dynamic investigations and try to avoid such tasks as

much as possible.

Many criteria are given in prEN 1991-2 in order to decide, whether the quasistatic method can be used or a time

history analysis is necessary. The user has to follow complicated paths in a flow-chart, before he will find the right

answer. A basic criterion is the train speed, with 200 km/ h being an important mark. Further important parameters

are span lengths, type (static system) and number of spans.

The Austrian Railway Company HL-AG/ bridge department initiated an expert team for the above questions. Up to

now 5 workshops were held. The team was formed by TDV/ Graz (software developer), Kirsch Muchitsch

Partner/ Linz (consultant), Westhausser/ Salzburg (consultant), Pauser/ Wien (consultant) and arsenal research,

which carried out also the coordination. The meetings were always attended by representatives of HL-AG and

BB (Austrian Federal Railway Company).

The main task was to check the plausibility of prEN1991-2 and to look for possible simplifications. Further, some

basic work for a national guideline was done. Especially the principles for structural modelling of bridges were

highlighted. The team work focused also on the selection of adequate structural parameters, like adequate

damping ratios, elastic moduli, etc.

2.

2.1

The main goal is the presentation of user friendly criteria, which allow a quick and plausible selection of the

necessary calculation method. These criteria are based on existing investigations, which were carried out within

the framework of projects, and further on the results of first parametric investigations. The main sorting criteria are

bridge type, slenderness and total mass of the bridge.

In any case it must be shown, that the first vertical modal bending frequency is within the frequency band

prescribed in the code. This can be done with any FE code and simple beam models. Also formulas from

textbooks can be used. If the modal frequency is outside of the allowed range, the bridge layout has to be

adjusted adequately.

The following 3 investigation levels are foreseen for the Austrian National Guideline.

2.1.1

Level I Method

In this case no calculations are necessary. The proof is based on existing knowledge. Cases are presented,

where the calculated vertical accelerations are less than the limits given in prEN1991-2 and hence a time history

analysis is not necessary. The existing knowledge (from projects + parametric studies) is shown in diagrams for

several combinations of the main sorting parameters number of tracks, material + type of cross section, static

system. The parameters used in the diagrams are total mass (horizontal axis) and max. slenderness (set of

curves). The calculated maximum vertical acceleration is given on the vertical axis. Hence, minimum mass and

maximum slenderness in order to fulfill the code requirements is easily found in the diagrams. At the moment the

existing knowledge is too less.

2.1.2

Level II Method

The use of simple beam models is foreseen at this level. Beam models can be used, if the bridge mainly behaves

dynamically like a beam and not like a plate. It is important to define criteria, when a full 3D model is necessary.

But for the greater part of all railway bridges probably beam models can be used. For cases coming closer to

plate behaviour, but if beam like modes are still dominating, correction factors should be applied in order to

consider contributions of vertical bending modes in transverse direction.

The Level II Method means also a powerful tool for parametric studies, since many structural variants can be

investigated in a short time. For certain variants Level II and Level III approaches should be carried out in parallel,

in order to calibrate the less accurate Level II procedures (elaboration of correction factors).

Further, it is an important mid - term goal that each practical engineer should be more or less able to carry out

dynamic calculations with beam models, even time history analyses if the input is given in a user friendly way.

2.1.3

At this level a detailed 3D model (plate model, girder grille) is used. Also the boundary conditions are modelled as

precise as possible.

2.2

In principle the main range of all parameters, which is relevant for railway bridges, could be covered by

investigations. But at the moment it is not completely clear, if a funding for these investigations will be available.

Diagrams should be elaborated for single - span bridges, multiple - span bridges and framed viaducts. The

maximum calculated vertical acceleration is presented for certain cases with a certain total mass and

slenderness. Values in between can be interpolated. These diagrams would facilitate the design - work very

much.

2.2.1

In some cases prEN 1991-2 allows the use of load model HSLM B. This load model means a periodic load by N

axles with a distance d between each other. Hence the formula for a SDOF system can be used to calculate the

maximum (stationary) acceleration. In this formula generalized mass and generalized stiffness for the first

vertical bending mode has to be used. In many cases the time of train passage will be too short to excite the

maximum (stationary) response. Hence, the simple formula (1) can be used to estimate the relevant acceleration:

a m (t E ,i ) = (1 e

1 1 t E , i

) a m ,max

(1)

tE,i means the time of the train passage and depends on train speed, N and d.

2.3

Dynamic analysis is carried out with beam models plus additional masses (ballast bed, etc.). A gloabal beam

model can be used, if it reflects the global behaviour in an adequate way. In cases, where a considerable local

dynamic behaviour exists (in the case of large plate fields or stiffening elements, which are sensitive to vibrations,

etc.), more sophisticated 3D models have to be used. Sometimes local areas, which are not stressed by static

loads, experience considerable dynamic stresses, if they start to vibrate (local vibrations). It is emphasized, that

the quasistatic method cannot cover this phenomenon. In this case, the only way is a dynamic design using an

adequate structural model. Hence, in the case of steel- and composite bridges, truss bridges and arch bridges

normally a Level III approach will be necessary.

In the case of concrete bridges the local vibrational behaviour is less dramatic and constructive solutions are

frequently very efficient. It is well known that directly loaded top plates of bridges with hollow girder cross section

experience considerable dynamic stresses due to vertical deformation in transverse direction, but the problem can

be solved easily by additional reinforcement. Further, cantilevered plates tend to resonance vibrations which

mean a continuous fatigue load. Results are first cracks and an increasing corrosion. Such local vibrations can

be avoided by diagonal stiffeners at adequate distances in longitudinal direction.

It is not a basic principle to treat skew bridges via the Level III Method. To some extend the global bending beam

behaviour in longitudinal direction may dominate, but skew bridges tend also to torsional modes (or vertical

modes in transverse direction, if the system is closer to a plate than to a beam). Further, skew bridges tend to

uplift from the bearings under dynamic load, but constructive countermeasures can be easily foreseen.

It is very likely, that in many cases one can elaborate simple beam models, which represent mass and stiffness of

the bridge in a very realistic way. Hence, also the calculated modes will be very realistic. In many practical cases

the vertical modes 1 3 have the greatest importance for a reliable calculation of the structural response. On one

hand, the model is kept relatively simple, on the other hand time history analyses have to be carried out, which

belong to the more sophisticated tools of structural dynamics. But nearly every FE program with dynamic

module provides also a possibility for time history analysis.

It is one basic principle to model masses (structure + permanent way) as accurate as possible. Within the Level II

method it is not necessary to model the stiffness of bearings accurately. It is advisable to use 3D beam models

and eventually to model also the torsional behaviour.

The basic proof according to prEN1991-2 is the calculation of the maximum vertical acceleration of the bridge

deck during train passage. It is assumed that vertical acceleration decreases the operational safety (e.g. track

stability in ballast bed, etc.). Two maximum values are given in the code: 3,5 m/s for bridges with ballast bed and

5 m/s for bridges without ballast bed. Again it is emphasized, that a realistic modeling of mass is very important,

since mass and maximum acceleration are always proportional inverted.

The following additional proofs are foreseen in prEN1991-2:

- dynamic increment of internal forces and displacements (paragraph 6.4.6.5)

proof of safety against fatique. But according to the Austrian National Application Document this proof will

be not necessary in each single case.

- vertical displacement according to paragraph prA2.4.4.2.3

- deck torsion according to paragraph prA2.4.4.2.2, Tab. A2.7 (maximum over 3 m length)

- girder end rotation according to prA2.4.4.2.3(2); EVN 1991-3: 1995

- horizontal deformation in transverse direction according to prA2.4.4.2.4, Tab. A2.8

- first horizontal bending modal frequency according to prA2.4.4.2.4(3)

- max. vertical displacement concerning passenger comfort (prA2.4.4.3)

The parametric investigations carried out so far focused on the vertical accelerations. The criteria given in

prEN1990-2 have been checked only in several projects, where detailed 3D models were used.

In general, it should be avoided in the future, that all proofs have to be done in each case. Some of the above

checks are very time consuming and need additional handwork (e.g. deck torsion). It would be much better to

fully elaborate the basis for the Level I method and to use for certain parameter variants (base variants)

detailed 3D models, where all above criteria are checked. For the investigations between the base variants the

Level II method could be applied

Besides the vertical accelerations, in some recent Level II investigations also maximum dynamic bending

moments, maximum displacements and maximum girder end rotations were elaborated. As a next step also the

first torsional modal frequency, the first horizontal bending modal frequency and the deformation in horizontal

direction could be calculated.

It is emphasized that torsional- and horizontal modes are only excited in the case of an eccentric dynamic loading

(e.g. bridge with more than one track). In principle, even with a beam model, the eccentric loading could be

modeled.

On the whole, in order to compensate all influences, which cannot be modeled adequately with beam models,

correction factors should be applied. At the moment it is suggested to multiply accelerations, displacements,

rotations and internal forces by the factor 1,2. Improved correction factors are expected from parallel

investigations (Level II + Level III approaches).

2.4

In the case of plane load bearing bridges one has to expect vertical bending modes in longitudinal and transverse

direction with closely spaced frequencies, which are relevant for the overall dynamic response. An eccentric

loading (e.g. bridge with two tracks) can be modeled very well. Normally also the stiffness of the bearings should

be modeled as accurate as possible. For skew bridges the geometry can be considered exactly.

It is important to take the maximum acceleration only from those points, which are relevant for the track stability.

But it is an additional issue to check areas and elements, where considerable dynamic stresses will occur due to

local vibrational behaviour.

Structural models of existing structures can be considerable improved, if measured results (eigenfrequencies and

modeshapes) are available. These measured data form the basis for model updating of the first (original) model.

3D models need a much greater amount of work than beam elements. Even this type of model is only a model

and it remains questionable, if the results are really much more reliable. One should always keep the cost

benefit relationship in mind. Further it must be emphasized, that results of time history analyses will always

depend strongly on details of the model. The phase lag between the modal responses will strongly influence the

results. The phase lag depends on the calculated modal frequencies (especially the distance between them) and

the damping ratio, which can be estimated only roughly. Hence, results obtained from different models and/ or

with different FE programs will not coincide exactly. But (at least mid term) a comparable order of magnitude of

the results should be achieved. But the grater part of results will be on the safe side, since the overall approach

contains several conservative assumptions (e.g. modeling of axle loads as point loads, etc.).

For time history analysis the train models HSLM-A 1 to 10 are used. The basic excitation are the roving axles,

which are modelled as point loads. The train speed has to be varied between 150 km/ h and vmax x 1,2. The speed

is increased in load steps of 10 km/ h. Sometimes additional, smaller steps are necessary in order to identify the

exact maximum vertical acceleration.

Alternatively, the following procedure can be used. Parametric studies have demonstrated, that maximum

accelerations frequently occur, when a single mode is in resonance (that is very reasonable, when the gloabal

behaviour corresponds to that of a bending beam). If a train runs with the appropriate velocity over the bridge,

each single mode can be excited to its maximum. The run frequency must be equal to the modal frequency

under consideration. Each relevant modal frequency must be excited in this way, one after the other. The runfrequency is calculated in the following way:

fF = v / 3.6/ D [Hz]

(2)

with

v..train speed [km/ h]

D.charakteristic length [m]. From parametric studies it is known, that for the HSLM-A trains the wagon

length D can be used.

In addition to the above run-frequency also their harmonics must be considered.

For the excitation of the i-th mode, the HSLM-A train must run with the speed vi over the bridge:

Vi = ni *3,6 * D [km/ h]

(3)

In order to calculate the speed related to the n-th harmonic, vi has to be divided by n (number of the harmonic). In

the parametric investigation the harmonics up to n = 7 have been considered. This was especially important for

short single span bridges. All vi calculated in the above way within the band 150 to 300 km/ h were used for the

investigations.

For an investigation using 10 km/ h steps 160 time history calculations were carried out (10 x 16). With the

alternative method, 1 to 3 calculations per train type and per modal frequency were necessary. In most cases 1

to 3 modal frequencies are relevant. In one special case with two relevant modal frequencies 40 calculations were

necessary.

Especially in the case of multiple span bridges the maxima of the response could occur also at a frequency

between two modal frequencies. This is especially true, if the modal frequencies are closely spaced. But from the

parametric studies it is concluded, that the above method gives sufficient accurate estimates of the maximum

response.

Now it should be evident, that for a Level II investigation + the alternative excitation procedure, it makes no sense

to model bearing stiffnesses accurately. In reality the modal frequencies will be slightly lower, hence also the run

frequency will be slightly lower. But the maximum acceleration is always calculated for resonance and the slight

difference of the resonant frequency can be neglected.

In August 2002 accelerations were measured at the 3 span trough - bridge P5 (26 m, 30 m, 26 m; one track per

bridge; see Figure 1 ) during several high speed passages. Measurements were carried out in 13 points on both

webs of the trough. Some trains were special test configurations, others represented regular traffic.

From the recorded acceleration time histories the maxima and the maximum sliding effective values were

elaborated.. All values were clearly below the limit 3,5 m/s for bridges with ballast bed given in prEN1991-2.

Using the measured results of one freight train, it was demonstrated via Operational Deflection Shape Analysis,

that the response is dominated by the first vertical bending mode (see Figure 2)

modeshape at 4,75 Hz

From free - vibrations decay after the train passages a modal damping ratio of 0,0113 was obtained, which is

plausible for a prestressed bridge. But it is expected that the total damping during train passage should be higher,

since relative displacements causing friction occur within the ballast bed and even movements of bearings, etc.

could contribute to the overall damping.

Measurements were carried out for 23 high speed passages. Acceleration time histories and frequency spectra

were obtained. Further, for each passage the maxima of Aeff, Amax and Amin [m/s] were elaborated. Amax and Amin

are the positive maximum and the negative minimum, respectively. Both values cover the full frequency range. On

the other hand Aeff means the maximum sliding effective value, which is obtained by time integration over a

sliding time window with 0,125 s length. Hence, this means a filtering of the higher frequencies and Aeff is a value

comparable to the results obtained with the FE model of P5. As an example the results of train passage no. 8

are shown in Figure 3.

Zugsvorbeifahrt Nr.8

Zug Nr. 93926, v=250km/h

3.8.2002

MP

106

104

6

8

7

1

2

3

Zeitsignal [m/s]

2,0

MP 106

0,0

-2,0

2,0

MP 104

Aeff

Amax

0,51

0,64

0,55

0,57

0,52

0,52

0,63

0,62

1,59

1,64

1,46

1,66

1,74

1,20

1,77

1,61

Erschtterungsmessungen

Objekt P5, Pchlarn, N

Amin

-1,41

-1,94 Legende:

-1,70 MP - Mepunkt Nr.

-2,07 Aeff - max. gleitender Effektiv w ert von Beschleunigung mit Fenster von 0,125s.

-1,29

Amax - maximale Beschleunigung

-1,30 Amin - minimale Beschleunigung

-1,63

-1,78 alle Angaben in m/s

0,0

-2,0

2,0

Frequenzspektren [m/s]

0,10

0,05

0,00

0,150

0,075

0,000

0,10

0,05

0,00

0,10

0,05

0,00

0,10

0,05

0,00

0,10

0,05

0,00

0,10

0,05

0,00

0,10

0,05

0,00

MP 6

0,0

-2,0

2,0

MP 8

0,0

-2,0

2,0

1,0

0,0

-1,0

-2,0

2,0

MP 7

MP 1

0,0

-2,0

2,0

MP 2

0,0

-2,0

2,0

MP 3

0,0

-2,0

13:39:54

13:39:55

MP 106

MP 104

MP 6

MP 8

MP 7

MP 1

MP 2

MP 3

13:39:56

Uhrzeit

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

[Hz]

200

Hz

Figure 3. Measured results for high speed train passage no. 8 at trough bridge P5.

From the frequency spectra and the table with Aeff, Amax and Amin it can be concluded, that the acceleration time

history contains considerable contributions from higher frequencies. It can be shown, that the higher frequencies

are excited by the sleeper frequency (run frequency depending on sleeper distance and train speed). It is

assumed that a dynamic reaction of the permanent way is triggered by the sleeper frequency. The part of the

acceleration corresponding to the bridge modes (represented by Aeff ) is only 30 40 % of the overall

acceleration. It is emphasized, that models according to prEN 1991-2 do not consider a dynamic interaction of the

permanent way. Hence, it must be clarified whether these higher frequency contributions are important for track

stability or not. Also the background behind the limits 3,5 and 5 m/s must be discussed with the authors of the

code. Further measurements + calculations will be necessary.

PARAMETRIC INVESTIGATIONS

At the moment a parametric study is planned in order to provide the basis for the application of the Level I

Method as the standard procedure. As many parameters are limited to certain bands it is feasible to elaborate

diagrams, which could cover the greater part of all railway bridges, which will be built in Austria in the future.

At the moment the following results are available, which were elaborated during regular design:

Level III- single span: 10 (total number)

Material: 1 steel, 6 concrete, 3 filler beam

Cross section: 1 two steel girders, 6 plate, 3 filler beam

Number of tracks: 1 two tracks, 9 one track

Span length: 5,75 34 m

Material: 4 concrete, 3 composite, 1 filler beam

Cross section: 1 trough, 2 hollow girder, 1 plate, 3 composite, 1 filler beam

Number of tracks: 4 two tracks, 4 one track

Span length: main span 14 120 m; 6 three spans; 2 four spans

Level III- framed viaducts: 11

Material: 11 concrete

Cross section: 11 plate

Number of tracks: 11 two tracks

Span length: 5 14 m

In addition, first parametric studies and 3 design project studies for multiple span bridges were carried out on

Level II. Results for the following types are available:

Level II- single span: 19

Material: 3 prestressed, 16 reinforced concrete

Cross section: 12 plate, 4 T - beam, 3 hollow girder

Number of tracks: 19 two tracks (the maximum acceleration of the variant with one track is approximately the

max. acceleration of the two track variant x 2!)

Span length: 5 35 m

Level II- multiple span: 10

Material: 10 reinforced concrete

Cross section: 9 plate, 1 T - beam

Number of tracks: 10 two tracks (the maximum acceleration of the variant with one track is approximately the

max. acceleration of the two track variant x 2!)

Span length: main span 8 18 m; 2 two spans; 6 three spans; 2 four spans

The idea is to present the available knowledge in diagrams with interpolation between investigated variants. The

maximum acceleration is presented as a function of total mass (or span length) and slenderness (e.g. as a set of

curves). Some examples based on the limited existing knowledge are presented in Figure 4, 5 and 6.

III_Mehrfeldtrger_Beton

I I - Ei n f e l d _ B e t o n

4,50

20

4,00

3,50

3,00

2,50

2,00

1,50

1,00

18

16

14

Pl. 1/ 12

12

Pl. 1/ 15

10

Pl. Balk.

Hohlk.

Gr enzwer t

4

2

0,50

0,00

0,0

2000,0

4000,0

6000,0

Gesamtmasse [t]

0,0

500,0

1000,0

1500,0

2000,0

Gesamt ma s s e [ t ]

slend. 1/12; square: concrete plate slend. 1/15;

triangle: T beam; cross: hollow girder

III -Rahmen

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0,000

0,0

500,0

1000,0

1500,0

2000,0

2500,0

3000,0

G e sa m t m a sse [ t ]

5.

CONCLUSIONS

In the first phase of discussion the expert team focused on the low (very conservative) damping ratios given in

prEN1991-2. But it turned out later, that damping has a less significant influence on the results, if other

parameters are within certain bands. For simple span structures the slenderness has an intrinsic influence. If the

maximum slenderness is limited to 1/12 and the total mass is not very small, the acceleration criterion given in

prEN1991-2 is fulfilled (see Figure 5).

Further, a very detailed comparison between two 3D models of the trough - bridge P5 (at Level III) was carried

out. The first one was elaborated by TDV/ Graz with the software RM2000. The second model was developed by

arsenal research with the software SOFISTIK. Finally a very good agreement was obtained.

Concerning the accuracy of modelling, important experience is expected, if the results obtained by beam models

and 3D models will be compared. In [1] the basic theory for calculations of train passages over bridges is

summarized. Several aspects (e.g. the moving masses, influences from coriolis forces; all influences which would

cause time variable matrices) are not considered in prEN1991-2.

The criterion for the maximum deck acceleration has to be further checked for plausibility. A discussion with the

authors is necessary (e.g. BAM/ Berlin). The question must be answered, if the components with higher

frequencies (related to the sleeper frequency), which were found by the measurements on bridge P5 are

relevant for track stability. This is a basic question, since up to now this phenomenon is not considered in the

structural models and only the acceleration related to the structural modes (which is only 30 40% of the total

acceleration in the case of P5) is obtained from the calculations.

The planned parametric study should be a good mixture of Level III and Level II investigations. The main goal is

the elaboration of the basis for the Level I method. Then, for the greater part of future railway bridges no further

dynamic investigations will be necessary. Further, the Level II approaches can be improved and calibrated

(elaboration of correction factors). The method should become the standard procedure, which is sufficient for the

greater part of the remaining cases, where calculations are necessary (e.g. for existing bridges). It must be an

additional goal, that dynamic investigations of beam models even time history analysis - is mid term no problem

for the average practical engineer.

6.

REFERENCES

[1]

LHR, M. & DINKER, D., Schwingungsverhalten von Eisenbahnbrcken bei berfahrt von

Hochgeschwindigkeitszgen, Proceedings Fachtagung Baudynamik, Kassel 2003, VDI-Berichte 1754.

[2]

FLESCH, R.., Die Berechnung von Eisenbahnbrcken nach prEN1991-2, Proceedings Fachtagung

Baudynamik, Kassel 2003, VDI-Berichte 1754.

- XMLUploaded bychacha82
- Steel Frame Design ExamplesUploaded byLee GP
- Pvelite OutputUploaded byRam Murty
- IRJET-Comparative Study on Analysis and Design of Regular Configuration of Building by Staad.Pro and EtabsUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Unit4-SPUploaded byAshok Pradhan
- foundation newUploaded bynilay8892
- AISC 360-10 Example 001Uploaded byAntonius Ajalah
- Out-Of-plane Shear Strength of Steel-concrete Sandwich PanelsUploaded byZeeshaan Bhatt
- Elementary Reinforced ConcreteUploaded byErkan Şamhal
- Phd Steel Box ThesisUploaded byerky arkvathonejh
- Lifting Beam CalculationUploaded byDaniel Vargas Ribeiro
- Design of RC BuildingUploaded byczar2202
- Aimin 2004Uploaded byMilica Bebina
- Composite BeamsUploaded bybee
- THIN WALL BEAMS.pptxUploaded byAllan Marbaniang
- Notes 02Uploaded byFarhan Abid
- Example 1Uploaded byPercy Romero Murillo
- curved beamsUploaded bySampath Darshana
- TPC Questions MCQUploaded byAnonymous KyLhn6
- Ddpa 2052 Bending MomentUploaded byBhanuka Samarakoon
- distribution of a momentUploaded byRohit Singh
- OnlyUploaded byDeepikaVaishnav
- Problem 1-015.pdfUploaded byOscar Sanchez
- Lec-8. Moving Loads Compatibility ModeUploaded byAfia S Hameed
- Report-579143Uploaded byAndyPalmer
- IRJET-Compatibility of blended cement with PCE based admixturesUploaded byIRJET Journal
- 05 BeamsUploaded byCliff Adam Sugiharto
- goel2005Uploaded byIon Sococol
- Diaphragms ModelingUploaded bytrabajosic
- phase 1 ppt.pptxUploaded bySharath Wankdoth

- Oliver Wyman High Speed Rail Capabilities Final BlogUploaded byHania O. Almd
- 18_RodlerUploaded byHania O. Almd
- Robust Train TimetablingUploaded byHania O. Almd
- Inive Iaqvec2007 Cho 3Uploaded byHania O. Almd
- VolcanoUploaded byHania O. Almd
- Solar Car.pdfUploaded bySaif Shaikh
- 1230_KohnUploaded byHania O. Almd
- Methodology_Technical_Report_10_15_08_finalUploaded byChakravarthy Pujari Srinivasa
- FMA11Uploaded byHania O. Almd
- 0312EiC Bloodhound Tcm18 216725Uploaded byHania O. Almd
- Pub Uk 2008 04 Monitoring Tyre TempUploaded byHania O. Almd
- Schwandner_02Uploaded byHania O. Almd
- pageph-2004Uploaded byHania O. Almd
- pubblicatoUploaded byHania O. Almd
- Volcanic Island in CrisisUploaded byHania O. Almd
- agu98Uploaded byHania O. Almd
- Experiment Design for Stochastic Three-DimensionalUploaded byHania O. Almd
- SensorsUploaded byNay Lin
- 2.2014 SV Road GuidebookUploaded byHania O. Almd
- Television as a Creative MediumUploaded bymoresubscriptions
- 76088_1Uploaded byHania O. Almd
- How Cell Phones WorkUploaded byAmit Singh
- Mount Palomar TelescopeUploaded byHania O. Almd
- Harley Davidson Case StudyUploaded byfatynizaty
- A Robot DogUploaded byAndreen Poh
- satellites principleUploaded byHania O. Almd
- Balloon Race CarsUploaded byHania O. Almd

- Experimental Investigation on Internally Ring-Stiffened Joints of Offshore PlatformsUploaded bysm8575
- IRJET-Behavior of Eccentrically Loaded R.C. Columns Confined with CFRP CompositesUploaded byIRJET Journal
- 1099 Prestressed Beam - ReviseUploaded bybhavdip_shah
- Avoid Cracks in Concrete Slabs-On-gradeUploaded byDevinder Chawla
- lintel band.pdfUploaded byfarhan danish
- Bison Hollow Core Floors March 2007Uploaded bywalshce
- ME202Uploaded bynitinsparks
- me syllabus 2013 regulationUploaded byapi-282104564
- JSPL SectionsUploaded byDebasish Mondal
- Slab ComputationUploaded byPaulSaimondPerjesTobias
- wall and column.docxUploaded bySanjoy Sanyal
- BT Road From Akshitha Hospital (Srinivasapuram Road) to by-Pass RoadUploaded bysasidharkatari91572
- FEMA 451 - NEHRP Design Examples 2006Uploaded byHalleith1875
- Flexibility Method (Truss)Uploaded byKhaled_Nordin
- ENCE 4610 - Foundation Analysis and DesignUploaded bychristopherapss
- ICE Check Certificate RegisterUploaded byKam Lau
- Experimental Study on Use of Fly Ash in ConcreteUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Superslim Technical InformationUploaded byWai Wai Lee
- plandoc_4_3763Uploaded bymagdyamdb
- 6551086_modelling_bracing_in.docUploaded byjologscresencia
- is.1893.1.2002 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant DesignUploaded byMilind Gupta
- 03294 CHH LVL SpecificDesignGuide Update Web.pdfUploaded byAla'a Al-satari
- Introduction to EtabsUploaded byPraveen Biradar
- Norsok M-101.Page 35Uploaded byeslar
- rLight Steel FramingUploaded byTopSteel Lda
- C v of Engineer Habibur Rahman for ChevUploaded byshafiq_05
- SI-05-2015Uploaded byAndres Casado
- Speed Square Instruction Book 2Uploaded byBrentChadwell
- Base Plate StrengthUploaded byalzuhd
- 201012010 Bemessungsvorlage Expansion Undercut AnchorsUploaded byabhay_joshi2002