CHAPTER 1

New evolutions for high speed rail line bridge design criteria and
corresponding design procedures

D. Dutoit
Systra, Paris, France

ABSTRACT: The high speed rail lines bridges have always had specific design criteria. Never-
theless, with the new development of the analysis of rail stresses due to rail structure interaction,
some of the initial criteria used in France can be replaced by limitation of the rail stresses, as
described for instance in the Eurocode. This can lead to significant savings, especially in highly
seismic zones.

1 MAIN SPECIFIC FEATURES OF HSR BRIDGES PROJECTS

1.1 Typefont, typesize and spacing

Historically, the developement of the High Speed Lines in France has been done step by step. Based
on actual measurements made of stress concentrations in the rail done on real sites, and based on
the experience of track stability and safety, rules were set-up to restrain specific features of the
supporting structures within empirial limits in order to provide for the track safety.
Usually, and as described today in Eurocode, UIC and present SNCF standards, the structures
carrying the long welded rails for high speed trains have specific limitations due to 3 sets of
phenomena:
Long Welded rail
Rail structure interaction
Additional rail stresses brought by R.S.I.
Temperature variation maximum distance between based points
Deck end rotations
Braking & acceleration forces: maximum displacement under braking and acceleration
forces
This controls
The location of expansion joint
The girder stiffness
The support stiffnesses (piers, foundations, bearings)
High speed vehicle
Structure dynamic response
The high speed rail supports vehicles travelling at high speed. This involves the analysis of
the structures dynamic response to address the following items
Control of vertical load (impact at resonance)
Control of acceleration at deck level
Track stability: acceleration at deck level
Rail/wheel contact: acceleration at deck level
Rolling stock stability: acceleration at deck level
Passenger comfort: vertical acceleration in the cars

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK

 2 Track-Bridge Interaction on High-Speed Railways

Limit fatigue stresses. Rules of

Seismic environment
High speed track geometry and stresses
In the case of seismic areas, there is the need of additional analysis for the safety of the traffic
during a potential earthquake.
Problematic: Find the limits of rail deformation and stresses compatible with the rain full
speed operation under earthquake
Steps of the analysis
Life safety analysis (full speed operation compatible with which Service earthquake Peak
Ground acceleration?)
Risk analysis (which track stresses and deformation criteria combined with other
concomitant sources of stresses?)
Translated that into practical and simple High Speed Serviceability earthquake structure
design criteria
Consequence on High Speed Operation
Train switch off at certain level of earthquake
Downloaded by [Engineers Australia ] at 04:20 31 March 2016

2 EVOLUTION USING RAIL STRESSES COMPUTATIONS

In order to address the concerns described above, specific design criteria had been developed by
several national codes.
These specific criteria involved:
A limitation of maximum distance between bridge expansion joints when using a continuous
welded rail, in order to limit the additional stress in the rail due to the difference of displacement
between the structure and the rail.
A maximum rotation at bridge ends in order to limit the additional stress in the rail due to bridge
end displacement and the corresponding force transmitted by the elasticity of the ballast or of the
rail supports in the case of slab track and to ensure the stability of the ballast. This may control
the deck rigidity.
A maximum displacement of the bridge when the maximum braking and acceleration force is
applied: this may control the foundation, pier and bearing design.
In the new evolution, instead of controlling the additional stresses in the rail by the above
mentioned limitations, a complete analysis of the additional stresses in the rail due to the bridges
supporting the track is limited to the followings


72 N/mm2 compression (Risk of track buckling in compression)
Ballasted track
92 N/mm2 tension

Slab track 92 N/mm2 tension and compression.

In addition, in case of the ballast track, other criteria shall be satisfied in order to ensure the
stability of the ballast (relative displacement of the deck under braking and acceleration, maximum
relative displacement of the expansion joint between two bridges under live loads, . . .).
This calculation is done by computing, on a computer model describing a significant length of
the line on each side of the considered structure:
The foundations and the corresponding elasticities due to the soil foundation interaction
Pier flexibilities
The bearings (fixed, sliding or its elasticity)
The bridge superstructure
The tracks, with the rail stiffnesses and the elasticities (horizontal) of the support between the
rail and the deck (ballast and ties, slab track, elastomeric pads underneath the rail)
The rail expansion joints

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK

 New evolutions for high speed rail line bridge design criteria 3

The environmental conditions (temperature variations, gradients, . . .)

The train characteristics
Based on the corresponding analysis, the piers and foundations can be optimized when compared
to the conventional HSR criteria (see example in part 4.1.).
In addition, it is also possible to identify critical points on the line where there are concentrations
of forces on the bearings and design the sub-structures in order to reduce this unfavourable effect
(see example in 4.2.). This cannot be done by using the simplified approach (without the rail
interaction analysis).
This new computerised method is therefore more economical and safer the simplified one.

3 MAIN CONSEQUENCES

These new design procedures can induce a significant saving in the substructures (foundation,
piers). These savings may be magnified in seismic areas. Since the loads applied by a given
Downloaded by [Engineers Australia ] at 04:20 31 March 2016

earthquake increase with the substructure rigidity, the additional elasticity of the substructure due
to the new HSR service load criteria will also induce a significant saving in the seismic analysis
of the structure.

4 EXAMPLES OF RAIL-STRESSES COMPUTATION

The following examples show that the simplified method (no track structure interaction modelled)
used to avoid computerised calculation (track structure interaction modelled) is generally too con-
servative and cannot identify the critical points on the line where very high bearing reactions can
occur.
In the following examples, we compare the simplified method and the computerised method on
a simple case:
Train type UIC 71
Ballasted track
Straight track
Double track
Rail type UIC 60
Succession of 30 m simply supported spans.

4.1 Comparison between the simplified method and the computerised method optimisation of
the pier and foundation
(a) Simplified method:
In the case of a succession of simply supported spans, the braking and acceleration forces applied
on one span are fully transmitted to the bearings of the span.
In the case of a 30 m simple span, the longitudinal braking and acceleration forces are:

F = 33 kN/m 30 m + 20 kN/m 30 m = 1590 kN (1)

The bearing reaction under temperature effect is calculated using the formula 8 L (L is the
length of the span). It can be estimated at 8 kN/m 30 m = 240 kN.
The maximum allowable relative displacement under braking and acceleration forces between
two decks is = 5 mm. Therefore, the minimum stiffness of the pier and foundation is:
F
K= = 318000 kN/m (2)

Each pier and foundation shall have a stiffness higher than 318000 kN/m.

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK

 4 Track-Bridge Interaction on High-Speed Railways

(b) Computerised method (including rail structure interaction):

25 spans are modelled. The pier stiffness is the one calculated using the simplified method (see
above). We study here the span located at the center of the computer model. The results of the
calculations are the following.

25 Spans (30 m long)

Figure 1. Scheme of the computer model.

Downloaded by [Engineers Australia ] at 04:20 31 March 2016

Figure 2. Stresses in the rails under Temperature, braking/acceleration and live loads.

The stresses in the rail is between 25 MPa and +30 MPa.

Figure 3. Relative displacement between two decks under braking/acceleration.

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK

 New evolutions for high speed rail line bridge design criteria 5

The maximum relative displacement between two decks is below 2 mm.

Downloaded by [Engineers Australia ] at 04:20 31 March 2016

Figure 4. Bearing reactions under braking/acceleration and live loads.

The maximum bearing reaction is 1019 kN. This represents only 64% of the value given by the
simplified method (1590 kN).
It can also be noticed that the bearing reaction under temperature effect is almost zero compared
to 240 kN calculated by the simplified method.
(c) Analysis of the results:
The table below shows the results of the computerised calculations.
Table 1.
Results Allowable limits Ratio

Tensile stress 25 MPa 92 MPa 27%

Compression stress 30 MPa 72 MPa 42%
Relative displacement 2 mm 5 mm 40%

In addition, the bearing reaction under temperature, braking/acceleration and live loads is only
56% of the value given by the simplified method.
(d) Conclusion:
It is therefore possible to optimise the piers and foundation. Additional calculations show that even
if the pier stiffness is reduced by more than 2, the safety of the track is still ensured.
The bearing reactions calculated by the computerised method are also around half of the value
calculated by the simplified method.

4.2 Comparison between the simplified method and the computerised method Identification
of the critical points on the line
Due to the link between adjacent girder created by the track, a force applied on one span is
transmitted to the adjacent spans.

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK

 6 Track-Bridge Interaction on High-Speed Railways

In some case, where there is a sudden variation of pier stiffness, a bearing reaction may be higher
than the one calculated using the simplified method (see 4.1.a). The simplified method is, in these
cases, too favourable.
The case studied here is the same than the previous one (pier stiffness equal to 318000 kN/m),
but one pier has a stiffness much higher than the other (due for example to a sudden variation of the
ground level). We study in detail the bearing reactions on this pier under braking and acceleration
forces.

25 span (30 m)

Very stiff pier

Downloaded by [Engineers Australia ] at 04:20 31 March 2016

Figure 5. Scheme of the computer model.

Figure 6. Maximum bearing reactions under braking/acceleration and live loads.

The maximum bearing reaction is 2036 kN.

Conclusion
The maximum bearing reaction is 2036 kN, which is 128% of the value calculated using the
simplified method (1590 kN see 4.1.a).
Additional calculations shows that, in case of slab track, it is even more unfavourable. The
maximum bearing reaction is then 155% of the value calculated using the simplified method.
The new computarised method allows therefore a better identification of the overstressed areas,
and allows to make the required changes necessary to have a safer track.

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK