1

Track-Bridge Interaction on High-Speed Railways

TRACK-STRUCTURE INTERACTION IN LONG RAILWAY

BRIDGES

A. J. REIS
Technical.
University of Lisbon
Technical Director
GRID S.A.
Lisbon - Portugal

N. T. LOPES
Civil Engineer
GRID S.A.
Lisbon - Portugal

D. RIBEIRO
Civil Engineer
GRID S.A.
Lisbon - Portugal

ABSTRACT
The concept design for long railway bridges shall take into consideration the need to balance
imposed deformations of the deck, due to thermal effects, shrinkage and creep in concrete and
composite structures and induced stress effects in the rails. The need to reduce the number of
rail expansion devices requires moderate lengths of continuous superstructures and so the
introduction of expansion joints in the deck. In seismic zones, the concept design of the bridge
shall balance the advantage of short continuous lengths of the superstructure, to reduce trackstructure interaction effects, with the inconvenient of transferring the seismic forces to a
limited number of piers. The bridge design shall take into consideration a variety of other
variable actions inducing stresses in the rails due to longitudinal displacements, namely
associated to braking forces and vertical actions. Due to the continuity of the rails on the
structural expansion joints, the deformations of the deck induce stresses in the rails that need to
be checked. The main design criteria are now specified in Eurocode 1 Part 2. The concept
design for two long railway bridges, located in seismic zones, is discussed in the present paper.
Prestressed concrete and steel-concrete composite superstructures are considered. To check
track-structure interaction, a numerical model based on EC1-Part 2 and UIC 774-3 was
developed and results are presented for one of these viaducts.
1. INTRODUCTION
In concept design of long railway bridges (above 400 m) one of the main constrains is the
track-structure interaction, i.e. the concept design of the track itself.

Track-Bridge Interaction on High-Speed Railways

The ballasted continuous track is very popular among the track owners, since they can avoid
introduction of rail expansion devices, and so, reduce track maintenance costs. On the other
hand, the maintenance of ballasted tracks is a very well known problem and track owners have
large experience on dealing with it. Although, this concept applied to long viaducts raises
several problems regarding the track-structure interaction, namely the effect of structural
deformations on rail stresses.
This is not a specific problem of the High Speed Railway bridges, so from this point of view,
there is no difference between HSR bridges and conventional railway bridges.
Generally, regular bridges without special constraints, can be conceived for continuous
ballasted track, adopting short spans and as many structural expansion joints as needed, but
when other important structural constraints are imposed, such as topographical, geotechnical
and seismic constraints, the structural design may prevail.
This paper focus particularly on the design of two solutions for long railway bridges in similar
environment, but with two different solutions to solve the track-structure interaction problem.
The bridges are inserted in the same track stretch of the Portuguese south railway line, linking
Lisbon to Algarve, but have slightly different ground conditions, and both are implanted in a
seismic area. In this stretch, the design speed is 220 km/h.
One of the design solutions was adopted in both approach viaducts North and South to the
new bridge over river Sado, at Alccer do Sal. The other solution refers to the So Martinho
viaduct, a few kilometres towards north from the Sado crossing.
Table 1: General features of the bridges (in meters)
________________________________________________________________________________
Access Viaducts
_______________________________

So Martinho

North
South
Viaduct
________________________________________________________________________________
Length

1115

Span distribution

35+637.5+
+1945

Maximum Height

22.5

Number of rail
expansion devices

Continuous segments

260+45+765+45

1140
1745+
+1037.5

852
3028.4

22.0

13.5

none

45+720+37.5+337.5 7113.6+56.8

________________________________________________________________________________

Track-Bridge Interaction on High-Speed Railways

2. BASES OF DESIGN
2.1 So Martinho Viaduct
So Martinho river is one of the most important tributaries of Sado rivers north bank. The
location of the new railway viaduct, with the same name, is not far from the estuary of Sado,
and is included in its Natural Reserve, an important sanctuary of birds.
The viaduct is now under construction and has a prestressed concrete deck, composed of two
main girders connected by the railway platform concrete slab. It is a ballasted double track
solution with continuous rail.

Figure 1: So Martinho Viaduct Cross-Section

The crossing of So Martinho valley has required a long viaduct with more than 800 m, as the
geotechnical conditions did not allowed an earthfill solution. There were not many constraints
to piers implantation, so it was possible to establish a very regular distribution of spans; with
30 consecutive 28.4 m spans and a viaduct total length of 852 m.
With 28.4 m spans, it was possible to divide the bridge length in a total of 8 continuous
segments, 7 with 4 spans and 113.6 m length, and 1 last (south side) with 2 spans and 56.8 m
length.

Track-Bridge Interaction on High-Speed Railways

Figure 2: So Martinho Viaduct. Prestressed Concrete Deck, with 852 m (30 28.4 m) total
length. Double-beam section with diaphragms at supports. Total width: 13 m, for
double track

Track-Bridge Interaction on High-Speed Railways

A significant part of the total length of the viaduct was implanted over very thick alluvial
deposits, imposing deep pile foundations (20-30 m).
Despite the high deformability of the foundations, it was possible to maintain the continuity of
the rail track without any expansion device, mobilizing a total of 4 stiff piers in each viaduct
segment, that are responsible to control structural deformations and ensure track safety
requirements.

Figure 3: So Martinho Viaduct. Typical 4-span Viaduct Segment

2.2 Approach viaducts to new bridge over Sado River
The two approach viaducts to the new railway bridge over Sado River have basically the same
solution, with steel-concrete composite decks and concrete piers. Like in So Martinho
Viaduct, it is a double track ballasted deck. The cross section is composed of two plate girders
2.6 m high, supporting a concrete slab with variable thickness (30-40 cm).
For many reasons, but mainly because of the simplicity and low intrusive process, the
constructive solution was the incremental launching method, where steel girders present many
advantages.
This part of the Sado river valley is inside the Natural Reserve of the Sado estuary, and here, as
in So Martinho River, there is a large area of alluvial deposits, where all piers should be
founded.
The incremental launching of steel girder imposes, for economical reasons, 40-50 m spans, and
the adopted solution combines few 37.5 m spans with the typical 45 m span.
Considering the spans, the piers height (over 20 m) and the poor geotechnical conditions, a
fractioned superstructure like So Martinho it wasnt feasible, therefore, the adopted solution
included expansion rail devices, already foreseen in the bridge over Sado, where the structure
is continuous along 480 m extension.

Track-Bridge Interaction on High-Speed Railways

Figure 4: Approach Viaducts Cross-Section

The viaducts superstructure was divided in two continuous parts with a single simply supported
span in the middle, where the rail expansion devices should be implanted.
The distribution of continuous superstructure segments is presented in Table 1, and consists in
a main long segment of 720 or 765 m length, between the bridge and the simply supported
span, and a second long segment with 260 or 337.5 m length, fixed in the abutments. The
transition to the bridge has also expansion rail devices (both sides) implanted in a simply
supported span.
In order to control longitudinal deformations and to face longitudinal horizontal forces, such as
braking and acceleration, that for this continuous length totalize 7000 kN, the main continuous
segments were fixed not to one single pier but to as much piers as allowed by thermal effects.
The concentration of forces in one single very stiff pier was considered uneconomical, as
regular piers, with some additional reinforcement, proved to be adequate for that purpose. This
solution is more favourable for the foundations design as well. To face the seismic action,
controlling the global deformation, some additional piers need to be mobilized, adopting
special sliding bearings with dampers, fixing the pier under seismic action.
For the second continuous segment, the superstructure is fixed at the abutment.

Track-Bridge Interaction on High-Speed Railways

Figure 5: Approach Viaducts to the New Bridge over Sado River (South). Composite SteelConcrete Deck, approx. 1100 m total length. Double plated steel girders section,
with tubular diaphragms. Total width varying between 13 m and 15.7 m. Double
track

Track-Bridge Interaction on High-Speed Railways

3. SEISMIC DESIGN
3.1 So Martinho viaduct
Seismic design of So Martinho Viaduct has faced a particular problem, as some localized
sands occurring in the south part of the alluvial deposits reveal to have high liquefaction
potential.
The general solution consists on fixing each segment of 113.6 m, on its own piers, including
the transition pier, as presented in Figure 3. In the design it was left enough clearance between
adjacent segments, to prevent the risk of shock during seismic action.
The last three segments, implanted over one layer of sands with high liquefaction potential
were connected with dampers, between each other and at the abutment, to reduce the seismic
impact to the foundations (see Figure 6).

Figure 6: Particular Solution for south part of So Martinho Viaduct.

Connections with dampers
3.2 Approach viaducts to New Bridge over Sado River
The seismic design of the approach viaducts, as previously described, considers two types of
force transmission, as the viaducts are divided in two continuous segments.
The continuous segment adjacent to the abutments is fixed at one point the abutment itself.
The main continuous segments, with 720 or 765 m long, are continuously fixed for seismic
action along a set of 8 piers, 4 of them with special sliding bearings, provided with dampers,
that are only fixed under seismic actions.

Track-Bridge Interaction on High-Speed Railways

The single supported stretches are fixed at the transition piers.

Figure 7: Approach viaduct (North) seismic design. Dampers and bearings distribution

10

Track-Bridge Interaction on High-Speed Railways

4. TRACK-BRIDGE INTERACTION
4.1 Introduction
Continuous tracks when crossing support discontinuities, such as embankment-bridge
transitions, or structural expansion joints, transmit horizontal forces directly applied to the
support, which have a stiffness discontinuity, producing stresses concentration in the rails.
In the same way, where continuous rails restrain the free movement of the bridge deck,
deformations of the bridge deck (e.g. due to thermal variations, vertical loading, creep and
shrinkage) produce longitudinal forces in the rails and in the fixed bridge bearings.
The effects resulting from the combined response of the structure and the track to variable
actions shall be taken into account for the design of the bridge superstructure, fixed bearings,
the substructure and for checking load effects in the rails.
The next specifications, based on section 6.5.4 of EN 1991-2:2003 are valid for conventional
ballasted tracks, which is the design case to be discussed.
4.2 Combination of actions
The following actions shall be taken into account:
Traction and braking forces:
For double track bridges the braking force in one track must be considered with
the traction forces in the other track.
Thermal effects in combined structure and track system:
Temperature variations in the bridge should be taken as TN (uniform
temperature variation), with and taken as 1,0.
Classified vertical traffic loads (including SW/0 and SW/2 where required).
Associated dynamic effects may be neglected.
Other actions such as creep, shrinkage, temperature gradient etc. shall be taken into
account for the determination of rotation and associated longitudinal displacement of
the end sections of the decks where relevant.
When determining the combined response of track and structure to traction and braking forces,
the traction and braking forces should not be applied on the adjacent embankment unless a
complete analysis is carried out considering the approach, passage over and departure from the
bridge of rail traffic on the adjacent embankments to evaluate the most adverse load effects.
4.3 Tensions on the track
For rails on the bridge and on the adjacent abutment the permissible additional rail stresses due
to the combined response of the structure and track to variable actions should be limited to the
following design values:
Compression: 72 N/mm;

Track-Bridge Interaction on High-Speed Railways

11

Tension: 92 N/mm.
The above given limiting values are valid for tracks complying with:
UIC 60 rail with a tensile strength of at least 900 N/mm;
Straight track or track radius r 1 500 m;
For ballasted tracks with heavy concrete sleepers with a maximum spacing of 65 cm or
equivalent track construction;
For ballasted tracks with at least 30 cm consolidated ballast under the sleepers.
In the viaducts to be discussed, all the above criteria are satisfied. When any of the criteria is
not satisfied special studies should be carried out or additional measures provided.
4.4 Deformation of the structure
4.4.1 Longitudinal displacement:
Due to traction and braking B shall not exceed the following values:
5 mm for continuous welded rails without rail expansion devices or with a rail expansion
device at one end of the deck,
30 mm for rail expansion devices at both ends of the deck where the ballast is continuous
at the ends of the deck,
Movements exceeding 30 mm shall only be permitted where the ballast is provided with a
movement gap and rail expansion devices provided,
where B is:
The relative longitudinal displacement between the end of a deck and the adjacent
abutment or,
The relative longitudinal displacement between two consecutive decks.
Due to vertical traffic actions up to two tracks loaded with load model LM 71 (and where
required SW/0) B shall not exceed the following values:
8 mm when the combined behaviour of structure and track is taken into account (valid
where there is only one or no expansion devices per deck),
10 mm when the combined behaviour of the structure and track is neglected,
where B [mm] is:
The longitudinal displacement of the upper surface of the deck at the end of a deck due to
deformation of the deck.
4.4.2 Vertical displacement
The vertical displacement of the upper surface of a deck relative to the adjacent construction
(abutment or another deck) V due to variable actions shall not exceed the following values:
3 mm for a Maximum Line Speed at the Site of up to 160 km/h,
2 mm for a Maximum Line Speed at the Site over 160 km/h.

12

Track-Bridge Interaction on High-Speed Railways

5. TRACK-BRIDGE INTERACTION MODELATION

5.1 Principles
For the determination of load effects in the combined track/structure system a model based
upon Figure 8 (from EC1, part 2: EN 1991-2:2003) was used.

Figure 8: Model of track-structure system

The longitudinal load/displacement behavior of the track or rail supports may be represented
by the relationship shown in Figure 9 (from EC1, part 2: EN 1991-2:2003) with an initial
elastic shear resistance [kN/mm of displacement per m of track] and then a plastic shear
resistance k [kN/m of track].

Figure 9: Variation of longitudinal shear force with longitudinal track displacement for one
track

Track-Bridge Interaction on High-Speed Railways

13

The diagrams (4) and (6) were adopted, with the following values (from UIC 774-3):
Loaded track (4):
Unloaded track (6):

k = 60 kN, u0 = 2 mm
k = 20 kN, u0 = 2 mm

For the design case to be discussed there will be a change in the future from one way/track to
two way/track use. Hence all cases are taken in account.
For the calculation of the total longitudinal support reaction FL and in order to compare the
global equivalent rail stress with permissible values, the global effect is calculated as follows:
FL = 0i Fli

(1)

with:
Fli
0i
0i

the individual longitudinal support reaction corresponding to the action i;

for the calculation of load effects in the superstructure, bearings and
substructures the combination factors defined in EN 1990 A2 shall be used;
for the calculation of rail stresses, 0i shall be taken as 1.0.

When determining the effect of each action, the non-linear behaviour of the track stiffness
shown in Figure 9 is be taken into account. The k value depends if the track is loaded or
unloaded. This means that for each loading, a different computer model has to be calibrated,
according to the loaded and unloaded positions of the track.
The longitudinal forces in the rails and bearings resulting from each action may be combined
using linear superimposition.
5.2 Model description
The track/structure interaction model developed for the viaduct was a global frame model, with
bar elements to simulate:
- deck;
- piers;
- piles;
- track.
The computer model simulates the entire viaduct and also an additional of 300 m (from each
side of the viaduct) of track in the ground, above the backfill.
All the 7 independent frames were included in the computer model (7428.4+1228.4
= 852m), according to the general principles of modelation and the global structural model.
The connection between the track and the structure was modelated by elements with nonlinear
response (as defined above), and each frame element has 1m length, in general.
When we have a ballasted track, according to UIC 774-3, we may take:

14

Track-Bridge Interaction on High-Speed Railways

- u0 = 2 mm,
- Track-structure plastification force:
Loaded track (4):
k = 60 kN,
Unloaded track (6):
k = 20 kN,
The track and the nonlinear modelation were extended to both sides of the structure of the
viaduct, to take into account the track on the ground, admitting the soil rigid, as defined in
EC1.
On Figure 10, one show the analysis model, between the piers P1 and P5, where are modelated:
- the foundations,
- the track over the deck,
- the track over de terrain.
In this section, there are already discontinuities between the deck and the abutment (where the
structure begins) and over the pier P4 (with doubling of nodes on top), being the track, and his
connections, continuous.

Figure 10: Track-structure analysis model, including the backfill of the north abutment and the
first 5 spans
Four braking positions and six traction positions were modelated, with the purpose of
investigating the most unfavorable position for these actions. It was concluded that the most
unfavorable effect for the tracks occur where discontinuities in the structure exist, due to
differential displacements. There are differential displacements imposed to the structure that
the track has to follow, and the load positions try to maximize this effect.
The actions in the modelations were (following EC1-part2):
i)
Traction loads: Qlak = 33 [kN/m] La,b [m] 1000 [kN]
ii)
Braking loads: Qlbk = 20 [kN/m] La,b [m] 6000 [kN]
iii)
Average temperature in structure: 20 C with Tcon = -16 C e Texp = +22 C
iv)
Vertical loads: Load Model 71
In Figure 11 are shown the traction and braking position forces adopted.
6. ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS
In Table 2 one list the most unfavorable stresses obtained for two critical sections of the track:
near the abutment (at the expansion joint) and at the expansion joint between two different

15

Track-Bridge Interaction on High-Speed Railways

frame decks (at the intermediate piers). The safety check of the track is made according to
EC1-2 for the maximum additional compression stress in the track, due to this action (Table 3).
For the deformation check of the structure, due to traction and breaking actions, this type of
analysis, based in a track-structure interaction, allows to check the limit defined in EC1-2 of
5 mm. On Table 4 one presents the results for each loading case and also the combined value
of the displacement.
Table 2: Track verification: Axial force
_____________________________________________________________________________
Action

Abutment Joint
________________

Pier Joint
______________

kN
kN
_____________________________________________________________________________
Braking
Temperature (22C)
LM71 Vertical

886
1121
< 10

831
1306
< 10

Total
2017
2147
_____________________________________________________________________________
Table
3. Track verification: Security Check (4 rails -> 550 4 = 2200 kN)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Security Check

Abutment Joint
________________

Pier Joint
______________

kN
kN
_____________________________________________________________________________
N Allow. Comp. 72 MPa

2200

2200

Rail
security check
0.917
0.976
_____________________________________________________________________________

16

Track-Bridge Interaction on High-Speed Railways

Figure 11: Track-structure interaction model: localization scheme: traction actions (Axx) and
breaking actions (Fxx)

17

Track-Bridge Interaction on High-Speed Railways

1121

1306

Figure 12: Track axial force diagram due to temperature (structure heating)

886

Figure 13: Track axial force diagram due to braking (maximum stress near the abutments)

831

Figure 14: Track axial force diagram due to braking (maximum stress near intermediate pier)

18

Track-Bridge Interaction on High-Speed Railways

Table 4: Deck displacements due to traction and braking actions

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Zone

f1
f2
f3
f4
a11 a12 a21 a22 a31 a41 mx.f mx.a d.mx
____________________________________________________________________________________

mm
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Abut. N
P04 N
P04 S
P08 N

2.1
2.2
2.5
2.4

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.1
0.1
0.3
0.4

0.0
0.1
0.5
0.6

0.8
0.6
0.2
0.1

0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3

2.1
2.2
2.5
2.4

0.8
0.6
0.3
0.3

2.9
2.8
2.7
2.7

P08 S

1.8

0.0

1.6

2.2

0.0

0.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.8

2.2

0.8

3.0

P12 N
P12 S
P16 N
P16 S

1.6
0.4
0.3
0.1

0.0
0.2
0.2
0.9

1.7
2.6
2.6
2.7

2.2
2.6
2.5
2.1

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.8
0.2
0.1
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.1
0.1
0.4

0.0
0.2
0.2
0.8

0.7
0.2
0.1
0.0

2.2
2.6
2.6
2.7

0.8
0.2
0.2
0.8

3.0
2.8
2.7
3.6

P20 N
P20 S
P24 N

0.1
0.0
0.0

1.0
2.4
2.4

2.7
0.7
0.6

2.0
0.4
0.4

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.5
0.8
0.7

0.9
0.4
0.3

0.0
0.0
0.0

2.7
2.4
2.4

0.9
0.8
0.7

3.6
3.2
3.1

P24 S
P28 N

0.0
0.0

2.4
2.3

0.1
0.1

0.1
0.1

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

0.1
0.1

0.2
0.1

0.1
0.1

0.0
0.0

2.4
2.3

0.2
0.1

2.6
2.4

P28 S

0.0

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.3

0.1

0.5

Abut.
S
0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
______________________________________________________________________________________________
7. CONCLUSIONS
A discussion on track-structure interaction for long railway bridges was presented. The
problem of imposed deformations and seismic actions were discussed taking into consideration
the need to balance the continuity of the structure with the requirements for minimum track
expansive joints.
A design case was presented according to the Eurocodes, namely in terms of actions and in
terms of structural safety verification.
The stress analysis allows concluding that the limit stress on the rail is almost reach out, for
compression, being, in general, the piers joints the most unfavorable. Although, the braking
force produces higher stresses near the abutment joint, due to absorption of this force in the
backfill of the abutments.
Besides, for compatibility of displacements, the temperature generates higher stresses on the
track near the piers joint (there is a higher displacement amplitude).
The vertical forces, in this model, were not critical, and induce very low stress amplitude.

Track-Bridge Interaction on High-Speed Railways

19

The displacement limit of 5 mm, was also verified with some clearance.
In conclusion, the track interaction analysis allowed to check the track safety, in terms of
Eurocodes criteria, for a joint distance larger than 90 m, although in this situation, the length of
4 28.4 = 113.6 m is almost at the allowable limit for stress verification.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks are due to REFER for allowing the publication of some results of specific studies
developed for the design of the new stretch of the Portuguese south railway line, near Alccer
do Sal, that includes the New Sado River railway crossing.
REFERENCES
[1] EN1991-2, Actions on structures Part 2: General actions Traffic Loads on Bridges,
European Committee for standardization, CEN (2003).
[2] UIC Code 774-3-R, Track/bridge interaction Recommendations for calculations, 2nd
edition, October 2001, Union International des Chemins de Fer, UIC, 2001.