Track–Bridge Interaction Analysis Using Interface Elements

Adaptive to Various Loading Cases

Sin Chu Yang, Ph.D.1; and Seung Yup Jang, Ph.D.2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/05/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: In this paper, a numerical model using interface elements is proposed for the sequential analysis of nonlinear track–bridge interac-
tion by taking the loading history into consideration. Longitudinal resistance tests were conducted on track fastening systems to determine
changes in track resistance that occur at the instant of application or release of a vertical load. On the basis of the test results, longitudinal track
stiffness laws for a nonballasted track were established for different loading cases including constant vertical load, sudden application of verti-
cal load, and sudden release of vertical load. In addition, an interface element adaptive to various loading cases that can be incorporated into a
conventional FEM was formulated for modeling the track resistance. Furthermore, a numerical algorithm for a practical solution of the nonlin-
ear system equation was developed. The validity and applicability of the proposed analysis method were verified by conducting extensive pa-
rameter studies on a simply supported bridge and a multispan bridge. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000916. © 2016 American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Nonlinear track–bridge interaction; Continuous welded rail; Track stiffness law; Longitudinal track resistance;
Loading history.

Introduction truly nonlinear and depends on the absence or presence of a verti-

A continuous welded rail has many advantages, such as reduced
noise and vibration and improved maintainability, safety, and ri-
ding comfort. However, there are several associated technical
problems regarding the stability and serviceability of the track.
When the track is connected to a bridge, there is excessive stress
generation and deformation of the track and bridge caused by their
mutual interaction. Over the last decades, diverse efforts have
been made to properly investigate these problems and proffer solu-
tions. Such efforts have ranged from analytical (Frýba 1996;
Esveld 2001; ERRI 1999c; Dai and Yan 2012; Liu et al. 2013;
Okelo and Olabimtan 2011) and experimental (ERRI 1999b; ERRI
1997; Geissler et al. 2002; Ryjá
cek and Voká
c 2014) studies to the
review and evaluation of relevant codes (Ahlbeck et al. 1986;
ERRI 1999a; Goicolea-Ruigómez 2008; Dutoit 2003; Freystein
2010).
The international track–bridge interaction (TBI) codes UIC
774-3-R (UIC 2001) and EN 1991-2 (CEN 2003) are the most
globally used. These codes present the actions to be considered,
including calculation methods and the limitations to be observed
in the design of railway bridges. The codes separately analyze dif-
ferent actions based on a nonlinear track stiffness law, and the
global effects are evaluated by superimposing the effects of each
action. The TBI analysis that takes the loading history into consid-
eration is difficult to perform, because the behavior of the track is
1
Chief Researcher, Korea Railroad Research Institute, 176, Chuldo-
bangmulgwan-ro, Uiwang, Gyeonggi-do 16105, Republic of Korea (corre-
sponding author). E-mail: scyang@krri.re.kr
2
Principal Researcher, Korea Railroad Research Institute, 176, Chuldo-
bangmulgwan-ro, Uiwang, Gyeonggi-do 16105, Republic of Korea. E-mail:
syjang@krri.re.kr
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 21, 2015; approved
on February 4, 2016; published online on March 30, 2016. Discussion pe-
riod open until August 30, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702.
cal load. Thus, most conventional approaches to TBI analysis
involve separate analyses for different loading cases. These
approaches completely disregard the effect of the loading history
and in some cases result in considerably conservative evaluation.
In railway design, the requirements related to TBI are sometimes
crucial factors that determine the design with respect to other
requirements. Hence, the overestimation of the TBI may lead to an
uneconomical bridge design.
Few studies on TBI analysis have considered the effect of the
loading history—an approach known as sequential analysis.
Müller et al. (1981) attempted a sequential analysis of TBI, in
which the nonlinear material behavior was approximated by a
bilinear curve with a boundary determined by preceding analy-
ses. Ruge and Birk (2007) and Ruge et al. (2009) presented a
truly nonlinear TBI model based on the correct combination of
different loading cases. They derived the exact stiffness formula-
tions for the different loading cases including temperature
change, sudden change of ballast stiffness when the train reaches
the bridge, bending of the supporting structure, and braking.
Schanack et al. (2014) proposed a relative displacement method
for TBI analysis. This method is based on the calculation of the
deformation states of single degrees of freedom (DOF) element
models that satisfy the boundary conditions. Zhang et al. (2015)
proposed a nonlinear TBI analysis framework that considered
the effects of the loading history and changes in the longitudinal
resistance of the rail fasteners for different loading cases. They
performed laboratory experiments to accurately determine the
nonlinear characteristics of the longitudinal track resistance of
the fastening system.
Most models that have been proposed for sequential analysis
require reconstructing the stiffness matrix or changing the connec-
tor elements between the rail and bridge deck when the loading case
is changed. This requires significant additional programming or
modeling when the system is revised when proceeding from one
loading case to the next one. Moreover, in practical engineering, it
is necessary to repeat the TBI analysis when moving the position of
the train load for the worst-case design. Hence, much effort is

© ASCE 04016056-1 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016056

 required to change the system model every time the position of the
train load is changed. However, if a track resistance model can rep-
resent the track stiffness laws for different loading cases and the
model can be readily assembled with the finite elements of a rail
and bridge, it would be feasible to incorporate it into a conventional
FEM that can be practically used for sequential analyses of the non-
linear TBIs of diverse bridge types. It should be noted, however,
that in sequential analysis it is very important to properly reflect the
change in the longitudinal track resistance with respect to the verti-
cal loading conditions. Reasonable assumptions have been used in
most studies, but Zhang et al. (2015) determined the change based
on experimental results. This study conducted longitudinal resist-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/05/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ance tests by applying a specified vertical load before the applica-
tion of the longitudinal force and maintained it unchanged for the
entire duration of the test. The track resistance changes suddenly
when a vertical load is applied or released, and a restoring force can
be generated accordingly. Thus, it is difficult to make realistic
assumptions about such a complex phenomenon. This makes it nec-
essary to verify the assumptions that have been made about the
loading–unloading paths when a vertical load is suddenly applied or
released. In addition, appropriate track stiffness laws need to be
established.
In the present study, a numerical model using interface ele-
ments was developed for use in the sequential analysis of nonlin-
ear TBIs by taking the loading history into consideration.
Longitudinal resistance tests were conducted on the fastening sys-
tems to determine the changes in the track resistance at the instant
a vertical load is applied or released. On the basis of the test
results, constitutive laws regarding the track–bridge interface of a
nonballasted track were established for different loading cases
including constant vertical load, sudden application of vertical
load, and sudden release of vertical load. An interface element for
modeling the track resistance was also formulated. The interface
element is adaptive to various loading cases and can be readily
assembled with the finite elements of the rail and bridge. A numer-
ical algorithm that can be used to solve the nonlinear system equa-
tion was also developed. The validity and applicability of the pro-
posed numerical model were verified by conducting extensive
parameter studies on a simply supported bridge and a multispan
bridge, respectively, and comparing the results with those obtained
by a separate analysis method.
Vertical Loading
(force control) Roller zig
Longitudinal Loading
(Displacement control)
Rail
Grease
Fastening system
(a)
Fig. 1. Longitudinal resistance test of fastening system under a controlled vertical load: (a) schematic of test apparatus; (b) photograph of test
apparatus
© ASCE 04016056-2
J. Bridge Eng., 04016056
Longitudinal Resistance Tests of Fastening Systems
under Controlled Vertical Loading
Test Methods
In most nonballasted tracks, the forces of the longitudinal interac-
tion between the rail and bridge mainly act through the fastening
systems. Moreover, the resistance of the fastening system with
respect to the displacement of the rail relative to the bridge is
strongly nonlinear. In addition, the resistance changes suddenly at
the instant when a vertical load is applied or released. To establish a
track stiffness law that reflects the practical behavior of a nonbal-
lasted track, it is necessary to conduct a longitudinal resistance test
of the fastening system.
To establish the longitudinal behaviors of a fastening system
under the conditions of different types of vertical loadings including
sudden change in the vertical load, a test apparatus for controlling
the longitudinal and vertical loads according to the test schedule
was installed. Fig. 1 shows a schematic and photograph of the test
apparatus. The length of the tested segment of the rail was 500 mm.
When applying the longitudinal and vertical loads together, fric-
tional resistances may be generated at the vertical contact surface
between the longitudinal rod and the rail end and at the horizontal
contact surface between the vertical rod and the top surface of the
rail. This may produce errors in the measurements of the longitudi-
nal and vertical forces. To minimize the frictional resistances,
grease was applied to the vertical surface of the rail end and a roller-
zig was installed at the end of the vertical rod. Two displacement
transducers were installed parallel to the rail at the front and rear
sections, respectively, and the rail displacement was determined as
the average of the measurements of the two transducers.
The longitudinal resistance test of fastening systems was con-
ducted in accordance with EN 13146-1 (CEN 2012), which requires
force control. However, after reaching the plastic state beyond the
elastic limit, the rail displacement increases drastically under the
controlled force, and this makes it difficult to apply the next vertical
load. Hence, to measure the longitudinal resistance of the fastening
system under the train load (vertical load) after the application of
the temperature load (longitudinal load), it was necessary to apply
the longitudinal load under controlled displacement. To simulate
very slow application of the temperature load, the longitudinal load
(b)
J. Bridge Eng.
 was applied at a very low speed (0.1 mm/min). The vertical load
was then applied by force control to implement instantaneous load-
ing and unloading.
To establish the constitutive law for a track–bridge interface
under various loading conditions and sequences, the longitudinal
and vertical forces were varied during the tests. The following three
scenarios were implemented:
Longitudinal Rail Restraint Tests in Unloaded and Loaded
States
There are two types of fastening systems used for nonballasted
tracks, those with a baseplate and those without. The fastening sys-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/05/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tem with a baseplate has a hard rail pad, and its elasticity is mainly
provided by the resilient baseplate pad (resilient baseplate pad
type). Conversely, the elasticity of the fastening system without a
baseplate is provided by the resilient rail pad (resilient rail pad
type). Fig. 2 shows examples of the resilient baseplate pad and resil-
ient rail pad type fastening systems, which are commonly used in
nonballasted tracks of high-speed and main lines. The longitudinal
resistance tests were conducted to assess the longitudinal resistance
characteristics of the two types of fastening systems.
The loaded test was conducted by applying a specified vertical
load (30 kN or 60 kN) before the application of a longitudinal force,
and both were maintained for the entire duration of the test. In the
unloaded test, only the longitudinal force was applied; there was no
vertical load. The vertical load of 30 kN used for the loaded test is
the approximate value of the vertical load to which a resilient fas-
tening system of a nonballasted track is generally subjected. The
maximum axle load of high-speed railway lines in Korea is 17 t,
and the wheel load is approximately 85 kN. The wheel load is dis-
tributed by the flexural rigidity of the rail, and the load on a single
fastener can be determined by the well-known theory of a beam on
an elastic foundation (Esveld 2001):
P ¼ W ½1  e b a=2 cos ðb a=2Þ (1)
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where b ¼ 4 ðk=aÞ=ð4EIÞ; P is the load on a single fastener; W is
the wheel load; k is the vertical spring constant of the fastener; a is
the distance between fasteners; E is the modulus of elasticity of the
rail; and I is the second moment of inertia of the sectional area of
the rail. For the Korean high-speed railway, it can be assumed that
EI = 6,415 kN · m2 (UIC 60 rail), a = 0.625 m, and k = 30  103 kN
· m; hence, P  0.351W  29.9 kN. Based on this, 30 kN was
selected as the vertical load for the loaded test. A vertical load of 60
kN was also used to investigate the variation in the track resistance
with an increase in the vertical load.
Rail pad
‫ڿڼۋڈۇۄڼڭ‬
(a) ‫ڿڼۋڈۀۏڼۇۋۀێڼڝ‬
Baseplate pad ‫ۀۏڼۇۋۀێڼڝ‬
Baseplate
Fig. 2. Types of fastening systems used in nonballasted tracks: (a) resilient baseplate pad type; (b) resilient rail pad type
© ASCE 04016056-3
J. Bridge Eng., 04016056
Longitudinal Rail Restraint Test under Sudden Change from
Unloaded to Loaded State
A longitudinal rail restraint test was conducted to investigate the vari-
ation in the longitudinal resistance and the restoring force of the fas-
tening system when a vertical load was suddenly applied. The test
was conducted using a fastening system of the resilient baseplate pad
type, which exhibits a larger variation of resistance between the
unloaded and loaded states. The longitudinal and vertical loads were
applied step by step to (1) increase displacement of the rail under dis-
placement control at a constant speed of 0.1 mm/min until the plastic
state beyond the elastic limit was attained. Through the longitudinal
restraint tests in the unloaded and loaded states, it was found that the
critical elastic displacement was not much larger than 1.0 mm.
Therefore, as shown in Fig. 3, the maximum longitudinal displace-
ment during the test under vertical loading was set to 3 mm so as that
the fastener was in the plastic state before and after application of the
vertical load. (2) The next step is to apply a linearly increasing verti-
cal load from 0 to 30 kN over 1 s (Dt = 1 s) without applying addi-
tional longitudinal rail displacement. (3) The last step is to increase
displacement of the rail at the same speed as in Step 1 until the plastic
state was attained. Fig. 3(a) shows the variations in the longitudinal
displacement and vertical load with time. Although the duration of
the longitudinal load in the unloaded state during the loaded to
unloaded state test was set to 3,000 s, the results showed that the plas-
tic state was attained within 10 min [see Fig. 5(a)]. Thus, in the from
loaded to unloaded state test, the loading duration was reduced to 30
min (1,800 s) to save time.
Longitudinal Rail Restraint Test under Sudden Change from
Loaded to Unloaded State
A longitudinal rail restraint test was conducted to investigate the
variation in the longitudinal resistance and the restoring force when
a vertical load was suddenly released. The longitudinal and vertical
loads were applied in stages as follows: (1), (2), and (3) in the test of
sudden application of a vertical load were implemented; (4) the ver-
tical load was released in the plastic state over a short time (Dt = 1 s)
without applying additional longitudinal rail displacement; and (5)
the displacement of the rail was allowed again in the unloaded state.
Fig. 3(b) shows the variations in the longitudinal displacement and
the vertical load with time for this case.
Test Results
Unloaded and Loaded State Tests
From the test results shown in Fig. 4, it can be seen that the resistance
increases elastically for small displacements and remains constant
yˆ“T—ˆ‹
Rail pad
(b)
J. Bridge Eng.
 Displacement (mm)
(Longitudinal load control) (Longitudinal load control)
Displacement (mm)
6

5
3

Time(s) Time(s)

(Vertical load control) (Vertical load control)

Force (kN)
Force (kN)

Loaded Loaded
30 30
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/05/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Unloaded Unloaded
3000 s Time(s) 1800 s 1800 s Time(s)
Δt = 1 s
(a) (b) Δt = 1 s Δt = 1 s

Fig. 3. Variations in longitudinal and vertical loads with time under sudden change in vertical train load: (a) from unloaded to loaded state; (b) from
loaded to unloaded state

30 30

25 25
Loaded (60kN)
Longitudinal resistance (kN)

Longitudinal resistance (kN)

20 20

Loaded (30kN) Loaded (60 kN)

15 15 Loaded (30 kN)

Unloaded
10 10

Unloaded
5 5

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

(a) Displacement (mm) (b) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 4. Results of longitudinal rail restraint tests of fastening systems under unchanged vertical load: (a) resilient baseplate pad type; (b) resilient rail
pad type

after attaining a certain magnitude, regardless of the type of fastening

system. Fig. 4 shows that the displacements in the elastic and plastic Table 1. Characteristic Values of the Track Resistances Determined by
Tests Using Bilinear Functions
zones (critical elastic displacements) and the resistances in the plastic
zone (plastic resistances) significantly differed for different types of Resilient baseplate pad
fastening systems. type Resilient rail pad type
When the resistances determined by the tests are idealized by
Critical elastic Plastic Critical elastic Plastic
bilinear functions, the values of the critical elastic displacement and displacement, resistance, displacement, resistance,
the plastic resistance corresponding to each bilinear function (dashed Vertical load uo (mm) Fu (kN) uo (mm) Fu (kN)
line in Fig. 4) are given in Table 1. Table 1 shows that the critical elas-
tic displacement of the resilient rail pad type is larger than that of the 0 kN (unloaded) 0.60 9.6 1.50 10.4
30 kN (loaded) 0.62 15.5 1.51 11.5
resilient baseplate pad type. This may occur because the shear defor-
60 kN (loaded) 0.76 21.9 1.50 13.2
mation of the rail pad of the latter is greater than that of the former.
Although the plastic resistance of the resilient baseplate pad type sig-
nificantly increases with increasing vertical load, the plastic resist- decreases with increasing vertical load. According to Deladi (2006),
ance of the resilient rail pad type remains almost unchanged with the the real contact area between a soft rubber contact and a metal plate
application of the vertical load. This implies that the coefficient of does not increase linearly with increasing vertical load, which is anal-
friction between the rail and the rail pad in the resilient baseplate pad ogous to a Hertzian contact. Therefore, the coefficient of friction
type is relatively constant, whereas that for the resilient rail pad type decreases with increasing vertical load. Conversely, the real contact

© ASCE 04016056-4 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016056

 area for a rough stiff plastic linearly increases with the vertical load, instant the vertical load is applied. At the same time, the longitudinal
and the coefficient of friction is almost constant. resistance slightly reduces by 1.7–2.0 kN. This reduction in the longi-
tudinal resistance is attributable to the following. The resistance of the
fastener comprises the resistance between the top of the rail foot and
Sudden change from Vertically Unloaded to Vertically Loaded
the fastening clip and that between the bottom of the rail foot and the
State
resilient rail pad. During the application of the vertical load, the rail
Fig. 5(a) shows the variations in the vertical load and the longitudinal
moves downward and the friction between the rail foot and the clip
resistance with time, whereas Fig. 5(b) shows the variation in the lon-
decreases due to the reduction of the vertical contact pressure. This in
gitudinal resistance with the displacement of the rail. These figures
turn reduces the longitudinal resistance between the two parts.
can be used for a detailed investigation of the variation in the longitu-
Conversely, the vertical load on the rail pad increases, but the longitu-
dinal resistance at the instant when the vertical load is applied. The
dinal resistance between the bottom of the rail foot and the rail pad
test results Fig 5(a) show that the longitudinal resistance exhibits a
does not change provided no additional longitudinal force is applied.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/05/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

typical elastic–plastic behavior in the unloaded state before the appli-

cation of the vertical load. The resistance is slightly reduced the instant
the vertical load is applied but reverts to the typical elastic–plastic Sudden Change from Vertically Loaded to Vertically Unloaded
behavior in the loaded state with increased displacement of the rail. State
The test results in Fig. 5(b) show that a slight displacement of the rail Fig. 6(a) shows the variations in the vertical load and longitudinal
of 0.068–0.097 mm occurs in the direction of the longitudinal load the resistance with time, whereas Fig. 6(b) shows the variation in the

35 15
1st test 1st test
2nd test Vertical load 14
2nd test
30
3rd test 13 3rd test

Longitudinal resistance (kN)

Δu : longitudinal displacement of rail
25 12 during vertical loading time Δt

11
20
Load (kN)

10
15
9
7.0 kN

1.7 kN
8
10 Longitudinal resistance

2.0 kN
7
2.0 kN

5 Δu
6
Δu
Δu
0 5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

(a) Time (min) (b) Rail displacement (mm)

Fig. 5. Results of longitudinal rail restraint tests of fastening systems under sudden change from unloaded to loaded state: (a) longitudinal and vertical
loads versus time; (b) longitudinal resistance versus displacement

35 25
1st test 1st test
2nd test Vertical load 2nd test
30 Δu
20 Δu
Longitudinal resistance (kN)

25
10.6 kN

Longitudinal resistance
10.5 kN

15
20
Load (kN)

9.0 kN
9.0 kN

15 10
1.4 kN

2.7 kN

10
5
5
Δu : longitudinal displacement of rail during vertical loading time Δt
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 5.85 5.90 5.95 6.00 6.05 6.10 6.15

(a) Time (min) (b) Rail displacement (mm)

Fig. 6. Results of longitudinal rail restraint tests of fastening systems under sudden change from loaded to unloaded state: (a) longitudinal and vertical
loads versus time; (b) longitudinal resistance versus displacement

© ASCE 04016056-5 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016056

 longitudinal resistance with the displacement of the rail the instant within the negative plastic, elastic, or positive plastic zone in Fig. 7.
the vertical load is released. Fig. 8 shows the track stiffness laws for the three patterns, in which
iþ1 iþ1
Fig. 6(a) shows that the longitudinal resistance reduces signifi- the minimum and maximum plastic resistances (Fmin and Fmax ,
cantly the instant the vertical load is released in contrast to when the respectively) are given by the following, irrespective of whether
vertical load is applied. During the release of the vertical load, the they are in the elastic or plastic zone
friction between the top of the rail foot and the clip increases, but
the longitudinal resistance between the two parts does not change. iþ1
Fmin ¼ Fmin
i
 Fi (2)
Conversely, the friction between the bottom of the rail foot and the
rail pad decreases, resulting in a decrease in the longitudinal resist-
ance between the two latter parts. Eventually, when the vertical load
iþ1
Fmax ¼ Fmax
i
 Fi (3)
is completely released, the overall longitudinal resistance decreases
i i
below the plastic longitudinal resistance in the unloaded state. where Fmin and Fmax are the minimum and maximum plastic resis-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/05/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

However, Fig. 6(b) shows that when the longitudinal rail displace- tances in the track stiffness law of the previous loading case; and Fi
ment begins to increase again after the vertical load is released the is the track resistance induced by the previous loading case.
longitudinal resistance suddenly increases by 1.4–2.7 kN, returning Furthermore, the minimum and maximum elastic displacements
to the plastic longitudinal resistance in the unloaded state. This is are given by the following:
caused by the recovered friction between the top of the rail foot and
min ¼ umin  ^
uiþ1 i
the fastening clip. ui (4)
The results of this test reveal that when the vertical load is
released while exhibiting the plastic behavior in the loaded state the
max ¼ umax  ^
uiþ1 i
ui (5)
stiffness of the longitudinal resistance momentarily changes to that
of the unloaded state, and a restoring force is generated because of
where uimin and uimax are the minimum and maximum elastic dis-
the difference between the longitudinal resistances in the loaded
placements in the track stiffness law of the previous loading case;
and unloaded states. Thus, as also suggested by Ruge and Birk
and ^
u i is defined as follows:
(2007), in a sequential analysis of the TBI it is necessary to consider
the restoring force that is generated when the vertical load is 8
< uo ui  uo
released in the plastic zone in the loaded state. ^
ui ¼ ui uo  ui < uo (6)
:
uo ui < uo
Establishment of Longitudinal Track Stiffness Law for
Nonballasted Track where ui is the relative displacement of the rail and bridge generated
by the previous loading case. The four parameters calculated by
Eqs. (2)–(5) completely determine the track stiffness law for the
Unloaded and Loaded States
next loading case.
The UIC 774-3-R (UIC 2001) notes that a bilinear function can be
used to represent the track resistance with a level of precision suffi-
cient for calculation purposes. Therefore, in the present study, the Sudden Change from Vertically Unloaded to Vertically
longitudinal track stiffness law of the track resistance was expressed Loaded State
as a bilinear function. To establish the track stiffness law for the case of sudden applica-
The track stiffness law established from the test results in Fig. 4
tion of a vertical load, i.e., sudden change from the unloaded to the
for the case of no preloading (initial loading case) is shown in
loaded state, the following assumptions were made based on the test
Fig. 7. If the vertical loading condition of the next loading case is
results in Fig. 5. (1) For conservative evaluation and simplified cal-
the same as that of the previous loading case, the track stiffness law
culation, the slight reduction in the longitudinal resistance at the
can be established using three different patterns, depending on
instant of application of the vertical load is ignored. (2) The track re-
whether the track resistance after the previous loading case lies
sistance after application of the vertical load follows the loaded re-
sistance-displacement curve, and the plastic resistance increases
from Fu to Fl .
2uo Based on these assumptions, the track stiffness law was estab-
positive lished for three different patterns (Fig. 9). In Fig. 9, the origin of the
F imax ྛ plastic zone coordinate is shifted to the point (ui ; Fi ) corresponding to the track
resistance and displacement induced by the previous loading case.
Therefore, the equations of the minimum and maximum plastic
iþ1 iþ1
2F u or 2F l

uimin
resistances (Fmin and Fmax , respectively) in the track stiffness law
uimax
‫ې‬ are as follows, regardless of whether they are in the elastic or plastic
ྚ elastic zone zone:

F imin
iþ1
Fmin ¼ ðFl  Fu Þ þ Fmin
i
 Fi (7)
ᐭ
negative iþ1
Fmax ¼ Fl  Fu þ Fmax
i
 Fi (8)
plastic zone
Furthermore, the minimum and maximum elastic displacements
Fig. 7. Track stiffness law for the case of no preloading
are given by the following:

© ASCE 04016056-6 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016056

 2uo 2uo 2uo
F i+1
max
i+1
F i+1
max ui+1
min F i+1
max umax
‫ې‬
ui+1 ui+1

Fi
min max
‫ې‬
2F u or 2F l

Fi
2F u or 2F l

2F u or 2F l
ui ui
ui
Previous
Previous loading case
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/05/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fi
loading case
‫ې‬ F i+1
min F i+1
min
F i+1
min ui+1
min
ui+1
max
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 8. Track stiffness law for the case of unchanged vertical load from the previous loading case: (a) negative plastic zone; (b) elastic zone; (c) posi-
tive plastic zone

F i+1
max
F i+1
max F i+1
max

F l-F u
F l-F u

F l-F u

Previous loading case ui+1

min
‫ې‬
ui+1

Fi
ui+1
min
max
‫ې‬
Fi

ui ui+1
max ui
2F u

2F u
ui
2F u

ui+1
min Previous loading case
Previous loading case
Fi

‫ې‬ 2uo F l-F u 2uo

F l-F u

ui+1
F l-F u

2uo max
F i+1
min
F i+1
min
F i+1
min
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 9. Track stiffness law for the case of sudden change from the unloaded to the loaded state: (a) negative plastic zone; (b) elastic zone; (c) positive
plastic zone

min ¼ ð1=a  1Þuo þ ðumin  ui Þ=a

uiþ1 i
(9) 1. Scenario I: The longitudinal resistance of the track first changes
to that of the unloaded state when the vertical load is released,
and this is followed by the establishment of equilibrium of the
max ¼ ð1=a þ 1Þuo þ ðumax  ui Þ=a
uiþ1 i
(10) track–bridge system by the restoring force. Thereafter, there is
TBI due to the restoration of the bridge deflection.
where a is the ratio of the loaded track resistance to the unloaded 2. Scenario II: The action of the restoring force and the restoration
track resistance (i.e., Fl /Fu ). of the bridge deflection occur simultaneously while the longitu-
dinal resistance of the track in the loaded state is maintained.
Sudden Change from Vertically Loaded to Vertically This is followed by TBI.
Unloaded State The track stiffness law for Scenario I can be established using
the three different patterns shown in Fig. 10. It is assumed that the
Fig. 6(a) shows that a large restoring force is generated the instant residual of the elastic displacement uimax  ui or uimin  ui for the
the vertical load is released in contrast to when the vertical load is previous loading case does not change for the next loading case.
applied. Thus, to accurately determine the track behavior the instant Then, if the point (ui ; Fi ) for the previous loading case is in the
the vertical load is released, it is necessary to conduct a dynamic elastic zone, i.e., ui ≤ uimax or ui ≥ uimin , the track resistance follows
analysis of the vehicle-track-bridge interaction system. From the the unloaded track resistance curve with its center at point O shown
viewpoint of engineering design, however, this is less critical when in Fig. 10. The origin of the coordinate is shifted to the point where
the vertical load is released compared with when the vertical load is the vertical line passing (ui ; Fi ) meets the unloaded track resistance
applied. This is because stress is released in the former case. To curve. If the point (ui ; Fi ) is in the plastic zone, i.e., ui ≥ uimax or
approximately evaluate the rail stress caused by the release of the ui ≤ uimin , the unloaded track resistance curve moves by ui  uimax or
vertical load by static analysis, the track is assumed to behave in ac- ui  uimin from point O in the horizontal direction (see Fig. 10).
iþ1
cordance with one of the two following scenarios: Therefore, the minimum and maximum plastic resistances (Fmin

© ASCE 04016056-7 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016056

 Restoring force
generation zone

F l-F u
Fl-F u

F l-F u

Fi
ui+1 Fi+1
max Restoring force
Fi+1
max ui+1 Restoring force min

Fi
min
Fi+1
max ‫ې‬ ui+1
ui ui ui max

ui+1
max
2F u

2F u
2F u
O O O
Previous loading case
ui+1
min
ui+1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/05/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

max
‫ې‬ Fi+1
min Fi+1
min
Restoring force Fi+1

F l-F u

F l-F u
min
(Fl-Fu)
Fi

Previous loading case

Restoring force
generation zone
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 10. Track stiffness law for sudden change from loaded to unloaded state based on the assumption of Scenario I: (a) negative elastic zone; (b) elas-
tic zone; (c) positive plastic zone

iþ1
and Fmax , respectively) in the track stiffness law are given by the ^
u i ¼ uimin for ui  uimin (15)
following, regardless of whether they are in the elastic or plastic
zone:
^
u i ¼ uimax for ui  uimax (16)
iþ1
Fmin ¼ ðFmin
i
 Fi Þ=a (11)
The track stiffness law for unloaded and loaded states, Eqs. (2)–
iþ1
Fmax ¼ ðFmax
i
 Fi Þ=a (12) (6), can be applied to Scenario II, because the loaded state of the
track resistance is unchanged.
The minimum and maximum elastic displacements are given by If the track resistance is larger than the unloaded plastic re-
sistance before the release of the vertical load, the track resist-
min ¼ umin  ^
uiþ1 i
ui (13) ance would momentarily decrease to the unloaded plastic resist-
ance during the release of the vertical load. The restoring force
is generated by the difference between the track resistance for
max ¼ umax  ^
uiþ1 i
ui (14) the previous loading case and the plastic resistance for the next
loading case, as shown in Fig. 10; the restoring force DC is thus
where given by

8
< Fl  Fu  ðFmax
i
 Fi Þ for ui  uo = a  uo þ uimax
DC ¼ 0 for  uo = a þ uo þ uimin  ui < uo = a  uo þ uimax (17)
:
ðFl  Fu Þ  ðFmin  Fi Þ for ui < uo = a þ uo þ uimin
i

Numerical Formulation
Formulation of Stiffness Matrix of Interface Element
It can be assumed that the TBI force acts on both the neutral axis of
the rail and the top surface of the bridge deck. Thus, when the track
resistance is modeled by continuously distributed longitudinal
springs that connect both the rail and the bridge, the interaction
force in the elastic state can be expressed as
F ¼ ct ur=b ¼ ct ður  utb Þ ¼ ct fur  ðucb þ h f cb Þg
where ct is the spring coefficient of the longitudinal track
resistance per unit length; ur=b is the relative displacement of
the rail and the top surface of the bridge deck; ur and utb are,
respectively, the longitudinal displacements of the rail and the
top surface of the bridge deck; ucb and f cb are, respectively,
the longitudinal displacement and rotational angle of the
neutral axis of the bridge deck; and h is the height from the
neutral axis of the bridge deck to the top surface of the bridge
deck.
When modeling the rail and bridge deck using rod and beam ele-
ments of the same length, respectively, as shown in Fig. 11, the rela-
tive displacement of the rail and bridge deck can be expressed in
(18) terms of the shape functions and nodal displacements of the two ele-
ments as follows:
ur=b ¼ f Ue (19)

© ASCE 04016056-8 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016056

 2 3
L(Length of interface element) 2 1 2 0 2h 1 0 h
6 2 1 0 h 2 0 2h 7
6 7
Rail(Rod element ) 6 2 0 2h 1 0 h 7
6 7
P1, U 1 P2, U 2 ct 6
L 6 0 0 0 0 0 77
Kef ¼ (25)
6 66 2h2 h 0 h2 77
Interface 6 2 0 2h 7
6 7
element 4 SYM 0 0 5
2h2
P5, U 5 P8, U 8
h
P3, U 3 P6, U 6
Neutral axis When the longitudinal resistance of the interface element is in
the plastic zone, the frictional force is uniformly distributed over
P4, U 4 P7, U7 the upper and lower parts of the interface element and can be repre-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/05/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Bridge deck(Beam element )

sented by the nodal forces as follows:
Fig. 11. Interface element for modeling the track resistance between ð1
the rail and the bridge deck 1
Fplastic ¼ f T Fplastic Ld j ¼ Fplastic L
e
0 2

where f is the shape function vector, which can be expressed as fol- < 1; 1; 1; 0; h; 1; 0; h>T (26)
lows when the longitudinal displacements of the elements are
assumed to change linearly: where Fplastic is the longitudinal plastic resistance, which has a value
of Fmin or Fmax .
f ¼ < 1  j ; j ;ð1  j Þ; 0; ð1  j Þh;  j ; 0;  j h > (20) Whether the interface element is in the elastic zone or plastic
zone is determined by the relative displacement of the rail and the
Ue is the nodal displacement vector, which can be expressed as bridge deck at the center of the interface element

Ue ¼< U 1 ; U 2 ;    ; U 8 >T (21) r=b j < uo

Elastic zone: jucenter (27)

When maintaining a short element length within a certain Plastic zone: jucenter
r=b j  uo (28)
range, the longitudinal spring resistance of the elements can be
assumed to be in either the elastic zone or the plastic zone. Such
an assumption hardly holds true when the stress changes suddenly The relative displacement at the center of the interface element
within a length of the element. However, the point at which the ucenter
r=b is obtained from Eq. (19) as
stress of the rail or the bridge deck suddenly changes on-site
ucenter
r=b ¼ fð j ¼ 1=2Þ Ue (29)
occurs at an expansion joint of the rail or the bridge or at the end
point of the distributed vertical load. Hence, because the nodes of
an element can be selected to prevent the point from occurring
inside the element, the preceding assumption can be used in ana-
lyzing the TBI. Numerical Algorithms
When the longitudinal resistance between the rail and the bridge The equilibrium equation for the first loading case of the track–
is in the elastic zone, it can be modeled by the interface element bridge system can be expressed as
sharing nodes of the rail and bridge elements. In such a case, the
interface element becomes a linear longitudinal spring, and the Krb U1 þ F1 ðU1 Þ ¼ P1 þ T1 (30)
potential energy Ep of the interface element can be expressed as fol-
lows based on Eqs. (18) and (19): where Krb is the stiffness matrix of the track and bridge; and
F1 ðU1 Þ is the force vector of the longitudinal resistance correspond-
ðL
1 1 ing to U1 in the track stiffness law of the first loading case, as calcu-
Ep ¼ ct ðut=b Þ2 dx ¼ ðUe ÞT Kef Ue (22) lated using Eq. (24) or Eq. (26). P1 and T1 are, respectively, the exter-
2 0 2
nal force vector and temperature load vector for the first loading case.
where the (i, j)th element of the stiffness matrix Kef is given by The equilibrium equation for the ith loading case is as follows:
ð1 X
i X
i X
i

kfe ði; jÞ ¼ ct fi ð j Þfj ð j ÞLd j (23) Krb Ui þ Fk ðDUk Þ ¼ Pk þ Tk (31)

0 k k k

where fi ð j Þ is the ith element of the shape function vector in The incremental equilibrium equation derived from Eq. (31) is
Eq. (20). as follows:
When applying the Lagrange equation to the potential energy of
Krb DUi þ Fi ðDUi Þ ¼ Pi þ Ti (32)
the interface element, the equilibrium equation of the interface ele-
ment is obtained as follows:
where
Kef Ue ¼ Feelastic (24) DUi ¼ Ui  Ui1 (33)

where Feelastic is the nodal force vector of the interface element, and In Eq. (32), Pi and Ti are, respectively, the external force vector
the stiffness matrix Kef is as follows: and temperature load vector for the ith loading case.

© ASCE 04016056-9 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016056

 Because the track stiffness law for each interface element of the
ith loading case is determined by the obtained value of DUi1 , DUi
is obtained from Eq. (32) by nonlinear analysis using the given
external force Pi and the temperature load Ti for the ith loading
case. The incremental axial force of the rail and bridge element for
the ith loading case is given by
DSei ¼ Kerb DUei þ Fei ðDUei Þ  DTei
The final nodal displacement and the nodal axial force of each
element after the previous loading case are given by
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/05/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
to the plastic zone, it would be necessary to change the track resist-
ance to the plastic track resistance and recalculate the displacement
increments. This process is repeated until there is no longer an inter-
face element in which a state change occurs.
When applying the previous solution procedure, almost all the
interface elements move from the elastic zone to the plastic zone,
and very rarely does an interface element move in the reverse direc-
(34) tion. Thus, the number of iterations required to solve the nonlinear
equation is normally three to six, and at most eight. If there is no
convergence, it is recommended to evenly apply the load through
several steps based on the same track stiffness law. Failure to
achieve convergence may sometimes be due to the coexistence of

X
n X
n
elastic and plastic zones in a single interface element. However,
U¼ DUi ; Se ¼ DSei (35)
such a scenario may not be encountered in practice for an element
i i
length of less than 1 m, and reduction in the length of the element is
thus recommended in the event of failure of convergence.
A nonlinear analysis is required to solve Eq. (32) for every load-
Fig. 12 shows the flowchart of the TBI analysis for cases of se-
ing case. For a track–bridge system in which the elements except
quential loading. The authors developed a FORTRAN program
the interface elements behave linearly and the interface elements
based on the procedure illustrated in the flowchart.
behave nonlinearly, and that complies with the bilinear functions,
the solution for each loading case can be feasibly obtained as
described next. Numerical Examples
All the interface elements are initially assumed to be in the elas-
tic zone. The displacement increments are obtained by solving the
Example 1: Simply Supported Bridge
equilibrium equation using the track stiffness law established by
analysis of the previous loading case. Whether an interface element Verification of Proposed Method
is in the elastic or plastic zone is determined based on the calculated The validity of the proposed method was verified by conducting
displacement increments. If an element moves from the elastic zone nonlinear analyses of a track–bridge (single-span bridge) system to

Setting initial displacements

Constructing the stiffness matrix of the rail

and bridge by finite element method (K r – b )

(i=1,2,..,N)
Setting the i-th load ( Pi + Ti )

Establishing the track material

law of each interface element

Assuming all interface elements

being in elastic zone

Calculating the stiffness matrix or friction

force vector of interface elements ( Fi ( ΔU i ) )
and combining it with K r -b

Changing the zones of

Solving the equilibrium equation of the
interface elements based on
track-bridge interaction system
the calculated incremental
displacements(ΔU i )
Checking convergence:
is the number of interface elements No
whose zone is changed 0?

Yes
Calculating the cumulative displacements
and stresses of the rail and bridge

End

Fig. 12. Flowchart of TBI analysis

© ASCE 04016056-10 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016056

 which several loads were sequentially applied and comparing the
results obtained by the proposed method with those of Ruge and
Birk (2007) and Ruge et al. (2009). For this, two numerical exam-
ples of the single-span bridge of their parameter study were consid-
ered. Fig. 13 is a schematic of the analyzed track–bridge system,
and Table 2 gives the system data including the geometrical and ma-
terial properties and the load.
The first numerical example is the case in which the track resist-
ance on the bridge was maintained steady in the loaded state while
the temperature load, vertical load, and braking force were sequen-
tially applied. In this case, the track resistance under all the loads
complied with the track stiffness law in Fig. 8. The track resistance
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/05/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The DC in the second condition is the restoring force gener-
ated by the change in the coupling stiffness caused by the change
from the unloaded to the loaded state. As shown in Fig. 5, the
restoring force at the instant when the vertical load was applied
was negligible; thus, it was not considered in the numerical anal-
ysis by the present method. Fig. 15 shows that the results
obtained by the present method mostly agree with those of Ruge
et al. (2009); some discrepancies can be observed in some areas.
The differences between the present result and those for the first
condition of Ruge et al. (2009) are attributed to the difference
between the analytical models used, whereas the consideration or
otherwise of the restoring force is an additional reason for the dif-

at the embankment outside the bridge was maintained in the ferences between the present results and those for the second con-
unloaded state. The length of the interface element was set to 0.1 m dition of Ruge et al. (2009). However, Fig. 14 shows that the
as in the example of Ruge and Birk (2007). maximum stresses of the rail—which are important from the per-
Because the axial and bending stiffness of the bridge are much spective of engineering design—determined by the present
larger than those of the track, the structural function of the track
method are mostly equal to those obtained by Ruge et al. (2009)
could be neglected and all the deformations of the bridge could be
for the two analysis conditions.
assumed to be borne by only the axial and bending stiffness of the
bridge for a given load. The bridge deformation was first deter- Effects of Size of Interface Element
mined with respect to the load and was used as the prescribed dis-
To evaluate the effect of the length of the interface element on
placement in the TBI analysis. The TBI analysis of Ruge and Birk
the accuracy of the analysis, a parameter study was conducted
(2007) was also based on these assumptions. The same conditions
by varying the length of the interface element as 0.1, 0.5, 1.0,
that they used were applied in the first example of the present study
2.0, 5.0, and 10.0 m. Two different approaches were applied to
to enable comparison of the results. The conditions were artificially
the analysis. In the first approach separate independent analyses
realized by multiplying the elastic modulus of the bridge by a very
large factor (1,000) and increasing the vertical load by the same were conducted for the different loads, and the results were
factor. combined linearly. The other approach involved sequential
Fig. 14 compares the analytical results obtained by the present
method with those obtained by Ruge and Birk (2007), and there is Table 2. Geometrical and Material Properties and the Load Applied to the
very good agreement. Simply Supported Bridge
The second numerical example is the track resistance under sud- Description Property
den change from the unloaded state to the loaded stage by the appli-
cation of a vertical load. In this case, the sequential loading was Longitudinal axial stiffness of rail EA = 3.23  106 kN
implemented by temperature increment followed by the application Distributed stiffness of unloaded track (ct)u = 6.0  104 kN · m2
of a vertical load. The track resistance complied with the track stiff- Distributed stiffness of loaded track (ct)l = 12.0 104 kN · m2
ness law in Fig. 9 for the application of a vertical load after tempera- Critical elastic relative displacement uo = 5.0  10−4 m
ture loading and complied with the law in Fig. 8 for temperature Length of bridge L = 60 m
loading. Stiffness of elastic support KA = 6.0  105 kN · m
Fig. 15 compares the analytical results obtained by the present Distance from neutral axis to upper surface ho = 1.21 m
method with those obtained by Ruge et al. (2009). The dashed line Distance from neutral axis to lower surface hu = 4.79 m
represents the results of Ruge et al. (2009) for the following first Cross-sectional area of bridge AB = 1.7535 m2
condition, and the dotted-dashed line represents the results for the Moment of inertia of bridge IB = 16.5208 m4
second condition: Dynamic magnification factor of bridge UB = 1.05
1. Temperature increment followed by the application of a verti- Elastic modulus of bridge EB = 3.4  107 kN · m2
cal load (DT – vertical load); and Temperature change in bridge DT = þ30°C
2. Temperature increment followed by the application of a verti- Thermal expansion coefficient of bridge aB = 1.0  10−5
cal load together with the action of the restoring force [DT – Braking force p = 20 kN · m
(DC þ vertical load)]. Vertical load V = 80 kN · m

Braking force (20 kN/m)

Track Vertical load (80 kN/m)

ho
hu
KA Bridge

L = 60 m

Fig. 13. Schematic of the simply supported bridge with single track

© ASCE 04016056-11 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016056

 80
The proposed method
60 Ruge & Birk (2007)
40

Longitudinal rail stress (MPa)

o
Temperature (Δ T = +30 C)
20
Braking (p = +20 kN/m)
0

-20
Vertical load (q = 80 kN/m)
-40
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/05/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-60

-80
Temperature→Vertical→Braking
-100
Bridge section
-120
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Distance (m)

Fig. 14. Longitudinal rail stresses determined by sequential analysis for the application of three loads (temperature increment – vertical load – brak-
ing force)

100
The presented method (ΔT → Vertical)
80 Ruge et al. (2009) (ΔT → Vertical)
Ruge et al. (2009) (ΔT → (ΔC + Vertical))
60
Longitudinal rail stress (MPa)

40

20

-20

-40

-60

-80
Bridge section
-100
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance (m)

Fig. 15. Longitudinal rail stresses obtained by sequential analysis for the application of two loads (temperature increment – vertical load)

analysis in which the correct sequence of the loads was taken
into consideration.
Fig. 16 shows satisfactory agreement between the results for ele-
ment lengths within 1.0 m. The numbers in parentheses in Table 3
indicate the numbers of iterations required for the analyses of the
temperature load, vertical load, and braking force, respectively. The
table shows that the shorter the element, the better is the agreement
between the analytical results, but a greater number of iterations are
required. However, even if the interface element was shorter than
0.1 m, the maximum number of iterations required for the analysis
of a particular load would not exceed six. These results confirm that
the numerical solution procedure proposed in this paper is valid for
the analysis of TBIs involving interface elements that exhibit the
nonlinear behavior of a bilinear function.
Effect of Considering Axial Stiffness of Rail in Evaluation of
Bridge Deformation
In the two examples considered in the verification of the proposed
model, the bridge deformation was calculated by structural analysis
of the bridge alone for a given load and treated as prescribed dis-
placements for the TBI analysis. However, the TBI may cause
the axial stiffness of the rail to affect the behavior of the bridge to
some extent. Hence, to investigate the effect on the rail stress when
the axial stiffness of the rail is considered in the evaluation of the

© ASCE 04016056-12 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016056

 100
Element size
80 Sequential analysis 0.1 m
0.5 m
60 Vertical load 1.0 m

Longitudinal rail stress (MPa)

2.0 m
40 Temperature
5.0 m
10.0 m
20 Braking force

-20
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/05/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-62

-64

-40 -66

-68

-60 -70

-72

-80 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

Bridge section
-100
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance (m)

Fig. 16. Longitudinal rail stresses with respect to the length of the interface element

Table 3. Number of Iterations Required for Convergence

Number of iterations
Analysis method Li = 0.1 m Li = 0.5 m Li = 1.0 m Li = 2.0 m Li = 5.0 m Li = 10.0 m
Separate analyses 14 (=6 þ 4 þ 4) 13 (=6 þ 4 þ 3) 13 (=6 þ 4 þ 3) 10 (=5 þ 3 þ 2) 10 (=5 þ 3 þ 2) 9 (=5 þ 3 þ 1)
Sequential analysis 16 (=6 þ 5 þ 5) 16 (=6 þ 5 þ 5) 15 (=6 þ 5 þ 4) 13 (=5 þ 4 þ 4) 13 (=5 þ 4 þ 4) 11 (=5 þ 3 þ 3)
Note: Li = the length of interface element. The numbers in parentheses are the numbers of iterations required for the analyses of the temperature load, vertical
load, and braking force, respectively.

bridge deformation, a numerical analysis was conducted using the investigating the effect of the increase in the rail stress. In Fig. 4, the
system data in Table 2 without an artificial increase in the elastic highest increase was 100% and a was thus assumed to vary between
modulus of the bridge and the vertical load. The track resistance 1.0 and 2.0.
was assumed to increase between the unloaded state and the loaded From Fig. 18, which shows the maximum tensile and compres-
state when the vertical load was applied. The length of the interface sive stresses of the rail with respect to a, the maximum compres-
element was set to 0.1 m. sive stress determined by separate analyses is constant regardless
Fig. 17 shows the longitudinal rail stresses with respect to of the value of a. Using sequential analysis the maximum com-
whether or not the effect of the axial stiffness of the rail on the pressive stress becomes constant after increasing by about 5.9% at
bridge deformation is considered, and the results obtained by con- a= 1.25. Conversely, the maximum tensile stress increases with
sidering the axial stiffness of the rail are somewhat lower. This increasing a for both analytical approaches. Regarding the com-
can be attributed to the structural function of the rail, namely, to pressive and tensile stresses, only the higher absolute maximum
constrain the displacement of the bridge during TBI. Table 4 gives between the two is generally important in the design of a nonbal-
the maximum values of the tensile and compressive stresses of the lasted track. Therefore, it should be noted that the effect of the ver-
rail obtained from Fig. 17. Table 4 shows that the maximum rail tical load is more pronounced in a sequential analysis because
stress when the axial stiffness of the rail was considered was both the tensile and compressive peak stresses increase with
underestimated by 1.9% using sequential analysis and by 5.1% increasing longitudinal resistance to a certain extent. On the con-
using separate analyses. Thus, it is necessary to consider the axial trary, the effect is less important in a separate analysis because the
stiffness in TBI analysis, especially when using the separate analy- compressive stress, which is higher, is unaffected by the increase
ses approach. of the longitudinal resistance.

Effect of Increase in Track Resistance Caused by Vertical
Loading
The results of the longitudinal rail restraint test of the fastening sys-
tem shown in Fig. 4 reveal an increase in the longitudinal track re-
sistance with increasing vertical load. Thus, in the TBI analysis of
this study, the ratio of the longitudinal resistances in the loaded and
unloaded states (a ¼ Fl =Fu ) was used as the parameter for
Sudden Change from Vertically Loaded to Vertically Unloaded
State
As indicated in Fig. 6, the longitudinal resistance is reduced and a
restoring force is generated at the instant a vertical load is released.
To investigate the variation in the rail stress when the vertical load
is suddenly released, a TBI analysis was conducted with two differ-
ent assumptions about how the longitudinal track resistance

© ASCE 04016056-13 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016056

 120

100
Considering
the axial stiffness of rail
80 Not considering
the axial stiffness of rail

Longitudinal rail stress (MPa)

60

40

20
Temperature
0

-20 Vertical load

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/05/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-40 Braking force

-60 Sequential analysis
(Temperature→Vertical→Braking)
-80
Separate analyses
-100 (Temperature+Vertical+Braking)
Bridge section
-120
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance (m)

Fig. 17. Longitudinal rail stresses according to whether or not the axial stiffness of the rail is considered in the bridge deformation

Table 4. Maximum Rail Stresses with Respect to Whether or Not the
Axial Stiffness of the Rail Is Considered in Determining the Bridge
Deformation
Sequential analysis
Maximum Maximum
rail stress rail stress
Maximum rail (MPa) (not Maximum rail (MPa) (not
stress (MPa) considering stress (MPa) considering
Sign of rail (considering axial (considering axial
stress axial stiffness) stiffness) axial stiffness) stiffness)
Tension 72.3 69.4
Compression −72.6 −71.2
changes after the sudden release of the vertical load. These two
assumptions correspond to Scenarios I and II, which were used to
establish the track stiffness law for sudden change from vertically
loaded to unloaded states.
Fig. 19 shows the results of the TBI for temperature increment
followed by the application and release of the vertical load. The
dotted line in the figure corresponds to Scenario I, and the dotted-
dashed line corresponds to Scenario II. The notations in parenthe-
ses in the legend indicate the longitudinal track resistance state
with respect to being unloaded (Fu ) or loaded (Fl ). From Fig. 19, it
can be seen that, after the release of the vertical load, the rail stress
does not fully recover to the value before the application of the
vertical load; a residual stress remains. This is caused by the non-
linear characteristics of the longitudinal track resistance. However,
the difference between the rail stresses for Scenarios I and II is
insignificant.
Example 2: Multispan Bridge
The practical applicability of the proposed method to the design of a
track–bridge system was verified by conducting a TBI analysis of a
16-span bridge to be built on a conventional line. Fig. 20 shows the
longitudinal section of the bridge, and Table 5 gives the system data
and properties. Two trains assumed to be located at the same point
in the longitudinal direction on the double track and the train load
(comprising the vertical load and acceleration/braking forces) were
set up. Two load models were considered (Fig. 21) based on the
Separate analyses movement direction of the train on each track. The length of the
interface elements of the analytical models was set to 1 m. The anal-
ysis was conducted using two different approaches, separate analy-
ses and sequential analysis.
Fig. 22(a) shows the longitudinal stress of the rail for each load-
ing scenario comprising a temperature increment, a vertical load,
and acceleration/braking forces when the train load was applied at
300 m (i.e., 300 m from the left A1-abutment. Fig. 22(b) shows the
86.3 81.0
rail stresses determined by sequential analysis and separate analy-
−97.9 −92.9
ses. The numbers in parentheses in the legend of the figure indicate
the number of iterations required for convergence of the analysis of
the respective loads. The number of iterations did not increase de-
spite the great length of the bridge. The maximum rail stresses
determined by sequential analysis and separate analyses are 68.8
and 105.0 MPa, respectively. The separate analysis produced higher
rail stresses at some points.
Fig. 23 shows the maximum longitudinal rail stresses deter-
mined by sequential analysis and separate analyses when the
train load (Fig. 21) moved in steps of 1 m from 0 to 970 m while
the bridge temperature increased or decreased. With sequential
analysis the rail stress during increase in the bridge temperature
attained a maximum value of 86.6 MPa when Load Model II
was at 630 m. With separate analyses the rail stress during
decrease in the bridge temperature attained a maximum value of
118.8 MPa when Load Model II was at 630 m. Fig. 23 shows
that the rail stresses determined by sequential analysis satisfy
the permissible additional rail stress of 92 MPa prescribed in EN
1991-2 (CEN 2003), whereas those determined by separate anal-
yses far exceed the prescribed limit. A more economical track–
bridge system design is achieved by using sequential analysis to
estimate the rail stress. However, Fig. 23 shows that both se-
quential analysis and separate analyses indicate that the variation
in the rail stress significantly depends on the position of the train
load. This means that it would be difficult to intuitively predict
the position of the train load that maximizes the rail stress. Thus,

© ASCE 04016056-14 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016056

 100 -100

95 -95

Maximum longitudinal rail stress

90 -90
Sequential analysis Seperate analyses
Compression Compression

Compression (MPa)
85 -85
Tension Tension

Tension (MPa)
80 -80

75 -75
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/05/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

70 -70

65 -65

60 -60
1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
α ( = F l /Fu )

Fig. 18. Maximum longitudinal rail stresses with respect to a (ratio of the loaded track resistance Fl to the unloaded track resistance Fu )

100
ΔT(Fu)
80 ΔT(Fu)→Vertical(Fl)
ΔT(Fu)→Vertical(Fl)→ΔC(Fu)→-Vertical(Fu)
60 ΔT(Fu)→Vertical(Fl)→{ΔC(Fl) + -Vertical(Fl)}
Longitudinal rail stress (MPa)

40

20

-20

-40

-60

Bridge section
-80
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Distance (m)

Fig. 19. Longitudinal rail stresses for sudden change from vertically loaded to unloaded state

for worst-case design, it is necessary to conduct the TBI analysis
by varying the position of the train load.
Conclusions
This paper proposed a numerical method using interface ele-
ments for the sequential analysis of nonlinear TBI by taking the
loading history into consideration. Longitudinal resistance tests
were conducted on different fastening systems that are used in
nonballasted tracks. The test results were used to investigate the
characteristics of the track resistance with respect to the vertical
loading condition, especially cases of sudden change in the verti-
cal load. The findings were used to establish longitudinal track
stiffness laws for a nonballasted track. In addition, an interface
element for modeling the nonlinear track resistance was devel-
oped, and a numerical algorithm for solving the nonlinear system
equation was formulated.
The proposed method was applied to some numerical exam-
ples and good agreement was observed between the results and
those obtained by Ruge and Birk (2007) and Ruge et al. (2009)
based on an exact formulation of the stiffness of the track

© ASCE 04016056-15 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016056

 ‫ڋډڋڒڑ‬
‫ڋډڋڏ‬ ‫ڋډڋڏ‬ ‫ڋډڋڏ‬ ‫ڋډڋڏ‬ ‫ڋډڋڐ‬ ‫ڋډڋڐ‬ ‫ڋډڋڏ‬ ‫ڋډڋڏ‬ ‫ڋډڋڏ‬ ‫ڋډڋڏ‬ ‫ڋډڋڏ‬ ‫ڋډڋڐ‬ ‫ڋډڋڏ‬ ‫ڋډڋڏ‬ ‫ڋډڋڏ‬ ‫ڋډڋڏ‬

‫ڌڮ‬ ‫ڍڮ‬ ‫ڎڮ‬ ‫ڏڮ‬ ‫ڐڮ‬ ‫ڑڮ‬ ‫ڒڮ‬ ‫ړڮ‬ ‫ڔڮ‬

19.0
21.5

26.5

28.5

28.5

25.5
29.5

29.5

29.5
28.5

30.5
31.5

31.5
35.0

35.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/05/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 20. Longitudinal section of the 16-span bridge

Table 5. Geometrical and Material Properties and Load Data of the Multispan Bridge

Description Location Property

Longitudinal axial stiffness of rail EA = 3.23  106 kN
Distributed stiffness of unloaded track (ct)u = 6.0  104 kN · m2
Distributed stiffness of loaded track (ct)l = 12.0  104 kN · m2
Critical elastic relative displacement uo = 5.0  10−4 m
Distance from neutral axis to upper surface S1–S4, S7–S11, S13–S16 ho = 1.49 m
S5, S6, S12 ho = 1.43 m
Distance from neutral axis to lower surface S1–S4, S7–S11, S13–S16 hu = 1.20 m
S5, S6, S12 hu = 1.96 m
Cross-sectional area of bridge S1–S4, S7–S11, S13–S16 AB = 9.32 m2
S5, S6, S12 AB = 1.26 m2
P1–P15 AB = 11.00 m2
Moment of inertia of bridge S1–S4, S7–S11, S13–S16 IB = 6.24 m4
S5, S6, S12 IB = 2.20 m4
P1–P15 IB = 18.21 m4
Elastic modulus of bridge S1–S4, S7–S11, S13–S16 EB = 3.19  107 kN · m2
S5, S6, S12 EB = 2.05  108 kN · m2
P1–P15 EB = 2.78  107 kN · m2
Horizontal stiffness of foundation P2, P8–P10 KH = 9.5  106 kN · m
P3, P7 KH = 1.3  107 kN · m
Vertical stiffness of foundation P2, P3, P7–P10 KV = 3.0  107 kN · m
Rotational stiffness of foundation P2, P8–P10 Kw = 4.0  108 kN · m/rad
P3, P7 Kw = 3.5  108 kN · m/rad
Temperature change in bridge S1–S4, S7–S11, S13–S16 DT = 25°C
S5, S6, S12 DT = 35°C
Thermal expansion coefficient of bridge aB = 1.0  10−5

resistance. The following were observed from the results obtained
for the considered numerical examples. (1) Sufficient accuracy
from the perspective of structural design is obtained when the
length of the interface element is within 1 m. In addition, in such
cases, the proposed numerical algorithm for solving the nonlinear
system equation requires no more than six iterations to analyze a
particular load even when the DOF of the system is high. (2) For
practical evaluation of the longitudinal rail stress, it is unneces-
sary to consider the contribution of the axial stiffness of the rail to
the TBI in the sequential analysis, but it is worth considering it in
the separate analysis approach. (3) The effect of an increase in the
track resistance caused by the application of a vertical load is
more pronounced when evaluated by sequential analysis com-
pared with the use of separate analyses. (4) The proposed model
can be feasibly applied to the sequential analysis of TBIs includ-
ing those caused by special longitudinal loading, such as sudden
change from a vertically loaded state to a vertically unloaded state
as well as from a vertically unloaded state to a vertically loaded
state. (5) The proposed method requires only a few seconds of
computing time for the TBI analysis of a very long multispan
bridge with double tracks subjected to three different types of
loads.
The results of the present study confirm the feasibility of using
the proposed method for the static analysis of nonlinear TBIs for
different types of bridges under different types of loads. The pro-
posed interface element may also be applicable to the dynamic anal-
ysis of nonlinear TBIs.
When a train passes over a bridge, the vertical load varies with
time. The longitudinal resistance of the fastening systems also
varies in accordance with the change in the vertical load and the rel-
ative displacement between the rail and bridge. However, in this
study the static analysis was performed with the assumption that the

© ASCE 04016056-16 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016056

 Position of train
300 m
30 m

Acceleration force (33 kN/m)

Track 1 Vertical load (100 kN/m)

Braking force (20 kN/m)

Track 2 Vertical load (100 kN/m)

(a) Bridge section (670 m)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/05/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Position of train load

Braking force (20 kN/m)

Track 1 Vertical load (100 kN/m)

Acceleration force (33 kN/m)

Track 2 Vertical load (100 kN/m)

(b) Bridge section (670 m)

Fig. 21. Train load models considering the train running direction on each track: (a) Load Model I; (b) Load Model II

80

Temperature drop (5)

60 Vertical load (5)
Acceleration and braking forces, track1 subjected to acceleration force (4)
Longitudinal rail stress (MPa)

Acceleration and braking forces, track2 subjected to braking force line (4)
40 ( ) : Number of iterations

20

-20

-40 Acceleration force

Vertical load, Braking force

-60 Bridge section

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
(a) Distance (m)

140

120
Sequential loading: ΔT  Vertical load  Braking force
100 Track1 subjected to acceleration force (14)
Track2 subjected to braking force (14)
Longitudinal rail stress (MPa)

80 Separate loading: ΔT + Vertical load + Braking force

60 Track1 subjected to acceleration force (15)
Track2 subjected to braking force (15)
40 ( ) : Number of iterations
20

-20

-40
Acceleration force
-60
Vertical load, Braking force
-80

-100 Bridge section

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
(b) Distance (m)

Fig. 22. Longitudinal rail stresses when the train load is at 300 m: (a) for single load cases; (b) for combined loads

vertical load simultaneously acts on the entire bridge, and the actual accurate results, further investigation of the dynamic train-track-
variation of the axial stresses of the rail with time was not accurately bridge interaction is required to consider the variation of the longi-
calculated because it was generally overestimated. To obtain more tudinal resistance with time.

© ASCE 04016056-17 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016056

 160 -160
Sequential analysis (-ΔT→Vertical→(Bra.+Acc.))

Maximum compressive rail stress (Mpa)

Sequential loading (-ΔT→Vertical→(Bra.+Acc.))
140 Load model I, Load model II -140 Load model I, Load model II
Maximum tensile rail stress (Mpa)

Separate analysis (-ΔT + Vertical + (Bra.+Acc.)) Seperate loading (-ΔT+Li.+(Bra.+Acc.))

120 Load model I , Load model II -120 Load model I , Load model II

100 -100

80 -80

60 -60
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/05/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

40 -40

20 -20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
(a) Position of train (m) Position of train loading (m)

160 -160
Sequential loading (-ΔT→Vertical→Bra.+Acc.) Sequential loading (-ΔT→Vertical→Bra.+Acc.)

Maximum compressive rail stress (Mpa)

140 Load model I, Load model II -140 Load model I, Load model II
Maximum tensile rail stress (Mpa)

Seperate loading (-ΔT + Vertical + (Bra.+Acc.)) Separate loading (-ΔT + Vertical + (Bra.+Acc.))
120 Load model I , Load model II -120 Load model I , Load model II
(a)
100 -100

80 -80

60 -60

40 -40

20 -20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
(b) Position of train loading (m) Position of train loading (m)

Fig. 23. Maximum rail stresses with respect to the position of the train load: (a) temperature increment; (b) temperature decrement

Acknowledgments International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zurich,

Switzerland, 1–9.
This study was supported by a grant from the R&D Program of the ERRI (European Rail Research Institute). (1997). “Empirical research of
Korea Railroad Research Institute, Republic of Korea. CWR long-term behavior.” D 202/3, Utrecht, Netherlands.
ERRI (European Rail Research Institute). (1999a). “Laying and mainte-
nance of CWR track.” D 202/RP 10, Utrecht, Netherlands.
References ERRI (European Rail Research Institute). (1999b). “Long term investiga-
tions of CWR Track behaviour.” D 202/RP 8, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Ahlbeck, D., Kish, A., and Sluz, A. (1986). “An assessment of design crite- ERRI (European Rail Research Institute). (1999c). “Stability of continuous
ria for continuous-welded rail on elevated transit structures.” Transport welded track.” D 202/RP 4, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Research Record, 1071, 19–25. Esveld, C. (2001). Modern railway track, MRT Productions, Zaltbommel,
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). (2003). “Eurocode 1: Netherlands.
Actions on structures. Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges.” EN 1991-2, Freystein, H. (2010). “Track/bridge-interaction-state of the art and exam-
Brussels, Belgium. ples.” Stahlbau, 79(3), 220–231.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). (2012). “Railway Frýba, L. (1996). Dynamics of railway bridges, Thomas Telford, London.
applications—Track-test methods for fastening systems.” EN Geissler, K., Grasse, W., Schmachtenberg, R., and Stein, R. (2002).
13146-1, Brussels, Belgium. “Measurement based determination of braking and traction forces at the
Dai, G.-l., and Yan, B. (2012). “Longitudinal forces of continuously railway bridge in Rendsburg.” Stahlbau, 71(10), 735–747.
welded track on high-speed railway cable-stayed bridge consider- Goicolea-Ruigómez, J. M. (2008). “Service limit states for railway bridges in
ing impact of adjacent bridges.” J. Central South Univ., 19(8), new design codes IAPF and Eurocodes.” Track-bridge interaction on
2348–2353. high-speed railways: Selected and revised papers from the Workshop on
Deladi, E. L. (2006). “Static friction in rubber–metal contacts with applica- Track-Bridge Interaction on High-Speed Railways, Porto, Portugal, 15–
tion to rubber pad forming processes.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of 16 October, 2007, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 7–17.
Twente, Enschede, Netherlands. Liu, W.-S., Dai, G.-l., and He, X.-H. (2013). “Sensitive factors research for
Dutoit, D. (2003). “New evolutions for high speed rail line bridge design track-bridge interaction of long-span X-style steel-box arch bridge on
criteria and corresponding design procedures.” IABSE Symp. Rep., high-speed railway.” J. Central South Univ., 20(11), 3314–3323.

© ASCE 04016056-18 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016056

 Müller, G., Jovanovic, D., and Haas, P. (1981). “Tracks-gravel-bridge inter-
action.” Comput. Struct., 13(5–6), 607–611.
Okelo, R., and Olabimtan, A. (2011). “Nonlinear rail-structure interaction
analysis of an elevated skewed steel guideway.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000163, 392–399.
Ruge, P., and Birk, C. (2007). “Longitudinal forces in continuously welded
rails on bridgedecks due to nonlinear track–bridge interaction.” Comput.
Struct., 85(7–8), 458–475.
Ruge, P., Widarda, D., Schmälzlin, G., and Bagayoko, L. (2009).
“Longitudinal track–bridge interaction due to sudden change of cou-
pling interface.” Comput. Struct., 87(1–2), 47–58.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/05/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Ryjá
cek, P., and Voká
c, M. (2014). “Long-term monitoring of steel railway
bridge interaction with continuous welded rail.” J. Constr. Steel Res.,
99, 176–186.
Schanack, F., Ramos, Ó.R., Reyes, J. P., and Pantaleón, M. J. (2014).
“Relative displacement method for track-structure interaction.” Sci.
World J., 397515.
UIC (International Union of Railways). (2001). “Track/bridge interaction,
recommendations for calculations.” UIC 774-3-R, Paris.
Zhang, J., Wu, D. J., and Li, Q. (2015). “Loading-history-based track-bridge
interaction analysis with experimental fastener resistance.” Eng. Struct.,
83, 62–73.

© ASCE 04016056-19 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016056