Review article

Recent development of design and construction of medium and long

span high-speed railway bridges in China
Nan Hu
a
, Gong-Lian Dai
b
, Bin Yan
b,
, Ke Liu
b
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
b
School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410075, China
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 18 September 2013
Revised 26 May 2014
Accepted 30 May 2014
Available online 20 June 2014
Keywords:
High-speed rail
Bridges
Design
Construction
Medium-span
Long-span
a b s t r a c t
Medium- and long-span bridges of the high-speed rail (HSR) projects play a signicant role when crossing
certain obstacles, such as rivers, existing highways, etc. This paper provides a state-of-the-art review on
the design practice of these special spans in the HSR projects of China. Given standard spans are usually
smaller than 100 m, special spans can be divided into two categories by the length of main span: medium
length (100200 m) and large length (200500 m). For medium length, three structural forms are dis-
cussed as feasible design options, including steel arch, rigid frame and hybrid arch-girder. In addition,
recently completed long-span bridges are reviewed to feature several innovative structural forms on
the HSR of China, including steel truss arches and cable-stayed bridges with truss girder. Finally, the
key technical features of long-span HSR bridges are summarized, and a discussion of the feasibility of
longer spans is also included.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
2. Deflection control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
3. Medium length (100200 m). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
3.1. Tied steel arch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
3.2. Rigid frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
3.3. Arch-rigid frame hybrid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
4. Long length (200500 m). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
4.1. Steel truss arch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
4.2. Cable-stayed bridge with truss girder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
5. Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
6. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
1. Introduction
High-speed rail (HSR) offers a fast and robust travel option that
enhances the quality of life and supports economic growth. Japan
was the rst country to build a passenger dedicated line for high
speed travel, also known as Shinkansen. The rst Shinkansen
opened Tokyo-Osaka segment for the Tokyo Olympics in 1964.
HSR in Europe rst developed in several countries and now
expanded into a regional service network. Over the past few dec-
ades, a total of 13 countries have developed the HSR network,
mainly in Europe and East Asia. International examples from those
countries have proved that high speed trains are capable of reach-
ing speeds over 250 km/h on high speed passenger dedicated line
which signicantly reduce the travel hours. Detailed historical
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.05.052
0141-0296/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 13787799105.

E-mail addresses: daigong@vip.sina.com (G.-L. Dai), binyan@csu.edu.cn (B. Yan),
liuke1009@gmail.com (K. Liu).
Engineering Structures 74 (2014) 233241
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Engineering Structures
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ engst r uct
reviews of the development of HSR in those countries can be found
in papers by Taniguchi [1], Bouley [2], the European Commission
[3], Gourvish [4], Zuber [5], and Harrison et al. [6].
HSR in China is composed of upgraded existing lines with an
average design speed of 250 km/h and new lines with an average
design speed of 350 km/h, including 9356 km of new built lines
and 3209 km of upgraded lines. By 2020, the total length in China
will reach more than 20,000 km with a complete grid network that
will connect all provincial capital cities as well as large cities with
population more than ve million. For a typical HSR line in China,
most spans are composed of standardized simply-supported beam
(with span of 24 m, 32 m and 40 m) when spanning lower than
40 m and a few standardized continuous beam bridges (main span
from 48 m to 100 m). For example, 95% bridges in the Beijing
Shanghai segment are standard span (90% simply-supported beam
along with 5% continuous beam) and only 5% are special spans.
Even though mediumand long span bridges only cover a small por-
tion of a HSR line, it plays a key role in the completion of the entire
line, crossing over physical barrier such as existing highway, HSR
lines and rivers, etc.
The selection of a rational and cost-effective structural form is
the main assignment in bridge design. Structural forms for long-
span railway bridges have evolved during the past two centuries,
primarily featuring with longer span and more diverse forms. On
the heel of the birth of the steam railways, iron truss bridges
were widely constructed to support these earliest railway trains.
In the late 19th century, three milestone railway bridges were
successively built to support the larger live load of trains, includ-
ing the Eads Bridge (1874, 158 m), the Brooklyn Bridge (1883,
486.3 m), and the Firth of Forth Rail Bridge (1889, 521 m). These
bridges represented the advanced building techniques used on an
arch bridge, a suspension bridge and a cantilever truss. The devel-
opment of those well-recognized spans relied on the use of steel
rather than iron which reduced the dead load weight. As railroads
expanded throughout the world in the early 20th century, engi-
neers raced to design bridges that were stronger and longer,
without adding too much weight. A number of longer spans were
developed, such as the Hell Gate Bridge in New York (1916), and
the Sydney Harbor Bridge (1932). In the 1970s, Japan began the
construction of the Honsh u-Shikoku Bridge Project, connecting
Honsh u and Shikoku islands. The link between Okayama and
Kagawa is the only one with railroad connections. A total of six
long-span bridges were built to support both the highway and
the railway, including a continuous truss bridge, two cable stayed
bridges, and three suspension bridges. Currently, China is the
leading country in the large number of regular rail upgrades
and new HSR constructions.
The development of railway bridges in China began with the
completion of the Qiantang River Bridge in 1937. Two milestone
steel truss bridges were built subsequently across the Yangtze
River in Wuhan (1957) and in Nanjing (1968). Since then, the steel
truss bridge was used as the main structural form for the railway
bridges in China until the rst cable-stayed bridge with a main
span of 312 m was completed in Wuhu over the Yangtze River in
2000. Then, a series of cable-stayed bridges were planned and con-
structed [7]. Similar to the design of standard spans for HSR, the
design of special spans also require a strict service limit due to
the need for smoothness of the track and the stability of the high
speed train. For a certain span range and site condition, several
options of structural form are available [8,9]. Special spans in
HSR of China can be divided into two categories by the length of
the main span: medium length (100200 m) and large length
(200500 m). Several cable-stayed bridges with a longer main span
more than 500 m are also included in the long spans. No
suspension bridges are currently used in the HSR of China. The sus-
pension bridge is too exible to maintain low deection on main
girder and tracks such that it is not easy to meet the service limits
of HSR. Further studies on the use of HSR suspension bridge in
China is still in progress.
The objective of this paper is to present an up-to-date review of
the emerging design and construction techniques on medium and
long spans on the HSR of China, including the key design
philosophies, the main structural dimensions and the construction
methods. For medium length bridges, three forms are discussed,
including steel arch, rigid frame and hybrid arch-girder. For large
length bridges, the discussion focuses on steel truss arches and
truss cable-stayed bridges. This paper summarizes the structural
options for special spans for future HSR constructions.
2. Deection control
HSR requires high deection limits to ensure track smoothness.
No matter what structural forms selected for the special spans, the
control of the deection on the main girder is still a key design
issue because the average design speed of trains on those spans
is more than 250 km/h [10]. The threshold limits on bridges with
a ballastless track bed are higher than bridges with ballast track
bed, because it is difcult to adjust the smoothness on the ballast-
less deck. Thus, all the long-span HSR bridges in China used ballast
track. However, no detailed requirements are applied to long-span
bridges, since the design and analysis of those bridges are usually
carried out case by case, which at least should satisfy those mini-
mum limits of small span HSR bridges. Four key aspects on the
deection control on small span are as follows: (1) Vertical deec-
tion of the beam, smaller than 2.0 mm; (2) the rotation at the beam
end, smaller than 0.4%; (3) long-term deections (for example,
creep effects), smaller than L/1000 (L in m and result in mm); (4)
longitudinal deection of the substructure. All those requirements
must be met in order to ensure the smoothness of the track and the
safety of the trains.
Track stability and smoothness of the HSR is highly dependent
on the control of the vertical and lateral deection of the main
girder. Design specications by the former Ministry of Railways
(MOR) of China have certain requirements on short-term and
long-term deection on short length continuous beams [11]:
the vertical deection must be smaller than 1.1 L/1000 (L is the
main span); lateral deection must be smaller than L/4000; and
beam end rotation must be smaller than 0.2% in a ballast track
bed and 0.1% in a ballastless track bed. However, no such
requirements in the design specications have been proposed
for special spans, including the medium length continuous beam,
the arch bridge and the cable-stayed bridge. Deection limits on
similar bridges from international examples were studied and
compared to develop a recommended range for the long-span
designs [12].
Due to higher serviceability limits compared to conventional
railway bridge design, other technical issues associated with
dynamic response of HSR bridges have been studied by many pre-
vious studies, such as seismic performance [1317], trackstruc-
ture interaction [1820], creep effect [21,22], thermal effect [23],
etc. In the development of HSR bridge in China, those special issues
(such as thermal expansion, seismic design, wind effect and creep
effect) have been considered and additional analysis may be
required for multiple loading cases that may cause large deection.
(1) A single span over 100 m long requires measures to control the
thermal expansion and contraction of the rail, because the contin-
uous welded tracks could become distorted in hot weather and
cause the derailment of a train. Clips and anchors were widely used
in the HSR on multiple span bridges [24]. Zhu [25] compared the
multiple combinations of expansion devices on a cable-stayed
bridge. It were found that the optimal way to control the thermal
234 N. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 74 (2014) 233241
effect on the track is through the use of the small clips in certain
spots along the main girder and large expansion devices at both
end of the girder. Yan [26] carried out a numerical analysis on a
single-tower 112 m long cable-stayed bridge and proved that
longitudinal movement and the stress level of the rail can be signif-
icantly reduced through using expansion device at the joint seg-
ment of the tower and the girder. Performance-based
requirements on seismic hazards are mentioned on the HSR design
code of China, but those general requirements are only applied to
small span bridges (i.e. main span smaller than 48 m). (2) Seismic
design and analysis is required for long-span HSR bridges in China
yet varied case by case. For example, Yue [27] showed that most of
the long-span HSR bridges did install dampers along the
longitudinal direction to reduce the large dynamic response under
earthquake or emergency braking of the trains. (3) Similar to the
seismic design issue, the aerodynamic effect of long-span bridges
is also considered case by case, but the design process of most
long-span bridges in China have went through dynamic analysis
along with multi-scale wind tunnel tests. Li et al. [28] and Wang
et al. [29] found that the deection of the main girder can be
affected by train speed and wind speed. Li [30] carried out a wind
tunnel test on a twin girder linked by a cross-beam to identify the
optimal pattern of depth-width ratio for a better aerodynamic
performance. (4) Excessive long-term deection (creep effect)
may result in an uneven track surface, which could threaten the
operation of HSR trains. For the medium and large-span of HSR
bridges, all the long span HSR bridges currently used ballast track,
which the creep effect was easier to adjust than ballastless track.
From structural design point of view, the creep effect is controlled
by increasing the depth of beam and lowering the difference of
stress between beam top and beam bottom under long-term
loading combination. In addition, the train speed has been
restricted to lower than 250 km/h to reduce the induced vibration.
It should be noted that the design philosophy of considering creep
effect in the Chinese design code is very conservative and
improvement on the requirement of the long-term effect is
undergoing.
Overall, three most important limits for designing HSR bridges
in the future is to ensure the vertical stiffness, beam end rotation
and longitudinal stiffness of piers. It is note that no large structural
health monitoring system has been reported to record the deec-
tion history on the HSR bridges in China, but there are undergoing
studies on the optimal arrangement of sensors, the use of different
monitoring system and the fast diagnose of damage, etc.
3. Medium length (100200 m)
Medium length spans are usually adopted to cross over the
existing highways or railroads. Most of the standard spans have a
main span smaller than 100 m and the maximum span is only
128 m. Even though the prestressed concrete continuous beam is
still one of the options, alternative forms can be chosen for HSR
special spans. Table 1 lists a total of 19 medium length spans that
have been completed in the past ve years. It can be seen that the
tied steel arch bridge and the rigid frame bridge are two commonly
used structural forms. The hybrid system of these two forms also
offered new solutions for the design of special spans. The detailed
description on each form will be discussed in this section using
design examples.
3.1. Tied steel arch
Commonly used steel arch bridges can be divided into tubular
arch and box arch by the cross-section of the arch rib.
The tubular arch, also known as the concrete lled steel tube
(CFST) arch, has been used in the Wuhan-Guangzhou segment of
the BeijingGuangzhou line [31]. Tian et al. [32] proved that this
arch type with inclined hangers has better dynamic characteristics
including greater vertical and lateral stiffness than other arch
types. It is noted that the 112 m long tubular arch with inclined
hangers was standardized as shown in Fig. 1a such that this design
can be used in similar conditions for spanning existing lines. The
rise to span ratio of the main arch is 1/5 with a rise of 22.4 m from
the top of deck [33]. The uniform-depth arch ribs have a twin
circular tube connected by cross links lled with low shrinkage
concrete. Each tube has a diameter of 1.28 m with a wall thickness
of 18 mm. Two main arch ribs are inclined inward about 9, which
has better dynamic characteristics including greater vertical and
larger lateral stiffness. The spacing of the hangers is 8 m. The arch
was designed without horizontal thrust due to the use of prestress-
ing tendons as tied bars in the main girder. The main girder is a sin-
gle box prestressed concrete structure with a depth of 2.5 m and a
width of 17.8 m. The estimated structural responses under the
dead load are a vertical deection of 19.4 mm and a beam end rota-
tion of 0.0705%. Estimated material costs per unit length (one
meter) are 37.2 m
3
of concrete, 8.9 tons of steel and 2.1 tons of
the prestressing tendons. Small clips on the main girder and large
expansion devices at both ends of the girder are used to meet the
smoothness requirements. The construction of this bridge started
Table 1
Recent completed medium length special span in the HSR of China.
Structural type Bridge name Main span (m) HSR segment Built
Tied steel arch East Lake 112 Wuhan-Guangzhou 2008
Hujiawan 112 Wuhan-Guangzhou 2008
Liangjiawan 112 Wuhan-Guangzhou 2008
Tingsihe 140 Wuhan-Guangzhou 2008
Yandangshan 2 90 Ningbo-Wenzhou 2009
Mulanxi 128 Fuzhou-Xiamen 2009
Xinkaihe 138 Harbin-Dalian 2012
Rigid frame Tianluo 160 Wenzhou-Fuzhou 2008
Baimahe 3 145 Wenzhou-Fuzhou 2008
Liuxihe 168 Wuhan-Guangzhou 2009
Zinihe 2 168 Guangzhou-Shenzhen 2010
Hybrid steel arch with concrete girder Kunyang 136 Wenzhou-Fuzhou 2007
Yichang Yangzte 2 275 Yichang-Wanzhou 2008
Shawan Channel 160 Guangzhou- Shenzhen 2009
Liugangyong 160 Guangzhou- Hong Kong 2010
Xiaolan Channel 220 Guangzhou-Zhuhai 2010
Zhenjiang Channel 180 Beijing-Shanghai 2010
Xianyang West 136 Xian-Baoji 2012
Songhuajiang Channel 3 156.8 Harbin-Qiqihar 2013
N. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 74 (2014) 233241 235
with the fabrication of the arch ribs along with concrete cast as a
tied beam. Then, the ribs are vertically rotated to the positions at
the temporary hinges that are installed at four spring lines [34].
Additional analysis during the rotation of the ribs was carried
out to ensure the stress concentrations at the spring line meet
specication [35].
The Tingsihe Bridge built in 2008 is a classic example of tied box
arch bridge for supporting a double track HSR line, as shown in
Fig. 1b. This 140 m-long arch bridge has a rise-span ratio of 1/5.
The 2.0 m uniform width arch ribs have a thin-wall rectangular
cross-section with a depth varying from 3.0 m at the crown to
4.5 m at the spring line. The spacing between ribs is 16 m, con-
nected with ve lateral bracings. Underneath each rib, a single
box steel girder with a depth of 3.5 m and an inner width of
1.94 m is adopted as a tie to the arch rib. The hangers are designed
as rigid components with equally spaced holes to improve the
aerodynamic characteristics. The construction of this bridge con-
sumed more than 3800 tons of steel. The cantilever method was
used to erect the arch rib by segments to avoid interruption of
the highway operation and reduce costs. The segments of the rib
are hoisted by heavy duty truck cranes through temporary blocked
half lanes on the highway without using falsework during the rib
installation [36]. The estimated structural responses under dead
load include a vertical deection of 48.7 mm and a beam end
rotation of 0.186% [24]. Due to the high rotation at the end of tied
girder, a short length beam is adopted as a transition element
between the arch and the neighboring 32 m simply supported
beam. Tied box arch bridges among the completed bridges, include
other forms [37], as shown in Fig. 1c and d.
3.2. Rigid frame
Due to the rigid connection between the beam and pier, rigid
frame bridges can span a greater length and provide better vertical
stiffness when compared to continuous beams [38]. This form is
preferable at good site conditions; otherwise it may suffer from
uneven settlement of the substructure, which leads to the
reduction of track smoothness. Completed examples on the HSR
line include the Tianluo Bridge (88 + 160 + 88) m (Fig. 2a) and
the Liuxihe Bridge (84 + 168 + 84) m [39] (Fig. 2b). These two
bridges have a similar structural conguration. Thus, only the Tian-
luo Bridge was selected for the discussion of the structural design.
The Tianluo Bridge is planned to span a shallow strait with a
design wind speed reaching 56 m/s. This prestressed concrete
structure was selected to satisfy the required clearance of
120 24 m. The cross-section of the superstructure is a varied-
depth box with a top width of 13 m and bottom width of 8.2 m.
At the rigid connection to the pier, the box girder has a depth of
(a) Hujiawan Bridge (b) Tingsihe Bridge
(c) Yandangshan Bridge (d) Xinkaihe Bridge
Fig. 1. Steel arch bridges in the HSR of China.
(a) Tianluo Bridge
(b) Liuxihe Bridge
Fig. 2. Rigid frame bridges in the HSR of China.
236 N. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 74 (2014) 233241
9.8 m, a top wall thickness of 55 cm, a bottom wall thickness of
100 cm and a web wall thickness of 150 cm. At the two support
columns, the bottom wall thickened to 200 cm. At the mid-span
and the end of side span, the box girder has a depth of 5.0 m, a
top wall thickness of 45 cm, a bottom wall thickness of 50 cm
and a web wall thickness of 100 cm. Three additional thin walls
are added in the lateral direction of the girder to main its stability,
including two 160 cm thick walls at the end of each side span and
one 80 cmthick wall at the mid-span. Two-way drainage is used on
the bridge deck with a slope of 2%. The prestressing tendons are
used in all three directions of the girder to ensure the main struc-
ture is in a complete compressive stress state. The pulling pres-
sures in prestressing jacks are usually between 1230 and
1300 MPa. Due to high corrosion potential at the bridge site, high
performance C60 Grade concrete was used. The consumption of
materials per meter for the beam is 26.1 m
3
of concrete, 3.3 t of
steel and 1.5 t of prestressing tendons.
The supports of a rigid frame are commonly two thin wall legs.
In this case, two vertical legs with a spacing of 8 m are used with a
leg height to main span ratio of 0.2, which maintain an optimal
stress distribution on the legs and beams. The leg has a lateral
width of 10 m and a longitudinal width of 2.2 m. The use of two
legs improves the longitudinal stiffness of the beam and provides
a relatively exible constraint for the mid-span as compared to sin-
gle leg. The two legs are supported by a cubic concrete pile cap
(14.5 m 19.7 m 5 m) and 12 drilled piles with a diameter of
2.5 m. C45 Grade concrete is used for the legs and C30 Grade
concrete is used for the pile cap.
Commonly, the cantilever method is adopted in the construc-
tion of a rigid frame. The erection of the girder starts from the sup-
ports and the closure is in the mid-span and the end of each side
span. The key issue for the cantilever method is that real-time
monitoring is required to measure the position of each segment
and maintain a theoretical line shape at the top of the girder
[38]. For the Tianluo Bridge, additional analysis was needed to
measure and control the dynamic response of the girder during
the construction phases. Gong [40] carried out the dynamic
analysis for this bridge and found that the actual response of the
structure was better than the estimate from an integrated model
of the train and the structure. It was also found that the stability
of a running train can be improved by increasing the depth of
the noise barrier.
3.3. Arch-rigid frame hybrid
As discussed previously, both the tied steel arch and the rigid
frame bridge offer certain advantages on the HSR line. The hybrid
system of these two forms is also an alternative choice when the
use of a steel arch or a rigid frame cannot satisfy the clearance
requirement. Examples in the HSR line of China include the
Kunyang Bridge in Fig. 3a and the Yichang Yangtze River Bridge
in Fig. 3b. The key structural features of this hybrid system are dis-
cussed below as related to the Kunyang Bridge.
The Kunyang Bridge supports a double-track joint passenger-
freight HSR line with a main span of (64 + 136 + 64) m. The
11.5 m wide main girder of the Kunyang Bridge has a double-box
cross section with a varied depth from 3.5 m in the mid-span to
7.0 m at the support. High performance C60 Grade concrete was
used to improve the durability of structural performance under
the environmental impact. These dimensions are smaller than a
solely rigid frame structure because the live load is partially sup-
ported by the steel arch. The rise to span ratio of the main arch
is 1/5 with a 27.2 m rise from the top of deck. The uniform-depth
arch ribs have a twin circular tube lled with low shrinkage C50
Grade concrete. Each tube has a diameter of 2.8 m with wall thick-
ness of 16 mm. Two arch ribs are connected by nine lateral truss
bracings [41]. A total of 14 pair of hangers are used with a spacing
of 8 m. High stress concentration at the joint region between on
steel rib and concrete girder was reduced by using a special con-
nection [42]. The construction of such bridge per meter consumed
more than 23.6 m
3
concrete and 8.8 tons of steel. The common
sequence of construction started from casting the girder segment
by the cantilever method followed by the erection of arch ribs
[43]. Huang et al. [44] estimated that the structural responses
under dead load are a vertical deection of 35 mm, and a beam
end rotation of 0.1%.
4. Long length (200500 m)
There are only a few completed long-span HSR bridges in China,
as shown Table 2. The reason is that the main girder of a long-span
bridge is known to be exible compared to the medium spans. It
can be seen from Table 2 that two existing structural forms are
the steel truss arch and the cable-stayed bridge with truss girder.
4.1. Steel truss arch
A cost-effective steel truss arch should have a main span
between 300 m and 400 m. The structural efciency of the steel
truss arch relies on the strength of each truss member. This form
was rst used at the Wuhan-Guangzhou segment in 2009 to span
over the Dongping channel as shown in Fig. 4a. The Dongping
Bridge supported a four-track railway with a span arrangement
of (99 + 242 + 99) m. This truss arch features three main trusses
in the longitudinal direction with a spacing of 14 m, integrated
joints for connecting truss members, the use of high performance
Q370qD (yield strength is 370 MPa) Grade steel and the applica-
tion of an orthogonal steel deck system. Detailed information can
be found in a paper by Liu and Dai [45]. Later, a similar truss arch
was built at the BeijingShanghai segment in 2011 with a longer
span, i.e. the Dashengguan Bridge shown in Fig. 4b. The hybrid
formof truss and arch has also be used, such as the Minjiang Bridge
in Fig. 4c with a span arrangement of (99 + 198 + 99) m. The key
(a) Kunyang Bridge
(b) Yichang Yangtze Bridge
Fig. 3. Hybrid arch-rigid frame bridges in the HSR of China.
N. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 74 (2014) 233241 237
structural features of steel truss arch bridge are introduced with
the Dashengguan Bridge.
The Dashengguan Bridge supports a six-line railway, including
two regular rails, two HSR and two subway lines. A six-span steel
truss with (108 + 192 + 336 + 336 + 192 + 108) m was selected to
provide the large stiffness for such heavy live loads. Similar to
the Dongping Bridge, the three truss planes in the longitudinal
direction was used with a spacing of 15 m. The depth of the truss
arch rib varied from 12 m at the crown to 96 m at the spring line.
Sixteen meter depth uniform truss sections are used at both side
spans. This bridge consumed more than 20.12 tons of Q420qE
Grade steel (yield strength is 420 MPa). The use of a steel box as
the deck system is another feature in the design of this steel truss
arch. This 16 mmthick steel orthogonal plate is adopted as the bot-
tom chord of the entire truss segment to reduce uneven deection
on the deck. A nal design feature presented here is that the hang-
ers of the main span have an octagonal thin-wall cross-section to
improve the aerodynamic characteristics. A seismic analysis for
this structure can be found in a paper by Xia and Zhong [46]. More
detailed structural dimensions can be found in the paper by Gao
et al. [47]. The greatest difculty encountered during the construc-
tion of the superstructure was the installation of the prefabricated
truss segments. The lifting of the main truss started from the sup-
ports to the mid-span and side span, which is synchronized at
three supports. Four closures for this truss arch includes two at
the end of each side span and two at the crown of the two main
Table 2
Recent completed and ongoing long-span bridges in the HSR of China.
Structural type Bridge name Main span (m) HSR segment Built
Truss arch Dongping 242 Beijing-Guangzhou 2009
Dashengguan 2 336 Beijing-Shanghai 2011
Minjiang 198 Fuzhou-Xiamen 2011
Cable-stayed with truss girder Tianxingzhou 504 Beijing-Guangzhou 2008
Zhengzhou Yellow River 5 168 Beijing-Guangzhou 2010
Yujiang 228 Nanjing-Guangzhou 2011
Tongling Yangtze 630 Hefei-Fuzhou 2013
Anqing Yangtze 580 Nanjing-Anqing 2014 (expected)
Huanggang Yangtze 567 Wuhan-Huanggang 2014 (expected)
Concrete arch Beipanjiang 445 Shanghai-Kunming 2015 (expected)
(a) Dongping Bridge
(b) Dashengguan Bridge
(c) Minjiang Bridge
Fig. 4. Steel truss arch bridges in the HSR of China.
(a) Tianxingzhou Bridge
(b) Yujiang Bridge
(c) Zhengzhou Bridge
Fig. 5. Steel truss cable-stayed bridge in the HSR lines of China.
238 N. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 74 (2014) 233241
spans. The truss segments at the two main spans were lifted by a
cable hoisting system on temporary towers and installed by
70 tons capacity heavy cranes.
4.2. Cable-stayed bridge with truss girder
Cable-stayed bridges with truss girders have been widely used
as long-span HSR bridges in China. It can be seen in Table 2, the
main span of the Anqing Bridge and the Tongling Bridge each
exceeded more than 500 m.
The milestone project for the HSR cable-stayed bridge in China
is the Tianxingzhou Bridge (Fig. 5a) that supported four-track traf-
c and a six-lane highway over the Yangtze River with a span
arrangement of (98 + 196 + 504 + 196 + 98) m. Similar to the
long-span steel truss arch, three 15.2 m uniform-depth truss
planes in the longitudinal direction were used, with a spacing of
15 m in order to improve the torsional stiffness of the cross-section
and the average tensile stress in each truss member. The truss gir-
der has a total length of 1092 m, 14 m per segment for fabrication
and erection. This truss girder consumed more than 43,600 tons of
steel. At the lower level for the HSR lines, the ballast track bed was
adopted. The top chord of the truss segment served as the deck sys-
tem for the motor trafc by using 158 m long concrete plates from
each end of the side span and a 756 m long orthogonal steel plate
for the rest of the main span. The purpose of using a composite sys-
tem is to reduce the unbalanced effect on the piers at the side span
under the live load. Each truss plane on the girder is supported by a
pair of 16 cables for each of the three truss planes (a total of 192
cables) with a total consumption of 4500 tons of steel. The
reinforced concrete tower is 188.5 m tall from the top of pile cap,
consuming 11,240 tons of steel and 44,088 m
3
of concrete. A
detailed description can be found in papers by Liu [48], Qin [49],
Zheng and Dai [50].
Since the completion of the Tianxingzhou Bridge, similar spans
have been designed. The Yujiang Bridge in Fig. 5b has a span
arrangement of (36 + 96 + 228 + 96 + 36) m for supporting dou-
ble-track HSR line with a design speed of 300 km/h. The 14 m
depth main girder has two truss planes with a spacing of 15 m.
Fabrication of girder was conducted using 12 m segment. The rein-
forced concrete tower has a height of 105 m. Another example with
a longer span is the Anqing Bridge over the Yangtze River that has
six-spans (101.5 + 188.5 + 580 + 217.5 + 159.5 + 116) m, using
three 15 m depth truss planes with a spacing of 14 m. Fabrication
of girder was conducted using 14.5 m segment. The reinforced con-
crete tower has a height of 210 m. The material consumption on
this bridge is 66,293 t of steel and 53,120 m
3
of concrete [51,52].
Some long span bridge designs use a variation from the tradi-
tional cable-stayed bridge with truss girder. For example, the
Zhengzhou Yellow River Bridge is an eight-span extradosed bridge
with six short pylons, supporting six-lanes of motor trafc on the
upper deck and a double-track HSR on the lower deck, as shown
in Fig. 5c. A total of 1684.35 m is divided into eight spans with
(120 + 5 168 + 120) m length to satisfy the required clearance
of the channel. This 14 m depth cross-section has an inverted trap-
ezoid shape with a top width of 24 m and a bottom width of 17 m.
The truss girder is supported by a total of 60 cables. Six 37 m tall
steel pylons stand on the top of the middle truss plane and are rig-
idly connected to the main truss girder at each support. Each pylon
is fabricated in three segments and connected on the bridge site.
The consumption of material includes 26,970 t of steel and
14,109 m
3
of concrete. More details on the design and construction
(incremental launching method) can be found in a paper by Gao
[53].
5. Discussion
As discussed above, a large number of long-span bridges for HSR
have been built in China during the past decade. Based on those
examples, it can be seen that the development of medium- and
long-span bridges in China relied on the use of high performance
materials, efcient structural systems and new construction
methods [49,53,54].
High strength steel and high performance concrete have been
widely used in the long-span HSR bridges in China. As discussed
in the medium span section of this paper, high performance con-
crete is commonly used to provide higher strength and durability.
For long span HSR bridges, a steel truss girder is widely used.
Heavy live loads lead to a larger internal force in truss members.
For example, the maximum member force on the Dashengguan
Bridge exceeds 10,000 tons. Thus, two types of steel were devel-
oped to meet this need, including the Q370qE (yield strength is
370 MPa) for relatively lower force members (<5500 t) and the
Q420qE (yield strength is 420 MPa) for higher force members
(>5500 t).
Two major improvements on the structural system of HSR
long-span bridges in China are the use of a three truss planes main
girder and the use of the orthogonal steel bridge deck. Fig. 6 shows
two typical cross-sections of two long-span bridges with three
truss planes. This form has been widely used because these long-
span bridges need to support multiple lines with a heavy live load.
Truss members in these forms can be designed with a smaller size
such that the internal force in each member is lower and the trans-
port of such members is easier. The orthogonal steel deck is also
widely used as a part of the truss system in order to maintain
smoothness on the tracks so that high speed trains can run more
than 200 km/h on the bridges.
Inter-city railway HSR
15 15
1
5
.
2
6 highway lanes
HSR City railway
14 14
(a) Tianxingzhou Bridge (b) Dongping Bridge
Fig. 6. Three truss planes from HSR bridges.
N. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 74 (2014) 233241 239
The construction of these long-span bridges mainly used the
cantilever method, hoisting prefabricated members into position.
The main truss girder is generally divided into segments (typically
1416 m per segment). Other construction method was also avail-
able for special circumstances, such as the incremental launching
method used in the Zhengzhou Yellow River Bridge. Auxiliary facil-
ities that ensured the safety of the bridge, as well as the high speed
trains include: (1) small clips along the main girder and large
expansion devices at the end of main girder to reduce the rotation
of the girder and thus maintain the smoothness of the track; (2)
High strength ball bearings with freedom of movement in all direc-
tions to support large live loads and control the rotation of the gir-
der; (3) a number of magnetorheological (MR) dampers were
installed along the longitudinal direction to reduce the large
dynamic response under earthquake or emergency braking of the
trains [55]; (4) Anti-collision devices and warning lights are
attached to the bridge to avoid collisions.
It is noted that the main span of these HSR bridges are shorter
than some highway bridges. For example, the main span of the
recently completed highway bridge over the Yangtze River in
China exceeded 1000 m. HSR bridges required higher serviceability
limits to ensure an average train speed of 200300 km/h with
much heavier live load than highway bridges. Nevertheless, the
development of new special spans in the future will depend on
the social need, the design competition, new concepts and experi-
ence [56]. Based on the new techniques discussed above, longer
spans have been planned in China with careful feasibility studies.
For example, a cable-stayed bridge with a main span of 1092 m
has been studied for span over the Yangtze River as part of Nan-
tong-Shanghai line that supports both highway and HSR [57]. In
addition, feasibility studies of HSR suspension bridges are being
carried out, such as a bridge at Yangzhou over the Yangtze River
with a main span of 1120 m and a bridge over the Qiongzhou Strait
with a main span of 1408 m.
6. Summary
HSR offers safe, affordable, green transportation that relieves
congestion on highways and traditional railways in China. This
paper presented a brief history of the special spans that support
HSR over rivers and existing lines with a single span more than
100 m. The construction of medium- and long-span HSR bridges
during the past decade is driven by the ongoing development of
the national HSR network. Compared to the design and construc-
tion of standard spans, special spans still require high serviceabil-
ity limits so the trains can maintain high speed on these spans. A
variety of structural forms have been used to meet the deection
requirements. For medium length, the tied steel arch and the rigid
frame are two commonly used forms. The hybrid system of these
two forms also offers an alternative choice. For large lengths, the
steel truss arch and cable-stayed bridge with truss girder are
widely used. Such progress on the design and construction of spe-
cial spans in the HSR of China depended on the use of advanced
material and construction technologies. Further investigations are
ongoing to establish more comprehensive design specications
for long-span HSR bridges. The fast development of the HSR
long-span bridges in China are based on learning from experience
of developed countries accumulated in the 20th century. Now, in
turn, China has provided new experience and will continually lead
the construction of HSR long-span bridges in the next decade.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the nancial support and
rst-hand design information provided by China Railway Siyuan
Survey and Design Group CO., LTD. The authors also would like
to acknowledge Dr. William C. Taylor, a civil engineering emeritus
professor from Michigan State University for checking the
language.
References
[1] Taniguchi M. High-Speed Rail in Japan: a review and evaluation of the
Shinkansen train. Working Paper no. 103, University of California
Transportation Center; 1992.
[2] Bouley J. Short history of high-speed railway in France before the TGV. Japan
Rail Trans Rev 1994;3:4951.
[3] European Commission. High-speed Europe, a sustainable link between
citizens. Luxembourg: Publications Ofce of the European Union; 2010: 22.
[4] Gourvish T. The high speed rail revolution: history and prospects. London: HS2
Ltd.; 2010.
[5] Zuber W. High speed rail in Europe a three decade success story. Network
2011;73:811 (in Chinese).
[6] Harrison J, Dezarn S, Dobbins A, Issac L. Short history of HSR in the USA.
Network 2011;73:179.
[7] Dai GL, Song XM. Man Hua Qiao Liang. China Railway Publishing House,
Beijing; 2009 (in Chinese).
[8] Qin SQ. Large span bridges on high speed railway lines. J Rail Eng Soc
2008;10:5361.
[9] Dai GL, Hu N, Liu W. The recent improvement of high-speed railway bridges in
China. In: IABSE symposium report. International association for bridge and
structural engineering; 2010. p. 815.
[10] Chen LJ, Qiao J. Development and practice of large-span bridges on China HSR.
Rail Econ Res 2010;98:4650 (in Chinese).
[11] Ministry of Railways of China. Code for Design of High Speed Railway, TB
106212009. China Railway Press; 2009 (in Chinese).
[12] Yi LX. Engineering characteristic and key technique of Dashenguan Changjiang
river bridge. Steel Constr 2007;22:7880 (in Chinese).
[13] Kwark JW, Choi ES, Kim YJ, Kim BS, Kim SI. Dynamic behavior of two-span
continuous concrete bridges under moving high-speed train. Comput Struct
2004;82:46374.
[14] Fry ba L. A rough assessment of railway bridges for high speed trains. Eng
Struct 2001;23:54856.
[15] Xia H, Zhang N, De Roeck G. Dynamic analysis of high speed railway bridge
under articulated trains. Comput Struct 2003;81:246778.
[16] Raghunathan RS, Kim HD, Setoguchi T. Aerodynamics of high-speed railway
train. Prog Aerospace Sci 2002;38:469514.
[17] Dias R, Goicolea Ruigmez JM, Gabaldn Castillo F, Cuadrado Sanguino M,
Nasarre J, Gonzlez Requejo P. A study of the lateral dynamic behaviour of high
speed railway viaducts and its effect on vehicle ride comfort and stability;
2008.
[18] Calcada R, Delgado R, Campos e Matos A, Goicolea JM, Gabaldon F. Track-
bridge interaction on high-speed railways. Portugal 2007:156.
[19] Fitzwilliam D. Track structure interactions for the Taiwan high speed rail
project IABSE Symposium Report. Int Assoc Bridge Struct Eng 2003;87:10.
[20] Dutoit D. New evolutions for high speed rail line bridge design criteria and
corresponding design procedures IABSE Symposium Report. Int Assoc Bridge
Struct Eng 2003;87:12.
[21] Kristek V, Vrablik L. Optimisation of tendon layout to avoid excessive
deections of long-span prestressed concrete bridges. Concr Eng
2007;11(1):303.
[22] Fiore A, Foti D, Monaco P, Raffaele D, Uva G. An approximate solution for the
rheological behavior of non-homogeneous structures changing the structural
system during the construction process. Eng Struct 2013;46:63142.
[23] Kumar Rakesh, Upadhyay Akhil. Effect of temperature gradient on track
bridge interaction. Interact Multiscale Mech 2012;5(1):112.
[24] Xu Y, Jin FH, Yang FT, Cai SM. Bridge overall design by siyuan survey on
Wuhan-Guangzhou high-speed railway. Rail Stand Des 2010;1:949 (in
Chinese).
[25] Zhu B. Design of continuous welded rail upon long span cable-stayed bridge
with steelconcrete composite box beam. Rail Stand Des 2012;2:415 (in
Chinese).
[26] Yan B. Longitudinal forces of continuously welded rail on high-speed railway
cable-stayed bridge considering impact of adjacent bridges. J Central South
Univ 2012;19:234853.
[27] Yue CD. Research on seismic response reduction of cable-stayed bridge on
based on viscous damper long-span railway. J Lanzhou Jiaotong Univ
2013;32:104.
[28] Li Y, Qiang S, Liao H, Xu YL. Dynamics of windrail vehiclebridge systems. J
Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2005;93:483507.
[29] Wang SQ, Xia H, Guo WW, Du XT. Nonlinear coupling vibration analysis of
wind load-train-long-span bridge system. J Beijing Jiaotong Univ
2012;36:3646 (in Chinese).
[30] Li Y. Study on variation rules of longitudinal force of continuous welded rails
on long-span cable-stayed bridge. J Rail Eng Soc 2012;169:426 (in Chinese).
[31] Hu N, Dai GL. The introduction of high-speed railway bridges in Wuhan-
Guangzhou passenger dedicated line, China. In: IABSE symposium report.
International association for bridge and structural engineering; 2009. p. 45
54.
240 N. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 74 (2014) 233241
[32] Tian XM, Li Q, Zhang QH. Study on static stiffness and model test of long-span
X-style tied arch bridge in high-speed railway. Bridge Constr 2002;4:125 (in
Chinese).
[33] Feng CQ. Design of 112 m a-shaped tied arch bridge of nielsen system in high
speed railway with Ballastless track. J Rail Eng Soc 2007;12:2329 (in
Chinese).
[34] Zhang XH, Chai XZ. Lying construction technology of Donghu bridge. Rail Eng
2010;1:757 (in Chinese).
[35] Jin WC, Huai CZ, Zhang YC, Cheng ZQ. Analysis of simulation on the
construction process of Donghu basket arch bridge. J Huazhong Univ Sci
Technol 2009;26:159 (in Chinese).
[36] Li XB. Construction of Tingsihe bridge of 140 m steel box girder with tied arch.
Rail Constr Technol 2009:14 (in Chinese).
[37] Zhang Y, Luo R. Patch loading and improved measures of incremental
launching of steel box girder. J Constr Steel Res 2012;68:119.
[38] Kou YC. Design of Tianluo bridge on Wenzhou-Fuzhou. Rail Stand Des
2005;11:258 (in Chinese).
[39] Luo JF, Ma WT, Wang WF. Construction monitoring and control of Liuxihe
bridge. Sci Technol Eng 2011;15:057 (in Chinese).
[40] Gong QY. Wind loads response of large span continuous rigid frame bridge.
M.S. Dissertation, Changsha: Central South University; 2009 (in Chinese).
[41] Zhou D. The study on structural system and mechanical behaviors of through
steel tied-arch composite bridge on high-speed railway. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Central South University; 2011 (in Chinese).
[42] Dong HX. Force Analysis of Large Continuous Beam Bridge with Arch. M.S.
Dissertation, Changsha: Central South University; 2009.
[43] Wang DH. Swivel construction design of Yichang Yangtze bridge. Rail Stand
Des 2009;6:315 (in Chinese).
[44] Huang NX, Yan AG, Luo SY. Construction of Kunyang special continuous beam
with arch on Wenzhou-Fuzhou HSR. Rail Stand Des 2005;11:313 (in
Chinese).
[45] Liu WS, Dai GL. Dongping channel bridge: long-span steel arch bridge in high-
speed railway China. Struct Eng Int 2011;21:4926.
[46] Xia C, Zhong T. Numerical analysis of the Nanjing Dashengguan Yangtze River
Bridge subjected to non-uniform seismic excitations. J Mech Sci Technol
2011;25:1297306.
[47] Gao ZY, Yi L, Xiao HZ. Dashengguan bridge, largest span steel arch bridge for
high-speed railway. Struct Eng Int 2010;20:299302.
[48] Liu XG. Key technics of engineering consultation in Wuhan Tian Xingzhou
highway and railway bridge over Yangtze river. In: Proceedings of 8th Pacic
structural steel conference steel structures in natural hazards, PSSC 2007;
2007. p. 1957.
[49] Qin SQ. Wuhan Tianxingzhou bridge over the Yangtze river: a great salute to
the rst crossing of the yangtze river in fty years. In: IABSE symposium
report. International association for bridge and structural engineering; 2009.
p. 21220.
[50] Zheng PF, Dai GL. Comparative study on static properties of three-main-truss
and three-cable-plane cable-stayed bridge. J Eng Des Technol 2013;11:7.
[51] Xiao HZ, Xu W, Gao ZY. Design of Anqing Changjiang river railway bridge.
Bridge Constr 2009;5:68 (in Chinese).
[52] Wang SQ, Liu AL. Key techniques for construction of superstructure of main
bridge of Anqing Changjiang river railway bridge. Bridge Constr 2013;43:339
(in Chinese).
[53] Gao ZY. Zhengzhou yellow river road-cum-railway bridge, China. Stahlbau
2012;81:1515.
[54] Gao ZY. High-speed railway bridges across the Yangtze and Yellow river. Eng
Sci 2009;11:1721 (in Chinese).
[55] Li J, Su M, Fan L. Vibration control of railway bridges under high-speed trains
using multiple tuned mass dampers. J Bridge Eng 2005;10:31220.
[56] Hu N, Dai GL. Four signicant factors in evolution of bridge engineering. In:
Proceeding of 1st international conference on structures & architecture (ICSA
2010), Portugal; 2010. p. 32930.
[57] Zi HM. Feasibility study on 1092 m cable-stayed bridge on Shanghai-Nantong
HSR. Rail Eng 2011;6:14 (in Chinese).
N. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 74 (2014) 233241 241