This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

**www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
**

Dynamic impact analysis of long span cable-stayed bridges

under moving loads

D. Bruno

∗

, F. Greco, P. Lonetti

Department of Structural Engineering, University of Calabria, 87030 - Rende (CS), Italy

Received 5 September 2006; received in revised form 19 June 2007; accepted 2 July 2007

Available online 21 August 2007

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to investigate the dynamic response of long span cable-stayed bridges subjected to moving loads. The analysis is

based on a continuum model of the bridge, in which the stay spacing is assumed to be small in comparison with the whole bridge length. As

a consequence, the interaction forces between the girder, towers and cable system are described by means of continuous distributed functions.

A direct integration method to solve the governing equilibrium equations has been utilized and numerical results, in the dimensionless context,

have been proposed to quantify the dynamic impact factors for displacement and stress variables. Moreover, in order to evaluate, numerically, the

inﬂuence of coupling effects between bridge deformations and moving loads, the analysis focuses attention on the usually neglected non-standard

terms related to both centripetal and Coriolis forces. Finally, results are presented with respect to eccentric loads, which introduce both ﬂexural

and torsional deformation modes. Sensitivity analyses have been proposed in terms of dynamic impact factors, emphasizing the effects produced

by the external mass of the moving system and the inﬂuence of both “A” and “H” shaped tower typologies on the dynamic behaviour of the bridge.

c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Moving loads; Dynamic impact factors; Cable-stayed bridges; “A” and “H” shaped towers

1. Introduction

Cable-stayed systems have been employed, frequently, to

overcome long spans, because of their economic and structural

advantages. Moreover, improvements in the use of lightweight

and high strength materials have been proposed in different

applications, and, consequently, more slender girder cross

sections have been adopted. As a result, the external loads

have become comparable with those involved by the bridge

self-weight ones and an accurate description of the effects

of the moving loads is needed to properly evaluate dynamic

bridge behaviour. At the same time, new developments in

rapid transportation systems make it possible to increase the

allowable speed range and trafﬁc load capacity; consequently,

the moving system can greatly inﬂuence the dynamic bridge

vibration, by means of non-standard excitation modes. To this

end, investigation is needed to quantify the effects produced by

the inertial forces of the moving system on the bridge vibration.

∗

Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0984 496914; fax: +39 0984 494045.

E-mail address: d.bruno@unical.it (D. Bruno).

The extension of the moving load problem to long

span cable-supported bridges requires a consistent approach,

appropriately formulated, in order to fully characterize the

bridge kinematics and train–girder interaction. In the literature,

several studies have been developed, which analyse dynamic

bridge behaviour with respect to different assumptions and

frameworks. In particular, Fryba and Timoshenko [1,2],

provided a comprehensive treatment concerning primarily

the dynamic response of simply supported girder structures

travelled by vehicles, and analytical as well as numerical

solutions for some speciﬁc problems have been presented.

During the last few decades, with advances in high performance

computers and computational technologies, more realistic

modelling of the dynamic interaction between a moving system

and bridge vibration has become feasible. In particular, Yang

et al. [3] presented a closed-form solution for the dynamic

response of simple beams subjected to a series of moving loads

at high speeds, in which the phenomena of resonance and

cancellation have been identiﬁed. Moreover, Lei and Noda [4]

proposed a dynamic computational model for the vehicle and

track coupling system including girder proﬁle irregularity by

0141-0296/$ - see front matter c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.07.001

D. Bruno et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 1161

Nomenclature

α Longitudinal stay geometric slope

α

0

Longitudinal anchor stay geometric slope

A

s

Stay cross sectional area

A

s0

Anchor stay cross sectional area

b Half girder cross section width

β Transverse stay geometric slope

c Moving system speed

∆ Stay spacing step

e Eccentricity of the moving loads with respect to

the girder geometric axis

E Cable modulus of elasticity

EI Flexural girder stiffness

E A Axial girder stiffness

E

∗

s

Stay Dischinger modulus

E

∗

s0

Anchor stay Dischinger modulus

g Girder self-weight per unit length

γ Stay speciﬁc weight

GJ

t

Torsional girder stiffness

H Pylon height

I

p

0

Pylon polar mass moment

K

p

Flexural top pylon stiffness

K

p

0

Torsional top pylon stiffness

l Lateral bridge span

L Central bridge span

L

p

Total train length

λ Mass function of the moving system per unit

length

λ

0

Polar mass moment of the moving system with

respect to girder geometric axis per unit length

M

p

Lumped top pylon equivalent mass

µ Girder mass per unit length

µ

0

Polar inertial moment of the girder per unit length

ω Girder torsional rotation

p Live loads

σ

a

Allowable stay stress

σ

g

Stay stress under self-weight loading

σ

g0

Anchor stay stress under self-weight loading

ψ

L(R)

Left (L) and right (R) top pylon torsional

rotations

u

L(R)

Left (L) and right (R) horizontal top pylon

displacement

v Girder vertical displacement

w Girder horizontal displacement

the ﬁnite element method, whereas additional references to

the inﬂuence of AASHTO live-load deﬂection criteria on the

vibration in a railway track under moving vehicles can be found

in [5–7].

With reference to cable-stayed bridges, in order to evaluate

the ampliﬁcation effects produced by the moving system,

different investigations have been proposed. In particular, Au

et al. [8,9] investigated the dynamic impact factors of cable-

stayed bridges under railway trafﬁc using various vehicle

models, evaluating the effects produced by random road

surface roughness and long term deﬂection of the concrete

deck. An efﬁcient numerical modelling has been developed

by Yang and Fonder [10] to analyse the dynamic behaviour

of cable-stayed bridges subject to railway loads, taking into

account nonlinearities involved in the cable system. Dynamic

interaction of cable-stayed bridges with reference to railway

loads has been investigated in [11], in which strategies to

reduce the multiple resonant peaks of cable-stayed bridges

that may be excited by high-speed trains have been proposed

for a small length bridge structure. Finally, a computational

model and a parametric study have been proposed in [12]

to investigate bridge vibration produced by vehicular trafﬁc

loads. The literature referred to above investigates dynamic

bridge behaviour properly taking into account the effects

of interaction between bridge vibration and the moving

system. However, only a few studies have concentrated on

the dynamic responses of long span bridges. This paper,

therefore, focuses on the dynamic behaviour of long span cable-

stayed bridges, evaluating the effects produced by the moving

system on the dynamic bridge behaviour. In particular, the

main aims of this paper are to propose a parametric study

in a dimensionless context, which describes the relationship

between dynamic ampliﬁcation factors and moving loads and

bridge characteristics.

The structural model is based on a continuum approach,

which has been widely used in the literature to analyse

long span bridges [13–15]. In particular, Meisenholder and

Weidlinger [13] have schematized bridge structures as an elastic

beam resting on an elastic foundation, whose stiffness is strictly

connected to the geometrical and stiffness properties of the

stays. Moreover, extended models which generalize the bridge

kinematics have been proposed in [14,15], in which the stay

spacing is assumed to be small in comparison with the central

bridge span. As a result, the interaction forces between the cable

system and the girder can be assumed as continuous functions

distributed over the whole girder length. The accuracy of the

continuum approach has been validated in previous works

developed in both static and dynamic frameworks, through

comparisons with numerical results obtained by using a ﬁnite

element model of the discrete cable system bridge [14–16].

In the present paper, the bridge kinematics and the inertial

forces have been considered in a tridimensional context, in

which both in-plane and out-of-plane deformation modes have

been accounted for. Cable-stayed bridges based on both “H”

and “A” shaped typologies with a double layer of stays

have been considered. However, cable-stayed bridges with

one central layer of stays, especially for eccentric railway

bridges, are characterized by high deformability, and difﬁculties

verifying the design rules on maximum displacements occur

frequently. In particular, the girder torsional stiffness needs

to be signiﬁcantly improved with respect to those involved

for “H” and “A” shaped typologies, because contributions

arising from the cable system are practically negligible. As

a matter of fact, torsional analysis carried out for typical

concrete or steel girder cross sections shows that in order to

limit torsional rotation to reasonable values (i.e. below 0.02),

the maximum allowable central length must be approximately

1162 D. Bruno et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177

equal to 400 m [16]. The equations of motion for the vehicle-

track-bridge element are derived by means of the Hamilton

principle. Subsequently, the boundary value problem, due to

the equilibrium equations, was solved, numerically, by means

of a ﬁnite difference scheme based on θ-family methods,

in which proper interpolation functions on both spatial and

time domains were adopted to obtain stable and accurate

results. A parametric study in a dimensionless context has been

analysed by means of numerical results, in terms of typical

kinematic and stress bridge variables for both in-plane and

eccentric loading conditions. In particular, results are proposed

to investigate the effects of moving the system description

with reference to non-standard forces, usually neglected in

conventional dynamic analyses, i.e. Coriolis and centripetal

accelerations. Finally, the inﬂuence on the dynamic bridge

behaviour of pylon typology with reference to both “A” and

“H” shapes has been analysed,and comparisons in terms of both

moving loads and tower characteristics have been proposed.

2. Cable-stayed bridge model

To begin with, the bridge geometry is presented with

respect to a fan-shaped self-anchored scheme and both ﬂexural

and torsional deformation modes are evaluated for an “H”

shaped pylon typology. Subsequently, the formulation is

adapted for “A” shaped pylons. This can be easily derived,

as explained in the following sections, starting from the “H”

ones and introducing slight modiﬁcations to the main governing

equations. In both formulations, the cable system is arranged

symmetrically with respect to both zx and yz planes.

Long span bridges based on cable-stayed systems are

frequently analysed by means of a continuum approach, in

which the stays are assumed to be uniformly distributed along

the deck. In particular, the stay spacing is quite small in

comparison to the central bridge span (i.e. ∆/L 1). As

a result, the self-weight loads produce negligible bending

moments on the girder with respect to that raised by the moving

loads. The initial stress distribution, at the “zero conﬁguration”,

is supposed to be produced by a correct erection process which

yields tension in the stays and compression in both the girder

and the pylons. Moreover, under dead loads only, the girder is

arranged with an initial straight proﬁle, which is practically free

from bending moments for reduced values of the stay spacing

step. In particular, the erection procedure is based on the free

cantilevered method, which is able to control the initial tension

distribution in the cable system to a value practically constant

in each stay. This assumption has been veriﬁed for long span

bridges, in view of the prevailing truss behaviour of the cable-

supported structures [15–18]. Therefore, the moving loads

modify the initial conﬁguration and, consequently, produce

additional stress and deformation states. It is worth noting that

for long span bridges, the initial stress state produced by the

dead loading needs to be accounted mainly in the cable-stayed

system, in which the initial tension strongly affects the stays’

behaviour due to Dischinger effects [17,18].

The geometry and stiffness characteristics of the bridges are

selected with respect to typical ranges suggested by practical

design rules [17,18]. In particular, the cross sectional stay areas

are designed so that the dead loads (g) produce constant stress

over all the distributed elements, which are assumed equal to

a ﬁxed design value, namely σ

g

. As a result, the geometric

area of the stays varies along the girder, but the safety factors

are practically constant for each element of the cable system.

Moreover, for the anchor stays, the cross sectional geometric

area, A

s0

, is designed in such a way that the allowable stress is

obtained in the static case, for live loads applied to the central

span only. Therefore, the geometric measurement for the cable

system can be expressed by the following equations:

A

s

=

g∆

σ

g

sin α

,

A

s0

=

gl

2σ

g

¸

1 +

l

H

2

1/2

¸

L

2l

2

−1

,

(1)

where α is the slope of a generic stay element with respect

to the reference system, (L, l, H) are representative geometric

lengths of the bridge structure, and ∆ is the stay spacing step

(for more details see Fig. 1). The bridge analysis is based on the

following assumptions:

(1) the stress increments in the stays are proportional to the live

loads, p;

(2) a long span fan shaped bridge is characterized by a

dominant truss behaviour.

In this framework, the tension σ

g

and σ

g0

for distributed and

anchor stays, respectively, can be expressed by the following

relations:

σ

g

=

g

g + p

σ

a

,

σ

g0

= σ

a

¸

¸

1 +

p

g

¸

1 −

2L

l

2

−1

¸

¸

¸

−1

.

(2)

It is worth noting that the allowable stay stress, σ

a

,

represents a known variable of the cable system in terms of

which the design tension under dead loading can be determined

by the use of Eq. (2). Since it is assumed that for dead loads only

the bridge structure remains in the undeformed conﬁguration,

the application of moving loads leads to additional stress and

deformation increments with respect to the self-weight loading

condition. In particular, as reported in Fig. 1 with respect to

the reference system with the origin ﬁxed at the midspan girder

cross section, the bridge kinematic, for the “H” shaped tower

typology, is described by following displacement variables:

• horizontal and vertical girder displacements [u(x, t ),

v(x, t )],

• left and right horizontal pylon top displacements [u

L

(t ),

u

R

(t )],

• girder torsional rotation [ω(x, t )],

• left and right pylon top torsional rotations [ψ

L

(t ), ψ

R

(t )].

In particular, bridge deformations related to ﬂexure and

torsion for the girder and pylons and axial deformations for

the girder and stays have been taken into account, whereas

D. Bruno et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 1163

Fig. 1. “H” shaped tower moving load problem: bridge kinematics and representative stiffness parameters.

pylon axial deformability has been neglected. Consistently

with the bridge conﬁguration reported in Fig. 1, the bridge

scheme is constrained with respect to both vertical and torsional

displacements at boundary cross sections of the bridge and at

girder/pylon connections.

The stays are modelled as bar elements and the

nonlinear behaviour is evaluated consistently with the

Dischinger formulation [17], which takes into account

geometric nonlinearities of the inclined stays introducing a

ﬁctitious elastic modulus for an equivalent straight member, in

this way:

E

∗

s

=

E

1 +

γ

2

l

2

0

E

12σ

3

0

1+β

2β

2

, with β =

σ

σ

0

, (3)

where E

∗

s

is known as the secant Dischinger modulus, E is the

Young’s modulus of the cable material, γ the speciﬁc weight,

l

0

the horizontal projection of the stay length and σ

0

and σ are

the initial and actual tension values of the stay, respectively,

i.e. σ

0

= σ

g

for the double layer of stays and σ

0

= σ

g0

for

the anchor stays. Moreover, the tangent value of the Dischinger

modulus can be obtained from Eq. (3) by putting β = 1. As

far as the secant modulus is concerned, its value depends on

cable stress states under self-weight and live loading conditions.

Sufﬁcient accuracy in the actual stress state might even be

achieved by assuming β as proportional to the ratio between

live and self-weight loads (dominant truss behaviour) [16–18],

i.e. β =

σ

a

σ

g

≈

p+g

g

for the double layer of distributed stays

and β =

σ

a

σ

g

≈

p+g

g

(L/2l)

2

(L/2l)

2

−1

for the anchor stays. On the

other hand, numerical investigations have been developed to

analyse the inﬂuence of adopting the secant or the tangent

equivalent moduli on the dynamic impact factors prediction.

The results, not presented here for the sake of brevity, show

that this inﬂuence is practically negligible (less than 3%),

whereas maximum relative percentage differences, less than

10%, are observed for speeds above 140 m/s. In addition, it has

been observed that the analysed maximum ampliﬁcation factors

occur when the moving system is basically applied on the

central bridge span. Therefore, the analysis has been developed

by assuming the tangent modulus for the double layer of stays

acting on the lateral spans, whereas for the double layer of stays

acting on the central span and for the anchor stays the secant

modulus has been employed.

The axial deformation increments of a stay generic for the

left (L) and right (R) pylons produced by the moving system

depend on both kinematic and geometric variables, as in the

following relationships:

∆ε

L

=

1

H

[(v ±ωb) · sin

2

α

− (u

L

±ψ

L

b −u) · sin α cos α], (4)

∆ε

R

=

1

H

[(v ±ωb) · sin

2

α

− (u

R

±ψ

R

b +u) · sin α cos α], (5)

where (+/−) refers, in Eqs. (4) and (5) and in the following

ones, to the right (+) and left (−) distributed stays with

respect to the longitudinal girder geometric axis. Similarly, for

the left and right pylon anchor stays, the incremental axial

deformations are described as

∆ε

L0

=

1

H

[(u

L

±ψ

L

b −u) · sin α

0

cos α

0

] , (6)

∆ε

R0

=

1

H

[(u

R

±ψ

R

b +u) · sin α

0

cos α

0

] , (7)

where α

0

is the girder/anchor stay orientation angle (Fig. 1).

The external loads evolve at constant speed from left to right

along the bridge development. A perfect connection between

1164 D. Bruno et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177

the girder and the moving system is assumed. Interaction

forces produced by girder proﬁle roughness and friction are

supposed to generate negligible effects with respect to the

global bridge vibration. This assumption has been veriﬁed

in the context of long span cable-supported bridge, where

roughness effects have been considered as negligible [19]. As a

result, the moving system has the same vertical displacements

as the girder. Nevertheless, non-standard contributions arising

from Coriolis and centripetal inertial forces, produced by the

coupling behaviour between the moving system and bridge

deformations, have been taken into account. With respect to a

ﬁxed reference system, the velocity and acceleration functions

of the moving system are evaluated consistently with a Eulerian

description of the moving loads as

˙ v =

∂v

∂t

+

∂v

∂x

c, ¨ v =

∂

2

v

∂t

2

+

∂

2

v

∂x∂t

2c +

∂

2

v

∂x

2

c

2

,

with c =

∂x

∂t

. (8)

The moving loads are consistent with a train system

typology, modelled by a sequence of lumped and distributed

masses, representative of both bogie components and vehicle

bodies. However, for long span bridges, the internal bogie

spacing for an elementary vehicle is, usually, small in

comparison with the whole bridge length. Moreover, within the

same approximation level, the locomotive, even if it is much

heavier than the carriage, is distributed on a length, which is

assumed, in this context, to be smaller than the whole length

of the train. As a result, the moving system is supposed to be

described by equivalent uniformly distributed loads and masses

acting on the girder proﬁle. However, improvements to the

moving load distribution can be easily provided just modifying

Eqs. (9)–(12) and introducing a piecewise constant function to

describe carriages and locomotive loads.

With respect to a moving reference system, x

1

, from the

left end of the bridge, the mass and loading functions during

the external loading advance can be written by the following

expressions, respectively:

ρ = λH

x

1

+ L

p

−ct

H (ct − x

1

) , (9)

f = pH

x

1

+ L

p

−ct

H (ct − x

1

) , (10)

where x

1

= x + (L/2 + l), (λ, p) are the vehicle body

mass and loading forces per unit length and H (·) is the

Heaviside function. Moreover, the moving system is assumed

to be eccentrically located with respect to the bridge half width,

and, consequently, distributed moment and rotatory inertial

functions are introduced to properly describe the external loads

as

ρ

0

= λ

0

H

x

1

+ L

p

−ct

H (ct − x

1

) , (11)

m = p · eH

x

1

+ L

p

−ct

H (ct − x

1

) , (12)

where λ

0

represents the torsional distributed polar mass

moment produced by the external loading and e is the

eccentricity of the moving loads with respect to the cross

sectional geometric axes. An energy approach based on the

Hamilton principle is utilized to derive the dynamic equilibrium

equations. In particular, it is assumed that the damping energy

is practically negligible. This hypotheses is quite veriﬁed in

the context of long span bridges, where it has been proved

that the bridge damping effects tend to decrease as span

length increases [20,21]. Detailed results about the inﬂuence of

damping effects on the dynamic ampliﬁcation factors (DAFs)

have been presented in [9], from which it transpires that the

assumption of an undamped bridge system leads to greater

DAFs. It is well known that the Hamilton principle can be

expressed for a conservative system and a generic time interval

as

t

2

t

1

δ (T − V) dt = 0 (13)

where T and V are the kinetic and the potential energy

of the whole dynamic system, respectively, and t

1

and t

2

deﬁne the observation period. Therefore, with respect to these

kinematic ﬁelds, the kinetic energy functional of the combined

bridge–moving-load system may now be formulated as

T =

1

2

L

−L

µ

˙ v

2

+ ˙ u

2

dx +

1

2

L

−L

µ

0

˙ ω

2

dx

+

1

2

I

p

0

˙

ψ

2

L

+

˙

ψ

2

D

+

1

2

M

p

˙ u

2

L

+ ˙ u

2

D

+

1

2

L

−L

ρ

˙ v

2

+ ˙ u

2

dx +

1

2

L

−L

ρ

0

˙ ω

2

dx,

with L = l + L/2. (14)

In particular, (µ, µ

0

) and (ρ, ρ

0

) are the mass functions and

polar inertial moments per unit length for both moving loads

and girder, respectively. Moreover, M

p

is the equivalent lumped

mass which refers to horizontal top pylon displacement, b is the

bridge semi-width and I

p

0

is the pylon polar mass moment for

both left and right pylons, with I

p

0

= b

2

M

p

.

The total potential energy of the system, using a small

displacements formulation, can be written as

V =

1

2

L

−L

EI v

2

+ E Au

2

dx +

1

2

L

−L

GJ

t

ω

2

dx

+

1

2

0

−L

E

∗

s

A

s

H

∆sin α

∆ε

2

L

dx +

1

2

L

0

E

∗

s

A

s

H

∆sin α

∆ε

2

R

dx

+

1

2

E

∗

s0

A

s0

∆ε

2

L0

+∆ε

2

R0

+

1

2

¸

K

p

0

ψ

2

L

+ψ

2

D

+ K

p

u

2

L

+u

2

D

¸

−

L

−L

( f · v +m · ω) dx

+

1

2

L

−L

λ

v

¸

δ

x +

L

2

+δ

x −

L

2

¸

v

2

dx (15)

where (EI, E A, GJ

t

) are the ﬂexural, axial and torsional girder

stiffness and

E

∗

s

A

s

, E

∗

s0

A

s0

**are the axial stiffnesses of a
**

generic stay or the anchor cables. Moreover,

K

p

0

, K

p

are the

D. Bruno et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 1165

torsional and ﬂexural top pylon stiffness and δ (·) is the Dirac

delta function. In particular, the last term on the right-hand side

of Eq. (15) denotes a penalty functional, with λ

v

representing

the penalty parameter, introduced to penalize girder vertical

displacements and, consequently, to reproduce the connection

between the girder and the pylons correctly.

By integrating by parts the ﬁrst variation of the kinetic

energy functional of the combined bridge/moving loads system

and assuming that the virtual displacements vanish at both the

beginning and end of the actual varied path, the following

expression is derived:

t

1

t

1

δTdt = −

t

2

t

1

L

−L

[µ( ¨ vδv + ¨ uδu) +µ

0

¨ ωδω] dxdt

−

t

2

t

1

I

p

0

¨

ψ

L

δψ

L

+

¨

ψ

R

δψ

R

dt

−

t

2

t

1

M

p

( ¨ u

L

δu

L

+ ¨ u

R

δu

R

) dt

−

t

2

t

1

L

−L

˙ ρ

0

( ˙ ωδω) dxdt

−

t

2

t

1

L

−L

ρ

0

¨ ωδωdxdt

−

t

2

t

1

L

−L

ρ ( ¨ vδv + ¨ uδu) dxdt

−

t

2

t

1

L

−L

˙ ρ ( ˙ vδv + ˙ uδu) dxdt. (16)

It is worth noting that in Eq. (16), the last two terms on

the right-hand side denote the kinetic energy contributions

produced by the external moving mass, in which the

time derivative for vertical displacement has been assumed

consistently with Eq. (8)). As a consequence, non-standard

terms due to both Coriolis and centripetal forces are introduced

in the kinetic functional, which are strictly connected with the

interaction behaviour between the bridge deformations and the

moving system. Moreover, the time dependence of the moving

mass determines additional contributions to the inertial forces,

which are, basically, produced by an unsteady distribution of

the train/bridge system mass. Taking into account the ﬁrst

variation of the total potential energy function, expressed by

Eq. (15), the following expression is obtained:

t

1

t

1

δVdt =

t

1

t

1

¸

L

−L

¸

EI v

I V

δv − E Au

δu − GJ

t

ω

δω

¸

dx

+

¸

Tδv − Mδv

+ Nδu + M

t

δω

¸

L

−L

+

0

−L

(q

vL

δv +q

hL

δu +m

ωL

δω) dx

+

L

0

(q

vR

δv +q

hR

δu +m

ωR

δω) dx

+

0

−L

q

u

L

δu

L

+m

ψ

L

δψ

L

dx

+

L

0

q

u

R

δu

R

+m

ψ

R

δψ

R

dx

+K

p

0

(ψ

L

δψ

L

+ψ

R

δψ

R

)

+K

p

(u

L

δu

L

+u

R

δu

R

)

+

S

0

L

δu − S

0

L

δu

L

+ M

0

L

δψ

L

x=−L

+

S

0

R

δu + S

0

R

δu

R

+ M

0

R

δψ

R

x=L

−

L

−L

f · δvdx −

L

−L

m · δωdx

−

L

−L

[δ(x + L/2) +δ(x − L/2)]λ

v

v · δvdx

¸

dt

(17)

where

q

vL(R)

=

E

∗

S

A

S

H∆

¸

v · sin

3

α −

u

L(R)

−(+)u

· sin

2

α cos α

¸

,

q

hL(R)

=

E

∗

S

A

S

H∆

¸

(−)v · sin

2

α cos α

−

(−) u

L(R)

−u

· cos

2

α sin α

¸

,

q

uL

=

E

∗

S

A

S

H∆

¸

−v sin

2

α cos α +(u

L

−u) · cos

2

α sin α

¸

,

q

uR

=

E

∗

S

A

S

H∆

¸

−v sin

2

α cos α +(u

R

+u) · cos

2

α sin α

¸

,

m

ω

L(R)

=

E

∗

S

A

S

b

2

H∆

ωsin

3

α −ψ

L(R)

cos α sin

2

α

,

m

ψ

L(R)

=

E

∗

S

A

S

b

2

H∆

−ωsin

2

α cos α +ψ

L(R)

cos

2

α sin α

.

(18)

S

0

L(R)

=

E

∗

s0

A

s0

H

u −(+)u

L(R)

cos

2

α

0

sin α

0

,

M

0

L(R)

=

E

∗

s0

A

s0

b

2

H

ψ

L(R)

cos

2

α

0

sin α

0

.

(19)

It is worth noting that Eqs. (18) and (19) correspond to

distributed internal forces due to cable system/girder interaction

and concentrated forces and moments applied to the left

and right girder cross section ends due to the anchor stays,

respectively (Fig. 2). Moreover, in Eq. (18), the angular

parameter α, as depicted in Fig. 1, depends on the longitudinal

coordinate x and the geometrical bridge lengths (l, H, L).

Assuming the bridge scheme reported in Fig. 1, the boundary

conditions at the left and right girder cross section ends require

null values for vertical displacements, bending moments,

torsional rotations and speciﬁed horizontal axial forces, as in

the following equations:

ω = 0, v = 0, v

= 0

at x = ±L;

E Au

−L

+ S

0

L

= 0, E Au

L

− S

0

R

= 0. (20)

The dynamic equilibrium equations can be obtained in

explicit form by means of the variation statement of the

Hamilton principles. In particular, by substituting Eqs. (16)

and (17) into Eq. (13) and taking into account the boundary

1166 D. Bruno et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177

Fig. 2. Dynamic interaction forces between bridge components.

conditions, the following dynamic equilibrium equations are

derived:

Girder

µ¨ v + EI v

I V

+ H (x) q

vR

+ H (−x) q

vL

+ ˙ ρ ˙ v

+ρ

¨ v +2c ˙ v

+c

2

v

− f −

¸

δ (x + L/2) +δ (x − L/2)

¸

λ

v

v = 0, (21)

µ¨ u − E Au

+ H (x) q

hR

+ H (−x) q

hL

+ ˙ ρ ˙ u +ρ ¨ u = 0, (22)

µ

0

¨ ω − GJ

t

ω

+ H (x) m

ωR

+ H (−x) m

ωL

+ ˙ ρ

0

˙ ω

+ρ

0

˙ ω −m = 0. (23)

Left top pylon

S

0

L

−

0

−L

q

uL

dx −

K

P

u

L

+ M

p

¨ u

L

= 0, −L ≤ x ≤ 0,

(24)

I

p

0

¨

ψ

L

+ K

p

0

ψ

L

+

0

−L

m

ψ

L

dx + M

0

L

= 0, −L ≤ x ≤ 0.

(25)

Right top pylon

S

0

R

+

L

0

q

uR

dx +

K

P

u

R

+ M

p

¨ u

R

= 0, 0 ≤ x ≤ L

(26)

I

p

0

¨

ψ

R

+ K

p

0

ψ

R

+

L

0

m

ψR

dx + M

0

R

= 0, 0 ≤ x ≤ L.

(27)

A synoptic representation of both internal and external

forces has been proposed in Fig. 2, and, as an alternative to

the variational approach, the governing equations can be easily

derived consistently with a local approach taking into account

the equilibrium conditions for both internal and external forces.

In order to develop a generalized formulation, the dynamic

equilibrium equations have been proposed in dimensionless

form, introducing the following parameters, related to both

bridge and moving load characteristics:

Girder

ε

F

=

4I σ

g

H

3

g

1/4

, ε

ω

=

C

t

σ

g

Eb

2

Hg

1/2

,

ε

A

=

Aσ

g

Hg

, ζ

=

λ

µ

, ζ

0

=

µ

0

µb

2

.

(28)

Pylon, cable system

ζ

P

=

M

P

µH

, η

p

=

K

p

σ

g

Eg

, a =

γ

2

H

2

E

12σ

3

g

,

a = a

1 +β

2β

2

.

(29)

Moving loads

p =

pσ

g

Eg

, e =

e

b

, ϑ = c

µσ

g

EgH

1/2

,

τ = t

Eg

µHσ

g

1/2

.

(30)

Bridge kinematic

V =

v

H

, U =

u

H

, U

R

=

u

R

H

, U

L

=

u

L

H

. (31)

In particular, (ε

F

, ε

A

, ε

ω

) are the relative bending, axial

and torsional stiffness ratios between the girder and the cable

system, respectively. Moreover, (a) identiﬁes a bridge size

parameter strictly connected with the deformability of the cable

D. Bruno et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 1167

system caused by the Dischinger effect and

η

p

, ζ

P

deﬁne the

inertial and stiffness properties for both right and left pylons.

The moving load characteristics are reported in Eq. (30),

in which ( p, e) describe the dimensionless applied loads and

eccentricity with respect to the girder cross sectional geometric

axis, whereas (ζ, ζ

0

) correspond to the mass and polar mass

moment ratio between the external loads and the girder. Finally,

(ϑ, τ) deﬁne the dimensionless moving load speed and the

time variables. Adopting the following notation for spatial and

time derivatives, f

=

∂ f

∂ X

,

˙

f =

∂ f

∂τ

, with X =

x

H

, the

dynamic equilibrium equations are now presented in terms

of the normalized kinematic variables, dimensionless bridge

and moving system parameters, by means of the following

expressions:

Girder

ε

4

F

4

V

I V

+

¨

V +ϕV

−

¸

ϕ

1

H

1

(U

L

−U) + H

2

(U

R

+U)

¸

− p f

1

+

ζ

θ

f

2

˙

V +ζ f

1

¨

V +2θ

˙

V

+

θ

2

V

+Λ

V

¸

δ (X + L/2H) +δ (X − L/2H)

¸

V = 0, (32)

ε

A

U

−

¨

U −

¸

H

1

(ϕ

1

V +ϕ

2

(U −U

L

))

+ H

2

(−ϕ

1

V +ϕ

2

(U +U

R

))

¸

−

ζ

θ

f

2

˙

U −ζ f

1

¨

U = 0, (33)

ε

ω

ω

−ζ

0

¨ ω −ϕω +ϕ

1

H

1

ψ

L

+ H

2

ψ

R

+

H

b

p f

1

e −

ζ

0

θ

f

2

˙ ω −ζ

0

f

1

¨ ω = 0. (34)

Left pylon

0

−L/H

[−ϕ

1

V −ϕ

2

(U −U

L

)] dX +

η

p

U

L

+ζ

P

¨

U

L

−χ (U −U

L

) = 0, (35)

ζ

p

¨

ψ

L

+

η

p

+χ

ψ

L

+

0

−L/H

(ϕ

1

ϑ −ϕ

2

ψ

L

) dX = 0. (36)

Right pylon

−

L/H

0

[ϕ

1

V −ϕ

2

(U +U

R

)] dX +

η

p

U

R

+ζ

P

¨

U

R

+χ (U +U

R

) = 0, (37)

ζ

p

¨

ψ

R

+

η

p

+χ

ψ

R

+

L/H

0

(ϕ

1

ϑ −ϕ

2

ψ

R

) dX = 0, (38)

with H

1

= H (−X) , H

2

= H (X), χ =

E

∗

S0

A

0

E

σ

g

gH

sin α

0

cos

2

α

0

, Λ

V

= λ

v

σ

g

Eg

, whereas the functions ( f

1

, f

2

, ϕ, ϕ

1

, ϕ

2

),

for the sake of brevity, are reported in Appendix A. Moreover,

details of the derivation of dynamic equilibrium equations can

be found in Appendix B, in which, for conciseness, only Eq.

(32) has been discussed.

The dynamic equilibrium equations introduce an integro-

differential boundary value system. Moreover, in Eqs. (35)–

(38), the kinematic variables, related to both left and right

pylons, depend only on the time variables. Therefore, in order

to utilize standard numerical methods to solve PDE system

equations, the integro-differential equations, given by Eqs.

(32)–(38), are converted into a purely differential form. The

equivalence between the original and the modiﬁed systems

is guaranteed by the use of the penalty method, by which

it is possible to convert the equilibrium conditions, from

integral to local form. In particular, the pylon kinematics

(namely U

L

, U

R

ψ

R

, ψ

L

) are assumed, ﬁctitiously, to depend on

both time and space variables. However, they are constrained

over the spatial domain by means of penalty functionals,

involving two penalty parameters, i.e.

K

U

, K

ψ

. Moreover,

distributed and lumped forces arising from the cable system

and pylons have been taken into account, utilizing Heaviside

and delta Dirac functions, respectively. As a result, the integro-

differential dynamic equilibrium equations, i.e. Eqs. (35)–(38),

are transformed into the following relationships:

H

1

[−ϕ

1

V −ϕ

2

(U −U

L

)] +δ

X +

L

2H

×

η

p

U

L

+ζ

P

¨

U

L

+ K

U

U

L

= 0, (39)

H

1

(ϕ

1

ϑ −ϕ

2

ψ

L

) +δ

X +

L

2H

ζ

p

¨

ψ

L

+η

p

ψ

L

+K

ψ

ψ

L

= 0, (40)

−H

2

[ϕ

1

V −ϕ

2

(U +U

R

)] +δ

X −

L

2H

×

η

p

U

R

+ζ

P

¨

U

R

+ K

U

U

R

= 0, (41)

−H

2

(ϕ

1

ϑ −ϕ

2

ψ

R

) +δ

X −

L

2H

ζ

p

¨

ψ

R

−η

p

ψ

R

+K

ψ

ψ

= 0. (42)

By comparing the sets of Eqs. (39)–(42) and Eqs. (35)–(38),

related to the differential and the integro-differential forms,

respectively, it is easy to recognize that the internal forces

referred to the anchor stays have not yet been introduced. In

particular, the transformation of equilibrium equations related

to the pylons, from global into local form, leads to considering

the concentrated forces and moments arising from anchor stay

axial forces as boundary conditions, by means of the following

equations:

U

L

(−L/H, τ) = −

1

K

U

χ (U −U

L

) , U

L

(L/H, τ) = 0

U

R

(L/H, τ) =

1

K

U

χ (U +U

R

) , U

R

(−L/H, τ) = 0

ψ

L

(−L/H, τ) =

1

K

ψ

χ, ψ

L

(L/H, τ) = 0,

ψ

R

(L/H, τ) =

1

K

ψ

χ, ψ

R

(L/H, τ) = 0.

(43)

Finally, the following relationships summarize the remain-

ing boundary conditions, i.e. Eq. (20), which impose that the

vertical and torsional displacements vanish at the left and right

and bridge cross section ends, natural conditions for girder ax-

ial displacements and homogeneous relationships with respect

1168 D. Bruno et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177

Fig. 3. Moving load problem for “A” shaped tower typology: bridge kinematics and internal force distribution.

to the time variable:

U

(−L/H, τ) =

χ

ε

A

(U −U

L

) ,

U

(L/H, τ) = −

χ

ε

A

(U +U

R

) ,

V(−L/H, τ) = 0, V(L/H, τ) = 0,

V

(−L/H, τ) = 0, V

(L/H, τ) = 0,

ω(−L/H, τ) = 0, ω(L/H, τ) = 0,

ω(X, 0) = 0, ˙ ω(X, 0) = 0,

U(X, 0) = 0,

˙

U(X, 0) = 0,

V(X, 0) = 0,

˙

V(X, 0) = 0,

ψ

i

(X, 0) = 0,

˙

ψ

i

(X, 0) = 0, U

i

(X, 0) = 0,

˙

U

i

(X, 0) = 0 i = R, L.

(44)

From a numerical point of view the penalty stiffness

parameters,

Λ

V

, K

U

, K

ψ

**, are assumed to be sufﬁciently high
**

to impose proper constraint conditions, but not, exceedingly,

to introduce numerical instabilities in the computation. For a

numerical evaluation of the stiffness values, from the Author’s

experience of applying the model over different structures, a

range between [10

5

–10

6

] is suggested.

Long span bridges are frequently designed with “A” shaped

pylon typologies, which are able to efﬁciently reduce both

torsional and ﬂexural deformations produced by eccentric or

transverse loading. In order to analyse such a bridge typology,

the previous formulation still applies, but slight modiﬁcations

to the main governing equations need to be performed. As

a matter of fact, the dynamic equilibrium equations with

respect to ﬂexural deformation in the plane xy are, basically,

the same. In contrast, the top pylon kinematic is governed

by longitudinal displacements only, because both out-of-plane

(xz) and torsional (with respect to y) kinematic parameters

are assumed to be meaningless. Moreover, the distributed

stays are now inclined with respect to the vertical direction,

i.e. the y axis, and determine a coupling behaviour between

out-of-plane ﬂexural and torsional deformations. As depicted

in Fig. 3, introducing the misalignment angles, i.e. α, β,

which describe the orientation of a generic stay element with

respect to vertical and longitudinal directions, respectively,

and transverse displacement w regarding the xy plane, the

interaction forces between cable system and girder assume the

following expressions:

q

vL(R)

=

E

∗

S

A

S

H∆

¸

v · sin

3

α

−

u

L(R)

−(+)u

· sin

2

α cos α cos β

¸

,

q

hL(R)

=

E

∗

S

A

S

H∆

¸

(−)v · sin

2

α cos α cos β

−

−u

L(R)

−u

· cos

2

α sin α cos

2

β

¸

,

q

uL(R)

=

E

∗

S

A

S

H∆

¸

−v sin

2

α cos α cos β

+

u

L(R)

−(+)u

· cos

2

α sin α cos

2

β

¸

,

m

ω

L(R)

=

E

∗

S

A

S

b

2

H∆

ϑ sin

3

α +

∂w

∂x

cos α sin

2

α cos β

−

w

b

sin

2

α cos α sin β

S

0

L(R)

=

E

∗

s0

A

s0

H

u −(+)u

L(R)

cos

2

α

0

sin α

0

cos β,

(45)

q

wL(R)

=

E

∗

S

A

S

H∆

sin α cos α sin β

×

ωb · sin α −(+)

∂w

∂x

b cos α cos φ −wcos α sin β

,

m

wL(R)

= −(+)

E

∗

S

A

S

b

H∆

sin α cos α cos β

×

ωb · sin α −(+)

∂w

∂x

b cos α cos β −(+)wcos α sin β

,

(46)

where (q

i

, m

ω

, S

0

) with (i = v, h, u), are the internal forces

produced by the cable system girder and pylons. Moreover,

D. Bruno et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 1169

Table 1

Comparison of maximum normalized torsional rotation in terms of the relative torsional stiffness (ε

ω

) and bridge size parameter (a) between simpliﬁed (S) and

general (G) formulations

a Model ε

ω

= 0.05 ε

ω

= 0.1 ε

ω

= 0.15 ε

ω

= 0.2 ε

ω

= 0.25

0.05 G 115.39 93.21 74.85 61.69 53.08

S 115.89 93.57 75.06 62.05 53.50

0.10 G 184.65 139.79 107.17 86.44 77.08

S 183.78 137.35 105.84 86.82 77.22

0.15 G 237.77 174.45 133.39 111.17 237.77

S 237.84 174.37 133.29 111.14 237.84

0.20 G 272.12 209.57 164.16 135.73 272.12

S 271.76 210.71 164.20 135.97 271.76

0.25 G 338.72 250.96 195.65 160.61 338.72

S 332.65 246.57 191.63 157.65 332.65

0.30 G 381.34 283.29 218.71 176.48 160.61

S 377.06 280.07 217.45 176.61 151.20

Table 2

Comparisons of maximum normalized torsional rotation in terms of speed parameter (θ) and relative torsional stiffness (ε

ω

) between simpliﬁed (S) and general (G)

formulations

θ Model a = 0.1 a = 0.2

ε

ω

= 0.1 ε

ω

= 0.15 ε

ω

= 0.2 ε

ω

= 0.1 ε

ω

= 0.15 ε

ω

= 0.2

0.05 G 117.99 95.31 83.67 191.55 152.52 128.74

S 117.31 94.97 83.66 188.85 150.41 129.68

0.07 G 123.33 99.15 84.60 190.29 152.44 131.02

S 122.80 98.82 84.49 191.65 153.11 131.01

0.09 G 127.93 101.54 85.06 209.95 164.71 136.03

S 127.98 101.82 85.38 208.57 163.62 135.53

0.11 G 139.56 106.54 88.09 223.88 172.00 140.75

S 138.49 106.20 87.78 222.20 170.95 139.88

0.13 G 142.69 112.63 92.10 238.69 181.20 144.29

S 143.75 113.48 92.64 237.56 181.12 145.11

q

wL(R)

and m

wL(R)

represent distributed forces and moments

in the (xz) plane (Fig. 3), produced by the coupling behaviour

by torsional and ﬂexural deformations, arising fromthe inclined

stays of the “A” shaped tower typology.

The dynamic equilibrium equations, for “A” shaped bridge

typology, can be easily derived, starting from Eqs. (21)–

(26) and making use of Eq. (45) to describe the interaction

forces between the cable system and the girder. Moreover, an

additional equilibrium equation is required due to the presence

of the transverse displacement, w. In particular, as reported in

Fig. 3, the following expression regarding ﬂexural deformation

in the xy plane is introduced:

µ ¨ w + EI

s

w

I V

+ H (x)

q

s R

+m

s R

+ H (−x)

q

sL

+m

sL

= 0. (47)

Finally, the dynamic equilibrium equations for the “A”

shaped tower typology can be summarized by Eqs. (21)–(26)

and (47). However, in the typical range of both geometrical,

mechanical and moving load characteristics, investigations

have been shown that for in-plane loading conditions (loads

applied in the xy plane), the transverse deformations are

practically negligible and do not inﬂuence dynamic bridge

behaviour. To this end, sensitivity analyses have been proposed

in terms of maximum normalized torsional rotation during

moving load application, i.e. (ω/pe). In particular, results

concerning the actual solution, namely the General Approach

(GA), derived from Eqs. (21)–(26) and (47), and a simpliﬁed

one, namely the Simpliﬁed Approach (SA), obtained assuming,

“a priori”, that the transverse displacements are negligible,

i.e. w(x, t ) = 0, have been compared. The following bridge

and moving load parameters, typically utilized in practical

applications, have been assumed constant during the analyses:

e/b = 0.5, p/g = 1, J

w

/J = 100, Lp = 750 m,

ζ = 1, ζ

0

= 0.5, η

p

= 0.085. (48)

Variability with respect to dimensionless torsional girder

stiffness, ε

ω

, bridge size parameter, a, and moving system

speed, θ, have been investigated. The results reported in

Tables 1 and 2 denote that the dynamic bridge behaviour is

practically unaffected by the transverse ﬂexural deformations

deriving from w displacements. The actual solution and the

simpliﬁed ones make the same prediction, with an error of less

than 2%.

1170 D. Bruno et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177

The dynamic equilibrium equations for “A” shaped towers

in the dimensionless context are not presented here for the sake

of brevity, but they can be easily derived by introducing the

dimensionless parameters previously deﬁned in Eqs. (28)–(31)

in the governing equations.

3. Numerical procedure

The dynamic equilibrium equation system introduces a PDE

system from which it is quite difﬁcult to derive an analytical

solution, because a large variable number and complexities are

involved in the main equations. The governing equations are

converted to an equivalent differential system of the ﬁrst order.

In particular, for any dependent variables involved with an

order higher than the ﬁrst one, additional functions representing

all lower order time derivatives are introduced, by means of

supplementary equations, which are appended to the main

system. As a result, the reformulated boundary value problem

assumes the following form:

a

i j

(X, τ) y

j

+b

i j

(X, τ) ˙ y

j

= f

i

(y

1

, y

2

, y

3

, . . . , y

14

, X) ,

with i, j = 1, 14, (49)

where y = (V, V

, V

, V

,

˙

V, U, U

,

˙

U, U

R

, U

R

,

˙

U

R

, U

L

,

U

L

,

˙

U

L

) is the vector of unknown functions or primary

variables and

a

i j

, b

i j

**are constants depending on both the
**

moving loads and the bridge properties. Moreover, f

i

represent

proper transformation operators, which deﬁne the relationship

between primary variables and known quantities, in accordance

with the PDE system given by Eqs. (32)–(34) and (39)–(42).

In accordance with Eqs. (43) and (44), initial and boundary

conditions with respect to both space and time are introduced

by means of the following equations:

B

1

y

i

X, 0

=¯y

i

, B

2

y

i

(0, τ) = y

i

,

with X = ±L/H, i = 1 . . . 14, (50)

where B

1

, B

2

are proper transformation matrices, which

guarantee the consistency of the boundary conditions with Eq.

(49), and

¯y

i

, y

i

**represent known quantities related to the
**

temporal and spatial variables, respectively.

A numerical integration scheme has been utilized by means

of a ﬁnite difference method, which uses a second-order centred

implicit scheme for both time and spatial derivatives [22].

The method has a truncation error of O((∆t )

2

(∆x)

2

) and is

unconditionally stable for all time steps. In order to capture the

rapid changes of the solution during the time integration, the

whole domain has been discretized by means of an accurate

mesh point number. Moreover, requested values, those which

do not lie on a mesh point, have been computed using a

Lagrange interpolation that uses four space subdivisions and

three time points. The solution process is obtained consistently

with an error control procedure, which is able to integrate

the nonlinear equations with respect to upper bounds’ error

tolerances related to both time and spatial variables. In

particular, the spatial error estimate is obtained by comparing

the solution to another one computed on a coarser spatial mesh,

but assuming the same time step. This gives an estimate of the

O(h ∧ 2) local truncation error of second order in h (where h

is the mesh spacing for the spatial variable). Alternatively, the

time error estimate is obtained by comparing the solution to

another computed with a larger time step, but the same spatial

mesh. This gives an estimate of the O(k ∧ 2) local truncation

error of second order in k (where k is the time step). However,

these estimates are local, so they do not account for situations

where a small perturbation in the solution at a time t = t

1

can

lead to a large change in the solution at a later time.

The numerical results are derived providing at ﬁrst a

trial integration time step, which is subsequently reduced by

means of a proper adaptive procedure in order to satisfy the

convergence conditions. Contrarily, the spatial discretization

remains ﬁxed during the analysis, and consequently, in order

to minimize the integration errors, a proper mesh point number

over the bridge structure has been adopted. In the following

results, the spatial domain is discretized utilizing more than

10 000 subdivisions over the whole bridge length. The initial

integration time step, which is automatically reduced due to the

time adaptation procedure, is assumed as at least 1/1000 of the

observation period deﬁned as the time necessary for the moving

train to cross the bridge. On a Pentium IV processor at 3000 Mz

the CPU time required for performing the time history for each

case was approximately 3 min.

4. Numerical results and parametric study

The results deﬁne the relationship between the characteris-

tics of the bridge and applied moving loads, emphasizing the

effects produced by the external mass on the dynamic bridge

vibrations. In particular, a parametric study is proposed, which

describes cable-stayed bridge behaviour in terms of dimension-

less variables, strictly related to both the moving loads and the

bridge characteristics. Numerical results are presented in terms

of dynamic impact factors, in order to quantify the ampliﬁcation

effects produced by the moving loads over the static solution

(i.e. st), by means of the following relationship:

Φ

X

=

max X

t =0...T

X

st

(51)

where T is the observation period and X is the variable under

investigation. The parametric study has been developed to

investigate the following variables:

• φ

V

dynamic ampliﬁcation factor of the midspan vertical

displacement,

• φ

M

dynamic ampliﬁcation factor of the midspan bending

moment,

• φ

σ

0

dynamic ampliﬁcation factor of the axial force in the

anchor stay,

• φ

σ

dynamic ampliﬁcation factor of the axial force in the

longest central span stay.

• φ

ω

dynamic ampliﬁcation factor of the midspan girder

torsional rotation.

The bridge and moving load dimensioning is selected in

accordance with the values utilized in practical applications

and due mainly to both structural and economical factors.

D. Bruno et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 1171

Table 3

Percentage errors of midspan vertical displacement and bending moment

dynamic ampliﬁcation factors (Φ

V

, Φ

M

) between the moving force model

(MFM), standard acceleration (SA) and proposed results for different

normalized speed parameters (θ)

θ Φ

V

Φ

M

Error % SA Error MFM % Error SA % Error MFM %

0.02 0.37 0.51 0.87 0.21

0.04 1.16 3.54 1.58 21.93

0.05 5.11 6.40 2.59 33.64

0.07 9.24 10.60 11.15 33.87

0.09 2.42 11.25 18.23 39.69

0.11 4.65 20.74 38.32 52.41

0.13 19.17 31.34 37.58 42.87

The dimensionless parameters related to aspect ratio, pylon

stiffness, allowable cable stress and moving load characteristics

are assumed as equal to the following representative values:

L/2H = 2.5, l/H = 5/3,

σ

a

/E = 7200/2.1 ×10

6

, K

p

/g = 50,

p/g = [0.5 −1], ζ

0

= [0 −2].

(52)

In order to evaluate the inﬂuence of both mass schematiza-

tion and moving system speed, comparisons in terms of the

dynamic ampliﬁcation factors (DAFs) have been proposed in

Figs. 4–7. In particular, the actual solution has been compared

with numerical results based on the following assumptions:

(1) Inertial description of the moving system completely

neglected, i.e. p = 0, ζ = 0, namely the moving force

model (MFM).

(2) Inertial description of the moving system neglected with

respect to non-standard inertial forces, i.e. p = 0, ζ = 0,

f

2

= 0, 2θ

˙

V

= θ

2

V

**= 0, namely Standard Analysis
**

(SA).

The proposed results do not agree with those arising from the

SA, especially at high speed of the moving system, where it

has been shown that non-standard terms in the acceleration

function provide notable ampliﬁcations in both kinematic

and stress variables. Moreover the comparisons between the

proposed formulation and those concerning the MFM are not

in agreement in wide ranges of the speed parameter. However,

for reduced values of moving system speed, i.e. θ → 0,

the results arising from the dynamic and static solutions are

practically coincident and, consequently, the inﬂuence of the

mass schematization becomes negligible. In order to quantify

numerically the inﬂuence of the inertial effects of the moving

system, the percentage errors between the SA and the MFM and

the proposed formulation have been reported in Table 3. Finally,

in Figs. 4 and 5, dynamic ampliﬁcation variability with respect

to the speed parameter for different intensity ratios between live

and self-weight loads, are proposed.

In Tables 4 and 5, the inﬂuence of the geometric ratios of

the bridge, i.e. L/l and l/H, on the DAFs is investigated at

ﬁxed speed of the moving system and relative girder stiffness,

(i.e. ε

ω

= 0.2, θ = 0.10. In particular, the bridge geometry is

assumed to verify well-known design rules derived from both

Fig. 4. Midspan vertical displacement dynamic impact factor (Φ

V

) vs normal-

ized speed parameter (θ).

Fig. 5. Bending moment dynamic impact factor (Φ

M

) vs normalized speed

parameter (θ).

structural and practical conditions, which guarantee stability

of the anchor stays, avoiding excessive steel quantity amount

in the cable system [16–18]. The DAFs for both bending

moments and displacements generally grow for increasing

ratios between the central span and the height of the pylons,

because of the most greater deformability of the structural

system. However, the impact factors based on the bending

moments are quite dependent from the geometric aspect

1172 D. Bruno et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177

Table 4

Dynamic ampliﬁcation factors for midspan vertical displacement (Φ

V

) vs geometric bridge ratios L/l and H/L

L/l a = 0.1 a = 0.2

L/H = 4 L/H = 5 L/H = 6 L/H = 4 L/H = 5 L/H = 6

2.75 1.308 1.356 1.390 1.25 1.29 1.35

3.00 1.282 1.332 1.378 1.20 1.25 1.32

3.25 1.256 1.312 1.371 1.18 1.23 1.31

3.50 1.235 1.304 1.374 1.16 1.22 1.32

Table 5

Dynamic ampliﬁcation factors for midspan bending moment (Φ

M

) vs geometric bridge ratios L/l and H/L

L/l a = 0.1 a = 0.2

L/H = 4 L/H = 5 L/H = 6 L/H = 4 L/H = 5 L/H = 6

2.75 1.903 2.394 3.094 1.464 1.855 2.590

3.00 1.664 2.280 2.908 1.431 1.727 2.407

3.25 1.674 2.090 2.390 1.722 1.652 2.361

3.50 1.563 1.906 2.583 1.588 1.821 2.262

Fig. 6. Anchor stay dynamic impact factor (Φ

σ

0

) vs normalized speed

parameter (θ).

ratios than the corresponding ones for vertical displacements.

Moreover, at ﬁxed L/H, the DAFs for vertical displacements

are quite unaffected by the ratio between the main and central

spans, because the cable system stiffness remains practically

constant during the analyses.

The relationship between the DAFs and bridge size is

investigated in Figs. 8 and 9. In typical allowable ranges

of the a parameter, the DAFs, related to cinematic and

stress bridge variables, are analysed for an external moving

system with a constant speed advance and different loading

lengths (namely c = 120 m/s, Lp

1,2

= 500, 1000 m,

M

p

σ

g

/µK = 2.3). The comparisons are proposed to

investigate the effect of the external moving mass on the

dynamic bridge vibrations. In particular, the results show a

Fig. 7. Longest centre span stay dynamic impact factor (Φ

σ

) vs normalized

speed parameter (θ).

tendency to decrease with an oscillating behaviour and some

local peaks in curve development. The inertial effects produce

considerable ampliﬁcations in both the displacement and stress

variables, especially, for low values of the bridge size parameter

a. Moreover, results concerning the MFM determine notable

underestimates in both stress and displacement DAFs.

In Figs. 10 and 11, the dynamic behaviour of the bridge

is investigated with respect to the dimensionless parameter

ε

F

, which deﬁnes the normalized stiffness of the girder with

respect to the cable system. In particular, the analysis has

been developed at a constant speed of the moving system

and for different values of the bridge size parameter, namely

a = (0.1, 0.2), emphasizing the inﬂuence of the external

D. Bruno et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 1173

Fig. 8. Midspan displacement dynamic impact factor (Φ

V

) vs bridge size

parameter (a).

Fig. 9. Bending moment dynamic impact factor (Φ

M

) vs bridge size parameter

(a).

moving mass description on the dynamic behaviour of the

bridge. As a matter of fact, the actual solution is compared

to the case in which the inertial effects of the train loads

have not been accounted for. The dynamic bridge behaviour

appears to be quite sensitive to the external mass description,

and underestimates of the dynamic impact factors are noted

if the travelling mass has not been properly evaluated. The

major ampliﬁcation effects are noted for low ranges of the

Fig. 10. Midspan displacement dynamic impact factor (Φ

V

) vs relative girder

stiffness parameter (ε

F

).

Fig. 11. Bending moment dynamic impact factor (Φ

M

) vs relative girder

stiffness parameter (ε

F

).

ε

F

parameter, in which the bridge structure is basically more

ﬂexible and, mainly, dominated by the cable-stayed system.

In contrast, for high values of ε

F

, corresponding to girder-

dominated bridge structures, the effects of the inertial forces

of the moving system are notably reduced.

The dynamic bridge behaviour is analysed with respect to

eccentric loads, which involve both ﬂexural and torsional de-

formations. In particular, in order to evaluate the ampliﬁcation

1174 D. Bruno et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177

Fig. 12. Midspan torsional rotation dynamic impact factors (Φ

ω

) vs normalized

speed parameter (θ) for HST.

Fig. 13. Midspan torsional rotation dynamic impact factors (Φ

ω

) vs normalized

speed parameter (θ) for AST.

effects produced by moving loads for bridge structures based

on both “A” and “H” shaped towers (namely AST, HST), a sen-

sitivity analysis has been developed. The results are presented

in term of maximum normalized torsional rotation and rela-

tive DAF produced by the moving load application, at midspan

girder cross section, i.e. X = 0.

In Figs. 12 and 13, the effects of mass distribution of the

moving system for both AST and HST is investigated in terms

of midspan torsional rotation for different values of the loading

strip length L

p

. In particular, in Fig. 12, for the HST typology,

dynamic ampliﬁcation displays a tendency to grow especially

for reduced ratios of loading application length and central

bridge span. Moreover, the inertial forces of the moving system

Fig. 14. Midspan torsional rotation dynamic impact factors (Φ

ω

) vs relative

girder stiffness (ε

ω

) parameter for AST-HST.

Fig. 15. Maximum normalized displacement (ω) vs relative girder stiffness

(ε

ω

) parameter for AST-HST.

determine an intensiﬁcation of the DAFs. In contrast, in Fig. 13,

the AST denotes a smaller dependence on the loading strip

length and the moving mass schematization. This behaviour

can be explained due to the fact that the AST typologies show,

generally, greater stiffness with respect to the HST ones, which

strongly reduce dynamic ampliﬁcations, and as a result the

effects of the moving mass becomes negligible.

In Figs. 14 and 15, sensitivity analyses of DAFs and

maximum normalized torsional rotation, i.e. Φ

ω

and ω = θ/pe

respectively, with respect to girder torsional stiffness parameter,

ε

ω

, are proposed. The comparisons reported in Fig. 14, denote

D. Bruno et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 1175

Fig. 16. Midspan torsional rotation dynamic impact factors (Φ

ω

) vs bridge size

parameter (a) for AST-HST.

Fig. 17. Maximum displacement (ω) vs bridge size parameter (a) for AST-

HST.

that DAFs for AST are generally greater than the corresponding

ones obtained for bridges based on HST. This behaviour can

be explained in view of the enhanced stiffness properties of

AST, which although reducing bridge deformations means an

intensiﬁcation of the dynamic impact factors. Moreover, for

increasing values of ε

ω

, which basically correspond to girder-

dominated bridge structures, the dynamic impact factors are

practically unaffected by the shape of the towers.

In Fig. 15, comparisons in terms of normalized torsional

rotations for both “A” and “H” shaped tower typologies have

been reported. The results show a tendency to decrease for

increasing values of girder stiffness. The dynamic solution

appears to be strictly dependent on the tower shape and

signiﬁcant differences between the AST and HST typologies

are noted.

Similar results have been proposed in Figs. 16 and 17,

in which sensitivity analyses have been developed in terms

of the bridge size parameter a. In particular, in Fig. 16, the

effects of moving mass description have been investigated,

emphasizing the inﬂuence of the inertial forces of the moving

system on the DAFs. The comparisons denote that with respect

to the HST, the AST are subject to major ampliﬁcation effects.

Moreover, DAFs are strictly dependent on inertial forces of

the moving system, because solutions arising from the MFM

greatly underestimate the dynamic response of the bridge for

both AST and HST. Finally, in Fig. 17, normalized torsional

rotations have been compared in terms of pylon typology. The

results show a tendency to increase for increasing values of the

bridge size parameter a, and as with previous results, the AST

with respect to the HST typology shows smaller displacements

in the whole investigation range.

5. Conclusions

Long span bridges under moving loads have been analysed

for both ﬂexural and torsional deformation modes, in terms

of dynamic impact factors for typical kinematic and stress

variables of the bridge. The effects of the inertial description

of the moving system on the dynamic bridge behaviour have

been investigated, by means of a parametric study developed

in terms of both moving loads and bridge characteristics.

The inﬂuence of the inertial forces are considerable, while

those corresponding to non-standard contributions arising from

Coriolis and centripetal accelerations determine the major

ampliﬁcations, mainly at high speeds of the moving system.

The inertial effects of the moving system have been discussed

with respect to typical geometrical and stiffness parameters of

the bridge, emphasizing the ampliﬁcation effects produced by

the inertial forces of the moving system. For eccentric loads,

sensitivity analyses have been developed in terms of dynamic

impact factors and maximum normalized displacements with

respect to both “A” and “H” shaped tower typologies. In

the framework of the “A” shaped tower typologies, the

coupling behaviour between torsional and transversal ﬂexural

deformations has been discussed. In particular, the inﬂuence of

the transverse displacements has been investigated, by means

of sensitivity analyses. This establishes that, for an in-plane

loading condition, the effect of transverse deformability on

the dynamic behaviour of the bridge is practically negligible.

Moreover, numerical results have shown that, in comparisons

with the “H” shaped tower topology, the “A” shaped ones,

even if having greater dynamic ampliﬁcation factors, are

characterized by enhanced stiffness properties, which are able

to efﬁciently reduce torsional bridge deformation.

The investigation is developed in terms of the main

dimensionless parameters related to both geometric and

stiffness properties of the bridge. As a result, a parametric

study may be useful in the design procedure since the dynamic

impact factors for typical deformation and stress variables can

be determined in advance.

1176 D. Bruno et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177

Appendix A

In order to simplify the presentation of the dynamic

equilibrium equations in dimensionless formulation, the

following relationships have been utilized:

f

1

= H (τθ − X

1

) H

X

1

+

L

p

H

−τθ

, (A.1)

f

2

=

¸

δ (τθ − X

1

) H

X

1

+

L

p

H

−τθ

−δ

X

1

+

L

p

H

−τθ

H (τθ − X

1

)

¸

, (A.2)

ϕ (X)

=

1

1 +aX

2

1

1 + X

2

−

L

H

≤ X ≤ 0,

1

1 +a

L

2H

− X

2

1

1 +

L

2H

− X

2

, 0 ≤ X ≤

L

H

,

(A.3)

ϕ

1

(X)

=

1

1 +aX

2

X

1 + X

2

, −

L

H

≤ X ≤ 0,

1

1 +a

L

2H

− X

2

L

2H

− X

1 +

L

2H

− X

2

, 0 ≤ X ≤

L

H

,

(A.4)

ϕ

2

(X)

=

1

1 +aX

2

X

2

1 + X

2

, −

L

H

≤ X ≤ 0,

1

1 +a

L

2H

− X

2

L

2H

− X

2

1 +

L

2H

− X

2

, 0 ≤ X ≤

L

H

,

(A.5)

with X

1

= x

1

/H.

Appendix B

Starting from Eqs. (28)–(31), the following expressions can

be determined:

∂v

∂t

= H

∂V

∂τ

∂τ

∂t

= H

˙

V

Eg

µHσ

g

1/2

,

∂

2

v

∂t

2

= H

∂

2

V

∂τ

2

Eg

µHσ

g

,

(B.1)

∂v

∂x

= H

∂V

∂ X

∂ X

∂x

= V

,

∂

2

v

∂x

2

=

1

H

∂

2

V

∂ X

2

=

1

H

V

. . .

∂

4

v

∂x

4

=

1

H

3

∂

4

V

∂ X

4

=

1

H

3

V

I V

(B.2)

∂

2

v

∂t ∂x

=

˙

V

Eg

µHσ

g

1/2

, c =

EgH

µσ

g

1/2

ϑ. (B.3)

Moreover, in view of Eqs. (B.1) and (B.3) and Eqs.

(28)–(31), the interaction forces between the cable system

and the girder (q

vL

, q

vR

) and the mass function of the

moving system (ρ) can be expressed by the following

relationships:

q

vL

=

E

∗

S

A

S

H∆

v · sin

3

α −(u

L

−u) · sin

2

α cos α

=

Eg

σ

g

(V · ϕ −(U

L

−U) · ϕ

1

) (B.4)

q

vR

=

E

∗

S

A

S

H∆

v · sin

3

α −(u

R

+u) · sin

2

α cos α

=

Eg

σ

g

(V · ϕ −(U

L

+U) · ϕ

1

) (B.5)

ρ = λH

x

1

+ L

p

−ct

H (ct − x

1

)

= λH

X

1

+

L

p

H

−τϑ

H (τϑ − X

1

) (B.6)

˙ ρ =

Eg

µHσ

g

1/2

λ

ϑ

¸

δ

X

1

+

L

p

H

−τϑ

H (τϑ − X

1

)

− H

X

1

+

L

p

H

−τϑ

δ (τϑ − X

1

)

¸

. (B.7)

By substituting Eqs. (B.4)–(B.7) in Eq. (21), and taking into

account Eqs. (B.1)–(B.3), the following equation is obtained:

−

∂

2

V

∂τ

2

−

σ

g

I

gH

3

V

I V

− H (X) (V · ϕ −(U

L

+U) · ϕ

1

)

− H (−X) (V · ϕ −(U

L

−U) · ϕ

1

)

−

λ

µϑ

¸

δ

X

1

+

L

p

H

−τϑ

H (τϑ − X

1

)

− H

X

1

+

L

p

H

−τϑ

δ (τϑ − X

1

)

¸

˙

V

−

λ

µϑ

H

X

1

+

L

p

H

−τϑ

H (τϑ − X

1

)

×

∂

2

V

∂τ

2

+2ϑ

˙

V +ϑ

2

V

+ pf

1

+

¸

δ (X + L/2H) +δ (x − L/2H)

¸

λ

v

σ

g

Eg

· V = 0,

(B.8)

and taking into account Eqs. (28)–(31) and Eqs. (A.1) and

(A.2), Eq. (32) is ﬁnally determined.

References

[1] Fryba L. Vibration of solids and structures under moving loads. London:

Thomas Telford; 1999.

[2] Timoshenko SP, Young DH. Theory of structures. New York: McGraw-

Hill; 1965.

[3] Yang YB, Liao SS, Lin BH. Impact formulas for vehicles moving over

simple and continuous beams. J Struct Eng 1995;121(11):1644–50.

[4] Lei X, Noda NA. Analyses of dynamic response of vehicle and track

coupling system with random irregularity of track vertical proﬁle. J Sound

Vibration 2002;258(1):147–65.

[5] Roeder CW, Barth KE, Bergman A. Effect of live-load deﬂections on steel

bridge performance. J Bridge Eng 2004;9(3):259–67.

[6] Warburton GB. The dynamical behavior of structures. Oxford: Pergamon;

1976.

[7] Wiriyachai A, Chu KH, Garg VK. Bridge impact due to wheel and track

irregularities. J Eng Mech Div 1982;108:648–65.

[8] Au FTK, Wang JJ, Cheung YK. Impact study of cable-stayed bridge under

railway trafﬁc using various models. J Sound Vibration 2001;240(3):

447–65.

[9] Au FTK, Wang JJ, Cheung YK. Impact study of cable-stayed railway

bridges with random rail irregularities. Eng Struct 2001;24(5):529–41.

D. Bruno et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 1177

[10] Yang F, Fonder GA. Dynamic response of cable-stayed bridges under

moving loads. J Eng Mech 1998;124(7):741–7.

[11] Yau JD, Yang YB. Vibration reduction for cable-stayed traveled by high-

speed trains. Finite Element Anal Design 2004;40:341–59.

[12] Huang D, Wang TL. Impact analysis of cable stayed bridges. Comput

Struct 1992;43(5):897–908.

[13] Meisenholder SG, Weidlinger P. Dynamic interaction aspects of cable-

stayed guide ways for high speed ground Transportation. J Dyn Syst Meas

Control ASME 1974;74-Aut-R:180–92.

[14] Chatterjee PK, Datta TK, Surana CS. Vibration of cable-

stayed bridges under moving vehicles. Struct Eng Int 1994;4(2):

116–121.

[15] Bruno D, Leonardi A. Natural periods of long-span cable-stayed bridges.

J Bridge Eng 1997;2(3):105–15.

[16] De Miranda F, Grimaldi A, Maceri F, Como M. Basic problems in long

span cable stayed bridges. Internal Report no 25. Department of Structural

Engineering, University of Calabria; 1979.

[17] Troitsky MS. Cable stayed bridges. London: Crosby Lockwood Staples;

1977.

[18] Gimsing NJ. Cable supported bridges: Concepts and design. John Wiley

& Sons Ltd; 1997.

[19] Xia H, Xu YL, Chan THT. Dynamic interaction of long suspension

bridges with running trains. J Sound Vibration 2000;237(2):263–80.

[20] Kawashima K, Unjoh S, Tsunomoto M. Estimation of camping ratio of

cable-stayed bridges for seismic design. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1993;119(4):

1015–31.

[21] Yamaguchi Hiroki, Ito Manabu. Mode-dependence of structural damping

in cable-stayed bridges. J Wind Eng Industrial Aerodynam 1997;72(1–3):

289–300.

[22] MAPLE Maplesoft. Waterloo Maple Inc. 2006.

a computational model and a parametric study have been proposed in [12] to investigate bridge vibration produced by vehicular trafﬁc loads. In the present paper. because contributions arising from the cable system are practically negligible. in order to evaluate the ampliﬁcation effects produced by the moving system. whereas additional references to the inﬂuence of AASHTO live-load deﬂection criteria on the vibration in a railway track under moving vehicles can be found in [5–7]. the main aims of this paper are to propose a parametric study in a dimensionless context. The structural model is based on a continuum approach. Cable-stayed bridges based on both “H” and “A” shaped typologies with a double layer of stays have been considered. However. The accuracy of the continuum approach has been validated in previous works developed in both static and dynamic frameworks. Finally. in which strategies to reduce the multiple resonant peaks of cable-stayed bridges that may be excited by high-speed trains have been proposed for a small length bridge structure. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 1161 Nomenclature α α0 As As0 b β c ∆ e E EI EA ∗ Es ∗ E s0 g γ G Jt H p I0 Kp p K0 l L Lp λ λ0 Mp µ µ0 ω p σa σg σg0 ψ L(R) u L(R) v w Longitudinal stay geometric slope Longitudinal anchor stay geometric slope Stay cross sectional area Anchor stay cross sectional area Half girder cross section width Transverse stay geometric slope Moving system speed Stay spacing step Eccentricity of the moving loads with respect to the girder geometric axis Cable modulus of elasticity Flexural girder stiffness Axial girder stiffness Stay Dischinger modulus Anchor stay Dischinger modulus Girder self-weight per unit length Stay speciﬁc weight Torsional girder stiffness Pylon height Pylon polar mass moment Flexural top pylon stiffness Torsional top pylon stiffness Lateral bridge span Central bridge span Total train length Mass function of the moving system per unit length Polar mass moment of the moving system with respect to girder geometric axis per unit length Lumped top pylon equivalent mass Girder mass per unit length Polar inertial moment of the girder per unit length Girder torsional rotation Live loads Allowable stay stress Stay stress under self-weight loading Anchor stay stress under self-weight loading Left (L) and right (R) top pylon torsional rotations Left (L) and right (R) horizontal top pylon displacement Girder vertical displacement Girder horizontal displacement the ﬁnite element method. cable-stayed bridges with one central layer of stays. With reference to cable-stayed bridges. In particular.e. the bridge kinematics and the inertial forces have been considered in a tridimensional context. Au et al. which describes the relationship between dynamic ampliﬁcation factors and moving loads and bridge characteristics. the maximum allowable central length must be approximately . Bruno et al. through comparisons with numerical results obtained by using a ﬁnite element model of the discrete cable system bridge [14–16]. torsional analysis carried out for typical concrete or steel girder cross sections shows that in order to limit torsional rotation to reasonable values (i. evaluating the effects produced by the moving system on the dynamic bridge behaviour.15]. This paper. the girder torsional stiffness needs to be signiﬁcantly improved with respect to those involved for “H” and “A” shaped typologies.02). different investigations have been proposed. An efﬁcient numerical modelling has been developed by Yang and Fonder [10] to analyse the dynamic behaviour of cable-stayed bridges subject to railway loads.D. In particular. whose stiffness is strictly connected to the geometrical and stiffness properties of the stays. [8. As a result. The literature referred to above investigates dynamic bridge behaviour properly taking into account the effects of interaction between bridge vibration and the moving system. evaluating the effects produced by random road surface roughness and long term deﬂection of the concrete deck. Moreover. below 0. However. which has been widely used in the literature to analyse long span bridges [13–15]. and difﬁculties verifying the design rules on maximum displacements occur frequently. In particular. taking into account nonlinearities involved in the cable system. As a matter of fact. In particular. Dynamic interaction of cable-stayed bridges with reference to railway loads has been investigated in [11]. Meisenholder and Weidlinger [13] have schematized bridge structures as an elastic beam resting on an elastic foundation. extended models which generalize the bridge kinematics have been proposed in [14. especially for eccentric railway bridges. in which both in-plane and out-of-plane deformation modes have been accounted for. only a few studies have concentrated on the dynamic responses of long span bridges. focuses on the dynamic behaviour of long span cablestayed bridges.9] investigated the dynamic impact factors of cablestayed bridges under railway trafﬁc using various vehicle models. are characterized by high deformability. the interaction forces between the cable system and the girder can be assumed as continuous functions distributed over the whole girder length. therefore. in which the stay spacing is assumed to be small in comparison with the central bridge span.

In particular.1162 D. the bridge kinematic. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 equal to 400 m [16]. is designed in such a way that the allowable stress is obtained in the static case. Therefore. • left and right horizontal pylon top displacements [u L (t). In particular. the boundary value problem. ∆/L 1). • girder torsional rotation [ω(x. In this framework. bridge deformations related to ﬂexure and torsion for the girder and pylons and axial deformations for the girder and stays have been taken into account. numerically. is described by following displacement variables: • horizontal and vertical girder displacements [u(x. the initial stress state produced by the dead loading needs to be accounted mainly in the cable-stayed system.18]. in which the initial tension strongly affects the stays’ behaviour due to Dischinger effects [17.e. • left and right pylon top torsional rotations [ψ L (t). i. whereas . which are assumed equal to a ﬁxed design value. the girder is arranged with an initial straight proﬁle. 1). Therefore. The bridge analysis is based on the following assumptions: (1) the stress increments in the stays are proportional to the live loads. ψ R (t)]. (2) a long span fan shaped bridge is characterized by a dominant truss behaviour. (L .18]. In particular. the geometric measurement for the cable system can be expressed by the following equations: As = As0 = g∆ . In particular. in which proper interpolation functions on both spatial and time domains were adopted to obtain stable and accurate results. the cross sectional geometric area. Coriolis and centripetal accelerations. the tension σg and σg0 for distributed and anchor stays. starting from the “H” ones and introducing slight modiﬁcations to the main governing equations. as reported in Fig. Bruno et al. As a result. the geometric area of the stays varies along the girder. Moreover. the self-weight loads produce negligible bending moments on the girder with respect to that raised by the moving loads. results are proposed to investigate the effects of moving the system description with reference to non-standard forces. in terms of typical kinematic and stress bridge variables for both in-plane and eccentric loading conditions. which is practically free from bending moments for reduced values of the stay spacing step. and ∆ is the stay spacing step (for more details see Fig. the stay spacing is quite small in comparison to the central bridge span (i. the erection procedure is based on the free cantilevered method. Moreover. This assumption has been veriﬁed for long span bridges. where α is the slope of a generic stay element with respect to the reference system. t)]. σg sin α gl 1+ 2σg l H 2 1/2 L 2l 2 (1) −1 . g l It is worth noting that the allowable stay stress. A parametric study in a dimensionless context has been analysed by means of numerical results. for the “H” shaped tower typology. v(x. can be expressed by the following relations: g σg = σa . p.and comparisons in terms of both moving loads and tower characteristics have been proposed. In particular. at the “zero conﬁguration”. The initial stress distribution. represents a known variable of the cable system in terms of which the design tension under dead loading can be determined by the use of Eq. In both formulations. The geometry and stiffness characteristics of the bridges are selected with respect to typical ranges suggested by practical design rules [17. Since it is assumed that for dead loads only the bridge structure remains in the undeformed conﬁguration. As0 . by means of a ﬁnite difference scheme based on θ-family methods. 1 with respect to the reference system with the origin ﬁxed at the midspan girder cross section. the cable system is arranged symmetrically with respect to both zx and yz planes. This can be easily derived. namely σg . the application of moving loads leads to additional stress and deformation increments with respect to the self-weight loading condition. the cross sectional stay areas are designed so that the dead loads (g) produce constant stress over all the distributed elements. due to the equilibrium equations. t). consequently. g+p −1 −1 (2) 2L 2 p 1− σg0 = σa 1 + . The equations of motion for the vehicletrack-bridge element are derived by means of the Hamilton principle. was solved. l. in which the stays are assumed to be uniformly distributed along the deck. respectively. σa . for the anchor stays. in view of the prevailing truss behaviour of the cablesupported structures [15–18]. Long span bridges based on cable-stayed systems are frequently analysed by means of a continuum approach. as explained in the following sections. As a result. which is able to control the initial tension distribution in the cable system to a value practically constant in each stay. the inﬂuence on the dynamic bridge behaviour of pylon typology with reference to both “A” and “H” shapes has been analysed. produce additional stress and deformation states. the formulation is adapted for “A” shaped pylons. (2). Cable-stayed bridge model To begin with. H ) are representative geometric lengths of the bridge structure.e. It is worth noting that for long span bridges. the moving loads modify the initial conﬁguration and. u R (t)]. Subsequently. Subsequently. t)]. In particular. for live loads applied to the central span only. the bridge geometry is presented with respect to a fan-shaped self-anchored scheme and both ﬂexural and torsional deformation modes are evaluated for an “H” shaped pylon typology. 2. usually neglected in conventional dynamic analyses. but the safety factors are practically constant for each element of the cable system. Finally. under dead loads only. is supposed to be produced by a correct erection process which yields tension in the stays and compression in both the girder and the pylons.

respectively. β = σa ≈ p+g for the double layer of distributed stays g g σ and β = σa ≈ p+g (L/2l) for the anchor stays. numerical investigations have been developed to analyse the inﬂuence of adopting the secant or the tangent equivalent moduli on the dynamic impact factors prediction. whereas for the double layer of stays acting on the central span and for the anchor stays the secant modulus has been employed. in this way: ∗ Es = E 1+ 2 γ 2 l0 E 3 12σ0 . σ0 (3) that this inﬂuence is practically negligible (less than 3%). the bridge scheme is constrained with respect to both vertical and torsional displacements at boundary cross sections of the bridge and at girder/pylon connections. pylon axial deformability has been neglected. The stays are modelled as bar elements and the nonlinear behaviour is evaluated consistently with the Dischinger formulation [17]. which takes into account geometric nonlinearities of the inclined stays introducing a ﬁctitious elastic modulus for an equivalent straight member. 1 ∆ε R = [(v ± ωb) · sin2 α H − (u R ± ψ R b + u) · sin α cos α]. the analysis has been developed by assuming the tangent modulus for the double layer of stays acting on the lateral spans. whereas maximum relative percentage differences. Sufﬁcient accuracy in the actual stress state might even be achieved by assuming β as proportional to the ratio between live and self-weight loads (dominant truss behaviour) [16–18]. Moreover. A perfect connection between ∆ε L0 = . Bruno et al. H 1 (7) ∆ε R0 = [(u R ± ψ R b + u) · sin α0 cos α0 ] . σ0 = σg for the double layer of stays and σ0 = σg0 for the anchor stays.D. to the right (+) and left (−) distributed stays with respect to the longitudinal girder geometric axis. On the g (L/2l)2 −1 g other hand. Therefore. Similarly. 1. 1).e. 1+β 2β 2 with β = σ . show 2 (4) (5) where (+/−) refers. The results. As far as the secant modulus is concerned. as in the following relationships: ∆ε L = 1 [(v ± ωb) · sin2 α H − (u L ± ψ L b − u) · sin α cos α]. In addition. 1. are observed for speeds above 140 m/s. for the left and right pylon anchor stays. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 1163 Fig. E is the Young’s modulus of the cable material. (3) by putting β = 1. the tangent value of the Dischinger modulus can be obtained from Eq. it has been observed that the analysed maximum ampliﬁcation factors occur when the moving system is basically applied on the central bridge span. The axial deformation increments of a stay generic for the left (L) and right (R) pylons produced by the moving system depend on both kinematic and geometric variables. γ the speciﬁc weight. its value depends on cable stress states under self-weight and live loading conditions. less than 10%. ∗ where E s is known as the secant Dischinger modulus. in Eqs.e. the incremental axial deformations are described as 1 (6) [(u L ± ψ L b − u) · sin α0 cos α0 ] . l0 the horizontal projection of the stay length and σ0 and σ are the initial and actual tension values of the stay. Consistently with the bridge conﬁguration reported in Fig. “H” shaped tower moving load problem: bridge kinematics and representative stiffness parameters. The external loads evolve at constant speed from left to right along the bridge development. not presented here for the sake of brevity. H where α0 is the girder/anchor stay orientation angle (Fig. (4) and (5) and in the following ones. i. σ i.

non-standard contributions arising from Coriolis and centripetal inertial forces. K p are the . This assumption has been veriﬁed in the context of long span cable-supported bridge. ∂t v= ¨ ∂ 2v ∂t 2 + ∂ 2v ∂ x∂t 2c + ∂ 2v ∂x2 c2 . In particular. (9) (10) where T and V are the kinetic and the potential energy of the whole dynamic system. the locomotive. from the left end of the bridge.21]. m = p · eH x1 + L p − ct H (ct − x1 ) . Detailed results about the inﬂuence of damping effects on the dynamic ampliﬁcation factors (DAFs) have been presented in [9]. improvements to the moving load distribution can be easily provided just modifying Eqs. respectively. It is well known that the Hamilton principle can be expressed for a conservative system and a generic time interval as t2 t1 δ (T − V ) dt = 0 (13) The moving loads are consistent with a train system typology. E s0 As0 are the axial stiffnesses of a p generic stay or the anchor cables. the moving system has the same vertical displacements as the girder. which is assumed. have been taken into account. b is the p bridge semi-width and I0 is the pylon polar mass moment for p both left and right pylons. (µ. (λ. using a small displacements formulation. modelled by a sequence of lumped and distributed masses. Moreover. This hypotheses is quite veriﬁed in the context of long span bridges. is distributed on a length. where roughness effects have been considered as negligible [19]. produced by the coupling behaviour between the moving system and bridge deformations. small in comparison with the whole bridge length. to be smaller than the whole length of the train. With respect to a ﬁxed reference system. respectively: ρ = λH x1 + L p − ct H (ct − x1 ) . respectively. the moving system is assumed to be eccentrically located with respect to the bridge half width. (9)–(12) and introducing a piecewise constant function to describe carriages and locomotive loads. µ0 ) and (ρ. f = p H x1 + L p − ct H (ct − x1 ) . representative of both bogie components and vehicle bodies. consequently. With respect to a moving reference system. from which it transpires that the assumption of an undamped bridge system leads to greater DAFs. the velocity and acceleration functions of the moving system are evaluated consistently with a Eulerian description of the moving loads as v= ˙ ∂v ∂v + c. with respect to these kinematic ﬁelds. (14) In particular. Nevertheless. the kinetic energy functional of the combined bridge–moving-load system may now be formulated as T = 1 2 L −L µ v 2 + u 2 dx + ˙ ˙ 1 2 L −L µ0 ω2 dx ˙ 1 p 1 ˙2 ˙2 + I0 ψ L + ψ D + M p u 2 + u 2 ˙L ˙D 2 2 1 L 1 L + ρ v 2 + u 2 dx + ˙ ˙ ρ0 ω2 dx. Interaction forces produced by girder proﬁle roughness and friction are supposed to generate negligible effects with respect to the global bridge vibration. An energy approach based on the 1 2 −L λv δ x + L 2 +δ x − L 2 v 2 dx (15) where (E I. p) are the vehicle body mass and loading forces per unit length and H (·) is the Heaviside function. the mass and loading functions during the external loading advance can be written by the following expressions. The total potential energy of the system. can be written as V = 1 2 + L −L EIv 2 + E Au 2 dx + 1 2 L −L G Jt ω 2 dx where x1 = x + (L/2 + l). the moving system is supposed to be described by equivalent uniformly distributed loads and masses acting on the girder proﬁle. E A. with I0 = b2 M p . distributed moment and rotatory inertial functions are introduced to properly describe the external loads as ρ0 = λ0 H x1 + L p − ct H (ct − x1 ) . x1 . where it has been proved that the bridge damping effects tend to decrease as span length increases [20. in this context. Moreover.1164 D. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 the girder and the moving system is assumed. However. G Jt ) are the ﬂexural. ˙ 2 −L 2 −L with L = l + L/2. the internal bogie spacing for an elementary vehicle is. within the same approximation level. axial and torsional girder ∗ ∗ stiffness and E s As . and t1 and t2 deﬁne the observation period. and. (11) (12) ∗ ∗ 1 0 E s As H 1 L E s As H ∆ε2 dx + ∆ε2 dx L R 2 −L ∆ sin α 2 0 ∆ sin α 1 ∗ + E s0 As0 ∆ε 2 + ∆ε 2 L0 R0 2 1 p 2 2 + K 0 ψL + ψ D + K p u2 + u2 L D 2 L − −L ( f · v + m · ω) dx L + where λ0 represents the torsional distributed polar mass moment produced by the external loading and e is the eccentricity of the moving loads with respect to the cross sectional geometric axes. it is assumed that the damping energy is practically negligible. usually. M p is the equivalent lumped mass which refers to horizontal top pylon displacement. However. Moreover. As a result. ∂t ∂x ∂x with c = . As a result. Therefore. Moreover. ρ0 ) are the mass functions and polar inertial moments per unit length for both moving loads and girder. K 0 . for long span bridges. even if it is much heavier than the carriage. (8) Hamilton principle is utilized to derive the dynamic equilibrium equations. Bruno et al.

H (19) ∗ E s0 As0 b2 2 0 ψ L(R) cos α0 sin α0 . (16). in which the time derivative for vertical displacement has been assumed consistently with Eq. the angular parameter α. Assuming the bridge scheme reported in Fig. non-standard terms due to both Coriolis and centripetal forces are introduced in the kinetic functional. (18) H∆ E ∗ AS −v sin2 α cos α + (u R + u) · cos2 α sin α . (18) and (19) correspond to distributed internal forces due to cable system/girder interaction and concentrated forces and moments applied to the left and right girder cross section ends due to the anchor stays. qu R = S H∆ E ∗ A S b2 m ω L(R) = S ω sin3 α − ψ L(R) cos α sin2 α . v = 0 E Au −L + 0 SL at x = ±L. H∆ E ∗ A S b2 m ψ L(R) = S −ω sin2 α cos α + ψ L(R) cos2 α sin α . 1. by substituting Eqs. As a consequence. depends on the longitudinal coordinate x and the geometrical bridge lengths (l. respectively (Fig. with λv representing the penalty parameter. In particular. In particular. ∗ E S AS −v sin2 α cos α + (u L − u) · cos2 α sin α . / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 1165 torsional and ﬂexural top pylon stiffness and δ (·) is the Dirac delta function. E Au L − S 0 = 0. + 0 0 + −L The dynamic equilibrium equations can be obtained in explicit form by means of the variation statement of the Hamilton principles. (13) and taking into account the boundary . Bruno et al. (8)).D. M L(R) = H It is worth noting that Eqs. (18). 2). bending moments. v = 0. the time dependence of the moving mass determines additional contributions to the inertial forces. consequently. H. the following expression is derived: t1 t1 L + 0 p + K0 p qu R δu R + m ψ R δψ R dx (ψ L δψ L + ψ R δψ R ) + K (u L δu L + u R δu R ) + + − −L L 0 0 0 SL δu − SL δu L + M L δψ L x=−L x=L S 0 δu R L + S 0 δu R R + L 0 M R δψ R f · δvdx − m · δωdx dt −L δT dt = − − t2 t1 t2 t1 t2 L −L p I0 p − ¨ ¨ ¨ [µ (vδv + uδu) + µ0 ωδω] dxdt ¨ ¨ ψ L δψ L + ψ R δψ R dt where qvL(R) = qh L(R) −L [δ(x + L/2) + δ(x − L/2)]λv v · δvdx (17) ∗ E S AS v · sin3 α − u L(R) − (+)u · sin2 α cos α . the last term on the right-hand side of Eq. 1. (15) denotes a penalty functional. which are strictly connected with the interaction behaviour between the bridge deformations and the moving system. H∆ E ∗ AS (−)v · sin2 α cos α = S H∆ − t1 t2 M (u L δu L + u R δu R ) dt ¨ ¨ L −L L −L L −L L −L − t1 t2 ρ0 (ωδω) dxdt ˙ ˙ ρ0 ωδωdxdt ¨ ρ (vδv + uδu) dxdt ¨ ¨ ρ (vδv + uδu) dxdt. Moreover. produced by an unsteady distribution of the train/bridge system mass. (15). the boundary conditions at the left and right girder cross section ends require null values for vertical displacements. which are. (16) and (17) into Eq. as in the following equations: 0 SL(R) = + −L L (qvL δv + qh L δu + m ωL δω) dx (qv R δv + qh R δu + m ω R δω) dx qu L δu L + m ψ L δψ L dx ω = 0. in Eq. expressed by Eq. introduced to penalize girder vertical displacements and. to reproduce the connection between the girder and the pylons correctly. Moreover. Taking into account the ﬁrst variation of the total potential energy function. By integrating by parts the ﬁrst variation of the kinetic energy functional of the combined bridge/moving loads system and assuming that the virtual displacements vanish at both the beginning and end of the actual varied path. L). torsional rotations and speciﬁed horizontal axial forces. basically. H∆ − t1 t2 qu L = − t1 t2 − t1 It is worth noting that in Eq. R (20) = 0. the last two terms on the right-hand side denote the kinetic energy contributions produced by the external moving mass. ˙ ˙ ˙ (16) − (−) u L(R) − u · cos2 α sin α . the following expression is obtained: t1 t1 δV dt = t1 t1 L −L E I v I V δv − E Au δu − G Jt ω δω dx L −L + T δv − Mδv + N δu + Mt δω 0 ∗ E s0 As0 u − (+)u L(R) cos2 α0 sin α0 . as depicted in Fig.

(ε F . µH 1+β 2β 2 ηp = . Bruno et al. Dynamic interaction forces between bridge components. Moving loads p= pσg . the following dynamic equilibrium equations are derived: Girder µv + E I v I V + H (x) qv R + H (−x) qvL + ρ v ¨ ˙˙ + ρ v + 2cv + c2 v ¨ ˙ − f − δ (x + L/2) + δ (x − L/2) λv v = 0. Eg a= γ 2H2E 3 12σg . H e= 1/2 Right top pylon S0 + R L e . (27) V = U= u . Eg Eg µH σg v . εω = . H UR = uR . / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 Fig. . (a) identiﬁes a bridge size parameter strictly connected with the deformability of the cable . ζ= . K p σg . (21) the equilibrium conditions for both internal and external forces. and. H (31) A synoptic representation of both internal and external forces has been proposed in Fig. axial and torsional stiffness ratios between the girder and the cable system.1166 D. (30) qu R dx + K P u R + M p u R = 0. b . (24) ζP = a=a −L ≤ x ≤ 0. 2. Moreover. conditions. (25) MP . ε A . Hg µ µb2 µu − E Au + H (x) qh R + H (−x) qh L + ρ u + ρ u = 0. ¨ 0 −L ¨ I0 ψ L + K 0 ψ L + p p 0 m ψ L dx + M L = 0. respectively. (29) qu L dx − K P u L + M p u L = 0. introducing the following parameters. (22) ¨ ˙˙ ¨ ˙ ˙ µ0 ω − G Jt ω + H (x) m ω R + H (−x) m ωL + ρ0 ω ¨ + ρ0 ω − m = 0. cable system −L ≤ x ≤ 0. ϑ =c µσg Eg H 1/2 . ˙ (23) Left top pylon 0 SL − 0 −L (28) Pylon. the dynamic equilibrium equations have been proposed in dimensionless form. In order to develop a generalized formulation. Bridge kinematic 0 ≤ x ≤ L. εω ) are the relative bending. ¨ 0 L 0 0≤x ≤L (26) τ =t ¨ I0 ψ R + K 0 ψ R + p p 0 m ψ R dx + M R = 0. as an alternative to the variational approach. H UL = uL . related to both bridge and moving load characteristics: Girder εF = εA = 4I σg 1/4 Ct σg 1/2 . the governing equations can be easily derived consistently with a local approach taking into account In particular. 2. H 3g Eb2 H g Aσg λ µ0 ζ0 = .

depend only on the time variables. E∗ A σ (38) g with H 1 = H (−X ) . Kψ 1 ψ R (L/H. τ ) = 1 χ (U − U L ) . K ψ . the integrodifferential dynamic equilibrium equations.e. for the sake of brevity. Finally. with X = H . ˙ ¨ b θ Left pylon 0 −L/H (41) (34) (42) ¨ [−ϕ1 V − ϕ2 (U − U L )] dX + η p U L + ζ P U L (35) 0 −L/H − χ (U − U L ) = 0. it is easy to recognize that the internal forces referred to the anchor stays have not yet been introduced. Moreover. Therefore. respectively. χ = S0 0 g H sin α0 E σg cos2 α0 . (ϑ. are transformed into the following relationships: H 1 [−ϕ1 V − ϕ2 (U − U L )] + δ X + L 2H (39) − ϕ1 H 1 (U L − U ) + H 2 (U R + U ) ζ ˙ ˙ ¨ + f 2 V + ζ f 1 V + 2θ V + θ 2 V θ + ΛV δ (X + L/2H ) + δ (X − L/2H ) V = 0. Moreover. ΛV = λv Eg . τ ) = 0 + χ (U + U R ) = 0.e. ϕ2 ). (40) ζ ¨ ˙ + H 2 (−ϕ1 V + ϕ2 (U + U R )) − f 2 U − ζ f 1 U = 0.D. f = ∂ X . ¨ ζ pψR + η p + χ ψR + (ϕ1 ϑ − ϕ2 ψ R ) dX = 0. i. (30). Eqs. the following relationships summarize the remaining boundary conditions. ¨ ζ p ψL + η p + χ ψL + Right pylon L/H (ϕ1 ϑ − ϕ2 ψ L ) dX = 0. ¨ ε A U − U − H 1 (ϕ1 V + ϕ2 (U − U L )) (32) ¨ × η p U L + ζ P U L + K U U L = 0. ψ L (L/H. ﬁctitiously. f˙ = ∂ f . (20). K U . (35)–(38). are reported in Appendix A. H 2 = H (X ). by which it is possible to convert the equilibrium conditions. ζ0 ) correspond to the mass and polar mass moment ratio between the external loads and the girder. the kinematic variables. L −H 2 [ϕ1 V − ϕ2 (U + U R )] + δ X − 2H ¨ × η p U R + ζ P U R + K U U R = 0. (32) has been discussed. Eq. involving two penalty parameters. they are constrained over the spatial domain by means of penalty functionals. ψ L ) are assumed. τ ) deﬁne the dimensionless moving load speed and the time variables. Bruno et al. from integral to local form. (35)– (38). natural conditions for girder axial displacements and homogeneous relationships with respect . whereas the functions ( f 1 . Adopting the following notation for spatial and ∂f x time derivatives. (33) θ εω ω − ζ0 ω − ϕω + ϕ1 H 1 ψ L + H 2 ψ R ¨ H ζ0 + p f1e − f 2 ω − ζ0 f 1 ω = 0. ϕ1 . The equivalence between the original and the modiﬁed systems is guaranteed by the use of the penalty method. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 1167 system caused by the Dischinger effect and η p . in order to utilize standard numerical methods to solve PDE system equations. i. the pylon kinematics (namely U L . the integro-differential equations. KU U L (L/H. the transformation of equilibrium equations related to the pylons. (32)–(38). distributed and lumped forces arising from the cable system and pylons have been taken into account. respectively. τ ) = 0 KU (43) 1 ψ L (−L/H. only Eq. e) describe the dimensionless applied loads and eccentricity with respect to the girder cross sectional geometric axis. from global into local form. τ ) = − U R (L/H. in Eqs. details of the derivation of dynamic equilibrium equations can be found in Appendix B. whereas (ζ. by means of the following equations: U L (−L/H. U R (−L/H. dimensionless bridge and moving system parameters. are converted into a purely differential form. for conciseness. ζ P deﬁne the inertial and stiffness properties for both right and left pylons. In particular. (35)–(38). Kψ Finally. τ ) = 0. L ¨ ζ pψR − η pψR −H 2 (ϕ1 ϑ − ϕ2 ψ R ) + δ X − 2H + K ψ ψ = 0. i.e. τ ) = χ. (36) − 0 ¨ [ϕ1 V − ϕ2 (U + U R )] dX + η p U R + ζ P U R (37) L/H 0 By comparing the sets of Eqs. The moving load characteristics are reported in Eq. The dynamic equilibrium equations introduce an integrodifferential boundary value system. As a result. Moreover. ψ R (L/H. in which. utilizing Heaviside and delta Dirac functions. by means of the following expressions: Girder ε4 F 4 ¨ V I V + V + ϕV − p f1 pylons. which impose that the vertical and torsional displacements vanish at the left and right and bridge cross section ends. τ ) = χ. to depend on both time and space variables. τ ) = 0. U R ψ R . However. In particular. ϕ. f 2 . given by Eqs. related to both left and right 1 χ (U + U R ) . leads to considering the concentrated forces and moments arising from anchor stay axial forces as boundary conditions. related to the differential and the integro-differential forms. (39)–(42) and Eqs. in which ( p. the ∂τ dynamic equilibrium equations are now presented in terms of the normalized kinematic variables. L ¨ ζ p ψL + η p ψL H 1 (ϕ1 ϑ − ϕ2 ψ L ) + δ X + 2H + K ψ ψ L = 0.

V (−L/H. the distributed stays are now inclined with respect to the vertical direction. because both out-of-plane (xz) and torsional (with respect to y) kinematic parameters are assumed to be meaningless. As a matter of fact. ω(X. 0) = 0. In contrast. As depicted + u L(R) − (+)u · cos2 α sin α cos2 β . For a numerical evaluation of the stiffness values. from the Author’s experience of applying the model over different structures. εA χ U (L/H. the dynamic equilibrium equations with respect to ﬂexural deformation in the plane xy are. which are able to efﬁciently reduce both torsional and ﬂexural deformations produced by eccentric or transverse loading. the y axis. τ ) = 0. 0) = 0. Moreover. ω(−L/H. which describe the orientation of a generic stay element with respect to vertical and longitudinal directions. 0) = 0. are the internal forces produced by the cable system girder and pylons. Moreover. (44) ω(L/H. . and determine a coupling behaviour between out-of-plane ﬂexural and torsional deformations. exceedingly. V (L/H. in Fig. α. Long span bridges are frequently designed with “A” shaped pylon typologies. τ ) = 0. U (X. K U .e. τ ) = 0. τ ) = 0. to the time variable: χ U (−L/H. 3. V (L/H. qu L(R) = ∗ E S AS −v sin2 α cos α cos β H∆ (45) From a numerical point of view the penalty stiffness parameters. 0) = 0. 3. 0) = 0. i. are assumed to be sufﬁciently high to impose proper constraint conditions. m ω . but slight modiﬁcations to the main governing equations need to be performed. m ω L(R) = ∗ E S A S b2 ∂w ϑ sin3 α + cos α sin2 α cos β H∆ ∂x w − sin2 α cos α sin β b ∗ A E s0 u − (+)u L(R) cos2 α0 sin α0 cos β. basically. i. 0) = 0. Bruno et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 Fig. τ ) = (U − U L ) . ˙ ˙ U (X. τ ) = 0. a range between [105 –106 ] is suggested. ∂x where (qi . ∂x (46) E ∗ AS b m wL(R) = − (+) S sin α cos α cos β H∆ ∂w × ωb · sin α − (+) b cos α cos β − (+)w cos α sin β . introducing the misalignment angles. In order to analyse such a bridge typology. but not. ˙ Ui (X. εA V (−L/H. qh L(R) = ∗ E S AS (−)v · sin2 α cos α cos β H∆ − −u L(R) − u · cos2 α sin α cos2 β . ΛV . 0) = 0 i = R. V (X. Moving load problem for “A” shaped tower typology: bridge kinematics and internal force distribution. K ψ . the interaction forces between cable system and girder assume the following expressions: qvL(R) = ∗ E S AS v · sin3 α H∆ − u L(R) − (+)u · sin2 α cos α cos β . to introduce numerical instabilities in the computation. respectively. ψi (X. the top pylon kinematic is governed by longitudinal displacements only. L . 0) = 0. S 0 ) with (i = v.1168 D. 0) = 0. and transverse displacement w regarding the xy plane. β. ˙ V (X.e. u). h. 0) = 0. τ ) = − (U + U R ) . τ ) = 0. the same. ω(X. ˙ ψi (X. the previous formulation still applies. = s0 H 0 SL(R) qwL(R) = ∗ E S AS sin α cos α sin β H∆ ∂w × ωb · sin α − (+) b cos α cos φ − w cos α sin β . Ui (X.

88 222.34 377.48 176. i.12 εω = 0. Finally.15 152.08 77.67 83.03 135.60 84.78 92.77 237. 3. Moreover. The actual solution and the simpliﬁed ones make the same prediction. In particular.57 223.e.06 εω = 0.84 133. with an error of less than 2%. the dynamic equilibrium equations for the “A” shaped tower typology can be summarized by Eqs.89 184.15 0. namely the General Approach (GA).65 176. obtained assuming.76 338.50 77.82 101. θ. Bruno et al.61 εω = 0.05 0. and moving system speed.08 53.10 0.65 183. (21)– (26) and making use of Eq.84 272.82 111.1 117. results concerning the actual solution. η p = 0.05 115.22 237. derived from Eqs.65 381. have been compared.07 0.77 237.65 191. The dynamic equilibrium equations.69 62.39 133.66 84. arising from the inclined stays of the “A” shaped tower typology.31 94.97 160. starting from Eqs.17 111. an additional equilibrium equation is required due to the presence of the transverse displacement.25 53.05 0.57 210. as reported in Fig.21 93.95 181.72 332.2 εω = 0. The results reported in Tables 1 and 2 denote that the dynamic bridge behaviour is practically unaffected by the transverse ﬂexural deformations deriving from w displacements. εω . ζ = 1.39 115.11 qwL(R) and m wL(R) represent distributed forces and moments in the (xz) plane (Fig.1 93.11 164. (21)–(26) and (47).98 139.16 164. the transverse deformations are practically negligible and do not inﬂuence dynamic bridge Variability with respect to dimensionless torsional girder stiffness.15 95. have been assumed constant during the analyses: e/b = 0.02 131. (ω/ pe).15 98. (48) ζ0 = 0.2 83.14 135.69 143.e. L p = 750 m. namely the Simpliﬁed Approach (SA).65 209.57 283.17 105. (45) to describe the interaction forces between the cable system and the girder.15 74.2 128.64 a = 0.20 Table 2 Comparisons of maximum normalized torsional rotation in terms of speed parameter (θ ) and relative torsional stiffness (εω ) between simpliﬁed (S) and general (G) formulations θ 0. investigations have been shown that for in-plane loading conditions (loads applied in the x y plane).79 137.31 123.96 246.085. for “A” shaped bridge typology.63 113.20 112.48 εω = 0. and a simpliﬁed one.20 181. mechanical and moving load characteristics.37 209.44 153.45 174.06 85.82 106. have been investigated. However.33 122. The following bridge and moving load parameters.01 136. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 1169 Table 1 Comparison of maximum normalized torsional rotation in terms of the relative torsional stiffness (εω ) and bridge size parameter (a) between simpliﬁed (S) and general (G) formulations a 0.45 εω = 0. To this end. (21)–(26) and (47). typically utilized in practical applications.54 106. Jw /J = 100.85 75.06 107.5.09 0.49 85.D.88 144.20 0. sensitivity analyses have been proposed in terms of maximum normalized torsional rotation during moving load application. 3). the following expression regarding ﬂexural deformation in the xy plane is introduced: µw + E I s w ¨ IV behaviour.93 127.2 61. a.1 εω = 0.54 101.57 139.85 190. produced by the coupling behaviour by torsional and ﬂexural deformations.99 117.68 131. + H (x) qs R + m s R (47) + H (−x) qs L + m s L = 0. that the transverse displacements are negligible.20 238.84 272.72 332.69 237.55 188. can be easily derived.13 Model G S G S G S G S G S a = 0.38 88.76 338.29 191.71 163. p/g = 1. .12 271.74 129.07 εω = 0.95 208.29 280.97 99.29 145.25 0. bridge size parameter.20 195.12 271.71 250.35 174. in the typical range of both geometrical.29 164.61 151. In particular.11 0.30 Model G S G S G S G S G S G S εω = 0. t) = 0.71 217.73 135.10 92.44 86. i.78 237.05 86.75 139.49 142. w(x.65 160.41 152.00 170.56 138.5.1 191.52 150.56 εω = 0.61 157.75 εω = 0.63 218.62 172. w.80 127. “a priori”.53 140.09 87.

Alternatively. the reformulated boundary value problem assumes the following form: ˙ ai j (X. Numerical results and parametric study The results deﬁne the relationship between the characteristics of the bridge and applied moving loads.e. . B2 are proper transformation matrices. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 The dynamic equilibrium equations for “A” shaped towers in the dimensionless context are not presented here for the sake of brevity. by means of supplementary equations. • φσ0 dynamic ampliﬁcation factor of the axial force in the anchor stay. • φω dynamic ampliﬁcation factor of the midspan girder torsional rotation. . in order to quantify the ampliﬁcation effects produced by the moving loads over the static solution (i. which guarantee the consistency of the boundary conditions with Eq. additional functions representing all lower order time derivatives are introduced. As a result. The solution process is obtained consistently with an error control procedure. where B1 . by means of the following relationship: ΦX = max X t=0. which uses a second-order centred implicit scheme for both time and spatial derivatives [22].T X st (51) with X = ±L/H. 0 = yi . U L . ˙ U L . In order to capture the rapid changes of the solution during the time integration. 14. the whole domain has been discretized by means of an accurate mesh point number. the spatial error estimate is obtained by comparing the solution to another one computed on a coarser spatial mesh. V . respectively. y2 . The numerical results are derived providing at ﬁrst a trial integration time step. τ ) = y i . f i represent proper transformation operators. which describes cable-stayed bridge behaviour in terms of dimensionless variables. This gives an estimate of the where T is the observation period and X is the variable under investigation. In accordance with Eqs. which is able to integrate the nonlinear equations with respect to upper bounds’ error tolerances related to both time and spatial variables.. with i. (43) and (44). these estimates are local. so they do not account for situations where a small perturbation in the solution at a time t = t1 can lead to a large change in the solution at a later time. because a large variable number and complexities are involved in the main equations. a proper mesh point number over the bridge structure has been adopted. the time error estimate is obtained by comparing the solution to another computed with a larger time step. initial and boundary conditions with respect to both space and time are introduced by means of the following equations: B1 yi X . Contrarily. A numerical integration scheme has been utilized by means of a ﬁnite difference method. In particular. Moreover. . 3. emphasizing the effects produced by the external mass on the dynamic bridge vibrations. which is subsequently reduced by means of a proper adaptive procedure in order to satisfy the convergence conditions. y14 . (49) ˙ ˙ ˙ where y = (V. have been computed using a Lagrange interpolation that uses four space subdivisions and three time points. . is assumed as at least 1/1000 of the observation period deﬁned as the time necessary for the moving train to cross the bridge. strictly related to both the moving loads and the bridge characteristics. which is automatically reduced due to the time adaptation procedure.. the spatial discretization remains ﬁxed during the analysis. which are appended to the main system. The parametric study has been developed to investigate the following variables: • φV dynamic ampliﬁcation factor of the midspan vertical displacement. but the same spatial mesh. U L ) is the vector of unknown functions or primary variables and ai j . . V . In the following results. but assuming the same time step. y3 . y i represent known quantities related to the temporal and spatial variables. U R . (49). Numerical procedure The dynamic equilibrium equation system introduces a PDE system from which it is quite difﬁcult to derive an analytical solution. for any dependent variables involved with an order higher than the ﬁrst one. (28)–(31) in the governing equations. Numerical results are presented in terms of dynamic impact factors. (50) O(h ∧ 2) local truncation error of second order in h (where h is the mesh spacing for the spatial variable). U R . a parametric study is proposed. the spatial domain is discretized utilizing more than 10 000 subdivisions over the whole bridge length. τ ) y j = f i (y1 . B2 yi (0. X ) . Moreover. bi j are constants depending on both the moving loads and the bridge properties. The bridge and moving load dimensioning is selected in accordance with the values utilized in practical applications and due mainly to both structural and economical factors.1170 D. j = 1. In particular. . requested values. but they can be easily derived by introducing the dimensionless parameters previously deﬁned in Eqs. U R . i = 1 . However. V . U. st). in order to minimize the integration errors. 14. U . (32)–(34) and (39)–(42). and yi . τ ) y j + bi j (X. • φσ dynamic ampliﬁcation factor of the axial force in the longest central span stay. U . which deﬁne the relationship between primary variables and known quantities. • φ M dynamic ampliﬁcation factor of the midspan bending moment. in accordance with the PDE system given by Eqs. The method has a truncation error of O((∆t)2 (∆x)2 ) and is unconditionally stable for all time steps. Bruno et al. 4. This gives an estimate of the O(k ∧ 2) local truncation error of second order in k (where k is the time step). those which do not lie on a mesh point. The governing equations are converted to an equivalent differential system of the ﬁrst order. On a Pentium IV processor at 3000 Mz the CPU time required for performing the time history for each case was approximately 3 min. The initial integration time step. In particular. and consequently. . V .

74 31. because of the most greater deformability of the structural system.e.69 52.58 Error MFM % 0. the inﬂuence of the geometric ratios of the bridge. Finally. p/g = [0.13 ΦV Error % SA 0. In Tables 4 and 5.51 3. σa /E = 7200/2. 2θ V = θ 2 V = 0. p = 0. In order to quantify numerically the inﬂuence of the inertial effects of the moving system. i. Bending moment dynamic impact factor (Φ M ) vs normalized speed parameter (θ). are proposed.58 2. for reduced values of moving system speed. the results arising from the dynamic and static solutions are practically coincident and. i.04 0. (52) Fig.24 2.09 0.15 18. in Figs.93 33. the bridge geometry is assumed to verify well-known design rules derived from both Fig.5 − 1]. avoiding excessive steel quantity amount in the cable system [16–18]. εω = 0.34 ΦM Error SA % 0. In particular. on the DAFs is investigated at ﬁxed speed of the moving system and relative girder stiffness. In particular.32 37. (2) Inertial description of the moving system neglected with respect to non-standard inertial forces. θ → 0. θ = 0.1 × 106 .e. where it has been shown that non-standard terms in the acceleration function provide notable ampliﬁcations in both kinematic and stress variables.e. However. The DAFs for both bending moments and displacements generally grow for increasing ratios between the central span and the height of the pylons.5. ζ = 0.05 0. allowable cable stress and moving load characteristics are assumed as equal to the following representative values: L/2H = 2. ζ = 0. Midspan vertical displacement dynamic impact factor (ΦV ) vs normalized speed parameter (θ ). Bruno et al. structural and practical conditions.21 21.54 6. ˙ f 2 = 0.11 0.60 11. dynamic ampliﬁcation variability with respect to the speed parameter for different intensity ratios between live and self-weight loads.07 0. the actual solution has been compared with numerical results based on the following assumptions: (1) Inertial description of the moving system completely neglected.2. Moreover the comparisons between the proposed formulation and those concerning the MFM are not in agreement in wide ranges of the speed parameter.65 19.D.e.59 11. 4–7. The proposed results do not agree with those arising from the SA. L/l and l/H . l/H = 5/3. However. which guarantee stability of the anchor stays. i.11 9. the percentage errors between the SA and the MFM and the proposed formulation have been reported in Table 3. especially at high speed of the moving system. pylon stiffness. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 Table 3 Percentage errors of midspan vertical displacement and bending moment dynamic ampliﬁcation factors (ΦV .25 20. K p /g = 50. the impact factors based on the bending moments are quite dependent from the geometric aspect .40 10. 4 and 5. ζ0 = [0 − 2].02 0. Φ M ) between the moving force model (MFM). standard acceleration (SA) and proposed results for different normalized speed parameters (θ ) θ 0. i.87 1. p = 0. 4. namely Standard Analysis (SA).87 1171 The dimensionless parameters related to aspect ratio. the inﬂuence of the mass schematization becomes negligible.42 4. 5.10.17 Error MFM % 0.e. namely the moving force model (MFM).87 39. comparisons in terms of the dynamic ampliﬁcation factors (DAFs) have been proposed in Figs. In order to evaluate the inﬂuence of both mass schematization and moving system speed.23 38. consequently.64 33.16 5. (i.41 42.37 1.

332 1.903 1. are analysed for an external moving system with a constant speed advance and different loading lengths (namely c = 120 m/s.2 = 500.361 2. which deﬁnes the normalized stiffness of the girder with respect to the cable system.16 L/H = 5 1.308 1.312 1.094 2.090 1.25 3. 1000 m. the dynamic behaviour of the bridge is investigated with respect to the dimensionless parameter ε F .2 L/H = 4 1.32 Table 5 Dynamic ampliﬁcation factors for midspan bending moment (Φ M ) vs geometric bridge ratios L/l and H/L L/l 2.371 1.583 a = 0.1. Longest centre span stay dynamic impact factor (Φσ ) vs normalized speed parameter (θ).855 1. 8 and 9.378 1.431 1. at ﬁxed L/H . 6. the DAFs.25 3.674 1.908 2.588 L/H = 5 1.35 1. Bruno et al.390 1.262 Fig.464 1.280 2.50 a = 0.20 1.3). emphasizing the inﬂuence of the external . In particular.256 1.29 1. The relationship between the DAFs and bridge size is investigated in Figs. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 Table 4 Dynamic ampliﬁcation factors for midspan vertical displacement (ΦV ) vs geometric bridge ratios L/l and H/L L/l 2. 0. L p1. the DAFs for vertical displacements are quite unaffected by the ratio between the main and central spans.22 L/H = 6 1.652 1. 7. The inertial effects produce considerable ampliﬁcations in both the displacement and stress variables.374 a = 0.722 1. the analysis has been developed at a constant speed of the moving system and for different values of the bridge size parameter.50 a = 0.75 3.25 1.664 1. for low values of the bridge size parameter a. results concerning the MFM determine notable underestimates in both stress and displacement DAFs.1 L/H = 4 1. because the cable system stiffness remains practically constant during the analyses. Fig.590 2. especially.235 L/H = 5 1.18 1. M p σg /µK = 2. the results show a tendency to decrease with an oscillating behaviour and some local peaks in curve development.394 2.407 2. related to cinematic and stress bridge variables.821 L/H = 6 2. The comparisons are proposed to investigate the effect of the external moving mass on the dynamic bridge vibrations. ratios than the corresponding ones for vertical displacements.32 1. In particular.75 3.25 1.31 1. 10 and 11.1 L/H = 4 1. Anchor stay dynamic impact factor (Φσ0 ) vs normalized speed parameter (θ). In typical allowable ranges of the a parameter.1172 D.906 L/H = 6 3.23 1.727 1. Moreover.2).00 3.282 1.00 3. In Figs.563 L/H = 5 2. namely a = (0.390 2.2 L/H = 4 1. Moreover.304 L/H = 6 1.356 1.

Midspan displacement dynamic impact factor (ΦV ) vs relative girder stiffness parameter (ε F ). Fig. the effects of the inertial forces of the moving system are notably reduced. and underestimates of the dynamic impact factors are noted if the travelling mass has not been properly evaluated.D. The dynamic bridge behaviour is analysed with respect to eccentric loads. Bending moment dynamic impact factor (Φ M ) vs relative girder stiffness parameter (ε F ). Midspan displacement dynamic impact factor (ΦV ) vs bridge size parameter (a). The dynamic bridge behaviour appears to be quite sensitive to the external mass description. 11. In particular. Fig. Bending moment dynamic impact factor (Φ M ) vs bridge size parameter (a). dominated by the cable-stayed system. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 1173 Fig. The major ampliﬁcation effects are noted for low ranges of the ε F parameter. As a matter of fact. 10. In contrast. mainly. Bruno et al. Fig. 8. corresponding to girderdominated bridge structures. moving mass description on the dynamic behaviour of the bridge. which involve both ﬂexural and torsional deformations. for high values of ε F . in which the bridge structure is basically more ﬂexible and. 9. the actual solution is compared to the case in which the inertial effects of the train loads have not been accounted for. in order to evaluate the ampliﬁcation .

denote . Moreover.1174 D. a sensitivity analysis has been developed. 14. Φω and ω = θ/ pe respectively. In contrast. the AST denotes a smaller dependence on the loading strip length and the moving mass schematization. 13. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 Fig. and as a result the effects of the moving mass becomes negligible. 15. Maximum normalized displacement (ω) vs relative girder stiffness (εω ) parameter for AST-HST. i. Bruno et al. the inertial forces of the moving system Fig. Fig. εω . Midspan torsional rotation dynamic impact factors (Φω ) vs normalized speed parameter (θ ) for HST. at midspan girder cross section. 14 and 15. The results are presented in term of maximum normalized torsional rotation and relative DAF produced by the moving load application. 13.e. In particular.e. This behaviour can be explained due to the fact that the AST typologies show. 14. 12. Midspan torsional rotation dynamic impact factors (Φω ) vs relative girder stiffness (εω ) parameter for AST-HST. 12. X = 0. with respect to girder torsional stiffness parameter. sensitivity analyses of DAFs and maximum normalized torsional rotation. 12 and 13. determine an intensiﬁcation of the DAFs. for the HST typology. effects produced by moving loads for bridge structures based on both “A” and “H” shaped towers (namely AST. Midspan torsional rotation dynamic impact factors (Φω ) vs normalized speed parameter (θ) for AST. In Figs. are proposed. The comparisons reported in Fig. i. In Figs. the effects of mass distribution of the moving system for both AST and HST is investigated in terms of midspan torsional rotation for different values of the loading strip length L p . dynamic ampliﬁcation displays a tendency to grow especially for reduced ratios of loading application length and central bridge span. in Fig. which strongly reduce dynamic ampliﬁcations. greater stiffness with respect to the HST ones. Fig. in Fig. generally. HST).

the effects of moving mass description have been investigated. the effect of transverse deformability on the dynamic behaviour of the bridge is practically negligible. Moreover. for increasing values of εω . numerical results have shown that. in terms of dynamic impact factors for typical kinematic and stress variables of the bridge. the AST are subject to major ampliﬁcation effects. emphasizing the inﬂuence of the inertial forces of the moving system on the DAFs. that DAFs for AST are generally greater than the corresponding ones obtained for bridges based on HST. 16. The effects of the inertial description of the moving system on the dynamic bridge behaviour have been investigated. which basically correspond to girderdominated bridge structures. and as with previous results. In particular. The dynamic solution . mainly at high speeds of the moving system. 16. normalized torsional rotations have been compared in terms of pylon typology. are characterized by enhanced stiffness properties. 16 and 17. the dynamic impact factors are practically unaffected by the shape of the towers. the “A” shaped ones. Midspan torsional rotation dynamic impact factors (Φω ) vs bridge size parameter (a) for AST-HST. This behaviour can be explained in view of the enhanced stiffness properties of AST. in Fig. sensitivity analyses have been developed in terms of dynamic impact factors and maximum normalized displacements with respect to both “A” and “H” shaped tower typologies. emphasizing the ampliﬁcation effects produced by the inertial forces of the moving system. 17. Finally. by means of sensitivity analyses. in Fig. DAFs are strictly dependent on inertial forces of the moving system. which although reducing bridge deformations means an intensiﬁcation of the dynamic impact factors. The inertial effects of the moving system have been discussed with respect to typical geometrical and stiffness parameters of the bridge. comparisons in terms of normalized torsional rotations for both “A” and “H” shaped tower typologies have been reported. the inﬂuence of the transverse displacements has been investigated. because solutions arising from the MFM greatly underestimate the dynamic response of the bridge for both AST and HST. even if having greater dynamic ampliﬁcation factors. the AST with respect to the HST typology shows smaller displacements in the whole investigation range. a parametric study may be useful in the design procedure since the dynamic impact factors for typical deformation and stress variables can be determined in advance. This establishes that. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 1175 appears to be strictly dependent on the tower shape and signiﬁcant differences between the AST and HST typologies are noted.D. Conclusions Long span bridges under moving loads have been analysed for both ﬂexural and torsional deformation modes. The results show a tendency to decrease for increasing values of girder stiffness. The inﬂuence of the inertial forces are considerable. In particular. while those corresponding to non-standard contributions arising from Coriolis and centripetal accelerations determine the major ampliﬁcations. the coupling behaviour between torsional and transversal ﬂexural deformations has been discussed. in which sensitivity analyses have been developed in terms of the bridge size parameter a. Similar results have been proposed in Figs. 5. for an in-plane loading condition. The comparisons denote that with respect to the HST. In the framework of the “A” shaped tower typologies. 17. In Fig. by means of a parametric study developed in terms of both moving loads and bridge characteristics. The investigation is developed in terms of the main dimensionless parameters related to both geometric and stiffness properties of the bridge. in comparisons with the “H” shaped tower topology. The results show a tendency to increase for increasing values of the bridge size parameter a. 15. Moreover. For eccentric loads. Maximum displacement (ω) vs bridge size parameter (a) for ASTHST. As a result. Fig. Moreover. which are able to efﬁciently reduce torsional bridge deformation. Fig. Bruno et al.

J Struct Eng 1995. [2] Timoshenko SP. (B.7) in Eq. ∂ 2v 1 ∂2V 1 = = V .3) Moreover. J Eng Mech Div 1982. New York: McGrawHill. J Sound Vibration 2001. . 1976. Garg VK.9(3):259–67. The dynamical behavior of structures.7) − τ ϑ δ (τ ϑ − X 1 ) .1176 D. (28)–(31) and Eqs. [9] Au FTK. J Sound Vibration 2002.3) . Impact study of cable-stayed bridge under railway trafﬁc using various models. 2 1 + X2 1 + aX = 1 1+a ϕ2 (X ) L 2H 1 X2 .121(11):1644–50.4) qv R = X1 + Lp − τθ .4) 2H − X .3). Appendix B Starting from Eqs. Analyses of dynamic response of vehicle and track coupling system with random irregularity of track vertical proﬁle. Bridge impact due to wheel and track irregularities. [6] Warburton GB. [4] Lei X. the following relationships have been utilized: f 1 = H (τ θ − X 1 ) H f2 = δ (τ θ − X 1 ) H − δ X1 + ϕ (X ) 1 1 2 1 + X2 1 + aX = 1 1+a ϕ1 (X ) L 2H qvL = (B. References . [5] Roeder CW. H Lp − τθ H (A. 2 H ∂ X2 H ∂x (B. (B. Lin BH. (A. (32) is ﬁnally determined. [3] Yang YB. in view of Eqs.2) ρ = λH x1 + L p − ct H (ct − x1 ) Lp = λH X 1 + − τ ϑ H (τ ϑ − X 1 ) H ρ = ˙ Eg µH σg −H 1/2 (B. Liao SS. H By substituting Eqs. Eq. 1965. H 1 L (A.258(1):147–65.5) X1 + Lp − τθ H H (τ θ − X 1 ) . J Bridge Eng 2004.5) L L 2H − X . 0≤X ≤ . London: Thomas Telford. c= Eg H µσg 1/2 ϑ.2) Eg µH σg 1/2 + δ (X + L/2H ) + δ (x − L/2H ) and taking into account Eqs. Chu KH. 2 2 L H − X 1 + 2H − X − Lp λ − τ ϑ H (τ ϑ − X 1 ) δ X1 + ϑ H Lp X1 + (B.8) 1 X . (B. ∂ 4v 1 ∂4V 1 = 3 = 3 V IV ∂x4 H ∂ X4 H ∂ 2v ˙ =V ∂t∂ x Eg µH σg 1/2 .1) Eg µH σg ∂X ∂x =V . Young DH. [7] Wiriyachai A. the interaction forces between the cable system and the girder (qvL . Bergman A.1) and (A. H L L (A. 0≤X ≤ . Cheung YK. Wang JJ. Cheung YK. qv R ) and the mass function of the moving system (ρ) can be expressed by the following relationships: [1] Fryba L. 2 2 L H − X 1 + 2H − X − L − ≤ X ≤ 0. Oxford: Pergamon.3) and Eqs. Effect of live-load deﬂections on steel bridge performance. Vibration of solids and structures under moving loads. Eng Struct 2001. Theory of structures. Bruno et al.2). H 2 (A. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 ∗ E S AS v · sin3 α − (u L − u) · sin2 α cos α H∆ Eg = (V · ϕ − (U L − U ) · ϕ1 ) σg ∗ E S AS v · sin3 α − (u R + u) · sin2 α cos α H∆ Eg = (V · ϕ − (U L + U ) · ϕ1 ) σg Appendix A In order to simplify the presentation of the dynamic equilibrium equations in dimensionless formulation. Wang JJ. Impact study of cable-stayed railway bridges with random rail irregularities.4)–(B.240(3): 447–65.. and taking into account Eqs. (28)–(31).1)–(B.1) and (B. (B.6) L ≤ X ≤ 0. 2 2 L H − X 1 + 2H − X L ≤ X ≤ 0. (B.108:648–65. Noda NA. [8] Au FTK. Barth KE. (21).. (B. Impact formulas for vehicles moving over simple and continuous beams.1) (B. 0≤X ≤ . (28)–(31). 2 1 + X2 1 + aX = 1 1+a L 2H with X 1 = x1 /H . 1999. (A. the following equation is obtained: − σg I I V ∂2V − V − H (X ) (V · ϕ − (U L + U ) · ϕ1 ) ∂τ 2 gH3 − H (−X ) (V · ϕ − (U L − U ) · ϕ1 ) Lp λ − δ X1 + − τ ϑ H (τ ϑ − X 1 ) µϑ H Lp ˙ − H X1 + − τ ϑ δ (τ ϑ − X 1 ) V H Lp λ − τ ϑ H (τ ϑ − X 1 ) − H X1 + µϑ H × ∂2V ˙ + 2ϑ V + ϑ 2 V ∂τ 2 + p f1 λv σg Eg · V = 0. the following expressions can be determined: ∂V ∂v =H ∂t ∂τ ∂2V ∂ 2v =H 2 2 ∂t ∂τ ∂v ∂V =H ∂x ∂X ∂τ ∂t ˙ = HV .24(5):529–41.

Surana CS. [15] Bruno D. Mode-dependence of structural damping in cable-stayed bridges. J Bridge Eng 1997. Weidlinger P. 2006. Leonardi A. J Wind Eng Industrial Aerodynam 1997. Department of Structural Engineering. Fonder GA. [16] De Miranda F. Dynamic response of cable-stayed bridges under moving loads. J Eng Mech 1998.119(4): 1015–31. Finite Element Anal Design 2004. Xu YL.237(2):263–80. Estimation of camping ratio of cable-stayed bridges for seismic design. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1160–1177 [10] Yang F. Comput Struct 1992. Unjoh S. Bruno et al. University of Calabria. Ito Manabu. Vibration of cablestayed bridges under moving vehicles. Tsunomoto M.72(1–3): 289–300. London: Crosby Lockwood Staples.40:341–59. Troitsky MS.43(5):897–908. [11] Yau JD. Cable supported bridges: Concepts and design. Natural periods of long-span cable-stayed bridges. MAPLE Maplesoft. 1977.4(2): 116–121.2(3):105–15. . J Sound Vibration 2000. Internal Report no 25. Impact analysis of cable stayed bridges. Vibration reduction for cable-stayed traveled by highspeed trains.124(7):741–7. [14] Chatterjee PK. Como M. Yang YB.D. Kawashima K.74-Aut-R:180–92. Datta TK. J Dyn Syst Meas Control ASME 1974. Cable stayed bridges. 1997. Wang TL. Struct Eng Int 1994. Maceri F. Dynamic interaction of long suspension bridges with running trains. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Basic problems in long 1177 [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] span cable stayed bridges. J Struct Eng. 1979. Xia H. ASCE 1993. Gimsing NJ. Yamaguchi Hiroki. Grimaldi A. [12] Huang D. Dynamic interaction aspects of cablestayed guide ways for high speed ground Transportation. Chan THT. [13] Meisenholder SG. Waterloo Maple Inc.

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- Backwater Effects of Bridge Piers In
- Build It Bigger
- RMBridgeE_PGUIDE
- 14 Box Culvert
- bilding bridges
- 3360 Unit 05.3 2014-I-01
- 0011-E6Bennett
- 08 Integral and Semi Integral Abutments
- WP 040616 1a.pdf
- Bridge Analysis
- 054_Kalra Introduction Austroads04
- Leap Bridge Overview
- Handling Model Approximations and Human Factors in Complex Structure Analyses
- 2009 September - ASCE Richmond Newsletter
- 73-The Polygonal Arch Bridge
- Cross-frame and Lateral Bracing Inﬂuence on Curver Steel Bridge Vibration
- Connections
- Tm 5-275 Pneumatic Ponton Bridge m3
- Design Example 06
- 12~chapter_12
- integral bridges
- 46490067-SED-12-For-the-Web-101202
- International Workshop Bridges Integral Abutments LTU-TR-0614-SE
- materials of construction 1
- CM
- Numerical Analysis
- 2101 Solutions VII, 2014
- Aerodynamic Problems of s Super-long Span Cable-stayed Bridge_IABSE 2005
- 2014Fall - 132 - Discussion - Week 2 - Tue 1-17
- GUSSET PLATE DESIGN
- bridge under moving load