4th International Congress

of Croatian Society of Mechanics

September, 18-20, 2003
Bizovac, Croatia

Dynamic Analysis of Loads Moving Over Structures

Ivica Koar, Ivana timac
Keywords:

moving load, direct acceleration method

1. Introduction
Increase in traffic intensity and speed requires more complex analysis of structures than it was
case before; today it is necessary to consider dynamic behaviour of structures that has been induced
by loads moving over a structure. The simplest case of a moving load (dynamic) analysis is the
case of a simple beam over which a concentrated load is moving, that is represented with a 4th order
partial differential equation.
P.D.E. for moving load has been solved numerically with many benefits over closed solution
(various boundary conditions, introduction of damping and discrete elements like springs and
dashpots, additional supports and many more). Average acceleration method has been employed
since direct use of finite differences had shown as being practically unusable. Numerical and analytical solutions have been compared.
On the basis of the above numerical solution the procedures for finite element analysis have
been developed. The result is a F.E. computer program for 2D dynamical analysis that is especially
suitable for moving load analysis. Numerical model and measurements on a real bridge example
have been successfully compared.

2. Description of the problem

Problem of a mass less load moving on a beam is described with the known partial differential
equation [2]
(1)
4u
2u

EI

x 4

P(t ) 0

t 2

Analytical solution can be obtained most easily through use of harmonic series
50

t
x (2)
2 P
1

u ( x, t )
k
v
k
t
k
sin

sin

(
)
sin

L k
L
L (1) 2 k 1 k 2 (k 2 2 )

where modal frequencies are

EI

( k )

k 2 2

(3)

L2

and parameter

v
L ( 1 )

Graphical representation of the function shows us vibrations of the total beam in time
1

(4)

Figure 1. Beam displacement in time

3. Numerical solution of the governing P.D.E.

Simple translation of the equation (1) into finite differences does not work well since convergence and accuracy are very poor.
One approach to the above problem is to consider the discrete version of the problem (one with
finite number of masses). Discrete form of the above equation in matrical notation is
CD SD A(t )
(5)
MD
If we observe the equation as incremental in time and given the initial displacements and velocities we can write the initial acceleration vector as follows
M 1 ( A SD CD )
(6)
D
0

Assuming that our acceleration is constant within the time interval (average acceleration method
[1]) than we obtain this incremental equation
CD SD A
(7.a)
MD
j

In this equation we have unknown incremental accelerations, incremental speeds and incremental displacements but introducing the above assumptions their values can be deduced and substituted into eq.(7.a) what finally gives us
(7.b)

4
2
M
D j Q C
D j R j SD j A j
2
2
(t j )

(t j )

where

4
2
M
C
2
t j
(t j )

(7.c)

A j A j MQ j CR j

(7.d)

S S

Equation (7.b) is solved for unknown incremental displacement vector DD and incremental velocities and incremental accelerations are then
(7.e)
2

D j

D
j

(t j ) 2

D j R j

4
D j Q j
(t j ) 2

with
2

(7.f)

R j 2 D j

Qj

(7.g)
(7.h)

D j 2D
j
t j

We solve for incremental accelerations, incremental speeds and incremental displacements, but
their total values are also needed, so they are calculated
(8.a)
D j 1 D j D j

D
D

D
j 1
j
j
D D
D

j 1
j
j

(8.b)
(8.c)

Average acceleration assumption can be replaced with the assumption that acceleration wearies linearly within the time interval, in which case we obtain linear acceleration method [1] with
somewhat faster convergence and slightly better accuracy. On the other hand this method is only
conditionally stable while the average acceleration method is unconditionally stable and is the
method of choice for all subsequent numerical analysis.
Special care should be taken in discretisation in time of the external load A(t) since it is of
great influence on the convergence of the numerical procedure.
Based on the above equations existing 2D finite element computer program OKVIRW has
been extended to accommodate moving load analysis.

4. Examples
4.1 Simple beam example

P=1 kN

EI=1 kNm2
=1 t/m

v=0,2 m/s

L=1 m

t=L/m*v;

m=250;

x=L/n

n=50;

Figure 2. Simple beam example

The above example has been used to compare numerical and analytical results that are presented
in a shape of time-displacement diagram:
0.025

0.022

displacement

0.02

zz

0.015
n
j
2

g n
2

0.01

0.005

3
tj
time

5
5

Figure 3. Mid-point displacement in time (g = analytical, z=numerical results)

As it can be seen there is excellent agreement between analytical and numerical solution.
3

4.2 Simple beam with springs and damping

P=1 kN

EI=1 kNm2
=1 t/m

v=0,2 m/s

k=kL=kD

C=C1+C2;

L=1 m

t=L/m*v;

m=250;

n=50;

x=L/n

Figure 4. Simple beam with damping and various supports

C1 = structural damping, C2 = dashpots under supports

k = spring stiffness, M = mass matrix, S = stiffness matrix

C1 M M K S

(9)

With stiff supports and no structural damping we obtain the same results as with analytical solution, and with

M=0,1,

K=0,002

C2i,i=0,
C20,0=0,2,
kL=kD=k=50.000 kN/m

C2n,n=0,2

this is the comparison of the mid-point displacement in time

0.025

0.022

0.02

zz

n
2

g n
2

0.015

0.01

0.005

tj

5
5

Figure 5. Comparison of mid-point displacements in time for g = undamped analytical, z=damped numerical results

4.4 Periodic force influence

If the force is changing in time stable numerical methods could still give good answers. In this
example there is no damping and load is varying by 5% eight times during its movement over the
bema span (analysis is continued after the load had transferred the beam).
For numerical purposes concentrated force is represented as Dirak function varying in space and
time
t
(10)

j
P P sin 2 8

( i j)

if

v t x x v t x x
j i

i
2 j
2

0 otherwise

Varying force is best described graphically

Figure 7. Load intensity varying over the beam

As can be seen only 5% change in input load intensity gave us about 30% change in resulting
beam forces since input load frequency is very close to the first eigenfrequency of the beam.
447 10

4
4 10

4
2 10

zz o j
0

go j

4
2 10

815 10

4
4 10

0.5

1.5

tj

2
2

Figure 8. Comparison of the resulting displacement with the one produced by a constant force

4.3 Two span beam

We can easily calculate dynamic behaviour due to a moving load of a two span beam

Figure 6. Two span beam displacement in time

5. Conclusion
As it can be seen through examples numerical approach to the problem of a moving load is quite
suitable for engineering purposes: solutions are accurate and procedure based on average acceleration is robust. Further benefit of the numerical formulation is that various boundary conditions,
damping, various ways of supports, changing forces can all be easily taken into analysis.
Acknowledgement
Work presented in this paper has been partially financed through technological project TP-02/0114-02 financed by the Ministry of Science and Technology.

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

Weaver, W., Johnston,P. R.: Structural Dynamics by Finite Elements, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey 1987.
Inglis, C.E., Mathematical Treatase on Vibration in Railway Bridges, Cambridge University Press,
London UK, 1934.
Koar, I.: Kompleksno optereeni tapovi(beam-columns), FRAK , 18/19, prosinac 1986.
timac, I., ANALIZA MOSTOVSKIH KONSTRUKCIJA POBUENIH POKRETNOM MASOM,
Magistarska radnja, Zagreb, 2003

Prof.dr.sc. Ivica Koar

Faculty of Civil Engineering/ University of Rijeka, V. C. Emina 5, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia, +385 51 352 100,
+385 51 332 816, ivicak@gradri.hr
mr.sc. Ivana timac
Faculty of Civil Engineering/ University of Rijeka, V. C. Emina 5, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia, +385 51 352 136,
+385 51 332 816.