Tese Bernardo Machado

DYNAMIC BEHAVIOUR OF A STEEL
COMPOSITE FRAME RAILWAY BRIDGE
BERNARDO BRÁS COTA MACHADO
Dissertação submetida para satisfação parcial dos requisitos do grau de

MESTRE EM ENGENHARIA CIVIL — ESPECIALIZAÇÃO EM ESTRUTURAS
Orientador: Professor Doutor Rui Artur Bártolo Calçada
Coorientador: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Benno Hoffmeister
SETEMBRO DE 2016
MESTRADO INTEGRADO EM ENGENHARIA CIVIL 2015/2016
DEPARTAMENTO DE ENGENHARIA CIVIL
Tel. +351-22-508 1901
Fax +351-22-508 1446
 miec@fe.up.pt
Editado por
FACULDADE DE ENGENHARIA DA UNIVERSIDADE DO PORTO
Rua Dr. Roberto Frias
4200-465 PORTO
Portugal
Tel. +351-22-508 1400
Fax +351-22-508 1440
 feup@fe.up.pt
 http://www.fe.up.pt
Reproduções parciais deste documento serão autorizadas na condição que seja mencionado
o Autor e feita referência a Mestrado Integrado em Engenharia Civil - 2015/2016 -
Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto,
Porto, Portugal, 2016.
As opiniões e informações incluídas neste documento representam unicamente o ponto de

vista do respetivo Autor, não podendo o Editor aceitar qualquer responsabilidade legal ou
outra em relação a erros ou omissões que possam existir.
Este documento foi produzido a partir de versão eletrónica fornecida pelo respetivo Autor.
Dynamic behaviour of a steel composite frame railway bridge
To my parents and brothers
“Believe you can and you’re halfway there”

Theodore Roosevelt
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work which constitutes this thesis was only possible due to the contribution of some people. To all
who have accompanied me during this journey, and to those who in some way contributed to their
achievement, I express my sincere gratitude. For the importance of their role, I present my special
thanks:
 First of all, to Prof. Dr. Ing. Benno Hoffmeister for the warm reception and for enable the
desire to do this work at RWTH Aachen to become a reality. For the availability and for all
the help, providing me with all the necessary resources and all the scientifical staff
connections;
 To Professors Dr.-Ing. Daniel Pak and to Dipl. Ing. Hetty Bigelow, for their support and
availability, for providing me with the opportunity to participate in research projects, allowing
me to integrate a research group and getting in touch with real engineering problems. For
their help processing all the data and for providing me with the opportunity to conduct
numerical studies on a real railway bridge;
 To Professor Dr. Rui Calçada for the availabilty, since the first moment, helping me finding
a supervisor at RWTH Aachen, as well as for the help in choosing the field of work to this
thesis. For the support, encouragement and for his fully availability, even when he was
extremely busy;
 To the high speed research group of the Civil Engineering Department of FEUP, especially
to the engineer Joel Pedro Malveiro, for the precious and tireless support in all the questions
related to the ANSYS, without whom would not have been possible to complete the numerical
model. Also thank to Pedro Jorge throughout the bibliography provided, Andreia Meixedo
and Cristiana Bonifácio who provided promptly their numerical models, that were important
to better understand the functioning of ANSYS;
 To all the friends who accompanied me over these five years, for all the support, affection,
friendship and motivation. To the friends who I had the opportunity to meet in these five
months in Aachen, that were undoubtedly important in this experience;
 To Sofia, for all the affection, dedication, patience and constant support over the past couple
years and for the trust that she has always had in me;
 Finally I would like to thank to those whom I owe everything, my family. To my mother,
Susana, for being the engine of our home and for taking care of me with the greatest love and
affection from the first day. To my father, Ivo, the best example I have of determination, for
all his support and wise words at the right time. To my brothers, Helena e Guilherme, for the
encouragement and love, and for everything they symbolize in my life.
i
ii
ABSTRACT
This thesis primarily aims to study the dynamic behaviour of a bridge over the Salzach river, under the
action of railway traffic. The bridge in focus, is located in the Austrian state of Salzburg, and is part of
the ÖBB1 conventional railway line Salzburg-Schwarzach/St.V.-Wörgl, between 65.439 km and 65.485
km, with a steel composite cross-section consisting of two traffic routes supported by two single span
structures.
Initially, this study consisted on a research of other papers on railway bridges, as a way to understand
its singularities, and a detailed analysis of the regulation on the design of railway bridges (Standards
EN1991-2 and EN1990-AnnexA2), in order to understand the major design criteria of railway bridges.
From these became clear the importance of the structural safety, track safety and passengers comfort.
Consequently, several methodologies of dynamic analysis were studied, from which stood out the
numerical ones, since they have a wider application field.
The numerical model of the structure is described, model which was developed with the finite elements
software ANSYS, where the modal analysis was carried out. In a first phase, the numerical model of the
bridge does not consider neither the ballast nor the rails, once during the experimental tests, the bridge
was not yet completed, thereby intending the model to reproduce as faithfully as possible the actual
conditions under which the experimental tests were performed. The experimental tests performed under
the experimental campaign are also described, as well as the results obtained.
Thus, as regard the study of the bridge in question, the experimental tests carried out on the bridge,
allowed to obtain results that were compared with those obtained using the numerical model built in
ANSYS, particularly the frequencies and the vibration modes.
In a second phase, the ballast, sleepers and railway tracks were added to the previous numerical model,
in order to allow an analysis using moving loads modelling, thus simulating the passage of a train on
the bridge. Therefore, using the load model of a real train, IC (Intercity Train) belonging to Deutsche
Bahn AG, a German railway company, and being known its geometry and axle loads, it was possible to
run a dynamic analysis using moving loads, through the MATLAB programme.
KEYWORDS: train, railway bridge, modelling, dynamic analysis, moving loads.
1
Österreichische Bundesbahnen - Austrian Federal Railways
iii
iv
RESUMO
A presente dissertação tem como objetivo primordial estudar o comportamento dinâmico de uma ponte
sobre o rio Salzach, sob a ação de tráfego ferroviário. A ponte situa-se na Áustria, no estado de
Salzburgo, na Linha Convencional Salzburg-Schwarzach/St.V.-Wörgl, entre o km 65,439 e o km
65,485, sendo uma estrutura mista constituída por duas vias de circulação suportadas por dois tabuleiros
independentes.
Inicialmente, o estudo envolveu uma pesquisa de outros trabalhos sobre pontes ferroviárias, de forma a
compreender as suas particularidades, e uma análise detalhada à regulamentação em vigor para o
dimensionamento de pontes ferroviárias (normas EN1991-2 e EN1990-AnnexA2), com o objetivo de
perceber os principais critérios do dimensionamento de pontes inseridas em linhas ferroviárias. Destas
normas tornou-se clara a importância da verificação da segurança estrutural, segurança da via e o
conforto dos passageiros. Consequentemente, várias metodologias de análise dinâmica foram
analisadas, de entre as quais se destacaram as numéricas, devido ao campo de aplicação mais alargado.
Descreve-se o modelo numérico da ponte em estudo, desenvolvido no programa de cálculo em
elementos finitos ANSYS, que permitiu fazer as análises modais. Numa primeira fase, o modelo
numérico da ponte não contempla nem balastro nem a ferrovia, uma vez que aquando dos testes
experimentais, a ponte ainda não se encontrava concluída, pretendendo assim o modelo reproduzir o
mais fielmente as condições reais em que os testes experimentais foram realizados. São também
descritos os ensaios experimentais realizados no âmbito da campanha experimental, bem como os
resultados obtidos.
Assim, no que diz respeito ao estudo da ponte em questão, os testes experimentais levados a cabo na
ponte permitiram obter resultados que foram comparados com os obtidos recorrendo ao modelo
numérico construído no ANSYS, nomeadamente frequências e modos de vibração.
Numa segunda fase, foram adicionados ao modelo anterior, o balastro e a ferrovia, de modo a permitir
uma análise dinâmica recorrendo a cargas móveis, simulando assim a passagem de um comboio na
ponte. Então, utilizando o “Load Model” de um comboio real, IC (Intercity Train), pertencente à
Deutsche Bahn AG, uma companhia ferroviária alemã e, sendo conhecidas a sua geometria e cargas por
eixo, foi possível efetuar uma análise dinâmica recorrendo a cargas móveis, recorrendo ao programa
MATLAB.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE: comboio, ponte ferroviária, modelação, análise dinâmica, cargas móveis.
v
vi
KURZFASSUNG
Das Hauptziel dieser Abschlussarbeit ist die Untersuchung des dynamischen Verhaltens infolge
Zugüberfahrten der Eisenbahnbrücke über die Salzach. Die betrachtete Brücke befindet sich im
österreichischen Bundesland Salzburg und ist Teil der ÖBB Strecke Salzburg-Schwarzach/St.V.-Wörgl,
zwischen km 65,439 und km 65,485; sie besteht aus Stahl-Verbundquerschnitten wobei zwei
Einfeldstrukturen jeweils ein Gleis tragen.
Grundlage der Arbeit bildete eine Literaturrecherche zum Thema Eisenbahnbrücken, um die
Besonderheiten der untersuchten Brücke zu verstehen, sowie eine Auseinandersetzung mit den gültigen
Regelwerken zur Brückenbemessung (DIN EN1991-2 und DIN EN1990-Anhang A2), um die
Hauptdesignkriterien bei der Brückenbemessung zu verstehen. Die Bedeutung der Tragsicherheit, der
Gleislagestabilität und des Reisendenkomforts wurde ersichtlich. Mehrere Methoden der dynamischen
Berechnung wurden untersucht, wobei hier die numerischen Verfahren aufgrund ihres größeren
Anwendungsgebietes herausstehen.
Das numerische Model der Brücke wird beschrieben; das Modell wurde mit der Finite-Elemente (FE-)
Software ANSYS erstellt zur Durchführung dynamischer Berechnungen. In der Anfangsphase werden
beim Modell weder Schotter noch Schienen berücksichtigt, da während der ersten Vergleichsmessung
an der Brücke diese noch nicht vollständig fertiggestellt war. Daher sollte das Modell die tatsächlichen
Gegebenheiten realistisch darstellen. Die durchgeführten Messungen werden ebenfalls beschrieben und
die Messergebnisse vorgestellt.
Die Messergebnisse wurden mit den Berechnungsergebnissen verglichen, welche mit dem numerischen
Modell in ANSYS erstellt wurden, im Fokus standen dabei Frequenzen und Modalformen.
In der zweiten Phase wurden Schotter, Schwellen und Schienen im Modell ergänzt, um dynamische
Berechnungen mit bewegten Lasten zu ermöglichen, um so Zugüberfahrten zu simulieren. Es wurde das
Modell eines realen Zuges IC (Intercity) der Deutsche Bahn AG verwendet, da von diesem Achslasten
und -abstände bekannt waren.
KEYWORDS: Zug, Eisenbahnbrücke, Modellierung, dynamische Berechnung, bewegte Lasten.
vii
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... I
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. III
RESUMO ................................................................................................................................. V
KURZFASSUNG ...................................................................................................................... VII
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................1
1.1. CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2. OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................... 6
1.3. STRUCTURE OF THE WORK ................................................................................................ 7
2 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL SURVEY ..............................................9

2.1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 9
2.2. RESONANCE PHENOMENA ................................................................................................. 9
2.2.1. MECHANISM OF RESONANCE AND CANCELLATION FOR TRAIN-INDUCED VIBRATIONS ON BRIDGES .........10
2.2.2. BRIDGE RESONANCE INDUCED BY MOVING LOAD SERIES .................................................................12
2.2.2.1. Bridge resonance induced by periodically loading of moving load series ...............................14
2.2.2.2. Bridge resonance induced by loading rate of moving load series ...........................................14
2.2.3. BRIDGE RESONANCE OWING TO THE SWAY FORCES OF TRAIN VEHICLES ...........................................15
2.3. FACTORS INFLUENCING THE DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF THE STRUCTURE.............................. 15
2.3.1. BEARINGS STIFFNESS .................................................................................................................16
2.3.2. TRAIN-BRIDGE INTERACTION .......................................................................................................17
2.3.3. DISTRIBUTION OF THE LOADS THROUGH THE SLEEPERS AND BALLAST LAYER ....................................20
3 DESIGN CODES APPLIED TO RAILWAY BRIDGES ......... 23

3.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 23
3.2. ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED........................................................................................... 23
3.2.1. STATIC EFFECTS .......................................................................................................................23
3.2.1.1. Load Model 71......................................................................................................................24
3.2.1.2. Load Models SW/0 and SW/2 ...............................................................................................25

3.2.1.3. Load Model “Unloaded Train” ...............................................................................................26
3.2.1.4. Consideration of Dynamic Effects in Static Analysis ..............................................................26
3.2.2. DYNAMIC EFFECTS .....................................................................................................................29
ix
3.2.2.1. Requirements for a static or dynamic analysis ......................................................................30
3.2.2.2. Requirements for a dynamic analysis....................................................................................31

3.2.2.3. Speeds to be considered ......................................................................................................36
3.2.2.4. Bridge Parameters................................................................................................................36
3.3. VERIFICATIONS OF THE LIMIT STATES............................................................................... 40
3.3.1. STRUCTURAL SAFETY .................................................................................................................40
3.3.2. TRAFFIC SAFETY ........................................................................................................................41
3.3.2.1. Vertical acceleration of the deck ...........................................................................................41

3.3.2.2. Vertical deformation of the deck ............................................................................................43
3.3.3. PASSENGER COMFORT ...............................................................................................................43
4 METHODOLOGIES FOR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS ................ 47

4.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 47
4.2. DYNAMIC ANALYSIS WITHOUT TRAIN-BRIDGE INTERACTION ................................................ 48
4.2.1. DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM OF A STRUCTURE .....................................................................................48
4.2.2. CONTRIBUTION OF MOVING LOADS ..............................................................................................49
4.2.3. RESOLUTION OF DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM EQUATION .......................................................................50

4.2.3.1. Direct Numerical Integration .................................................................................................50
4.2.3.2. Mode Superposition Method .................................................................................................52
4.2.4. MOVING LOADS METHODOLOGY WITH ANSYS-MATLAB INTERACTION ...............................................53

4.2.4.1. Modal analysis......................................................................................................................54
4.2.4.2. Extraction of the modal values of the quantities to be analysed .............................................54
4.2.4.3. Extraction of the modal vertical displacements of the railway nodes ......................................54
4.2.4.4. Dynamic analysis .................................................................................................................54
4.3. DYNAMIC ANALYSIS WITH TRAIN-BRIDGE INTERACTION ...................................................... 55
4.3.1. ITERATIVE METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................56
5 EXPERIMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION AND NUMERICAL

MODELLING OF THE SALZACH RIVER BRIDGE ................ 59
5.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 59
5.2. BRIDGE OVER THE SALZACH ........................................................................................... 60
5.2.1. CHARACTERIZATION AND GEOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE STRUCTURE ...........................................61
5.2.1.1. Sleepers ...............................................................................................................................63
5.2.1.2. Baseplates ...........................................................................................................................64
x
5.2.1.3. Rails .....................................................................................................................................65
5.2.2. GROUND CONDITIONS FOR PILE FOUNDATION ...............................................................................65

5.3. FINITE ELEMENT NUMERICAL MODEL ................................................................................ 67
5.3.1. NUMERICAL MODEL A .................................................................................................................67
5.3.1.1. Finite Element Types used ...................................................................................................69
5.3.1.2. Properties assigned to the elements (Real Constants) ..........................................................70
5.3.1.3. Materials used in modelling ..................................................................................................75
5.3.1.4. Construction of the numerical model A..................................................................................75

5.3.2. NUMERICAL MODEL B .................................................................................................................79
5.3.2.1. Finite Element Types used ...................................................................................................79
5.3.2.2. Properties assigned to the elements (Real Constants) ..........................................................80
5.3.2.3. Materials used in modelling ..................................................................................................80
5.3.2.4. Construction of the numerical model .....................................................................................81
5.4. MONITORING SYSTEM ...................................................................................................... 85
5.4.1. OBJECTIVES AND INSTALLATION...................................................................................................85
5.4.2. INSTRUMENTATION AND DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM FOR THE DYNAMIC MEASUREMENTS ....................85
5.4.3. MONITORING RESULTS ...............................................................................................................91

5.5. MODAL ANALYSIS OF THE BRIDGE OVER THE SALZACH RIVER .......................................... 93
6 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF THE BRIDGE OVER THE

SALZACH RIVER .................................................................. 99
6.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 99
6.2. MOVING LOADS METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 99
6.3. STUDY OF PARAMETERS TO USE IN THE DYNAMIC ANALYSIS ............................................ 103
6.3.1. SPEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED .....................................................................................................103
6.3.2. TIME INCREMENT .....................................................................................................................103
6.3.3. INFLUENCE OF THE DAMPING COEFFICIENT IN THE DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF THE STRUCTURE .............104
6.3.4. INFLUENCE OF THE NUMBER OF VIBRATION MODES IN THE RESPONSE OF THE STRUCTURE ................105
6.3.4.1. Influence in terms of accelerations ......................................................................................105
6.3.4.2. Influence in terms of displacements ....................................................................................107
7 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH .................... 111

7.1. CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................. 111
7.2. FUTURE RESEARCH....................................................................................................... 113
xi
Bibliographic References................................................... 115
ANNEX A1 APDL CODE TO GENERATE NUMERICAL

MODEL B .............................................................................. A1
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1.1 - EU27 Share of CO2 emissions from fuel combustion [4] ....................................................... 3
Fig. 1.2 - High Speed system in Europe [8]: a) by 2010; b) by 2025. ................................................... 5
Fig. 2.1 - Observation of the resonance effects in a simply supported bridge [10] ..............................10
Fig. 2.2 - Observation of the cancellation effects in a simply supported bridge [10] ............................11
Fig. 2.3 - Overlapping responses in free vibration of a simply supported bridge, after the passage of
forces equally spaced of 26.4 m, with speed of: a) 253 km/h; b) 192 km/h [10] ..................................12
Fig. 2.4 - Sources of errors [11] .........................................................................................................16
Fig. 2.5 - Moving loads model [13] .....................................................................................................17
Fig. 2.6 - Acceleration in the mid-span: with and without interaction [15] ............................................17
Fig. 2.7 - Reduction of the impact coefficients (R) and maximum accelerations (R’) for bridges [13] ...19
Fig. 2.8 - Intensities of reduction for the impact coefficients (γ) and for the maximum accelerations (γ’)
[13] ...................................................................................................................................................19
Fig. 2.9 - Distribution of the axle loads through the sleepers and ballast layer [13] .............................20
Fig. 2.10 - Maximum accelerations in bridges of span: 𝐿 = 5 𝑚 and 𝐿 = 10 𝑚 [13] .............................21
Fig. 3.1 - Load Model 71 and characteristic values for vertical loads [16] ...........................................24
Fig. 3.2 - Loads Distribution to obtain maximum bending moment at mid-span of the central section, in
a continuous deck with 5 main sections [18] ......................................................................................24
Fig. 3.3 - Load Models SW/0 and SW/2 [16] ......................................................................................25

Fig. 3.4 - Limits of bridge natural frequency n0 (Hz) as a function of L (m): (1) Upper limit of natural
frequency; (2) Lower limit of natural frequency [16]............................................................................28
Fig. 3.5 - Flow chart for determining whether a dynamic analysis is required [16] ...............................30
Fig. 3.6 - Articulated train (Example: Eurostar) [16] [18] .....................................................................31
Fig. 3.7 - Conventional train (Example: ICE) [16] [18] ........................................................................32
Fig. 3.8 - Regular train (Example: Talgo) [16] [18]..............................................................................32

Fig. 3.9 - Dynamic signatures (zero damping) for European high speed trains [18] ............................33
Fig. 3.10 - Load Model HSLM-A [16] .................................................................................................34
Fig. 3.11 - Load Model HSLM-B [16] .................................................................................................35
Fig. 3.12 - HSLM-B: determination of the number N of concentrated loads and the spacing d between
loads [16] ..........................................................................................................................................35
Fig. 3.13 - Damping as a function of span [18] ...................................................................................38
Fig. 3.14 - Additional damping ∆ζ [%] as a function of span length L [m] [16] .........................................39
Fig. 3.15 - Variation in amplification factor of ballast acceleration at sleeper ends/bridge deck
acceleration without a ballast mat [14] ...............................................................................................42
xiii
Fig. 3.16 - Variation in amplification factor of ballast acceleration [18] ................................................42
Fig. 3.17 - Maximum permissible vertical deflection (δ) for railway bridges with 3 or more successive
simply supported spans corresponding to a permissible vertical acceleration of 𝑏𝑣 = 1,0 𝑚/𝑠2 in a
coach for speed V (km/h) [17]............................................................................................................44
Fig. 4.1 - Variation of Load Function on a node k due to the passage of the load 𝑃𝑟 [20] ...................50
Fig. 4.2 - Resultant displacement and modal components .................................................................52
Fig. 4.3 – Steps involved in the implementation of the moving loads methodology [adapted from 24] .54
Fig. 4.4 - Vehicle-Structure interaction model [25]..............................................................................55

Fig. 5.1 – Location of the Salzach bridge: a) aerial view [29]; b) aerial view – project. ........................60
Fig. 5.2 – Longitudinal section Salzach Bridge...................................................................................61
Fig. 5.3 – Salzach Bridge without backfill and installations – side view ...............................................61
Fig. 5.4 – Steel beams – inside view .................................................................................................62
Fig. 5.5 – Typified cross-section at the abutment ...............................................................................62
Fig. 5.6 – Deck Cross-section............................................................................................................63

Fig. 5.7 – Dimensions of the modelled sleepers: a) – geometry representation [20]; b) – photo in the
construction site. ...............................................................................................................................64
Fig. 5.8 – Baseplate behaviour with isotropic (a) and orthotropic (b) material [20] ..............................64
Fig. 5.9 – Detail of retaining wall founded on piles .............................................................................66
Fig. 5.10 – Overview of the Numerical Model A: a) – general overview; b) – mesh zoom; c) –
transversal cut...................................................................................................................................68
Fig. 5.11 – Detail of the different thickness of the concrete slab: a) Perspective view; b) Transversal
profile................................................................................................................................................71
Fig. 5.12 – Spring applied at the bottom of the abutments: a) transversal view; b) perspective view. ..72
Fig. 5.13 – General scheme of the applied springs ............................................................................73
Fig. 5.14 – Finite Element Mesh: a) – abutment; b) – steel beams; c) – concrete deck. ......................76
Fig. 5.15 – Modelling of the connection areas applying MPC 184 elements .......................................77
Fig. 5.16 – Connection between the bridge structure and the abutments (through coincident nodes): a)
– transversal view; b) – perspective view; c) – zoom of common points. ............................................78
Fig. 5.17 – Overview of the Numerical Model B .................................................................................79
Fig. 5.18 – Overview of the Numerical Model B .................................................................................81
Fig. 5.19 – Detail: Sleepers, baseplates and rails ..............................................................................82
Fig. 5.20 – Modelling of the connection areas applying MPC 184 elements: a) – transversal view right;
b) – perspective view left. ..................................................................................................................84
Fig. 5.21 – Salzach Bridge without backfill and installations: a) Wörgl side view; b) Salzburg side view.
.........................................................................................................................................................85
Fig. 5.22 – General overview scheme of the location of the sensors ..................................................86
xiv
Fig. 5.23 – General overview of a measurement point .......................................................................86
Fig. 5.24 – Equipment used in the measurements: a) – recording device; b) – switch; c) – sensor. ....87
Fig. 5.25 – General overview scheme of the installation of the measurement points ..........................88
Fig. 5.26 – General overview of the installed measurement points .....................................................89
Fig. 5.27 – General overview scheme of the location of the hydraulic accurator .................................89
Fig. 5.28 – Examples of mode shapes obtained through the different positions of the hydraulic
accurator: a) – results from position A; b) – results from position B. ...................................................90
Fig. 5.29 – Hydraulic accurator: a) - general view; b) – enlarged view. ...............................................90

Fig. 5.30 – Shifted data obtained from measurements: a) – example of transversal acceleration; b) –
example of longitudinal acceleration. .................................................................................................91
Fig. 5.31 – Detrend function: a) – constant; b) – linear; c) – adaptive. ................................................92
Fig. 5.32 – Corrected data after using the adaptive detrend function: a) – example of transversal
acceleration; b) – example of longitudinal acceleration. .....................................................................92
Fig. 5.33 – Deformed shape of the prominent vibration modes in the response of the deck ................96
Fig. 6.1 – IC Train (Intercity Train) – Deutsche Bahn AG .................................................................100
Fig. 6.2 – Initial KeyPoints of the loads path ....................................................................................102
Fig. 6.3 – Maximum acceleration values at mid-span in function of the speed and ∆𝑡 .......................104
Fig. 6.4 – Maximum acceleration values at mid-span for the damping coefficient .............................105
Fig. 6.5 – Acceleration at mid-span in the numerical model B, with the train circulating at a speed of
150 km/h: a) – 30 Hz; b) 60 Hz. ....................................................................................................106
Fig. 6.6 – Maximum and minimum acceleration values at mid-span due to an IC train crossing the
bridge (limit of frequencies of 30 Hz and 60 Hz) ..............................................................................107
Fig. 6.7 – Displacement at mid-span in the numerical model B, with the train circulating at a speed of
150 km/h: a) – 30 Hz; b) 60 Hz. ...................................................................................................108
Fig. 6.8 – Maximum and minimum displacement values at mid-span due to an IC train crossing the
bridge (limit of frequencies of 30 Hz and 60 Hz) ..............................................................................109
xv
xvi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 - Carbon footprint of transport services [2]: a) High Speed Rail Transport; b) Road Transport;
c) Air Transport. ................................................................................................................................. 2
Table 1.2 - EU27 transport modal share [4] ........................................................................................ 4
Table 3.1 - Characteristic values for vertical loads for Load Models SW/0 and SW/2 [16] ...................25
Table 3.2 - HSLM-A characteristics [16] ............................................................................................34
Table 3.3 - Values of damping to be assumed for design purposes [16] .............................................38
Table 3.4 - Maximum permitted peak values of bridge deck acceleration [17] ....................................41
Table 3.5 - Maximum permitted peak values of bridge deck acceleration ...........................................43
Table 3.6 - Recommended levels of comfort [17] ...............................................................................43
Table 4.1 - Numerical methodology scheme that considers the train-bridge interaction [adapted from
19] ....................................................................................................................................................57
Table 5.1 – UIC 60 rail properties [20] ...............................................................................................65

Table 5.2 – Soil parameters ..............................................................................................................65
Table 5.3 – Construction data ...........................................................................................................66
Table 5.4 – Element Types used in Model A ......................................................................................69

Table 5.5 – Characteristics of Elements BEAM 44 .............................................................................70
Table 5.6 – Characteristics of Elements SHELL 63............................................................................71
Table 5.7 – Axial stiffness of each concrete pile ................................................................................74

Table 5.8 – Stiffness of the springs....................................................................................................74
Table 5.9 – Stiffness of the springs in vertical and horizontal directions .............................................74
Table 5.10 – Young’s modulus of concrete at measured construction levels ......................................75

Table 5.11 – Element Types used in Model B ....................................................................................80
Table 5.12 – Materials considered in the model B modelling ..............................................................81
Table 5.13 – Measured eigenfrequencies values ...............................................................................93

Table 5.14 – Eigenfrequencies values obtained through the numerical model A ................................94
Table 5.15 – Eigenfrequencies values obtained through the numerical model A ................................97
Table 6.1 – Loads per axle in the IC Train .......................................................................................100
Table 6.2 – Initial coordinates of the rails .........................................................................................102
Table 6.3 – Values of damping to be assumed for design purposes [16] ..........................................102
Table 6.4 – Recommended time increments ....................................................................................104
xvii
xviii
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. CONSIDERATIONS
The increasing globalization of the market, with the movement of people and goods exceeding the
geographical limits of each country, highlights the need for faster and more efficient transport services.
The rail transport, in particular the high-speed, presents, today, with great potential to fulfil the society
needs and as an advantageous alternative compared to road and air transport. The main advantages occur
at the level of transportation costs, capacity, safety and comfort [1]. The development and expansion of
high-speed lines allowed to shorten travel times and contributed to the social development and economic
growth, particularly in Europe, whose geography is in favour of this type of transport.
Moreover, the environmental respect, nowadays, is a factor with huge importance. Comparing the
carbon footprint of which one of these means of transport – including not only the operation phase and
the energy provision, but also the infrastructure (track system, motorways, airports) and the construction
of rolling stock, cars and airplanes – it is possible to conclude that, in fact, the high speed rail transport
is far away more “eco-friendly”.
Table 1.1 shows a comparison between high speed train, air transport and road, in a comparable
geographic context: for the same route from Valence to Marseille. Concerning to the road, the study
represents a section of A7 motorway from Valence to Marseille, with the following characteristics:
length of 210 kilometres; high traffic estimate of 58,400 vehicles (including all vehicles categories) per
day in 2004; 2x3 lanes infrastructure. Regarding the air transport, on a normal day, around 100 to 120
planes land in the Airport of “Marseille Provence”; in 2004 a total of 86,000 planes movement has been
observed between the two cities. The distance between the center of Valence and Marseille Airport is
170 km, and the annual traffic was around 5.6 million passengers in 2004. About the high speed train,
the “LGV Méditerranée” (Valence – Marseille) has a total length of 250 km and in 2004 transported
20.4 million passengers [2]. The comparison between the three transport modes is done on the unit of
passenger kilometre.
1
Table 1.1 - Carbon footprint of transport services [2]: a) High Speed Rail Transport; b) Road Transport; c) Air
Transport.
a)
High Speed Rail Transport
Main assumptions
Rolling Stock 1.0 g CO2 / pkm Lifespan 30 years, 18 trains in operation
French electricity mix, 24.1 kWh per train kilometre,

Operation 5.7 g CO2 / pkm 40 880 trains a year, 20.4 millions of passengers a
year
Construction 20.4 millions of passengers a year, 250 km of length

of High 4.3 g CO2 / pkm (10 km tunnels, 2.7 km covered trenches, 16 km on
Speed Line viaducts, 20.3 km of bridges)
Grand Sum 11.0 g CO2 / pkm
b)
Road Transport
Main assumptions
Car Overall transport performance of 150,000 km,

20.9 g CO2 / pkm
Construction average load factor 1.6, weight of the car: 1310 kg
Average consumption of 7 litres of gasoline for 100

Operation 130 g CO2 / pkm
km, load factor of 1.6 passengers
2*3 lanes between Valence and Marseille, transport

Road 0.7 g CO2 / pkm performance of 56,000 cars, load factor of 1.6
passengers, share of freight: 65.5%
c)
Air Transport
Main assumptions
Airplane Airbus A 320 with 320 seats, empty weight 61 t (mainly

0.5 g CO2 / pkm
Construction aluminium)
Load factor: 65%, Consumption per Ton-kilometre: 452

Operation 163.2 g CO2 / pkm
g kerosene, 100 kg for one passenger including luggage
Airport Allocation to passenger-traffic: 90%, around 600ha for

0.3 g CO2 / pkm
Construction runways, building and equipment
2
Among all sectors, the transport sector is the only one in which the CO 2 emissions are continuing to
increase, in spite of all technological advances. Furthermore, transport emissions in Europe increased
by 25%, between 1990 and 2010, while, on the other hand, the emissions from the energy and industrial
sectors has been declining over the time [3]. Hence, it is important to make a transition to a more
sustainable transport system in order to reduce the values of emissions due to transport means.
According to Figure 1.1, a large part of CO2 emissions is due to the role of transports. Comparing the
different types of transport, it is clear that the rail is one of the least responsible for these numbers and,
therefore, it has almost no impact on the CO2 emissions. Thus, rail need to be given more attention
because of its crucial role as an important part of the solution, playing a leading role in reducing the
transport related emissions and to contribute to the climate protection.
Other
Residential 4.5% Agriculture, Forestry
10.1% and Fishing
1.5%
Manufacturing
14.3%
Navigation
14.4%
Transport
31%
Road Aviation
70.9% 12.6%
Rail 1.5%
Electricity and Heat Other transport

38.6% 0.6%
Fig. 1.1 - EU272 Share of CO2 emissions from fuel combustion [4]
Once knowing that the train is the vehicle that has less impact on the environment, it would be to expect
this to be the most popular mean of transport. However, this does not occur, neither the transport of
persons nor freight. The most responsible for the transport of passengers is the car, with a rate of 83.6%,
according to data from UIC 3 (2015), followed by aircraft and only after by the train. Concerning the
transport of freight, the road and the navigation appear with a similar prevalence, although the road still
have a higher percentage, appearing the train as the third mode of transport (Table 1.2).
2
Members of the European Union as of the 2007 expansion (inclusion of Romania and Bulgaria)
3
International Union of Railways
3
Table 1.2 - EU27 transport modal share [4]
Passenger Freight
Total (TU)
(passenger-km) (tonne-km)
Road 83.6 % 46.9 % 70.3 %
Aviation 8.8 % 0.1 % 5.7 %
Navigation 0.6 % 41.9 % 15.5 %
Rail 7% 11.1 % 8.5 %
The railway transport, in particular the high speed, can play a key role in this context, contributing to
the purposes of integration and sustainable development of countries, either in terms of economic
growth, or in terms of social development. This type of transport is particularly competitive for distances
from 300 km to 1000 km [5], providing shorter journey times and greater comfort, when compared to
air and road transports. Therefore, the European geography fits in these conditions, once the major urban
centres are spaced in such distances.
In Europe, the first high speed lines were built in the 1980s and 1990s, improving travel times and, since
then, several countries have built extensive high speed networks, existing now several cross-border high
speed rail links [6]. In order to European Union to become a success with a thriving economy, goods
and people need to be able to circulate rapidly and easily between member states, and even beyond.
Consequently, it is in that context that the Trans-European High Speed Rail Network (TEN-R) comes
up, which main objective is to achieve the interoperability of the European high speed train network at
the various stages of its design, construction and operation [7].
As shown on Figure 1.2, nowadays the high speed railways are already distributed throughout Europe
and it is expected, in a near future, the significant increase in the number of kilometres in operation.
4
a)
b)
Fig. 1.2 - High Speed system in Europe [8]: a) by 2010; b) by 2025.
5
Due to being subjected to high intensity moving loads, railway bridges are structures where the dynamic
effects are always present, reason why the dynamic behaviour of a bridge must always be considered in
its design.
These effects are of even greater importance when associated with the development and progress of high
speed, thus leading to the rise of new challenges, in terms of the dynamic behaviour of structures built
in the respective routes, subjected to certain actions, distinct of those who were verified on conventional
lines. It was found that, in many situations, the traffic of vehicles at significant higher speeds (above
200 km/h) on the same structure, raised different dynamic effects of those previously known, with
relevance to the resonance effects.
Therefore, emerged the need to study the phenomena associated with behaviours never before
experienced and, through its conclusions, implementing European standards with procedures and
checks, covering the recent developments, in order to be considered in the structural design of new
bridges, or in the reinforcement of existing structures.
Despite being a well explored field, it continues to be very interesting and important to conduct research
works on railway bridges throughout Europe, enabling the understanding of their behaviour towards
current and potential actions on structures.
The main purpose of this assignment is to investigate the performance of a steel composite frame
Railway Bridge, by means of measurements in a particular bridge, under construction, in Sankt Johann
Im Pongau, in the state of Salzburg in Austria, to assess and validate his behaviour when subjected to
intense railway traffic.
In Civil Engineering, the evaluation process of structures is often performed using numerical models to
reproduce the properties of the structure and to predict his behaviour over time. The uncertainty that
exists in defining these properties implies experimental studies on existing structures, and posterior
calibration of the numerical models, based on the measured information. Thus, with the use of numerical
models - to reproduce realistically the complexity of the track-bridge system - combined with the
measured information obtained experimentally, it is possible to develop a complex and advanced study
of the bridge. It is then possible, in addition to verify the suitability of the structure at high speed, to
obtain enough information to identify common behaviours of the structure, that contribute to future
studies and regulations, in order to provide a better design of new structures in the future.
1.2. OBJECTIVES
Inserted in a research project carried out by the Institute for Steel Structures of the RWTH Aachen
University (Institut und Lehrstuhl für Stahlbau Leichtmetallbau Prof. Dr. –Ing. Markus Feldmann), this
work aims to study the dynamic behaviour of a steel composite frame railway bridge in Schwarzach-
Sankt Veit im Pongau, a market town in the Sankt Johann im Pongau district, in the Austrian state of
Salzburg.
Thus, in practical terms, the dynamic study of the bridge involves the development of a numerical model
using the finite element method, covering all the bridge elements, from the deck and the track, to the
foundations. Subsequently, it is intended to validate the numerical model with experimental results,
resulting from a campaign of experimental tests carried out on the bridge.
Another objective is also to perform parametric studies to understand the influence of various parameters
on the dynamic properties of the structure and study the modal parameters of the structure (such as
frequencies and vibration modes).
6
Finally, it is intended to study the dynamic response of the structure when this is subjected to the passage
of an Intercity train.
1.3. STRUCTURE OF THE WORK

This thesis is divided into seven chapters, whose content is briefly summarized in the following
paragraphs.
The present Chapter 1 presents the main motivations for the development of this thesis, describes its
main objectives, and outlines the organization of the text.
A bibliographical survey of previous researches concerning dynamic behaviour of railway bridges is
performed in Chapter 2. Are presented the various parameters involved in the resonance phenomena
that may occur in railway bridges. In addition, a brief revision of research carried out by Sub-Committee
D214 under the scope of European Rail Research Institute (ERRI) is done, understanding the key
parameters regarding this subject. Hence, this chapter is dedicated to addressing specific aspects related
to the dynamic analysis of railway bridges, especially with regard to the factors that contribute to the
differences often found between the experimental results and the calculations, such as bearings stiffness,
train-bridge interaction and also the influence of the distribution of the loads through the track.
Chapter 3 focuses on the main aspects for the design of railway bridges included in EN1991-2 and
EN1990-AnnexA2 standards, including the main rail traffic actions to be used for static and dynamic
analysis of bridges, the need to perform dynamic analysis, as well as their requirements, and also the
checks to ensure not only the safety and suitability of the structure, but also the stability of the track and
the passenger comfort. The most relevant parameters in a dynamic analysis are also listed, such as the
structural damping, stiffness and mass of the bridge.
Chapter 4 is dedicated to addressing the existing dynamic analysis methodologies, highlighting the
numerical ones, with and without train-bridge interaction.
Chapter 5 starts with a brief presentation of the bridge over the Salzach river. Later, the numerical model
of the bridge, performed in the ANSYS software, is described, including the definition of geometrical
and mechanical properties to be given to the various finite element members of the model. Finally,
proceed to the description of the experimental campaign, being presented the results obtained and the
vibration modes resulting from the modal analysis of the bridge.
In chapter 6 is performed a dynamic analysis of the bridge in study, being used a methodology with
moving loads, that was developed by the high speed research group of FEUP. Furthermore, was studied
the influence of some parameters on the accelerations and displacements of the deck of the bridge.
Chapter 7 presents the main conclusions of this work, and summarizes some future research topics.
7
8
2
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL SURVEY
2.1. INTRODUCTION
The bibliographical survey results from a research in academic works, journals and articles and it has a
crucial importance in the description of the development reached in the field of study (which can be
translated by procedures or methodologies).
There are several works performed that intend to understand and/or investigate the dynamic behaviour
of railway bridges, with relevance to short span bridges and bridges under high speed, where the
dynamic problems are more pronounced, particularly resonance effects. It is important to understand the
interaction between the bridge, the vehicle and the track, as well as the effect of rapid loading.
Theoretical, numerical and experimental studies have been carried on several bridges in order to extend
the knowledge about this subject, identifying the aspects that govern the behaviour of bridges under high
speed trains and developing new approaches to be used by bridge engineers.
The aim of this chapter is to perform a review of some important works about the subject of dynamic
behaviour of bridges (including a reference to short span bridges) under high speed trains.
2.2. RESONANCE PHENOMENA

The dynamic response of railway bridges under moving train loads is one of the fundamental problems
to be solved in bridge design. The train running with high speed induces dynamic impact on the bridge
structure, influencing their working state and service life, and the vibration of the bridge, in turn, affects
the running stability and safety of the train vehicles, and thus becomes an important factor for evaluating
the dynamic parameters of the bridge in the design.
It has been noticed, according to Xia et al. [9], that when a row of train vehicles travel through a railway
bridge, the loading frequencies will change corresponding to different train speeds. The resonant
vibrations occur when the loading frequencies coincide with the natural frequencies of the bridges or
the train vehicles, resulting in the reduction of the stability and safety of the moving train vehicles,
deteriorating the riding comfort of the passengers and, sometimes, even destabilizing the ballast track
on the bridge.
Therefore, it is necessary to study this problem and to develop methods to predict the resonant speeds
of the running trains, as well as to assess the dynamic behaviours of railway bridges in resonance
conditions. Hence, several studies were carried out to analyse these effects, by Matsuura (1976), Yang
and Yau (1995), Frýba (1999), Li and Su (1999), Ju and Lin (2003), Kwark (2004) and Guo (2004) [9].
9
The resonance of train-bridge system is influenced by several factors, such as the periodically loading
on the bridge of the moving load series; the harmonic forces on the bridge of the moving trains excited
by rail irregularities and wheel flats; and the periodical actions on the moving vehicles of long bridges
with identical spans and their deflections, and so on.
The resonant responses of the bridge induced by moving trains are classified into three types according
to different resonance mechanisms: the first is related to the periodical actions of moving load series of
the vertical weights, lateral centrifugal and wind forces of vehicles; the second is induced by the loading
rate of moving load series of vehicles; the third is owning to the periodically loading of the swing forces
of the train vehicles excited by track irregularities and wheel hunting movements. The vehicle resonance
is induced by the periodical action of regular arrangement of bridge spans and their deflections.
2.2.1. MECHANISM OF RESONANCE AND CANCELLATION FOR TRAIN -INDUCED VIBRATIONS ON BRIDGES
The length of the coach of a train may vary between about 18 up to 27 m, while the span length of a
simply supported bridge of medium span is not much broader, and may vary between 10 and 40 m.
Considering, on average, that the velocity of the high speed trains is situated between 200 and 350 km/h
[10], and given the repetitive nature of the action, the resonance phenomena is easily achieved in this
type of structures.
The resonance phenomena is associated with the continuous increase in the response of the bridge in
free vibration, after the passage of each one of the axle forces that constitute the train, and its occurrence
can cause irreparable damages to both the bridge and the track. According to an example, provided in a
study of Rigueiro [10], consider a simply supported bridge with zero damping, whose span has a length
of 10 m, and its natural frequency is equal to 8 Hz, subjected to the passage of a train with 14 coaches,
25.4 m long each, 56 axles and the speed of 253 km/h.
The response of the structure at mid-span, in terms of accelerations, can be observed in Figure 2.1.
Fig. 2.1 - Observation of the resonance effects in a simply supported bridge [10]
As shown in the previous figure, the successive passage of forces on the structure causes a harmonic
response of increasing amplitude, which can reach very high values, and after the passage of the last
axis, at about 5.12 s, the bridge continues vibrating around its equilibrium position, with large vibration
10
amplitudes. This behaviour, which is represented in terms of accelerations (wherein there is a marked
amplification of the vibrations), illustrates the typical behaviour of a bridge in resonance.
In contrast to the resonance phenomena, the cancellation phenomena is characterized by the effect of
the free vibration responses, related to the passage of successive rolling forces annul each other. To
illustrate this effect, consider the behaviour at the mid-span of the previously studied bridge, now in
terms of displacements, subjected to the passage of the train with 14 coaches, 26.4 m long each, 56 axles
and with the circulation speed of 192 km/h.
As shown in Figure 2.2, the successive passage of forces on the structure, causes a response that easily
identifies the passage of successive coaches of the train on the bridge, so without amplification effects
of the vibrations. Complementing the fact that when the last train axis leaves the structure, this is not
vibrating, that is, the free vibrations in this case are nearly nil.
Fig. 2.2 - Observation of the cancellation effects in a simply supported bridge [10]
Both resonance and cancellation phenomena are related to the free vibrations induced by the passage of
the rolling forces over the bridge. When a moving force leaves the bridge, the induced vibrations are
waves of sinusoidal configuration. If it is assumed that the vibrations induced by each of the forces
which leaves the bridge are coupled in frequency and amplitude, that is, they are vibrations whose
frequencies are multiples of the vibration frequency of the structure, therefore, the overlap of these
vibrations causes the resonance of the structure. However, if vibrations are only coupled in frequency,
these vibrations have frequencies which are submultiples of the beam vibration frequency, than
cancellation phenomena occurs.
To illustrate this, consider the previous example of the simply supported bridge, subjected to the
movement of a train, at a circulation speed of 253 km/h. Figure 2.3 a) represents the response of the
bridge in free vibration, after the passage of each one of the three forces, as well as the overlap of these.
As can be seen, the response of the structure is increased for each force that leaves the bridge.
However, if the rolling forces are moving over the bridge with the speed of 192 km/h, the effect is the
opposite, that is, the free vibrations are such that their overlap results in the cancellation of vibrations.
Figure 2.3 b) shows the response of the bridge in free vibration, after the passage of the first two forces,
followed by the overlap of these responses. As can be seen, the overlap of responses in free vibration of
each two forces leaving the bridge, results in the cancellation of vibrations.
11
a) b)
Fig. 2.3 - Overlapping responses in free vibration of a simply supported bridge, after the passage of forces equally
spaced of 26.4 m, with speed of: a) 253 km/h; b) 192 km/h [10]
2.2.2. BRIDGE RESONANCE INDUCED BY MOVING LOAD SERIES

The resonance of the train-bridge system is affected by the span, total length, lateral and vertical stiffness
of the bridge, the compositions of the trains, and the axle arrangements and natural frequencies of the
vehicles.
For the analytical description of the resonance phenomena, consider a simply supported beam without
damping, with a span length L, subjected to a series of concentrated constant loads F (with identical
intervals dv), to simulate the loading actions of a real train moving on a bridge. Suppose the load series
travel on the beam at a uniform speed V.
The motion equation for the beam acted on by such moving load series can be written as shown in
equation (2.1) [9], where Lb is the span length of the beam, E is the elastic modulus, I is the constant
moment of inertia of the beam cross section, 𝑚 ̅ is the constant mass per unit length of the beam, 𝑦(𝑥, 𝑡)
is the displacement of the beam at position x and time t, N is the total number of moving loads, and δ is
the Dirac delta function, expressed in (2.2) [10].
𝑁−1
𝜕 4 𝑦(𝑥, 𝑡) 𝜕 2 𝑦(𝑥, 𝑡) 𝑘 ∗ 𝑑𝑣
𝐸𝐼 4
+ 𝑚
̅ 2
= ∑ 𝛿 [𝑥 − 𝑉 (𝑡 − )] 𝐹 (2.1)
𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑡 𝑉
𝑘=0
+∞
𝛿(𝑥 − 𝑎 ) = 0 ∀ 𝑥 ≠ 𝑎, ∫ 𝑓 (𝑥) 𝛿(𝑥 − 𝑎 ) 𝑑𝑥 = 𝑓(𝑎) (2.2)
−∞
According to Xia et al. [9], equation (2.1) can be expressed in terms of the generalized coordinates, as
shown in equation (2.3).
𝑁−1
2𝐹 𝑛𝜋𝑉 𝑘 𝑑𝑣
𝑦̈ (𝑡) + 𝜔2 ∗ 𝑦(𝑡) = ∗ ∑ sin ∗ (𝑡 − ) (2.3)
𝑚
̅𝐿 𝐿𝑏 𝑉
𝑘=0
12
To analyse the effects of the passage of the force on the structure, it is only taken into account the
contribution of the first vibration mode, as the other modes can be considered negligible because of the
momentary nature of the moving force.
Therefore, the particular solution of the previous equation, for the first vibration mode of the beam is
expressed in (2.4), where β is the ratio of exciting frequency to the natural frequency of the beam, D is
the dynamic magnification factor, 𝜔 ̅ is the exciting circular frequency of the moving loads, and ω is the
natural circular frequency of the beam, expressed in the expressions (2.5) to (2.8), respectively [9].
𝑁−1
2 𝐹 𝐿3 𝑘 𝑑𝑣 𝑘 𝑑𝑣
𝑦(𝑡) = 4
∗ 𝐷 ∗ ∑ [sin 𝜔
̅ (𝑡 − ) − 𝛽 sin 𝜔 (𝑡 − )] (2.4)
𝐸𝐼 𝜋 𝑉 𝑉
𝑘=0
𝜔
̅
𝛽= (2.5)
𝜔
1
𝐷= (2.6)
1 − 𝛽2
𝜋𝑉 (2.7)
𝜔
̅=
𝐿𝑏
𝜋2 𝐸𝐼
𝜔= 2 ∗√ (2.8)
𝐿𝑏 𝑚
̅
The displacement response of the beam, where only the first mode is considered, can thus be expressed
by equation (2.9) [9].
𝑁−1 𝑁−1
2 𝐹 𝐿3 𝜋𝑥 𝑘 𝑑𝑣 𝑘 𝑑𝑣
𝑦(𝑥, 𝑡) = 4
𝐷 sin [∑ sin 𝜔
̅ (𝑡 − ) − 𝛽 ∑ sin 𝜔 (𝑡 − )] (2.9)
𝐸𝐼 𝜋 𝐿𝑏 𝑉 𝑉
𝑘=0 𝑘=0
The first term of the right side of the previous equation represents the forced response of the beam due
to the moving loads, while the second term represents the transient response due to its free vibration.
According to their different mechanisms, the resonant responses of a simply supported beam subjected
to moving load series, can be divided into two types.
13
2.2.2.1. Bridge resonance induced by periodically loading of moving load series

First, the discussion is made for the second progression term of equation (2.9), to explain how the
transient response in common sense may induce the resonance of the beam. Therefore, according to Xia
et al. [9], after some deductions, was possible to obtain the limit value of the transient response term in
the equation of the displacement response of the beam, given by expression (2.10).
𝑁−1
𝑘 𝑑𝑣
∑ sin 𝜔 (𝑡 − )| = 𝑁 sin 𝜔𝑡 (2.10)
𝑉 𝜔𝑑
𝑘=0 ( 𝑣 )=𝑖𝜋
2𝑉
It can be seen that each force, in the moving load series, may induce the transient response of the
structure, and the successive forces from a series of periodical excitations. The response of the structure
will be successively amplified with the increase of the number of forces traveling through the beam.
The similar results can be obtained for higher modes of the bridge. Considering all of these modes, and
let 𝜔𝑛 = 2𝜋𝑓𝑏𝑛 , the resonant condition of the bridge, under moving load series, can be defined as
expressed in equation (2.11), where Vbr is the resonant train speed (km/h), fbn is nth vertical or lateral
natural frequency of the bridge (Hz) and dv is the intervals of the moving loads (m).
3.6 𝑓𝑏𝑛 𝑑𝑣
𝑉𝑏𝑟 = (𝑛 = 1,2, … , 𝑖 = 1,2, … ) (2.11)
𝑖
The previous equation indicates that when a train moves on the bridge at speed V, the regularly arranged
vehicle wheel-axles may produce periodical dynamic actions on the bridge, with the loading period dv/V.
The bridge resonance occurs when the loading period is close to the nth natural vibration period of the
bridge. A series of resonant responses related to different bridge natural frequencies may occur
corresponding to different train speeds. This is defined as the first resonant condition of a bridge, which
is determined by the time of the load traveling through the distance dv.
2.2.2.2. Bridge resonance induced by loading rate of moving load series

As for the first progression term of equation (2.9), which represents the forced response of the bridge,
the only difference with the second term, besides a nonzero multiplicator β, is that the frequency ω is
replaced by 𝜔̅.
The second resonance of the simply supported beam under moving train loads, can be directly
determined from equation (2.9), by the dynamic magnification factor D. When the frequency ratio 𝛽 =
1, that is, 𝜔𝑛 = 𝜔
̅𝑛 , the dynamic magnification factor D becomes infinite. At this time, the resonant
vibrations of the bridge are excited. For the simply supported beam under moving loads, the loading
frequency 𝜔𝑛 = 𝑛𝜋𝑉/𝐿𝑏 , and the nth natural frequency of the beam 𝜔𝑛 = 2𝜋𝑓𝑏𝑛 , the resonant trains
speed 𝑉𝑏𝑟 can be described by the equation (2.12), where Lb is the length of the bridge span (m).
7.2 𝑓𝑏𝑛 𝐿𝑏
𝑉𝑏𝑟 = (𝑛 = 1,2, … ) (2.12)
𝑛
14
Therefore, the previous equation indicates that the bridge resonance occurs when the time of the train’s
traveling through the bridge equals to half or n times of the natural vibration period of the bridge. This
is defined as the second resonant condition of the bridge.
2.2.3. BRIDGE RESONANCE OWING TO THE SWAY FORCES OF TRAIN VEHICLES

The third bridge resonance is induced by the periodical actions on the bridge of the lateral moving load
series owing to the sway forces of the train vehicles. The sway forces of vehicles may be excited by the
track irregularities and wheel hunting movements. The resonant train speed, in this case, can be
determined through expression (2.13) that is basically the same as equation (2.11) for the first resonance
condition, except that dv is replaced by Ls, which represents the dominant wavelength of the track
irregularities or wheel hunting movements.
3.6 𝑓𝑏𝑛 𝐿𝑠
𝑉𝑏𝑟 = (𝑛 = 1,2, … , 𝑖 = 1,2, … ) (2.13)
𝑖
The multiplicators n and i show that when the dominant frequency of the track irregularities or wheel
hunting movements equals to the nth natural frequency or their harmonic frequencies, the resonance of
the bridge occurs. This is called the third resonant condition of bridge.
2.3. FACTORS INFLUENCING THE DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF THE STRUCTURE

Short and medium span bridges are the types of bridges most often encountered in railways, especially
in urban areas, and which take the greatest load variations, fact that renders them highly susceptible to
dynamic structural loadings.
The behaviour of bridges is quite susceptible to uncertainties related to the support stiffness, the
interactions effects between the bridge and the abutment, the continuity of the track on the bridge
supports and the ballast behaviour in the cross connection of tracks, perceptible facts in the results
analysis of several investigations carried out by ERRI4. Thus, their dynamic behaviour is very difficult
to predict, since there are major differences between experimental results and numerical calculations.
Studies published by Dieleman and Fournol [11] show that the experimental results and the numerical
models tend to converge when adjusting the sensitive properties, and the ones with greater uncertainty
in the determination of its value, such as the stiffness, the mass and the damping. However, these
adjustments may be insufficient to correctly characterize the behaviour of these structures.
By taking a closer look to the behaviour of bridges, it is possible to find reasons for these differences,
as shown in Figure 2.4.
4
European Rail Research Institute
15
Fig. 2.4 - Sources of errors [11]
The origins of calculations faults, as seen on the previous figure, result from the following aspects [11]:
 The real structure span is difficult to define because the impact of the size and the behaviour of
the bearings are no longer marginal;
 The slab transversal behaviour, related to the width of the bridge, must be considered;
 The cantilevered parts at each end also affect their dynamic behaviour by acting on the bearing
conditions and on the distribution of forces over the deck;
 The ends of the decks are more or less elastically embedded;
 The presence of the track, particularly with continuous rails, has an impact on the load
distribution;
 The vehicle-track interaction is also important, as well as the ballast consideration;
 The damping created by the bearing systems is no longer marginal;
 Track irregularities and imperfections in the vehicle wheels.
2.3.1. BEARINGS STIFFNESS

A study by Dieleman and Fournol [11], in order to correlate the measurements taken on real bridges and
the results of calculation models, focused mainly on the analysis of the bearings stiffness, a factor of
major importance in the analysis of bridges.
The study was based on experimental results of some bridges, which were compared with calculated
results of two extreme situations, with different bearing conditions: articulated and embedded. As
expected, the articulated bearing conditions systematically underestimate the natural frequencies, while
the embedded conditions considerably overestimate them.
The calculations revealed that it was necessary to combine the effects of a vertical bearing stiffness with
a rotation stiffness in the vertical plan (transversal axis rotation stiffness). Consequently, these stiffness
was introduced into the model in the form of individual springs, placed under the secondary beams.
These bearing conditions were used for all other bridge models, and it was possible to verify that
resetting with elastic bearings gives the best results.
16
2.3.2. TRAIN-BRIDGE INTERACTION

The dynamic behaviour of railway bridges has been a subject of research since the first railway
accidents. Some of the most remarkable works on this subject are those by Stokes, Bresse, Willis, Bleich,
Inglis, Timoshenko and Frýba [12] [13].
From these works it can be observed that the physical model most frequently used for the dynamic
analysis of railway bridges is the moving loads model, which does not take into account neither the train
masses nor their damping properties. Therefore, the train is modelled as a series of concentrated,
constant-valued loads travelling at speed V, as shown in Figure 2.5.
Fig. 2.5 - Moving loads model [13]
At non-resonance speeds, bridge response predicted by more sophisticated models including train-
bridge interaction is very similar to the one obtained from moving loads models, as shown in studies
from ERRI D214 [14]. Conversely, train-bridge interaction significantly reduces displacements and
accelerations at resonance, which could be of great interest from an economic point of view.
In addition, it can be observed a translation of the resonant peaks (Figure 2.6), in the direction of lower
speeds, computed with the interaction model relative to the point load results. This effect appears
because the interaction models include the mass of the vehicle, leading to the reduction of the
frequencies of the structure and, consequently, in the highest values of accelerations.
Fig. 2.6 - Acceleration in the mid-span: with and without interaction [15]
17
Train-bridge interaction is a phenomenon that occurs when the bridge oscillations or the rail-surface
roughness excite the motion of the vehicle sprung masses, reason why the value of the axle forces
becomes time dependent and, therefore, it is no longer equal to the static axle load.
In one of the works by the ERRI D-214 committee [14], it can be observed that for the short-medium
spans the vertical accelerations of the deck predicted by the moving loads model reach very high values,
much greater than the limit acceleration related to the appearance of ballast liquefaction, which is about
70% of the acceleration of gravity, which suggests that the models with train-bridge interaction are the
most suitable for the short-medium span bridges analysis [13]. This committee also showed that train-
bridge interaction has a considerable influence in the dynamic behaviour of short span bridges (lengths
shorter than 20 meters), once reductions of the displacements and accelerations about 25% were found,
when comparing the moving loads and the interaction models.
The evaluation of the reduction of the response due to the train-bridge interaction is hard to carry out,
once unlike the reduction due to the load distribution through sleepers and ballast, the train-bridge
interaction effects are different, even if for bridges with the same length, as shown in studies carried out
by Museros et al. [13], reason why, a complete dynamic analysis in the time domain is required.
Therefore, and considering the length of the bridges constant, with a 10 m span, and a damping ratio of
1%, the reductions of the displacements and accelerations were defined in equations (2.14) and (2.15),
where Ф𝑐 and 𝑎𝑐 are the impact coefficient and maximum acceleration computed with the moving loads
model, Ф𝑖 and 𝑎𝑖 are the ones computed taking into account the train-bridge interaction, 𝜆 and 𝑛0 are
the usual wavelength and the natural frequency of the bridge, and I is the moment of inertia of the cross
section of the beam.
Ф𝑐 (𝜆) − Ф𝑖 (𝜆, 𝑛0 , 𝐼)
𝑅(𝜆, 𝑛0 , 𝐼) = ∗ 100 (2.14)
Ф𝑐 (𝜆)
𝑎𝑐 (𝜆, 𝑛0 , 𝐼) − 𝑎𝑖 (𝜆, 𝑛0 , 𝐼)
𝑅′(𝜆, 𝑛0 , 𝐼) = ∗ 100 (2.15)
𝑎𝑐 (𝜆, 𝑛0 , 𝐼)
According to the previous equations, reductions R and R’ depend, for a given wavelength, on the
fundamental frequency of the bridge, as well as on the bridge static stiffness (moment of inertia I).
Therefore, in order to investigate the dependence of R and R’ on such variables, a parametric study has
been conducted in which the behaviour of several bridges of 10 m of span length has been studied.
This study, conducted by Museros et al. [13], selected five different values of the fundamental
frequency, within the established limits of Figure 3.4, in section 3.2.1.4. Then, for each of these values,
five bridges with different moments of inertia have been selected, respecting two realistic requirements:
first, the static deflection δ of the bridge, due to its own weight and the Load Model 71 (section 3.2.1.1)
acting simultaneously, must lie between 500 ≤ 𝐿/𝛿 ≤ 3000; secondly, the mass of the bridge per unit
length must be greater than 3000 𝑘𝑔/𝑚 and smaller than 20000 𝑘𝑔/𝑚.
From the analysis of reduction factors R and R’ in Figure 2.7, it is possible to observe that the reductions
are nearly proportional to each other. Consequently, any of the curves in this figure can be obtained
from any other, multiplying by an appropriate factor. Thus, taking any bridge as the reference bridge,
an approximation for the reductions is given by equations (2.3) and (2.4), where 𝑅𝑟𝑒𝑓 (𝜆) and 𝑅′𝑟𝑒𝑓 (𝜆)
18
are the reductions for a bridge, and 𝛾(𝑛0 , 𝐼) and 𝛾′(𝑛0 , 𝐼) are the intensities of reduction for a bridge
with natural frequency 𝑛0 and moment of inertia I.
Fig. 2.7 - Reduction of the impact coefficients (R) and maximum accelerations (R’) for bridges [13]
𝑅(𝜆, 𝑛0 , 𝐼) ≅ 𝛾(𝑛0 , 𝐼) ∗ 𝑅𝑟𝑒𝑓 (𝜆) (2.16)
𝑅′(𝜆, 𝑛0 , 𝐼) ≅ 𝛾′(𝑛0 , 𝐼) ∗ 𝑅′𝑟𝑒𝑓 (𝜆) (2.17)
As can be seen in Figure 2.8, the values of γ and γ’ lie on nearly straight lines, each of them
corresponding to a different value of the fundamental frequency.
Fig. 2.8 - Intensities of reduction for the impact coefficients (γ) and for the maximum accelerations (γ’) [13]
19
The study revealed that the train-bridge interaction causes reduction of considerable importance in the
maximum displacements and accelerations of bridges. It has also been found that the reductions obtained
in bridges with different natural frequency and moment of inertia, are nearly proportional to each other
and, finally, that the intensities of reduction can be very accurately approximated using numerical
expressions [13].
2.3.3. DISTRIBUTION OF THE LOADS THROUGH THE SLEEPERS AND BALLAST LAYER
In order to analyse the effects of the distribution of the loads beneath the sleepers and the ballast layer,
as shown in Figure 2.9, the formulas proposed by ERRI [14], valid for the responses computed by the
concentrated and distributed load models, are taken as a departure point.
Fig. 2.9 - Distribution of the axle loads through the sleepers and ballast layer [13]
In the formulas (2.18) and (2.19), proposed by ERRI, Ф is the impact coefficient, that is, the relation
between dynamic and static deflections at mid-span; f and f’ are the maximum vertical deflections at
mid-span of two bridges of the same length; 𝑓𝐿𝑀71 and 𝑓′𝐿𝑀71 are the static deflections at mid-span of
the two bridges due to Load Model LM71; 𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥 and 𝑎′𝑚𝑎𝑥 are the maximum vertical accelerations at
mid-span; L is the span of the bridges and ξ is the damping ratio. The variables that define the dynamic
behaviour of the bridges are m and m’, which are the mass of the bridges per unit length, as well as n0
and n’0, which are the fundamental frequencies. Finally, V is the speed of the train passing over the first
bridge (mass m, frequency n0) and V’ is the speed of the train passing over the second bridge (mass m’,
frequency n’0).
𝑉 𝑉′
𝑓 (𝐿, 𝜉, 𝑚, 𝑛0 , 𝑛 ) 𝑓′ (𝐿, 𝜉, 𝑚′, 𝑛′0 , )
0 𝑛′0 (2.18)
Ф= =
𝑓𝐿𝑀71 𝑓′𝐿𝑀71
𝑉 𝑚′ 𝑉′
𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥 = (𝐿, 𝜉, 𝑚, 𝑛0 , )= 𝑎′𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝐿, 𝜉, 𝑚′, 𝑛′0 , ) (2.19)
𝑛0 𝑚 𝑛′0
20
The reductions of the displacements (R) and accelerations (R’), due to the load distribution through the
sleepers and ballast, are defined in formulas (2.20) and (2.21), where subscript “c” stand for
concentrated loads and subscript “d” stand for distributed loads.
Ф𝑐 − Ф𝑑
𝑅= ∗ 100 (2.20)
Ф𝑐
𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑐 − 𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑑
𝑅′ = ∗ 100 (2.21)
𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑐
Therefore, these reductions have been evaluated for nine reference bridges of spans ranging from 4 to
15 m, with a damping ratio 𝜉 = 0.01 [12]. Realistic values of the damping ratio are usually greater for
the shortest bridges, where the energy dissipated by the continuous track and ballast layer is of greater
importance. The results are valid for any bridge having a span length equal to the length of any of the
reference bridges.
Figure 2.10 shows the maximum accelerations predicted by the concentrated and distributed load
models, for the reference bridges of span lengths 5 and 10 m.
Fig. 2.10 - Maximum accelerations in bridges of span: 𝐿 = 5 𝑚 and 𝐿 = 10 𝑚 [13]
From the analysis of the previous figure, while the reductions are insignificant for the 10 m bridges, they
should not be disregarded in the 5 m ones, especially for low speeds. In general, it is found that the
shorter the value of the wavelength, the greater the reduction of the accelerations. Conversely, for the
longer wavelengths the reductions decrease monotonically.
21
22
3
DESIGN CODES APPLIED TO
RAILWAY BRIDGES
3.1. INTRODUCTION
The dynamic effects of railway traffic in conventional lines are usually taken into account in the design
of bridges, taking the static effects produced by certain types of loads, considering all possible real trains
in circulation, multiplied by a coefficient of dynamic amplification. This is the normal procedure for
railways whose circulation speed is limited to 200 km/h.
However, with the evolution of the railway over the years, as well as the development of high speed
train (resulting in a significant increase in the rail traffic speed), dynamic problems began to appear,
particularly resonance effects, previously unknown.
The determination of these effects is a complex task, requiring the application of dynamic analysis.
Therefore, and looking forward to the implementation of a high speed rail system in Europe, the
procedures related to the determination of these effects were included in the standards EN1991-2 [16]
and EN1990-AnnexA2 [17]. These standards include a set of design rules and limitations of the dynamic
response of bridges, in order to fulfil the interoperability requirements of the European high speed
network.
This chapter comprises the main aspects for the design of railway bridges included in those standards,
including the main rail traffic actions to be used for static and dynamic analysis of bridges, the need to
perform dynamic analysis, as well as their requirements, and also the checks to ensure not only the safety
and suitability of the structure, but also the stability of the track and the passenger comfort.
3.2. ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED

3.2.1. STATIC EFFECTS
Static analysis of railway bridges allows to obtain the response of the structure, by applying static
vertical loads, multiplied by a factor α, which are designed to simulate the movement of different trains.
However, the movement of trains at a certain speed causes different reactions in the structure, than the
reactions caused by simple static loads. Amplification coefficients of the results of the static loads are
able to include some of the results variations, but neither include the possible resonance effects, nor
realistically reflect the structure behaviour, resulting, in many circumstances, in the need to resort a
dynamic analysis, detailed in section 3.2.2.
23
Rail traffic actions are defined by means of load models. According to EN1991-2 [16], there are four
models to represent vertical static loading: Load Model 71, Load Models SW/0 and SW/2 and the Load
Model “unloaded train”, to represent the effect of an unloaded train.
Thus, in this section, each of the load models is characterized, as well as its specific fields of application.
3.2.1.1. Load Model 71

The load model LM71 represents the static effect of vertical loading due to normal rail traffic on
mainline railways, and it is applicable to any type of railway bridge.
The introduction of this model in the design of railway bridges allowed a huge simplification of the
calculations, once with only a single load model was possible to cover the static effects of real trains.
The model consists of four concentrated loads (Qvk) of 250 kN each, and of uniformly distributed loads
(qvk) at the ends of 80 kN/m, as shown in Figure 3.1.
Fig. 3.1 - Load Model 71 and characteristic values for vertical loads [16]
The LM71 model is used to verify the structural safety, in terms of resistance, static balance and fatigue,
as well as for the verification of the track stability and passenger comfort. The model can be fragmented,
that is, concentrated and distributed loads may be omitted if its effects are favourable [18]. Figure 3.2
illustrates the configuration of LM71 that produces the maximum bending moment at mid-span of the
central section, in a continuous deck with 5 main sections.
Fig. 3.2 - Loads Distribution to obtain maximum bending moment at mid-span of the central section, in a
continuous deck with 5 main sections [18]
24
The characteristic values given in Figure 3.1 shall be multiplied by a factor α, on lines carrying rail
traffic which is heavier or lighter than normal rail traffic. When multiplied by the factor α, the loads are
called “classified vertical loads”. This factor α shall be 0,75 – 0,83 – 0,91 in the case of lightest traffic,
and 1,10 – 1,21 – 1,33 – 1,46 in the case of heaviest traffic.
3.2.1.2. Load Models SW/0 and SW/2

The load models SW/0 and SW/2 are an alternative to the load model LM71 in particular situations.
The model SW/0, such as model LM71, represents the static effect of vertical loading due to normal rail
traffic. However, the SW/0 should not be applied to any type of bridge, but only on bridges with
continuous beams.
Load Model SW/2 represents the static effect of vertical loading due to heavy rail traffic, and its
utilization should be restricted to line sections in which circulate heavy freight traffic [18].
The load models SW/0 and SW/2 are comprised of two uniformly distributed loads (qvk), arranged along
two tracks with length a, and spaced apart from c, as shown in Figure 3.3. The characteristic values of
the vertical loads and the geometric parameters are shown in Table 3.1.
Fig. 3.3 - Load Models SW/0 and SW/2 [16]
Table 3.1 - Characteristic values for vertical loads for Load Models SW/0 and SW/2 [16]
Load Model qvk [kN/m] a [m] c [m]
SW/0 133 15,0 5,3
SW/2 150 25,0 7,0
Contrary to the load model LM71, both models SW/0 and SW/2 should not have their loads subjected
to fragmentation, that is, the possible favourable effects of loading parts must be considered [18].
Moreover, as well as LM71, SW/0 can also be applied to only one lane, two lanes or all lanes, if there
are three or more lanes. As for the application of load model SW/2, this is restricted to a single lane. In
the case of decks with two or more lanes, the model SW/2 can be applied in any of the lanes, being the
remainder loaded with LM71 or SW/0 models, according to the previous rules.
It is also important to refer that the load model SW/0 must be multiplied by the factor α, in the case of
either one of the conditions described in 3.2.1.1 being verified.
25
3.2.1.3. Load Model “Unloaded Train”

The Load Model “unloaded train” consists of a vertical uniformly distributed load, with a characteristic
value of 10,0 kN/m. Its application is restricted to some specific verifications, such as checking the
lateral stability of a bridge when subjected to a lateral load, as the wind action.
3.2.1.4. Consideration of Dynamic Effects in Static Analysis

The circulation of trains over a bridge occurs with a certain velocity v. This fact result in vibrations in
the structure and in vehicles, which are further aggravated by the irregularities on the track and in the
vehicle wheels [18]. These effects cause variations of the static values of load by rail axis, so the effects
of actions should be revised by a corrective factor, in order to meet the implicit dynamic effects, but not
considered in this analysis.
Thus, excluding the cases where it is expected the occurrence of resonance phenomena, are defined,
according to EN1991-2 (2003) [16], two corrective factors, φ and Φ, being used, respectively, to
characterize the dynamic effects of real trains and static calculation models (LM71, SW/0 and SW/2):
 Factor φ corresponds to an amplification factor of the dynamic load and enables to take into
account the amplifications due to the train load and irregularities;
 In turn, factor Φ should not be considered an amplification factor, since its application is
restricted to calculation models.
Moreover, despite being possible to characterize the effects of the application of dynamic loads, these
factors do not represent the resonance effects associated to the circulation of high speed trains. In these
situation, dynamic analysis are needed to an accurate evaluation of these effects [18].
i. Dynamic factors (1 + 𝜑) for Real Trains

The first studies on the subject of dynamic amplifications in bridges are due to Stokes (1849), Melan
(1893), Zimmermann (1896) and Timoshenko (1922). Based on the work of these and other researchers,
and considering the results of several measurements on bridges, it began to adopt dynamic amplification
coefficients in the design of railway bridges, in order to simulate the effects of dynamic actions,
multiplying the values of the static calculation by a factor. Despite the lack of uniformity, the coefficients
exhibited a common trend to diminish with the increasing span of the bridge [19].
Consequently, with the objective of standardizing the existing dynamic amplification coefficients and
considering the expected evolution for high speed trains, were initiated by UIC and ORE5 investigations
on the dynamic behaviour of railway bridges, with emphasis to the dynamic amplifications. Therefore,
from 1970 to 1979, this committee held more than 350 measurements on 37 bridges (using different
types of test trains), carried out a measurement campaign in scale models of bridges with different
models of vehicles and, also made numerical simulations in order to verify the experiments. Based on
the evaluation of these studies, it was concluded that the dynamic amplification factor (1 + 𝜑),
according to standard EN1991-2 (2003) [16], is:
(1 + 𝜑) = 1 + 𝜑′ + 𝜆 𝜑′′ (3.1)
In this expression, 𝜑′ is the portion corresponding to the dynamic amplification due to the movement of
the train crossing the structure, assuming a track without irregularities, 𝜑′′ is the portion that allows to
5
Office for Research and Experiments of the International Union of Railways
26
consider the effect of irregularities of tracks and of vehicle wheels. The 𝜆 factor differs depending on
the conservation status of the track:
1 + 𝜑′ + 𝜑′′ 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒

1+𝜑 = { 𝜑′′ (3.2)
1 + 𝜑′ + 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑘
2
The 𝜑′ coefficient is obtained through the expression (3.3), in which K, defined in (3.4), depends on the
maximum permitted vehicle speed v [m/s], the first natural bending frequency of the bridge loaded by
permanent actions n0 [Hz], and the determinant length LØ [m], which depends on the deformability of
the structural element (Table 6.2 EN1991-2 (2003)).
𝐾
′ 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐾 < 0.76
𝜑 = {1 − 𝐾 + 𝐾 4 (3.3)
1.325 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐾 ≥ 0.76
and
𝑣
𝐾= (3.4)
2𝐿Ф 𝑛0
The correction factor 𝜑′′ represents the irregularities of the track and wheels and is defined by the
equation (3.5), wherein α is a coefficient which depend on the train speed (3.6).
𝛼 𝐿Ф 2 𝐿Ф 𝑛0 𝐿Ф 2
𝜑′′ = ∗ [56𝑒 −( 10 ) + 50 ∗ ( − 1) ∗ 𝑒 −(20 ) ] ≥ 0 (3.5)
100 80
and
𝑣
𝑖𝑓 𝑣 ≤ 22 𝑚/𝑠
𝛼 = {22 (3.6)
1 𝑖𝑓 𝑣 > 22 𝑚/𝑠
These relations are valid for the determination of dynamic amplification induced by real trains in normal
cases of circulation, that is, in situations where is not expected the occurrence of resonance phenomena.
On the other hand, the limits of the preceding expressions are defined in Figure 3.4 in terms of the
natural frequency of the structure n0, depending on the span length L (m).
All the coefficients previously described, can only be applied when the fundamental frequency of the
structure is within the limits shown in Figure 3.4.
27
Fig. 3.4 - Limits of bridge natural frequency n0 (Hz) as a function of L (m): (1) Upper limit of natural frequency; (2)
Lower limit of natural frequency [16]
The upper limit of n0 (curve 1) is governed by dynamic enhancements due to track irregularities and is
given by:
𝑛0 = 94.76 𝐿−0.748 (3.7)
The lower limit of n0 (curve 2) is governed by dynamic impact criteria and is given by:
80
𝑓𝑜𝑟 4𝑚 ≤ 𝐿 ≤ 20𝑚
𝑛0 = { 𝐿
(3.8)
−0.592
23.58 𝐿 𝑓𝑜𝑟 20𝑚 < 𝐿 ≤ 100𝑚
ii. Dynamic Factor Ф(Ф2 , Ф3 )

The dynamic factor Φ enhances the static load effects under Load Models 71, SW/0 and SW/2, to take
into account the dynamic effects of normal railway traffic, that is, the dynamic magnification of stresses
and vibration effects in the structure.
28
Its value can be obtained from the expression (3.9), where i refers to each of the 6 real train models
(including dynamic effects) [19]. However, this expression does not take into account resonance effects,
reason why it becomes essential to carry out a dynamic analysis to assess these effects.
𝛷 ∗ 𝑆𝐿𝑀71 ≥ (1 + 𝜑)𝑖 ∗ 𝑆𝑅𝑇,𝑖 (3.9)
The dynamic factor Φ is different according to the quality of track maintenance: for carefully maintained
track, the dynamic factor is taken as Φ 2 (3.10), and for track with standard maintenance, the dynamic
factor is taken as Φ3 (3.11), where 𝐿𝛷 is the “determinant” length (m).
1,44
𝛷2 = + 0,82 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 1,00 ≤ 𝛷2 ≤ 1,67 (3.10)
√𝐿𝛷 − 0,2
and
2,16
𝛷3 = + 0,73 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 1,00 ≤ 𝛷3 ≤ 2,00 (3.11)
√𝐿𝛷 − 0,2
3.2.2. DYNAMIC EFFECTS

With the evolution of the railway and the development of high speed, came to find out that the dynamic
amplification coefficient (1 + 𝜑) proposed by the UIC, despite of being able to quantify the dynamic
effects on bridges induced by trains, did not allow an assertive assessment to speeds above 200 km/h,
by not taking into account the resonance effects, hence endangering the safety of bridges. Therefore,
this conclusion was demonstrated in 1992 during a rehearsal of an ICE 6 train prototype in Deutsche
Bahn line in Germany, where the dynamic response revealed high amplifications, justified by resonance
phenomena [20].
The actions induced in a certain structure, resulting from the railway traffic circulation with a certain
speed, cause a different structural response from a static loading, which results in different stresses and
deformations (and associated bridge deck acceleration), sometimes significantly higher, and which can
endanger the safety of the structure, track and passenger comfort.
The dynamic phenomena arise from natural load characteristics such as the rapid rate of loading due to
the speed of traffic crossing the structure and the inertial response (impact) of the structure, the passage
of successive loads with approximately uniform spacing, which can excite the structure, and under
certain circumstances, create resonance or an excessive vibration of the deck, and also variations in
wheel loads resulting from track or vehicle imperfections (including wheel irregularities).
Although this type of analysis requires the use of more advanced means, to a higher computational
effort, being as well more complex and challenging, it allows to evaluate the resonance phenomena,
which occur when the frequency of excitation (or a multiple there of) matches a natural frequency of the
structure (or a multiple there of), both imperceptible in a static analysis.
The mentioned effects are relatively susceptible to factors that influence the dynamic behaviour of a
bridge, and that should be considered in a dynamic analysis of a structure. The principle factors are the
6
Inter City Express
29
speed of traffic across the bridge, the span of the element, the mass and damping of the structure, the
natural frequencies of the whole structure and relevant elements of the structure and the associated mode
shapes along the line of the track, the number of axles, axle loads and the spacing of axles, the
characteristics and imperfections of vehicles and all the dynamic characteristics of the track (ballast,
sleepers, track components, etc.) [16].
3.2.2.1. Requirements for a static or dynamic analysis

As mentioned before, the worsening of the dynamic response due to the increased length of trains and
increased circulation speed of trains, generated the need to establish new design of railway bridges
criteria, included in EN1991-2 [16] and EN1990-AnnexA2 [17].
Therefore, the results obtained from the dynamic analysis should be considered during the design of the
structure, namely the determination of stresses, and in the track safety checks, as well as passenger
comfort.
The requirements for determining whether a static or a dynamic analysis is required are shown in the
flow chart in Figure 3.5.
Fig. 3.5 - Flow chart for determining whether a dynamic analysis is required [16]
30
In the previous Figure, it can be seen that the decision process depends on several parameters, among
which the maximum line speed at the site V (km/h), the span length L (m), the first natural bending and
torsional frequencies of the bridge loaded by permanent actions, respectively n0 and nT (Hz) and the
maximum nominal speed v (m/s), which is usually taken equal to V. in the annex F of the standard
EN1991-2 [16] are given the limit values of v/n0. It is emphasized that the upper (1) and lower (2) limits
of natural frequencies indicated in the flow chart, are defined by equations (3.7) and (3.8).
Through the analysis of the flow chart it is possible to conclude that the dismissal of dynamic analysis
usually occurs in three different situations:
 When 𝑉 ≤ 200 𝑘𝑚/ℎ, regardless of being a continuous bridge, since n0 is within the limits of
Figure 3.4;
 When 𝑉 > 200 𝑘𝑚/ℎ and it is a simple structure with the span length higher than 40m and the
first natural bending frequency of the bridge (n0) is within the limits of Figure 3.4;
 When 𝑉 > 200 𝑘𝑚/ℎ, in the case of simple structures where the overlap of first natural bending
and torsional frequencies does not occur (𝑛 𝑇 > 1,2 ∗ 𝑛0 ) and limits of 𝑣𝑙𝑖𝑚 /𝑛0 are checked.
For the cases mentioned above, the realization of a static analysis based on the appropriate vertical load
model is enough, multiplying the results by the dynamic factor Φ. In these cases, the resonance
acceleration check and fatigue check are not required. All other situations require the realization of a
dynamic analysis.
3.2.2.2. Requirements for a dynamic analysis

The dynamic analysis must be performed using the features of real trains, considering the characteristics
of European high speed trains, that is, the axle loads and the spacing between axes. Currently, there are
in Europe three different types of high speed trains in circulation, which can be classified according to
its configuration, in the following types:
 Articulated train: each two coaches share one bogie between them.
Examples: TGV, Eurostar and Thalys2.
Fig. 3.6 - Articulated train (Example: Eurostar) [16] [18]
31
 Conventional train: each coach has two independent bogies, each one with two axes.
Examples: ICE2, ETR-Y500, Virginia and Alfa Pendular.
Fig. 3.7 - Conventional train (Example: ICE) [16] [18]
 Regular train: coaches are also articulated, but are supported not on bogies but on single axles
in the junction between each two of them. Example: TALGO-AVE2.
Fig. 3.8 - Regular train (Example: Talgo) [16] [18]
The concept of train signature (S0) is very useful for the purpose of obtaining a dynamic envelope, and
is defined by the following relation [14]:
2 2
𝑖 𝑖
2𝜋𝑥𝑘 2𝜋𝑥𝑘
𝑆0 (𝜆) = max √[∑ 𝑃𝑘 𝑐𝑜𝑠 ( )] + [∑ 𝑃𝑘 𝑠𝑖𝑛 ( )] [𝑘𝑁] (3.12)
𝑖=1 𝑡𝑜 𝑀 𝜆 𝜆
𝑘=1 𝑘=1
Where M is the number of axles in train, λ is the excitation wavelength (m), Pk corresponds to the axle
load of kth axle (kN), situated at an xk distance from the first axle (P1), and i is the number of axles in
train or sub-train (taken from 1 to M).
The dynamic loading pattern created by the passage of a series of axle loads may be decomposed into a
Fourier series, using Fourier transform methods. After separating out the response of the bridge and all
32
bridge parameters, the train signature may be derived, enabling varying axle loads with varying spacing
to be taken into account.
The train signature S0 (λ) is a function of axle spacing and axle load only. The train signature represents
the dynamic excitation characteristics of a particular train and is independent of the mechanical
characteristics of a structure, in this case, a bridge, that is, it is a method that enables the dynamic effects
of different trains at resonance and away from resonance to be compared without reference to the
characteristics of a bridge. Therefore, in Figure 3.9 are represented signatures (S0) of several real high
speed trains currently in circulation in Europe, as a function of wavelength λ. It is important to note that,
for wavelengths outside the range shown in the Figure 3.9 (𝜆 < 10 𝑚 and 𝜆 > 30 𝑚), the effects that
occur are not global, but more local.
Fig. 3.9 - Dynamic signatures (zero damping) for European high speed trains [18]
The analysis of the previous figure shows the existence of one or more peaks associated with the
characteristic distance between the axles (D) of each train, being also possible to identify the ranges of
excitable wavelengths of the trains currently in circulation in European high speed lines.
Therefore, the use of Train Signature enables a rapid comparison of the effects of different trains to be
made. If the magnitude of Train Signature for a new train is less than that of existing trains on a route,
then the route will be satisfactory for the new train [14].
This train signature concept is in the genesis of HSLM7 model, currently present in European standards,
as following described.
In order to promote cultural, social and economic relationships within the community space, the
technical interoperability of high speed lines specifications (TSI, 2002) introduced a set of principles
that aim to standardize and complement the various European realities, with regard to track parameters,
train characteristics, the railway network, the type of rolling stock and the infrastructure design criteria,
in order to ensure compatibility that allows unrestricted movement between different countries [21].
7
High Speed Load Model
33
Hence, in the case of bridges designed for international lines, where European high speed
interoperability criteria are applicable, the dynamic analysis shall also be undertaken using load model
HSLM, which was developed to ensure that the dynamic effects caused by the circulation of different
trains in the European high speed network, are fully covered by a dynamic envelope.
Load Model HSLM comprises of two separate Universal Trains with variable coach lengths, HSLM-A
and HSLM-B, which together represent the dynamic load effects of articulated, conventional and regular
high speed passenger trains.
HSLM-A includes a set of 10 trains with different characteristics, shown in Table 3.2, with the train
configuration shown in Figure 3.10, where N is the number of intermediate coaches, D is the length of
intermediate and end coaches, d is the distance between axles of the same bogie and P is the axle load.
Fig. 3.10 - Load Model HSLM-A [16]
Table 3.2 - HSLM-A characteristics [16]
Number of Bogie axle

Universal Coach length Point force
intermediate coaches spacing
Train D [m] P [kN]
N d [m]
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
34
This model can be used in any type of structure with a span of 7 𝑚 or greater, and in continuous bridges
or bridges with a complex structure with a span of up to 7 𝑚. Consequently, the load model HSLM-A
presents some limitations in the characterization of bridges with simply supported spans of small
extension (𝐿 < 7𝑚), because it was found that for this type of structures, in addition to spacing between
axles D, also the distance between bogie axles d owns a great influence on the “train aggressiveness”
and consequent behaviour of the structure.
Alternatively, a new load model HSLM-B was implemented, to be used specifically in the framework
of bridges whose characteristics have been previously described, to overcome the limitations of the
model HSLM-A.
Load Model HSLM-B (Figure 3.11) is formed by a succession of N concentrated loads of 170 𝑘𝑁,
uniformly spaced of a distance d.
Fig. 3.11 - Load Model HSLM-B [16]
Through Figure 3.12, the number N of concentrated loads, and the spacing d between loads, for a
particular span (1 𝑚 ≤ 𝐿 ≤ 7 𝑚), is specified.
Fig. 3.12 - HSLM-B: determination of the number N of concentrated loads and the spacing d between loads [16]
35
The application of HSLM-A is more general than HSLM-B, once the last is only used for simply
supported bridges with a span of up to 7 𝑚.
3.2.2.3. Speeds to be considered

For each real train and load model HSLM, the dynamic calculations should be made for a series of
speeds from 40 m/s (approximately 145 km/h) up to the Maximum Design Speed (𝑣𝐷𝑆 ), generally 1.2
times Maximum Line Speed at the site (𝑣𝑚𝑎𝑥 ). Smaller speed steps should be made in the vicinity of
resonant speeds.
It is recommended that the individual project specify an increased Maximum Line Speed at the site to
take into account potential modifications to the infrastructure and future rolling stock, as well as an
additional factor for increasing the Maximum Design Speed, to be used in the dynamic analysis, once
structures can exhibit a highly peaked response due to the resonance effects, where there is likelihood
of train overspeeding and exceeding either the Maximum Permitted Vehicle Speed or the current or
predicted Maximum Line Speed at the site.
For simply supported bridges that may be modelled as a line beam, the resonant speeds may be estimated
using equation (3.13), where vi is the resonant speed [m/sec], n0 is the first natural frequency of the
unloaded structure, λi is the principal wavelength of frequency of excitation, as shown in (3.14), and d
is the regular spacing of group axles.
𝑣𝑖 = 𝑛0 𝜆𝑖 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 40𝑚/𝑠 ≤ 𝑣𝑖 ≤ 𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑 (3.13)
where
𝑑
𝜆𝑖 = 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑖 = 1, 2, 3 𝑜𝑟 4 (3.14)
𝑖
3.2.2.4. Bridge Parameters

i. Stiffness of the bridge
Stiffness is one of the most important parameters in determining the natural frequencies of the structure,
being also the most difficult to predict accurately. This happens because there are several factors that
influence the stiffness of the bridge, such as the structural type (beam, truss, cantilever, arch, suspension,
etc.), the materials (concrete, steel or iron, masonry, steel composite, etc.) and the geometric
characteristics, in terms of span and sections of its elements [21].
Maximum dynamic load effects are likely to occur at resonant peaks when a multiple of the frequency
of loading and a natural frequency of the structure coincide. Any overestimation of bridge stiffness will
overestimate the natural frequency of the structure and speed at which resonance occurs.
From the above, and as shown in ERRI D214 studies [14], the stiffness of a structure is a key parameter
that must be predicted accurately, being particularly important when any resonant peaks occur just above
the loading frequency and hence speed range being considered.
In such circumstances it is necessary to make a lower bound assessment of the natural frequency of the
structure to ensure that the prediction of resonant peaks is made at lower loading frequencies. Hence a
lower bound estimate of maximum permitted speed results.
36
ii. Mass of the bridge

Resonant phenomena is likely to occur when a multiple of the frequency of loading and a natural
frequency of the structure coincide. Since the natural frequency of the bridge is related to the mass of
the structure, this parameter is particularly important in dynamic analysis.
Therefore, the standard EN1991-2 [16] specifies a lower and an upper limit for the mass of the deck,
carrying out two separate analysis:
At resonance the maximum acceleration of a structure is inversely proportional to the mass of
the structure, that is, the natural frequency of a structure decreases as the mass of the structure
increases, so any underestimation of mass will overestimate the natural frequency of the
structure, enabling to predict the maximum deck accelerations;
 An upper bound estimate of mass to predict the lowest speeds at which resonant effects are
likely to occur.
It is noted that when studying this parameter, should be taken into account not only the mass of the
structural elements, but also the mass of non-structural elements, such as ballast, rails and sidewalks.
iii. Structural Damping

The damping in structures, which occurs because of energy losses during cycles of oscillation, is a very
inaccurate parameter, since it depends on the behaviour of several elements, structural and non-
structural, and the energy radiated into the soil.
The contribution of the structural elements relates to the type of material and the configuration
established by them, the support conditions, the type of bridge and its dimensions, are constraints on the
damping of the bridge. Concerning to non-structural elements, such as ballast, rails, sleepers, among
others, also play a significant role in the damping of vibrations in railway bridges. In turn, the damping
of vibrations can also be due to energy dissipation from bearing against soil at the ends of bridges.
The dynamic response of the structure in situations of resonance depends on the damping, and given the
difficulty in defining this parameter, it is necessary to adopt conservative values in dynamic analysis.
Studies of the committee ERRI D214 [14] show that the maximum acceleration, reached for the resonant
speed, is significantly increased when the damping values decrease, reason why it is necessary to set
lower limits for the damping of the structure.
Furthermore, these studies revealed that there is a high correlation between the type of structure, its span
and its damping, leading to the conclusion that higher damping factors are associated with short spans,
as shown in Figure 3.13.
37
Fig. 3.13 - Damping as a function of span [18]
Given the wide dispersion of results, EN1991-2 [16] specifies three curves to be adopted in the dynamic
analysis in function of the type of bridge and span (Figure 3.13) leading to a clear underestimation of
the damping coefficient values.
In Table 3.3 are given the expressions that represent these curves.
Table 3.3 - Values of damping to be assumed for design purposes [16]
ζ Lower limit of percentage of critical damping [%]

Bridge Type
Span 𝐿 < 20𝑚 Span 𝐿 ≥ 20𝑚
Steel and composite 𝜁 = 0,5 + 0,125 ∗ (20 − 𝐿) 𝜁 = 0,5
Prestressed concrete 𝜁 = 1,0 + 0,07 ∗ (20 − 𝐿) 𝜁 = 1,0
Filler beam and reinforced

𝜁 = 1,5 + 0,07 ∗ (20 − 𝐿) 𝜁 = 1,5
concrete
It is noteworthy that the design curves shown above for design may be used when assessing bridges of
modern forms of construction and recent structures. In the case of older structures, the experimental
results tend to indicate an increase in damping with age of structure, mainly due to the deterioration of
the structure (in particular opening and closing of cracks and deterioration of concrete), seizure of
bearings, contaminations of ballast, among others.
In the case of performing an analysis without considering the dynamic interaction vehicle/bridge for
spans less than 30 m, standard EN1991-2 [16] presents an alternative in which the favourable effect in
this interaction is approximately considered by introducing an additional damping coefficient (∆ζ).
The expression (3.15) gives the value of ∆ζ as a function of span length L of simply supported bridges
and represents a lower limit of the results obtained for spans in the range 5 𝑚 ≤ 𝐿 ≤ 30 𝑚 and relations
L/f in the range 1000 ≤ 𝐿/𝑓 ≤ 2000, where f is the deflection at mid-span due to load model LM71,
38
increased by the respective dynamic coefficient. For continuous bridges should be considered the span
leading to the lowest additional damping [21].
0,0187𝐿 − 0,00064𝐿2
∆𝜁 = [%] (3.15)
1 − 0,0441𝐿 − 0,0044𝐿2 + 0,000255𝐿3
The observation of Figure 3.14 reveals that the additional damping (∆ζ), in function of the span (L), has
a maximum around 15 m, and a null value for a total length of 30 m. According to ERRI D214 committee
[14], given that the additional damping is representative of the energy transferred from the structure to
the vehicle, specifically to their primary suspensions, is easily justified, in physical terms, the progress
of this chart. In fact, in small spans (𝐿 = 5 𝑚) the energy transferred is small, whereas in larger spans
(𝐿 = 30 𝑚) the energy is transferred to the vehicle and back to the structure, as a result of the reversal
of the direction of movement of primary suspensions, reason why both situations result in reduced values
of ∆ζ. However, in intermediate spans higher values of ∆ζ are obtained, as the energy is transmitted to
the vehicle but it is not relayed to the structure, since the reversal of suspensions occurs with the train
outside of the structure.
Fig. 3.14 - Additional damping ∆ζ [%] as a function of span length L [m] [16]
In conclusion, in the dynamic analysis without interaction the final damping value 𝜁𝑇𝑂𝑇𝐴𝐿 results from
the addition of the lower limit of critical damping ζ (%) and the additional damping ∆ζ.
𝜁𝑇𝑂𝑇𝐴𝐿 = 𝜁 + ∆𝜁 (3.16)
39
3.3. VERIFICATIONS OF THE LIMIT STATES

Throughout this section the limits of deformation and vibration to be taken into account for the design
of new railway bridges are addressed. These design checks are set in the standards EN1991-2 [16] and
EN1990-Annex A2 [17], covering the following safety criteria:
 Structural safety: the vibrations resulting from the passage through the structure of regular
groups of axles may induce dynamic amplification phenomena and materials fatigue;
 Traffic safety: exaggerated deformations or vibrations of the bridge can lead to loss of contact
friction between the wheel and the rail as well as the movement of the ballast layer can lead to
instability of the track;
 Passenger comfort: the vibrations transmitted by the bridge to the train, when high accelerations,
can cause the discomfort of passengers.
3.3.1. STRUCTURAL SAFETY

Support structures of railway lines are affected by particular actions, characterized by high loads
regularly spaced so that together with actions induced by the speed of the vehicle, can produce dynamic
amplification peaks and fatigue, not experienced in other types of structures.
Verification of a bridge in relation to Ultimate Limit State (ULS) must consider as characteristic values
of railway overloads, the most unfavourable values between static and dynamic analysis, if it is not
dispensable. Therefore, there are two methods to evaluate, in order to obtain the most adverse situation:
 Static calculation of Load Model LM71 and SW/0 (for continuous structures), multiplied by the
appropriate dynamic factor (as defined previously in section 3.2.1.4):
𝛷 ∗ (𝐿𝑀71′′ + ′′𝑆𝑊/0) (3.17)
 Dynamic calculation of high speed real trains (RT) or Load Models HSLM, applied on a track:
𝜑′′ 𝐻𝑆𝐿𝑀
(1 + 𝜑′ 𝑑𝑦𝑛 + ) ∗ ( 𝑜𝑟 ) (3.18)
2
𝑅𝑇
In the previous expression, the coefficient 𝜑′𝑑𝑦𝑛 represents the dynamic amplification factor, obtained
through the equation (3.19), where 𝑦𝑑𝑦𝑛 is the maximum dynamic response and 𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡 the corresponding
maximum static response, at any particular point in the structural element due to a Real Train or Load
Model HSLM.
𝑦𝑑𝑦𝑛
𝜑′𝑑𝑦𝑛 = 𝑚𝑎𝑥 | |−1 (3.19)
𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡
The parameter 𝜑′′ refers to the increase of dynamic response caused by the irregularities of the track
and of the wheels of the vehicle, as shown in section 3.2.1.4 by the equation (3.5).
40
3.3.2. TRAFFIC SAFETY

The track stability is an essential condition for the safety of rail traffic circulation, requiring a set of
checks to ensure, specified in European standards EN1991-2 [16] and EN1990-Annex A2 [17].
In high speed tracks, deformations and excessive vibration may end in the derailment of trains, due to
the instability of the ballast, significant changes to the track layout or imperfections in the rail and
subsequent contact friction with the wheels. Thus, the work presented in this section consists specifically
in the vertical acceleration and deformation of the deck.
3.3.2.1. Vertical acceleration of the deck

To ensure traffic safety, where a dynamic analysis is necessary, the verification of maximum peak deck
acceleration due to rail traffic actions shall be regarded as a traffic safety requirement checked at the
serviceability limit state for the prevention of track instability.
By the adoption of suitable limiting values of vertical acceleration of the deck, the occurrence of
instability phenomena in the ballast layer, which can lead to loss of lateral resistance of the track (in
ballasted tracks), and the loss of contact friction between wheel and track due to the decrease of the
contact forces (in ballastless tracks) can be mitigated to acceptable levels.
Thus, the maximum permitted peak values for bridge deck acceleration, calculated along each track, are
defined in EN1990-Annex A2 (2005) [17] for bridges with ballasted track and ballastless track, as shown
in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 - Maximum permitted peak values of bridge deck acceleration [17]
Limit design values of the

Track type
vertical acceleration (m/s2)
Ballasted track 3,5
Direct fastened tracks 5,0
To obtain maximum acceleration values, is carried out a dynamic calculation of real high speed trains
and the load model HSLM, in the case of interoperable lines, considering only a loaded track. For all
elements supporting the track, it must be considered in calculations frequencies (including consideration
of associated mode shapes) up to the greater of:
 30 Hz;
 1,5 times the frequency of the fundamental mode of vibration of the member being considered;
 The frequency of the third mode of vibration of the member.
However, further laboratory tests were commissioned by committee D214 from ERRI [14], to determine
the behaviour of track and ballast subjected to dynamic excitation, resulting of a campaign from the
Buildings and Structures Division of the German laboratory BAM 8. The test rig was designed to simulate
the critical loading conditions of ballasted track on high speed bridges and with harmonic excitation
applied by a hydrodynamic vibrator at frequencies between 2 and 20 Hz, in 2 Hz increments. In Figure
8Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und prüfung - Federal Institute for Materials Research and
Testing
41
3.15 is illustrated the variation in amplification factor of ballast acceleration, where is shown that the
non-linear behaviour commences at 0,8 g corresponding to an observed change in integrity of ballast.
Fig. 3.15 - Variation in amplification factor of ballast acceleration at sleeper ends/bridge deck acceleration
without a ballast mat [14]
Through the analysis of the previous figure, it is possible to observe insignificant settlement for bridge
acceleration under 0,8 g, while for bridge accelerations above 0,8 g, large permanent displacements at
higher frequencies (> 12 Hz to 16 Hz) was observed. The behaviour fundamentally changes below these
upper limiting frequencies and at lower frequencies only small settlements were measured. It is also
possible to observe that the maximum values of the transfer function are obtained for excitation
frequencies of around 20 Hz. Though, it is not observed any decrease trend, reason why it was
determined that the evaluation of the ballast instability should be processed to higher frequencies, being
defined 30 Hz as the upper limit of the excitation frequency.
However, these limits are not fully accepted, reason why Baeßler and Zacher (2005), based on
observations of in situ ballast behaviour, in experimental tests and in complex numerical analysis,
studied the behaviour of ballast layers for excitation frequencies up to 60 Hz and acceleration levels up
to 1 g, as shown in Figure 3.16.
Fig. 3.16 - Variation in amplification factor of ballast acceleration [18]
42
Thus, through this latest study of the transfer function of ballast, in exceptional cases, it is permitted to
exceed the above values for 10 successive vibration cycles. In this case the maximum acceleration
should be limited to 0,55 g and 0,75 g (as shown in Table 3.5), for bridges with ballast tracks and bridges
with ballastless tracks, respectively, and that really exists a growing tendency to 60 Hz.
Table 3.5 - Maximum permitted peak values of bridge deck acceleration
Limit design values of the

Track type
vertical acceleration (m/s2)
Ballasted track 5,5
Direct fastened tracks 7,5
In fact, based in the previous results, it is obvious that the existing standards are quite conservative, once
it considers a safety factor of 2,0. Consequently, the recommendations resulting from the current
investigations refer to a modification in the frequency range to consider in the dynamic analysis,
enabling a reduction of the safety factor to 1,3. The frequency takes the minimum of the following
values:
 60 Hz;
 Frequency of the third mode of vibration that can be excited by traffic.
3.3.2.2. Vertical deformation of the deck

The maximum total vertical deflection measured along any track should not exceed the limit shown in
expression (3.20), where L is the bridge span, considering the structure loaded with Load Model LM71
(or SW/0 or SW/2).
𝐿
𝛿≤ (3.20)
600
3.3.3. PASSENGER COMFORT

Passenger comfort depends on the vertical acceleration bv inside the coach during travel on the approach
to, passage over and departure from the bridge. To ensure the passenger comfort, the European standard
EN1990-Annex A2 [17] defines limit values for the vertical acceleration to which the coach may be
subjected, according to three comfort levels: very good, good and acceptable, according to Table 3.6.
Table 3.6 - Recommended levels of comfort [17]
Level of comfort Vertical acceleration bv (m/s2)
Very good 1,0
Good 1,3
Acceptable 2,0
43
Generally, a dynamic analysis for the direct determination of the acceleration on the carriages is only
possible through the use of bridge-train interaction models, which implies a high computational effort.
In order to simplify the process of verification of the level of passenger comfort, the European standard
EN1990-Annex A2 [17] suggests a simplified methodology for bridges consisting of simply supported
spans or with continuity, which do not exhibit significant variations of span length or stiffness, and for
spans up to 120 m.
This procedure consists in limiting the vertical displacement (δ) of the deck along the axis of each track,
whereas the limit values of δ depend on the span length (L), the train speed (V), the number of spans and
the configuration of the bridge (simply supported beam, continuous beam).
The vertical deflections δ should be determined with load model LM71 multiplied by the respective
dynamic factor (Ф), and considering the classification factor (α), defined in the equation (3.6), equal to
the unity. For bridges with two or more tracks, only one track should be loaded.
Thus, from Figure 3.17 it is possible to observe the limiting values of (L/δ) for a succession of simply
supported beam with three or more spans, and for 𝑏𝑣 = 1,0 𝑚/𝑠 2 , which may be taken as providing a
“very good” level of comfort, as a function of span length (L).
Fig. 3.17 - Maximum permissible vertical deflection (δ) for railway bridges with 3 or more successive simply
supported spans corresponding to a permissible vertical acceleration of 𝑏𝑣 = 1,0 𝑚/𝑠 2 in a coach for speed V
(km/h) [17]
For other levels of comfort (Good and Acceptable) and associated maximum permissible vertical
accelerations, the values of L/δ given in the previous figure, may be divided by the respective
acceleration limit bv. Moreover, for a bridge comprising of either a single span or a succession of two
simply supported beams or two continuous spans, the values of L/δ should be multiplied by 0,7. For
continuous beam with three or more spans, the values of L/δ should be multiplied by 0,9.
44
According to EN1990-Annex A2 [17], where a vehicle-bridge dynamic interaction analysis is required,

the analysis should take account of the following behaviours:
i. A series of vehicle speeds up to the maximum speed specified;
ii. Characteristic loading of real trains;
iii. Dynamic mass interaction between vehicles in the real train and the structure;
iv. The damping and stiffness characteristics of the vehicle suspension;
v. A sufficient number of vehicles to produce the maximum load effects in the longest span;
vi. A sufficient number of spans in a structure with multiple spans to develop any resonance effects
in the vehicle suspension.
45
46
4
METHODOLOGIES FOR DYNAMIC
ANALYSIS
4.1. INTRODUCTION
The passage of a train on a bridge requires the implementation of a dynamic analysis, which should
address the effects of a movable structure, the vehicle, on a stationary structure, the bridge. There are
several methodologies developed for this type of analysis, among which: analytical, simplified,
empirical and numerical methodologies.
The analytical methodologies involve the basic principles governing the system dynamic response.
However, in addition to being highly complex analysis, its applicability field is reduced, usually
covering only simple problems and structures. According to Frýba [12], it is possible to find some
analytical solutions to classic problems of the passage of one or more moving loads over a simply
supported beam.
In turn, the simplified methods are based on the analytical procedures, but they are only applied to
simply supported beams, and wherein the first vertical vibration mode is enough to characterize the
dynamic response. This methodology does not require a complex analysis, once it develops responses
based on harmonic series, which generate a results envelope.
Regarding empirical methodologies, the main objective is to estimate results during the study of a
bridge, through extrapolations that result from measurement campaigns carried out on existing bridges,
subjected to the circulation of trains. Obviously, this approach can only be applied to bridges with similar
characteristics to those used in measurements, as well as for similar trains.
Finally, numerical analysis can be distinguished from all others because it has a wider field of
application, enabling to analyse the dynamic behaviour of structures and problems with a high degree
of complexity using, for example, the finite element method, reason why this is, currently, the most
widely used analysis. Among the most common numerical methods, it assigns special importance to the
methods based on moving loads or train-bridge interaction. The main disadvantage of this method results
from the excessive calculation time, which sometimes can limit the design optimization. Nevertheless,
it is noted that due to technological advances and changes in the processing capacity of computers, and
if the model is optimized, the time spent on the analysis can be significantly reduced.
In the following sections, the numerical methodologies are highlighted, which can be divided depending
on the form of application of the loads in the structure, since it can be used the model of moving loads,
or models with interaction between the bridge and the train, in which train is also modelled.
47
The moving loads method, despite being easier to implement and analyse, once it requires less
computing time, is conservative with regard to the maximum dynamic effects, making it less attractive
from an economic point of view and in terms of engineering efficiency. Furthermore, models with
interaction allow to obtain the values of the accelerations inside the coaches, enabling to evaluate the
level of passengers comfort more accurately.
4.2. DYNAMIC ANALYSIS WITHOUT TRAIN-BRIDGE INTERACTION

In order to analyse the dynamic behaviour of high speed railway bridges under the passage of trains,
one of the methodologies that can be assumed consists in the consideration of the train as a set of moving
forces along the bridge.
The obtained results are acceptable but not entirely realistic, since the non-modulation of the train
obstructs the realization of a vehicle-structure interaction, which, consequently, leads to that the load
variations arising from this phenomenon are not considered. In addition, the weight of the train (which
is neglected in this methodology) can also contribute to changing excitation frequencies. Another
disadvantage lies with the impossibility of evaluating the accelerations inside the train carriages, thus
making it unachievable to obtain directly and precisely the passenger’s comfort level, which can be only
estimated using abacus established in EN1991-2 [16], as described in the section 3.3.3 of the previous
chapter. Although, an analysis without train-bridge interaction has the great advantage of allowing to
save calculation time, revealing also easier to implement in most of commercial calculation
programmes.
This method is, maybe, the most widely used when a dynamic analysis is required, especially for lines
where it is necessary to assure the fulfilment of the interoperability concept, ensuring the
accomplishment of limit states under the passage of universal load models considered by design codes.
4.2.1. DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM OF A STRUCTURE

Any problem of dynamic analysis starts with the formulation of dynamic equilibrium equation
associated with each degree of freedom of the structure, in which, to each node and for each time instant,
has to check the equilibrium between externally applied loads F(t) and the sum of all the internal forces,
such as, inertia forces Fi(t), viscous damping or energy dissipation forces Fd(t) and restoring forces Fe(t).
Therefore, for a multi degree of freedom lumped mass system, the force equilibrium conditions can be
expressed as a function of time as a sum of forces with different origins as follows:
𝐹𝑖 (𝑡) + 𝐹𝑑 (𝑡) + 𝐹𝑒 (𝑡) = 𝐹(𝑡) (4.1)
The previous equation can be developed, given that inertia forces are obtained by multiplying the total
mass matrix M by the acceleration vector 𝑢̈ , the damping forces arise from the multiplication of the
overall damping matrix C and the velocity vector 𝑢̇ , and the restoring forces result from multiplying the
global stiffness matrix K by the displacement vector u, as shown in equations (4.2) to (4.4), respectively.
𝐹𝑖 (𝑡) = 𝑀𝑢̈ (𝑡) (4.2)
48
𝐹𝑑 (𝑡) = 𝐶𝑢̇ (𝑡) (4.3)
𝐹𝑒 (𝑡) = 𝐾𝑢(𝑡) (4.4)
Taking into account the previous set of equations, expression (4.1) could be written as follows:
𝑀𝑢̈ (𝑡) + 𝐶𝑢̇ (𝑡) + 𝐾𝑢(𝑡) = 𝐹(𝑡) (4.5)
The previous equation represents the general equation of motion for the structure, consisting of a system
of n linear differential equations of second order.
4.2.2. CONTRIBUTION OF MOVING LOADS

The use of moving loads consists of applying a set of constant vertical forces at appropriate locations,
namely on the rails, in the case of modelling the track, simulating the axle loads of trains traveling at
determined speed. In practical terms, the consideration of moving loads on the dynamic problem is
through the definition of the load value applied in function of time for each elements or nodes belonging
to the loads path. Thus, at each instant of time, the value of this function symbolizes the nodal force
equivalent to the moving loads passing over the bridge.
The adopted methodology for determining the applied loads at a node along time consists on the
following main steps [21]:
i) Locate each one of the nodes that belong to the load path;
ii) For the initial time instant of the analysis, determine the position of all train loads, in relation to
the beginning of the route 𝑥𝑟 (0);
iii) At a given instant of time t, the location of the loads on the structure. The position of each load
at time t, 𝑥𝑟 (𝑡), is obtained by adding to the initial position, 𝑥𝑟 (𝑡0 ), the space travelled by the
train, as follows:
𝑥𝑟 (𝑡) = 𝑥𝑟 (𝑡0 ) + 𝑣. 𝑡 (4.6)
iv) Known the position of each load at any given time t, it is possible to convert it into equivalent
nodal forces 𝑓𝑘 (𝑡), through expression (4.7), where R is the number of axles, 𝑃𝑟 is the load
exercised by axle r, and 𝑁𝑟,𝑘 (𝑡) ((4.8)) is a function represented in Figure 4.1.
𝑓𝑘 (𝑡) = ∑ 𝑃𝑟 ∗ 𝑁𝑟,𝑘 (𝑡) (4.7)

𝑟=1
49
𝑥𝑟 − 𝑥𝑘−1
, 𝑡𝑜 𝑥𝑘−1 ≤ 𝑥𝑟 (𝑡) ≤ 𝑥𝑘
𝑥𝑘 − 𝑥𝑘−1
𝑁𝑟,𝑘 (𝑡) = 𝑥𝑘+1 − 𝑥𝑟 , 𝑡𝑜 𝑥𝑘 ≤ 𝑥𝑟 (𝑡) ≤ 𝑥𝑘+1 (4.8)

𝑥𝑘+1 − 𝑥𝑘
{ 0, 𝑡𝑜 𝑥𝑟 (𝑡) ∉ [𝑥𝑘−1 , 𝑥𝑘+1 [
where 𝑥𝑟 symbolizes the longitudinal axis coordinate of the train, 𝑥𝑘 corresponds to the node k in
analysis, 𝑥𝑘−1 and 𝑥𝑘+1 represent the previous and following nodes, respectively.
Fig. 4.1 - Variation of Load Function on a node k due to the passage of the load 𝑃𝑟 [20]
4.2.3. RESOLUTION OF DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM EQUATION

Having defined previously how the vector of external loads is considered in the dynamic analysis, the
following two sections contain a brief explanation for the two methods considered for solve equation
(4.5): Direct Numerical Integration, that is, Newmark method, and Mode Superposition.
4.2.3.1. Direct Numerical Integration

Among the various existing methods of direct integration, highlights the Newmark method, which
response during each time step is calculated from the initial conditions at the beginning of the step and
from the history of loading during the step, as in described by the following expressions [22]:
∆𝑡
𝑢̇ (𝑡 + ∆𝑡) = 𝑢̇ (𝑡) + ∫ 𝑢̈ (𝑡) 𝑑𝑡 (4.9)
0
∆𝑡
𝑢(𝑡 + ∆𝑡) = 𝑢 (𝑡) + ∫ 𝑢̇ (𝑡) 𝑑𝑡 (4.10)
0
Thus, through the observation of equations (4.9) and (4.10), and according to Clough (1993), it is
possible to understand that to carry out the analysis it is necessary to define how the acceleration will
50
vary during the time step. Therefore, it is assumed that the acceleration is linear within the time step,
which leads to the transformation of expressions (4.9) and (4.10) into the following ones [21]:
𝑢̇ (𝑡 + ∆𝑡) = 𝑢̇ (𝑡) + [(1 − 𝛾)∆𝑡] ∗ 𝑢̈ (𝑡) + 𝛾∆𝑡 ∗ 𝑢̈ (𝑡 + ∆𝑡) (4.11)
𝑢(𝑡 + ∆𝑡) = 𝑢 (𝑡) + ∆𝑡 ∗ 𝑢̇ (𝑡) + [(1/2 − 𝛽)∆𝑡 2 ] ∗ 𝑢̈ (𝑡) + 𝛽(∆𝑡)2 ∗ 𝑢̈ (𝑡 + ∆𝑡) (4.12)
In this method, the stability and accuracy are controlled by means of the parameters 𝛽 and 𝛾. Analysing
the equations (4.11) and (4.12), it is noticed that the factor 𝛾 provides a linear variation in the
acceleration contribution in the changes of speed, while the factor 𝛽 has the same effect in changing the
displacement. Therefore, according to Hughes (1978), 𝛽 and 𝛾 can be defined as follows [21]:
1
𝛾≥ (4.13)
2
1 2
𝛽 = (𝛾 + ) /4 (4.14)
2
It is noted that, for values of 𝛾 indicated in (4.13), the method becomes unconditionally stable, that is,
errors are not accumulated at each time interval, whatever it may be. In turn, for values of 𝛽 obtained
according to expression (4.14), the maximum efficiency is reached in terms of algorithmic dissipation.
It is also observed that this method only displays 2nd order precision for 𝛾 = 1/2, corresponding to take
𝛽 = 1/4.
In order to ensure adequate representation of the first vibration modes, which usually identify themselves
as those who contribute the most to the dynamic response, it is important to set a time increment ∆𝑡.
Setting this value must meet the lower value of the criteria (4.15) and (4.16), described in ERRI
D214/RP9 [14], where 𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the frequency of higher vibration to be considered in the response, L
symbolizes the span length under review, n the number of vibration modes to include in the response
and 𝑣𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the maximum train speed.
1
∆𝑡 = (4.15)
8 𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝐿
∆𝑡 = (4.16)
4𝑛 𝑣𝑚𝑎𝑥
Effectively, the first criteria (4.15) aims to ensure that the sinusoidal motion cycle of highest frequency
is represented at least by eight point, while the second criteria (4.16) seeks to ensure that the chosen time
increment ∆𝑡 can characterize accurately the excitation. Therefore, based in this last criteria, the
51
operating time of a given load moving at speed 𝑣𝑚𝑎𝑥 on the structure, given by 𝐿/𝑣𝑚𝑎𝑥 , is discretized
in 4𝑛 intervals.
However, a third criteria, more restrictive than the others, was suggested by Ribeiro [21], who conducted
a comparative analysis of the responses of a bridge to various time intervals, concluding that to achieve
a more appropriate description of the acceleration fields on the bridge, it would be better to calculate the
time increment ∆𝑡 according to the following expression:
1
∆𝑡 = (4.17)
20 𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑥
4.2.3.2. Mode Superposition Method

Besides the numerical integration techniques, the mode superposition is one of the most powerful and
used techniques to solve second order differential equation of equilibrium (4.5) (Chopra, 1995).
The mode superposition method is based on solving equation (4.5) for a number of independent mode
shapes that, generally, is much less than the number of dynamic mode shapes of the structure, but that
can represent the displacements with sufficient accuracy.
This is a method based on the decoupling of differential equations, by transforming the initial
coordinates in modal coordinates. Therefore, by creating a linearly independent system of equations, it
is possible to study each mode independently, which considerably simplifies the resolution of dynamic
equations. In fact, each differential equation of a degree of freedom can be solved by methods of direct
integration, such as Newmark´s method, so after the resolution of the independent equations, becomes
possible to combine all the effects and superimpose them, creating a total response of the structure.
Hence, this linear dynamic response procedure, which evaluates and superimposes free vibration mode
shapes, enables to characterize displacement patterns. As shown in Figure 4.2, a structure with n degrees
of freedom will have n corresponding mode shapes, where each mode shape is an independent and
normalized displacement pattern, which may be amplified and superimposed to create a resultant
displacement pattern [23].
Fig. 4.2 - Resultant displacement and modal components
One of the great advantages of creating a linearly independent system of equations, derives from the
fact that it is possible to assign different damping for each mode. Consequently, the equilibrium
equations presented in (4.5) result in differential equations, that is, an equilibrium equation for vibration
mode, by replacing general coordinates (𝑢) by modal coordinates (𝑦𝑛 ). Thus, the differential equation
regarding the n vibration mode is given by expression (4.18), where 𝑀𝑛 represents the modal mass, 𝐶𝑛
the modal damping, 𝐾𝑛 the modal stiffness and 𝐹𝑛 the modal force.
52
𝑀𝑛 𝑦̈𝑛 (𝑡) + 𝐶𝑛 𝑦̇𝑛 (𝑡) + 𝐾𝑛 𝑦𝑛 (𝑡) = 𝐹𝑛 (𝑡) (4.18)
where
𝑀𝑛 = ∅𝑇𝑛 𝑀 ∅𝑛 (4.19)
𝐶𝑛 = ∅𝑇𝑛 𝐶 ∅𝑛 (4.20)
𝐾𝑛 = ∅𝑇𝑛 𝐾 ∅𝑛 (4.21)
𝐹𝑛 = ∅𝑇𝑛 𝐹(𝑡) (4.22)
By solving the equilibrium equations, all the modal coordinates (𝑦𝑛 ) are determined. Afterwards, the
effects of the modes involved in the response are overlapped, and the final displacement vectors of each
degree of freedom (𝑢) are calculated, using the following expression:
𝑢(𝑡) = ∑ ∅𝑛 𝑦𝑛 (𝑡) (4.23)

𝑛=1
To determine the velocity and acceleration vectors, the calculation is similar to the displacements, as
shown in equations (4.24) and (4.25), respectively.
𝑢̇ (𝑡) = ∑ ∅𝑛 𝑦̇𝑛 (𝑡) (4.24)

𝑛=1
𝑢̈ (𝑡) = ∑ ∅𝑛 𝑦̈𝑛 (𝑡) (4.25)

𝑛=1
4.2.4. MOVING LOADS METHODOLOGY WITH ANSYS-MATLAB INTERACTION

The implementation of the moving loads methodology can be carried out using the ANSYS and
MATLAB programmes, in order to be performed a viable calculation process in terms of time and
computational effort. The division of the operations to perform can be made in [24]:
i. Modal analysis;
ii. Extraction of the modal values of the quantities to be analysed;
iii. Extraction of the modal vertical displacements of the railway nodes;
iv. Dynamic analysis.
53
Extraction of the modal

Extraction of the modal
Modal Analysis vertical displacements
values of the quantities
of the railway nodes
to be analysed
ANSYS
ANSYS
ANSYS
Dynamic analysis
MATLAB
Fig. 4.3 – Steps involved in the implementation of the moving loads methodology [adapted from 24]
4.2.4.1. Modal analysis

In this first step, after the completion of the numerical model, is carried out a modal analysis using the
ANSYS software, existing the possibility of being selected a specific range of frequencies associated
with a number of vibration modes.
4.2.4.2. Extraction of the modal values of the quantities to be analysed

Once the modal analysis is finished are extracted from ANSYS, through the APDL language that allows
an easy registration in text files, the modal values of the quantities which are pretended to be evaluated
in the dynamic analysis (the required information is only obtained for the previously selected nodes).
Among the extracted quantities, can be recorded modal shifts and other modal quantities, such as forces,
moments and stresses.
4.2.4.3. Extraction of the modal vertical displacements of the railway nodes

At this stage, the values of the frequencies of each vibration mode and modal masses are extracted from
the ANSYS software. In order to allow the implementation of functions developed by Albuquerque
(2009), it is necessary to obtain from ANSYS data on rail, that is, for each rail are recorded for all the
nodes and for each vibration mode, the vertical displacements of the modal configuration.
4.2.4.4. Dynamic analysis

After obtaining all the information from the modal analysis in ANSYS, is then possible to perform a
dynamic analysis in MATLAB, using for that the potential of functions created by Albuquerque (2009).
Such functions are a succession of steps consisting in determining various parameters, which process
was described in 4.2.2.
54
4.3. DYNAMIC ANALYSIS WITH TRAIN-BRIDGE INTERACTION

A dynamic analysis using a method of interaction train-bridge leads to a more realistic representation of
the dynamic overall behaviour of a structure, being more rigorous, once this type of analysis requires
the modelling not only of the bridge as a support structure, but also of the train as a substructure moving
relatively to the bridge, thus allowing to evaluate the vibrations induced either in the structure or in the
carriages.
In fact, the consideration of rolling masses in the model is determining in the dynamic behaviour of the
structure, once it induces an additional damping and reduces the dynamic amplifications. It should be
noticed that a reference to this additional damping is made in section 3.2.2.4, considered by the standards
through the equation (3.5), for cases in which an evaluation is not performed considering the modelling
of the train.
Consequently, the train is no longer represented by moving loads of fixed value, but rather by an
assembly of elements (point masses, bodies and springs which represent wheels, bogies and coaches),
having characteristics corresponding to the train, being necessary to know its main components and their
mechanical properties. Therefore, a general model for a conventional coach on two bogies is shown in
Figure 4.4, including:
 Coaches (vehicle body): simulated as a rigid body of mass M and moment of inertia J;
 Secondary suspension of bogies: it ensures the connection between the coach and the bogies,
being simulated through springs of stiffness Ks and damping Cs;
 Bogie: simulated as a rigid body of mass Mb and moment of inertia Jb;
 Primary suspension of each axle: enables the connection between bogies and wheels, using
springs of stiffness Kp and damping Cp;
 Wheels: unsprung mass of wheels Mw.
Fig. 4.4 - Vehicle-Structure interaction model [25]
55
For the train-bridge interaction calculation process stand out two options, one of 1994, developed by
Sara Cruz [27], that is based on the iterative calculation of the system consisting of two substructures,
while the second alternative is a non-iterative method that leads to achieving results faster and with
similar results.
During this work is only explained the analysis that is based on the iterative process, while the other
method can be found in Neves, S. [26], which approaches a practical application of this method, based
on Hilber-Hughes-Taylor method (HHT).
4.3.1. ITERATIVE METHODOLOGY

The iterative methodology is based on the hypothesis that the interaction is carried out only through
vertical loads acting on a single point and the vehicle’s wheels always remain in contact with the road.
The bridge is acted by rolling loads, equivalent to the train weight, and the mass contribution is
processed through the dynamic interaction force. These forces are the reactions caused by the
contributions of the inertia forces and damping of the train, which arise because of the forces which are
applied in the vehicle match the displacements of the bridge.
This methodology includes two subsystems, train and bridge, modelled independently, and the
calculation is performed simultaneously over the time, in order to become possible to match the two
subsystems in terms of dynamic interaction forces and bridge displacements under the actions of moving
loads [22]. Consequently, equilibrium equations are established, separating the equations concerning
the train (𝑡) of the bridge (𝑏) [20]:
𝑀 0 𝑢̈ 𝑏 𝐶 0 𝑢̇ 𝑏 𝐾 0 𝑢𝑏 𝐹
[ 𝑏 ][ ]+[ 𝑏 ][ ]+ [ 𝑏 ] [ ] = [ 𝑏] (4.26)
0 𝑀𝑡 𝑢̈ 𝑡 0 𝐶𝑡 𝑢̇ 𝑡 0 𝐾𝑡 𝑢𝑡 𝐹𝑡
In fact, the attempt to balance these two systems, at each instant of time, leads to an iterative process.
Therefore, the various steps involved in each iteration, in order to achieve the overall equilibrium, are
described below [19]:
1) The rolling loads corresponding to the train axles are applied on the bridge. Through the analysis
of expression (4.27), it is possible to observe that each rolling load 𝐹𝑏 (𝑡) has a constant static
load component in time 𝐹𝑠𝑡𝑎 , which symbolizes the axle load, and a dynamic component
𝑖−1
resulting from train-bridge interaction 𝐹𝑑𝑦𝑛 (𝑡) on the previous iteration. It is noted that this
portion at the initial time is zero. By solving the system of equations relative to the bridge, it is
possible to obtain the respective nodal displacement 𝑢𝑏𝑖 (𝑡);
𝑖−1
𝐹𝑏 (𝑡) = 𝐹𝑠𝑡𝑎 + 𝐹𝑑𝑦𝑛 (𝑡) (4.27)
2) Simultaneously, the train is subjected to the action of support settlements 𝑢𝑡𝑖 (𝑡), whose value is
the bridge displacements in the previous iteration 𝑢𝑏𝑖−1 (𝑡). Then, the equations for the train are
solved, and the values of the reaction forces on each axle 𝐹𝑡𝑖 (𝑡) are found, which will enter as
𝑖
the dynamic component of the forces on the bridge in the next iteration 𝐹𝑑𝑦𝑛 (𝑡);
56
3) At the end of each iteration, a convergence criteria is used, through expression (4.28), in order
to assess whether the results obtained already has enough accuracy. It should be noted that the
procedure, for an instant t, ends if the value of the equation is equal to, or less, than the permitted
tolerance. When the result is satisfactory, advances to the next instant of time, otherwise, a new
iteration must be performed.
𝑖 𝑖−1
𝐹𝑑𝑦𝑛 (𝑡) − 𝐹𝑑𝑦𝑛 (𝑡)
𝑖−1 (4.28)
𝐹𝑑𝑦𝑛 (𝑡)
All steps that incorporate this iterative process for solving a methodology with train-bridge interaction,
are presented in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 - Numerical methodology scheme that considers the train-bridge interaction [adapted from 19]
Bridge Train
Scheme
𝑖−1
Actions applied 𝐹𝑏 (𝑡) = 𝐹𝑠𝑡𝑎 + 𝐹𝑑𝑦𝑛 (𝑡) 𝑢𝑡𝑖 (𝑡) = 𝑢𝑏𝑖−1 (𝑡)
𝑖
Result 𝑢𝑡𝑖 (𝑡) = 𝑢𝑏𝑖 (𝑡) 𝐹𝑑𝑦𝑛 (𝑡) = 𝐹𝑡𝑖 (𝑡)
𝑖 𝑖−1
Convergence 𝐹𝑑𝑦𝑛 (𝑡) − 𝐹𝑑𝑦𝑛 (𝑡) 𝑖𝑓 < 𝑡𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 → 𝑡 + ∆𝑡
criteria 𝑖−1
𝐹𝑑𝑦𝑛 (𝑡) 𝑖𝑓 > 𝑡𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 → 𝑖 + 1
Another aspect to keep in mind, corresponds to the consideration of the track irregularities, once the
computer model allows to consider, during a dynamic analysis of the train-bridge interaction system,
irregularities of the following type:
i) Trapezoidal;
ii) Sinusoidal;
iii) Read from a file;
iv) Generated from a given power spectrum.
Therefore, in terms of the dynamic analysis of the train-bridge system algorithm, only should be added,
for each instant of time, to the displacement in the rolling load (calculated from the bridge deformed
shape), the irregularity in the path point where the load is located [20].
57
58
5
EXPERIMENTAL
CHARACTERIZATION AND
NUMERICAL MODELLING OF THE
SALZACH RIVER BRIDGE
5.1. INTRODUCTION
In this chapter the bridge over the Salzach river is described, structure that is studied in this dissertation.
Firstly, a brief geographical description is made, followed by its constitution and geometric
development, as well as the layout and structural behaviour.
Once the present bridge was still under construction when carrying out this work, there are no previous
investigations concerning to this structure to evaluate. Therefore, the numerical model, which consists
of modelling the bridge with three-dimensional finite element, presents some assumptions and
simplifications, which will be described later.
It should be noted that to assess with quality the results obtained from the bridge modelling, it is essential
to know experimental results. Thus, this chapter presents experimental results of the dynamic properties
of the bridge over the Salzach river, resulting from a campaign of experimental tests, carried out to
support this work, with the fully support of the Institute for Steel Structures of the RWTH University
(Institut und Lehrstuhl für Stahlbau Leichtmetallbau Prof. Dr.-Ing. Markus Feldmann). These
measurements were carried out at an early stage, when the bridge was still a bare structure (“naked
structure”), without backfill or ballast, reason why an absolute certainty of the precision of the final
model is not possible, once the bridge, back then, was still under construction. This experimental data
is used to better understand the dynamic phenomena associated with the structure, as well as for the
consideration of modelling alternatives that best represent the behaviour of the structure for the actions
to which it is subjected.
This chapter comprises, in a first step, two numerical models developed for this structure, where in both
of which is just represented half deck. Firstly, is developed a simple model A, in which the concrete
blocks are represented, that is, the abutments, coupled with springs in the bottom, with a certain stiffness,
to represent the concrete piles that constitutes the foundations, and its interaction with the soil. Both
ballast and rails are not considered, in order to be possible to make a comparison with the collected
experimental data. Afterwards, a second model (B) was developed, based on the model A, but adding
ballast and rails, in order to be possible to study the circulation of a train on the bridge and predict their
dynamic behaviour in the 6th chapter.
59
Finally, all steps are listed, in addition to the parameters given in the modelling of the structure, with
regard to the options of the used program and the characteristics of the bridge itself.
5.2. BRIDGE OVER THE SALZACH

The Salzach bridge is a railway structure belonging to ÖBB (Österreichische Bundesbahnen), that is,
the Austrian Federal Railways, near the town of Schwarzach-Sankt Veit im Pongau, a market town in
the Sankt Johann im Pongau district, in the Austrian state of Salzburg [28], as shown in Figure 5.1. The
bridge is inserted in the Line ÖBB Salzburg-Schwarzach/St.V.-Wörgl, between 65,439 km and 65,485
km. The bridge is partially prefabricated and connected in its final position with the foundation. Its
construction began in 8th March of 2015, being its completion scheduled for the Spring of 2017.
a)
b)
Fig. 5.1 – Location of the Salzach bridge: a) aerial view [29]; b) aerial view – project.
60
5.2.1. CHARACTERIZATION AND GEOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE STRUCTURE

The bridge consists of two single-span structures, forming a frame system, with a total development of
46 m, separated by a longitudinal joint all along the entire length (Figure 5.5), wherein each single-span
supports a railway. The superstructure is monolithically clamped in the abutment. Through the frame
construction and this monolithic clamping, the vibrations hardly are taken into account in the design.
The height of the bridge is approximately 4.45 m. These twin-track superstructure are built at different
times, that is, while the second is under construction, the first, already completed, is subjected to the
passage of trains.
Fig. 5.2 – Longitudinal section Salzach Bridge
The Salzach bridge presents a steel composite cross-section, formed by four steel beams with variable
double T-cross-section, as observed in Figure 5.3. This steel beam has at mid-span a height of 1.65 m,
and grows with a parabolic shape to the beam ends at a height of 3 m. Upon these steel beams rests one
concrete pre-slab system, that function as a lower formwork, enabling concreting “in situ” the slab.
Afterwards, the ballast protection walls are concreted and the cornices, guardrails, ballast and the rails
are placed. In Figure 5.4 it is possible to observe a perspective of the steel beams from an inside view.
Fig. 5.3 – Salzach Bridge without backfill and installations – side view
61
Fig. 5.4 – Steel beams – inside view
Through the observation of the Figure 5.5, it is possible to identify the main elements that comprise the
bridge deck cross-section. As mentioned above, the deck is divided into two single-span structures, one
with 5.46 m wide, and the other with 5.77 m, to a total width of 11.30 m (the remaining 7 cm are for the
longitudinal joint on the connection of the two single-spans). These are constituted by a slab of 5.19 m
and another of 5.49 m, respectively, and its thickness varies from the ends, 0.48 m, to the shaft, where
it assumes a value of 0.58 m.
Fig. 5.5 – Typified cross-section at the abutment
62
As for the railway, this is formed by UIC 60 rails, spaced of 1.668 m, with a maximum range of
179 mm, laying above baseplates and sleepers of concrete, spaced of 0.60m. The ballast is located
between the ballast protection walls, having a height of 72 cm, below which is located a ballast mat of
2 cm, as an additional vibration reducing measure. With the implementation of the ballast on the bridge,
with the ballast mat, it is possible to reach a low-noise design. Under this ballast, another layer of 5 cm
of concrete can be found and, finally, 1 cm of a waterproofing layer, as shown in Figure 5.6.
Fig. 5.6 – Deck Cross-section
5.2.1.1. Sleepers
The sleepers are made of concrete with a total mass of 300 kg, corresponding to a density in the model
of 2890 kg/m3, and the concrete class is C45/55, with an elastic modulus of 36 GPa.
It should be noted that the Figure 5.7 is representative of the approximate volume that is considered
when modelling the sleepers.
63
a) b)
Fig. 5.7 – Dimensions of the modelled sleepers: a) – geometry representation [20]; b) – photo in the construction
site.
5.2.1.2. Baseplates
For the definition of the baseplates it were not attributed their real properties, but properties that translate
the real behaviour of the baseplates, that is, properties that attribute a vertical stiffness to the baseplate
of approximately 500 kN/mm [20]. Through expression 5.1 it is possible to determine the elastic
modulus, which reflects the vertical stiffness of the baseplate, where 𝐾 is the axial stiffness, 𝐸 the elastic
modulus, 𝐴 the cross-section area and 𝑙 the height of the element.
𝐸𝐴
𝐾= (5.1)
𝑙
Therefore, in order to represent in the best possible way the actual geometry of the baseplates, was
assigned an area of 0.15 x 0.20 m2, and a thickness of 0.03 m, corresponding to an 𝐸𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 of 500
MPa. However, some precautions should be taken into account, with regard to the definition of the
material, once if the baseplates are modelled with their actual properties may occur the so-called “knife”
effect, caused by the rail on the beam, an effect that not occur in reality, because the rail has a basis that
fully supports in the baseplate (Figure 5.8) [20].
a) b)
Fig. 5.8 – Baseplate behaviour with isotropic (a) and orthotropic (b) material [20]
64
Hence, the properties assigned to the baseplates do not represent accurately their characteristics, but
enable the numerical model to approximate of the reality. Thus, due the need to attribute a much higher
vertical stiffness, this element was set to an orthotropic material instead of an isotropic material, once
orthotropic materials have properties that differ when measured from different directions while isotropic
materials have identical values of a property in all the directions. To reproduce the actual behaviour of
the baseplates, a high shear modulus was attributed, in order to eliminate undesirable behaviours.
5.2.1.3. Rails
As regard the rails, were taken over the actual properties of the rail UIC 60 (Table 5.1), with the
exception of torsional inertia, for which it was considered a high enough value to prevent the appearance
of vibration modes of the rail rotation around itself.
As for the material, were assigned the properties of the steel, that is the section in question, with an
elastic modulus of 210 GPa, and a density with a value of 7850 kg/m3.
Table 5.1 – UIC 60 rail properties [20]
Area 76,70 cm2
𝐼𝑦 3038,3 cm4
Inertia
𝐼𝑥 512,3 cm4
5.2.2. GROUND CONDITIONS FOR PILE FOUNDATION

The valley soil is composed of quaternary sediments of Salzach, consisting in sandy gravel with
embedded stones and blocks. The uppermost layer consists of sandy coarse gravel with rounded edges,
followed by a sandy-silty gravel layer. The rock horizon was only encountered on the left bank of the
Salzach river, in the Salzburg abutment, while in the right side no rock horizon was found, for a depth
of 30 m. This last layer is mostly gray to dark gray, and has a pale gray to white in very thin layers,
suggesting strong metamorphic formations on the rocks. The three identified layers (represented in
Figure 5.9) are described in the Table 5.2.
Table 5.2 – Soil parameters
Friction Specific Submerged

Cohesion Young’s modulus
Angle weight unit weight
Type of
Layers 𝑐 (𝜎 = 100 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )
soil 𝜑 𝛾 𝛾′
[kN/m2] [MN/m2]
[º] [kN/m3] [kN/m3]
Layer 1 Sand 0 37,50 20,0 10,0 50 / 150
Layer 2 Gravel 5 36 19,0 9,0 80 / 200
Layer 3 Rock 6 40 27,0 17,0 200 / 450
65
The foundation is constituted by large bored piles (a double row in each bank of the Salzach river) with
a diameter of 1.50 m (Figure 5.9). The rear piles are significantly longer, and are founded in the deeper
sediments, in order to accommodate the tensile forces in the pile, resulting from braking forces due to
traffic.
Fig. 5.9 – Detail of retaining wall founded on piles
In the Table 5.3 it is possible to observe the construction data relative to the superstructure (deck),
substructure (pile cap and abutment) and foundations (piles).
Table 5.3 – Construction data
Construction data
Foundation Piles Ø 1.50 m C30/37
Pile Cap C30/37

Substructure
Abutment C35/45
Steel Structure S355
Superstructure Deck Precast Concrete C50/60
Slab C35/45
66
5.3. FINITE ELEMENT NUMERICAL MODEL

In the present study the numerical modelling with finite elements of the Salzach bridge was made, using
ANSYS 17.0 program.
In this section are explained the two models used in this analysis: model A, which is the simplest model,
which considers the abutments, coupled with springs in the bottom, with a certain stiffness, to represent
the concrete piles that constitutes the foundations and its interaction with the soil; model B, which is the
most complex, considering the model A, and adding ballast and the railway track, in order to allow the
analysis of moving loads in the chapter 6 of this work.
It is important to note that, in both models, is only modelled half of the deck, that is, only one single-
span structure.
In the numerical model, the longitudinal development of the bridge corresponds to the positive direction
of the ZZ axis and the transverse development along the XX axis, while the YY axis corresponds to the
height of the structure. The finite element mesh ensures the existence of nodes in the transverse and
longitudinal alignments relevant to the structure, corresponding to the correct positioning of the
structural elements and the track.
5.3.1. NUMERICAL MODEL A

The model A shows a three-dimensional development and, as shown in Figure 5.10, this model involves
the modelling of only one single-span structure, corresponding to two steel beams, and the deck, as well
as the modelling of the abutments. This first model uses a total of 59245 nodes.
a)
67
b)
c)
Fig. 5.10 – Overview of the Numerical Model A: a) – general overview; b) – mesh zoom; c) – transversal cut.
68
5.3.1.1. Finite Element Types used

In this numerical model of the structure several elements available on ANSYS were used (Element
Type), with characteristics better suited to each of the structural components. To simulate the concrete
slab and the cantilever are used shell elements SHELL63, while to represent the steel profiles are used
beam elements BEAM44. To simulate the abutments are used volume elements SOLID45 and to set the
connection between the concrete slab and the steel beams are introduced rigid beam elements MPC184.
It is important to note that the connection between the bridge structure and the abutments is made
through coincident nodes, in order to create compatibility of displacements and rotations between the
contact nodes of the structure (slab, cantilevers and beams) and the abutments, and not using rigid beam
elements.
Are also included in the model mass elements, MASS21, in order to simulate the guardrails and, to
represent the springs on the bottom of the abutments, are used elements COMBIN14. These springs are
introduced to simulate the concrete piles in the foundation, and its interaction with the soil. The
following table sums up the described elements and its application in the APDL code of ANSYS.
Table 5.4 – Finite Element Types used in Model A
Number Designation Element Type Structure Components
1 SHELL 63 Shell Concrete slab
2 SOLID 45 Volume Abutments
3 BEAM 44 Beam Steel profiles
Connection between
4 MPC 184 Rigid beams
slab and steel profiles
Concrete piles and its

5 COMBIN 14 Spring
interaction with the soil
6 MASS 21 Mass Guardrails
Each of these elements presents relevant characteristics for modelling the structure, which are described
below [30]:
 SHELL 63 – has both bending and membrane capabilities. Both in-plane and normal loads are
permitted. The element has six degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x, y,
and z directions and rotations about the nodal x, y and z axes;
 SOLID 45 – is used for the three-dimensional modelling of solid structures. The element is
defined by eight nodes having three degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal
x, y and z directions;
 BEAM 44 – is a uniaxial element with tension, compression, torsion and bending capabilities.
The elements has six degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x, y, and z
directions and rotations about the nodal x, y and z axes;
69
 MPC 184 – comprises a general class of multipoint constraint elements that apply kinematic
constraints between nodes. The elements are loosely classified here as “constraint elements”
(rigid link, rigid beam, etc.) and “joint elements” (revolute, universal, etc.). The constraint may
be as simple as that of identical displacements between nodes. Constraints can also be more
complicated, such as those modelling rigid parts, or those transmitting motion between flexible
bodies in a particular way. The “Rigid Link” allows relative rotations between the connecting
elements, while “Rigid Beam” prevents these degrees of freedom. Since the element has been
used for the connections between the slab and cantilever shell elements and, in the model B, the
ballast volume elements (solving the problem of overlapping masses, since the slab shell
element is positioned in its centre axis), were chosen the properties of “Rigid Beam”, aligning
the displacements and rotations between the deck and the ballast. Once this element admits
mass, was necessary to create a fictitious material with zero mass to assign;
 COMBIN 14 – has a longitudinal or torsional capability in one, two or three dimensional
applications. The longitudinal spring-damper option is a uniaxial tension-compression element
with up to three degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x, y and z directions.
No bending or torsion is considered. The torsional spring-damper option is a purely rotational
element with three degrees of freedom at each node: rotations about the nodal x, y and z axes.
No bending or axial loads are considered;
 MASS 21 – is a point element having up to six degrees of freedom: translations in the nodal x,
y and z directions and rotations about the nodal x, y and z axes. A different mass and rotary
inertia may be assigned to each coordinate direction. In the case of guardrails, the rotations were
prevented, and the masses have been applied along the edge of the cantilever alignments.
5.3.1.2. Properties assigned to the elements (Real Constants)

To assign geometric and mechanical properties to the previously defined elements, are created “Real
Constants” with the inherent characteristics of each element.
With respect to BEAM44 elements, since the steel beams have a variable section, and do not constitute
a pre-defined section, there are no major information on their properties. Therefore, the data used for
modelling is specified in the following table.
Table 5.5 – Characteristics of Elements BEAM 44
Real
Thickness (m) Description
Constant
1 0,025 Web
2 0,030 Upper Flange
3 0,070 Lower Flange
As regard the concrete elements of the deck, these are divided into several sets according to their
geometry. The central slab has a linear variable thickness between 48 cm and 58 cm, as well as the side
cantilevers, which thickness varies between 28 cm and 38 cm. Therefore, to take this into account, two
70
cantilevers of equal length and different thickness are considered, as shown in Figure 5.11, the cantilever
1 and cantilever 2, which represents an average height of the inside and outside, respectively.
Concerning the deck slab, once the length is considerably bigger than the cantilevers length, the variable
thickness of the central slab is ignored, being assumed an average value of 53 cm for the thickness of
the slab.
a)
b)
Fig. 5.11 – Detail of the different thickness of the concrete slab: a) Perspective view; b) Transversal profile.
Table 5.6 – Characteristics of Elements SHELL 63
Real
Thickness (m) Description
Constant
4 0,53 Slab
5 0,38 Cantilever 1
6 0,28 Cantilever 2
As for the simulation of the guardrails, mass elements are placed at the nodes of the cantilever
alignments, considering that these elements have 50 kg/m. Thus, since the masses are allocated to
specific nodes, the mass per unit length was converted to mass to apply on each node, using equation
5.2, where L is the span length and 𝑑𝑛𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑠 is the distance average between nodes defined in the finite
element mesh.
71
𝑀(𝑘𝑔/𝑚) ∗ 𝐿(𝑚) 50 ∗ 43.50

𝑚 (𝑘𝑔/𝑛𝑜𝑑𝑒) = = = 12.50
[𝐿(𝑚 )/𝑑𝑛𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑠 ] 43.50 (5.2)
0.25
The same procedure was followed to the simulation of the cornice mass (366 kg/m), obtaining a value
of 𝑚 (𝑘𝑔/𝑛𝑜𝑑𝑒) = 91.50.
It is necessary to introduce constant values to the springs to be applied in the bottom of the abutments,
to simulate the concrete piles and its interaction with the soil.
In the modelling was decided to not model the concrete piles, replacing these by springs in the bottom
of the abutments, as shown in Figure 5.12, considering its interaction with the soil. The springs were
applied in six points, in each abutment, replacing directly the concrete piles. Each one of these points
considers two springs: horizontal and vertical, in order to considerer the interaction of the piles with the
soil.
a) b)
Fig. 5.12 – Spring applied at the bottom of the abutments: a) transversal view; b) perspective view.
Thus, in order to obtain the stiffness values of the springs, it was necessary to make some calculations
and make some assumptions, as well as some simplifications.
The stiffness of each spring resulted from the sum of the axial stiffness of each concrete pile (𝑘1 ) with
the compressibility of the bed rock (𝑘2 ), as shown in the equation 5.3.
1
𝑘=
1 1 (5.3)
𝑘1 + 𝑘2
72
In Figure 5.13 it is possible to observe a scheme of the applied springs, as well as the different layers of
soil in each pile (as can be noted in Figure 5.9).
Fig. 5.13 – General scheme of the applied springs
Therefore, the axial stiffness of each concrete pile (𝑘1 ) can be obtained through expression 5.4, where
L is the length of the pile, A is the area of the cross section of the pile and E the Young’s modulus.
𝐸𝐴
𝑘1 = (5.4)
𝐿
where,
𝐴 = 𝜋𝑟 2 (5.5)
73
Table 5.7 – Axial stiffness of each concrete pile
Abutments Piles E (GPa) Ø (m) A (m2) L (m) k1 (kN/m)
A 33 1.50 1.7671 12 4.8597x106

Left
B 33 1.50 1.7671 7 8.3308x106
C 33 1.50 1.7671 11 5.3014x106

Right
D 33 1.50 1.7671 14 4.1654x106
As regard to the compressibility of the soil in which each pile is founded (𝑘2 ), the compressibility of
each layer can be obtained through Table 5.2. As shown in Figure 5.9 and 5.13, the left pile of the left
abutment (A) is founded in a layer of rock, being assumed a compressibility of 200 MN/m2, while for
the other three piles, that are founded in gravel, was assumed a compressibility of 80 MN/m 2.
Therefore, in Table 5.8 is shown the stiffness of the different springs applied in the bottom of the
abutments.
Table 5.8 – Stiffness of the springs
Abutments Piles k1 (kN/m) k2 (kN/m) kTOTAL (kN/m)
A 4.8597x106 200x106 4.7444x106

Left
B 8.3308x106 80x106 7.5451x106
C 5.3014x106 80x106 4.9719x106

Right
D 4.1654x106 80x106 3.9593x106
Once the concrete piles are being substituted by springs with a certain stiffness, in two directions
(horizontal and vertical), is necessary to obtain the correspondent stiffness of these springs, being the
𝑘 𝑇𝑂𝑇𝐴𝐿 decomposed in the vertical and horizontal stiffness, as shown in Table 5.9. It is important to
note that the springs are applied in the axis of the concrete piles.
Table 5.9 – Stiffness of the springs in vertical and horizontal directions
Vertical stiffness Horizontal

Abutments Piles kTOTAL (kN/m)
(kN/m) stiffness (kN/m)
A 4.7444x106 4.7209x106 4.7204x105

Left
B 7.5451x106 7.5077x106 7.5069x105
C 4.9719x106 4.9472x106 4.9467x105

Right
D 3.9593x106 3.9397x106 3.9392x105
74
5.3.1.3. Materials used in modelling

In the modelling of the Salzach bridge are included materials corresponding to the modelled elements,
through the “Material Properties” option available in ANSYS. Once the section is a steel composite
section, the properties of the structural elements of the frame are defined (according to Table 5.3) as the
concrete class C34/45 and the steel profiles in S355 steel. According to measurements made on site
(Table 5.10), was adopted as a first step one concrete modulus of 39.87 GPa, once the model A
corresponds to the construction that observed on 30th March 2016. For steel profiles, was used a modulus
of elasticity of 210 GPa, according to [31].
Table 5.10 – Young’s modulus of concrete at measured construction levels
E-Modul E-Modul E-Modul

Breaking force Mean
Date Prisma 1 Prisma 2 Prisma 3
Prisma [kN] [N/mm2]
[N/mm2] [N/mm2] [N/mm2]
30.03.2016 337 39.600 39.500 40.500 39.8667
08.04.2016 470 41.600 41.500 43.200 42.100
10.05.2016 616 43.000 42.900 43.000 42.967
5.3.1.4. Construction of the numerical model A

In order to be possible a better understanding of how the modelling of the bridge was performed, are
described, in detail, the finite element mesh and the different hypothesis admitted in the model during
its preparation, better reproducing the actual behaviour of the bridge.
One of the key points of the Finite Elements Method is obviously the discretization mesh to adopt,
decision that should be taken considering the specificities of a problem, the reasonableness of results
and calculation times. Therefore, in the case of the numerical model A, was generated a mesh of finite
elements spaced of 0.25 m, mainly due to the accuracy of results.
To perform the modelling of the abutments were used volume elements SOLID45, while for the deck
slab were used shell finite element SHELL63, whereas for the steel beams have been used beam finite
elements BEAM44 (as described in Table 5.4), as shown next.
a)
75
b)
c)
Fig. 5.14 – Finite Element Mesh: a) – abutment; b) – steel beams; c) – concrete deck.
In order to reproduce the links between the structural elements, it is used the MPC184 element
(KEYPOT (1) = 1), which allows the compatibility of displacements and rotations of two nodes,
reproducing a rigid connection. In order to avoid overlapping of masses, the link was established at the
connection of the steel beams to the concrete deck.
Through Figure 5.15, it is possible to easily observe these connection areas.
76
Fig. 5.15 – Modelling of the connection areas applying MPC 184 elements
It is important to note that the connection between the bridge structure and the abutments is made
through coincident nodes, and not using MPC184 elements, in order to create compatibility of
displacements and rotations between the contact nodes of the structure (slab, cantilevers and beams) and
the abutments, as shown in the Figure 5.16.
77
a) b)
c)
Fig. 5.16 – Connection between the bridge structure and the abutments (through coincident nodes): a) –
transversal view; b) – perspective view; c) – zoom of common points.
78
With regard to non-structural elements, the guardrails and cornices mass, which are located on the lateral
edges of the bridge span, do not have any structural function, reason why they are applied at the ends of
the slab as punctual loads, through MASS21 element (KEYPOT(3)=2).
5.3.2. NUMERICAL MODEL B

The model B shows a three-dimensional development and, as shown in Figure 5.17, results from the
previous model, being added ballast (green in the figure) and the railways (yellow in the figure), in order
to allow a future analysis with moving loads. As well as in the previous model, model B only represents
half of the deck, that is, only one single-span structure. Additionally, in order to ensure that the boundary
conditions of the deck approach the reality, were modelled, in the side of the abutments, about 12m of
ballast and railway track. While the first model uses a total of 59245 nodes, this second model uses a
total of 90317 nodes.
Fig. 5.17 – Overview of the Numerical Model B
5.3.2.1. Finite Element Types used

In this numerical model of the structure were used the same elements from the previous model A, being
only added some structure components. Hence, was necessary to add ballast to the numerical model,
being this modelled using volume elements SOLID45, as well as for the modelling of the sleepers and
baseplates, while the rails were simulated using BEAM44 elements.
The following table sums up the described elements and its application in the APDL code of ANSYS.
79
Table 5.11 – Finite Element Types used in Model B
Number Designation Element Type Structure Components
1 SHELL 63 Shell Concrete slab
Abutments, ballast,
2 SOLID 45 Volume sleepers and
baseplates
3 BEAM 44 Beam Steel profiles and rails
Connection between
4 MPC 184 Rigid beams slab and steel profiles
and ballast
Concrete piles and its

5 COMBIN 14 Spring
interaction with the soil
6 MASS 21 Mass Guardrails
Each of these elements presents relevant characteristics for modelling the structure, which are described
in the section 5.3.1.1.
5.3.2.2. Properties assigned to the elements (Real Constants)

The Real Constants attributed in the previous model remain the same, being necessary to introduce the
properties of the rails, which are specified in the Table 5.1, in the section 5.2.1.3. Concerning to the
ballast, sleepers and baseplates, once these are volume elements, there is no need to create Real
Constants to characterize their behaviour.
5.3.2.3. Materials used in modelling

In the modelling of the Salzach bridge are included materials corresponding to the modelled elements,
through the “Material Properties” option available in ANSYS. Once this model results from the model
A, all the properties assigned to the previous materials remain the same. Therefore, as to the track
elements is concerned, the sleepers, baseplates and rails were modelled, according to their properties, as
described in the sections 5.2.1.1, 5.2.1.2 and 5.2.1.3, respectively.
As regard the ballast, was admitted a value of 2039 kg/m3 (20 kN/m3) for the density, according to the
standards. Both the elasticity modulus and Poisson’s ratio were given typical values of 145 MPa and
0.15, respectively [20].
The properties attributed to these materials are described in the Table 5.12.
80
Table 5.12 – Materials considered in the model B modelling
Elements E (MPa) ʋ 𝛾 (kg/m3)
Sleepers 36x103 0.2 2890
Baseplates 5009 0 0
Rails 210x103 0.3 7850
Ballast 145 0.15 2039
5.3.2.4. Construction of the numerical model

In order to be possible a better understanding of how the modelling of the bridge was performed, as was
done in the previous model, are described, in detail, the finite element mesh and the different hypothesis
admitted in the model during its preparation, better reproducing the actual behaviour of the bridge.
To perform the modelling of the ballast (green in the following Figure) were used volume elements
SOLID45, as well as for the sleepers and baseplates (above the layer of ballast). Concerning the
modelling of the rails, have been used beam finite elements BEAM44 (as described in Table 5.11). In
Figure 5.18 it is possible to observe the different elements that were modelled.
Fig. 5.18 – Overview of the Numerical Model B
9
A higher value was adopted in order to avoid the “knife effect”, as explained in the section 5.2.1.2.
81
In the Figure 5.19 it is possible to have a closer look and observe the sleepers and, above these, the
baseplates, being those superposed by the rails along the entire length of the bridge.
Fig. 5.19 – Detail: Sleepers, baseplates and rails
Once again was necessary to reproduce the links between the structural elements. Besides the connection
between the slab and the steel profiles (explained in the section 5.3.1.4), it was necessary to connect the
slab and the ballast layer, using rigid beams (Figure 5.20). Hence, it was used the MPC184 element
(KEYPOT (1) = 1), which allows the compatibility of displacements and rotations of two nodes,
reproducing a rigid connection.
82
It is still important to note that, as it is possible to observe in Figure 5.20 a) and b), the MPC184
connection using rigid beams, happens in all the deck/ballast width, providing a connection between the
ballast and the deck as close to the reality as possible.
a)
83
b)
Fig. 5.20 – Modelling of the connection areas applying MPC 184 elements: a) – transversal view right; b) –
perspective view left.
84
5.4. MONITORING SYSTEM

5.4.1. OBJECTIVES AND INSTALLATION
In this section a monitoring campaign on the Salzach bridge, carried out in the context of an RWTH
AACHEN research project, is described. The main contribution to the experimental campaign, with
regard to the research of this thesis, held with the processing of the data obtained from the measurements,
allowing a further analysis of the results.
The bridge was covered with a grid of 4 measurement points, each measuring accelerations in three
different directions: longitudinal, transversal and vertical.
The dynamic monitoring system of the bridge was developed in view to identify the contribution of the
backfill to the dynamic bridge behaviour. Once the first series of measurements was carried out on 29 th
and 30th of March 2016, when the bridge was still a bare structure (“naked structure”), without backfill
or ballast, and this thesis was carried out during the construction of the bridge, it is not possible to study
the influence of the backfill, as shown in Figure 5.21. Hence, the main objective of these experiments,
in the realization of this thesis is concerned, relates to obtaining frequencies and mode shapes of the
structure, for comparison with the developed numerical model.
a) b)
Fig. 5.21 – Salzach Bridge without backfill and installations: a) Wörgl side view; b) Salzburg side view.
5.4.2. INSTRUMENTATION AND DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM FOR THE DYNAMIC MEASUREMENTS
In Figure 5.22 is presented an overview scheme of the location of the instrumentation on the bridge,
which was concentrated in the first half of the deck of the ascending way on Salzburg side, that is, in
the Wörgl-Salzburg direction. The four measurement points are connected in series, being the sensors
installed at mid-span, 1/3 span and 1/6 span.
85
Fig. 5.22 – General overview scheme of the location of the sensors
In the following figure it is possible to observe one of the four measurement points. It is important to
note that, in the Figure 5.23, the sensor identified with the yellow and black stripes does not belong to
the RWTH equipment, belonging to the “Institut für Massivbau” of the Leibniz Universität Hannover,
which also developed its own studies.
Fig. 5.23 – General overview of a measurement point
Each of these four measurement points is constituted by a recording device, which records all the data
in an internal memory card, a power supply, a sensor, which measures the accelerations in longitudinal,
transversal and vertical directions and a switch, that is a computer networking device that connects all
the devices together on a computer network, using a packet switching to receive, process and forward
data to the destination device [32], allowing to observe the accelerations in real time in the installed
computer. It is possible to observe all the used equipment in the Figure 5.24.
86
a) b)
c)
Fig. 5.24 – Equipment used in the measurements: a) – recording device; b) – switch; c) – sensor.
As said before, these measurement points are connected in series, to a computer, enabling to observe the
results in real time, during the experiments. Each one of these contains an internal memory card that
enables to record all the data for posterior analysis, once the data observed in real time, in the computer,
is not recorded.
It is possible to observe a general scheme of the installation of all of this devices in the different
measurement points of the bridge in the Figure 5.25.
87
Fig. 5.25 – General overview scheme of the installation of the measurement points
88
In Figure 5.26 it is possible to observe the real distribution of the installed measurement points in the
bridge, as well as the hydraulic accurator, in one of the two positions that he assumed during the
campaign of experimental tests.
Fig. 5.26 – General overview of the installed measurement points
These sensors measure the vibrations caused by a hydraulic accurator, placed in the positions A and B,
alternately, according to the Figure 5.27. This hydraulic accurator belongs to a German company, “SSF
Ingenieure”, which along with RWTH allowed to study the vibrations induced on the bridge.
The hydraulic accurator acted as a “seismic exciter”, using a big mass (a screwed package of steel plates)
oscillating in four soft springs.
Fig. 5.27 – General overview scheme of the location of the hydraulic accurator
89
It was necessary to place the hydraulic accurator in these two different positions, in order to be possible
to obtain different mode shapes. For example, as shown in Figure 5.28 b), it would not be possible to
obtain certain mode shapes if the hydraulic accurator was only positioned at mid-span.
a) b)
Fig. 5.28 – Examples of mode shapes obtained through the different positions of the hydraulic accurator: a) –
results from position A; b) – results from position B.
The hydraulic accurator, that is, the hydraulic vibration exciter (Figure 5.29), provoked vibrations on
the bridge, being possible to excite frequencies in a range from 0.5 to 30Hz, with a certain “excitation
concept” during the several “sweeps”, as shown in Table 5.13.
“Excitation
basket”
a)
b)
Fig. 5.29 – Hydraulic accurator: a) - general view; b) – enlarged view.
90
Table 5.13 – Excitation characteristics during the several “sweeps”
Mass at excitation
Number Frequency (Hz) Duration (s) Sweep rate
basket (kg)
1 Sweep 0,5 - 1 300 600 s/Hz 430
2 Sweep 1 - 3 360 180 s/Hz 430
3 Sweep 3 - 10 300 43 s/Hz 430
4 Sweep 10 - 20 300 30 s/Hz 430
5 Sweep 20 - 30 300 30 s/Hz 124
It is important to note that, in the range between 20 and 30 Hz, the hydraulic accurator cannot move the
higher mass of 430 kg, so it had to be reduced to 124 kg.
5.4.3. MONITORING RESULTS

The used measuring programme, GeoSIG Data Acquisition System GeoDAS, does not allow to obtain
the eigenfrequencies directly, being necessary to treat all the data. Using the Flexpro version 9.0
software [33], it was possible to study the data and, later, obtain the eigenfrequencies.
However, by unknown reasons, the data obtained was not completely correct, once it was shifted, as
shown in the Figure 5.30.
a) b)
Fig. 5.30 – Shifted data obtained from measurements: a) – example of transversal acceleration; b) – example of
longitudinal acceleration.
Therefore, was necessary to apply an “offset” using the function “DETREND”. This function offers
three options: constant, linear or adaptive. The constant detrend subtracts the mean value, while the
linear detrend subtracts the best straight line, that is, the straight line for which the sum of squares of the
deviations to the signal is minimal. Finally, the adaptive detrend subtracts the mean value of the upper
91
and lower envelope. In the Figure 5.31 it is possible to observe the graphical differences between this
methods.
a) b) c)
Fig. 5.31 – Detrend function: a) – constant; b) – linear; c) – adaptive.
Thus, considering the Figure 5.30 and the corrections that were necessary, was chosen the adaptive
function, being possible to shift all the data to zero. Was necessary to do this process to all the data, in
the three different directions (longitudinal, transversal and vertical), being then possible to obtain the
correct signal, as shown in Figure 5.32.
a) b)
Fig. 5.32 – Corrected data after using the adaptive detrend function: a) – example of transversal acceleration; b) –
example of longitudinal acceleration.
Once the corrections, using the adaptive trend function, were introduced in all the obtained data, was
possible to process the data in the different sweeps represented in the Table 5.13. Were studied all the
directions and data along all the measured time, being the peaks, common in different directions,
indicative of the eigenfrequencies values.
After this signal processing, were obtained all the measured values of eigenfrequencies (Table 5.14),
enabling the comparison between the measured values, and the values resulting from the numerical
model.
92
However, it is important to note that the measured values correspond to all the measured directions
(vertical, transversal and horizontal), being difficult to distinguish which eigenfrequencies correspond
to a certain direction. Therefore, considering that is pretended to evaluate the acceleration in the vertical
direction, through the values obtained in the numerical model, was possible to predict which ones
correspond to the vertical direction.
Table 5.14 – Measured eigenfrequencies values
Eigenfrequencies
Number
(Hz)
1 5.86
2 6.36
3 6.41
4 7.27
5 9.8
6 10.9
7 11.66
8 12.4
9 13.34
10 19.58
11 22.86
12 27.50
5.5. MODAL ANALYSIS OF THE BRIDGE OVER THE SALZACH RIVER

Once finished the numerical model A, was followed the modal analysis. Were obtained 17 vibration
modes and, in this study, the dynamic analysis was limited to the frequency of 30 Hz, once this
corresponds to the frequency value until which the hydraulic accurator operates (the maximum
frequency value to be used in a dynamic analysis, according to EN1990-AnnexA2 [17], is 30Hz). Figure
5.33 presents the deformed shape of the relevant vibration modes, where the colour scale is in
accordance with a rotational component in the Z axis (longitudinal axis), except for the vibration modes
2, 8 and 16, whose scale colours are according to the vertical displacement (Y axis).
It is important to note that, due to problems in the modelling of the connection between the abutments
and the springs in the ANSYS programme, it was not possible to introduce the springs at the bottom of
the abutments, as would be desirable and described in the section 5.3.1.2. Thus, the results presented
were obtained running the model with fully fixed abutments, instead of springs. As would be expected,
due to these changes, the eigenfrequencies values obtained are slightly higher than the values obtained
in the experimental campaign (Table 5.14), once the conditions are not accurately reproduced, becoming
impossible to compare the results obtained through the numerical model with the results of the
experimental campaign.
93
Table 5.15 - Eigenfrequencies values obtained through the numerical model A
Eigenfrequencies
Number
(Hz)
1 5.11
2 6.91
3 8.52
4 9.36
5 9.80
6 10.63
7 11.28
8 15.73
9 16.16
10 16.25
11 17.04
12 22.70
13 23.01
14 24.50
15 27.76
16 28.80
17 29.36
As can be observed throughout the comparison between Tables 5.14 and 5.15, the measured values and
the values obtained through the numerical model are significantly different, was would be expected by
the previously listed reasons. In addition to these facts, it is also relevant to note that, since were only
used 4 experimental measuring points, the results are not that accurate was would be desirable.
From all these eigenfrequencies values, are highlighted some flexural and torsional deformed shapes,
the ones corresponding to the prominent vibration modes in the response of the deck, as shown in the
Figure 5.33.
94
N1: f = 5.11 Hz N2: f = 6.91 Hz
N6: f = 10.63 Hz N7: f = 11.28 Hz
95
N8: f = 15.73 Hz N11: f = 17.04 Hz
N16: f = 28.80 Hz
Fig. 5.33 – Deformed shape of the prominent vibration modes in the response of the deck
The 7 vibration modes represented in the previous figure are further described in Table 5.16.
96
Table 5.16 – Eigenfrequencies values obtained through the numerical model A
Mode Frequency
Description
Number (Hz)
1 5.11 1st torsional mode
2 6.91 1st vertical flexural mode
6 10.63 2nd torsional mode
7 11.28 3rd torsional mode
8 15.73 2nd vertical flexural mode
11 17.04 4th torsional mode
16 28.80 3rd vertical flexural mode
97
98
6
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF THE
BRIDGE OVER THE SALZACH RIVER
6.1. INTRODUCTION
In this chapter is presented a study about the dynamic analysis of the railway bridge over the Salzach
river. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the numerical model B was used, once it contains the
modelled ballast and rails.
Thus, since the rails are modelled, the study was conducted using the moving loads method, wherein the
rails define the load path. The dynamic response of the bridge was evaluated towards the passage of a
train belonging to Deutsche Bahn (German railway company), an Intercity train, once it is expected this
to be the train that will cross the bridge.
The dynamic analysis focused on the study of vertical displacements and accelerations in the middle
span of the bridge. The influence of the damping coefficient in the dynamic response of the structure
was evaluated, as well as the influence of the number of vibration modes in the final response of the
structure. Additionally, were considered different speeds in order to understand the evolution of the
structure behaviour.
6.2. MOVING LOADS METHODOLOGY

In this section, are explained all the necessary steps in order to be possible to apply the moving loads in
the created numerical model.
First of all, this process involves the use of both the ANSYS, for obtaining the relevant information of
the structure, such as frequency, mass and damping of the vibration modes, coordinates of the load path
and information about the nodes, as well as MATLAB, which allows, through the information provided
about the train in study, shown in Figure 6.1, and a certain speed attributed, to obtain the acceleration
and displacement values for a given section of the bridge. In this case, the section selected to study was
the mid-span of the bridge.
The program that enables this interaction between ANSYS and MATLAB was developed by the
engineer Carlos Albuquerque, being constantly developed by the high speed research group of FEUP
[24].
In Figure 6.1 is presented the IC train in study and in Table 6.1 are presented the loads per axle of the
train.
99
Fig. 6.1 – IC Train (Intercity Train) – Deutsche Bahn AG
The used IC Train is characterized by having a locomotive with 6 axes (using concentrated loads of
195 kN) and 9 coaches of 4 axes (concentrated loads of 120 kN), with a regular spacing between axes
groups of 26,40m, as shown in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1 – Loads per axle in the IC Train
IC Train (Intecity Train) - Deutsche Bahn AG

Ʃ𝑃 = 5490,00 𝑘𝑁
𝐿𝑐𝑜𝑎𝑐ℎ = 26,400 𝑚
Number x [m] P [kN]
1 0,000 195,00
2 2,250 195,00
3 4,500 195,00
4 9,600 195,00
5 11,850 195,00
6 14,100 195,00
7 19,600 120,00
8 22,100 120,00
9 38,600 120,00
10 41,100 120,00
11 46,000 120,00
12 48,500 120,00
13 65,000 120,00
14 67,500 120,00
15 72,400 120,00
16 74,900 120,00
100
17 91,400 120,00
18 93,900 120,00
19 98,800 120,00
20 101,300 120,00
21 117,800 120,00
22 120,300 120,00
23 125,200 120,00
24 127,700 120,00
25 144,200 120,00
26 146,700 120,00
27 151,600 120,00
28 154,100 120,00
29 170,600 120,00
30 173,100 120,00
31 178,000 120,00
32 180,500 120,00
33 197,000 120,00
34 199,500 120,00
35 204,400 120,00
36 206,900 120,00
37 223,400 120,00
38 225,900 120,00
39 230,800 120,00
40 233,300 120,00
41 249,800 120,00
42 252,300 120,00
In order to be possible to apply the moving loads on the bridge, it is necessary to first insert the initial
coordinates of the rails (Table 6.2) in the programme.
101
Table 6.2 – Initial coordinates of the rails
Rails coordinates
Rails x (m) y (m) z (m)
Rail 1 (Left) 1.376 4.61 -11.825
Rail 2 (Right) 3.044 4.61 -11.825
Fig. 6.2 – Initial KeyPoints of the loads path
After introducing the initial coordinates of the load path, that is, the initial coordinates of the rails, and
knowing that the shell model in study has only one track, with two rails, it is possible to extract from
the ANSYS software information concerning the frequencies of the vibration modes and their respective
mass. Afterwards, it is necessary to create an additional file, with the same file size of the mass of the
vibration modes, which contains the values of the damping coefficient.
Therefore, considering that the bridge in study is a steel composite structure and the span of the bridge
is 43.50m, according to Table 6.3, the damping coefficient to be used is 0.5%.
Table 6.3 – Values of damping to be assumed for design purposes [16]
𝜁 Lower limit of percentage of critical damping [%]

Bridge Type
Span 𝐿 < 20𝑚 Span 𝐿 ≥ 20𝑚
Steel and composite 𝜁 = 0,5 + 0,125 (20 − 𝐿) 𝜁 = 0,5
Prestressed concrete 𝜁 = 1,0 + 0,07 (20 − 𝐿) 𝜁 = 1,0
Filler beam and reinforced concrete 𝜁 = 1,5 + 0,07 (20 − 𝐿) 𝜁 = 1,5
Collected all this information, it is possible to obtain the information (number of each node, and
corresponding coordinates) and results (modal coordinate in the Y axis, for each one of the nodes and
for each vibration mode) relative to all the nodes of the structure. At the end of this whole process, it
was gathered the following information:
102
 Frequency of the vibration modes;

 Mass of the vibration modes;
 Damping of the vibration modes;
 Coordinates of the load path (rail number 1);
 Coordinates of the load path (rail number 2);
 Information relative to all the nodes;
 Results relative to all the nodes.
Afterwards, it is necessary to import these seven files, resulting from ANSYS, to the Workspace of
MATLAB. Finally, after introducing the properties of the IC Train of Deutsche Bahn, and define the
speed of circulation of the train, it is possible to obtain the displacements and accelerations relative to
the passage of the train for all the selected nodes.
6.3. STUDY OF PARAMETERS TO USE IN THE DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

The dynamic analysis performed on the bridge, using moving loads, focuses on the study of vertical
displacements and accelerations in the middle span of the bridge. It is studied the influence of the number
of vibration modes in the final response of the structure, as well as the influence of the damping
coefficient in the dynamic response of the structure.
6.3.1. SPEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED

As explained in the section 3.2.2.3, the standard EN1991-2 [16] predicts a dynamic analysis for a series
of speeds from 40 m/s (approximately 145 km/h) up to the maximum designed speed, that is, 1.2 times
the maximum line speed at the site. Thus, it was decided to consider 460 km/h as the maximum speed
limit. Therefore, was chosen the speed range between 140 km/h and 460 km/h, with an increment of 10
km/h between successive speeds.
6.3.2. TIME INCREMENT

It is important to set an adequate time increment (∆𝑡) during the dynamic analysis, in order to ensure
the accuracy of the results obtained. This value must meet the lower value between the criteria’s defined
in the section 4.2.3.1, in equations (4.15) and (4.16), described in ERRI D214/RP9 [14], and equation
(4.17), suggested by Ribeiro [21].
Therefore, for the bridge in study, this values are presented in the Table 6.4, where the maximum
frequency (𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) is 29.97 Hz, the span length (L) is 43.50 m, the number of vibration modes (n) is 69
and the maximum speed (𝑣𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) is 460 km/h (127,8 m/s).
103
Table 6.4 – Recommended time increments
Time Increment (∆𝑡)

1
(4.15) ∆𝑡 = 4,2 ms
8 ∗ 𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝐿
(4.16) ∆𝑡 = 1,2 ms
4 ∗ 𝑛 ∗ 𝑣𝑚𝑎𝑥
1
(4.17) ∆𝑡 = 1,7 ms
20 ∗ 𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑥
A dynamic analysis was performed with the ∆𝑡 values of 1 ms, 2 ms, 3 ms and 4 ms for the passage of
the IC train. This analysis is useful in order to define the most appropriate ∆𝑡 and assess if the
recommendations for this parameter fit to the case study. Thus, in Figure 6.3, it is possible to observe
the accelerations at the mid-span, for the IC train for different increments of time.
5
Acceleration (m/s2)
4
1 ms
3
2 ms
3 ms
2
4 ms
1
0
140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460
Speed (km/h)
Fig. 6.3 – Maximum acceleration values at mid-span in function of the speed and ∆𝑡
Through the analysis of the graphs obtained, it is possible to observe that for values of 2 ms or less, the
results are practically the same. This shows that 2 ms is an ∆𝑡 sufficient for the accurate assessment of
accelerations. It is also possible to conclude that equation (4.15) is not indicated if the accuracy of the
analysis is important, while equations (4.16) and (4.17) suggest similar values, which are a good
estimate, despite the fact that they require a higher calculation effort. Therefore, for the analysis with
vibration modes until 30 Hz, was considered a time increment of 1 ms.
6.3.3. INFLUENCE OF THE DAMPING COEFFICIENT IN THE DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF THE STRUCTURE
In order to achieve the most reliable approach possible, was performed a small study that reflects the
variation of the maximum acceleration for a vibration mode 𝑛, numerically identified up to 30 Hz (69
modes), comparing different damping settings. Therefore, based on the moving loads methodology, was
104
performed a dynamic analysis to the mid-span, subjected to the circulation of the train described in Table
6.1, with a range of speed of 140 km/h to 460 km/h, considering an increase of time of 1ms.
The damping coefficient to be used in the bridge in study, considering that this is a steel composite
bridge, with a higher span than 20 m, as defined by Table 6.3, is 0.5%. Thus, this study was developed
for the mid-span, considering the regulated damping of 0.5%, and also four other coefficients: 1%, 1.5%,
2% and 2.5%.
The Figures 6.4 is an illustrative graphic of the results obtained during this process of analysis of the
damping influence on the bridge over the Salzach river.
5
Acceleration (m/s2)
4 0.5%
3 1.0%
2 1.5%
1 2.00%
2.50%
0
140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460
Speed (km/h)
Fig. 6.4 – Maximum acceleration values at mid-span for the damping coefficient
Through the observation of Figure 6.4 it is possible to note that the damping coefficients have influence
on the acceleration records. These differences are amplified for speed values in the order of 250 km/h
and 340 km/h (resonance peaks). Comparing the various scenarios, it is proven that the maximum
acceleration values decrease with increasing damping, particularly in the areas of resonance peaks, when
analysing the records at mid-span.
Consequently, it is possible to conclude that the damping coefficient is an important factor in the
dynamic analyses, particularly at resonance speeds.
6.3.4. INFLUENCE OF THE NUMBER OF VIBRATION MODES IN THE RESPONSE OF THE STRUCTURE
In this section the influence of the number of vibration modes in the response is analysed, in terms of
accelerations and displacements.
6.3.4.1. Influence in terms of accelerations

The study of this factor is directly connected with the maximum frequency value that is admitted in the
analysis, namely in the study of accelerations. As mentioned above, this parameter is studied at the mid-
-span of the bridge.
In the measurement of the accelerations at the level of the structural elements that support the ballast
and, therefore, the track, according to the standard EN1990-AnnexA2 (2005) should be considered the
modes with frequencies up to a maximum of 30 Hz or 1.5 times the frequency of the first vibration mode
105
of the structural element in question, including at least the first three vibration modes, as already
described in the section 3.3.2.1.
As mentioned in that same section, these suggestions of the European standards have been the subject
of study and criticism, reason why it was decided to conduct a study of the influence of the number of
modes in the response of the bridge.
Therefore, in order to understand the influence of the number of vibration modes, have been considered
vibration modes up to 60 Hz, as it was mentioned in section 3.3.2.1, resulting from studies of Baeßler
and Zacher (2005). In the Figure 6.5 are presented the values of the acceleration at the mid-span of the
bridge, considering two cases, with vibration modes up to 30 Hz and 60 Hz, to the speed of 150 km/h.
a)
b)
Fig. 6.5 – Acceleration at mid-span in the numerical model B, with the train circulating at a speed of 150 km/h:
a) – 30 Hz; b) 60 Hz.
106
In order to make the most efficient analysis, the same procedure was done for the speed range of 140
km/h to 460 km/h, combining the results in the same graphic, comprising both maximum and minimum
accelerations, as shown in Figure 6.6.
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
Acceleration (m/s2)
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0 30 Hz
-2.0
-3.0 60 Hz
-4.0
-5.0
-6.0
-7.0
120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460
Speed (km/h)
Fig. 6.6 – Maximum and minimum acceleration values at mid-span due to an IC train crossing the bridge (limit of
frequencies of 30 Hz and 60 Hz)
Through the analysis of the Figure 6.6, it appears that, in general terms, the response (acceleration) tend
to slightly increase when frequencies up to 60 Hz are considered. For speeds over 340 km/h, the increase
of the accelerations, with the number of modes considered, is obvious. However, it is also true that for
certain ranges of speeds, the response is nearly identical, for example, as occurs for lower circulation
speeds.
In conclusion, there is a trend for the acceleration to increase with the number of vibration modes
included. However, for certain speeds occurs the opposite effect, due to negative contribution that some
modes have in the accelerations, for example, as it is possible to observe in Figure 6.6, for speeds around
270 km/h.
6.3.4.2. Influence in terms of displacements

This section is intended to realize the influence on the response, in terms of displacements, of the number
of modes included in the analysis, similar to the description in the previous section, concerning the
accelerations.
In the Figure 6.7 are presented the values of the displacement at the mid-span of the bridge, considering
two cases, with vibration modes up to 30 Hz and 60 Hz, to the speed of 150 km/h.
107
a)
b)
Fig. 6.7 – Displacement at mid-span in the numerical model B, with the train circulating at a speed of 150 km/h:
a) – 30 Hz; b) 60 Hz.
Alike to what was done to the accelerations, in order to make the most efficient analysis, the same
procedure was done for the speed range of 140 km/h to 460 km/h, combining the results in the same
graphic, comprising both maximum and minimum displacement of the bridge, as shown in Figure 6.8.
108
0.003
0.002
0.001
Displacement (m)
0
-0.001
30 Hz
-0.002
60 Hz
-0.003
-0.004
-0.005
120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460
Speed (km/h)
Fig. 6.8 – Maximum and minimum displacement values at mid-span due to an IC train crossing the bridge (limit of
frequencies of 30 Hz and 60 Hz)
The analysis of the Figure 6.8 allows to conclude that the contribution of the first modes is enough to
translate the dynamic response of the structure, in terms of displacements.
109
110
7
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE
RESEARCH
7.1. CONCLUSIONS
This thesis focuses on the dynamic analysis of a steel composite frame railway bridge over the Salzach
river, located in the Austrian state of Salzburg.
Considering this main objective, then proceeded to the implementation of dynamic analysis
methodologies to the numerical evaluation of the dynamic effects of the railway traffic, which tend to
increase considerably for speeds above 200 km/h, as a result, essentially, of resonance effects.
The analysis of the dynamic response of the train-bridge system can be performed using various
methods, including analytical, numerical, simplified and empirical methodologies. In this work,
methods of numerical dynamic analysis have been addressed, being studied the case with and without
bridge interaction. In practical terms, these studies were not applied in this work, once the main objective
of this thesis was to create a numerical model and perform a modal analysis, followed by a dynamic
analysis of the bridge through the passage of trains, using moving loads.
As regard to the standards, the EN1991-2 and EN1990-AnnexA2 standards describe the procedures to
be taken into consideration in the design of structures and its dynamic analysis in this type of structures,
and recommend some verifications of the limit states, on the structural safety, traffic safety and
passenger comfort. Furthermore, in EN1991-2 a flowchart that allows to verify the need to perform a
dynamic analysis of the bridge is presented, verifying that in the case of speeds over 200 km/h, in most
of situations, the realization of a dynamic analysis is compulsory.
This thesis results from the need to create a numerical model for the bridge in study, so it can be used
for a dynamic analysis and subsequent comparison with the results obtained in the experimental
campaign.
The main objective of the experimental campaign carried out by the RWTH AACHEN research group,
aimed to study the contribution of the backfill to the dynamic bridge behaviour. Thus, the bridge was
studied in various stages of construction. The results which are presented in this thesis corresponds to
the first experimental campaign, at an early stage, when the bridge was still a bare structure (“naked
structure”), without backfill, ballast or railway.
Thus, the numerical model A does not consider neither the modelling of the ballast nor the railway, in
order to be possible to compare the experimental results with the results obtained through the numerical
model. As regard to model B, which outcomes from the previous model, it considers both the ballast
and the railways that were introduced in order to allow a dynamic analysis with moving loads. The
111
analysis with moving loads is only a way to predict what could be the bridge’s behaviour in the future,
since, not being completed yet, there are no results for comparison.
Hence, as already mentioned, during this work particular attention was devoted to the modelling of the
structure, which was performed using ANSYS 17.0. This program has an extensive library of finite
elements, various tools of structural analysis, good graphical interface and is the adopted program in the
High Speed Research Group of FEUP. These factors were decisive in the choice of the software to be
used in the modelling of the bridge in study.
Within the framework of the modelling, it is considered important to note the importance of the rigid
beam elements (MPC184), elements which were given special attention, since it is an element used in
many connections and which has a fundamental importance for the functioning of the numerical model.
These elements have internally different types of connection, being the main difference between them
the restriction on relative rotation given to the elements to be connected. In the case study, was
considered that the Rigid Beam element was the most suitable for this specific case, since the relative
rotations between elements were disallowed.
At the end of the modelling some difficulties in introducing the springs with the calculated stiffness on
the bottom of the abutments came up. Due to this problem, it was decided to complete the modelling
replacing the springs for fully fixed abutments, knowing in advance that the results would not be the
desirable ones. The results obtained for the eigenfrequencies were overestimated, that is, they were
higher than the eigenvalues obtained through the experimental campaign. Therefore, was not possible
to compare the results obtained in the experimental campaign and the results obtained through the
numerical model.
Once the numerical model was concluded, a modal analysis was performed for the first 17 modes of
vibration of the bridge, which includes modes with frequencies below 30 Hz.
Afterwards, a dynamic analysis was performed, using for that the moving loads methodology. In order
to be possible to apply the moving loads, was necessary to use the numerical model B, once it contains
the ballast and the rails, which are crucial, once it is necessary to define a loads path. The dynamic
analysis focused on the study of vertical displacements and accelerations of the bridge at the mid-span.
Furthermore, the influence of the damping coefficient in the dynamic response of the structure was
evaluated, as well as the influence of the number of vibration modes in the final response of the structure.
Additionally, were considered different speeds in order to understand the evolution of the structure
behaviour.
As regard to the influence of the number of vibration modes, was possible to conclude that, in general
terms, the acceleration tend to increase with the number of nodes, despite the fact that, for certain ranges
of speed, the response is nearly identical.
In terms of displacements, was concluded that the contribution of the first modes is enough to translate
the dynamic response of the structure.
Finally, concerning the influence of the damping coefficient in the dynamic response of the bridge, was
proven that the maximum acceleration values decrease with increasing damping, particularly in the areas
of resonance peaks. Consequently, it is possible to conclude that the damping coefficient is an important
factor in the dynamic analyses, particularly at resonance speeds.
112
7.2. FUTURE RESEARCH

A numerical model for evaluation of the dynamic behaviour of a steel composite frame railway bridge
was developed within the scope of this thesis. In order to enhance and complement the performed
studies, are suggested the following topics for future research:
 In this thesis it was not possible to consider the foundations in the modelling. It would be
important to consider the foundations in the numerical model, as well as their interaction with
the soil, to obtain closer results to the reality;
 Study the dynamic behaviour of the bridge through the application of a methodology that
involves the train-bridge interaction, testing several trains at different speeds, thereby
determining the importance of a more rigorous and complete analysis;
 Identify the contribution of the backfill to the dynamic bridge behaviour;
 Assess the dynamic behaviour of the bridge in the transversal direction. Thus, it would be
possible to complement the obtained results for the vertical direction and, consequently, obtain
an overview of the dynamic response of the structure;
 Perform a calibration of the numerical model, based on the obtained experimental data;
 Perform the recommended verifications of the limit states that are presented in the standard
EN1991-2, such as the structural safety, traffic safety and passenger comfort.
113
114
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
[1] http://www.uic.org/High-Speed-principles-and, 18th April 2016

[2] T. Baron (SYSTRA), M. Tuchschmid, G. Martinetti and D. Pépion (2011), High Speed Rail and
Sustainability. Background Report: Methodology and results of carbon footprint analysis,
International Union of Railways (UIC), Paris, 2011.
[3] Jehanno, A., Palmer, D., James, C., High Speed Rail and Sustainability, International Union of
Railways (UIC), Paris, 2011.
[4] Ledbury, M., Rail Transport and Environment Facts and Figures, UIC - ETF (Railway Technical
Publications), 2015.
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail, 21st April 2016
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe, 21st April 2016
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-European_high-speed_rail_network, 21st April 2016
[8] http://www.uic.org/highspeed#General-definitions-of-highspeed, 18st April 2016
[9] Xia, H., Zhang, N., Guo, W., Analysis of resonance mechanism and conditions of train-bridge
system. Journal of Sound and Vibration 297, pp 810-822, China, 2006.
[10] Rigueiro M. C. B., Avaliação dos efeitos dinâmicos em pontes ferroviárias de alta velocidade de
pequeno e médio vão. PhD Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Science and
Technology of University of Coimbra, 2007.
[11] Dieleman, L., Fournol, A., Dynamic behaviour of short railway bridges. Conference of Structures
for high-speed railway transportation (IABSE), 2003.
[12] Frýba, L., Dynamics of railway bridges. London: Thomas Telford, 1996.
[13] Museros, P., Romero, M., Poy, A., Alarcón, E., Advances in the analysis of short span railway
bridges for high-speed lines. Computers and Structures Vol. 80, pp 2121-2132, 2002.
[14] ERRI D214/RP 9, "Rail bridges for speeds > 200 km/h final report", European Rail Research
Institute (ERRI), Utrecht, Netherlands, 2001.
[15] Gabaldón, F., Riquelme, F., Goicolea, L., Arribas, J., Dynamic analysis of structures under high
speed train loads: case studies in Spain. Workshop: Dynamics of High Speed Railway Bridges,
FEUP, Porto, September 2005.
[16] EN1991-2, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges, European
Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium, 2003.
[17] EN1990-A2-2, Eurocode 0: Basis of Structural Design – Annex A2: Applications for bridges,
European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
[18] H. Figueiredo, Delgado, R., Calcada, R., Aspectos Regulamentares no Cálculo de Pontes
Ferroviárias em Linhas de Alta Velocidade. FEUP, Porto, 2009.
[19] Calçada, R. A. B., Efeitos dinâmicos em pontes resultantes do tráfego ferroviário a alta velocidade.
Master’s Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, FEUP, Porto, 1995.
[20] Meixedo, A., Comportamento dinâmico de pontes com tabuleiro pré-fabricado em vias de alta
velocidade. Master’s Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, FEUP, Porto, 2012.
115
[21] Ribeiro, D. R. F., Comportamento dinâmico de pontes sob acção de tráfego ferroviário a alta
[22] Silva, L. D. C. F. M, Comportamento dinâmico de uma ponte ferroviária de pequeno vão para
tráfego de alta velocidade. Master’s Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, FEUP, Porto, 2010.
[23] https://wiki.csiamerica.com/display/kb/Modal+analysis, 25th May 2016.
[24] Horas, C.C.S., Comportamento Dinâmico de pontes com tabuleiro pré-fabricado em vias de alta
[25] Goicolea, J., Gabaldón, F., Design issues related to dynamic effects for high-speed railway bridges
in Spain. Workshop: Dynamics of High-Speed Railway Bridges, pp 13-24, FEUP, Porto, 2005.
[26] Neves, S., et al., Development of an efficient finite element model for the dynamic analysis of the
train-bridge interaction. 7th European Conference on Structural Dynamics (EURODYN),
Southampton, England, 2008.
[27] Cruz, Sara, Comportamento dinâmico de pontes ferroviárias em vias de alta velocidade. Master’s
Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, FEUP, Porto, 1994.
[28] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sankt_Veit_im_Pongau, 07th July 2016.
[29] http://fahrplan.oebb.at/bin/stboard.exe/en?ld=23&, 07th July 2016.
[30] http://www.ansys.stuba.sk/html/elem_55/chapter4/
[31] EN1993-1-1, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
buildings , European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
[32] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_switch, 15th July 2016.
[33] http://www.weisang.com/en/flexpro9-help/
116
117
118
ANNEX A1
APDL CODE TO GENERATE
NUMERICAL MODEL B
Note: It is presented the APDL code for the numerical model B, once it results from model A. To obtain
the numerical model A, delete the components relative to Ballast, Sleepers, Baseplates and Rails.
A1
/CLEAR,NOSTART
/CWD,'C:\ANSYS'
!===================================================================
!============= NUMERICAL MODEL BRIDGE OVER THE SALZACH =============
!===================================================================
/PREP7
!==========================================
! VIEW
!==========================================
/VIEW,1,1,1,1
/ANG,1
/USER, 1
/FOC, 1, 0.111851700426E-01, 1.03655845285 , 38.2432563771
/DIST,1,24,0
/REP,FAST
!==========================================
! ELEMENT TYPE
!==========================================
ET,1,SHELL63 !Shell (deck)
ET,2,SOLID45 !Volume (ballast, sleepers, baseplates)
ET,3,BEAM44 !Beam (steel profiles, rails)
ET,4,MPC184 !MPC (connections ballast/deck)
KEYOPT,4,1,1 !"Rigid Beam" (blocks 3TRANS+3ROTS)
KEYOPT,4,2,0 !"Reduction Method: Direct Elimination"
ET,5,COMBIN14 !Spring (elastic supports)
KEYOPT,5,1,0
KEYOPT,5,2,0
KEYOPT,5,3,0
ET,6,MASS21
KEYOPT,6,3,2 !3DMass without inertia
!==========================================
! REAL CONSTANTS
!==========================================
R,1,0.025 !Web tickness beam
R,2,0.030 !upper flange tickness beam
R,3,0.070 !lower flange tickness beam
R,4,0.530,0,0,0,0,0, !Tickness internal slab (between beams I)
RMORE, , , ,
RMORE
RMORE,0,
R,5,0.380,,,,,, !Cantilever beam
R,6,0.280,,,,,, !Cantilever beam
R,7,4.7209e6, , , , , ,!Vertical stifness left L

R,8,4.7204e5, , , , , ,!Horizontal stifness left L
A2
R,9,7.5077e6, , , , , ,!Vertical stifness left R

R,10,7.5069e5, , , , , ,!Horizontal stifness left R
R,11,4.9472e6, , , , , ,!Vertical stifness right L

R,12,4.9467e5, , , , , ,!Horizontal stifness right L
R,13,3.9397e6, , , , , ,!Vertical stifness right R

R,14,3.9392e5, , , , , ,!Horizontal stifness right R
R,15,15.000 !guardrails mass 50 kg/m (=50*43.5/145) (145

nodes)
R,16,109.80 !cornice mass 366 kg/m (=366*43.5/145) (145

nodes)
R,17,0.007687,3.0383e-005,5.123e-006,0.036,0.08092,0.1, !rails
RMODIF,14,13,0,0.08092,0,
RMODIF,14,21,0.036,0.09108,
RMODIF,14,7,0.007687,3.0383e-005,5.123e-006,0.036,0.08092,0.1,
RMODIF,14,16,0,0.08092,0,
RMODIF,14,23,0.036,0.09108,
RMODIF,14,19,0,0,
RMODIF,14,25,0,0,0,0,0,0,
RMODIF,14,31,0,0,0,0,0,0,
RMODIF,14,37,0,0,0,0,0,0,
RMODIF,14,43,0,0,0,0,0,0,
RMODIF,14,49,0,0,0,0,0,0,
RMODIF,14,55,0,
!==========================================
! MATERIALS
!==========================================
MPTEMP,,,,,,,,
MPTEMP,1,0
Ec50=37e9
Ec35_1=39.87e9
Ec35_2=42.10e9
Ec35_3=42.97e9
Es=210e9
Ec30=33.00e9
dens_conc=2548
dens_steel=7850
mdens_bal=2039
!Concrete 50/60
MPDATA,EX , 1, , Ec50
MPDATA,PRXY, 1, , 0.2
MPDATA,DENS, 1, , dens_conc
A3
!Concrete 35/45
MPDATA,EX , 2, , Ec35_1
!Structural Steel
MPDATA,EX , 3, , Es
MPDATA,DENS, 3, , dens_steel
!MPC184
MPDATA,DENS, 4, , 0
!Concrete 30/37 - Concrete Blocks

MPDATA,EX , 5, , Ec30
!Ballast
MPDATA,EX , 6, , 142.7e6
MPDATA,DENS, 6, , mdens_bal
!Sleepers
MPDATA,EX , 7, , 36e9
MPDATA,DENS, 7, , 2857
!Baseplates
MPDATA,EX , 8, , 500e6*1e6
MPDATA,EY , 8, , 500e6
MPDATA,EZ , 8, , 500e6*1e6
MPDATA,PRXY, 8, , 0
MPDATA,PRYZ, 8, , 0
MPDATA,PRXZ, 8, , 0
MPDATA,GXY , 8, , 1e15
MPDATA,GYZ , 8, , 1e15
MPDATA,GXZ , 8, , 1e15
MPDATA,DENS, 8, , 0
!Rails
MPDATA,EX , 9, , 210e9
MPDATA,DENS, 9, , 7850
!==========================================
! MODELING
!==========================================
kpnum=0
lnum=0
anum=0
A4
!##########################################
!Create: Beam, Slab, Ballast protection
!##########################################
!............................................
!Beams_i (full beams)
!............................................
K,kpnum+1,0,0,0
K,kpnum+2,-0.60,0,0
K,kpnum+3,0.60,0,0
K,kpnum+4,0,3.00,0
K,kpnum+5,-0.25,3.00,0
K,kpnum+6,0.25,3.00,0
KGEN, 2, ALL, , , , , 43.50, , , ,
K,kpnum+13,0,1.35,21.75
K,kpnum+14,-0.60,1.35,21.75
K,kpnum+15,0.60,1.35,21.75
K,kpnum+16,0,3.00,21.75
K,kpnum+17,-0.25,3.00,21.75
K,kpnum+18,0.25,3.00,21.75
ALLSEL,ALL
*DO,i,1,1
A,kpnum+1+6*(i-1),kpnum+2+6*(i-1),kpnum+14+6*(i-
1),kpnum+13+6*(i-1)
1),kpnum+7+6*(i-1)
1),kpnum+13+6*(i-1)
1),kpnum+7+6*(i-1)
1),kpnum+13+6*(i-1)
1),kpnum+7+6*(i-1)
1),kpnum+16+6*(i-1)
1),kpnum+10+6*(i-1)
1),kpnum+16+6*(i-1)
1),kpnum+10+6*(i-1)
*ENDDO
ASEL,ALL
AGEN, 2, ALL, , ,2.75 , , , , , ,
CM, beams_i, AREA
A5
!...................................................................
!Cut beams in order to allow correct alignment of nodes, afterwards
with the slab
!...................................................................
WPAVE,0,0,0.15
ASEL, S, LOC, Z, 0.15,22
ASBW, ALL, , DELETE
ALLSEL,ALL
*DO,var_ciclo,1,37
*DO,i,0.35,21.60,36
WPAVE,0,0,i+0.6*(var_ciclo-1)
ASEL, S, LOC, Z, 0.6*(var_ciclo-1)-0.6,44
ASBW, ALL, , DELETE
*ENDDO
*ENDDO
*DO,var_ciclo,1,37
*DO,i,21.95,43.15,36
ASEL, S, LOC, Z,21.95+0.6*(var_ciclo-1)-0.6,44
ASBW, ALL, , DELETE
*ENDDO
*ENDDO
ALLSEL,ALL
*DO,var_ciclo,1,73
*DO,i,0.75,43.50,73
ASBW, ALL, , DELETE
*ENDDO
*ENDDO
NUMCMP,KP !compress the numbering of defined elements

(keypoint numbers)
NUMSTR,KP, !establishes starting numbers for automatically
numbered items
NUMCMP,LINE !compress line numbers
NUMSTR,LINE,
NUMCMP,AREA !compress area numbers
NUMSTR,AREA,
NUMCMP,VOLU !compress volume numbers
NUMSTR,VOLU,
WPAVE,0,0,0
LOCAL,11,0,0,0,0, , , ,1,1,
ALLSEL,ALL
CM, beams_i, AREA
A6
!............................................
!Slab
!............................................
CMSEL, ALL
ASEL,NONE
K,1765,-0.249,3.29,0
K,1766,0,3.29,0
K,1767,0.94,3.29,0
K,1768,2.75,3.29,0
K,1769,3.54,3.29,0
K,1770,4.21,3.29,0
K,1771,-0.249,3.29,43.50
K,1772,0,3.29,43.50
K,1773,0.94,3.29,43.50
K,1774,2.75,3.29,43.50
K,1775,3.54,3.29,43.50
K,1776,4.21,3.29,43.50
A,1765,1766,1772,1771
A,1766,1767,1773,1772
A,1767,1768,1774,1773
A,1768,1769,1775,1774
A,1769,1770,1776,1775
CM, slab, AREA
!............................................
!Cantilever beam 1
!............................................
CMSEL, ALL
ASEL,NONE
K,1777,-0.250,3.29,0
K,1778,-0.42,3.29,0
K,1779,-0.809,3.29,0
K,1780,-0.250,3.29,43.50
K,1781,-0.42,3.29,43.50
K,1782,-0.809,3.29,43.50
A,1777,1778,1781,1780
A,1778,1779,1782,1781
CM, cantilever_1, AREA
!............................................
!Cantilever beam 2
!............................................
A7
CMSEL, ALL
ASEL, NONE
K,1783,-0.810,3.29,0
K,1784,-1.37,3.29,0
K,1785,-0.810,3.29,43.50
K,1786,-1.37,3.29,43.50
A,1783,1784,1786,1785
!...................................................................
!Cut slab and cantileveres in order to allow correct alignment of
nodes with beams
!...................................................................
WPAVE,0,0,0.15
ASEL, S, LOC, Z, 0.15,22
ASEL, S, LOC, Y, 3.28, 3.44
ASBW, ALL, , DELETE
ALLSEL,ALL
*DO,var_ciclo,1,37
*DO,i,0.35,21.60,36
ASEL, R, LOC, Y, 3.28, 3.44
ASEL, A, LOC, X, -1.37
ASEL, A, LOC, X, 4.21
ASBW, ALL, , DELETE
*ENDDO
*ENDDO
*DO,var_ciclo,1,37
*DO,i,21.95,43.15,36
ASEL, S, LOC, Z,21.95+0.6*(var_ciclo-1)-0.6,44
ASEL, R, LOC, Y, 3.28, 3.44
ASBW, ALL, , DELETE
*ENDDO
*ENDDO
ALLSEL,ALL
*DO,var_ciclo,1,73
*DO,i,0.75,43.50,73
ASEL, R, LOC, Y, 3.28, 3.44
ASBW, ALL, , DELETE
A8
*ENDDO
*ENDDO
NUMCMP,KP !compress the numbering of defined elements

(keypoint numbers)
NUMSTR,KP, !establishes starting numbers for automatically
numbered items
NUMCMP,LINE !compress line numbers
NUMSTR,LINE,
NUMCMP,AREA !compress area numbers
NUMSTR,AREA,
NUMCMP,VOLU !compress volume numbers
NUMSTR,VOLU,
WPAVE,0,0,0
LOCAL,11,0,0,0,0, , , ,1,1,
ALLSEL,ALL
ASEL,S,LOC,X,-0.249,4.21
ASEL,U,LOC,Y,-0.01,3.289
CM, slab, AREA
ALLSEL,ALL
ASEL,S,LOC,X,-0.25,-0.809
ASEL,U,LOC,Y,-0.01,3.289
ALLSEL,ALL
ASEL,S,LOC,X,-1.37,-0.81
ASEL,U,LOC,Y,-0.01,3.289
!............................................
!Abutments (Concrete Blocks)
!............................................
!!!!!!upper block_1
!upper block_1_left
CMSEL, ALL
ASEL,NONE
K,3382,-3.56,3.555,43.50
K,3383,-3.56,3.39,43.50
K,3384,-1.37,3.555,43.50
K,3385,-1.37,3.39,43.50
K,3386,-0.81,3.555,43.50
K,3387,-0.81,3.39,43.50
K,3388,-0.60,3.555,43.50
K,3389,-0.60,3.39,43.50
K,3390,-0.42,3.555,43.50
K,3391,-0.42,3.39,43.50
K,3392,-0.25,3.555,43.50
A9
K,3393,-0.25,3.39,43.50
K,3394,0.00,3.555,43.50
K,3395,0.00,3.39,43.50
K,3396,0.25,3.555,43.50
K,3397,0.25,3.39,43.50
K,3398,0.60,3.555,43.50
K,3399,0.60,3.39,43.50
K,3400,0.94,3.555,43.50
K,3401,0.94,3.39,43.50
K,3402,2.15,3.555,43.50
K,3403,2.15,3.39,43.50
K,3404,2.50,3.555,43.50
K,3405,2.50,3.39,43.50
K,3406,2.75,3.555,43.50
K,3407,2.75,3.39,43.50
K,3408,3.00,3.555,43.50
K,3409,3.00,3.39,43.50
K,3410,3.35,3.555,43.50
K,3411,3.35,3.39,43.50
K,3412,3.54,3.555,43.50
K,3413,3.54,3.39,43.50
K,3414,4.21,3.555,43.50
K,3415,4.21,3.39,43.50
A,3382,3383,3385,3384
A,3384,3385,3387,3386
A,3386,3387,3389,3388
A,3388,3389,3391,3390
A,3390,3391,3393,3392
A,3392,3393,3395,3394
A,3394,3395,3397,3396
A,3396,3397,3399,3398
A,3398,3399,3401,3400
A,3400,3401,3403,3402
A,3402,3403,3405,3404
A,3404,3405,3407,3406
A,3406,3407,3409,3408
A,3408,3409,3411,3410
A,3410,3411,3413,3412
A,3412,3413,3415,3414
K,10001,-3.56,3.555,46.44
L,3382,10001
ASEL, S, AREA, , 2629, 2644, ,
VDRAG,ALL, , , , , , 6054,
LDELE,6054
KDELE,10001
VSEL,ALL
CM, concrete_block_upper_1_left, VOLU
A10
!upper block_1_right
CMSEL, ALL
ASEL,NONE
K,3450,-3.56,3.555,0.000
K,3451,-3.56,3.39,0.000
K,3452,-1.37,3.555,0.000
K,3453,-1.37,3.39,0.000
K,3454,-0.81,3.555,0.000
K,3455,-0.81,3.39,0.000
K,3456,-0.60,3.555,0.000
K,3457,-0.60,3.39,0.000
K,3458,-0.42,3.555,0.000
K,3459,-0.42,3.39,0.000
K,3460,-0.25,3.555,0.000
K,3461,-0.25,3.39,0.000
K,3462,0.00,3.555,0.000
K,3463,0.00,3.39,0.000
K,3464,0.25,3.555,0.000
K,3465,0.25,3.39,0.000
K,3466,0.60,3.555,0.000
K,3467,0.60,3.39,0.000
K,3468,0.94,3.555,0.000
K,3469,0.94,3.39,0.000
K,3470,2.15,3.555,0.000
K,3471,2.15,3.39,0.000
K,3472,2.50,3.555,0.000
K,3473,2.50,3.39,0.000
K,3474,2.75,3.555,0.000
K,3475,2.75,3.39,0.000
K,3476,3.00,3.555,0.000
K,3477,3.00,3.39,0.000
K,3478,3.35,3.555,0.000
K,3479,3.35,3.39,0.000
K,3480,3.54,3.555,0.000
K,3481,3.54,3.39,0.000
K,3482,4.21,3.555,0.000
K,3483,4.21,3.39,0.000
A,3450,3451,3453,3452
A,3452,3453,3455,3454
A,3454,3455,3457,3456
A,3456,3457,3459,3458
A,3458,3459,3461,3460
A,3460,3461,3463,3462
A,3462,3463,3465,3464
A,3464,3465,3467,3466
A,3466,3467,3469,3468
A,3468,3469,3471,3470
A,3470,3471,3473,3472
A,3472,3473,3475,3474
A,3474,3475,3477,3476
A,3476,3477,3479,3478
A,3478,3479,3481,3480
A11
A,3480,3481,3483,3482
K,10001,-3.56,3.555,-2.94
L,3450,10001
ASEL, S, AREA, , 2710, 2725, ,
VDRAG,ALL, , , , , , 6186,
LDELE,6186
KDELE,10001
VSEL,ALL
VSEL,U,VOLU,,concrete_block_upper_1_left
CM, concrete_block_upper_1_right, VOLU
!!!!!!upper block_2
!upper block_2_left
CMSEL, ALL
ASEL,NONE
K,3518,-3.56,3.29,43.50
K,3519,-0.60,3.29,43.50
K,3520,0.25,3.29,43.50
K,3521,0.60,3.29,43.50
K,3522,2.15,3.29,43.50
K,3523,2.50,3.29,43.50
K,3524,3.00,3.29,43.50
K,3525,3.35,3.29,43.50
A,3383,3518,1786,3385
A,3385,1786,1782,3387
A,3387,1782,3519,3389
A,3389,3519,1781,3391
A,3391,1781,1780,3393
A,3393,1780,1772,3395
A,3395,1772,3520,3397
A,3397,3520,3521,3399
A,3399,3521,1773,3401
A,3401,1773,3522,3403
A,3403,3522,3523,3405
A,3405,3523,1774,3407
A,3407,1774,3524,3409
A,3409,3524,3525,3411
A,3411,3525,1775,3413
A,3413,1775,1776,3415
K,10001,-3.56,3.29,46.44
L,3518,10001
ASEL, S, AREA, , 2791, 2806, ,
VDRAG,ALL, , , , , , 6300,
LDELE,6300
A12
KDELE,10001
VSEL,ALL
VSEL,U,VOLU,,concrete_block_upper_1_right
CMSEL, ALL
ASEL,NONE
K,3560,-3.56,3.29,0.00
K,3561,-0.60,3.29,0.00
K,3562,0.25,3.29,0.00
K,3563,0.60,3.29,0.00
K,3564,2.15,3.29,0.00
K,3565,2.50,3.29,0.00
K,3566,3.00,3.29,0.00
K,3567,3.35,3.29,0.00
A,3451,3560,1784,3453
A,3453,1784,1779,3455
A,3455,1779,3561,3457
A,3457,3561,1778,3459
A,3459,1778,1777,3461
A,3461,1777,1766,3463
A,3463,1766,3562,3465
A,3465,3562,3563,3467
A,3467,3563,1767,3469
A,3469,1767,3564,3471
A,3471,3564,3565,3473
A,3473,3565,1768,3475
A,3475,1768,3566,3477
A,3477,3566,3567,3479
A,3479,3567,1769,3481
A,3481,1769,1770,3483
K,10001,-3.56,3.29,-2.94
L,3560,10001
ASEL, S, AREA, , 2872, 2887, ,
VDRAG,ALL, , , , , , 6414,
LDELE,6414
KDELE,10001
VSEL,ALL
A13
!!!!!!upper block_3
!upper block_3_left
CMSEL, ALL
ASEL,NONE
K,3602,-3.56,3.00,43.50
K,3603,-1.37,3.00,43.50
K,3604,-0.81,3.00,43.50
K,3605,-0.60,3.00,43.50
K,3606,-0.42,3.00,43.50
K,3607,0.60,3.00,43.50
K,3608,0.94,3.00,43.50
K,3609,2.15,3.00,43.50
K,3610,3.35,3.00,43.50
K,3611,3.54,3.00,43.50
K,3612,4.21,3.00,43.50
A,3518,3602,3603,1786
A,1786,3603,3604,1782
A,1782,3604,3605,3519
A,3519,3605,3606,1781
A,1781,3606,11,1780
A,1780,11,10,1772
A,1772,10,12,3520
A,3520,12,3607,3521
A,3521,3607,3608,1773
A,1773,3608,3609,3522
A,3522,3609,33,3523
A,3523,33,30,1774
A,1774,30,36,3524
A,3524,36,3610,3525
A,3525,3610,3611,1775
A,1775,3611,3612,1776
K,10001,-3.56,3.00,46.44
L,3602,10001
ASEL, S, AREA, , 2953, 2968, ,
VDRAG,ALL, , , , , , 6526,
LDELE,6526
KDELE,10001
VSEL,ALL
CMSEL, ALL
ASEL,NONE
A14
K,3647,-3.56,3.00,0.00
K,3648,-1.37,3.00,0.00
K,3649,-0.81,3.00,0.00
K,3650,-0.60,3.00,0.00
K,3651,-0.42,3.00,0.00
K,3652,0.60,3.00,0.00
K,3653,0.94,3.00,0.00
K,3654,2.15,3.00,0.00
K,3655,3.35,3.00,0.00
K,3656,3.54,3.00,0.00
K,3657,4.21,3.00,0.00
A,3560,3647,3648,1784
A,1784,3648,3649,1779
A,1779,3649,3650,3561
A,3561,3650,3651,1778
A,1778,3651,5,1777
A,1777,5,4,1766
A,1766,4,6,3562
A,3562,6,3652,3563
A,3563,3652,3653,1767
A,1767,3653,3654,3564
A,3564,3654,31,3565
A,3565,31,28,1768
A,1768,28,34,3566
A,3566,34,3655,3567
A,3567,3655,3656,1769
A,1769,3656,3657,1770
K,10001,-3.56,3.00,-2.94
L,3647,10001
ASEL, S, AREA, , 3034, 3049, ,
VDRAG,ALL, , , , , , 6638,
LDELE,6638
KDELE,10001
VSEL,ALL
!!!!!!upper block_4
!upper block_4_left
CMSEL, ALL
ASEL,NONE
K,3692,-3.56,0.00,43.50
K,3693,-1.37,0.00,43.50
A15
K,3694,-0.81,0.00,43.50
K,3695,-0.42,0.00,43.50
K,3696,-0.25,0.00,43.50
K,3697,0.25,0.00,43.50
K,3698,0.94,0.00,43.50
K,3699,2.50,0.00,43.50
K,3700,3.00,0.00,43.50
K,3701,3.54,0.00,43.50
K,3702,4.21,0.00,43.50
A,3602,3692,3693,3603
A,3603,3693,3694,3604
A,3604,3694,8,3605
A,3605,8,3695,3606
A,3606,3695,3696,11
A,11,3696,7,10
A,10,7,3697,12
A,12,3697,9,3607
A,3607,9,3698,3608
A,3608,3698,23,3609
A,3609,23,3699,33
A,33,3699,24,30
A,30,24,3700,36
A,36,3700,27,3610
A,3610,27,3701,3611
A,3611,3701,3702,3612
K,10001,-3.56,0.00,46.44
L,3692,10001
ASEL, S, AREA, , 3115, 3130, ,
VDRAG,ALL, , , , , , 6752,
LDELE,6752
KDELE,10001
VSEL,ALL
CMSEL, ALL
ASEL,NONE
K,3737,-3.56,0.00,0.00
K,3738,-1.37,0.00,0.00
K,3739,-0.81,0.00,0.00
K,3740,-0.42,0.00,0.00
A16
K,3741,-0.25,0.00,0.00
K,3742,0.25,0.00,0.00
K,3743,0.94,0.00,0.00
K,3744,2.50,0.00,0.00
K,3745,3.00,0.00,0.00
K,3746,3.54,0.00,0.00
K,3747,4.21,0.00,0.00
A,3647,3737,3738,3648
A,3648,3738,3739,3649
A,3649,3739,2,3650
A,3650,2,3740,3651
A,3651,3740,3741,5
A,5,3741,1,4
A,4,1,3742,6
A,6,3742,3,3652
A,3652,3,3743,3653
A,3653,3743,20,3654
A,3654,20,3744,31
A,31,3744,19,28
A,28,19,3745,34
A,34,3745,25,3655
A,3655,25,3746,3656
A,3656,3746,3747,3657
K,10001,-3.56,0.00,-2.94
L,3737,10001
ASEL, S, AREA, , 3196, 3211, ,
VDRAG,ALL, , , , , , 6866,
LDELE,6866
KDELE,10001
VSEL,ALL
!!!!!!upper block_5
!upper block_5_left
CMSEL, ALL
ASEL,NONE
K,3782,-3.56,-1.46,43.50
K,3783,-1.37,-1.46,43.50
K,3784,-0.81,-1.46,43.50
K,3785,-0.60,-1.46,43.50
A17
K,3786,-0.42,-1.46,43.50
K,3787,-0.25,-1.46,43.50
K,3788,0.00,-1.46,43.50
K,3789,0.25,-1.46,43.50
K,3790,0.60,-1.46,43.50
K,3791,0.94,-1.46,43.50
K,3792,2.15,-1.46,43.50
K,3793,2.50,-1.46,43.50
K,3794,2.75,-1.46,43.50
K,3795,3.00,-1.46,43.50
K,3796,3.35,-1.46,43.50
K,3797,3.54,-1.46,43.50
K,3798,4.21,-1.46,43.50
A,3692,3782,3783,3693
A,3693,3783,3784,3694
A,3694,3784,3785,8
A,8,3785,3786,3695
A,3695,3786,3787,3696
A,3696,3787,3788,7
A,7,3788,3789,3697
A,3697,3789,3790,9
A,9,3790,3791,3698
A,3698,3791,3792,23
A,23,3792,3793,3699
A,3699,3793,3794,24
A,24,3794,3795,3700
A,3700,3795,3796,27
A,27,3796,3797,3701
A,3701,3797,3798,3702
K,10001,-3.56,-1.46,46.44
L,3782,10001
ASEL, S, AREA, , 3277, 3292, ,
VDRAG,ALL, , , , , , 6982,
LDELE,6982
KDELE,10001
VSEL,ALL
A18
CMSEL, ALL
ASEL,NONE
K,3833,-3.56,-1.46,0.00
K,3834,-1.37,-1.46,0.00
K,3835,-0.81,-1.46,0.00
K,3836,-0.60,-1.46,0.00
K,3837,-0.42,-1.46,0.00
K,3838,-0.25,-1.46,0.00
K,3839,0.00,-1.46,0.00
K,3840,0.25,-1.46,0.00
K,3841,0.60,-1.46,0.00
K,3842,0.94,-1.46,0.00
K,3843,2.15,-1.46,0.00
K,3844,2.50,-1.46,0.00
K,3845,2.75,-1.46,0.00
K,3846,3.00,-1.46,0.00
K,3847,3.35,-1.46,0.00
K,3848,3.54,-1.46,0.00
K,3849,4.21,-1.46,0.00
A,3737,3833,3834,3738
A,3738,3834,3835,3739
A,3739,3835,3836,2
A,2,3836,3837,3740
A,3740,3837,3838,3741
A,3741,3838,3839,1
A,1,3839,3840,3742
A,3742,3840,3841,3
A,3,3841,3842,3743
A,3743,3842,3843,20
A,20,3843,3844,3744
A,3744,3844,3845,19
A,19,3845,3846,3745
A,3745,3846,3847,25
A,25,3847,3848,3746
A,3746,3848,3849,3747
K,10001,-3.56,-1.46,-2.94
L,3833,10001
ASEL, S, AREA, , 3358, 3373, ,
VDRAG,ALL, , , , , , 7098,
LDELE,7098
KDELE,10001
VSEL,ALL
A19
!!!!!!middle block
!middle block_left
CMSEL, ALL
ASEL,NONE
K,3884,-3.56,-1.46,42.00
K,3885,-3.56,-1.56,42.00
K,3886,-1.37,-1.46,42.00
K,3887,-1.37,-1.56,42.00
K,3888,-0.81,-1.46,42.00
K,3889,-0.81,-1.56,42.00
K,3890,-0.60,-1.46,42.00
K,3891,-0.60,-1.56,42.00
K,3892,-0.42,-1.46,42.00
K,3893,-0.42,-1.56,42.00
K,3894,-0.25,-1.46,42.00
K,3895,-0.25,-1.56,42.00
K,3896,0.00,-1.46,42.00
K,3897,0.00,-1.56,42.00
K,3898,0.25,-1.46,42.00
K,3899,0.25,-1.56,42.00
K,3900,0.60,-1.46,42.00
K,3901,0.60,-1.56,42.00
K,3902,0.94,-1.46,42.00
K,3903,0.94,-1.56,42.00
K,3904,2.15,-1.46,42.00
K,3905,2.15,-1.56,42.00
K,3906,2.50,-1.46,42.00
K,3907,2.50,-1.56,42.00
K,3908,2.75,-1.46,42.00
K,3909,2.75,-1.56,42.00
K,3910,3.00,-1.46,42.00
K,3911,3.00,-1.56,42.00
K,3912,3.35,-1.46,42.00
K,3913,3.35,-1.56,42.00
K,3914,3.54,-1.46,42.00
K,3915,3.54,-1.56,42.00
K,3916,4.21,-1.46,42.00
K,3917,4.21,-1.56,42.00
A,3884,3885,3887,3886
A,3886,3887,3889,3888
A,3888,3889,3891,3890
A,3890,3891,3893,3892
A,3892,3893,3895,3894
A,3894,3895,3897,3896
A20
A,3896,3897,3899,3898
A,3898,3899,3901,3900
A,3900,3901,3903,3902
A,3902,3903,3905,3904
A,3904,3905,3907,3906
A,3906,3907,3909,3908
A,3908,3909,3911,3910
A,3910,3911,3913,3912
A,3912,3913,3915,3914
A,3914,3915,3917,3916
K,10001,-3.56,-1.46,47.44
L,3884,10001
ASEL, S, AREA, , 3439, 3454, ,
VDRAG,ALL, , , , , , 7230,
LDELE,7230
KDELE,10001
VSEL,ALL
CM, concrete_block_middle_left, VOLU
!middle block_right
CMSEL, ALL
ASEL,NONE
K,3952,-3.56,-1.46,-3.94
K,3953,-3.56,-1.56,-3.94
K,3954,-1.37,-1.46,-3.94
K,3955,-1.37,-1.56,-3.94
K,3956,-0.81,-1.46,-3.94
K,3957,-0.81,-1.56,-3.94
K,3958,-0.60,-1.46,-3.94
K,3959,-0.60,-1.56,-3.94
K,3960,-0.42,-1.46,-3.94
K,3961,-0.42,-1.56,-3.94
K,3962,-0.25,-1.46,-3.94
K,3963,-0.25,-1.56,-3.94
K,3964,0.00,-1.46,-3.94
K,3965,0.00,-1.56,-3.94
K,3966,0.25,-1.46,-3.94
K,3967,0.25,-1.56,-3.94
A21
K,3968,0.60,-1.46,-3.94
K,3969,0.60,-1.56,-3.94
K,3970,0.94,-1.46,-3.94
K,3971,0.94,-1.56,-3.94
K,3972,2.15,-1.46,-3.94
K,3973,2.15,-1.56,-3.94
K,3974,2.50,-1.46,-3.94
K,3975,2.50,-1.56,-3.94
K,3976,2.75,-1.46,-3.94
K,3977,2.75,-1.56,-3.94
K,3978,3.00,-1.46,-3.94
K,3979,3.00,-1.56,-3.94
K,3980,3.35,-1.46,-3.94
K,3981,3.35,-1.56,-3.94
K,3982,3.54,-1.46,-3.94
K,3983,3.54,-1.56,-3.94
K,3984,4.21,-1.46,-3.94
K,3985,4.21,-1.56,-3.94
A,3952,3953,3955,3954
A,3954,3955,3957,3956
A,3956,3957,3959,3958
A,3958,3959,3961,3960
A,3960,3961,3963,3962
A,3962,3963,3965,3964
A,3964,3965,3967,3966
A,3966,3967,3969,3968
A,3968,3969,3971,3970
A,3970,3971,3973,3972
A,3972,3973,3975,3974
A,3974,3975,3977,3976
A,3976,3977,3979,3978
A,3978,3979,3981,3980
A,3980,3981,3983,3982
A,3982,3983,3985,3984
K,10001,-3.56,-1.46,1.50
L,3952,10001
ASEL, S, AREA, , 3520, 3535, ,
VDRAG,ALL, , , , , , 7362,
LDELE,7362
KDELE,10001
VSEL,ALL
A22
VSEL,U,VOLU,,concrete_block_middle_left
CM, concrete_block_middle_right, VOLU
!!!!!!lower block
!lower block_left
CMSEL, ALL
ASEL,NONE
K,4020,-3.56,-4.06,42.00
K,4021,-1.37,-4.06,42.00
K,4022,-0.81,-4.06,42.00
K,4023,-0.60,-4.06,42.00
K,4024,-0.42,-4.06,42.00
K,4025,-0.25,-4.06,42.00
K,4026,0.00,-4.06,42.00
K,4027,0.25,-4.06,42.00
K,4028,0.60,-4.06,42.00
K,4029,0.94,-4.06,42.00
K,4030,2.15,-4.06,42.00
K,4031,2.50,-4.06,42.00
K,4032,2.75,-4.06,42.00
K,4033,3.00,-4.06,42.00
K,4034,3.35,-4.06,42.00
K,4035,3.54,-4.06,42.00
K,4036,4.21,-4.06,42.00
A,3885,4020,4021,3887
A,3887,4021,4022,3889
A,3889,4022,4023,3891
A,3891,4023,4024,3893
A,3893,4024,4025,3895
A,3895,4025,4026,3897
A,3897,4026,4027,3899
A,3899,4027,4028,3901
A,3901,4028,4029,3903
A,3903,4029,4030,3905
A,3905,4030,4031,3907
A,3907,4031,4032,3909
A,3909,4032,4033,3911
A,3911,4033,4034,3913
A,3913,4034,4035,3915
A,3915,4035,4036,3917
K,10001,-3.56,-4.06,47.44
L,4020,10001
ASEL, S, AREA, , 3601, 3616, ,
VDRAG,ALL, , , , , , 7478,
LDELE,7478
A23
KDELE,10001
VSEL,ALL
VSEL,U,VOLU,,concrete_block_middle_right
CM, concrete_block_lower_left, VOLU
!lower block_right
CMSEL, ALL
ASEL,NONE
K,4071,-3.56,-4.06,1.50
K,4072,-1.37,-4.06,1.50
K,4073,-0.81,-4.06,1.50
K,4074,-0.60,-4.06,1.50
K,4075,-0.42,-4.06,1.50
K,4076,-0.25,-4.06,1.50
K,4077,0.00,-4.06,1.50
K,4078,0.25,-4.06,1.50
K,4079,0.60,-4.06,1.50
K,4080,0.94,-4.06,1.50
K,4081,2.15,-4.06,1.50
K,4082,2.50,-4.06,1.50
K,4083,2.75,-4.06,1.50
K,4084,3.00,-4.06,1.50
K,4085,3.35,-4.06,1.50
K,4086,3.54,-4.06,1.50
K,4087,4.21,-4.06,1.50
A,3987,4071,4072,3988
A,3988,4072,4073,3990
A,3990,4073,4074,3992
A,3992,4074,4075,3994
A,3994,4075,4076,3996
A,3996,4076,4077,3998
A,3998,4077,4078,4000
A,4000,4078,4079,4002
A,4002,4079,4080,4004
A,4004,4080,4081,4006
A,4006,4081,4082,4008
A,4008,4082,4083,4010
A,4010,4083,4084,4012
A,4012,4084,4085,4014
A24
A,4014,4085,4086,4016
A,4016,4086,4087,4018
K,10001,-3.56,-4.06,-3.94
L,4071,10001
ASEL, S, AREA, , 3682, 3697, ,
VDRAG,ALL, , , , , , 7594,
LDELE,7594
KDELE,10001
VSEL,ALL
VSEL,U,VOLU,,concrete_block_lower_left
CM, concrete_block_lower_right, VOLU
!!!!!!Blinding Concrete
!blinding concrete_left
CMSEL, ALL
ASEL,NONE
K,4122,-3.81,-4.06,41.75
K,4123,-3.81,-4.16,41.75
K,4124,-3.56,-4.06,41.75
K,4125,-3.56,-4.16,41.75
K,4126,-1.37,-4.06,41.75
K,4127,-1.37,-4.16,41.75
K,4128,-0.81,-4.06,41.75
K,4129,-0.81,-4.16,41.75
K,4130,-0.60,-4.06,41.75
K,4131,-0.60,-4.16,41.75
K,4132,-0.42,-4.06,41.75
K,4133,-0.42,-4.16,41.75
K,4134,-0.25,-4.06,41.75
K,4135,-0.25,-4.16,41.75
K,4136,0.00,-4.06,41.75
K,4137,0.00,-4.16,41.75
K,4138,0.25,-4.06,41.75
K,4139,0.25,-4.16,41.75
K,4140,0.60,-4.06,41.75
K,4141,0.60,-4.16,41.75
A25
K,4142,0.94,-4.06,41.75
K,4143,0.94,-4.16,41.75
K,4144,2.15,-4.06,41.75
K,4145,2.15,-4.16,41.75
K,4146,2.50,-4.06,41.75
K,4147,2.50,-4.16,41.75
K,4148,2.75,-4.06,41.75
K,4149,2.75,-4.16,41.75
K,4150,3.00,-4.06,41.75
K,4151,3.00,-4.16,41.75
K,4152,3.35,-4.06,41.75
K,4153,3.35,-4.16,41.75
K,4154,3.54,-4.06,41.75
K,4155,3.54,-4.16,41.75
K,4156,4.21,-4.06,41.75
K,4157,4.21,-4.16,41.75
K,4158,4.46,-4.06,41.75
K,4159,4.46,-4.16,41.75
A,4122,4123,4125,4124
A,4124,4125,4127,4126
A,4126,4127,4129,4128
A,4128,4129,4131,4130
A,4130,4131,4133,4132
A,4132,4133,4135,4134
A,4134,4135,4137,4136
A,4136,4137,4139,4138
A,4138,4139,4141,4140
A,4140,4141,4143,4142
A,4142,4143,4145,4144
A,4144,4145,4147,4146
A,4146,4147,4149,4148
A,4148,4149,4151,4150
A,4150,4151,4153,4152
A,4152,4153,4155,4154
A,4154,4155,4157,4156
A,4156,4157,4159,4158
K,10001,-3.81,-4.06,47.69
L,4122,10001
ASEL, S, AREA, , 3763, 3780, ,
VDRAG,ALL, , , , , , 7732,
LDELE,7732
KDELE,10001
VSEL,ALL
A26
VSEL,U,VOLU,,concrete_block_lower_right
CM, blinding_concrete_left, VOLU
!blinding concrete_right
CMSEL, ALL
ASEL,NONE
K,4198,-3.81,-4.06,1.75
K,4199,-3.81,-4.16,1.75
K,4200,-3.56,-4.06,1.75
K,4201,-3.56,-4.16,1.75
K,4202,-1.37,-4.06,1.75
K,4203,-1.37,-4.16,1.75
K,4204,-0.81,-4.06,1.75
K,4205,-0.81,-4.16,1.75
K,4206,-0.60,-4.06,1.75
K,4207,-0.60,-4.16,1.75
K,4208,-0.42,-4.06,1.75
K,4209,-0.42,-4.16,1.75
K,4210,-0.25,-4.06,1.75
K,4211,-0.25,-4.16,1.75
K,4212,0.00,-4.06,1.75
K,4213,0.00,-4.16,1.75
K,4214,0.25,-4.06,1.75
K,4215,0.25,-4.16,1.75
K,4216,0.60,-4.06,1.75
K,4217,0.60,-4.16,1.75
K,4218,0.94,-4.06,1.75
K,4219,0.94,-4.16,1.75
K,4220,2.15,-4.06,1.75
K,4221,2.15,-4.16,1.75
K,4222,2.50,-4.06,1.75
K,4223,2.50,-4.16,1.75
K,4224,2.75,-4.06,1.75
K,4225,2.75,-4.16,1.75
K,4226,3.00,-4.06,1.75
K,4227,3.00,-4.16,1.75
K,4228,3.35,-4.06,1.75
K,4229,3.35,-4.16,1.75
K,4230,3.54,-4.06,1.75
K,4231,3.54,-4.16,1.75
K,4232,4.21,-4.06,1.75
K,4233,4.21,-4.16,1.75
K,4234,4.46,-4.06,1.75
K,4235,4.46,-4.16,1.75
A27
A,4198,4199,4201,4200
A,4200,4201,4203,4202
A,4202,4203,4205,4204
A,4204,4205,4207,4206
A,4206,4207,4209,4208
A,4208,4209,4211,4210
A,4210,4211,4213,4212
A,4212,4213,4215,4214
A,4214,4215,4217,4216
A,4216,4217,4219,4218
A,4218,4219,4221,4220
A,4220,4221,4223,4222
A,4222,4223,4225,4224
A,4224,4225,4227,4226
A,4226,4227,4229,4228
A,4228,4229,4231,4230
A,4230,4231,4233,4232
A,4232,4233,4235,4234
K,10001,-3.81,-4.06,-4.19
L,4198,10001
ASEL, S, AREA, , 3854, 3871, ,
VDRAG,ALL, , , , , , 7880,
LDELE,7880
KDELE,10001
VSEL,ALL
VSEL,U,VOLU,,blinding_concrete_left
CM, blinding_concrete_right, VOLU
!............................................
!Ballast
!............................................
A28
CMSEL, ALL
ASEL, NONE
K,4274,-0.25,3.63,-12
K,4275,-0.25,4.35,-12
K,4276,0.94,3.63,-12
K,4277,0.94,4.35,-12
K,4278,3.54,3.63,-12
K,4279,3.54,4.35,-12
K,4280,4.21,3.63,-12
K,4281,4.21,4.35,-12
A,4274,4275,4277,4276
A,4276,4277,4279,4278
A,4278,4279,4281,4280
K,10001,-0.25,3.63,-11.85
L,4274,10001
ASEL,S, AREA, , 3945,3947
Vdrag,ALL, , , , , , 7983,
LDELE,7983
KDELE,10001
ALLSEL,ALL
K,10001,-0.25,3.63,-11.65
L,4282,10001
Vdrag, 3952, 3956, 3960, , , , 7983,
LDELE,7983
KDELE,10001
ALLSEL,ALL
K,10001,-0.25,3.63,-11.25
L,4290,10001
Vdrag, 3965, 3969, 3973, , , , 7983,
LDELE,7983
KDELE,10001
VSEL,S, VOLU, , 264, 269, ,

VGEN, 112, ALL, , , , ,0.6 , , , ,
VSEL,S,LOC,X,-0.25,4.21
VSEL,S,LOC,Z,-12,55.50
VSEL,U,LOC,Y,-4.16,3.50
CM,ballast,VOLU
!............................................
!Sleepers
!............................................
CMSEL, ALL
ASEL, NONE
A29
K,6970,0.94,4.35,-11.85
K,6971,0.94,4.35,-11.65
K,6972,0.94,4.58,-11.825
K,6973,0.94,4.58,-11.675
A,6970,6971,6973,6972
K,10001,3.54,4.58,-11.825
L,6972,10001
Vdrag,7206, , , , , , 13147,
LDELE,13147
KDELE,10001
VSEL,S,VOLU,,936
VGEN, 112, ALL, , , , ,0.6 , , , ,
VSEL,ALL
VSEL,U,VOLU,,ballast
VSEL,U,VOLU,,blinding_concrete_right
CM,sleepers,VOLU
!............................................
!Baseplates
!............................................
ASEL,NONE
VSEL,NONE
K,7866,1.276,4.58,-11.825
K,7867,1.276,4.58,-11.675
K,7868,1.276,4.61,-11.825
K,7869,1.276,4.61,-11.675
A,7866,7867,7869,7868
K,10001,1.476,4.61,-11.825
L,7868,10001
Vdrag,7878, , , , , , 14491,
A30
LDELE,14491
KDELE,10001
VSEL,ALL
VSEL,U,VOLU,,sleepers
VGEN, 2, ALL, , ,1.668 , , , , , ,
VSEL,ALL
VGEN, 112, ALL, , , , ,0.6 , , , ,
VSEL,ALL
A31
CM,plates,VOLU
!............................................
!Rails
!............................................
!Rail keypoint
CMSEL,ALL
ALLSEL,ALL
NUMSTR,KP,9658
*DO,i,1,112
K, ,1.276+0.1,4.61,-11.825+0.6*(i-1)
K, ,1.276+0.1,4.61,-11.675+0.6*(i-1)
*ENDDO
!Rail Lines
LSEL,NONE
*DO,i,9658,9881-1
L,i,i+1
*ENDDO
LSEL,ALL
LSEL,S,LOC,Y,4.61
LSEL,U,LINE,,plates
LGEN, 2, ALL, , , 1.668, , , , , ,
CM,rails,LINE
NUMCMP,KP
NUMSTR,KP,
NUMCMP,LINE
NUMSTR,LINE,
NUMCMP,AREA !compress areas
NUMSTR,AREA,
NUMCMP,VOLU !compress volumes
NUMSTR,VOLU,
!..........................................
!Connect: upper, middle and lower concrete block (GLUE)
!..........................................
!LEFT BLOCK
!upper
A32
ALLSEL,ALL
CMSEL,ALL
VSEL, S, VOLU, , concrete_block_upper_1_left
VSEL, A, VOLU, , concrete_block_upper_2_left
CM,concrete_block_left_upper,VOLU
!middle
ALLSEL,ALL
CMSEL,ALL
VSEL, S, VOLU, , concrete_block_middle_left
VSEL, A, VOLU, , concrete_block_lower_left
VSEL, U, VOLU,,concrete_block_left_upper
CM,concrete_block_left_middle,VOLU
!lower
ALLSEL,ALL
CMSEL,ALL
VSEL, S, VOLU, , blinding_concrete_left
VSEL, U, VOLU,,concrete_block_left_upper
VSEL, U, VOLU,,concrete_block_left_middle
CM,concrete_block_left_lower,VOLU
ALLSEL,ALL
CMSEL,ALL
VSEL, S, VOLU, , concrete_block_left_upper
VSEL, A, VOLU, , concrete_block_left_middle
VSEL, A, VOLU, , concrete_block_left_lower
VGLUE,ALL
CM,concrete_block_left,VOLU
!RIGHT BLOCK
!upper
ALLSEL,ALL
CMSEL,ALL
VSEL, S, VOLU, , concrete_block_upper_1_right
VSEL, A, VOLU, , concrete_block_upper_2_right
CM,concrete_block_right_upper,VOLU
!middle
ALLSEL,ALL
CMSEL,ALL
VSEL, S, VOLU, , concrete_block_middle_right
VSEL, A, VOLU, , concrete_block_lower_right
VSEL, U, VOLU,,concrete_block_right_upper
CM,concrete_block_right_middle,VOLU
A33
!lower
ALLSEL,ALL
CMSEL,ALL
VSEL, S, VOLU, , blinding_concrete_right
VSEL, U, VOLU,,concrete_block_right_upper
VSEL, U, VOLU,,concrete_block_right_middle
CM,concrete_block_right_lower,VOLU
ALLSEL,ALL
CMSEL,ALL
VSEL, S, VOLU, , concrete_block_right_upper
VSEL, A, VOLU, , concrete_block_right_middle
VSEL, A, VOLU, , concrete_block_right_lower
VGLUE,ALL
CM,concrete_block_right,VOLU
!..........................................
!Connect: Ballast and Sleepers (GLUE)
!..........................................
ALLSEL,ALL
CMSEL,ALL
VSEL,S,VOLU, ,ballast
VSEL,A,VOLU, ,sleepers
VGLUE,ALL
CM,ball+sleep,VOLU
ALLSEL,ALL
VSEL,S,VOLU,,ball+sleep
VSEL,U,LOC,Y,4.35,4.58
VSEL,U,LOC,Y,-4.16,3.63
CM,ballast,VOLU
ALLSEL,ALL
VSEL,S,VOLU,,ball+sleep
CMSEL,U,ballast
CM,sleepers,VOLU
!..........................................
!Connect: Sleepers and Baseplates (GLUE)
!..........................................
ALLSEL,ALL
CMSEL,ALL
VSEL,S,VOLU, ,plates
VSEL,A,VOLU, ,sleepers
VGLUE,ALL
CM,sleep+plat,volu
ALLSEL,ALL
CMSEL,S,sleep+plat
CMSEL,U,plates
CM,sleepers,VOLU
A34
!..........................................
!Connect: Rail to Baseplates (GLUE)
!..........................................
ALLSEL,ALL
CMSEL,ALL
ASEL,S,AREA, ,plates
VSEL,S,VOLU, ,plates
ASLV,S
ASEL,R,LOC,Y,4.609,4.610
LSEL,S,LINE, ,rails
ASBL,ALL,ALL, ,DELETE,KEEP
ALLSEL,ALL
CMSEL,ALL
!==========================================
! ATTRIBUTES - AATT, MAT, REAL, TYPE, ESYS, SECN
!==========================================
!............................
!Shell Elements
!............................
!Beams web_i
ALLSEL,ALL
ASEL,S,AREA,,beams_i
ASEL,R,LOC,X,0
AATT,3,1,1
ALLSEL,ALL
ASEL,R,LOC,X,2.75
AATT,3,1,1
!Upper flange of the beams_i

ALLSEL,ALL
ASEL,R,LOC,Y,3.00
AATT,3,2,1
!Lower flange of the beams_i

ALLSEL,ALL
ASEL,R,LOC,Y,0.00,2.999
AATT,3,3,1
!upper slab between left beam and beginnig of cantilever

ALLSEL,ALL
ASEL,S,AREA,,slab
ASEL,R,LOC,X,0.01,-0.251
AATT,2,4,1
!upper slab between beams_i
A35
ALLSEL,ALL
ASEL,S,AREA,,slab
ASEL,R,LOC,X,-0.01,2.751
AATT,2,4,1
!slab between right beam and middle span

ALLSEL,ALL
ASEL,S,AREA,,slab
ASEL,R,LOC,X,2.749,4.211
AATT,2,4,1
!upper slab - cantilever_1

ALLSEL,ALL
ASEL,S,AREA,,cantilever_1
ASEL,U,LOC,X,-0.01,0.941
ASEL,U,LOC,X,0.939,2.751
ASEL,U,LOC,X,2.749,3.541
ASEL,U,LOC,X,3.539,4.211
ASEL,U,LOC,X,-0.809,-1.371
AATT,2,5,1
!upper slab - cantilever_2

ALLSEL,ALL
ASEL,U,LOC,X,-0.01,2.751
ASEL,U,LOC,X,0.01,-0.249
ASEL,U,LOC,X,2.749,4.211
ASEL,U,LOC,X,-0.249,-0.809
AATT,2,6,1
!............................
!Volume Elements
!............................
!Concrete Block Left
ALLSEL,ALL
VSEL,S,VOLU,,concrete_block_left
VATT,5, ,2
ALLSEL,ALL
!Concrete Block Right

ALLSEL,ALL
VSEL,S,VOLU,,concrete_block_right
VATT,5, ,2
ALLSEL,ALL
!Ballast
ALLSEL, ALL
VSEL, S, VOLU, , ballast
VATT,6, ,2
!Sleepers
ALLSEL, ALL
VSEL, S, VOLU, , sleepers
A36
VATT,7, ,2
!Baseplates
ALLSEL, ALL
VSEL, S, VOLU, , plates
VATT,8, ,2
!............................
!Beam Elements
!............................
!Rails
ALLSEL, ALL
LSEL, S, LINE, , rails
LATT,9,17,3
!====================================================
! ELEMENTS SIZE - LESIZE, NL1, SIZE, ANGSIZ, NDIV, SPACE, KFORC,
LAYER1, LAYER2, KYNDIV
!====================================================
!CONCRETE BLOCK LEFT
!vertical lines
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,S,LINE,,concrete_block_left
LSEL,R,TAN1,Y,1
LESIZE, ALL, , ,1
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,TAN1,Y,-1
LESIZE, ALL, , ,1
!transversal lines
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,X,-3.56,4.21
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.50
LESIZE, ALL,0.25 , ,
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,X,-3.56,4.21
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.39
LESIZE, ALL, 0.25, ,
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,X,-3.56,4.21
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.29
LESIZE, ALL,0.25, ,
ALLSEL,ALL
A37
LSEL,R,LOC,X,-3.56,4.21
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.00
LESIZE, ALL,0.25, ,
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,X,-3.56,4.21
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,0.00
LESIZE, ALL,0.25, ,
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,X,-3.56,4.21
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,-1.46
LESIZE, ALL,0.25, ,
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,X,-3.56,4.21
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,-1.56
LESIZE, ALL,0.25, ,
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,X,-3.56,4.21
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,-4.06
LESIZE, ALL,0.25, ,
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,X,-3.56,4.21
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,-4.16
LESIZE, ALL,0.25, ,
!Longitudinal lines
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,U,TAN1,X,-1
LSEL,U,TAN1,X,1
LSEL,U,TAN1,Y,-1
LSEL,U,TAN1,Y,1
LESIZE, ALL, , , 1
ALLSEL,ALL
!CONCRETE BLOCK RIGHT

!vertical lines
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,S,LINE,,concrete_block_right
LSEL,R,TAN1,Y,1
LESIZE, ALL, , , 1
A38
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,TAN1,Y,-1
LESIZE, ALL, , , 1
!transversal lines
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,X,-3.56,4.21
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.50
LESIZE, ALL,0.25, ,
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,X,-3.56,4.21
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.39
LESIZE, ALL,0.25, ,
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,X,-3.56,4.21
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.29
LESIZE, ALL,0.25, ,
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,X,-3.56,4.21
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.00
LESIZE, ALL,0.25, ,
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,X,-3.56,4.21
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,0.00
LESIZE, ALL,0.25, ,
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,X,-3.56,4.21
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,-1.46
LESIZE, ALL,0.25, ,
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,X,-3.56,4.21
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,-1.56
LESIZE, ALL,0.25, ,
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,X,-3.56,4.21
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,-4.06
LESIZE, ALL,0.25, ,
A39
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,X,-3.56,4.21
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,-4.16
LESIZE, ALL,0.25, ,
!Longitudinal lines
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,U,TAN1,X,-1
LSEL,U,TAN1,X,1
LSEL,U,TAN1,Y,-1
LSEL,U,TAN1,Y,1
LESIZE, ALL, , , 1
ALLSEL,ALL
!RAILS
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,S,LINE,,rails
LESIZE,ALL,1, ,
!BASEPLATES
!vertical lines (y axis)
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,S, LINE, ,plates
LSEL,R,TAN1,Y,-1
LESIZE,ALL,0, ,1
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,S, LINE, ,plates
LSEL,R,TAN1,Y,1
LESIZE,ALL,0, ,1
!longitudinal lines (z axis)

ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,S,LINE, ,plates
LSEL,R,TAN1,Z,1
LESIZE,ALL,0 , ,1
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,TAN1,Z,-1
LSEL,U,LINE, ,rails
LESIZE,ALL,0 , ,1
!transversal lines (upper) (x axis)

ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,4.609,4.611
LSEL,R,TAN1,X,1
A40
LESIZE,ALL,0, ,1
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,4.609,4.611
LSEL,R,TAN1,X,-1
LESIZE,ALL,0, ,1
!transversal lines (lower) (x axis)

ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,4.579,4.581
LSEL,R,TAN1,X,-1
LESIZE,ALL, , ,2
!SLEEPERS
!transversal lines (upper)(between plates)
AllSEL,ALL
LSEL,S,LINE,,sleepers
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,4.579,4.581
LSEL,R,LOC,X,1.476-0.001,2.944+0.001
LSEL,R,TAN1,X,-1
LESIZE, ALL, , ,5
!transversal lines (upper)(outside plates)

ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,4.579,4.581
LSEL,U,LOC,Z,1.276-0.001,3.144+0.001
LESIZE, ALL, , ,1
!tranversal lines (lower)

ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,4.349,4.351
LSEL,R,TAN1,X,-1
LESIZE, ALL, , ,11
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,4.349,4.351
LSEL,R,TAN1,Z,-1
LESIZE, ALL, , , 1
!lateral lines (inclined)

ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,U,TAN1,Z,-1
LSEL,U,TAN1,Z,1
LSEL,U,TAN1,X,-1
LSEL,U,TAN1,X,1
LESIZE, ALL, , , 1
A41
!BALLAST
!vertical lines
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,S,LINE,,ballast
LSEL,R,TAN1,Y,1
LESIZE, ALL, , , 1
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,TAN1,Y,-1
LESIZE, ALL, , , 1
!Transversal Lines (upper)

ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,U,LOC,X,0.939,3.541
LSEL,U,TAN1,Y,1
LSEL,U,TAN1,Y,-1
LSEL,U,TAN1,Z,-1
LESIZE, ALL, , , 8
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,4.349,4.351
LSEL,U,TAN1,Z,-1
LSEL,R,LOC,X,0.939,3.541
LESIZE, ALL, , , 11
!Transversal Lines (lower)

ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.629,3.631
LSEL,U,TAN1,Z,-1
LSEL,R,LOC,X,0.939,3.541
LESIZE, ALL, , , 11
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.629,3.631
LSEL,U,TAN1,Z,-1
LSEL,U,LOC,X,0.939,3.541
LESIZE, ALL, , , 8
!Longitudinal Lines
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,U,LINE,,sleepers
LSEL,U,TAN1,X,-1
LSEL,U,TAN1,X,1
LSEL,U,TAN1,Y,-1
LSEL,U,TAN1,Y,1
A42
LESIZE, ALL, , , 1
ALLSEL,ALL
!DECK
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,U,LOC,Y,4.58,8
FLST,2,6004,4,ORDE,2
FITEM,2,1
FITEM,2,-6004
LESIZE,P51X, , , , ,4,'OFF '
FITEM,5,1
FITEM,5,-6004
CM,_Y,LINE
LSEL, , , ,P51X
CM,_Y1,LINE
CMSEL,S,_Y
!*
!*
LESIZE,_Y1,0.25, ,0,0,4,0,0
CMDELE,_Y
CMDELE,_Y1
!*
!*
LESIZE,ALL,0.25, , , ,1, , ,1,
FITEM,2,1
FITEM,2,-6004
LESIZE,P51X, , ,-1, ,1
FITEM,5,1
FITEM,5,-6004
CM,_Y1,LINE
LSEL, , , ,P51X
*GET,_z1,LINE,,COUNT
*SET,_z2,0
*DO,_z5,1,_z1
*SET,_z2,LSNEXT(_z2)
*GET,_z3,LINE,_z2,ATTR,NDNX
*GET,_z4,LINE,_z2,ATTR,SPNX
*get,_z6,line,_z2,attr,kynd
*IF,_z3,GT,0,THEN
*IF,_z4,NE,0,THEN
LESIZE,_z2,,,_z3,1/_z4,,,,_z6
*ENDIF
*ENDIF
*ENDDO
CMSEL,S,_Y1
CMDELE,_Y1
!*
A43
FITEM,5,1
FITEM,5,-6004
CM,_Y1,LINE
LSEL, , , ,P51X
*GET,_z1,LINE,,COUNT
*SET,_z2,0
*DO,_z5,1,_z1
*SET,_z2,LSNEXT(_z2)
*GET,_z3,LINE,_z2,ATTR,NDNX
*GET,_z4,LINE,_z2,ATTR,SPNX
*get,_z6,line,_z2,attr,kynd
*IF,_z3,GT,0,THEN
*IF,_z4,NE,0,THEN
LESIZE,_z2,,,_z3,1/_z4,,,,_z6
*ENDIF
*ENDIF
*ENDDO
CMSEL,S,_Y1
CMDELE,_Y1
!*
!*
LESIZE,ALL,0.25, , , ,1, , ,1,
!====================================================
! MESHING
!====================================================
!SHELL ELEMENTS
!Beams_I
ALLSEL,ALL
MSHKEY,2 !mapped meshing if possible
AMESH, ALL
!Slab
ALLSEL,ALL
ASEL,S,AREA,,slab
AMESH, ALL
!Cantilever beam 1
ALLSEL,ALL
AMESH, ALL
!Cantilever beam 2
ALLSEL,ALL
AMESH, ALL
NUMCMP,NODE
A44
NUMSTR,NODE
NUMCMP,ELEM
NUMSTR,ELEM
!VOLUME ELEMENTS
!LEFT BLOCK
!Concrete block left
VSEL,S,VOLU,,concrete_block_left
ASLV,S
VSWEEP, ALL
!RIGHT BLOCK
!Concrete block right
VSEL,S,VOLU,,concrete_block_right
ASLV,S
VSWEEP, ALL
!ballast
VSEL,S,VOLU,,ballast
ASLV,S
VSWEEP, ALL
!sleepers
ALLSEL,ALL !sleepers
VSEL,S,VOLU,,sleepers
VSWEEP, ALL
ALLSEL,ALL
VSWEEP,plates
!BEAM ELEMENTS
!Rails
ALLSEL,ALL
LSEL,S,LINE,,rails
LMESH,rails
NUMCMP,NODE
NUMSTR,NODE
NUMCMP,ELEM
NUMSTR,ELEM
!==========================================
! MASS21 - Masses
!==========================================
!Guardrails and cornice masses

ALLSEL,ALL
nos_sel_i=
ESEL,S,ELEM,,cantilever_2
NSLE,R,,1
NSEL,U,LOC,X,-1.36,-0.81
A45
*VGET, nos_sel_i, NODE, , NLIST

*GET, num_nos, NODE, 0, COUNT
*IF,i,EQ,2,THEN
real,15
type,6
*ELSE
real,16
type,6
*ENDIF
ALLSEL,ALL
*DO,j,1,num_nos
E, nos_sel_i(j)
*ENDDO
!==========================================
! MPC184 - RIGID BEAMS
!==========================================
!CONNECTION BETWEEN SLAB - BALLAST

!Selection of nodes (axis Z=0.15)
!Selection of slab nodes
!direction z
ALLSEL
ESEL,S,ELEM,,slab
NSLE,R,,1
NSEL,R,LOC,X,-0.25
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.290
NSEL,R,LOC,Z,0.15, 43.50
*VGET, n_z_slab8, NODE, , NLIST
*GET, num_n_z_slab8, NODE, 0, count, , ,
matrix_z_slab_n8=
*DIM, matrix_z_slab_n8, ARRAY, num_n_z_slab8, 1
*DO, i, 1, num_n_z_slab8
matrix_z_slab_n8(i,1) = nZ(n_z_slab8(i,1))
*ENDDO
alignment=
*MOPER, alignment, matrix_z_slab_n8(1), SORT,
matrix_z_slab_n8(1)
!direction x
ALLSEL
ESEL,S,ELEM,,slab
NSLE,R,,1
NSEL,R,LOC,Z,0.15
NSEL,R,LOC,X,-0.25,4.21
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.290
A46
*VGET, n_x_slab8, NODE, , NLIST

*GET, num_n_x_slab8, NODE, 0, count, , ,
matrix_x_slab_n8=
*DIM, matrix_x_slab_n8, ARRAY, num_n_x_slab8, 1
*DO, i, 1, num_n_x_slab8
matrix_x_slab_n8(i,1)=nx(n_x_slab8(i,1))
*ENDDO
alignment=
*MOPER, alignment, matrix_x_slab_n8(1), SORT,
matrix_x_slab_n8(1)
ALLSEL, ALL
!Selection of ballast nodes

!direction z
ALLSEL
ESEL,S,ELEM,,ballast
NSLE,R,,1
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.63
NSEL,R,LOC,X,-0.25
NSEL,R,LOC,Z,0.15, 43.50
*VGET, n_z_ball7, NODE, , NLIST
*GET, num_n_z_ball7, NODE, 0, count, , ,
matrix_z_ball_n7=
*DIM, matrix_z_ball_n7, ARRAY, num_n_z_ball7, 1
*DO, i, 1, num_n_z_ball7
matrix_z_ball_n7(i,1) = nZ(n_z_ball7(i,1))
*ENDDO
alignment=
*MOPER, alignment, matrix_z_ball_n7(1), SORT,
matrix_z_ball_n7(1)
!direction x
ALLSEL
ESEL,S,ELEM,,ballast
NSLE,R,,1
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.63
NSEL,R,LOC,Z,0.15
NSEL,R,LOC,X,-0.25,4.21
*VGET, n_x_ball7, NODE, , NLIST
*GET, num_n_x_ball7, NODE, 0, count, , ,
matrix_x_ball_n7=
*DIM, matrix_x_ball_n7, ARRAY, num_n_x_ball7, 1
*DO, i, 1, num_n_x_ball7
matrix_x_ball_n7(i,1)=nx(n_x_ball7(i,1))
*ENDDO
alignment=
A47
*MOPER, alignment, matrix_x_ball_n7(1), SORT,

matrix_x_ball_n7(1)
ALLSEL, ALL
!definition of MPC184 to connection between slab and ballast

(y=3.29m - y=3.63m)
TYPE,4
MAT,4
*DO, j, 1,num_n_x_ball7, 1
*DO, i, 1,num_n_z_ball7, 1
E, node(matrix_x_ball_n7(j,1),
3.29,matrix_z_ball_n7(i,1)), node(matrix_x_ball_n7(j,1),
3.63,matrix_z_ball_n7(i,1))
*ENDDO
*ENDDO
!CONNECTION BETWEEN SLAB - CANTILEVER

!direction z
ALLSEL
ESEL,S,ELEM,,slab
NSLE,R,,1
NSEL,R,LOC,X,-0.249
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.290
matrix_z_slab_n7=
*ENDDO
alignment=
matrix_z_slab_n7(1)
!direction x
ALLSEL
ESEL,S,ELEM,,slab
NSLE,R,,1
NSEL,R,LOC,Z,0
NSEL,R,LOC,X,-0.249
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.290
matrix_x_slab_n7=
A48
*ENDDO
alignment=
matrix_x_slab_n7(1)
ALLSEL, ALL
!Selection of cantilever nodes

!direction z
ALLSEL
NSLE,R,,1
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.29
NSEL,R,LOC,X,-0.25
*VGET, n_z_cant7, NODE, , NLIST
*GET, num_n_z_cant7, NODE, 0, count, , ,
matrix_z_cant_n7=
*DIM, matrix_z_cant_n7, ARRAY, num_n_z_cant7, 1
*DO, i, 1, num_n_z_cant7
matrix_z_cant_n7(i,1) = nZ(n_z_cant7(i,1))
*ENDDO
alignment=
*MOPER, alignment, matrix_z_cant_n7(1), SORT,
matrix_z_cant_n7(1)
!direction x
ALLSEL
NSLE,R,,1
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.29
NSEL,R,LOC,X,-0.25
NSEL,R,LOC,Z,0
*VGET, n_x_cant7, NODE, , NLIST
*GET, num_n_x_cant7, NODE, 0, count, , ,
matrix_x_cant_n7=
*DIM, matrix_x_cant_n7, ARRAY, num_n_x_cant7, 1
*DO, i, 1, num_n_x_cant7
matrix_x_cant_n7(i,1)=nx(n_x_cant7(i,1))
*ENDDO
alignment=
*MOPER, alignment, matrix_x_cant_n7(1), SORT,
matrix_x_cant_n7(1)
ALLSEL, ALL
A49
!definition of MPC184 to connection between slab and cantilever

(y=3.29m - y=3.29m)
TYPE,4
MAT,4
*DO, j, 1,num_n_x_slab7, 1
*DO, i, 1,num_n_z_slab7, 1
E, node(matrix_x_slab_n7(j,1),
3.29,matrix_z_slab_n7(i,1)), node(matrix_x_cant_n7(j,1),
3.29,matrix_z_cant_n7(i,1))
*ENDDO
*ENDDO
!CONNECTION BETWEEN CANTILEVER GAPS

!Selection of Cantilever1 nodes
!direction z
ALLSEL
NSLE,R,,1
NSEL,R,LOC,X,-0.809
matrix_z_cant_n8=
*ENDDO
alignment=
matrix_z_cant_n8(1)
!direction x
ALLSEL
NSLE,R,,1
NSEL,R,LOC,Z,0
NSEL,R,LOC,X,-0.809
matrix_x_cant_n8=
*ENDDO
alignment=
matrix_x_cant_n8(1)
A50
ALLSEL, ALL
!Selection of Cantilever2 nodes

!direction z
ALLSEL
NSLE,R,,1
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.29
NSEL,R,LOC,X,-0.81
matrix_z_cant_n9=
*ENDDO
alignment=
matrix_z_cant_n9(1)
!direction x
ALLSEL
NSLE,R,,1
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.29
NSEL,R,LOC,X,-0.81
NSEL,R,LOC,Z,0
matrix_x_cant_n9=
*ENDDO
alignment=
matrix_x_cant_n9(1)
ALLSEL, ALL
!definition of MPC184 to connection between cantilevers gap

(y=3.29m - y=3.29m)
TYPE,4
MAT,4
*DO, j, 1,num_n_x_cant8, 1
A51
*DO, i, 1,num_n_z_cant8, 1
E, node(matrix_x_cant_n8(j,1),
3.29,matrix_z_cant_n8(i,1)), node(matrix_x_cant_n9(j,1),
3.29,matrix_z_cant_n9(i,1))
*ENDDO
*ENDDO
!CONNECTION BETWEEN BEAMS_I - SLAB

!Selection of nodes beams_i (beam axis x=0)
!direction z
ALLSEL
ESEL,S,ELEM,,beams_i
NSLE,R,,1
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.000
NSEL,R,LOC,X,0
matrix_z_slab_n5=
*ENDDO
alignment=
matrix_z_slab_n5(1)
!direction x
ALLSEL
NSLE,R,,1
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.000
NSEL,R,LOC,Z,0
NSEL,R,LOC,X,0
!NSEL,R,LOC,X,-0.124,0.124
matrix_x_slab_n5=
*ENDDO
alignment=
matrix_x_slab_n5(1)
ALLSEL, ALL
A52

!direction z
ALLSEL
ESEL,S,ELEM,,slab
NSLE,R,,1
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.29
NSEL,R,LOC,X,0
*VGET, n_z_bal5, NODE, , NLIST
*GET, num_n_z_bal5, NODE, 0, count, , ,
matrix_z_bal_n5=
*DIM, matrix_z_bal_n5, ARRAY, num_n_z_bal5, 1
*DO, i, 1, num_n_z_bal5
matrix_z_bal_n5(i,1) = nZ(n_z_bal5(i,1))
*ENDDO
alignment=
*MOPER, alignment, matrix_z_bal_n5(1), SORT,
matrix_z_bal_n5(1)
!direction x
ALLSEL
ESEL,S,ELEM,,slab
NSLE,R,,1
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.29
NSEL,R,LOC,Z,0
NSEL,R,LOC,X,0
!NSEL,R,LOC,X,-0.249,0.249
*VGET, n_x_bal5, NODE, , NLIST
*GET, num_n_x_bal5, NODE, 0, count, , ,
matrix_x_bal_n5=
*DIM, matrix_x_bal_n5, ARRAY, num_n_x_bal5, 1
*DO, i, 1, num_n_x_bal5
matrix_x_bal_n5(i,1)=nx(n_x_bal5(i,1))
*ENDDO
alignment=
*MOPER, alignment, matrix_x_bal_n5(1), SORT,
matrix_x_bal_n5(1)
ALLSEL, ALL
!Definition of MPC184 to connection between beams and slab

(y=3.00m - y=3.29m)
TYPE,4
MAT,4
A53
3.000,matrix_z_slab_n5(i,1)), node(matrix_x_bal_n5(j,1),
3.29000,matrix_z_bal_n5(i,1))
*ENDDO
*ENDDO
!Selection of nodes beams_i (beam axis 2.75 m)

!direction z
ALLSEL
NSLE,R,,1
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.000
NSEL,R,LOC,X,2.750
matrix_z_slab_n6=
*ENDDO
alignment=
matrix_z_slab_n6(1)
!direction x
ALLSEL
NSLE,R,,1
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.000
NSEL,R,LOC,Z,0
NSEL,R,LOC,X,2.75
!NSEL,R,LOC,X,2.626,2.874
matrix_x_slab_n6=
*ENDDO
alignment=
matrix_x_slab_n6(1)
ALLSEL, ALL

!direction z
A54
ALLSEL
ESEL,S,ELEM,,slab
NSLE,R,,1
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.29
NSEL,R,LOC,X,2.75
*VGET, n_z_bal6, NODE, , NLIST
*GET, num_n_z_bal6, NODE, 0, count, , ,
matrix_z_bal_n6=
*DIM, matrix_z_bal_n6, ARRAY, num_n_z_bal6, 1
*DO, i, 1, num_n_z_bal6
matrix_z_bal_n6(i,1) = nZ(n_z_bal6(i,1))
*ENDDO
alignment=
*MOPER, alignment, matrix_z_bal_n6(1), SORT,
matrix_z_bal_n6(1)
!direction x
ALLSEL
ESEL,S,ELEM,,slab
NSLE,R,,1
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,3.29
NSEL,R,LOC,Z,0
NSEL,R,LOC,X,2.75
!NSEL,R,LOC,X,2.501,2.999
*VGET, n_x_bal6, NODE, , NLIST
*GET, num_n_x_bal6, NODE, 0, count, , ,
matrix_x_bal_n6=
*DIM, matrix_x_bal_n6, ARRAY, num_n_x_bal6, 1
*DO, i, 1, num_n_x_bal6
matrix_x_bal_n6(i,1)=nx(n_x_bal6(i,1))
*ENDDO
alignment=
*MOPER, alignment, matrix_x_bal_n6(1), SORT,
matrix_x_bal_n6(1)
ALLSEL, ALL
!Definition of MPC184 to connection between beams and slab

(y=3.00m - y=3.29m)
TYPE,4
MAT,4
3.000,matrix_z_slab_n6(i,1)), node(matrix_x_bal_n6(j,1),
3.2900,matrix_z_bal_n6(i,1))
A55
*ENDDO
*ENDDO
!============================================================
! APOIOS DK, ALL, , 0, , 0, UX, UY, UZ, ROTX, ROTY, ROTZ,
!============================================================
!............................
!Supports
!............................
/PREP7
ALLSEL,ALL
NSEL,S,NODE,,28775
NSEL,A,NODE,,28823
NSEL,A,NODE,,28871
NSEL,A,NODE,,28919
NSEL,A,NODE,,28967
NSEL,A,NODE,,29543
NSEL,A,NODE,,29591
NSEL,A,NODE,,29735
*DO,i,19513,19562
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,26766,26815
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,28207,28215
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,28405,28620
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,28633,28635
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,28699,28770
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,28797,28820
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,28845,28868
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,28893,28916
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,28941,28964
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,28989,29012
A56
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,29016,29017
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,29060,29107
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,29112,29113
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,29156,29203
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,29211,29215
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,29321,29440
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,29448,29449
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,29492,29539
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,29565,29588
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,29613,29636
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,29640,29641
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,29684,29731
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,29757,29780
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,29784,29785
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,29828,29875
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
/SOL
D, ALL, , 0, , , , UX, UY, UZ, ROTX,ROTY, ROTZ
A57
! D,ALL, , , , , ,UX,UY,UZ,ROTY,ROTZ, ,
ALLSEL,ALL
/PREP7
ALLSEL,ALL
NSEL,S,NODE,,41775
*DO,i,41776,41874
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,50076,50300
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,50481,50555
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,50623,50647
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,50671,50695
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,50719,50743
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,50767,50791
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,50815,50839
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,50864,50913
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,50960,51009
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,51059,51183
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,51296,51345
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,51391,51415
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,51439,51463
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,51488,51537
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,51583,51607
A58
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
*DO,i,51632,51681
NSEL,A,NODE,,i
*ENDDO
/SOL
D, ALL, , 0, , , , UX, UY, UZ, ROTX, ROTY, ROTZ
! D,ALL, , , , , ,UX,UY,UZ,ROTY,ROTZ, ,
ALLSEL,ALL
/SOL
!### Support for the continuity track left
ALLSEL, ALL
NSEL, S, LOC, Y, 3.63
NSEL, R, LOC, Z, 43.55, 55.35
NSEL, R, LOC, X,-0.25, 4.21
D, ALL, , 0, , , , UX, UY, UZ, ,
/SOL
!### Support for the continuity track right
ALLSEL, ALL
NSEL, S, LOC, Y, 3.63
NSEL, R, LOC, Z, -0.500000, -12
NSEL, R, LOC, X,-0.25, 4.21
D, ALL, , 0, , , , UX, UY, UZ, ,
!Impedir torção do carril no nó extremo (funciona apenas se colocar

inércia à torção do carril
/SOL
ALLSEL,ALL
ESEL,S,ELEM,,rails
NSLE,R,,1
NSEL,R,LOC,z,-11.975
D, ALL, , 0, , , , ROTZ, , , ,
!==========================================
! LOADS
!==========================================
/SOL
!Gravity
ALLSEL,ALL
ACEL,0,9.81,0,
A59
!==========================================
! END
!==========================================
! /PREP7
!
! ALLSEL,ALL
!
! NUMSTR,KP,
! NUMSTR,LINE,
! NUMSTR,AREA,
! NUMSTR,VOLU,
!
! NUMCMP,NODE
! NUMCMP,KP
! NUMCMP,LINE
! NUMCMP,AREA
! NUMCMP,VOLU
!
! CMSEL, ALL
A60

Tese Bernardo Machado

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Tese Bernardo Machado

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

DYNAMIC BEHAVIOUR OF A STEEL

COMPOSITE FRAME RAILWAY BRIDGE

BERNARDO BRÁS COTA MACHADO

Dissertação submetida para satisfação parcial dos requisitos do grau de

Orientador: Professor Doutor Rui Artur Bártolo Calçada

Coorientador: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Benno Hoffmeister

As opiniões e informações incluídas neste documento representam unicamente o ponto de

To my parents and brothers

“Believe you can and you’re halfway there”

KEYWORDS: train, railway bridge, modelling, dynamic analysis, moving loads.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE: comboio, ponte ferroviária, modelação, análise dinâmica, cargas móveis.

KEYWORDS: Zug, Eisenbahnbrücke, Modellierung, dynamische Berechnung, bewegte Lasten.

2 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL SURVEY ..............................................9

3 DESIGN CODES APPLIED TO RAILWAY BRIDGES ......... 23

3.2.1.2. Load Models SW/0 and SW/2 ...............................................................................................25

3.2.2.1. Requirements for a static or dynamic analysis ......................................................................30

3.2.2.2. Requirements for a dynamic analysis....................................................................................31

3.3.2.1. Vertical acceleration of the deck ...........................................................................................41

4 METHODOLOGIES FOR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS ................ 47

4.2.3. RESOLUTION OF DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM EQUATION .......................................................................50

4.2.4. MOVING LOADS METHODOLOGY WITH ANSYS-MATLAB INTERACTION ...............................................53

5 EXPERIMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION AND NUMERICAL

5.2.1.2. Baseplates ...........................................................................................................................64

5.2.1.3. Rails .....................................................................................................................................65

5.2.2. GROUND CONDITIONS FOR PILE FOUNDATION ...............................................................................65

5.3.1.4. Construction of the numerical model A..................................................................................75

5.4.3. MONITORING RESULTS ...............................................................................................................91

6 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF THE BRIDGE OVER THE

7 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH .................... 111

Bibliographic References................................................... 115

ANNEX A1 APDL CODE TO GENERATE NUMERICAL

Fig. 3.3 - Load Models SW/0 and SW/2 [16] ......................................................................................25

Fig. 3.8 - Regular train (Example: Talgo) [16] [18]..............................................................................32

Fig. 3.16 - Variation in amplification factor of ballast acceleration [18] ................................................42

Fig. 4.4 - Vehicle-Structure interaction model [25]..............................................................................55

Fig. 5.6 – Deck Cross-section............................................................................................................63

Fig. 5.23 – General overview of a measurement point .......................................................................86

Fig. 5.29 – Hydraulic accurator: a) - general view; b) – enlarged view. ...............................................90

Table 5.1 – UIC 60 rail properties [20] ...............................................................................................65

Table 5.4 – Element Types used in Model A ......................................................................................69

Table 5.7 – Axial stiffness of each concrete pile ................................................................................74

Table 5.10 – Young’s modulus of concrete at measured construction levels ......................................75

Table 5.13 – Measured eigenfrequencies values ...............................................................................93

High Speed Rail Transport

Rolling Stock 1.0 g CO2 / pkm Lifespan 30 years, 18 trains in operation

French electricity mix, 24.1 kWh per train kilometre,

Construction 20.4 millions of passengers a year, 250 km of length

Grand Sum 11.0 g CO2 / pkm

Car Overall transport performance of 150,000 km,

Average consumption of 7 litres of gasoline for 100

2*3 lanes between Valence and Marseille, transport

Grand Sum 151.6 g CO2 / pkm

Airplane Airbus A 320 with 320 seats, empty weight 61 t (mainly

Load factor: 65%, Consumption per Ton-kilometre: 452

Airport Allocation to passenger-traffic: 90%, around 600ha for

Grand Sum 164.0 g CO2 / pkm

Electricity and Heat Other transport

Table 1.2 - EU27 transport modal share [4]

Road 83.6 % 46.9 % 70.3 %

Aviation 8.8 % 0.1 % 5.7 %

Navigation 0.6 % 41.9 % 15.5 %

Rail 7% 11.1 % 8.5 %

1.3. STRUCTURE OF THE WORK

2.2. RESONANCE PHENOMENA