This article was downloaded by: [University of Kent]

On: 24 November 2014, At: 09:10

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Rail

Transportation
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjrt20

Dynamic responses of Tsing Ma Bridge

and running safety of trains subjected
to Typhoon York
a b a a b
W.W. Guo , H. Xia & N. Zhang
a
School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University ,
Beijing , 100044 , China
b
Department of Civil & Structural Engineering , The Hong Kong
Polytechnic University , Kowloon , Hong Kong , China
Published online: 04 Jul 2013.

To cite this article: W.W. Guo , H. Xia & N. Zhang (2013) Dynamic responses of Tsing Ma Bridge and
running safety of trains subjected to Typhoon York, International Journal of Rail Transportation,
1:3, 181-192, DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2013.808417

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2013.808417

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 09:10 24 November 2014
 International Journal of Rail Transportation, 2013
Vol. 1, No. 3, 181–192, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2013.808417

Dynamic responses of Tsing Ma Bridge and running safety of trains

subjected to Typhoon York
W.W. Guoa,b*, H. Xiaa and N. Zhanga,b
a
School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China; bDepartment
of Civil & Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon,
Hong Kong, China
(Received 25 April 2013; final version received 20 May 2013)
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 09:10 24 November 2014

A three-dimensional wind–train–bridge interaction model, which consists of a spatial

finite element bridge model, a train model composed of eight 4-axle identical coaches
of 27 degrees of freedom, and a turbulent wind model is established for the Tsing Ma
suspension bridge located in Hong Kong during Typhoon York. The acceleration and
displacement responses of the bridge induced by turbulent winds and running trains are
computed and compared with the responses measured from the field. The comparison
is found to be satisfactory in general. The runnability of the train passing through the
Tsing Ma Bridge at different speeds is researched under turbulent winds. Then the
threshold curve of wind velocity for ensuring the running safety of the train in the
bridge deck is proposed, from which the allowable train speed at different wind
velocities can be determined.
Keywords: dynamic response; Tsing Ma Bridge; train; running safety; Typhoon York

1. Introduction
The dynamic behaviours of bridge structures and the running safety of train vehicles
under wind actions are always important issues that should be considered in a railway
bridge design. Due to wind actions, the bridge will experience considerable deformations
and vibrations. When a train runs on the bridge, the deflections and vibrations of the
bridge may be further exaggerated. The large deflections and vibrations of the bridge may
in turn affect the running safety of train vehicles and the riding comfort of passengers. In
some cases, train vehicles may overturn when they are running on a long-span bridge
exposed to strong winds. Therefore, the understanding of dynamic behaviours and the
prediction of dynamic responses of long-span suspension bridges under both high winds
and running trains becomes an important task.
Before the end of the twentieth century, however, most of the studies focused on three
separate research fields: (1) wind effects on a long-span bridge without considering the
effects of running trains [1–5]; (2) the dynamic analysis of coupled train and bridge
system excluding wind effects [6–13] and (3) the running safety of trains in high cross
winds on the ground rather than on the bridge [14]. Since the beginning of this century,
some studies have come into consideration of the dynamic interactions among the wind
action, running trains and bridge structures. Xu et al. [15] presented a framework for
predicting the dynamic response of a long suspension bridge to high winds and running
trains based on the vehicle–bridge dynamic interaction and then extended their work to

*Corresponding author. Email: junedragon@163.com

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

 182 W.W. Guo et al.

further investigate dynamic interaction of a long-span cable-stayed bridge with running

trains subjected to cross winds [16]. Li et al. [17] established an analytical model for
dynamics of wind–vehicle–bridge (WVB) systems and took a cable-stayed bridge in
China as the case study. Xia et al. [18] researched a schemed long suspension bridge on
the planned Beijing–Shenzhen high-speed railway in China using the up-to-date informa-
tion in the areas of wind–bridge interaction, bridge–train interaction and wind–train
interaction. However, the aforementioned studies are analytical studies only.
On 16 September 1999, Typhoon York, which is the strongest typhoon since 1983 and
the typhoon of longest duration on record, attacked Hong Kong. Hong Kong Observatory
recorded a maximum hourly wind speed of 42 m/s and a maximum gust of 65 m/s at 75 m
height at Waglan Island during the passage of Typhoon York. All vehicles except trains
were prohibited from running on the Tsing Ma Bridge for two and a half hours from 3:30
pm to 6:00 pm on 16 September 1999. This event provides a distinctive opportunity to
examine the existing analytical models for predicting dynamic response of long suspen-
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 09:10 24 November 2014

sion bridges to high winds and running trains. The field measurement data during this
event are thus analysed and used to verify, to some extent, the finite element-based
framework developed by the writers in the time domain for predicting dynamic response
of coupled train–bridge systems subjected to wind actions. Furthermore, this article
researches the critical conditions for determining whether the rail traffic on the Tsing
Ma Bridge should be closed temporarily to ensure running safety of the train.

2. Theoretical background
The dynamic analysis model of the wind–train–bridge system consists of a wind model, a
train model and a bridge model.

2.1. Wind model

The stochastic wind velocity field is usually generated by the computer simulation
technique according to the wind spectrum recorded from the bridge site. In this article,
a fast spectral representation method proposed by Cao et al. [5] is adopted for the digital
simulation of the turbulent winds. This method involves the assumptions that the bridge
deck is horizontal at the same elevation, the mean wind speed and wind spectra do not
vary along the bridge deck and the distance between any two successive points where
wind speeds are simulated are the same. The time histories of wind components, u(t) and
w(t), at the jth point can then be generated by the following equations:
8
> P Nf pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
j P
>
>
< uj ðtÞ ¼ Ω Su ðωmk ÞGjm ðωmk Þ cosðωmk t þ ’mk Þ
m¼1 k¼1
Nf pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
(1)
>
> P
j P
>
: vj ðtÞ ¼ Ω Sv ðωmk ÞGjm ðωmk Þ cosðωmk t þ ’mk Þ
m¼1 k¼1

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where Ω ¼ 2ðΔωÞ; Nf is the total number of frequency interval Δω in the spectrum;
j = 1, 2,…, n; n is the total number of wind velocity simulation points; Sw(ω) are the
alongwind and upward wind auto-spectra, respectively; φmk is a random variable uni-
formly distributed between 0 and 2π; Gjm(ω) is the correlation matrix between two
different wind velocity points and can be expressed as
 International Journal of Rail Transportation 183
8
< 0; 1j<mn
Gjm ðωÞ ¼ C jjmj p
; m ¼ 1; m  j  n (2)
: jjmj ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2
C 1C ; 2mjn

 
λωD
C ¼ exp  (3)
2πU

m
ωmk ¼ ðk  1ÞΔω þ Δω ; k ¼ 1 ; 2 ; Nf (4)
n1

where λ is the dimensionless factor between 7 and 10, U is the mean wind velocity at the
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 09:10 24 November 2014

elevation of the main deck and D is the horizontal distance between the wind simulation
points.
The wind spectra for the digital simulation of stochastic wind velocity field are fitted
using nonlinear least-squares method with the following objective function [19]:

a
nSj ðnÞ ¼ cm m =s
2
(5)
ð1 þ bn1=m Þ

where the subscript j of S can be u or v (alongwind and upward wind); c is a constant

exponent using 5/3 in this study; n is the frequency of wind turbulence in Hz and a, b, m
are the three parameters to be fitted.
The average elevation of the bridge deck is taken as 60 m. The exponential decay
coefficient is selected as 16 to consider turbulent wind correlation along the bridge deck
[3]. The sampling frequency and duration used in the simulation of wind speeds are 50 Hz
and 10 min, respectively. The corresponding frequency interval and the time interval of
wind velocity are 0.0015 Hz and 0.02 s, respectively. The generated wind velocity field on
the bridge deck is assumed to be composed of 205 wind velocity waves at 205 different
points uniformly distributed along the bridge. The distance between successive points is
10.5 m. For instance, the alongwind and upward components of fluctuating wind corre-
sponding to the mean wind velocity of 20 m/s are shown in Figure 1.
Fluctuating wind forces acting on the bridge are mainly the buffeting forces due to
the turbulent wind and the self-excited forces due to interaction between wind and
bridge motion. By assuming no interaction between buffeting forces and self-excited
forces and using quasi-steady aerodynamic force coefficients, the buffeting forces on the
ith node of the bridge can be simulated by the method proposed by Simiu and
Scanlan [3]. The drag, lift and moment coefficients of the bridge deck measured from
wind tunnel tests are 0.135, 0.090 and 0.063, respectively, at the zero wind angle of
attack with respect to the deck width of 41 m [15]. The first derivatives of the drag, lift
and moment coefficients with respect to wind angle at the zero wind angle of attack are
–0.253, 1.324 and 0.278, respectively [15]. The self-excited forces on the bridge deck
can be expressed in terms of convolution integrals between the bridge deck motion
and the impulse response functions [20]. The details in the formulations for the buffet-
ing and self-excited lift, drag and moment at the ith node of the bridge deck can be
found in [21].
 184 W.W. Guo et al.

10

u (m/s)
0

−5

−10
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (s)
(a) Alongwind
8

4
v (m/s)

0
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 09:10 24 November 2014

−4

−8
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (s)
(b) Upward

Figure 1. Time histories of simulated fluctuating wind components of bridge at mid-main span
(U = 20 m/s).

2.2. Train model

The railway connecting the Hong Kong International Airport to the existing commercial
centres of Hong Kong Island and Kowloon via the Tsing Ma Bridge is managed by the
MTR Corporation Hong Kong Limited. The trains running on the Tsing Ma Bridge
consist of eight passenger coaches with a total approximate length of 182 m. Each
coach has a car body and two identical bogies, and each bogie is supported by two
identical wheelsets. The full length of one coach is 22.5 m (see Figure 2). The average
static axle loads are 10,144 kg (tare) and 13,250 kg (crush). The principal vibration mode
frequency of the coach is about 1.04 Hz in the vertical direction and 0.68 Hz in the lateral
direction.
In this article, each car body or bogie is regarded as rigid component and has 5
degrees of freedom (DOFs) to be concerned, and each wheelsets three. The connections of
car body and bogies are represented by linear springs and viscous dashpots in both
vertical and lateral directions, as well as the connections of bogies and wheelsets. Thus,
a 27 DOF vehicle model is established for a 4-axle coach in a train. For instance, the
vehicle model of the front car in a train is plotted in Figure 3, in which yci, zci, θci, φci and
ψci are the 5 DOFs of lateral, vertical, rolling, pitching and yawing movement of the ith
car body, respectively; ytij, ztij, θtij, φtij and ψtij are the 5 DOFs of the jth bogie in the ith

2.5 13.1 2.5 4.4 2.5 13.1 2.5

Figure 2. Configuration of train running on Tsing Ma Bridge (unit: m).

 International Journal of Rail Transportation 185

V = constant

Front Ψci Rear

ϕci yci
θci Car body
zci
v v v
kv2i2 c2i2 k2i1 c2i1
θti2 yti2 y ϕti1 θti1 yti1
ϕti2 x
v
k1i2 Ψti2 v
c1i2 z v Ψti1 v
zti2 k1i1 zti1 c1i1
ywi22 ywi21 ywi12 ywi11
θwi22 θwi12
θwi21
zwi22 zwi21 zwi12 θwi11 zwi11

Figure 3. Dynamic analysis vehicle model of front car in a train.

Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 09:10 24 November 2014

vehicle, respectively; ywijl, zwijl and θwijl are the 3 DOFs of the lth wheel in the jth bogie of
the ith vehicle, respectively. The connections between the car body and a bogie are
represented by two linear springs and two viscous dashpots of the same properties in
either the horizontal direction or the vertical direction, as well as the connections between
h h
bogies and wheelsets. The stiffness and damping coefficients are denoted as k2ij , k1ij , ch2ij ,
ch1ij in the horizontal direction and k2ij
v v
, k1ij , cv2ij , cv1ij in the vertical direction.

2.3. The Tsing Ma Bridge

The Tsing Ma Bridge in Hong Kong is a suspension bridge with an overall length of
2160 m and a main span of 1377 m between the Tsing Yi tower in the east and the Ma
Wan tower in the west (see Figure 4). The height of the two reinforced concrete towers is
206 m. The two main steel wire cables of 1.1 m diameter and 36 m apart in the north and
south are accommodated by the four saddles located at the top of the tower legs in the
main span.
The bridge deck is a hybrid steel structure consisting of Vierendeel cross-frames
supported on two longitudinal trusses acting compositely with stiffened steel plates. The
bridge deck carries a dual three-lane highway on the upper level of the deck and
two railway tracks and two carriageways on the lower level within the bridge deck (see
Figure 5).
A three-dimensional finite element model has been established for the Tsing Ma
suspension bridge [22]. Since the direct integration of the equations of motion in the
time domain is very cumbersome, the mode superposition method is applied to the bridge
only. The first 80 modes of vibration of the bridge up to a natural frequency of 1.2 Hz are

63.0 76.5 355.5 1377.0 4 × 72.0

206.0 206.0

B D E F G H
Ma Wan Tsing Yi
Island Island

Figure 4. Configuration of the Tsing Ma Bridge (unit: m).

 186 W.W. Guo et al.

4.318 2.914
2.35
13.4 7.1

41.0

Figure 5. Cross section of bridge deck (unit: m).

Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 09:10 24 November 2014

taken into account in the computation in order to include the effects of both the global
deformation of the bridge and the local deformation of the structural components support-
ing the tracks. The modal damping ratios in the lateral direction, the vertical direction and
the torsional direction are taken as 1.0%, 1.0% and 0.5%, respectively.

2.4. Coupled equation of motion for the wind–train–bridge system

Due to the train runs inside the Tsing Ma Bridge deck, the wind forces act on the bridge
deck only. Since the bridge deformation induced by the static wind force can be easily
determined with the measured aerodynamic coefficients from the wind tunnel tests, only
fluctuating wind forces are considered in this article for simplicity. The coupled equations
of motion of wind-excited suspension bridge with running trains can be expressed as
  ::    :        
Mvv 0 X:: v Cvv Cvb X: v Kvv Kvb Xv Fv 0
þ þ ¼ þ
0 Mbb Xb Cbv Cbb Xb Kbv Kbb Xb Fb Fbf þ Fse
(6)

where M, K and C are mass, stiffness and damping matrices; X, X_ and X € are displace-
ment, velocity and acceleration vectors, with the subscripts v and b representing the
vehicle and the bridge, respectively; Fv and Fb are interaction forces between the vehicles
and the bridge; Fbf and Fse are modal buffeting force vector and the self-excited force
vector. Details of the matrices in Equation (6) can be found in [23]. Equation (6) is a
second-order linear nonhomogeneous differential equation with time-varying coefficients,
which is solved using the Newmark implicit integral algorithm with β = 1/4 in this study.

3. Comparison of numerical results and measured results

Using the established model and the corresponding computation programme, the whole
histories of the train running through the Tsing Ma Bridge are simulated on computer,
based on which the dynamic responses of the bridge and the train vehicles are analysed.
During the Typhoon York in 1999, some dynamic responses of the Tsing Ma Bridge
were measured by the monitoring instruments mounted on the bridge. Some measured
results are herein used to validate the analytical model and the programme. Displayed in
Figures 6 and 7 are the measured and computed time histories of deck accelerations at
Sections D and G (see Figure 4). Section D is located at 1/6 of the main span while
 International Journal of Rail Transportation 187

50

Lat Acc (mm/s2)

25

−25

−50
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Time (s)
(a) Measured
50
Lat Acc (mm/s2)

25

0
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 09:10 24 November 2014

−25

−50
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Time (s)
(b) Computed

Figure 6. Comparison of measured and computed deck lateral acceleration time histories at
Section D.

300
Vert Acc (mm/s2)

150

−150

−300
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Time (s)
(a) Measured
300
Vert Acc (mm/s2)

150

−150

−300
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Time (s)
(b) Computed

Figure 7. Comparison of measured and computed deck vertical acceleration time histories at
Section G.

Section G is located at mid-main span. The measured time histories have gone through a
lowpass filter of a 1.2 Hz cutoff frequency. According to the measurements, the train runs
on the bridge at a constant speed of 99 km/h. The mean wind velocity is 18.9 m/s, and the
turbulent intensity is 14.9% in the horizontal direction and 7.9% in the vertical direction.
 188 W.W. Guo et al.

100
50

Vert Disp (mm)

0
−50
−100
−150 Measured Computed
−200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time (s)
(a) Section B
200
Vert Disp (mm)

−200
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 09:10 24 November 2014

Measured
−400 Computed
−600
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time (s)
(b) Section G

Figure 8. Comparison of measured and computed deck vertical displacement time histories.

The mean wind speed is almost perpendicular to the bridge alignment. It can be seen that
the two sets of data are in good accordance.
Figure 8 illustrates the measured and computed time histories of deck deflection
responses at Sections B and G. Section B is located at 1/2 of Ma Wan side span. To
capture the main effects of moving load of the train on the bridge, both the measured and
computed time histories of vertical displacement response go through a lowpass filter of a
0.05 Hz upper frequency.
It can be clearly seen that the moving single train causes a single peak vertical
displacement response at a section when the train passes over this section. The moving
train induces larger peak displacement response at the main span than at the side span.
The relative discrepancies of the two sets of results are 27% at Section B and 77% at
Section G. Although the computed peak vertical displacements are greater than the
measured ones, the numerical computation does predict the effect of a moving train on
the bridge.
In this study, no measurement data of the running trains are available and only the
computed results are presented for illustrative purposes. Figure 9 shows the time histories
of lateral and vertical acceleration responses of the vehicle on the bridge.
There are three important indices currently adopted in Chinese railways in the
evaluation of the running safety of train vehicles under wind actions. The first index is
the derailment factor Q/P, the ratio of lateral force Q acting on the wheelset to the total
vertical force P acting on the same wheelset. The total vertical force is the sum of the self-
weight of the vehicle per wheelset Ps and the dynamic vertical force Pd on the wheelset.
The second index is the offload factor ΔP/P, the ratio of the vertical force difference ΔP to
the total vertical force P acting on the wheelset with ΔP = Ps – Pd. The third index is the
overturn factor D induced by the direct wind actions on the car body. Since the train runs
 International Journal of Rail Transportation 189

0.4

Max Lat Acc (m/s2)

0.2

−0.2

−0.4
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Time (s)
(a) Lateral
0.4
Max Vert Acc (m/s2)

0.2

0
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 09:10 24 November 2014

−0.2

−0.4
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Time (s)
(b) Vertical

Figure 9. Computed acceleration time histories of vehicle on bridge.

inside the Tsing Ma Bridge deck, only the first two indices are hereinafter considered. The
allowable derail factor Q/P and the offloading factor ΔP/P specified in the Chinese design
guideline are 0.8 and 0.6, respectively.
Displayed in Figure 10(a) and (b) are, respectively, the distributions of the maximum
derailment factor and offload factor of the vehicle wheel versus the train speed when the
train runs through the bridge under several different wind velocities. It can be seen that
these two factors increase significantly with the mean wind velocity, whereas fluctuations
appear with the train speed.
By taking the mean wind velocity and the train speed as the main parameters that
control the running safety of train vehicles, the threshold speed of train vehicles travelling
on the bridge under turbulent winds can be determined according to the aforementioned
safety evaluation indices in the following way:

(1) By keeping the mean wind velocity constant at each stage, the dynamic responses
of the train vehicles are calculated by changing the train speed. The critical train
speeds at which the two indices exceed the allowances are obtained.
(2) By changing the mean wind velocity, the two indices of the train vehicles are
calculated at different train speeds.
(3) By plotting the calculated results under all wind velocities and the corresponding
train speeds in a same coordinate system, the relationships between the mean
wind velocity and the critical train speed can thus be calculated.

The threshold curve of wind velocity for ensuring the running safety of the train in the
bridge deck is then calculated, as shown in Figure 11, from which the allowable train
speed at different wind velocities can be determined. It can be seen that with the increase
 190 W.W. Guo et al.

0.7
0.6

Derailment factor Q/P

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2 U = 0 m/s U = 10 m/s
0.1 U = 15 m/s U = 20 m/s
0
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Train speed (km/h)
(a) Derailment factor
0.7
0.6
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 09:10 24 November 2014

Offload factor ΔP/P

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
U = 0 m/s U = 10 m/s
0.1
U = 15 m/s U = 20 m/s
0
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Train speed (km/h)
(b) Offload factor

Figure 10. Maximum derailment factor and offload factor versus train speed.

250

200
Train speed (km/h)

Dangerous area
150

100

50 Safe area

0
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Mean wind velocity (m/s)

Figure 11. Critical train speed for running safety versus mean wind velocity.

of mean wind velocity, the critical train speed drops off remarkably. As the mean wind
velocity reaches 30 m/s, the critical train speed is around 2 km/h, indicating that the rail
traffic on the Tsing Ma Bridge should be closed to ensure running safety of the train. This
method can be applied to other railway bridges to determine their critical train speed
curves by taking into account the mean wind velocity on site and the dynamic properties
of the bridges.
 International Journal of Rail Transportation 191

4. Conclusions
The framework for performing dynamic analysis of coupled train and long-span suspen-
sion bridge systems under cross winds has been established and then applied to the Tsing
Ma suspension bridge. The bridge responses are computed and compared with the
measured responses. The train responses are also computed and their performance is
evaluated. The major results are summarised as follows:

(1) The computed acceleration and displacement responses of the bridge deck agree
well in general with the measured ones.
(2) The threshold curve of wind velocity and train speed for ensuring the running
safety of the train in the Tsing Ma Bridge is proposed according to the two safety
evaluation indices in Chinese railway design code.
(3) The critical train speed drops off remarkably with the increase of mean wind
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 09:10 24 November 2014

velocity. As the mean wind velocity reaches 30 m/s, the critical train speed is
around 2 km/h, indicating that the rail traffic on the Tsing Ma Bridge should be
closed.
(4) The numerical results demonstrate that the proposed framework and the asso-
ciated computer programme can efficiently predict the dynamic response of
coupled train–bridge system in turbulent winds with reasonable computation
efforts.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Key Basic Research Program of China (973 Program)
under grant 2013CB036203, the Natural Science Foundation of China (50838006) and the
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2012JBM075). The authors express
their sincere acknowledgement to Professor Y.L. Xu for his guidance when W.W. Guo and N.
Zhang were working in the Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

References
[1] Diana G. Wind effects on the dynamic behavior of suspension bridge. Milano: International
Report; 1986.
[2] Scanlan RH, Jones NP. Aeroelastic analysis of cable-stayed bridges. J Struct Eng. 1990;116(2):
279–297.
[3] Simiu E, Scanlan RH. Wind effects on structures. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1996.
[4] Strømmen E, Hjorth-Hansen E, Hansen SO, Jakobsen JB. Aerodynamic investigations for the
tender design concepts of the Øresund cable-stayed bridge. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod.
1999;80:351–372.
[5] Cao YH, Xiang HF, Zhou Y. Simulation of stochastic wind velocity field on long-span bridges.
J Eng Mech. 2000;126(1):1–6.
[6] Chu KH, Garg VK, Wiriyachi A. Dynamic interaction of railway train and bridges. Veh Syst
Dyn. 1980;9(4):207–236.
[7] Bhatti MH. Vertical and lateral dynamic response of railway bridges due to nonlinear vehicle
and track irregularities [PhD dissertation]. Chicago, IL: Illinois Institute of Technology; 1982.
[8] Tanabe M, Yamada Y. Model method for interaction of train and bridge. Comput Struct.
1987;27(1):119–127.
[9] Diana G, Cheli F. Dynamic interaction of railway systems with large bridges. Veh Syst Dyn.
1989;18(1–3):71–106.
[10] Bogaert V. Dynamic response of trains crossing large span double-track bridges. J
Constructional Steel Res. 1993;24(1):57–74.
[11] Frýba L. Dynamics of railway bridges. London: Thomas Telford; 1996.
 192 W.W. Guo et al.

[12] Yang YB, Yau JD. Vehicle-bridge interaction element for dynamic analysis. J Struct Eng.
1997;123(11):1512–1518.
[13] Xia H, Xu YL, Chan THT. Dynamic interaction of long suspension bridges with running
trains. J Sound Vib. 2000;237(2):263–280.
[14] Baker CJ. Ground vehicles in high cross winds – part II: unsteady aerodynamic forces. J Fluids
Struct. 1991;5:91–111.
[15] Xu YL, Xia H. Dynamic response of suspension bridge to high wind and running train. J
Bridge Eng. 2003;8:46–55.
[16] Xu YL, Zhang N, Xia H. Vibration of coupled train and cable-stayed bridge system in cross
wind. Eng Struct. 2004;26:1389–1406.
[17] Li YL, Qiang SZ, Liao HL, Xu YL. Dynamics of wind-rail vehicle-bridge systems. J Wind
Eng Ind Aerod. 2005;93:483–507.
[18] Xia H, Guo WW, Zhang N, Sun GJ. Dynamic analysis of a train-bridge system under wind
action. Comput Struct. 2008;86:1845–1855.
[19] Xu YL, Zhu LD. Buffeting response of long-span cable-supported bridges under skew winds –
part II: case study. J Sound Vib. 2005;281(3–5):675–697.
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 09:10 24 November 2014

[20] Lin YK, Yang JN. Multimode bridge response to wind excitations. J Eng Mech. 1983;109(2):
586–603.
[21] Guo WW, Xia H, Xu YL. Running safety analysis of a train on the Tsing Ma Bridge under
turbulent winds. Earthq Eng Eng Vib. 2010;9(3):307–318.
[22] Xu YL, Ko JM, Zhang WS. Vibration studies of Tsing Ma suspension bridge. J Bridge Eng.
1997;2(4):149–156.
[23] Guo WW, Xu YL, Xia H, Zhang WS, Shum KM. Dynamic response of suspension bridge to
typhoon and trains – part II: numerical results. J Struct Eng. 2007;133(1):12–21.