Bridges, high speed and dynamic calculation

Dominique MARVILLET Jean-Pierre TARTARY

Civil ESTP Engineer engineer
SNCF SOCITEC
Paris, France Sartrouville, France
Dominique Marvillet, born 1945, Jean-Pierre Tartary, born 1964,
received his engineer degree received his mechanic
from the High School for Civil engineering degree from the
Engineering Works (ESTP) in Univ. of Compiègne (UTC) in
Paris, is actually working in the 1987. He worked previously as
Department of the Bridges and consultant for SNCF and
Tunnels depending from the nowadays in charge of technical
Engineering Direction of the department at SOCITEC.
SNCF.

Summary
The bridges on high speed lines for speeds up to 350 km/h are to be designed by taking into
account the resonance phenomenon which is generated by the crossing over of successions of
loads with more or less uniform spacing. The trains which have been used to study the
deformability of bridges were Eurostar, ICE2, Thalys, and ETR. Other trains appeared
afterwards (Virgin, Talgo), with different dynamic signatures. Moreover the bridges on
interoperable lines are to be designed also under the future high speed trains. Using classical
calculation methods, these numerous load cases lead to tedious computations. A recent
research permitted to design a simplified method to compute acceleration and to define a
universal load model for dynamic calculations being able to cover the dynamic effect of all
those trains. The presentation gives an overview of this research which enabled the Technical
Specifications of Interoperability, as well as the rules of the Eurocode prEN 1991-2-6 drawing
up concerning the deformability of bridges for high speeds.

Keywords:dynamic, calculation, magnification, resonance, high speed, load model, car body,
deformability, acceleration, bridges.
1. Introduction
There are more and more high-speed lines including numerous bridges circulated by different
high speed trains whose speeds also increase. This situation has imposed finest knowledge of
bridge dynamics and in particular, the phenomenon of bridge resonance.
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. 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 [1].
A risk of resonance exists when the excitation frequency (or a multiple of the excitation
frequency) coincides with the natural frequency of the structure. When this happens,
structural deformation and acceleration may dramatically increase (especially for low
structural damping) causing loss of wheel/rail contact and ballast destabilisation. Therefore
the deck acceleration under high speed trains have to be limited and in certain cases the
structure has to be designed including the effect of the actual train with its dynamic factor [2].

2. Simplified method for calculating the acceleration

Using a simplified method of calculating the dynamic response of simply-supported beams to
the passage of trains (DER method), the bridge deck mid span acceleration value can be
calculated from the product of the so called train spectrum and bridge's influence line [3].
Γ = Ct A( L / λ ) G ( λ) (1)

 πL 
cos 
with Ct =
4
mπ
(2) and A L ( )
λ
=  λ 
2
(3)
 2L 
  −1
 λ 
A(L/λ) is called the "influence line", depending only on the deck characteristics.
G(λ) is called the train spectrum depending on train wheelset spacing and loading and bridge
damping. It indicates at which wavelengths (v/f0) the train provide the higher excitations.

2 2
1  i  2πx k   i  2πx k    X 
G (λ ) ≅ MAX  ∑ Pk cos   +  ∑ Pk sin    1 − exp − 2πζ i   (4)
i=0àM−1 ζX i  k =0  λ    k =0  λ    λ 
L: length of deck span M: number of axles λ: wavelength λ=v/f0
m: linear mass Pk: axleload v train speed
ζ: damping xk: position of axle k f0 1st natural frequency
In order to separate bridge and train contribution, in particular by removing the damping
effect, a signature S(λ) has been defined for trains, based on G(λ). A train's signature is
defined analytically as follows:

2 2
 i  2πx k   i  2πx k 
S 0 (λ ) = MAX  ∑ Pk cos   +  ∑ Pk sin    (5)
i=0àM−1  k =0  λ    k =0  λ 

3. EUROCODE envelope
3.1 Universal train
The concept of a “universal train” was
proposed on the basis of train signature
[4]. A "universal train" must be
representative of both existing trains
and future trains required to run on the
D European network. The “Universal
train” signature, for a given bridge is
Fig. 1 : Equally spaced : Talgo used to perform a dynamic calculation
giving the mid-span acceleration upper
bound. It will thus considerably limit
the number of calculations. It must be
d
ensured that future rolling stock
remains compatible with the
D dimensioning of bridges. Technical
Specifications for Interoperability [6]
Fig. 2 : Articulated train : TGV family will make it possible to design rolling
stock to be compatible with the criteria
of structural safety of bridges.
It is possible to classify all existing
trains in 3 types : equally spaced axle,
articulated and classical (see fig 1 to
b d D
3.)
Fig. 3 : Classical train : ICE, Virgin, Corail… Formulas allow to convert the
signatures of the different types of train by reference to a train with a constant distance
between axle centres (evenly spaced axles).
 πd 
S art (λ ) ≈ 2 cos  S rep (6)
 λ 
Srep is the signature of a regular train with axle centres distance D.
 πd   πb 
S class (λ ) ≈ 4 cos  cos  S rep (7)
 λ   λ 
Sclass and Sart are respectively the signature of a classical and an articulated train.
All this means that all calculation may be performed using one train type. Using this property,
a train was selected and called UNIV-A. It is an articulated train (EUROSTAR), for which
body length D may vary between 18 and 27 m. Bogie wheelbase is in this case 2.5 m. Figure
5 give the signature associated to UNIV-A train for D=20 m and the envelope obtained for all
D values.

UNIV-A aggressiveness
300 Signature of UNIV-A D=20 m and envelope
7000
L=10 m D=20 m
15 m Envelope
(kN/m)

200
20 m 6000
25 m
100 30 m
5000

0
4000
S0 (kN)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

D-λ relationship
30 3000

25
2000
D (m)

20

1000
15

10 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Wavelength (m)
Wave length (m)

Fig. 4 : aggressiveness example Fig. 5 : UNIV-A signatures

3.2 Aggressiveness
The product from the spectrum that corresponds to the UNIV-A envelope with the influence
line yields a function termed aggressiveness, which is proportional to the maximum response
obtainable on a simply-supported bridge with a given span length [4].
As seen on figure 4, each span value gives different aggressiveness functions. When
calculating the UNIV-A envelope, one know which D value produces the envelop value for a
given wavelength. It is thus possible to establish a D-λ relationship (fig.4 bottom.) It is then
possible to identify the UNIV-A train causing the maximum aggressiveness. For example on
figure 4 for L=10 m, the maximum aggressiveness is located at λ=18 m corresponding to
D=18 m. Within the limits of the permitted operating speed range, it is possible on the basis of
the maximum value of this function to identify the speed and the associated train that will
have the most detrimental effect on the bridge. A single dynamic calculation carried out at this
speed and with this train will produce an acceleration upper bound half-way along the bridge
deck.
3.3 Eurocode envelope
The envelope of signatures obtained with each body length contributes to define maximum
predictable excitation. This envelope was not entirely satisfying because some Talgo and
Virgin trains exhibited higher signature levels. To define the new envelope for EUROCODE,
the envelope of UNIV-A and Talgo signatures are superposed with the Virgin signature (fig 6).
A comparison between the new and old envelopes shows that the new envelope (fig.7) goes
above the old one (fig. 6) at a wavelength of 12.5 to 14 m as a result of the Talgo family. The
new envelope goes above the old one at 8 m and at 24 m because of the Virgin.
Envelopes for Eurocode Interpolation of the envelope in segments
8000 8000
UNIV-A
Talgo
7000 Virgin long 7000
Envelope
6000 6000

5000 5000
S0 (kN)

S0 (kN)
4000 4000

3000 3000

2000 2000

1000 1000

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

W avelength λ (m) Wavelength λ (m)

Fig. 6 : Envelopes of signatures Fig. 7 : Envelope and interpolation

Envelope of train signatures proposed for EUROCODE is defined by segments. From λ = 24

to 27 m the amplitude was fixed at 5700 kN (long Virgin), so as not to excessively penalise
possible new conventional trains. Figure 8 and 9 show superposition of existing train
signature and the EUROCODE envelop.
Comparison of the EUROCODE envelopes with real trains
8000
Comparison of the EUROCODE envelope with real trains Corail4
8000 IC225
TGVA 7000 Virgin
Thalys ICE2
7000 Eurostar
6000 ETR-Y
Talgo
6000
5000
5000
S0 (kN)
S0 (kN)

4000
4000

3000
3000

2000
2000

1000 1000

0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Wavelength λ (m) Wavelength λ (m)

Fig. 8 : EUROCODE envelope and Fig. 9 : EUROCODE envelope and

signatures of articulated trains signatures of conventional trains

4. High Speed Load Model (HSLM)

4.1 Definition of ten reference trains for HSML-A load model
Since the EUROCODE envelope covers different types, it is thus no longer possible to assign
a train of the type UNIV-A to any point of the envelope. It is therefore not possible to
calculate an enveloping spectrum to correspond to the EUROCODE envelope. The benefits of
the universal train are lost [4].
Moreover, the concept of aggressiveness applicable to simply-supported deck structures
cannot be transposed to continuous structures for the following reasons:
- numerous modes at close frequencies
- altered influence line due to changes in support conditions
- possible interaction between spans
Various approaches were investigated in the hope of achieving the application of a "sweeping"
method consisting in the definition of ten reference trains, keeping as close as possible
(± 10%) to the EUROCODE envelope. The ten trains are used systematically to perform
dynamic calculations for a bridge.
These ten trains provide a solution both to the problems posed by continuous bridges and by
calculations of aggressiveness in connection with the EUROCODE Envelope.
Each reference train has its corresponding predetermined body length D (D = 18, 19, ...,
27 m). Bogie wheelbase d and axleload P are then adapted to meet the requirements of the
EUROCODE envelope. In this way, values that vary from one train to the next can be
obtained to the closest decimal for d, Pk and even D, (d = 2.2 d = 2.3 Pk = 173 kN etc.).
This approach is not suitable for inclusion in a regulatory framework. It was therefore decided
to choose the best combination (for which Pk was rounded to the closest 10 kN) obtained on
the basis of d = 2, d = 2.5, d = 3 and d = 3.5 m.
The ten trains finally selected are presented in Table 2 and their signatures are plotted in
Figure 10.

Trains for EUROCODE

8000

Train D (m) d (m) P (kN) 7000

1 18 2 170
2 19 3.5 200 6000

3 20 2 180 5000
4 21 3 190
S0 (kN)

5 22 2 170 4000

6 23 2 180 3000
7 24 2 190
8 25 2.5 190 2000

9 26 2 210
1000
10 27 2 210
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Wavelength λ (m)

Table 2 : Characteristics of the ten Fig. 10 : Signatures of the ten reference trains
trains proposed for EUROCODE proposed for EUROCODE

These 10 trains now define the HSLM-A universal train used to calculate dynamical effect on
all bridges type except for simply supported bridges under 7 m span.
4.2 The HSML-B load model for small bridges
The method of the dynamic signatures is not adapted for the small bridges. After a verification
of the dynamic signatures, it can be seen that the upper limit for small bridges concern the
cases where the wavelength λ is less than 4,50 m and the span less than 7 m. The length of the
car body is no more the exclusive parameter and the bogies have an influence. For such small
bridges, the best adapted load model consists in a regular succession of axles of 170 kN.
The design of a Universal Dynamic Train for such bridges consists into the drawing up of a
law, which allows, as a function of the span length of the bridge from 1m to 7m, to define the
load model of 170 kN with the other characteristics (N = number of point forces regularly
spaced and d = distance between the loads), LM which aggressiveness envelop the
aggressiveness of the 10 trains of the HSLM.
4.3 Calculation rules
The following calculation rules have been established in the EUROCODE [5].
For simply supported spans, the calculations are performed using the aggressiveness as in the
example given in § 3.2.
For continuous or complex spans, all the ten trains are used to perform the calculations.
Span
Structural configuration
L<7 m L>7 m
Simply supported span HSLM-B HSML-A
Continuous or complex HSML-A, all 10 trains used in HSML-A, all 10 trains used in
structure design design

Table 3 : application of HSLM-A and HSML-B

4.4 Example of calculation with HSML-A
Let’s take the following Aggressiveness of trains L=15 m
configuration : 700
λ = 21 m
- L = 15 m 600
- f0 = 6 Hz
500
- ζ = 1% SPEED>
400 PERMITTED
- vmax = 420 x 1.2 = 500 km/h, THRESHOLD
kN/m

300
so that
λmax = vmax/f0 = 500/3.6/6 = 23 m 200

The aggressiveness curve is 100

plotted in Figure 11. On this
aggressiveness curve, the 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
maximum at the permitted
operating speed is located at 27
Relationship wavelength - train parameters ζ = 0.01
2
λ = 21 m.
210

26 2 210
The bottom curve shows the
value of the triplet D, d and Pk 25 2.5 190

allowing this maximum to be 24 2 190

reached: Pk (kN)
d (m)
D (m)

23 2 180

- D = 21 m 22 2 170
D = 21 m
- d=3m d=3m
Pk= 190 kN
21 3 190

2
- Pk = 190 kN. 20 180

19 3.5 200
The dynamic calculation will be
performed with the HSML-A 18
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2 170

train corresponding to these Wavelength λ (m)

values. Fig. 11 : example of calculation

5. Conclusion
A simplified and analytical method has been developed to assess simply supported bridges
mid-span acceleration. This method allows distinction in the response of bridge and train
contribution. The train contribution is called the train "signature". On this basis, a train axle
arrangement called "Universal Train" was proposed. This train provides an upper bound for
mid-span acceleration calculation, representative for both existing and future train, thus
considerably limiting the number of dynamic calculations. Combining Universal Train
signature and bridge contribution leads to the aggressiveness concept which allows the
identification of the train causing the higher acceleration levels. Talgo family and Virgin trains
were not covered by the Universal Train, it was then decided to take the Talgo, Virgin and
Universal train signature envelop to define the so-called EUROCODE envelop. To keep all
the benefits of the method ten Universal Trains where then chosen as their envelop is close to
the EUROCODE envelop. Finally, the concept has been successfully generalized to cover
short span simply supported bridges and multi-span bridges. These schemes lead to the prEN
1991-2 EUROCODE calculation rules. Thanks these rules, the number of bridge dynamical
calculations is significantly reduced and covers all existing and future high speed train types.

6. Références
[1] TIMOSCHENKO, S.P. YOUNG, D.H. : Theory of Structures. Mc Graw Hill Inc. 1965
[2] FRYBA, L : Vibrations of Solids and Structures under Moving Loads. Academia
Prague. Noordhof International Publishing, Groningen 1972.
[3] MION, D. : Evaluation de l’accélération d’un tablier isostatique au passage d’un convoi.
Rapport interne SNCF/VOM. 1995
[4] ERRI Committee D 214 and D 214-2 "Railway bridges for speeds > 200 km/h", Report
1 to 8 and Final Reports.
[5] EUROCODE "prEN 1991-2 "Actions on structures - traffic loads on bridges"
[6] TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS of INTEROPERABILITY (T.S.I.)