See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273168230

Estimation of the vibration serviceability deflection limit of a high-speed

railway bridge considering the bridge-train interaction and travel speed

Article  in  KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering · January 2015

DOI: 10.1007/s12205-015-0565-z

CITATIONS READS

6 793

3 authors:

Bub-Gyu Jeon Nam-Sik Kim

Pusan National University Pusan National University
46 PUBLICATIONS   174 CITATIONS    54 PUBLICATIONS   651 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sungil Kim
Korea Railroad Research Institute
48 PUBLICATIONS   236 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Seismic Performance Assessment of Seismic Isolation Systems for Nuclear Power Plants View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bub-Gyu Jeon on 11 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (0000) 00(0):1-15 Structural Engineering
Copyright ⓒ2014 Korean Society of Civil Engineers
DOI 10.1007/s12205-015-0565-z pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
TECHNICAL NOTE

Estimation of the Vibration Serviceability Deflection Limit of a High-speed

Railway Bridge Considering the Bridge-Train Interaction and Travel Speed
Bub-Gyu Jeon*, Nam-Sik Kim**, and Sung-Il Kim***
Received September 11, 2013/Revised April 5, 2014/Accepted September 24, 2014/Published Online January 12, 2015

··································································································································································································································

Abstract

The static and dynamic displacements of high-speed railway bridges, which are determined by the load conditions, travel speed,
and span, may cause passenger discomfort when they are excessive. In the Korea Railway Bridge Design Specifications, the
allowable deflection is based on the train travel speed. It is, however, not sufficient for considering the vibration serviceability. The
Eurocodes has also been quoted in the design guidelines of the Korean Honam High-speed Railway (KRNA, 2007). For the
determination of the vibration serviceability of a passenger train, the Eurocodes proposes a deflection limit based on the vibration
serviceability obtained from the ratio of the deflection to the span and considers the bridge–train interaction. However, the maximum
speed and maximum span in the Eurocodes are 350 km/h and 120 m, respectively. Moreover, it does not provide a detailed process
for determining the deflection limit based on vibration serviceability. It is therefore difficult to use the deflection limit as the design
limit in increasing the span and travel speed. Hence, to ensure passenger comfort and enable changes in railway techniques, it is
necessary to develop a vibration serviceability-based deflection limit that flexibly responds to changes in the railway environment
regarding bridge span and travel speed. This study was conducted to determine the deflection limits of Korean railway bridges based
on their vibration serviceability and considering the bridge–train interaction and increase in travel speed. In this paper, the bridge–
train transfer function is developed using a simplified bridge–train model comprising a single mass–spring system. It is then verified
by dynamic analysis of the bridge–train interaction. A parametric study and bridge–train dynamic interaction analysis are used to
determine the correlation between the vertical acceleration of a car body and the bridge displacement with increasing travel speed. In
addition, the vertical acceleration of the car body is shown to increase with increasing travel speed, and an amplification coefficient of
the vertical acceleration of the car body is suggested. Further, a vibration serviceability deflection limit for high-speed railway
bridges is developed in this paper using the transfer function and the amplification coefficient. Here, the deflection and vibration of
the bridge are assumed to be respectively sinusoidal and harmonic. The suggested vibration serviceability deflection limit is also
compared with those in the Eurocodes and the Shinkansen.
Keywords: railway bridge, vibration serviceability, comfort, deflection limit, bridge-train interaction
··································································································································································································································

1. Introduction average for estimating the vibration serviceability. Furthermore,

Generally, the vibration of a structure is used to estimate its
safety and soundness. There are, however, some cases that
require the consideration of the vibration serviceability of the
structure at the design stage or during maintenance (Jeon and
Kim, 2007). Notably, the static and dynamic displacements of
high-speed railway bridges, which are determined by the load
conditions, travel speed, and span, may cause passenger discomfort
when they are excessive. The vibration serviceability of a
structure can be evaluated by measuring the vibration acceleration
signals; generally, the maximum value is applied. According to
ISO 2631 (1997), it is inappropriate for the maximum value to be
used as the vibration signal if the vibration signal is complicated;
rather, the RMS (Root Mean Square) value should be used as the
if the durations of the different vibration signals differ, the VDV
(Vibration Dose Value) is recommended for use in estimating the
vibration serviceability. Bruggers (2002) suggested a vibration
serviceability vertical acceleration limit that gradually decreases
as the vibration duration increases using the VDV to sufficiently
reflect the effect of the vibration duration. According to Jeon and
Kim (2007), because the effect of the vibration duration is
significant in the quantitative estimation of bridge vibration
serviceability, this method is valid.
The Korea Railway Bridge Design Specifications states that
the allowable deflection should be controlled by the speed of the
train (KRNA, 2004). This means that the determination of the
vibration serviceability partially considers the duration of the
exposure, which is determined by the bridge span and the speed

*Member, Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Pusan National University, Busan 609-735, Korea (E-mail: bkjeon@yahoo.co.kr)
**Member, Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Pusan National University, Busan 609-735, Korea (Corresponding Author, E-mail:
nskim@pusan.ac.kr)
***Member, Senior Researcher, Korea Railroad Research Institute, Uiwang 437-757, Korea (E-mail: sikim@krri.re.kr)

−1−
 Bub-Gyu Jeon, Nam-Sik Kim, and Sung-Il Kim
of the train. However, to maintain the running stability of the
train, a strict allowable deflection limit is applied. The Honam
High-Speed Railway Design Manual considers the speed of the
train and the bridge–train interaction among other factors in
suggesting the allowable vibration serviceability deflection
(KRNA, 2007). Because it is based on the Eurocodes (BSI,
2002), it falls short of the requirements of the railway systems of
other developed countries for supplementing the vibration
serviceability standard of railway bridges regarding the increase
of train speed and bridge span. It is therefore necessary to
develop an independent estimation method and its underlying
criteria for the vibration serviceability of railway bridges.
Generally, the vibration serviceability of a railway bridge is
estimated using the vertical acceleration of the vehicle travelling
on the bridge. However, the direct measurement of the vertical
acceleration of a vehicle passing over the bridge is difficult.
Therefore considered it reasonable to calculate the vertical
acceleration response of a vehicle by analyzing the bridge–train
interaction and using it for the estimation (Sogabe, 2006). The
bridge–train interaction analysis encounters difficulties in the
field owing to the difficulty of developing a model of the train
and bridge. Therefore, the Design Standards for Railway Structures
and Commentary (RTRI, 2006) and the Eurocodes suggest that
the vertical displacement of the bridge should be used as the
vibration serviceability limit of the railway. The vibration
serviceability of the railway can therefore be estimated without
the complex analysis of the bridge–train interaction.
During the preparation of the Design Standards for Railway
Structures and Commentary of Japan, it was decided that the
vibration serviceability of a railway bridge should be estimated
by considering its momentary vibration serviceability. This prompted
the modification and application of the Janeway criteria (Janeway,
1948), which are frequency-dependent. The Eurocodes recommends
1.0 m/s2 for the vibration serviceability limit of the vertical
acceleration, and the value was therefore used to determine the
allowable vibration serviceability deflection of a railway bridge.
In this paper, the time-dependent comfort limit of bridge
structures is used, which is one of the vibration serviceability
vertical acceleration limits that consider the vibration duration. It
can take into consideration the changes in the discomfort level
perceived by the human body with regard to the vibration
duration. The effects of the bouncing and pitching on the vehicle
behavior are not considered. In addition, the bridge–train transfer
function is developed using the single mass–spring system. A
parametric study and analysis of the bridge–vehicle interaction is
conducted to determine the correlation between the vertical
acceleration of the vehicle and the bridge displacement relative
to the increase in travel speed. An acceleration amplification
coefficient is developed using the results of the parametric study
and bridge–vehicle interaction analysis. The shape of the
deflection and the vibration of the bridge are assumed to be
sinusoidal and harmonic; the vibration transfer function and
acceleration amplification coefficient are used to develop a
formula for determining the allowable vibration serviceability
−2−
deflection of high-speed railway bridges, and categorizing them
based on train speed and the type and shape of the bridge
regarding the support.
This paper is a study that provides a standard for vibration
serviceability of bridge structure during operation of train. Since
the objective of this study is to define vibration serviceability of
bridge by focusing on vertical displacement of bridge created by
train load and velocity, and vibration of bridge caused by such
vertical displacement, factors such as surface roughness, local
damaging and deflections occurred in the bridges due to the
trains entering were not taken into account.
2. Human Response To Vibration Criteria
In general, the magnitude of a vibration acceleration signal in a
structure can be represented by its peak value. However, if the
vibration signal is complex, the peak value may not correctly
represent it. The RMS value, which is based on an averaging
concept, is therefore used.
Equation (1) shows how the RMS value is determined for
acceleration signals. It has been proven that RMS values are
generally a proper representation of vibration serviceability.
However, if the vibration signals are highly changeable, the peak
value may not properly reflect the signal characteristics. Moreover,
when comparing different vibration durations, the RMS value may
not be appropriate (Griffin, 1990). Therefore, ISO 2631 stipulates that
the RMS value may only be used when the crest factor (peak value/
frequency-weighted RMS value) is below 9. u··w is used to represent
the frequency-weighted acceleration signals. Frequency weighting
filter shown in Fig. 1. was adopted first by ISO in 1975, and currently
the regulation specifies that it shall be applied in dynamic
serviceability evaluations like BS 6841 (1987), ISO 2631 (1997).
u·· rms, w = --1- ∫ u·· w ( t ) dt
2
(1)
T
If the fluctuations of the vibration signal are great, the RMQ
(Root Mean Quad) value can be used to sufficiently represent the
peak value. The RMQ value, which is calculated using Eq. (2),
can be better used to represent the value of an irregular vibration
Fig. 1. Frequency Weighting Filter (ISO 2631-1, 1997)
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Estimation of the Vibration Serviceability Deflection Limit of a High-speed Railway Bridge Considering the Bridge-Train Interaction and Travel Speed

signal by increasing the weight of the peak value relative to the

RMS value. It may therefore be desirable to use the RMQ value
if the crest factor is greater than 9. The unit of both RMS and
RMQ values is m/s2.
1 4
u·· rmq, w = 4 --- ∫ u··w ( t ) dt (2)
T
Because RMS and RMQ values are calculated using duration
averages, they may not be appropriate for evaluating vibration
serviceability based on the vibration duration if the vibration
signals have different durations. In that case, the evaluation of
vibration serviceability based on the vibration duration may be
done using VDV as shown in Eq. (3). VDV can therefore be
Fig. 2. Time-Dependent Comfort Limit on Bridges
used if it is difficult to define the starting point of the vibration
signal or the crest factor is considerably large. At the time of this
writing, the vibration serviceability vertical acceleration limits of converted to VDV in the segment between 2 and 32 s are proposed
ISO 2631 (1997) and BS 6841 (1987) include VDV for use in as the vibration serviceability vertical acceleration limit that take the
evaluating vibration serviceability. The unit of VDV is m/s1.75. vibration duration into consideration. Jeon and Kim (2007)
T demonstrated the significant effect of the vibration duration on the
·· 4
VDV = 4 ∫ [ u w ( t ) ] dt (3) quantitative estimation of the vibration serviceability of a bridge,
0 and showed that it was reasonable to consider the effect of the
If the vibration signals are assumed to be harmonic when vibration duration when estimating the vibration serviceability of a
comparing the RMS values, the RMQ value and VDV may be bridge. This study uses the time-dependent comfort limit of the
defined using Eqs. (4) and (5), respectively. VDV increases with bridge shown in Fig. 2. The vibration duration can be taken into
increasing vibration duration. Table 1 summarizes the vibration consideration at the same time as the change in discomfort level
serviceability vertical acceleration limits in the time domain. perceived by the human body with regard to the vibration duration
and the possible change in the span of the railway bridge.
u·· rms, w = u·· w max ⁄ 2 (4)
3. Vibration Serviceability Deflection Limits of
VDVw = u· rms, w 4 1.5T = u··rmq, w 4 T (5)
Railway Bridges
If the vibration acceleration signals are assumed to be
harmonic, the correlation between the VDV and RMS values 3.1 Eurocodes
may be determined using Eq. (5). The vibration serviceability In the Eurocodes, the factor used to determine the vibration
vertical acceleration limit is fixed at 0.8 m/s2, and the values serviceability of a passenger train is the vehicle vertical acceleration

Table 1. Vibration Serviceability Vertical Acceleration Limits in the Time Domain

Criteria Comfort limit Remarks
In cases of variable time duration signal, transient signal and
occasional shocks would be inappropriate
BS 6841 (1987) & ISO 2631 (1997) Overall vibration total values in public transport
1 2 0.8 Used Frequency Weighting filter (Wb)
u··rms = --- ∫ u··w ( t )dt Peak value
T Crestfactor : ------------------------------------------------------- < 9
Weighted RMS value
ERRI D190 (1999)
T
45 10% uncomfortable
&&w( t) dt3
LIh =107.773 ∫u
0

Root Mean Quad Crestfactor :

u··rmq = 4 --1- ∫ u··w ( t ) dt Peak value

4
-------------------------------------------------------- > 9
T Weighted RMS value
Vibration Dose Value
T
Used by the BS and ISO
VDV = 4 ∫ [u··w ( t ) ] dt
4

Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 −3−

 Bub-Gyu Jeon, Nam-Sik Kim, and Sung-Il Kim
Table 2. Eurocodes Vibration Serviceability Vertical Acceleration Limits
2
Level of comfort Vertical acceleration(m/s )
Acceptable 2.0
Good 1.3
Very Good 1.0
when travelling on a bridge. It is, however, very difficult to
measure the vehicle vertical acceleration of a train when it is
actually travelling on a bridge. Therefore, a bridge–train interaction
analysis is used to consider the effects of resonance, the load, and
the speed of the train, and these data are used to determine the
vehicle vertical acceleration. In the vibration serviceability vertical
acceleration limits presented in Table 2, “very good” (1.0 m/s2) is
chosen as the vibration serviceability vertical acceleration limit
perceived by the passenger. This was used to consider the
structural stability in determining the allowable vibration
serviceability deflection limit of a railway bridge in terms of the
ratio of the deflection (u) to the span (L).
3.2 Japanese Shinkansen Design Criteria
The RTRI (Railway Technical Research Institute) in Japan
determined that the maximum vibration of a train was primarily
determined by the shape of the rail structure and its roughness.
But vibration serviceability is not affected by local deformations
as much as by the running stability. Hence, the effects of track
irregularities and local deformations are not considered during
scheduled examinations and management (Sogabe, 2006). The
vibration serviceability for railways was thus reviewed based on
the automobile vibration serviceability limit of Janeway for use
in the national railway of Japan. They also considered it reasonable
to use the Janeway vibration serviceability vertical acceleration
limit based on the momentary vibration acceleration in determining
the vibration serviceability vertical acceleration limit with regard
to the bridge frequency.
The vibration serviceability vertical acceleration limits of the
national railway in Japan presented as Eq. (6) is the frequency
limit used for estimating short vibration duration signals. The
allowable acceleration is high for the low-frequency components
and tends to decrease gradually beginning at 1 Hz (RTRI, 2006).
Here, u··v1, 2, 3 are the vibration serviceability units (m/s2) per
frequency used to describe the limits of the acceleration level,
and f is the frequency (Hz):
2
u·· v1 = 2.0m/s , f < 1.5Hz
u·· v2 = 3.0m/s ⁄ f, 1.5Hz ≤ f < 6.0Hz (6)
2 planned top speed was later reduced to 300 km/h (186 mph),
u·· v3 = 0.5m/s , 6.0Hz ≤ f < 20.0Hz
Table 3. Shinkansen Maximum Permissible Vertical Deflection of Railway Bridges
Speed
10 20 30
Single span L/3500 L/3000
360 km/h
Continuous span L/3500 L/2800
−4−
Table 4. Korean Railway Bridge Design Specifications
Span Length
0 < L < 50 m L ≥ 50 m
Velocity
V ≤ 120 km/h δ max = L ⁄ 800 δ max = L/700
120 km/h < V ≤ 150 km/h δ max = L ⁄ 1100 δ max = L ⁄ 900
150 km/h<V ≤ 200 km/h δ max = L ⁄ 1600
High-speed railway δ max = L ⁄ 1700
In the Design Standards for Railway Structures and Commentary,
a model of the vehicle and railway bridge is used to estimate the
vibration serviceability of the bridge using the limits in Eq. (6)
and the vehicle vertical acceleration determined by the bridge–
train interaction analysis using one vehicle in principle. Generally,
for easier application to a given site, the allowable vibration
serviceability deflection limit for a railway bridge is taken from
Table 3. The allowable deflection equation is obtained by an
analysis of the bridge–train interaction to satisfy the vibration
serviceability vertical acceleration limits in Eq. (6).
3.3 Deflection Limit Criteria for Korean Bridge Design
Specifications
Table 4 shows the allowable deflection limits for railway
bridges obtained from the Korea Railway Bridge Design
Specifications, which is used by the Korean Gyeongbu line. In
the table, the allowable deflection is divided by the speed of the
train, which reveals the intention to determine the vibration
serviceability by partly considering the vibration duration determined
from the span (L) of the bridge and the speed (V) of the train.
Stricter allowable deflection limits are also applied to preclude
the possibility of resonance and increase the running stability of
the train as its travel speed increases. The maximum vertical
deflection limit in the Honam High Speed Railway Design
Manual (KRNA, 2007) is obtained from the Eurocodes and used
to provide the vibration serviceability allowable deflection limit.
The vibration serviceability acceleration limit in the vertical
direction of the vehicle given in the manual is 1.0 m/s2, which is
also the same as that of the Eurocodes.
4. Korea High-speed Trains
The original 1991 plan for the KTX (Korea Train eXpress)
high-speed rail system envisioned an operating speed of 350 km/
h, which would enable a travel time of under 2 h between Seoul
in the northwest and Busan in the southeast of South Korea. The
which is the maximum speed of high-speed trains presently on
Span Length L(m)
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
L/2200 L/1800 L/1500
L/2200
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Estimation of the Vibration Serviceability Deflection Limit of a High-speed Railway Bridge Considering the Bridge-Train Interaction and Travel Speed

the market (Cho and Chung, 2008). The KTX, which is the first
high-speed train in Korea, was based on the TGV Réseau
developed by Alstom and has been in high-speed railway service
since April 1, 2004.
HEMU-400X is a South Korean experimental high-speed train
under construction and is scheduled for tests between 2011 and
2014 at a speed of up to 400 km/h. The major new feature of the
train compared to older South Korean high-speed trains is its
distributed traction. A prototype named HEMU-430X with a
designed top speed of 430 km/h was unveiled in May 2012. See
Fig. 3 and Tables 5 and 6 for detailed information on each train
Fig. 3. Schematic of Passenger Car: (a) KTX, (b) HEMU-430X
passenger car.
5. Bridge–Train Vibration Transfer Function
Vibration serviceability is not affected by local deformations
as much as by the running stability. Hence, the effects of track
irregularities and local deformations are not considered during
scheduled examinations and management (Sogabe, 2006).
Therefore, in this paper, track irregularities and roughness are
not considered. In complex models, many resources are used to
obtain a precise description of the actual bridge and vehicle,
which makes it difficult to precisely determine which element
affects the vibration behavior. Therefore, it was determined that
the vibration tendencies would be similar even if the interaction
is considered using only the vibration transfer function between
the vehicle and the bridge. And when perform the bridge-train
interaction analysis, maximum response acceleration on the
single mass-spring car model and complex car model was
similar except for resonance (Jeon et al., 2010). Hence, to
determine the vibration transfer function, the train is simplified
as a single mass–spring system in harmonic motion as shown
in Fig. 4 (Bruggers, 2002; Jeon et al., 2010). The equation of
motion of the single mass–spring system shown in Fig. 4 is
given by Eq. (7). m is the mass of the train model (the car body,
axle, and spring mass), and k and c are the spring coefficient
and damping coefficient of the suspension, respectively. Parameters
of single mass-spring system are calculated considering the real
train suspension system. Here, the suspension is considered to
comprise primary and secondary suspensions. Eq. (8) is the
transfer function of the single mass–spring system developed
from Eq. (7):
mu··m = k ( ub – um ) + c ( u· b – u· m ) (7)

Table 5. Detailed Information on a KTX Passenger Car

Property of
Item
Passenger car
Mass of body(kg) 26000
Primary spring mass(kg) 3050
Unspring mass per axle(kg) 2000
Primary stiffness per axle box(kN/m) [x,y,z] 55000, 11000, 800
Secondary stiffness per bogie side(kN/m) [x,y,z] 100,170,303
Primary damper per axle box(kN.s/m) [x,y,z] 0,0,6 Fig. 4. Single Mass-Spring System
Secondary damper per bogie side(kN.s/m) [x,y,z,ϕ] 0,0,0,240

Table 6. Detailed Information on an HEMU-430X Passenger Car

Property of
Item
Passenger car
Mass of body(kg) 36100
Primary spring mass(kg) 3600
Secondary spring mass(kg) 1650
Primary suspension stiffness (kN/m) [x,y,z] 34150, 7285, 5890
Secondary suspension stiffness(kN/m) [x,y,z] 120, 120, 100
Primary damper per axle box(kN.s/m) [x,y,z] 0,0,10 Fig. 5. Bridge–Train Vibration Transfer Function for a KTX Pas-
Secondary damper per bogie side(kN.s/m) [x,y,z,ϕ] 0,40,30,600 senger Car

Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 −5−

 Bub-Gyu Jeon, Nam-Sik Kim, and Sung-Il Kim

ω ω *
H ( f ) = H ⎛ ------⎞ H ⎛ ------⎞ (8)
⎝ 2π⎠ ⎝ 2π⎠
In the case of a passenger car in which the distance from the
center of gravity to the front wheels is the same as the distance to
the rear wheels and the spring coefficients of the front and rear
wheels are also the same, it can be seen that the effect of the pitch
movement can be ignored (Thomas, 1992; Jazar, 2008; Ministry
of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, 2011). Therefore, in
this study, only the bouncing mode of the vehicle was considered
in determining the allowable vibration serviceability deflection
limit of a railway bridge. Fig. 5 shows the transfer function for a
KTX passenger car.
Fig. 6. Deflection Shapes according to Bridge Support Type: (a)
Simple Span Bridge, (b) Continuous Bridge
6. Allowable Vibration Serviceability Deflection
Limit of a Railway Bridge
been basically used for determining the allowable vibration
6.1 Allowable Vibration Serviceability Deflection Limit of a serviceability deflection limits because the deflection is not
Railway Bridge Considering the Bridge–Train Interac- affected by the number of vehicles in the bridge model, which
tion and Vibration Duration has a sinusoidal deflection (Sogabe, 2006):
The above results showed that the maximum deflection of a
f = V⁄L (9)
railway bridge that satisfies the vibration serviceability could be
2 2
determined using the vibration transfer function. Therefore, the u·· m, simple = π f H ( f )ub, simple = H ( f )u··b, simple (10)
assumed deflections created by a moving load on simple-span 2 2
u·· m, continuous = 2π f H ( f )ub, continuous = H ( f )u··b, continuous (11)
and continuous bridges are as shown in Fig. 6. The deflection
shape, vertical acceleration, vertical speed, etc. of each bridge are Here, is maximum vertical acceleration of the train and is
given in Table 7. The tendency of the frequency of the vibration maximum vertical acceleration of the bridge. When Eq. (10) is
acceleration of the vehicle when passing over the bridge is close converted into an equation for deflection and maximum vertical
to that of a sinusoidal forced excitation with a waveform the acceleration is limited based on vibration serviceability, it is the
period of which is equal to the span, and can be expressed in same as the right side of Eq. (12):
terms of the train speed function (V) and span (L), as in Eq. (9) 2 2 2 2
1 vx π vx π
(RTRI, 2006). If the vibration signal is assumed to be harmonic, ---------------- = ----------------------H
2
(f ) = --------------------H
2
(f ) (12)
ub, simple u··m, simple L u··comfortL
the maximum vertical acceleration in Table 7 and the vibration
transfer function can be used to developed the maximum vehicle By substituting the maximum vehicle vertical acceleration of
vertical acceleration of the train from the deflection of the simple- the train with the vibration serviceability vertical acceleration
span and continuous bridges as expressed in Eqs. (10) and (11), limit u··comfort , and rearranging, the allowable vibration serviceability
respectively (Bruggers, 2002). In this study, a single vehicle has deflection limit of a railway bridge considering the vibration

Table 7. Harmonic Motion Parameters according to Bridge Support Type

Continuous bridge Simple span bridge
π
- 1 – cos ⎛⎝ ------ x⎞⎠ z = –ub, simple sin ⎛⎝ --- x⎞⎠
ub, continuous 2π
Shape of deflection z = – ---------------------
2 L L
Horizontal position V = Vx t
π
- 1 – cos ⎛⎝ ------ Vx t⎞⎠ z = –ub, simple sin ⎛⎝ --- Vx t⎞⎠
ub, continuous 2π
Vertical position z = – ---------------------
2 L L

π
V = ----- = π ⎛ -----x⎞ ub, continuous sin ⎛ ------ Vx t⎞ V = ----- = –π ⎛ -----x⎞ ub, simple cos ⎛⎝ --- Vx t⎞⎠
dz V 2π dz V
Vertical velocity
dt ⎝ L⎠ ⎝L ⎠ dt ⎝ L⎠ L
2 2 2 2
π
u··b, continuous = ------2- = 2π ⎛ -----x⎞ ub, continuous cos ⎛ ------ Vx t⎞ u··b, simple = ------2- = π ⎛ -----x⎞ ub, simple sin ⎛⎝ --- Vx t⎞⎠
dz 2 V 2π dz 2 V
Vertical acceleration
dt ⎝ L ⎠ ⎝L ⎠ dt ⎝ L ⎠ L
2 2
u··b, continuous = 2π ⎛ -----x⎞ ub, continuous
2 V
u··b, simple = π ⎛ -----x⎞ ub
2 V
Maximum vertical acceleration ⎝ L⎠ ⎝L⎠

−6− KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Estimation of the Vibration Serviceability Deflection Limit of a High-speed Railway Bridge Considering the Bridge-Train Interaction and Travel Speed

duration as given by Eqs. (13) and (14) can be obtained. Here,

u··comfort is based on the time-dependent comfort limit of the The acceleration amplification coefficient Aa used in Eqs. (15)
bridges shown in Fig. 2: and (16) was obtained by the parametric study by the bridge–
2 train interaction analysis using a complex 3D moving car model
u··comfort L
ucomfort, simple = ---------------------
2 2
(13) system. The 3D moving car model was made by Sung-Il Kim
V π H(f ) (Kim, 2000). This study was carried out for the KTX and
2 HEMU-430X in accordance with the Korean situation. The
u·· comfort L
ucomfort, continuous = ------------------------
2 2
- (14) KTX and HEMU-430X passenger car model used for the
2V π H ( f ) bridge–train interaction analysis is based on the detailed 3D
model in Fig. 7, and the bridge was the Yeon-je bridge in Fig. 8.
6.2 Suggestion of Allowable Vibration Serviceability Deflec- The parameters of the bridge–train interaction analysis were the
tion Limit of a Railway Bridge Considering the Acceler- train speed, bridge damping ratio, natural frequency of the
ation Amplification Effect bridge, and bridge support type. The span of the bridge was fixed
According to the reports of the European Rail Research at 40 m. The speed of the train ranged between 20 and 420 km/h;
Institute (ERRI D190, 1999) and “Vehicle-bridge Interaction the natural frequency of the bridge was 4-12 Hz; and the
Analysis under High-speed Trains” (Zhang et al., 2007), an damping ratio was 1-3%.
increase in the train speed is accompanied by an increase in the Figure 9 shows the normalization graph of the maximum
vertical acceleration response of the bridge and vehicle. deflection of the bridge and the maximum value of the vehicle
Particularly, if the train speed exceeds 200 km/h, the bridge
vertical acceleration response tends to increase significantly.
Whereas the previous development of the allowable vibration
serviceability deflection limit of a railway bridge considered the
vibration time duration as expressed by Eqs. (13) and (14), and
also considered the vibration duration and bridge–train interaction
relative to the train speed, it did not consider the amplification
phenomenon of the vertical acceleration of the vehicle.
Therefore, excluding resonances, the change in the maximum
deflection of a bridge is assumed to be minimal compared to the
acceleration amplification effect. As can be seen from Eqs. (15)
and (16), the coefficient of acceleration amplification Aa is used
for the allowable vibration serviceability deflection limit of a
railway bridge considering the vibration time duration when Fig. 8. Yeon-je High-Speed Railway Bridge
determining the acceleration amplification effect relative to the
increase in travel speed:
2
( ucomfort ⁄ Aa )L
ucomfort, simple = --------------------------------
2 2
- (15)
V π H( f)
2
( u·· comfort ⁄ Aa )L
ucomfort, continuous = --------------------------------
2 2
- (16)
2V π H ( f )

Fig. 9. Variation of Maximum Train Acceleration and Bridge Deflection

Fig. 7. Detailed 3D Moving Vehicle Model with Train Speed: (a) KTX, (b) HEMU-430X

Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 −7−

 Bub-Gyu Jeon, Nam-Sik Kim, and Sung-Il Kim

Table 8. Train Properties for Parametric Study

Case 1 Case 2
k [N/m] î k [N/m] c (N.s/m)
0.020 2.54×104
0.035 7.62×104
0.046 1.27×105
0.054 1.78×105
0.065 2.54×105
Fig. 10. Coefficients of Acceleration Amplification 0.079 3.81×105
0.091 5.08×105
2.54E+05 0.112 7.62×105 12000
vertical acceleration obtained by the bridge–train interaction 0.129 1.02×106
analysis relative to the bridge parameter. The vertical displacement 0.144 1.27×106
of the bridge does not change significantly with the train speed, 0.158 1.52×106
but the vehicle vertical acceleration increases linearly with the 0.171 1.78×106
0.183 2.03×106
travel speed and converges at a certain level after about 200 km/
0.194 2.29×106
h. The changes in the responses of the bridge and the passenger
0.204 2.54×106
car with the damping ratio of the bridge do not seem to be
significant. By representing the maximum vehicle vertical
acceleration relative to the increase in the travel speed, as shown
in Fig. 9, the identical coefficients of the acceleration amplification trains in operation or planned to be in operation, it is assumed
can be obtained using Eqs. (17) and (18) and Fig. 10. In case of that their masses are identical and based on the physical values of
the 25 km/h in Fig 9, Y intercept of the KTX is 0.1 and HEMU- the KTX passenger car. Further, the spring coefficient (k) and
430X is 0.25. Therefore, maximum coefficients of acceleration damping ratio are set as the parameters and are as shown in Table
amplification of HEMU-430X and KTX are 4 and 9. respectively. 8. The transfer function is then calculated. Parameters shown in
However, during the designing of the bridge, if the travelling Table 8 were used to find representative values that account for
stability and bridge lifespan are considered, it would be reasonable all existing trains and locomotives, as well as trains to be
to exclude the resonance by using the vehicle–bridge interaction. developed in the future. The range of parameters was enlarged to
Aa, KTX = 1, V < 25 km/h consider different types of trains such as railroad trains, monorails,
and magnetic levitation trains. The developed vibration transfer
Aa, KTX = 0.04v, 25 < V ≤ 225 km/h (17)
functions and the coefficient of acceleration amplification of the
Aa, KTX = 9, V > 225 km/h KTX/HEMU-430X are substituted into Eqs. (15) and (16) to
Aa, HEMU = 1 V < 50 km/h calculate the allowable vibration serviceability deflection limit of
a railway bridge for travel speeds of 100-400 km/h:
Aa, HEMU = 0.02v, 50 < V ≤ 196 km/h (18)
Aa, HEMU = 4, V > 200 km/h fi( x ) = µ i + σ (19)
Figures 11-14 illustrate the calculation of the allowable
6.3 Suggestion of Allowable Vibration Serviceability Deflec- vibration serviceability deflection of a railway bridge considering
tion Limit of a Railway Bridge Considering Bridge– changes in the damping coefficient and spring hardness of the
Train Interaction and Travel Speed train model for KTX travel speeds of 100-400 km/h. The
To use the allowable vibration serviceability deflection limit of calculation is done per unit span and the line is used to connect
a railway bridge developed in this paper as a design standard, it the average values. The gray line represents the sum of the
should be expressed in terms of the target or planned operation average value and standard deviation for a single sample group
velocities, and the acceleration amplification effect of all trains with the assumption that the allowable vibration serviceability
should be considered. From Fig. 9, it can be seen that the KTX deflection is normally distributed and the spans denoted by i are
acceleration amplification effect is greater than that of the for the sample group as in Eq. (19). Here, µ and σ are the mean
HEMU-430X, and is also comprehensive. Moreover, from Eqs. value and standard deviation. However, the applied train
(15) and (16), it can be seen that the allowable vibration coefficient of acceleration amplification is that of the KTX. Figs.
serviceability deflection limit of a railway bridge is inversely 15-18 show the arrangement for travel speeds of 100-400 km/h
proportional to the coefficient of acceleration amplification. using the same method and the coefficient of acceleration
Thus, by using the coefficient of acceleration amplification of the amplification of the HEMU-430X. The trends of the allowable
KTX to suggest the allowable vibration serviceability deflection vibration serviceability deflections for the KTX and the HEMU-
limit of a railway bridge, the vibration serviceability of both 430X are similar, but it can be seen that that for the KTX is
trains is expected to be satisfied. Also, to consider the cases of all stricter.

−8− KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Estimation of the Vibration Serviceability Deflection Limit of a High-speed Railway Bridge Considering the Bridge-Train Interaction and Travel Speed
Fig. 11. Variation of the Allowable Vibration Serviceability Deflec-
tion of a Railway Bridge with the Mechanical Properties of
a Train Moving on it at 200 km/h (Aa = Aa,KTX): (a) Simple
Bridge, (b) Continuous Bridge
Fig. 12. Variation of the Allowable Vibration Serviceability Deflec-
tion of a Railway Bridge with the Mechanical Properties of
a Train Moving on it at 300 km/h (Aa = Aa,KTX): (a) Simple
Bridge, (b) Continuous Bridge
As can be seen from Figs. 11-18, the maximum values of the
allowable vibration serviceability deflection are significantly
different from the other values and are therefore unsuitable for
use as representative values. The average values are also unsuitable
because they are too strict. This study therefore assumed that the
allowable vibration serviceability deflections obtained from the
parametric study are normally distributed, and it was considered
reasonable use a representative value of the sum of the average
Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000
Fig. 13. Variation of the Allowable Vibration Serviceability Deflec-
tion of a Railway Bridge with the Mechanical Properties of
a Train Moving on it at 370 km/h (Aa = Aa,KTX): (a) Simple
Bridge, (b) Continuous Bridge
Fig. 14. Variation of the Allowable Vibration Serviceability Deflec-
tion of a Railway Bridge with the Mechanical Properties of
a Train Moving on it at 400 km/h (Aa = Aa,KTX): (a) Simple
Bridge, (b) Continuous Bridge
and standard deviation corresponding to 84% probability. This
value was taken as the allowable vibration serviceability deflection
limit of a railway bridge.
The allowable vibration serviceability deflection limits of a
railway bridge for the coefficients of acceleration amplification
of the KTX and HEMU-430X are shown in Figs. 19 and 20
using the sum of the average and standard deviation in Figs. 11-
18. The results for the acceleration amplification effect of the
−9−
 Bub-Gyu Jeon, Nam-Sik Kim, and Sung-Il Kim

Fig. 15. Variation of the Allowable Vibration Serviceability Deflec- Fig. 17. Variation of the Allowable Vibration Serviceability Deflec-
tion of a Railway Bridge with the Mechanical Properties of tion of a Railway Bridge with the Mechanical Properties of
a Train Moving on it at 200 km/h (Aa = Aa,HEMU): (a) Simple a Train Moving on it at 370 km/h (Aa = Aa,HEMU): (a) Simple
Bridge, (b) Continuous Bridge Bridge, (b) Continuous Bridge

Fig. 16. Variation of the Allowable Vibration Serviceability Deflec- Fig. 18. Variation of the Allowable Vibration Serviceability Deflec-
tion of a Railway Bridge with the Mechanical Properties of tion of a Railway Bridge with the Mechanical Properties of
a Train Moving on it at 300 km/h (Aa = Aa,HEMU): (a) Simple a Train Moving on it at 400 km/h (Aa = Aa,HEMU): (a) Simple
Bridge, (b) Continuous Bridge Bridge, (b) Continuous Bridge

KTX appear to be stricter than those of the HEMU-430X. It is
therefore estimated that the allowable vibration serviceability
deflection limit of a railway bridge based on the acceleration
amplification effect of the KTX encompasses that based on the
acceleration amplification effect of the HEMU-430X.
Figure 21 compares the allowable vibration serviceability
deflection limit of a railway bridge obtained in this study with
those of other countries, and it can be observed that the former is
stricter for longer spans. It can be seen that the standard based on
the acceleration amplification effect of the KTX is similar to
current standards for spans shorter than 70 m, but is stricter for
longer spans. However, compared to the other standards, that
based on the HEMU-430X is more generous for a simple bridge
for spans shorter than 100 m.
The Shinkansen uses a vibration serviceability acceleration
standard of 2.0 m/s2 for spans longer than 40 m (below 1.5 Hz)

− 10 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Estimation of the Vibration Serviceability Deflection Limit of a High-speed Railway Bridge Considering the Bridge-Train Interaction and Travel Speed
Fig. 19. Variation of the Allowable Vibration Serviceability Deflec-
tion Limit of a Railway Bridge using the Acceleration Ampli-
fication of the KTX with the Travel Speed: (a) Simple
Bridge, (b) Continuous Bridge
Fig. 20. Variation of the Allowable Vibration Serviceability Deflec-
tion Limit of a Railway Bridge using the Acceleration Ampli-
fication of the HEMU-430X with the Travel Speed
and is stricter for shorter spans. The Eurocodes uses 1.0 m/s2 for
all spans, although its present standard for the time-dependent
comfort limit of bridges gradually decreases with the vibration
duration based on 0.89 m/s2 as shown in Fig. 2, which may be the
reason for its long span strictness. Further, the maximum value
of the vibration transfer function is in the low-frequency area,
Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000
Fig. 21. Comparison of Current Deflection Limits with the Devel-
oped Deflection Limit for a Train Moving at 370 km/h: (a)
Simple Bridge, (b) Continuous Bridge
which is thought to explain the stricter allowable vibration
serviceability deflection limit of a railway bridge for long spans.
7. Verification of the Developed Allowable Vibra-
tion Serviceability Deflection Limits of a Rail-
way Bridge by Field Tests
For reliability, the measured vertical displacement signals from
a bridge should be within the developed allowable vibration
serviceability deflection limit of a railway bridge. When the
vertical acceleration signals measured inside a vehicle are
satisfied, the time-dependent comfort limit of the bridge would
be within the vibration serviceability vertical acceleration limits.
It should be noted that the results of field tests showed that the
foregoing is the case in existing bridges. This is because the
developed allowable vibration serviceability deflection limit of a
railway bridge was based on the development of the equations of
harmonic motion and the results of a parametric study and the
analysis of the dynamic interaction.
The vertical accelerations and displacement measured inside
the vehicles and on the bridges to verify the developed deflection
limit are as shown in Table 10. Vertical acceleration in a
passenger car was measured on the floor of the middle of the car.
And the vertical acceleration of the bridge was measured on the
mid span of the each bridge. The field tests were conducted
under various conditions. As shown in Table 9, the train speeds
were 100-300 km/h; the spans of the bridges were 10-50 m; and
the bridge types were PSC box girder, rigid frame bridge, PSC
beam, and twin I-shaped steel plate girder. The field measurements
were taken between July and August to avoid temperature
− 11 −
 Bub-Gyu Jeon, Nam-Sik Kim, and Sung-Il Kim

Table 9. Bridge Description

Name Location Structure Type Span Length Travel Speeds (km/h)
Mai-ya-gi Bridge Gyeong Ju PSC Box Girder 2@25 m 221-259
Tai-gi Bridge Ul San PSC Box Girder 1@35 m 98-210
Gung-hyung Bridge Cheong Won Rigid Frame Bridge 2@16 m 268-299
Bi-ryong Bridge Cheong Won Rigid Frame Bridge 5@10 m 291-301
Go-mo Bridge Dea Gu PSC Beam 1@25 m 117-128
Ji-tan Bridge Ok Cheon Twin I-shaped Steel Plate Girder 2@50 m 248-259
Song-sun Bridge Geon Cheon PSC Box Girder 2@40 m 223-260

Table 10. Results of Field Test

Time Vertical acceleration in a passenger car Vertical acceleration on the bridge Max.
Bridge Speed Crest Crest
Case Duration displacement
Name (km/h) Peak2 RMS RMQ VDV factor Peak RMS RMQ VDV
factor
(sec) (m/s ) (m/s2) (m/s2) (m/s1.75) (m/s2) (m/s2) (m/s2) (m/s1.75) (mm)
1 0.74 243 0.4949 0.0755 0.1436 0.0774 6.6 0.9998 0.0917 0.1731 0.1626 10.9 0.4518
2 0.70 259 0.4734 0.0838 0.1454 0.0848 5.7 1.5018 0.1024 0.2524 0.1775 14.7 0.5007
Mai-ya-gi
3 0.81 221 0.3814 0.0543 0.1065 0.0570 7.0 1.2454 0.0929 0.2039 0.1677 13.4 0.4651
Bridge
4 0.73 248 0.3818 0.0682 0.1134 0.0698 5.6 1.3548 0.0974 0.2232 0.1718 13.9 0.5132
5 0.76 236 1.0051 0.2087 0.3103 0.2156 4.8 1.4541 0.1197 0.2465 0.2131 12.1 0.4679
1 1.28 98 0.1770 0.0237 0.0441 0.0280 7.5 0.2878 0.0242 0.0501 0.0548 11.9 0.8550
2 0.72 175 0.3868 0.0599 0.1107 0.0611 6.5 0.3097 0.0462 0.0670 0.0866 6.7 0.8577
Tai-gi 3 0.60 210 0.4842 0.0993 0.1621 0.0967 4.9 1.0836 0.0869 0.1751 0.1586 12.5 0.8318
Bridge 4 0.64 198 0.4868 0.0923 0.1565 0.0913 5.3 1.1092 0.0823 0.1768 0.1522 13.5 0.8668
5 0.68 185 0.3820 0.0751 0.1202 0.0755 5.1 1.0814 0.0634 0.1623 0.1205 17.1 0.8500
6 0.63 199 0.2040 0.0411 0.0659 0.0405 5.0 1.1082 0.0817 0.1760 0.1511 13.6 0.8707
1 0.39 299 0.7580 0.1849 0.2789 0.1617 4.1 3.2289 0.3377 0.7522 0.5643 9.6 0.2290
Gung- 2 0.43 270 0.3642 0.1007 0.1465 0.0903 3.6 0.9824 0.0635 0.1689 0.1079 15.5 0.2337
hyung
Bridge 3 0.43 268 1.2916 0.4133 0.5645 0.3704 3.1 0.7109 0.0527 0.1302 0.0896 13.5 0.2326
4 0.39 299 0.3972 0.1007 0.1635 0.0881 3.9 0.8883 0.0758 0.1585 0.1251 11.7 0.2056
1 0.60 301 0.4927 0.0964 0.1578 0.0939 5.1 1.1200 0.1138 0.2127 0.1945 9.8 0.2178
2 0.62 291 1.8446 0.4717 0.6668 0.4632 3.9 0.9938 0.0876 0.1764 0.1455 11.3 0.2387
Bi-ryong
3 0.60 299 0.4638 0.0888 0.1513 0.0865 5.2 1.3343 0.1295 0.2436 0.2147 10.3 0.2177
Bridge
4 0.60 301 0.5882 0.1467 0.2061 0.1429 4.0 1.4937 0.1255 0.2783 0.2077 11.9 0.2233
5 0.61 293 0.4231 0.0873 0.1365 0.0854 4.8 0.8263 0.0771 0.1459 0.1282 10.7 0.2552
1 0.77 117 0.2425 0.0636 0.0888 0.0636 3.8 0.9599 0.0461 0.1280 0.0975 20.8 0.8587
Go-mo 2 0.71 127 0.6648 0.1142 0.1946 0.1160 5.8 1.2603 0.0903 0.1864 0.1868 14.0 0.8407
Bridge 3 0.70 128 0.4366 0.0596 0.1237 0.0604 7.3 1.1756 0.0786 0.1688 0.1629 15.0 0.8959
4 0.73 124 0.3055 0.0639 0.0977 0.0654 4.8 1.1782 0.0782 0.1673 0.1621 15.1 0.8166
1 1.45 248 0.7756 0.1067 0.2018 0.1295 7.3 1.6039 0.1144 0.2576 0.2079 14.0 2.8676
2 1.41 255 1.2734 0.1933 0.3459 0.2331 6.6 1.4500 0.1061 0.2355 0.1937 13.7 2.6497
Ji-tan 3 1.44 250 1.0083 0.1363 0.2600 0.1653 7.4 1.4207 0.1069 0.2265 0.1947 13.3 2.8437
Bridge 4 1.39 259 0.7718 0.1133 0.2060 0.1361 6.8 1.3605 0.1143 0.2361 0.2039 11.9 2.7722
5 1.43 251 0.7636 0.1192 0.2064 0.1442 6.4 1.5503 0.1099 0.2456 0.1983 14.1 2.7869
6 1.39 259 1.1698 0.1511 0.3080 0.1816 7.7 1.4463 0.1224 0.2440 0.2187 11.8 2.7047
1 1.11 260 0.7534 0.0920 0.1932 0.1045 8.2 1.9631 0.1452 0.3307 0.2530 13.5 1.0135
Song-sun 2 1.29 223 0.4072 0.0596 0.1070 0.0702 6.8 1.5279 0.1476 0.2649 0.2686 10.3 1.0073
Bridge 3 1.16 247 0.5454 0.0788 0.1426 0.0905 6.9 1.2602 0.1059 0.2106 0.1890 11.9 0.9869
4 1.28 225 0.4560 0.0623 0.1169 0.0733 7.3 1.5860 0.1317 0.2621 0.2425 12.0 1.0056

difference. Due to experimental conditions, the train measurement
team must be separated from the bridge measurement team. The
train passes through the bridge in a very short time, and it could
be extremely difficult to synchronize them. Therefore in this
study, the part determined as the bridge section among signals
measured was extracted for use. It was possible to check the
reliability of the developed deflection limit by determining the
entry and exit of the trains from the bridges, although the signals
from the bridges were not synchronized in time with the
vehicles. The tests were conducted by the Korea Institute of
Construction Technology.
The peak RMS, RMQ, and VDV of the measured acceleration

− 12 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Estimation of the Vibration Serviceability Deflection Limit of a High-speed Railway Bridge Considering the Bridge-Train Interaction and Travel Speed

Fig. 22. Comparison of the Representative Values of the Vertical Acceleration Signals on a Train Passenger Car with the Vibration Service-
ability Vertical Acceleration Limit: (a) Peak, (b) RMS, (c) RMQ, (d) RMQ Values Transformed from the VDV of the Measured Ver-
tical Acceleration Signals

signals were calculated for comparison with the time-dependent

comfort limit of bridges. In Fig. 22, the calculated representative
values of the acceleration in Table 10 are compared with the
time-dependent comfort limit of bridges. Some peak values of
the acceleration signals measured inside the vehicle were not
within the time-dependent comfort limit of bridges as shown in
Fig. 22(a). However, it is difficult to use the peak values to
represent the vertical accelerations as discussed in Section 2. As
shown in Figs. 22(b), 22(c), and 22(d), all the bridges satisfied
the time-dependent comfort limit of bridges. The RMS and
RMQ values of the signals measured inside the vehicles are
compared with the time-dependent comfort limit of bridges in
Figs. 22(b) and 22(c), respectively. The scattered points in Fig.
22(d) represent the RMQ values transformed using Eq. (5) and
the VDVs of the measured vertical acceleration signals. The trend
of the transformed RMQ values in Fig. 22(d) is similar to that of
the RMQ values of the measured signals in Fig. 22(c). The
representative values decrease with increasing vibration duration.
This suggests that the vibration duration, which is affected by the
bridge span and train travel speed, is an important factor in
evaluating vibration serviceability. It could therefore be said that
the developed allowable vibration serviceability deflection limit
of a railway bridge is reliable owing to the utilization of the time-
dependent comfort limit of bridges.
The measured maximum vertical displacements of the bridges Fig. 23. Comparison of the Maximum Displacements of a Bridge and
are compared with the allowable vibration serviceability deflection the Allowable Vibration Serviceability Deflection Limit of a
limit of a railway bridge in Fig. 23, and the maximum displacements Railway Bridge: (a) Simple Bridge, (b) Continuous Bridge
are also observed to be within the vibration serviceability limit.
Moreover, in Fig. 23, the allowable vibration serviceability
deflection limit and the measured maximum displacements The representative values and the acceleration-based vibration
increase with the bridge span. serviceability limit decrease with increasing vibration duration.

Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 − 13 −

 Bub-Gyu Jeon, Nam-Sik Kim, and Sung-Il Kim
On the other hand, those based on displacement increase with
increasing bridge span. It seems that the time-dependent comfort
limit of bridges and the allowable vibration serviceability
deflection limit of a railway bridge are similar in real life. This
means that a bridge that satisfies the time-dependent comfort
limit of bridges would normally also satisfy the allowable
vibration serviceability deflection limit of a railway bridge. It
could therefore be said that the developed allowable vibration
serviceability deflection limit of a railway bridge is sufficiently
reliable. Moreover, the developed allowable vibration serviceability
deflection limit of a railway bridge is expected to be useable in
other fields.
8. Conclusions
Considering that the spans of railway bridges may be extended
in the future, and that the level of discomfort perceived by the
human body may change with the vibration duration, the limit of
the vertical vibration serviceability acceleration was determined.
The determination of the limit was based on the structure of a
bridge designed with the consideration that the vibration duration
would vary with the train travel speed and bridge span.
To develop the bridge–train vibration transfer function, a train
passenger car was idealized as a single mass–spring model and
its vibration behavior was assumed to be harmonic. The deflection
of the bridge was assumed to be sinusoidal, and the vibration
transfer function and a bridge comfort limit that considers the
serviceability due to vibration were used to develop the
Fig. 24. Process for Determining the Allowable Vibration Serviceability Deflection Limit of a Railway Bridge
− 14 −
allowable vibration serviceability deflection limit of a railway
bridge. To compensate for the increase in the vehicle vertical
acceleration with increasing train speed, a parametric study was
performed and the results showed that the increasing travel speed
produced no significant change in the vertical displacement of
the bridge; the vehicle maximum vertical acceleration was
observed to be increasingly bilinear. The tendency of the vehicle
maximum vertical acceleration to increase with the train speed
was set as the acceleration amplification coefficient and applied
to the allowable vibration serviceability deflection limit of a
railway bridge.
In addition, to propose a more universal vibration serviceability
deflection limit that includes all the vehicles in operation or
expected to be in operation, the vibration transfer function was
developed using various damping coefficients and spring
coefficients of a KTX passenger car model. By this procedure,
the allowable vibration serviceability deflection limit of a railway
bridge was determined using the vibration duration and acceleration
amplification effects for travel speeds of 200-400 km/h. Fig. 24
illustrates the process for determining the allowable vibration
serviceability deflection limit of a railway bridge.
The results of the acceleration amplification effect for the KTX
appeared to be stricter than those for the HEMU-430X. Hence, it
was considered that application of the allowable vibration
serviceability deflection limit of a railway bridge based on the
acceleration amplification effect of the KTX would encompass
that based on the HEMU-430X.
Compared to current limits of the allowable vibration serviceability
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Estimation of the Vibration Serviceability Deflection Limit of a High-speed Railway Bridge Considering the Bridge-Train Interaction and Travel Speed
deflection of railway bridges, the one proposed in this paper,
which is based on the vibration duration and acceleration
amplification effect, takes into consideration possible increase in
bridge span and train travel speed. It also considers the
acceleration amplification effect due to increased train speed. It
is particularly suggested as a basis for developing a more
advanced allowable vibration serviceability deflection limit of a
railway bridge that is more suitable for future situations in Korea.
This has been done by establishing a process of determining the
allowable vibration serviceability deflection limit of a railway
bridge that ensures the comfort of the passengers of a train
travelling on a railway bridge.
The Eurocode defines maximum span length during assessment
of bridge deflection as 120 m, and the Shinkansen defines it as
100 m. Also, bridge types are defined as simple bridge and
continuous bridge, and there is no standard for cable stayed
bridge. For cable stayed bridge, Japan recommends to determine
vibration serviceability by bridge-train interaction analysis. As
cable stayed bridge has many variables like cable tension, number
of cables and span length, it was excluded from this paper
because vibration serviceability of the bridge should be analyzed
by bridge-train interaction analysis. Also with consideration on
future technological development, maximum span length for
simple and continuous bridges was selected as 200 m.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a grant (Code07 Performance
Improvement of Infrastructures and Technology Development of
Maintenance for High-Speed Railway A01) from the Railroad
Technology Development Program (RTDP) funded by the
Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs of the Korean
government.
References
Bruggers, W. (2002). Comfort related design of railway bridge, MSc
Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.
BSI 6841 (1987). British standard guide to measurement and evaluation
of human expose to whole-body mechanical vibration and repeated
shock, BSI, London, England.
Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000
View publication stats
BS EN 1990 (2002). Eurocode - Basis of structural design, institution,
Incorporating Amendment No. 1, BSI, London, England.
Cho, N. G. and Chung, J. K. (2008). High speed rail construction of
Korea and its impact, KRIHS Special Report Series 12, Korea
Research Institute for Human Settlements, Anyang, Korea.
ERRI D 190 (1999). Rail bridges for speed > 200 km/h, Final report,
ERRI, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Griffin, M. (1990). Handbook of human vibration, Elsevier Academic
Press, London, England.
ISO 2631 (1997). Mechanical vibration and shock - Evaluation of
human exposure to whole-body vibrations - Part 1: General
requirements, Geneva, Switzerland.
Janeway, R. N. (1948). Vehicle vibration limits to fit the passenger, SAE
Technical Paper 480061, SAE, New York, NY.
Jazar, R. N. (2008). Vehicle dynamics: Theory and application,
Springer, New York, NY, USA.
Jeon, B. G. and Kim, N. S. (2007). “Evaluation of comfort limit on
bridge vibration.” Transaction of the Korean Society for Noise and
Vibration Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 10, pp. 923-935.
Jeon, B. G., Kim, N. S., and Kim, S. I. (2010). “Comfort evaluation of
railway bridge vibration using bridge-train transfer function.”
The Fifth International Conference on Bridge Maintenance
Safety and Management, Philadelphia, pp. 405-405.
Jeon, B. G., Kim, N. S., and Kim, S. I. (2010). “Deflection limit on
vibration serviceability of high-speed railway bridges considering
the exposed time duration.” Spring Conference of the Korean
Society for Railway, Changwon, Korea.
Kim, S. I. (2000). Bridge-train interaction analysis of high-speed
railway bridges, PhD Thesis, Seoul University, Seoul, Korea.
KRNA (2004). Korea railway bridge design specifications, Ministry of
Construction and Transportation, KRNA, Deajeon, Korea.
KRNA (2007). Design manual of Honam high speed railway, Korea
Rail Network Authority, KRNA, Deajeon, Korea.
Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (2011). Development
of track system for high-speed train, Land Transport and Maritime
R&D Report, R&D/II-2-1. Gwacheon, Korea.
RTRI (Railway Technical Research Institute) (2006). Design standards for
railway structures and commentary, Maruzen Press, Tokyo, Japan.
Sogabe, M. (2006). Research on dynamic design method of concrete
railway bridges corresponding to speed-up of train, RTRI, Tokyo,
Japan.
Thomas D. (1992). Fundamentals of vehicle dynamics, SAE International,
Warrendale, PA, USA.
Zhang, N., Xia, H., and Guo W. (2007). “Vehicle-bridge interaction
analysis under high-speed trains.” Journal of Sound and Vibration,
Vol. 309, Nos. 3-5, pp. 407-425.
− 15 −