MIDAS Civil TUTORIAL Dynamic Analysis of High Speed Rail Bridges with Eurocodes
MIDAS Civil TUTORIAL
Dynamic Analysis of
High Speed Rail Bridges
with Eurocodes
1. Introduction to the problem
2. Eurocode provisions
3. Eigenvalue analysis
4. Time history analysis
5. Dynamic loads
6. Case study
7. Conclusions
CONTENTS
1. Introduction to the problem
Background
Resonance and dynamic magnification
MIDAS UK
Background
Classic code requirements
First French HSL: Paris-Lyon
ERRI D214 Committee studies
→ Static Analysis with Dynamic amplification factor
→ Following issues were observed:
• Resonance phenomena
• Ballast degradation
• Rapid track deterioration
• Short-span structures specially affected
→ Concluded that for speeds over 200 km/h:
• Likelihood of resonance effects
• Dynamic amplification factor unable to predict resonance
• Deck acceleration must be assessed
→ Established rules for dynamic assessment - now implemented in
Eurocodes
MIDAS UK
Resonance and dynamic magnification
Ballasted Vs Ballastless tracks
Simply supported Vs Continuous
Resonant speed
→ Ballast grains loose its grain interlock when a > 0.7g
→ Ballastless tracks wheel-rail contact is reduced beyond
acceptable limits when a > g
→ Single-span structures specially susceptible to resonance
→ Resonance effects are significantly reduced on continuous
structures
→ Resonance speed usually 200km/h < v < design speed
MIDAS UK
2. Eurocode provisions
Requirements for a static or dynamic analysis
Dynamic amplification factor
Acceleration check
MIDAS UK
Is a dynamic analysis required? (simple structures)
MIDAS UK
Start V ≤ 200km/h
L ≥ 40m(see Note 1)
n0 within limitsof Fig. NA.14
Accepted by relevant authority
nT > 1.2n0
Is Skew < 15 Redesign
Use eigenforms for torsion and for bending
May use the eigenforms for bending only
Dynamic analysis required Dynamic analysis not required
n0 within limitsof Fig. NA.14
Y
N
Y
N
N N
Y
N Y
Y
N
AcceptedY
Not accepted
NA to BS EN 1991-2:2003 Figure NA.12
Figure NA.14
Dynamic amplification factor
If dynamic analysis not required
If dynamic analysis required
Ф x (LM71”+”SW/0)
• Ф depends on track irregularities and determinant length LФ
Most unfavourable value of:
Ф x (LM71”+”SW/0)
or
1 + 𝜑′𝑑𝑦𝑛
+ Τ𝜑′′ 2 𝑥𝐻𝑆𝐿𝑀𝑜𝑟𝑅𝑇
+ Acceleration check
MIDAS UK
Maximum dynamic response
Increase resulting fromtrack defects andvehicle imperfections
Acceleration check
Maximum peak values
[EN 1990-2002 A2.4.4.2.1]
→ To ensure traffic safety, the Eurocodes recommend:
- bt = 3.5 m/s2 for ballasted track (ballast stability)
- df = 5.0 m/s2 for ballast-less track (wheel-rail contact)
→ EN 1990-2002 UK Annex: The maximum peak values of bridge
deck acceleration and the associated frequency limits should be
determined for the individual project.
→ Passenger comfort criteria is covered elsewhere in the code
(EN 1990-2002 A2.4.4.3.1)
MIDAS UK
3. Eigenvalue analysis
Fundamental frequencies
Stiffness
Mass
MIDAS UK
Fundamental frequencies
Frequencies to be considered
[BS EN 1990-2002 A2.4.4.2.1]
Bending and torsional modes
Mass participation factors
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
→ Need to be identified to assess n0 and nT
→ Can be used to identify the relevant modes
MIDAS UK
Stiffness
Bridge stiffness
Young’s modulus
Shear deformation
Cracked stiffness
→ Any overestimation of bridge stiffness will overestimate the
natural frequency of the structure and speed at which resonance
occurs
→ A lower bound estimate of the stiffness throughout the structure
shall be used
→ Short term concrete elastic modulus for concrete elements
→ Should be considered
→ Assessment of cracked stiffness is essential, since a reduced
cracked stiffness lead to lower fundamental frequencies hence
lower resonant speeds
MIDAS UK
Mass
Upper and lower bound estimates
of mass
Self-weight
Ballast
Other superimposed loads
→ a lower bound estimate to predict maximum deck accelerations
→ an upper bound estimate of mass to predict the lowest speeds at
which resonant effects are likely to occur
→ According to EN 1991-1-1 (enhanced density values may be
used if confirmed via testing and approved by relevant authority)
→ minimum likely dry clean density and minimum thickness of
ballast
→ maximum saturated density of dirty ballast with allowance for
future track lifts
→ rails, sleepers, parapets, OLE, others
MIDAS UK
4. Time history analysis
Setting up the Time History Analysis
Time step
Structural Damping
MIDAS UK
Setting up the Time History Analysis
Linear or Non-linear?
Modal or Direct Integration?
Transient or Periodic?
→ Generally structural behaviour within linear range
→ Modal integration (modal superposition method) should
generally be used with the first modes of the structure (in
accordance to BS EN 1990-2002 A2.4.4.2.1)
→ This is a transient problem
MIDAS UK
Time step
ERRI D214 (e), 1999 → recommends to choose a time step not greater than:
where:
𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑥: maximum frequency used on the modal analysis;
𝐿𝑚𝑖𝑛: minimum span;
𝑛: number of modes used on the modal analysis;
𝑣: train speed.
MIDAS UK
ℎ1 =1
8𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑥ℎ2 =
𝐿𝑚𝑖𝑛
200𝑣ℎ3 =
𝐿𝑚𝑖𝑛
4𝑛𝑣ℎ4 = 0.001𝑠
-1.25
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
0 ms 50 ms 100 ms 150 ms 200 ms 250 ms 300 ms 350 ms
Am
plit
ude
Δt=5ms
Δt=40ms
Structural damping
Eurocode recommendations
[BS EN 1991-2:2003 6.4.6.3]
→ Recommended damping values
→ Additional damping: TOTAL= +
MIDAS UK
5. Dynamic loads
Train Load Models
Model input
Load distribution
MIDAS UK
Train Load Models
Load models for the acceleration
check and dynamic factor
[BS EN 1991-2:2003 6.4.6.1]
Fatigue loads
[BS EN 1991-2:2003 Annex D]
Speeds to be considered
[BS EN 1991-2:2003 6.4.6.2]
→ HSLM-A: for spans over 7m or complex structures
10 variations (A1 to A10)
→ HSLM-B: for simple structures with spans less than 7m
→ Real train
→ 12 train types
→ traffic mixes
→ 40 m/s vi 1,2 x Maximum Line Speed
→ Reduced speed steps in the vicinity of resonant speeds
MIDAS UK
Dynamic nodal loads
MIDAS UK
How to transform a moving load to dynamic loads using time functions:
0
50
100
150
200
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
Load [kN
]
Time [s]
Dynamic nodal loads
MIDAS UK
0
50
100
150
200
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
Load [kN
]
Time [s]
How to transform a series of moving loads to a time function:
delay
Load distribution
MIDAS UK
Load models for the acceleration
check and dynamic factor
[BS EN 1991-2:2003 6.4.6.4 (3)]
Transverse distribution
[BS EN 1991-2:2003 6.3.6.3]
→ The representation of each axle by a single point force tends to
overestimate dynamic effects for loaded lengths of less than 10m.
In such cases, the load distribution effects of rails, sleepers and
ballast may be taken into account.
→ A point force in (…) HSLM (except for HSLM-B) (…) may be
distributed over three rail support points (…)
a is the distance between rail support points
Load distribution
MIDAS UK
Longitudinal distribution
[BS EN 1991-2:2003 6.3.6.1 (1)]
Load distribution
MIDAS UK
Longitudinal distribution
tj+2
tj+2
tj+2
tj+2
0.25F
0.5F
0.25F 0.25F
0.5F
0.25F
0.50F
Time function
for node i
tj+2
tj
tj+1
tj+2
tj
tj+1
tj+2
tj+2
tj+2
0.25F 0.25F
i i i
tj
tj+1
t = tj
t = tj+1
t = tj+2
0.5F
Load distribution
MIDAS UK
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
140 190 240 290 340 390
Deck
peak a
ccele
ration [m
/s²]
Train speed [kph]
A1 - w/o distribution
A1 - with longitudinal and
transversal distribution
6. Case study
MIDAS UK
Case Study
General Arrangement
MIDAS UK
Case Study
Materials and loads
MIDAS UK
Materials
Loads
→ Concrete C45,
• Ec = 35.22 GPa
• ν = 0.20
→ Concrete self-weight: 25 kN/m³
→ Permanent loads (ballast, rails, sleepers…): 45 kN/m
→ Traffic loads: HSLM-A1 to HSLM-A10
Example – Is a dynamic analysis required?
MIDAS UK
Start V ≤ 200km/h
L ≥ 40m(see Note 1)
n0 within limitsof Fig. NA.14
Accepted by relevant authority
nT > 1.2n0
Is Skew < 15 Redesign
Use eigenforms for torsion and for bending
May use the eigenforms for bending only
Dynamic analysis required Dynamic analysis not required
n0 within limitsof Fig. NA.14
Y
N
Y
N
N N
Y
N Y
Y
N
AcceptedY
Not accepted
Figure NA.14Start V ≤ 200km/h
L ≥ 40m(see Note 1)
n0 within limitsof Fig. NA.14
Case Study – Eigenvalue analysis results
MIDAS UK
Mode No Frequency Displacement Rotation
(Hz)
X Y Z X Y Z
mpm (%) mpm (%) mpm (%) mpm (%) mpm (%) mpm (%)
1 6.14 0 0 82.67 0 0 0
2 16.49 0 82.67 0 0 0 0
3 20.04 0 0 0 82.82 0 0
4 20.56 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 28.69 81.91 0 0 0 0 0
Case Study – Is a dynamic analysis required?
MIDAS UK
Start V ≤ 200km/h
L ≥ 40m(see Note 1)
n0 within limitsof Fig. NA.14
Accepted by relevant authority
nT > 1.2n0
Is Skew < 15 Redesign
Use eigenforms for torsion and for bending
May use the eigenforms for bending only
Dynamic analysis required Dynamic analysis not required
n0 within limitsof Fig. NA.14
Y
N
Y
N
N N
Y
N Y
Y
N
AcceptedY
Not accepted
30
6.1nT > 1.2n0
Is Skew < 15
May use the eigenforms for bending only
Dynamic analysis required
Acceleration envelopes
MIDAS UK
Can be used to identify the critical locations on the deck
Acceleration Time History
MIDAS UK
Time Domain Response – to ensure that the critical time has been captured
Free vibrationForced excitation
Acceleration Response Spectrum
MIDAS UK
Frequency Domain Response - to identify critical modes/frequencies
Deflection vs. time animation
MIDAS UK
Animation may help to spot irregularities
Acceleration check
MIDAS UK
Peak values must be plotted against speeds to identify resonant/critical speeds.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
140 190 240 290 340 390
Peak a
ccele
ration [m
/s2]
Train speed [km/h]
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
Dynamic amplification factor
MIDAS UK
-4.5
-4.0
-3.5
-3.0
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
Deflect
ion a
t m
idsp
an [m
m]
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
140 165 190 215 240 265 290 315 340 365 390 415
Bendin
g M
om
ent
[kN
m]
Train speed
[km/h]
Ф x (LM71”+”SW/0)
1 + 𝜑′𝑑𝑦𝑛
+ Τ𝜑′′ 2 𝑥𝐻𝑆𝐿𝑀𝑜𝑟𝑅𝑇
→ Dynamic responses of all deck
members must be checked and
compared to the equivalent static
responses
7. Conclusions
MIDAS UK
Conclusions
Resonance and dynamic
magnification
Resonant speed
Model properties
Analysis
Result interpretation
→ It is relevant for speeds over 200 km/h
→ Short span structures are particularly prone to resonance
→ Difficult to anticipate the resonant speeds for most structures
→ A dynamic analysis is required to assess acceleration and
dynamic amplification factor for a range of speeds
→ Bridge stiffness and mass have to be carefully assessed
→ Upper and lower bounds must be considered
→ Requires numerous time history cases, which is time consuming
→ Vital to ensure accurate results
MIDAS UK
Thank youContact:http://[email protected]