Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 58
Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 1 EU

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

1

EU-Russia Regulatory Dialogue: Construction Sector Subgroup

Seminar ‘ Bridge Design with Eurocodes’

JRC-Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

Organized and supported by

European Commission

DG Joint Research Centre DG Enterprise and Industry

Russian Federation

Federal Highway Agency, Ministry of Transport

European Committee for Standardization

TC250 Structural Eurocodes

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 2 Ra

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

2

Railway Bridges

Basis of Design of railway bridges, some important points

The European High Speed Railway Network with

examples of Steel and Composite Railway Bridges

Dr. h.c. Marcel Tschumi Retired, ex Head of Bridges at SBB (Swiss Federal Railways)

ENEN 19911991--22 –– CONTENTSCONTENTS

ENEN 19911991- -2 2 – – CONTENTS CONTENTS Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra,

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

3

ActionsActions onon structuresstructures –– TrafficTraffic loadsloads onon bridgesbridges

ForewordForeword SSecectitionon 11 SectionSection 22 SectionSection 33 SectionSection 44

SSecectitionon 55

SSecectitionon 66

GGeneraenerall ClassificationClassification ofof actionsactions DesiDesiggnn situationssituations RoadRoad traffictraffic actionsactions andand otherother actionsactions specificallyspecifically forfor roadroad bridgesbridges AAcctitionsons onon ffoooottways,ways, cyccycllee trackstracks andand footbridgesfootbridges RRaailil ttraraffifficc acactitionsons anandd ooththerer actionsactions specificallyspecifically forfor railwayrailway bridbridggeses

ENEN 19911991--22 –– CONTENTSCONTENTS (continued)(continued)

-2 2 – – CONTENTS CONTENTS (continued) (continued) Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra,

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

4

ActionsActions onon structuresstructures –– TrafficTraffic loadsloads onon bridgesbridges

AAnnexnnex AA (I)(I) AnnexAnnex BB (I)(I)

AnnexAnnex CC (N)(N) AnnexAnnex DD (N)(N)

AnnexAnnex EE (I)(I)

AnnexAnnex FF (I)(I)

AnnexAnnex GG (I)(I)

AnnexAnnex HH (I)(I)

MMooddeellss ooff specspeciiaall vevehihicclleses fforor roaroadd bbrrididgesges FatigueFatigue lifelife assessmentassessment forfor roadroad bridges.bridges. AssessmentAssessment methodmethod basedbased onon recordedrecorded traffictraffic

DynamicDynamic factorsfactors 1+1+ forfor realreal trainstrains BasisBasis forfor thethe fatiguefatigue assessmentassessment ofof railwayrailway ssttrucructturesures LimitsLimits ofof validityvalidity ofof loadload modelmodel HSLMHSLM andand thethe selectionselection ofof thethe criticalcritical universaluniversal traintrain fromfrom HSLMHSLM--AA CriteriaCriteria toto bebe satisfiedsatisfied ifif aa dynamicdynamic analysisanalysis isis notnot requiredrequired MethodMethod forfor determiningdetermining thethe combinedcombined responseresponse ooff aa ssttrucructtureure anandd ttracrackk ttoo varvariiaablblee actionsactions LoadLoad modelsmodels forfor railrail traffictraffic loadsloads inin transienttransient situationssituations

ENEN 19901990 -- AnnexAnnex A2A2 (Amendment(Amendment A1)A1) -- Content

-- AnnexAnnex A2A2 (Amendment(Amendment A1)A1) - - Content Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra,

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

5

BasisBasis ofof structuralstructural designdesign –– ApplicationApplication forfor bridgesbridges

Section A2.1 Section A2.2

A2.2.1

Section A2.3 Section A2.4

Field of application Combinations of actions General A2.2.2…for road bridges A2.2.3…for footbridges A2.2.4…for railway bridges

A2.2.5

Ultimate limit states Serviceability limit states

A2.4.1General

A2.4.2 …serviceability

A2.4.3…serviceability criteria for footbridges

A2.4.4

criteria for road bridges

serviceability criteria for railway bridges

Designers’ guides to Eurocodes, by Telford Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-

Designers’ guides to Eurocodes, by Telford

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

6

guides to Eurocodes, by Telford Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October

LoadLoad ModelModel 71,71, alsoalso forfor HSL!HSL!

LoadLoad ModelModel 71,71, alsoalso forfor HSL!HSL! Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

7

with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 7 TheThe characteristiccharacteristic valuesvalues givengiven

TheThe characteristiccharacteristic valuesvalues givengiven inin thisthis figurefigure ofof ENEN 19911991--22 shallshall bebe multimultippliedlied bbyy aa factorfactor αα onon lineslines carrcarryyiningg railrail traffictraffic whichwhich isis heavierheavier oror lighterlighter thanthan normalnormal railrail traffic.traffic. WhenWhen multipliedmultiplied byby thethe factorfactor αα,, thethe loadsloads areare calledcalled "classified"classified verticalvertical loads".loads". ThisThis factorfactor αα shallshall bebe oneone ofof thethe followinfollowingg:: 0,750,75 -- 0,830,83 -- 0,910,91 -- 1,001,00 -- 1,101,10 -- 1,211,21 -- 1,331,33 – 1,46.1,46. TheThe valuevalue 1,331,33 isis normallynormally recommendedrecommended onon lineslines forfor freightfreight traffictraffic andand internationalinternational lineslines (UIC(UIC CODECODE 702,702, 2003).2003). (for(for ULS)ULS) TheThe actionsactions listedlisted belowbelow shallshall bebe multipliedmultiplied byby thethe samesame factorfactor αα ::

centrifugalcentrifugal forcesforces nosingnosing forceforce tractiontraction andand brakingbraking forcesforces lloaoadd momoddeell SW/0SW/0 fforor contcontiinuousnuous spanspan bbrrididgesges

Vision of future European Network

Vision of future European Network Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

8

The freedom for the choice of the factor could provoke a non homogeneous railway network in Europe! Therefore in UIC Leaflet 702 (2003) = 1,33 is generally recommended for all new bridges constructed for the international freight network, unfortunately not compulsory!

Year 2002

constructed for the international freight network , unfortunately not com p ulsor y! Year 2002 Year
constructed for the international freight network , unfortunately not com p ulsor y! Year 2002 Year

Year 2100

constructed for the international freight network , unfortunately not com p ulsor y! Year 2002 Year
constructed for the international freight network , unfortunately not com p ulsor y! Year 2002 Year

=1,33

constructed for the international freight network , unfortunately not com p ulsor y! Year 2002 Year
constructed for the international freight network , unfortunately not com p ulsor y! Year 2002 Year

Factor alpha, situation 2011

Factor alpha, situation 2011 Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

9

EN 1991-2 factor α

α= 1, 46 = 1,46

α= 1,33 = 1,33

α= 1,21 = 1,21

α= 1,10 = 1,10

α= 1 , 00 = 1,00

α= =

1,00/1,33

α= n.n. = n.n.

2 October 201 2 9 EN 1991 -2 factor α α = 1, 46 α =

Choice of the factor α for ULS

Choice of the factor α for ULS Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

10

Ultimate Limit States (ULS):

For new bridges it should absolutely be adopted α = 1,33.

Classification of international lines (years of introduction)

of international lines (years of introduction) Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

11

   

Mass per axle

 

Due to UIC CODE 700

A

B

C

D

E

Mass per m = p

 

16t

18t

20t

22 5t

,

25t

1

5

t/m

A

B1

     

2

6,4 t/m

 

B2

C2

D2

 

(~1920)

(~1970)

3

7,2 t/m

   

C3

D3

 

4

8

t/ m

   

C4

D4

E4

 

(2003)

5

8,8 t/m

       

E5

UIC track classes

UIC track classes Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

12

Indefinite number of wagons for a track line:

201 2 12 Indefinite number of wagons for a track line: C4 Q= 20 t q

C4

Q= 20 t

q = 8 t/m

number of wagons for a track line: C4 Q= 20 t q = 8 t/m E4

E4

Q= 25 t

q = 8 t/m

of wagons for a track line: C4 Q= 20 t q = 8 t/m E4 Q=

D4 Q= 22.5 t q = 8 t/m

of wagons for a track line: C4 Q= 20 t q = 8 t/m E4 Q=

E5

Q= 25 t

q = 8,8 t/m

Heavier loads do not significantly influence the costs of bridges!

loads do not significantly influence the costs of bridges! Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

13

Increase of costs in % due to α = 1,33, related to those calculated with α = 1,0 / bridges built with traffic interference (ERRI D 192/RP 4, 1996):

4 3.5 3 2.5 2.19 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Worb laufen Muota Men gbach
4
3.5
3
2.5
2.19
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Worb laufen
Muota
Men gbach
Ness
B
uchloe
Ke mpten

Heavier loads do not significantly influence the costs of bridges!

loads do not significantly influence the costs of bridges! Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

14

Increase of costs in % due to α = 1,33, related to those calculated with α = 1,0 / bridges built without traffic interference, (ERRI D 192/RP 4, 1996):

6 5 4 3.91 3 2 1 0 La S ormonne Sall aumines Moll ebakken
6
5
4
3.91
3
2
1
0
La S ormonne
Sall aumines
Moll ebakken
Kamb obekken
TRN2/ GVNord
Verberie
Scarpe
Ho lendalen
Vlake

EÜ Erfttalstrasse, ABS 4/S 13, line Köln - Aachen, km 21,223, (D)

ABS 4/S 13, line Köln - Aachen, km 21,223, (D) Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ –

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

15

13, line Köln - Aachen, km 21,223, (D) Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra,

EÜ Erfttalstrasse, ABS 4/S 13, line Köln - Aachen, km 21,223, (D)

ABS 4/S 13, line Köln - Aachen, km 21,223, (D) Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ –

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

16

13, line Köln - Aachen, km 21,223, (D) Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra,

Heavier loads do not significantly influence the costs of bridges!

loads do not significantly influence the costs of bridges! Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

17

EX.DETAILS: DB - EÜ Erfttalstrasse, Köln - Aachen, km 21,223

The span of this simply supported bridge with embedded steel girders is l = 24,6 m. 22 steel girders HE 1000M were used. Due to a report of DB, the deflection of this bridge under the vertical load ΦLM71 is 19,1 mm, what correspond to the value l /1288. The required stiffness of this bridge was only determined by a dynamic study. At my opinion this is too weak, I will explain that later, when I speak about permissible deflections, where for this case, to avoid excessive track maintenance, we should have l/2600. Now how this bridge could have been stiffer, without more construction height than with the existing steel girders, same height to avoid costs for constructing a lower road below the bridge, taking into consideration the required clearance. In the tables of ARCELOR, we find the following possible steel girders which practically fulfil this condition, namely the profiles HL 1100 R and HL 1000M x 642. Result of my calculations: A 100% higher stiff bridge gives only 10% more investment costs. This is an interesting linear extrapolation of the results mentioned above ( = 1,33 => investment costs = 2 to 4%)!

Choice of the factor for SLS

Choice of the factor  for SLS Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

18

Serviceability Limit States (SLS) Interaction track – bridge:

Theoretically this is a Seviceability Limit State (SLS) for the bridge and an Ultimate Limit State (ULS ) for the rail. But as the given permissible rail stresses and deformations were obtained by deterministic design methods, calibrated on the existing practice, the calculations for interaction have to be done – in contradiction to EN1991-2, where there is a mistake - always with

= 1,00!!

InteractionInteraction tracktrack -- bridgebridge

InteractionInteraction tracktrack - - bridgebridge Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

19

RelativeRelative displacementsdisplacements ofof thethe tracktrack andand ofof thethe bridge,bridge, causecausedd bbyy ththee comcombibinanatitionon ooff ththee eeffffececttss ooff ththermaermall variations,variations, traintrain brakingbraking andand tractiontraction forces,forces, asas wellwell asas deflectiondeflection ofof thethe deckdeck underunder verticalvertical traffictraffic loadsloads (LM(LM 71)71),, leadlead toto thethe track/bridgetrack/bridge phenomenonphenomenon thatthat resultsresults inin additionaladditional stressesstresses toto thethe bridgebridge andand thethe track.track. TakeTake LMLM 7171 withwith αα == 1.001.00 !!

stressesstresses toto thethe bridgebridge andand thethe track.track. TakeTake LMLM 7171 withwith αα == 1.001.00 !!

Examples of expansion lengths

Examples of expansion lengths Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

20

Examples of expansion lengths Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201

Avoid where ever possible expansion devices!

Avoid where ever possible expansion devices! Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

21

with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 21 Remark:The decks corresponding to L

Remark:The decks corresponding to L1 or to L2 may have additional supports. L1max. or L2 max. without expansion joints:

90 m (concrete, composite)

60 m (steel),

but:

L1 + L2 = 180 m/ 120 m with fixed bearing in the middle !!!!!!

AlpTransit Gotthard, Bridge over the river Brenno near Biasca, CH

Gotthard, Bridge over the river Brenno near Biasca, CH Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

22

with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 22 Practical example: Remark: Prestressed bridge,

Practical example:

Remark:

Prestressed bridge, but the result would be the same for a composite bridge

but the result would be the same for a composite bridge H ow can we avo

How can we avoid expansion joints in the rails to get long welded rails (LWR) over a bridge more than 90 m long? Fix point on an abutment:

LT =37 + 42,5 + 29,5 m = 109 m > 90 m => LWR not poss. With a fix point on a pier => LWR possible:

LT1= 37 + 42,5 = 79,5 m < 90 m

LT2=29,5 m < 90 m

With fix points on two piers => LWR poss., chosen solution):

LTmax = 42,5/2 + 37 m = 79,5 m < 90 m

Viaduc de la Moselle, interaction track - bridge

Viaduc de la Moselle, interaction track - bridge Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra,

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

23

la Moselle, interaction track - bridge Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2
la Moselle, interaction track - bridge Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2

Viaduc de la Moselle, interaction rail

Viaduc de la Moselle, interaction rail Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

24

with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 24 Longitudinal system of a composite

Longitudinal system of a composite bridge with a length of 1510 m Usual expansion devices SNCF for L T < 450 m

FATIGUE: choices for α and λ

FATIGUE: choices for α and λ Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

25

For new bridges, even if taking α = 1,33 for ULS design, fatigue assessments are done with the load model LM 71 and α = 1,00. The calculation of the damage equivalent factors for fatigue λ should be done with the heavy traffic mix, that means waggons with 25t (250kN) axles, in accordance with Annex D of EN 1991-2. Alternatively, if the standard traffic mix represents the actual traffic more closely than the heavy traffic mix, the standard traffic mix could be used, but with the calculated λ values enhanced by a factor 1,1 to allow for the influence of 250 kN axle loads. (Swiss National Annex)

General remarks concerning the fatigue of railway bridges

General remarks concerning the fatigue of railway bridges Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra,

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

26

General:

It cannot be stressed often enough that railway bridges must be designed and constructed in a fatigue-resistant way. For having optimal Life Cycle Costs (LCC) and for reaching the intended design life of minimum 100 years, all important structural members shall be designed for fatigue!

Rules for steel bridges:

Constructional details have to be chosen and found which give the maximum possible fatigue detail categories ∆σc, due to EN 1993-1-9:

Composite girders:

Welded plate girders:

Truss bridges:

detail category 71 detail category 71 detail category 71 at sites where fatigue is a risk / detail category 36 at sites where fatigue is no risk.

Constructional details, fatigue, (F)

Constructional details, fatigue, (F) Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

27

with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 27 bad example (2004!) (French but

bad example (2004!)

(French but not

SNCF)

with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 27 bad example (2004!) (French but

good example (SNCF)

Dynamic enhancements and coefficients

Dynamic enhancements and coefficients Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

28

Dynamic enhancement for real trains 1 + = 1 + ' + (½) ''

Dynamic enhancement for fatigue calculations = 1 + ½(' + (½)'')

Dynamic coefficient 2

3

(determinant length L Table 6.2)

Dynamic enhancement for dynamic studies

' max

d yn

y

d yn

/

y

stat

1

Permissible deflections (rules in Swiss Codes) (page 237 in book TELFORD)

(rules in Swiss Codes) (page 237 in book TELFORD) Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

29

In EN 1990, Annex A2 only minimum conditions for bridge deformations are given. The rule does not take into account track maintenance. A simplified rule for permissible deflections is given below for trains and speeds up to 200km/h, to avoid the need for excessive track maintenance. In addition, this simplified rule has the advantage, that no dynamic analysis is necessary for speeds less than 200km/h. For all classified lines with α >1,0, that means also if α = 1.33 is adopted for ULS, the following permissible values for deflections are recommended, always calculated with LM71 “+” SW/O, multiplied by , and with α = 1.0:

*Note:

V<80 km/h

stat l / 800*

Due to what is said in see A.2.4.4.2.3 [2], namely that the maximum total deflection measured along any track due to rail traffic actions should not exceed L/600, please note that 600 multiplied with 1,33 approximately 800.

80 V 200 km/h

stat

l / (15V – 400)**

gives

** Note: The upper limit l/2600 for 200 km/h is the permissible deflection which DB has taken during many years for designing bridges for high speed lines in Germany, with satisfactory results. It is also the formula which you can find in the Swiss Codes (SIA 260).

V > 200 km/h

value determined by dynamic study,

but min. stat

l / 2600

Modified flow chart in Figure 6.9 of EN 1991-2

Modified flow chart in Figure 6.9 of EN 1991-2 Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

30

Flow chart for determining whether a dynamic analysis is required.

START yes V  200 km/h no yes Continuous bridge (5) no Simple structure (1)
START
yes
V  200 km/h
no
yes
Continuous
bridge (5)
no
Simple
structure (1)
no
yes
yes
L  40 m
no
(
9
)
no
n
0 within
yes
limits of
X Figure 6.10
(6)
no
yes
n T > 1,2 n 0
ynam c
analysis use the
eigenforms for
torsion and for
bending
F
or
th
e
d
i
Use Tables F1 and F2
(2)
yes
Eigenforms
no
v/n 0  (v/n 0 ) lim
for bending
(
2
) (
3
) (
7
)
sufficient
Dynamic analysis required
Calculate bridge deck
acceleration and ´ dyn etc. in
accordance with 6.4.6 (note 4)

Dynamic analysis not required. At resonance acceleration check and fatigue check not required. Use with static analysis in accordance

(9) If the permissible deformations given just before are respected,

taking into account less track maintenance , no dynamic study is necessary for speeds 200 km/h.

.

Rolling stock for high speeds (STI)

Rolling stock for high speeds (STI) Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

31

Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 31 Articulated trains Conventional trains
Articulated trains
Articulated trains

Conventional trains

Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 31 Articulated trains Conventional trains

Regular trains

Models HSLM-A for int. lines

Models HSLM-A for int. lines Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

32

with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 32 Universal Number of Coach Bogie

Universal

Number of

Coach

Bogie axle

Point force

Train

intermediate

length

spacing

P [kN]

coaches

D [m]

d [m]

N

A1

18

 

18 2,0

170

A2

17

 

19 3,5

200

A3

16

 

20 2,0

180

A4

15

 

21 3,0

190

A5

14

 

22 2,0

170

A6

13

 

23 2,0

180

A7

13

 

24 2,0

190

A8

12

 

25 2,5

190

A9

11

 

26 2,0

210

A10

11

 

27 2,0

210

N

Models HSLM-B for int. lines

N Models HSLM-B for int. lines Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

33

with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 33 6 5.5 5 4.5 4
6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 d [m] 1 1.6 2.5 2.8
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
d [m]
1
1.6
2.5
2.8
3.2
3.5
3.8
4.2
4.5
4.8
5.5
5.8
6.5

L [m]

20

15

10

5

0

Application of HSLM-A and HSLM-B

Application of HSLM-A and HSLM-B Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

34

Structural

 

Span

configuration

 
 

L < 7m

L 7m

Simply supported span

HSLM-B

HSLM-A 1 Train determined with the help of Annex E

Continuous

HSLM-A All Trains A1 to A10

HSLM-A All Trains A1 to A10

structure

or

   

Complex

structure

Determination of the critical Universal Train HSLM-A (EN1991-2, Annex E)

of the critical Universal Train HSLM-A (EN1991-2, Annex E) Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

35

L = 15 m, simple supported bridge

fo = 6 Hz = v max = 420 x 1,2 = 500 km/h (Maximum
fo
=
6 Hz
=
v max = 420 x 1,2 = 500 km/h (Maximum Design Speed)
so that λmax = v max/ fo = 500/3,6/6 = 23 m.
1%
aggressiveness
curve (E.7) →
Critical
wavelength of
excitation λc
(E.18) →

Supplementary design checks for V > 200km/h

Supplementary design checks for V > 200km/h Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

36

Max. peak deck along each track (EN1990:2002/A1, A2.4.4.2.1(4)P):

= 0 35

bt

,

g

(3 43 m/s

,

2 ) (ballasted track)

Verification of whether the calculated load effects from high speed trains are greater than those of normal rail traffic

1

'

d y n

"/ 2

HSLM

or

RT

or

(LM71"+"SW/0)

Verification of fatigue where dynamic analysis is required

Verification of twist

Maximum vertical deflection for passenger comfort (EN1990:2002/A1, A2.4.4.2.3(1)) not necessary if you take permissible deflections recommended before

European HS Network Situation as at 12.2008

European HS Network Situation as at 12.2008 Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

37

Oulu

Glasgow

Dublin

Bristol

Edinburgh

Coruña

Nantes

Vit

or a

i

Tampere

Turku

Helsinki

Tallinn

Riga

Vilnius

Warszawa

Krakow

Budapest

Beograd

Sarajevo

Sofia

Oslo

Göteborg

Stockholm

H

am urg

b

Hannover

Kobenhavn

Berlin

Gdansk

Poznan

Köln

Fkft

Nürnberg

Praha

Katowice

Wien

München

Zürich

Nice

Milano

Bologna

Ljubljana

Zagreb

Amsterdam

Brux

Lux

London

Paris

Strasbg

Lyon

Torino

Bratislava

Bordeaux

Toulouse

Vigo

Porto

Valladolid

Zaragoza

Marseille

Barcelona

Roma

Podgorica

Skopje

Tirana

Madrid

Napoli

Thessaloniki

Valencia

 

v

> 250 km/h

v

> 250 km/h planned

St.Petersburg

180 < v < 250 km/h

 

Other lines

Minsk

Kiev

Chisinau

Bucuresti

Bursa

Istanbul

Ankara

Moskva

Sivas

Information given by the Railways

Lisboa

Sevilla

Málaga

Alicante

Athinai

Izmir

Konya

Kayseri

UIC - High-Speed Updated 14.12.2008

European HS Network Forecasting 2025

European HS Network Forecasting 2025 Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

38

European HS Network Forecasting 2025 v > 250 km/h Oulu v > 250 km/h Planned
European HS Network
Forecasting 2025
v
> 250 km/h
Oulu
v
> 250 km/h Planned
Tampere
180 < v < 250 km/h
St.Petersburg
Oslo
Helsinki
Turku
Tallinn
Stockholm
Other lines
Göteborg
Riga
Edinburgh
Glasgow
Vilnius
Kobenhavn
Moskva
Gdansk
Hamburg
Dublin
Minsk
Amsterdam
Berlin
Poznan
Hannover
Warszawa
London
Bristol
Brux
Köln
Praha
Kiev
Fkft
Katowice
Lux
Krakow
Nürnberg
Paris
Wien
Strasbg
Bratislava
Information given by the Railways
München
Budapest
Nantes
Zürich
Chisinau
Ljubljana
Lyon
Milano
UIC - High-Speed
Zagreb
Bordeaux
Beograd
Torino
B
o ogna
l
U
p
d
a e
t
d 14 12 2008
OG/IB
.
.
Bucuresti
Coruña
Toulouse
Sarajevo
Nice
Sofia
Vitoria
Marseille
Podgorica
Vigo
Skopje
Roma
Valladolid
Istanbul
Tirana
Porto
Zaragoza
Barcelona
Madrid
Ankara
Thessaloniki
Sivas
Napoli
Bursa
Valencia
Konya
Kayseri
Lisboa
Alicante
Athinai
Izmir
Sevilla
Málaga
Dr. h.c. Marcel Tschumi, Sofia, October 2010
3

General view of the Arroyo Las Piedras viaduct , 1208.9 m, 2005, (Spain)

of the Arroyo Las Piedras viaduct , 1208.9 m, 2005, (Spain) Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

39

viaduct , 1208.9 m, 2005, (Spain) Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2

Elevation view of the Arroyo Las Piedras viaduct [m]

Elevation view of the Arroyo Las Piedras viaduct [ m ] Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

40

the Arroyo Las Piedras viaduct [ m ] Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra,

Shock absorbers of the Arroyo Las Piedras viaduct

Shock absorbers of the Arroyo Las Piedras viaduct Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra,

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

41

of the Arroyo Las Piedras viaduct Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2

Mid-span cross section of the Arroyo Las Piedras viaduct

Mid-span cross section of the Arroyo Las Piedras viaduct Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

42

of the Arroyo Las Piedras viaduct Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2

Hogging cross section of the Arroyo Las Piedras

viaduct

Hogging cross section of the Arroyo Las Piedras viaduct Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

43

of the Arroyo Las Piedras viaduct Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2

Half through bridges with two lateral main girders (welded plates), France

with two lateral main girders (welded plates), France Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra,

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

44

with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 44 Crossing over A104 at Pomponne

Crossing over A104 at Pomponne Deckslab; embedded cross girders

with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 44 Crossing over A104 at Pomponne
with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 44 Crossing over A104 at Pomponne

Crossing over A104 at Pomponne (77) (F)

Crossing over A104 at Pomponne (77) (F) Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

45

Crossing over A104 at Pomponne (77) (F) Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-

Half through bridges with two lateral main girders (welded plates), France

with two lateral main girders (welded plates), France Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra,

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

46

Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 46 Viaduct crossing the A4
Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 46 Viaduct crossing the A4

Viaduct crossing the A4 (département de l’Aisne)

Viaduct crossing the A4 (département de l’Aisne)

Viaduct crossing the A4 (département de l’Aisne) Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

47

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 47 Deck plate:
Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 47 Deck plate:

Deck plate: embedded cross girders

Concrete deck over two welded steel plate main girders (France)

deck over two welded steel plate main girders (France) Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

48

‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 48 Viad uc t
‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 48 Viad uc t

Viaduct crossing A31 near Lesmésnils

Viaduct crossing A31 near Lesmésnils

Viaduct crossing A31 near Lesmésnils Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

49

Viaduct crossing A31 near Lesmésnils Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October

Viaduc de Mornas, LGV Méditerranée, span 121,4 m, built 1999, F

de Mornas, LGV Méditerranée, span 121,4 m, built 1999, F Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ –

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

50

span 121,4 m, built 1999, F Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2

Viaduc de la Garde-Adhémar, LGV Méditerranée, 2 spans of 115.4 m, total length 325 m, built in 2000, F

2 spans of 115.4 m, total length 325 m, built in 2000, F Seminar ‘Bridge Design

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

51

m, total length 325 m, built in 2000, F Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC

Viaduc du Péage de l’A7 à Bonpas (TGV Méd.,1998, span 124 m), F

Péage de l’A7 à Bonpas (TGV Méd.,1998, span 124 m), F Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

52

Bonpas (TGV Méd.,1998, span 124 m), F Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-

Sesia Viaduct,Torino-Milano High Speed Railway line, 2003, (I)

Viaduct,Torino-Milano High Speed Railway line, 2003, (I) Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

53

Railway line, 2003, (I) Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201

7 x 46 m = 322 m

Sesia viaduct

Sesia viaduct Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 54

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

54

with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 54 13600 1800 2500 2500 2500
13600 1800 2500 2500 2500 2500 1800 2300 1025 6950 1025 2300 3350 4586.5
13600
1800
2500
2500
2500
2500
1800
2300
1025
6950
1025
2300
3350
4586.5

M5 twin parallel girder bridge, HSRL Vienna - Salzburg, 1994, (A)

parallel girder bridge, HSRL Vienna - Salzburg, 1994, (A) Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

55

HSRL Vienna - Salzburg, 1994, (A) Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2
HSRL Vienna - Salzburg, 1994, (A) Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2

Risk scenario to avoid, yesterday and tomorrow:

Risk scenario to avoid, yesterday and tomorrow: Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

56

with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 56 <= Collapse of railway bridge

<= Collapse of railway bridge over the river Birs in Münchenstein, Switzerland, the 14th June 1891, by buckling of a diagonal in the middle of the bridge under an overloaded train, 73 persons were killed, 131 persons more or less injured.=> Tetmajers law.

Stewarton collapse, 27th January 2009 , bridge in wrought iron Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’

Stewarton collapse, 27th January 2009, bridge in wrought iron

collapse, 27th January 2009 , bridge in wrought iron Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

57

with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 57 Bridge collapse beneath a train

Bridge collapse beneath a train of 100 ton tank wagons travelling at 60 mph. Centre and east side girders failed in shear due to very severe corrosion of the webs which had been concealed against inspection by timber boards retaining the ballast

Risk scenario to avoid tomorrow:

Risk scenario to avoid tomorrow: Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October

Seminar ‘Bridge Design with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1-2 October 2012

58

with Eurocodes’ – JRC Ispra, 1- 2 October 201 2 58 3012: collapses due to fatigue

3012: collapses due to fatigue cracks in bad details of welded constructions executed today???