Vertical Actions on Bridge Structure – Comparison of Earthquake and

Vehicle Induced Dynamical Forces

I. Kožar, I. Arbanas
Prof.dr.sc. Ivica Kožar, Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Rijeka,
Croatia, ivicak@gradri.hr

ABSTRACT: Modern vehicles are characterised by great load and speed so that their dynamical
influence in bridge analysis should be taken into account. This paper presents dynamical equation
suitable for this purpose. Some comparisons of stresses in various bridges have been performed taking
into account dynamical load influence, direct support acceleration and EC8 regulations. It has been
shown that in some examples dynamical load influence produces the greatest stresses in bridge
structure and should be taken into consideration.
KEYWORDS: Bridge Structure, Earthquake, Vehicle Dynamics, Acceleration, Spectral Analysis

1 INTRODUCTION

Modern transport is characterised by vehicles with ever increasing mass and speed and their
influence on forces in bridges cannot be realistically assessed using static approach only. Dynamic
analysis that takes into account vehicle speed in some cases gives considerably greater forces in bridge
structure.
The idea behind this paper is that if we take vehicle dynamics into account when determining
vertical actions on bridge structures maybe earthquake influence in vertical direction is not necessarily
determined for all bridges. Vertical earthquake influence is assessed through spectral analysis and
through direct support excitation and compared with vehicle influence.
In this paper vehicle dynamics is modelled through numerical analysis of beam equation, which is
later, expanded into general 2D finite element model with direct integration in time. Earthquake
influence is obtained with just slight modifications since it is assumed that a known vertical ground
accelerogram acts on structural supports. Finally spectral analysis method is also included for
comparison of stresses in several types of bridges.
Three bridges have been taken into consideration in numerical examples and it has been found
that in some examples dynamical vehicle analysis produces the greatest stresses in bridge structure and
should be taken into consideration.

2 MODEL FOR ANALYSIS

2.1 Structure – vehicle interaction

Dynamical influence of a load moving over a beam is described with the following differential
equation
∂ 4u ∂ 2u (1)
EI + m ⋅ − P(t ) = 0
∂x 4 ∂t 2
This equation contains assumption that vehicle mass has no influence on beam vibrations and can
be taken as justified in cases where bridge mass is considerable. Detailed list of various influences
regarding the equation has been made in Ivana Štimac 2002, like vehicle mass and position, resonant
velocities, structural damping, surface roughness, initial vehicle oscillations. Based on that analysis
and comparison of numerical results and in site measurements it has been concluded which parameters
to include into consideration.
The above equation has been discretised in space with finite differences and in time with direct
acceleration method based on assumption of average acceleration within time interval. The main
purpose of the numerical solution of the beam equation is to obtain benchmark solutions for important
problems that would serve as an additional control of numerical procedures based on finite element
method.
Further development lead to elaborated numerical procedures for dynamical analysis based on
finite elements and direct integration in time.
Simple translation of the equation (1) into finite differences does not work well since
convergence and accuracy are very poor.
One approach to the above problem is to consider the discrete version of the problem (one with
finite number of masses). Discrete form of the above equation in matrix notation is
&& + CD& + SD = A(t )
MD (2)

If we observe the equation as incremental in time and given the initial displacements and
velocities we can write the initial acceleration vector as follows
&& = M −1 ( A − SD − CD& )
D (3)
0 0 0 0

Assuming that our acceleration is constant within the time interval (average acceleration
method [1]) than we obtain this incremental equation
&& + C∆D& + S∆D = ∆A
M∆D (4)
j j j j

In this equation we have unknown incremental accelerations, incremental speeds and

incremental displacements but introducing the above assumptions their values can be deduced and
substituted into eq.(7.a) what finally gives us

 4   2  (5.a)
M 2
∆D j − Q  + C  2
∆D j − R j  + S∆D j = ∆A j
 (∆t j )   (∆t j ) 
where
4 2 (5.b)
S =S+ 2
M+ C
(∆t j ) ∆t j

∆A j = ∆A j + MQ j + C R j (5.c)

Equation (7.b) is solved for unknown incremental displacement vector DD and incremental
velocities and incremental accelerations are then
2 (5.d)
∆D& j = ∆D j − R j
(∆t j ) 2

4 (5.e)
&& =
∆D ∆D j − Q j
j
(∆t j ) 2
with
R j = 2 D& j (5.f)
 4 & (5.g)
Qj = &&
D j + 2D j
∆t j
We solve for incremental accelerations, incremental speeds and incremental displacements, but
their total values are also needed, so they are calculated
D j +1 = D j + ∆D j (6.a)

& =D
D & + ∆D
& (6.b)
j +1 j j

&& = D
D && + ∆D
&& (6.c)
j +1 j j

Average acceleration assumption can be replaced with the assumption that acceleration wearies
linearly within the time interval, in which case we obtain linear acceleration method [1] with
somewhat faster convergence and slightly better accuracy. On the other hand this method is only
conditionally stable while the average acceleration method is unconditionally stable and is the method
of choice for all subsequent numerical analysis.
Special care should be taken in discretisation in time of the external load A(t) since it is of great
influence on the convergence of the numerical procedure.
Based on the above equations existing 2D finite element computer program OKVIRW has been
extended to accommodate moving load analysis.

2.2 Direct support acceleration

One of ways of taking earthquake influence into account is through accelerograms give in
various project codes like EC 8/2 or in this case SIA 160. It is assumed that projected acceleration acts
on structural supports and in that way excites the whole structure. Main equations (1) or (2) are
changed only in the detail that dynamical forces are produced as a product of mass with given
acceleration. Acceleration diagrams that have been used are for vertical direction only since it is
vehicle influence that we are comparing with forces from an earthquake

Fig.1. Vertical acceleration diagrams.

Of course one can use more realistic accelerograms from real earthquake recordings if they are
available and structure is of importance.
2.3 Spectral analysis

Other popular way of taking earthquake influence into account is spectral analysis. In this case
we have pseudostatic analysis with equivalent forces determined for each eigenfrequency and
eigenvalue separately. According to Brčić
S k = K c Gkη ( r ) k β ( r ) (k = 1, 2, …, n) (7)

where k is mass number and r is eigenfrequency number and

ωg (7.a)
Kc = 0

g
β ( r ) = max[λ( r ) (t )] (7.b)

n (7.c)
Γ( r ) ∑m Φ k (r ) ( xk )
η( r ) k = Φ ( r ) ( xk ) = Φ ( r ) ( xk ) = k =1
n
M (r )
∑m Φ
2
k (r ) ( xk )
k =1

Total forces are then determined through

1 (8)
2
S k = S max + ∑
2 r
S r2

Those forces are then taken to act on structure and stresses are found.

3 NUMERICAL EXAMPLES

In all examples bending moments in characteristic points are the quantities taken for comparison.

3.1 Overbridge 'Goričan'

39,0
19,5 19,5

Fig.2. Longitudinal section.

60 15 15

50
90

85 6 x 90 85
710
970

Fig.3. Cross-section.
3.2 Vehicle dynamics

SLW 600; v = 20 m/s

0.2 sec.
1.2 sec.

0.4 sec. 1.4 sec.

0.6 sec. 1.6 sec.

0.8 sec.
1.8 sec.

1.0 sec. 2.0 sec.

Fig.4. Vehicle induced moments.

node 9 node 25

Displacements in time
Fig.5. Displacements and accelerations for nodes 9 and 25
3.3 Support acceleration

Sd (T) [g]

0.14g

0.1g
0.072g

0 0.15 0.6 3 T [s]

Fig.6. Vertical acceleration design diagram.

t =0.5s
t =3.0s

t =1.0s t =3.5s

t =1.5s t =4.0s

t =2.0s t =4.5s

t =2.5s
t =5.0s
Fig.7. Bending moments in time due to support acceleration.
3.4 Spectral analysis

Displacement Displacement
ratio
factor

15000 1.eigenvalue 150000000

2. eigenvalue
1 10000

3.
80000 eigenvalue
800000000

4.
eigenvalue
150 1500000

5.
eigenvalue
80 800000
Fig.8. Shapes of vibration from spectral analysis.

Fig.9. Resulting bending moment envelope.

3.5 Comparison of results:

Bending moments in nodes (kNm): Displacements

(mm):
vehicle dynamics
node 9 node 17 node 25
-585,56 2,29
1042,48 1076,93
earthquake through support acceleration – accelerogram from EC8
node 8 node 17 node 26
-721,62 1201,01
-722,39 1,422
earthquake through support acceleration – accelerogram from SIA 160
node 8 node 17 node 26
-264,86 450,61 -264,85
0.53
spectral analysis
node 7 node 17 node 27
-153,62 228.42 -151.14
0,29

3.6 Arch bridge

319,2 m

22,8 9 x 30,4 22,8

34 m

204 m

Fig.10. Arch bridge.

3.7 Vehicle dynamics

SLW 600; v = 20 m/s

PPP
v

Fig.11.Design load moving over the bridge.

 Fig.12. Displacement and acceleration in time for node 17 due to moving load.

We have bending moments in time:

10th time increment 20th time increment

30th time increment 40th time increment

50th time increment 60th time increment

70th time increment 80th time increment

90th time increment 100th time increment

Fig.13. Bending moments due to vehicle dynamics.
3.8 Support acceleration

Some of the resulting bending moments in time are:

time 1.50 sec time 2.75 sec..

time 4.0 sec. time 5.0 sec.

Fig.14. Bending moments due to support acceleration.

3.9 Spectral analysis

1.eigenvalue 6.eigenvalue
Fig.15. Bending moments resulting from spectral analysis.

Comparison of results:
Bending moments in nodes (kNm): Displacements (mm):
arch superstructure columns
vehicle dynamics: maximum bending moment is 1301.83 kNm
earthquake through support acceleration – accelerogram from EC8 4.86 mm
nodes 56, 59 nodes 57, 58 nodes 15, 18 nodes 16, 27
+4297,09 -2907,84 +3532,20 -3241,00 3748,60
earthquake through support acceleration – accelerogram from SIA 160
nodes 56, 59 nodes 57, 58 nodes 15, 18 nodes 16, 27
+ 1536,61 -951,18 1336,06 -1233,91 1364,27
spectral analysis
node 62 node 57 node 11 node 6
+1081,87 -603,14 +612,55 -848,65 663,25
4 CONCLUSION

Comparison of moments acting on bridges has been performed for dynamical influence of
vehicles passing the bridge and for vertical forces resulting from an earthquake. On the basis of results
it can be concluded that vehicle dynamics is dominant vertical force when compared with earthquake
forces resulting from spectral analysis or SIA 160 regulations. However EC 8/2 regulations provide
significantly greater acceleration diagrams for design and as a result we have resulting moments that
are comparable of greater then those produced by moving vehicles.
It can be concluded that for bridges designed by EC 8/2 there is no need to separately analyse
vehicle dynamics which remains necessary in some special cases or in existing bridge assessment
when surface roughness, bearing damping or similar should be taken into consideration.

REFERENCES

Weaver, W., Johnston,P. R.: Structural Dynamics by Finite Elements, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey 1987.
Inglis, C.E.., Inglis, C.E., “Mathematical Treatase on Vibration in Railway Bridges”, Cambridge University
Press, London UK, 1934.
Štimac, , I., “ANALIZA MOSTOVSKIH KONSTRUKCIJA POBUĐENIH POKRETNOM MASOM”,
Magistarska radnja, Zagreb, 2003
Brčić, V., Dynamics of Structures (in Croatian), Građevinska knjiga, Beograd 1978.
Kožar, I., Štimac, I.: Dynamic Analysis of Loads moving over Structures, 4th International Congress of Croatian
Society of Mechanics, September, 18-20, 2003, Bizovac, Croatia