Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 48

UIC CODE

2nd edition, June 2009


Translation

776-2
R

Design requirements for rail-bridges based on interaction


phenomena between train, track and bridge
Exigences dans la conception des ponts-rails lies aux phnomnes dynamiques dinteraction vhiculevoie-pont
Anforderungen fr die Planung der Eisenbahnbrcken in Bezug auf die dynamischen Wechselwirkungen
Fahrzeug - Gleis - Brcke

Leaflet to be classified in Volumes:


VII - Way and Works

Application:
With effect from 1st June 2009
All members of the International Union of Railways

Record of updates
1st edition, July 1976

First issue, titled: "Bridges for high and very high speeds"

2nd edition, June 2009

Overhaul of leaflet to adapt to European norms

The person responsible for this leaflet is named in the UIC Code

776-2
R

Contents
Summary ..............................................................................................................................1
1-

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 2
1.1 - Role of rail-bridges................................................................................................ 2
1.2 - Purpose of this leaflet ........................................................................................... 2
1.3 - Train-track-bridge interaction................................................................................ 2
1.4 - European Regulations .......................................................................................... 2

2-

Definitions.................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 - List of symbols ...................................................................................................... 3
2.2 - Bridge deformations and displacements............................................................... 5

3-

Requirements for train traffic safety ......................................................................... 7


3.1 - Phenomena .......................................................................................................... 7
3.2 - Criteria .................................................................................................................. 7

4-

Requirements for structural strength ....................................................................... 9


4.1 - Phenomena .......................................................................................................... 9
4.2 - Criteria .................................................................................................................. 9

5-

Requirements for passenger comfort ..................................................................... 11


5.1 - Physical phenomena .......................................................................................... 11
5.2 - Criteria to verify................................................................................................... 12

6-

Regulatory provisions: summary ............................................................................ 14


6.1 - Static verifications............................................................................................... 14
6.2 - Additional dynamic verifications.......................................................................... 15

Appendix A - Verification procedures for dynamic calculation .................................... 16


A.1 - General ............................................................................................................... 16
A.2 - Conditions dictating dynamic calculations .......................................................... 17
A.3 - Fundamental hypotheses for dynamic calculation relating to the bridge ............ 19

776-2
R

A.4 - Fundamental hypotheses relating to vehicles (excitation) .................................. 24


A.5 - Fundamental hypotheses relating to the track.................................................... 31
A.6 - Calculations ........................................................................................................ 31
Appendix B - Criteria to be satisfied in the case where a dynamic analysis
is not required............................................................................................. 38
List of abbreviations ..........................................................................................................42
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................43

776-2
R

Summary
The procedures for verifying the strength of railway bridges are covered by detailed and
comprehensive rules of calculation already in existence. In contrast, serviceability limit states, notably
deformation ELS, are described only in network calculation rules or in UIC leaflets.
In essence, bridges are deformable structures. These deformations must be controlled all the more
accurately as trains travel at high, and very high speeds. The purpose of this leaflet is to specify the
design requirements for rail-bridges as regards train/track/bridge interaction phenomena and in
particular speed, thereby taking into account bridge resonance phenomena. It outlines the
corresponding draft criteria and provides information on the phenomena to be controlled as well as the
appropriate procedures for verifying the structures.
This leaflet should be used in conjunction with UIC Leaflet 776-1.

776-2
R

1 - Introduction
1.1 -

Role of rail-bridges

Rail bridges are designed to guarantee continuity of the rail platform so as to ensure the movement of
traffic in the same conditions of safety and comfort as on normal tracks and at any traffic speed up to
the crossing speed limit defined for this bridge and for all types of traffic scheduled to cross the
structure.

1.2 -

Purpose of this leaflet

The procedures for verifying the strength of railway bridges are covered by detailed and
comprehensive rules of calculation already in existence. In contrast, serviceability limit states, notably
deformation ELS, are described only in network calculation rules or in UIC leaflets.
In essence, bridges are deformable structures. These deformations must be controlled all the more
accurately as trains travel at high, and very high speeds. The purpose of this leaflet is to specify the
design requirements for rail-bridges as regards train/track/bridge interaction phenomena and in
particular speed, thereby taking into account bridge resonance phenomena. It outlines the
corresponding draft criteria and provides information on the phenomena to be controlled as well as the
appropriate procedures for verifying the structures.
This leaflet should be used in conjunction with UIC Leaflet 776-1 (see Bibliography - page 43).

1.3 -

Train-track-bridge interaction

In order to properly assess these phenomena, it is best to examine the effects of both primary and
secondary suspensions of the vehicles as well as the associated masses, the behavioural effects of
the track and the deformability of the bridge deck and its supports.
This leaflet also contains more simple alternative methods giving acceptable results using common
calculations.
Aside from its vertical component which is the most critical and which constitutes the greater part of
this leaflet, train-track-bridge interaction also has a lateral component that has a bearing on lateral
vehicle behaviour through the effects of the suspension, while also exercising an influence, albeit to a
lesser degree, on the track and on the bridge.

1.4 -

European Regulations

These phenomena have been studied in far greater detail as part of the preparatory work into
"Eurocodes" European regulations which now make bridge dimensioning possible by looking at the
effects of train-track-bridge interaction, irrespective of the proposed speed of traffic up to 350 km/h
and irrespective of the type of trains to be operated.

776-2
R

2 - Definitions
2.1 -

List of symbols

Young's modulus of the material [kN/mm2]

Ec

Static modulus [kN/mm2]

Ecq

Dynamic modulus [kN/mm2]

Ecm

Secant modulus of elasticity

Shear modulus [kN/mm2]

Moment of inertia of the deck cross section

Ic

Intermediate cracking or 'partially cracked' state of inertia

IG

Gross moment of inertia of the uncracked transformed section

ICR

Moment of inertia of the fully cracked transformed section

Lc

Characteristic distance (e.g. span length or vehicle length)

Length of the deck

Mcr

Serviceability limit state cracking moment

MA

Maximum moment due to service loads at serviceability limit state

Maximum axle load of the load train (articulated train)

Maximum axle load of the load train (conventional train)

Vcrit

Critical speed in relation to the resonance phenomenon

Vlim

Speed limit giving the upper limit where no dynamic calculations are
necessary

Actual train speed (in general) [km/h]

Vpro

Speed of project

Vligne

Maximum line speed

Dynamic increment coefficient for rail bridges (tracks with superior


maintenance)

Dynamic increment coefficient for rail bridges (tracks with standard


maintenance)

Dynamic increment coefficient

Acceleration of the deck

amax

Maximum acceleration of the deck

Length of longitudinal distribution of a load across a sleeper and ballast

bv

Vertical acceleration in the vehicle

776-2
R

Axle spacing of the bogies of the load train

Bogie spacing of the load train

fck

Characteristic compressive strength of the concrete [kN/mm2]

Mass of deck per unit length

nj

Natural bending frequency of row j of the unloaded deck [Hz]

n0

First natural bending frequency of the unloaded deck [Hz]

nT

Natural torsion frequency

Distortion of the deck

Deflection calculated at mid-span of the deck due to permanent loads (own


weight + superstructure) applied in the direction of the deflection

Classification coefficient

dyn

Deflection at mid-span under dynamic operating loads

stat

Deflection at mid-span under static operating loads

End displacement of the supports under operating loads

Dynamic increment component for real trains

Dynamic increment for the real train and for a track without irregularities

"

Dynamic increment for the real train taking into account track irregularities

stat

Rotation of the end of the deck under the influence of static operating loads

dyn

Rotation of the end of the deck under the influence of dynamic operating loads

Damping coefficient or % of critical damping

Poisson's coefficient

776-2
R

2.2 -

Bridge deformations and displacements

Bridge deformations and displacements occur under the effect of external action applied through the
spanned rail tracks, the deck supports or even directly onto the deck. These deformations and
displacements are described below.

2.2.1 -

Static deformations

The vertical operating loads applied to the bridge cause the deck to bend, resulting in a vertical
displacement of every point on the surface of the deck. In general, maximum displacement occurs at
the point in the middle of the deck, or at mid-span. This displacement is known as the deflection of the
deck. When the loads are static, the deflection reading stat is called the static deflection.
The vertical deflection of the deck considered for each span (isostatic or continuous bridge or
succession of decks) is important in determining the final vertical radii of the track.
The deflection of the deck described above causes rotation of the ends of the deck. Fig. 1 shows the
rotation of each deck along a transversal axis or the total relative rotation between the adjacent ends
of the deck. Static operating loads are used to define a rotation of stat.

2
1

Fig. 1 - Definition of angular rotation of the ends of the decks


The deck demonstrates transversal horizontal static deflection in response to certain actions. This is
important in determining the final horizontal radii of the track.
Because of the horizontal deflection of the deck (or the succession of decks) it is possible to observe
a horizontal rotation of the decks around a vertical axis at their ends. This has a bearing on the
horizontal geometry of the track.
Whenever the deck supports a non-centred track or several tracks, of which one is loaded, it
undergoes torsion as a result of the operating loads. Distortion of the deck is measured along the axis
of each track in proximity to a bridge or on the bridge.
Distortion tstat under static operating loads is measured on a track 1 435 mm wide and over a distance
of 3 m (cf. Fig. 2).
s
3m

Fig. 2 - Definition of deck distortion

776-2
R

As shown in Fig. 3 - page 6, deflection of the deck under operating loads causes the end of the deck
behind the support structures to lift. There is also a longitudinal displacement of the ends of the upper
surface of the deck as a result of rotation of the end of the deck.
The deformability of the bridge support structures causes longitudinal horizontal displacements of the
bridge. Displacement covers the entire bridge in case of a single deck but it is relative in case of a
series of decks.

H2

H1

neutral axis
fixed support
structures

H1: End displacement of the fixed support structures


H2: End displacement of the mobile support structures

mobile support
structures

Fig. 3 - Definition of end displacements of a deck

2.2.2 -

Dynamic deformations

All the deformations and displacements described earlier as taking place under static loads show
different values under dynamic loads (in general, all the more higher if train crossing speeds are
greater), whether they are vertical or horizontal deflections under operating loads, vertical and
horizontal end rotations, or longitudinal end displacements as well as lifting of the ends of the deck.
Under dynamic loads, these deformations are expressed as follows: dyn, Hdyn, dyn.
Distortion also takes on a different value under the dynamic effect of operating loads. This is
expressed as follows: dynamic distortion tdyn.
In general, the value retained is the maximum value obtained for a given speed.

776-2
R

3 - Requirements for train traffic safety


3.1 3.1.1 -

Phenomena
Quality of the wheel-rail contact

Excessive deformation of the bridge can jeopardise train traffic safety by causing unacceptable
changes in the vertical and horizontal geometry of the track, excessive rail stress and excessive
vibrations in the bridge support structures. In the case of ballasted bridges, excessive vibrations could
destabilise the ballast. Excessive deformation may also affect the loads imposed on the train/track/
bridge system, as well as create conditions that lead to passenger discomfort.

3.1.2 -

Track stability

Relative displacements of the track and of the bridge, caused by a possible combination of the effects
of train braking/starting, deflection of the deck under operational loads, as well as thermal variations,
lead to the track/bridge phenomenon that results in additional stresses to the bridge and the track.
It is important to ensure track stability as this may be compromised by additional stresses in the rail
during compression (risk of buckling of the track, especially at bridge ends) or traction (risk of rail
breakage). It is also important to minimise the forces lifting the rail fastening systems (vertical
displacement at deck ends), as well as horizontal displacements (under braking/starting) which could
weaken the ballast and destabilise the track. It is also essential to limit angular discontinuty at
expansion joints and at points and switches in order to reduce any risk of derailment.

3.2 3.2.1 -

Criteria
Distortion

Distortion of the deck is calculated with the characteristic value of load model UIC 71 and with load
diagrams SW/0 or SW/2 as necessary multiplied by and or the high-speed load diagram, including
the effects of centrifugal force. Limit values of distortion as described before are described in Table 1.
Table 1 : Limit values of deck distortion
Speed domain V (km/h)

Maximum distortion t (mm/3m)

V 120

t 4,5

120 < V 200

t 3,0

V > 200

t 1,5

Total distortion caused by distortion of the track when the bridge is not loaded (for example in a
transition curve), and distortion due to total deformation of the bridge, must not exceed 7,5 mm/3m.

776-2
R

3.2.2 -

Horizontal and vertical displacements

If continuous tracks are used, longitudinal horizontal displacements under the vertical effects of
operating loads must remain below 10 mm.
If continuous tracks are used, longitudinal horizontal displacements under the effects of braking/
starting must remain below 5 mm. They should be limited to 30 mm if the track has continuous welded
rails and is fitted with an expansion joint at the end of the bridge, or if the track is fitted with scarfed
joints.
Vertical displacements at the ends of the deck should remain below 3 mm if the track is ballasted and
1,5 mm if the track is laid directly.

3.2.3 -

Acceleration of the deck

The risk of excessive vibrations of the deck corresponds to its levels of acceleration and consequently
of the spanned track, and this should be verified. Deck acceleration should be considered a
serviceability limit state as far as operating safety is concerned. In cases where the bridges have
ballasted tracks, intense accelerations of the deck create the risk of destabilising the ballast. For this
reason, it is important to ensure that maximum acceleration of the deck remains below 0,35g for
frequencies up to 30 Hz.
When verifying the acceleration of a deck with dual tracks in both running directions, it is assumed that
only one track is loaded.
In the case of bridges with slab tracks, the acceleration limit value is set at 0,5g for frequencies below
30 Hz.
Dynamic analysis using the modal superposition method should take on board at least 3 modes as
well as frequency vibration modes up to 1.5 times the frequency of the first mode.

776-2
R

4 - Requirements for structural strength


4.1 -

Phenomena

4.1.1 -

Strength

This involves checking the ability of a structure, an element or a structural component, or a transverse
section of an element or structural component to withstand actions without mechanical deterioration,
for example bending strength and tensile strength also under dynamic effects.
The strength calculation value of the structure or its elements must be greater than the calculation
value of the corresponding action effects.

4.1.2 -

Fatigue

Fatigue describes the progressive damage to structures subjected to fluctuating or repeated stress,
caused by the development of cracks that may eventually lead to their destruction.
Fatigue increases with the number and the weight of trains, as well as with their speed.
Fatigue service life should be sufficient to avoid any risk of cracking during the expected service life
of the structure (usually, a minimum of 100 years).

4.1.3 -

Durability

The structure must be designed in such a way that its deterioration, during the period of use of the
construction, does not jeopardise its durability or performance within its environment and in relation to
the projected level of maintenance. Adequate measures are specified in order to limit deterioration on
the basis of certain factors (such as properties of the soil, of the materials, foreseen maintenance
during the life cycle of the structure, etc).

4.2 4.2.1 -

Criteria
Dynamic increment coefficient

When a dynamic analysis of the structure needs to be carried out (see Appendix A - page 16), with
the relevant load models or real trains, it is important to determine the following dynamic increment
coefficient:
'dyn = max [ dyn / stat ] 1
where dyn represents the dynamic deflection of the deck under the high-speed load diagram or real
trains and stat represents the static deflection of the deck.

776-2
R

The bridge is assessed using the logic diagram shown in Fig. 4.

(1 + dyn + 0,5 ) x (load model for HS or real train) < . (LM71+SW/0)


NO

YES

Load model for HS or real trains with


dyn is decisive for the project

. (LM71+SW/0) is
decisive for the project

Fig. 4 - Logic diagram determining the loads to be taken


into account for calculating bridge strength

4.2.2 -

ELU constraints

The resistance criterion involves checking that the calculation constraint of the effect of the actions is
lower than or equal to the corresponding resistance constraint and remains so within the framework
of the verification of the resistance limit-status.

4.2.3 -

ELS constraints

The non-cracking and reversibility criteria, part of the ELS verifications, involve checking the material
stresses to ensure that the materials do not present a risk of developing irreversible deformations. The
limit values with regard to constraints are given in the Eurocodes.
They also involve for stressed concrete structures checking the limitation of crack openings. Such
verifications may require making minimal reinforcements in the concrete.

4.2.4 -

Fatigue damage

Fatigue damage is a quantitative notion defined by a value between 0 and 1, and used to assess the
relative evolution of cracking. The value is 0 if there is no damage and 1 if propagation is such that it
destroys the structural element. Damage is determined by taking into account the successive loading
of the component, which must remain at a permissible level for the lifetime of the structure. Fatigue
dimensioning must be done to allow for the most unfavourable fatigue load conditions.

10

776-2
R

5 - Requirements for passenger comfort


5.1 5.1.1 -

Physical phenomena
Train-track interaction

Track levelling and lining variations generate vehicle movement that can affect passenger comfort and
train safety. Almost every vehicle is mounted onto bogies.
The movements that have a bearing on the vehicles are due to track levelling and lining defects (or
track irregularities), the natural hunting movements of the axles and, when crossing bridges, the
deformation of the bridge which modifies the path of the bogies.
The running gear and suspensions generate rail vehicle body movement which affects passenger
comfort and stresses which influence the vehicle running safety.
The vehicle integrates primary and secondary suspensions (springs and dampers) as well as sprung
and unsprung masses (masses, rotating masses inertia) that have an impact on this phenomenon. In
order to separate the movements of the bogie from those of the body, the greatest possible vertical
and transversal flexibility is required for secondary suspension. The required natural suspension
frequencies are about 0,7 Hz (at present, 1 Hz is usually obtained but this can vary between 1 and
2 Hz).

5.1.2 -

Passenger comfort in vehicles when crossing bridges

In order to establish a maximum value that effectively translates the accelerations within the vehicle,
it is important to know how vibrations impact passenger well-being. A certain number of physiological
criteria linked to frequency, intensity of acceleration, steering relative to the spinal column and time of
exposure (duration of vibrations) make it possible to assess vibrations and their influence on
individuals. The limit exposure time to reduced comfort represents the limit of comfort adopted. This
paragraph characterises the flexibility of bridges with regard to comfort.
With knowledge of the dynamic deflection under a real train at mid-span on a civil engineering
structure, it is possible to give an approximation of the path of a bogie during its passage over the
structure. Knowing the transfer function that makes it possible to move from the path of the bogie to
that of the body, it is possible to calculate vehicle acceleration. The acceleration limits inside the
vehicles depend on the desired level of comfort and make it possible to limit the deflection of the
structure.

5.1.3 -

Physiological fatigue of passengers

The preceding notion of comfort must nevertheless be reviewed whenever structures are very long,
making for lengthy crossing times.

11

776-2
R

5.2 -

Criteria to verify

Vertical acceleration in the vehicles


Passenger comfort depends on vertical acceleration bv in the vehicle during the journey.
The levels of comfort and the limit values associated with vertical acceleration in the vehicle are
outlined in table 2.
Table 2 : Indicative levels of comfort
Level of comfort

Vertical acceleration bv
(m/s2)

Very good

1,0

Good

1,3

Acceptable

2,0

The criteria to verify to guarantee passenger comfort relate to the vertical deflection of the decks and
are listed here:
In order to limit vertical acceleration in the vehicles, certain values will be given later to illustrate the
maximum permissible vertical deflection along the centre of the track of railway bridges in relation to:
-

span L [M]

train speed V [km/h]

number of span sections and

bridge configuration (isostatic beam, continuous beam).

Another possibility involves determining vertical acceleration bv by dynamic analysis of the train/bridge
interaction.
Aside from other factors, the following behaviour elements are taken into consideration when
calculating dynamic analysis:
-

the dynamic interaction of the mass between the vehicles of a given train and the structure,

the damping characteristics and suspension stiffness of the vehicles,

an adequate number of vehicles to produce the maximum load effects in the longest span section,

an adequate number of span sections in a multi-span structure to generate resonance effects in


the vehicle's suspension.

Vertical deflections are determined using load model 71 multiplied by coefficient .


In the case of bridges with double tracks or more, only one track is loaded.

12

776-2
R

For exceptional structures such as continuous beams with a large variation in span lengths or spans
with many different stiffness levels, it is important to do a specific dynamic calculation.

3 000
V=

2 500

L/

2 000
1 500
V=

1 000

V=

350

V=
V = 300
280
V=
250
V=
220
V=
200
160

120

500
0

10

20

30

40

50

60
L [m]

70

80

90

100

110

120

Fig. 5 - Maximum permissible vertical deflection for rail bridges corresponding


to a permissible vertical acceleration of bv = 1/ms2 in the coach
NB :

The figure is available for a succession of isostatic spans with three or more decks

New lines generally satisfy the primary level of comfort ("very good" and bv = 1,0 m/s2 ). The limit
values L/ for this level of comfort are given in Fig.5.
For the other levels of comfort and the related maximum permissible vertical accelerations bv, the
values L/ given in Fig. 5 may be divided by bv [m/s2].
The values L/ given in Fig. 5 are indicated for a succession of isostatic beams with three spans or
more.
For a bridge with a single span or a succession of two isostatic beams or two continuous spans, the
values L/ given in the diagram should be multiplied by 0,7.
For continuous beams with three spans or more, the values L/ given in Fig. 5 should be multiplied by
0,9.
The values L/ given in Fig. 5 are valid for spans up to 120 m. A specific analysis should be done for
longer span lengths.

13

776-2
R

6 - Regulatory provisions: summary


6.1 -

Static verifications

This type of verification is done systematically under load model 71 incremented by the relevant
dynamic coefficient.
Table 3 : Static limit values
Criterion verified

Description of verification

Comfort

Vertical deflections

cf. Fig. 5 - page 13

Track stability

Expandable lengths

Lt = expandable
length

Track stability

continuous track (no AD) : Lt 60 m (metal)

track with AD

Lt 90 m (concrete/
mixed)

non-ballasted track

project specified
special study

Track stability

Calculation under
incremented LM 71
1 loaded track

longitudinal displacements
under the effects of vertical
track loads
-

Track stability

Limit value

with CWR

10 mm

2 loaded tracks a

longitudinal displacements
under braking/starting for
track:
-

with CWR

5,0 mm

with AD or for jointed track 30 mm

2 loaded tracks a

vertical displacements at end


of decks with:
-

ballasted track

3,0 mm

slab track

1,5 mm

14

2 loaded tracks a

776-2
R

Table 3 : Static limit values


Criterion verified

Description of verification

Wheel/rail contact

deck distortion

Limit value

V 120 km/h

distort 4,5 mm/3m

120 V 200 km/h

distort 3,0 mm/3m

V > 200 km/h

distort 1,5 mm/3m

Calculation under
incremented LM 71

1 loaded track

rotations due to horizontal


deflections
-

V 120 km/h

0035rd

120 V 200 km/h

0020rd

V > 200 km/h

0015rd

2 loaded tracksa

a. bridge with two tracks or more

6.2 -

Additional dynamic verifications

This type of dynamic verification is always carried out under real trains or under a universal dynamic
loaded train (HSLM) incremented by the corresponding dynamic coefficient.
Table 4 : Dynamic limit values
Criterion verified

Description of verification

Track stability and


wheel/rail contact

Vertical accelerations

Limit value

ballasted track

0,35 g (3,43 m/s2)

slab track

0,5 g (4,91 m/s2)

Comfort and
strength of the
structure

Vertical deflections

L/600 or L/800

Track stability

Longitudinal displacements
at deck ends

Verification done in
point 6.1 - page 14

Wheel/rail contact

Distortion

Distortion

Lateral stiffness

V > 200 km/h

t dyn 1, 2 mm / 3m

Horizontal deflections

Verification done in
point 6.1 - page 14

First natural frequency of


lateral vibration

1,2 Hz

15

Loading
(real trains or
HSLM)

1 loaded track
1 loaded track

1 loaded track

776-2
R

Appendices

Appendix A - Verification procedures for dynamic


calculation
A.1 - General
Dynamic phenomena
When a train crosses a bridge at a certain speed, the deck will deform as a result of excitation
generated by the moving axle loads. At low speeds, structural deformation is similar to that
corresponding to the equivalent static load case. At higher speeds, deformation of the deck exceeds
the equivalent static values due to the bridge inertia forces and the effects of track defects and vehicle
running defects. The increase in deformation is also due to the regular excitation generated by evenly
spaced axle loads and by the succession of reduced inter-axles and inter-bogie spacing.
Risk of resonance
A risk of resonance exists when the excitation frequency (or a multiple of the excitation frequency)
coincides with the natural frequency of the structure (or a multiple thereof). When this happens,
structural deformation and acceleration show rapid increase (especially for low damping values of the
structure) and may cause:
-

loss of wheel/rail contact

destabilisation of the ballast

In such situations, train traffic safety on the bridge is compromised. This may occur at critical speeds,
represented approximately by values obtained for isostatic bridges and using the following formulae:
nj Lc
v crit = ----------i

j = 1, 2, 3, , i = 1, 2, 3, , 1/2, 1/3, 1/4,

Resonance phenomena are unlikely to occur in rail bridges if speeds remain under 200 km/h and if
the different conditions outlined in the following paragraphs are met.
Importance of dynamic calculation
In view of the potential risk outlined earlier and the tendency for speeds to increase, calculations need
to be done to determine the extent of deformations which, at resonance, may lead to a dynamic load
that is greater than UIC load model 71 incremented by the dynamic coefficient 2.
Furthermore, accelerations of the structure cannot be determined by static analysis, one reason for
justifying dynamic analysis.
Even though deck accelerations are low at low speeds, they can reach unacceptable values at higher
speeds. In practice, the acceleration criterion will, in most cases, be the decisive factor.

16

776-2
R

Appendices
A.2 - Conditions dictating dynamic calculations
A.2.1 -

Parameters

The dynamic behaviour of a bridge depends on:


-

the traffic speed across the bridge,

the span L of the bridge and its structural configuration,

the mass of the structure,

the number of axles, their loads and distribution,

the natural frequencies of the entire structure,

the suspension characteristics of the vehicle,

the damping of the structure,

the regularly spaced supports of the deck slabs and of the construction,

the wheel defects (flats, out-of-roundness, etc.)

the vertical track defects,

the dynamic characteristics of the track.

A.2.2 -

Logic diagram

The logic diagram in Fig.1 - page 18 is used to determine whether dynamic analysis is necessary.
This is valid for the isostatic structures which behave in identical fashion to a linear beam.
Tables 8 - page 38 and 9 - page 39 are represented in Appendix B. The validity limits for these tables
are indicated in the notes after the tables.
Independently from the logic diagram in Fig. 1, a dynamic analysis is necessary if the frequent working
speed of a regular train is equal to a speed of resonance of the structure.

17

776-2
R

Appendices
V
L
n0

= traffic speed in [km/h]


= span in [m]
= first natural bending frequency of the unloaded bridge in [Hz]

nT

= first natural torsion frequency of the unloaded bridge in [Hz]

V lim n0 et ( V no )

are defined in Appendix B - page 38.

lim

START

yes

V 200 Km/h
no
no

Continuous
bridge

Simple structure

yes

no

yes
yes

L 40 m
no

no

no

yes

nT > 1,2 no

For the dynamic


analysis use the
natural modes
for torsion and
for bending
natural modes
for bending
sufficient

yes

no within
limits of
figure A4

Use Tables 8 and 9

no

Vlim/n0 (V/n0)lim

yes

Dynamic analysis not required


Verification with regard to the
acceleration not required at
resonance. Use with static
analysis in accordance

Dynamic analysis required


Calculate bridge deck
acceleration and dyn etc. or
modify the structure and verify

Fig. 1 - Logic diagram to determine wether a specific dynamic analysis is required

18

776-2
R

Appendices
A.3 - Fundamental hypotheses for dynamic calculation relating to the
bridge
A.3.1 -

Material characteristics

Young's modulus for structural steel is 210 kN/mm2 for both static and dynamic behaviour.
The dynamic value Edyn of Youngs modulus must be used in dynamic calculations. It depends on the
static secant modulus and the speed of concrete deformation. Young's modulus for compressed
concrete increase with stress and strain. Stress levels impact Edyn less in traction than in compression.
Table 1 gives the values of the secant modulus of elasticity for concrete aged 28 days.
Fig. 2 and 3 - page 20 show the relationship between the static modulus and the dynamic modulus of
elasticity in both cases.
Table 1 : Ecm values for concrete of different strengths
f ck
[kN/mm2
E cm
[kN/mm2

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

29

30,5

32

33,5

35

36

37

The value of Poisson's coefficient , for steel is 0,3, whereas for concrete, it is 0,2.
The shear modulus for structural steel is taken equally at 80 kN/mm2 for both static and dynamic
behaviour.
The shear modulus G for concrete can be calculated from the equation:
E dyn
G dyn = --------------------2(1 + )

19

776-2
R

Appendices
fdyn
fstat

Edyn,u,dyn
Estat u,stat

Compression

3
2.5

2,5

2
1,8
1,6
1,5
1,4
1,3
1,2
1,1
1
0,9

50

fcm = 20

3 E

1,5

0.1

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

[N/mm2s]

3 .10-5
10-4

-5

10

108

-2

10-3

0,1

10

102

10

. 10
[S-1]

Fig. 2 - Influence of the stress/strain relationship on the E values for concrete in compression

fdyn
fstat

Edyn,u,dyn
Estat u,stat

Traction

fcm = 20

50

2,5

2,5

2
1,8
1,6
1,5
1,4
1,3
1,2
1,1
1
0,9

0.1

101

102

103

104

105

10-4

106

1,5

Et

107

108

[N/mm2s]

3 .10-5
10-5

10-3

10-2

0,1

10

102

. 10
[S-1]

Fig. 3 - Influence of the stress/strain relationship on the E values for concrete in traction

20

776-2
R

Appendices
A.3.2 -

Damping coefficient

Structural damping is a key parameter in dynamic analysis. The magnitude of the vibrations depends
heavily on structural damping, especially in proximity to resonance. Although it is unfortunately not
possible to predict the exact value in the case of new bridges, for existing bridges the damping values
can be easily deduced by calculating the logarithmic decrement from the free vibration measurements.
Table 2 gives the lower limits of the percentage values of critical damping [%] based on a certain
number of past measurements.
Table 2 : Percentage values of critical damping [%]
for different bridge types and span lengths L
Type of bridge

Lower limit of the percentage of critical damping [%]


Span length L < 20 m

Span length L 20 m

Metal and mixed

= 0,5 + 0,125 (20 - L)

= 0,5

Encased steel
girders and
reinforced concrete

= 1,5 + 0,07 (20 - L)

= 1,5

Pre-stressed
concrete

= 1,0 + 0,07 (20 - L)

= 1,0

A.3.3 -

Mass

Maximum dynamic effects occur at resonance peaks, where a multiple of the load frequency coincides
with the natural frequency of the structure. Underrating the mass will lead to overestimation of the
natural frequency of the structure and of the speed at which resonance occurs.
At resonance, the maximum acceleration of a structure is inversely proportional to the distributed mass
of the structure.
Two special cases must be considered for the mass of the structure, including the ballast:
1. a lower limit of the mass of the deck to obtain maximum accelerations;
2. an upper limit of the mass of the structure to obtain the lowest speeds at which effects of
resonance will occur.
The mass of the ballast on the bridge is calculated for two specific cases:
1. minimum density of the clean ballast and minimum thickness;
2. maximum saturated density of the ballast with slack, taking into account possible future lifting of
the track.

21

776-2
R

Appendices
A.3.4 -

Rigidity (cracked sections, coefficient of equivalence,...)

For the same reasons as mentionned in point A.3.3 - page 21 (first alinea), it is best to use only the
lower value within the stiffness range.
The stiffness and mass of a bridge deck vary throughout the lifetime of the structure and impacts its
dynamic behaviour. The stiffness range mentioned earlier corresponds to the two extreme values, on
the one hand for sections free of cracks and without any reduction in stiffness, and on the other hand
cracked sections and any effect leading to a reduction in stiffness such as the effect of differential
settlement, contraction and temperature. Bending and torsional stiffness should take account of the
impact of tensile stiffening onto the behaviour of reinforced concrete subjected to bending and torsion.
Surveys carried out show that the Branson method to determine the equivalent bending stiffness of
reinforced concrete can be used. The average value of the effective inertia along the entire length of
an evenly loaded element is obtained by:
4
4
M cr
M cr
I c = --------- I G + 1 --------- I cr
MA
MA

The inertia for specific sections found along the length of the element is calculated by using the
following expression:
3
3
M cr
M cr
I c = --------- I G + 1 --------- I cr
MA
MA

The coefficient of equivalence is given in the Eurocodes.

A.3.5 -

Natural frequencies

Fig. 4 - page 23 shows the limits of domain N of the natural frequencies n0 in [Hz] as a function of the
span length L in [m] on the deck.

22

776-2
R

Appendices

150
100
80
60

n0 [Hz]

40

20
15

Natural frequency
upper limit

10
8
6
4
Natural frequency
lower limit
2
1,5
1,0

8 10

15 20
L (m)

40

60 80 100

n is the first natural frequency of an unloaded bridge


0
L is the span for an isostatic bridge or L for other types of bridge

Fig. 4 - Limits of natural frequencies n0 en [Hz] in relation to the span length L [in m]
The upper limit of n0 (N) is expressed by:
n 0 = 94 ,76 L

0 ,748

The lower limit of n0 (N) is expressed by:


for 4m L 20m

n 0 = 80 L
n 0 = 23 ,58 L

0, 592

for 20m < L 100m

(Range N is defined within these limits).


There is no need for dynamic calculation if the speed of the line Vline is less than or equal to 200 km/
h and if the first natural bending frequency is within the limits of domain N in Fig. 4. Otherwise, an
additional verification must be done. If the natural frequency is above the upper limit of domain N in
Fig. 4, dynamic analysis is necessary.

23

776-2
R

Appendices
If the deck cannot be considered as a beam or a slab or if the first natural frequency in torsion nT lies
within the domain (0,8n0, 1,2n0) where n0 is the first natural bending frequency, then dynamic analysis
is necessary.
If the deck can be considered as a beam or a slab and if the first natural frequency in torsion lies
outside the domain (0,8n0, 1,2n0), additional verification is needed if the ratio V/n0 does not comply
with the limits laid down in Appendix B - page 38.
The natural frequency is given by the following general formula, which makes a clear statement of the
importance of an accurate assessment of the product Eidyn and of the deck mass per unit length.
2

EI
j
fj = ------------- ------ 1 2
2
2L
The natural frequency of an isostatic beam can be calculated or estimated using the following simple
formula:
17,753
n 0 = -----------------stat
This equation, where stat in (mm) is calculated with the short term modulus, only refers to isostatic
beams.

A.4 - Fundamental hypotheses relating to vehicles (excitation)


The tools most commonly used for dynamic calculations do not take account of interaction
phenomena. Train-bridge interaction modelling is described in point A.6 - page 31. The effect of trainbridge interaction can be integrated to the conventional mobile load diagram in point A.6 by adding
adequate damping to the bridge damping.
The following formulae can be used to calculate additional damping as a function of the length of the
span:
2

a1 L + a2 L
= ---------------------------------------------------------2
3
1 + b1L + b2L + b3L
Coefficients a1, a2, b1, b2, b3 are determined for the ICE 2 and the Eurostar and for L/f = 1 000, 1 500,
2 000. Only = 0,005 was considered because the effect of additional damping is greater with low
structural damping. For different damping values, the coefficients calculated for = 0,005 can be
used, seeing that has minimal effect on . The coefficient values are given in Table 3 - page 25 for
the ICE 2 and in Table 4 - page 25 for the Eurostar.

24

776-2
R

Appendices

Table 3 : Coefficients for calculating under ICE 2


L/f

a1

a2

b1

b2

b3

(l/m)

(l/m2)

(l/m)

(l/m2)

(l/m2)

1 000

1,3254x10-2

-5,9x10-5

5,5226

-0,7095

2,64x10-2

1 500

3,6965x10-4

-1,2006x10-5

-0,15345

1,03806x10-2

-2,075x10-4

2 000

5,5653x10-4

2,31x10-6

3,3321x10-2

-8,87x10-3

3,88x10-4

Table 4 : Coefficients for calculating under Eurostar


L/f

a1

a2

b1

b2

b3

(l/m)

(l/m2)

(l/m)

(l/m2)

(l/m2)

1 000

7,1513x10-3

-9,29x10-5

5,40433

-0,75612

2,860x10-2

1 500

3,08531x10-4

-1,0377x10-5

-6,13910x10-2

7,86x10-5

7,03x10-5

2 000

4,79510x10-4

7,391x10-6

0,3591085

-4,11551x10-2

1,2771x10-3

These formulae are valid only for 5 < L < 30 m and 1000 < L/f < 2000. For the L/f values lying between
those in the tables, a linear interpolation can be done.

A.4.1 A.4.1.1 -

Train models
Hypotheses relating to vehicles

Current and future high-speed trains can be classed into three major categories, as indicated below
in Fig. 5, 6 and 7 - page 26 :

D
O/
BA

Fig. 5 - Articulated train

D
O/
BS

O/
BA

Fig. 6 - Conventional train

25

776-2
R

Appendices

D
O/
BA

D
IC

O/BA

ec

Fig. 7 - Train with equally-spaced axle (e.g. Talgo)


A.4.1.2 -

Interoperability

High-speed trains now run on international lines in different countries and their numbers will most
probably increase in the future. It is therefore essential to establish minimum technical specifications
for projects relating to bridges and rolling stock so as to allow high-speed trains to travel throughout
the European network in safety.
The Technical Specifications for Interoperability relating to rolling stock can be outlined as follows:
In order to ensure that high-speed trains crossing bridges or viaducts do not generate effects
(stresses, deformations) incompatible with their dimensioning - whether they are strength
characteristics or operating criteria - these trains should be designed to comply with the criteria listed
in the right-side column in Table 5 - page 26:
Tableau 5 : Technical Specifications for Interoperability of rolling stock
Trains with equally-spaced axle
Type TALGO

10 m D 14 m

P 170 kN

7 m e c 10 m

8 D 1C 11m where

D 1C = coupling distance between power car and coach


E c = coupling distance between 2 trainsets

Articulated trains

18 m D 27 m

Type EUROSTAR, TGV

2 ,5 m d BA 3 ,5 m

Conventional trains

18 m D 27 m et P < 170 kN or values translating the


inequality below

Type ICE, ETR, VIRGIN

All types

P 170 kN

d BA
d BS
d HSLMA
4P cos -------------- cos -------------- 2P HSLMA cos -----------------------D
D
D HSLMA
L 400 m

P 10 000 kN

Note:
-

D, D1C, dBA, dBS and ec are defined for articulated, conventional and trains with equally-spaced axle in
Fig. 5, 6 and 7 above

P is the axle load.

26

776-2
R

Appendices
When relating to infrastructure (bridges), the Technical Specifications for Interoperability are as
follows:
In order to ensure that they deliver dynamic behaviour with regard to current and future train traffic,
bridges should be calculated using the high speed load model (HSLM) consisting of the HSLM-A (for
the definition of train A, set of 10 reference trains A1 to A10 (see Fig. 8 - page 27 and Table 6 page 28) and HSLM-B (cf. Fig. 9 and 10 - page 29). In order to apply HSLM-A and B, refer to Table 7
- page 29.
The verifications of the various parameters indicated in this leaflet must be done within a speed range
of 0 km/h and 1,2 V km/h, V being the potential speed of the line.
Methods can also be developed to designate the most aggressive of these trains within the speed
range in question and for a given structure. This is essentially the case of isostatic structures, where
the train to designate may be determined by the aggressivity method devised by the ERRI Committee
D 214-2 (see Bibliography - page 43).
The HSLM-A consists of 10 trains defined as follows:

4xP
(1)

11

2xP
(3)

3xP
(2)
d

NxD

2xP
(3)

(3)
d

(3)

2xP
(3)

3xP
(2)

4xP
(1)

d
D

3,525

Fig. 8 - Layout of the universal dynamic train A


(1) Power car (identical leading and trailing power cars)
(2) End coaches (identical leading and trailing coaches)
(3) Intermediate coaches

27

776-2
R

Appendices
Table 6 : Definition of the 10 trains of the universal dynamic train A
Number of
intermediate
coaches

Length of
coach

Axle spacing in
the bogie

Localised force

D [m]

d [m]

P [kN]

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

Universal train

The HSLM-B consists of a number N of localised forces of 170 kN with a regular spacing d [m] where
N and d are defined in Fig. 9 and 10 - page 29.

N x 170 kN

Fig. 9 - Diagram of universal dynamic train B


The values of d and N are determined using Fig. 10:

28

776-2
R

Appendices
20

6
5,5

15

4,5
10

d [m]

3,5
5

3
2,5
6,5

5,8

L[m]

5,5

4,8

4,5

4,2

3,8

3,5

3,2

2,8

2,5

0
1,6

Fig. 10 - Universal dynamic train B


Where L is the span of the bridge in [m].
The next table illustrates how HSLM-A and HSLM-B are applied and indicates the trains to be used
for dynamic bridge calculations.
Table 7 : Application of HSLM-A and HSLM-B
Length of span

Structural configuration of bridge

L<7m

L 7m

Isostatic bridgea

HSLM-B

HSLM-Ab

Continuous structure

HSLM-A

HSLM-A

or

Trains A1 to A10

Trains A1 to A10

Complex structurec
a. Valid for bridges whose behaviour is limited to that of a line beam (longitudinal direction) or a slab, on fixed
supports with minimal bias effects.
b. For isostatic beams with a 7 m span or more, a single model HSLM-A may be used for dynamic analysis, under
the aggressivity method defined in ERRI report D214-2. Alternatively all 10 models HSLM-A-1 to HSLM-A-10
may be used.
c. Model HSLM-B should also be used.

A.4.2 -

Load distribution

In the live load model, each axle is represented by a constant and concentrated load that moves
across the bridge. When taking into account the elastic properties of the upper track structure, it is
clear that the reactions under the rail are diffused.
This means that the bridge underneath is not loaded by the concentrated loads but rather by the
distributed loads in the direction of the track.

29

776-2
R

Appendices
A diagram (Fig. 16 - page 41) is appended and gives the reduction coefficient to be applied to the
acceleration obtained under concentrated loads. This reflects the dynamic effects of axle loads
distributed lengthwise over 2,5 and 3,0 m as determined by the lowest speed/frequency ratio to be
taken into account under the dynamic effects of axle loads.

A.4.3 -

Dynamic signature

The dynamic signature of a train is obtained by breaking down the load diagram of a train in Fourier
series and by extrapolating it to the natural modes. It represents the dynamic excitation features of the
train and is independent of the characteristics of the structure. The signature depends on axle spacing
and loads only.
The following is the relevant formula, where So is the dynamic signature ( is the wave length = v/n0).

d ,i 2
d ,i 2
Pi sin 2 ------ + Pi cos 2 ------

S0 ( ) =

Bridges whose dynamic behaviour is calculated using the load diagram specific to high-speed trains
as defined in point A.4.1 - page 25 need not be calculated under the real load of current high-speed
trains or new trains whose dynamic signature falls within the envelope of dynamic signatures of load
diagrams specific to high-speed trains. For each train, it is possible to determine an excitation spectrum that takes account of the composition of excitation produced by the train at a given point and a
given speed.
The dynamic signature is a useful method of producing a quick comparison of the effects of different
trains. For example, if the magnitude of the dynamic signature of a new train is lower than that of
existing trains working a specific line, that very line may be used by the new train without the need for
doing a dynamic verification of the structures on the line.
The diagram below shows the dynamic signatures of certain well-known high-speed trains (TGV Eurostar - ICE2 - ETR - Virgin and Shinkansen).
Train signatures

6 000

TGVA
Eurostar
Thalys2
ICE2
ETR-Y
Shinkansen
IC225_normal
Virgin
eurotrain

5 000
s0

(kN)

4 000
3 000
2 000
1 000
0

10

15
(m)

20

25

30

Fig. 11 - Dynamic signatures of several high-speed trains

30

776-2
R

Appendices
A.5 - Fundamental hypotheses relating to the track
A.5.1 -

Track irregularities

It is important to take account of the effect of track irregularities on the dynamic behaviour of a bridge
to be dimensioned for high speeds.
The increase in dynamic loading as opposed to static loading depends on the speed of the train as it
passes over track irregularities while crossing the bridge and is inversely proportional to the length of
the span.
The value obtained, without taking track irregularities into account, should be multiplied by 1 + "/2 in
order to dimension the bridge of a well-maintained track for track irregularities, or multiplied by 1 + "
for a track receiving standard maintenance. The previous coefficient takes also into account the
irregularities concerning the vehicles.

A.5.2 -

Vertical stiffness of the track

Vertical stiffness of the track is comprised of the stiffness levels of different phases of materials: rail pads - base plates - sleepers and ballast - sometimes the anti-vibration mat under the ballast. These
materials show variable stiffness and the resulting track stiffness may then be represented by an
average value that is contingent on the composition of the track. In the case of normal ballasted track,
this value may be taken to be 500 MN/m for rail pad stiffness, 538 MN/m for sleeper/ballast interface
stiffness and finally, 1000 MN/m for the ballast/deck.

A.6 - Calculations
A.6.1 -

Models

The bridge/track/train system must be modelled as accurately as possible to obtain the accelerations
and deformations of a bridge crossed by a train. Models of varying degrees of complexity are possible
for the train as well as the track.
Generally speaking, the live load diagram described and represented in point A.4.1 - page 25 an
example for which is given in Fig. 12 should be used with loads represented by a series of constant
local forces. The other two models possible are described below in point A.6.1.2 - page 33.

1
Axle
2
number
3,52
3

5,02

11

14,00

25 27
26 28

23
24

7 8

3,275
3
3

15,70

3 8 x 15,70 3
+ 7 x 3,00
237,59

15,70

6,275

18,70

8 x 18,70

18,70

3,275
3 3

29
30
11

6,275 14,00

3,52
3

5,02

Normal load: all axles = 17 t


P = 17 x 30 = 510 t

Fig. 12 - Diagram of dynamic train-bridge model

31

776-2
R

Appendices
In the load diagram used for dynamic calculations, the train is represented by axle forces and spacing,
and crosses the bridge at constant speed. This model is adequate for dynamic calculations. The
sections below make a case for improving such calculations and the model described above does not
take account of the dynamic behaviour of the train and the track. Similarly, the distribution of axle
forces lengthwise through the rails is not taken into consideration.
Studies carried out by the ERRI Committee D214 (see Bibliography - page 43), clearly show that the
live load diagram using a series of constant local forces produces the highest deformations and
accelerations at resonance.

A.6.1.1 -

Bridge model

Modelling methods that use beam elements are the most appropriate to quantify the behaviour of
bridges and structures essentially composed of bars.
In order to ensure that the equivalent standard beam gives a reliable representation of the overall
dynamic behaviour of the structure, the modelling method should integrate the correct mechanical and
mass characteristics of the structure, including the real support features. The problem resides in
translating the dynamic physical properties to a digital model. The findings obtained from the initial
calculations:
-

pulse, frequency and period of natural modes,

deformed modes.

give a fair idea of the behaviour of the structure under dynamic stresses.
The structure must be modelled as accurately as possible and this could be done using two- or threedimensional elements.
The modelling elements used for bridges may be slabs. The method makes it possible to examine
longitudinal and transversal modes, using slabs that may be orthotropic or skew plates. An example
of the three-dimensional bridge model is given below.

Fig. 13 - Example of three-dimensional bridge model

32

776-2
R

Appendices
A.6.1.2 -

Vehicle model

The train consists of a series of vehicles represented by their masses, moments of inertia and
suspension characteristics. The vehicles making up the train are represented by the body, two bogies
and four axles. The primary and secondary suspensions are represented by parallel spring-damper
systems.
Live load diagrams are the simplest form of load models and give less accurate results than the more
complex models.
In addition to the primary and secondary suspensions lengthwise along the bodies, the articulated
vehicles are mounted on two viscous, non-linear dampers. A very stiff spring and a viscous damper
constitute the suspension, positioned vertically between the two bodies. Figure 14 - page 33 gives a
complete model for a set of articulated vehicles.

Mc
Ic

z1
z8(rotation)
2xD1
Cs

Ks
Mb
Ib
Kp

z2
z9(rotation)

2xD2

z3
z10(rotation)

Cp
z4

Me

z5

z6

z7

Ke

Fig. 14 - Example of complete models for a conventional train extract


A.6.1.3 -

Track model

As with the bridge, the track is represented by Timoshenko beam elements for the rails and takes
account of the rail/sleeper fastening characteristics as well as the ballast (if one exists).
A sleeper is generally represented by two beam elements, with two covering the rail and one used for
the deck. Sleepers and ballast are modelled as concentrated masses. They are linked to the nodes of
the rail and the bridge by a parallel spring and damper system. The track can be modelled to any
length on both sides of the bridge. This latest model gives more accurate results especially for short
bridges, where the stiffening effect of the bridge has to be taken into account. The effects of track
distribution are not considered. Each vehicle is able to absorb the kinetic energy of the bridge and it
is for this reason that, at resonance, the deflections and accelerations of the bridge obtained with this
model are lower than those obtained with a live load diagram.
The most complete model for analysing train/track/bridge interaction is shown in Fig 15 - page 34.

33

776-2
R

Appendices

Fig. 15 - Diagram of the dynamic train-track-bridge model

A.6.2 -

Methods

This leaflet only provides information on the new methods used in dynamic calculations for old and
new rail bridge decks crossed by trains running at speeds under 1,2 Vdes. or under 420 km/h. In all
cases, calculations must be done for speeds up to 1,2 Vligne.
ERRI report D 214/RP9, (see Bibliography - page 43) presents a number of calculation methods with
differing levels of accuracy to analyse and check the criteria outlined in point A.3.2 - page 21.
An approximate method and two simplified methods can be used to determine bridge deck deflection
and acceleration (cf ERRI D 214/RP6 - see Bibliography page 43).
Dimensioning diagrams for bending and torsion can also be used to determine the maximum
acceleration amax, and the maximum deflection dmax of a structure (cf also ERRI D214/RP6).
Various programs are available and details can be found in ERRI report D 214/RP7 (see Bibliography
- page 43); they can be used to calculate the dynamic response under live train loads, of isostatic
bridges, series of isostatic decks, continuous bridges using the beam theory, the dynamic response
of plates and by taking into account the two longitudinal and transversal modes. They can also run
calculations for orthotropic square plates and skew plates.
With regard to beams, the effects of bending and shear are taken into account (Timoshenko or EulerBernouilli beam) as well as torsion (Saint-Venant or Vlasov).
Two types of analyses can be carried out: with or without interaction with the train.
The most problematic cases, for example special structures (bridges with long spans such as
bowstring bridges), have to be solved using generic finite element programs.
As with the finite element methods (FEM), the different programs can be used to determine the
successive natural modes of the structure, then to calculate the response of the structure by modal
superposition with the train speeds that correspond to the resonance situations.

34

776-2
R

Appendices
Various programs such as ANSYS, NASTRAN, ABAQUS, SAP, FASTRUDL and so on, can be used
to obtain the modal responses of bridge decks. Modelling can be done with beam models using
torsional characteristics if the bridge is not a skew bridge and the structure is not a special case (see
above). However, spatial modelling is necessary in such cases.
Dynamic analysis of a structure can be used to resolve a system of differential equations of lesser
importance. Two fundamental approaches may be implemented: one method consists in solving the
system of equation by direct integration, whereas the other defines the solution based on the natural
modes of vibration of the structure. This is known as modal superposition. A concise description
follows in the next two paragraphs.
A.6.2.1 -

Modal analysis

Modal analysis is used to calculate the natural modes and frequencies of the model, as well as the
resulting variables (participation factors, effective modal masses).
For undamped, free vibrations, the equation of movement without a second element is reduced to:
2

[ K ] [ M ] [ i ] = 0
where represents the circular frequency vector (= pulse) and [] is the modal crossing matrix
consisting of natural orthonorm modal vectors [i] in relation to [M] or [K].
In principle, all the modes with natural frequencies lower than the cut-off frequency should be retained;
in practice, the modes retained are often those making an important contribution to the response
(criterion of the sum of effective modal masses of the modes retained and which should be slightly
different from the total mass of the structure). When the natural vectors are calculated, the modal
matrix is formed [] after which the i can be deduced.
A.6.2.2 -

Analysis by modal superposition

The fundamental equation of the dynamic approach represents a system of N simultaneous


differential equations, where N is the number of degrees of freedom (ddl) of the structure. If threedimensional modelling is used, this number N is equal to six times the number of nodes less the
number of ddl blocked at the support. When the number increases to a value that is very high for large
models, the size of the problem needs to be reduced by transformation techniques. Solving the
differential equations then becomes faster and is more accurate.
The integration method used is now as follows: for each mode i, the resulting equation gives an
evaluation introduced by the Duhamel integral or the Fourier transform. The sum of the solutions gives
the full response. The integration approach for mobile loads is a slow process.
Modal superposition is used to accurately quantify the respective contributions of each mode to the
total dynamic response and to identify the risks of resonance and dynamic amplification of some types
of stresses.

35

776-2
R

Appendices
A.6.2.3 -

Analysis by direct integration

When the analysis uses numerical methods to directly integrate the dynamic equation, the loads
become the dynamic systems in the case of vehicles and their internal behaviour impacts the
response from the structure.
-

the two systems can be considered separate systems,

the vehicle can be considered a finite element.

This last method takes track profile defects into account and deduces the forces of interaction between
the structure and the vehicle as well as the internal forces in the dynamic system that is built.
In this method, the equation of the dynamic is solved, with or without prior transformation, by using the
conventional algorithms for numerical resolution of second-degree differential equations. These
numerical methods calculate the response to regularly spaced time intervals (in general). The selected
time pitch determines the accuracy of the results and has a bearing on the length of computer
calculations.
Numerical integration methods are all based on the search for balanced solutions of the dynamic
equation at regular time intervals.
A.6.2.4 -

Filtering

Acceleration, primarily at mid-span on the deck, impacts the behaviour of the ballast and consequently
the track as well as passenger comfort. Acceleration contains significant high-frequency components
thus resulting in very high, and effective levels of acceleration. It is clear that the ballast and track act
as a low-pass filter, with only the level of acceleration within a certain frequency bandwidth affecting
the stability of the ballast.
Evidently, it is important to have identical filtration for both measurements and calculation models. The
ideal low-pass filter transmits all the signal components between 0 Hz and a cut-off frequency fc
without attenuation or phase shift.
A filter is characterised by its time-based pulse response and its frequency response. The latter is the
Fournier transform of the former. The bandwidth is the frequency bandwidth in which the filter gain is
between two set values. It indicates how the filtered signal spectrum will be deformed. The steeper the
filter gradient, the more the upper frequencies of the cut-off frequency will be efficiently scattered.
Many attempts have been made at calculation/measurement correlations. In most measurement
cases, it has been demonstrated that a larger number of modes than the primary mode of the structure
is excited. Filtering should have cut-off frequencies 30% greater than the frequency of the last mode
of interest. Filtering at 30% gives acceleration levels that are significantly higher than filtering at 20%.

36

776-2
R

Appendices
A.6.3 -

Torsion and combined torsion and bending

Torsion does not have to be considered on decks with single tracks, but it does need to be examined
in decks with two tracks or more.
In theory, bending calculations transpose easily in case of torsion. Nevertheless, to use the formulae
and diagrams properly, only one deformation mode should be considered. As it is, the primary mode
is always the bending mode.
Therefore, if more than one mode is to be examined in torsion-bending cases, a program has to be
used. The natural torsional frequencies can be obtained from the following formula:
i
Fi = ------- GI
----------2L Jp
where

L
I
G

Jp

= span of the slab section


= torsional rigidity
= shear modulus
= density
= mass rigidity in torsion

Calculation charts can be established by transposing the formulae and charts from pure bending to
pure torsion.
The question of combined bending and torsion cannot be covered by simplified methods. It is indeed
possible to obtain the respective response of each of the two effects, but both responses cannot be
added together. In fact, these simplified methods directly determine the maximum effects, without
giving a temporal response. To give rules of addition, the respective moments of the two elementary
maxima must be known (torsion, bending) and above all if there is any possibility to achieve
simultaneousness.
It is therefore important to use programs that give time-based answers. In this case, the elementary
temporal responses are added and the maximum temporal answer is read. The DIA and CEDYPIA
software programs operate in this manner.

37

776-2
R

Appendices

Appendix B - Criteria to be satisfied in the case where a


dynamic analysis is not required
Appendix B is not valid for Load Model HSLM.

NB :

The two criteria mentioned in point 3.2.3 - page 8 (amax < 0,35 g ou 0,5 g depending on track
installation and dyn < 2 UIC) are always respected, (in which case, there is no need for dynamic
calculation), when the Vlim/n0 ratio is lower than the values in Tables 8 or 9 - page 39 (depending on
the limit acceleration to be considered) as a function of the span interval in [m], the deck mass interval
per linear metre in [t/m] and the damping considered.
Table 8 : Maximum value (v/n0)lim for an isostatic beam or plate
and a maximum permissible acceleration amax < 3,50 m/s2
Mass m

5,0 7,0 9,0 10,0 13,0 15,0 18,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 40,0 50,0

103 kg/m

< 7,0

< 9,0 < 10,0 < 13,0

v/no

v/no

v/no

1,71

< 15,0

< 18,0

< 20,0

< 25,0

< 30,0

< 40,0

< 50,0

v/no

v/no

v/no

v/no

v/no

v/no

v/no

v/no

v/no

1,78

1,88

1,88

1,93

1,93

2,13

2,13

3,08

3,08

3,54

3,59

1,71

1,83

1,93

1,93

2,13

2,24

3,03

3,08

3,38

3,54

4,31

4,31

1,94

2,08

2,64

2,64

2,77

2,77

3,06

5,00

5,14

5,20

5,35

5,42

2,15

2,64

2,77

2,98

4,93

5,00

5,14

5,21

5,35

5,62

6,39

6,53

2,40

2,50

2,50

2,50

2,71

6,15

6,25

6,36

6,36

6,45

6,45

6,57

2,50

2,71

2,71

5,83

6,15

6,25

6,36

6,36

6,45

6,45

7,19

7,29

2,50

2,50

3,58

3,58

5,24

5,24

5,36

5,36

7,86

9,14

9,14

9,14

3,45

5,12

5,24

5,24

5,36

5,36

7,86

8,22

9,53

9,76

10,36

10,48

3,00

5,33

5,33

5,33

6,33

6,33

6,50

6,50

6,50

7,80

7,80

7,80

5,33

5,33

6,33

6,33

6,50

6,50

10,17

10,33

10,33

10,50

10,67

12,40

[17,5 ; 20,0)

3,50

6,33

6,33

6,33

6,50

6,50

7,17

7,17

10,67

12,80

12,80

12,80

[20,0 ; 25,0)

5,21

5,21

5,42

7,08

7,50

7,50

13,54

13,54

13,96

14,17

14,38

14,38

[25,0 ; 30,0)

6,25

6,46

6,46

10,21

10,21

10,21

10,63

10,63

12,75

12,75

12,75

12,75

[30,0 ; 40,0)

10,56

18,33

18,33

18,61

18,61

18,89

19,17

19,17

19,17

40,0

14,73

15,00

15,56

15,56

15,83

18,33

18,33

18,33

18,33

Span

ma

[5,00 ; 7,50)

[7,50 ; 10,0)

[10,0 ; 12,5)

[12,5 ; 15,0)

[15,0 ; 17,5)

a. L

[a, b) means a L < b

Nota :
-

Table 8 includes the safety coefficient of 1,2 on (v/n0)lim for acceleration criteria, deformation and
strength and a safety coefficient of 1,0 on (v/n0)lim for fatigue;

Table 8 takes into account track irregularities with (1+ / 2).

38

776-2
R

Appendices
Table 9 : Maximum value of (v/n0)lim for an isostatic beam or a plate on simple supports
and a maximum permissible acceleration amax < 5,0 m/s2
Mass

5,0 7,0 9,0 10,0 13,0 15,0 18,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 40,0 50,0
< 7,0

< 9,0 < 10,0 < 13,0

< 15,0

< 18,0

< 20,0

< 25,0

< 30,0

< 40,0

< 50,0

v/no

v/no

v/no

v/no

v/no

v/no

v/no

v/no

v/no

v/no

v/no

v/no

1,78

1,88

1,93

1,93

2,13

2,13

3,08

3,08

3,44

3,54

3,59

4,13

1,88

1,93

2,13

2,13

3,08

3,13

3,44

3,54

3,59

4,31

4,31

4,31

2,08

2,64

2,78

2,78

3,06

5,07

5,21

5,21

5,28

5,35

6,33

6,33

2,64

2,98

4,86

4,93

5,14

5,21

5,35

5,42

6,32

6,46

6,67

6,67

2,50

2,50

2,71

6,15

6,25

6,36

6,36

6,46

6,46

6,46

7,19

7,19

2,71

5,83

6,15

6,15

6,36

6,46

6,46

6,46

7,19

7,19

7,75

7,75

2,50

3,58

5,24

5,24

5,36

5,36

7,86

8,33

9,14

9,14

9,14

9,14

5,12

5,24

5,36

5,36

7,86

8,22

9,53

9,64

10,36

10,36

10,48

10,48

5,33

5,33

6,33

6,33

6,50

6,50

6,50

7,80

7,80

7,80

7,80

7,80

5,33

6,33

6,50

6,50

10,33

10,33

10,50

10,50

10,67

10,67

12,40

12,40

[17,5 ; 20,0)

6,33

6,33

6,50

6,50

7,17

10,67

10,67

12,80

12,80

12,80

12,80

12,80

[20,0 ; 25,0)

5,21

7,08

7,50

7,50

13,54

13,75

13,96

14,17

14,38

14,38

14,38

14,38

[25,0 ; 30,0)

6,46

10,20 10,42

10,42

10,63

10,63

12,75

12,75

12,75

12,75

12,75

12,75

[30,0 ; 40,0)

18,33

18,61

18,89

18,89

19,17

19,17

19,17

19,17

19,17

40,0

15,00

15,56

15,83

18,33

18,33

18,33

18,33

18,33

18,33

103 kg/m
Span

ma

[5,00 ; 7,50)

[7,50 ; 10,0)

[10,0 ; 12,5)

[12,5 ; 15,0)

[15,0 ; 17,5)

a. L

[a, b) means a L < b

NB:
-

Table 9 includes a safety coefficient of 1,2 on (v/n0)lim for the acceleration criteria, for the
deformation and strength and a safety coefficient of 1,0 on (v/n0)lim for the fatigue;

Table 9 take account of track irregularities with (1+ / 2).


with:

span of the bridge [m]

mass of the bridge [103 kg/m]

coefficient of critical damping [%]

maximum nominal speed, generally equal to the maximum speed of the line
at the considered point. For verifying the individual real trains, a reduced
speed can be used (maximum permissible speed of the trains) [m/s],

n0

first natural frequency of the span [Hz]

2 and

defined in point 4.2.1 - page 9

39

776-2
R

Appendices
Tables 8 - page 38 and 9 - page 39 are valid for:
-

simply supported bridges with insignificant skew that may be modelled as a line beam or slab on
rigid supports. Tables 8 and 9 are not applicable to half through and truss bridges with shallow
floors or other complex structures that may not be adequately represented by a line beam or slab,

bridges where the track and depth of the structure to the neutral axis from the top of the deck is
sufficient to distribute point axle loads over a distance of at least 2,50 m,

typical trains,

structures designed for characteristic values of vertical loads or classified vertical loads, with 1,

carefully maintained track,

spans with a natural frequency n0 less than the upper limit in Fig.4 - page 23,

structures with torsional frequencies nT satisfying: nT > 1,2 x n0.

Where the above criteria are not satisfied, a dynamic analysis should be carried out.
Reduction coefficient for the acceleration under the distribution effect of the axle loads
through the track (rail-sleeper-ballast)
The diagram in Fig. 16 - page 41 gives the reduction coefficient to be applied to the acceleration
obtained under concentrated loads of a train in order to take account of the dynamic effects of the axle
loads lengthwise distributed over 2,5 m and 3,0 m through the track (rail-sleeper-ballast) and the deck
depending on the lowest speed/natural frequency.

40

776-2
R

Appendices
1,2

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0
0

v/no speed/lowest natural frequency


10
8
6
12

v/n0
4

w = 2,5 m distribution of the loading

w = 3,0 m distribution of the loading

Fig. 16 - Reduction coefficient R = Amax (with distribution) /Amax (without distribution)

41

776-2
R

List of abbreviations
AD

(Appareil de dilatation) Expansion joint

CWR

Continuous welded rails

ELS

(Etat limite de service) Serviceability limit states

ELU

(Etat limite ultime) Ultimate limit states

HSLM

High speed load model

42

776-2
R

Bibliography
1. UIC leaflets
International Union of Railways
UIC Leaflet 776-1: Loads to be considered in railway bridge design, 5th edition, August 2006

2. ERRI reports
European Rail Research Institute (ERRI)
ERRI D 214/RP 6: Rail bridges for speeds > 200 km/h - Calculation for bridges with simply-supported
beams during the passage of a train, December 1999
ERRI D 214/RP 7: Rail bridges for speeds > 200 km/h - Calculation of bridges with a complex structure
for the passage of traffic - Computer programs for dynamic calculations, December 1999
ERRI D 214/RP 9: Rail bridges for speeds > 200 km/h - Final Report - Part A: Synthesis of the results
of D 214 research - Part B: Proposed UIC Leaflet, December 1999
ERRI D 214.2/RP1: Use of universal trains for the dynamic design of railway bridges - Summary of
results of D 214.2 (final report), September 2000

43

776-2
R

Warning
No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced or distributed by any means whatsoever, including
electronic, except for private and individual use, without the express permission of the International Union of
Railways (UIC). The same applies for translation, adaptation or transformation, arrangement or reproduction by
any method or procedure whatsoever. The sole exceptions - noting the author's name and the source - are
"analyses and brief quotations justified by the critical, argumentative, educational, scientific or informative nature
of the publication into which they are incorporated".
(Articles L 122-4 and L122-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code).
International Union of Railways (UIC) - Paris, 2009
Printed by the International Union of Railways (UIC)
16, rue Jean Rey 75015 Paris - France, June 2009
Dpt Lgal June 2009

ISBN 978-2-7461-0951-4 (French version)


ISBN 978-2-7461-0952-2 (German version)
ISBN 978-2-7461-0953-0 (English version)

776-2
R