Design Basis - Land Viaduct

April 2009 Perunding FAISAL, ABRAHAM dan AUGUSTIN sdn bhd

LAND VIADUCT

DYNAMIC BEHAVIOUR

Prepared by : Ir. Patrick C. AUGUSTIN Perunding FAISAL, ABRAHAM dan AUGUSTIN sdn bhd

Design Basis - Land Viaduct

April 2009 Perunding FAISAL, ABRAHAM dan AUGUSTIN sdn bhd

1.GENERAL The design of high-speed railway bridges is regulated in two different parts of Eurocode: EN 1990- Annex A2 containing principal bridge performance criteria and EN 1991-2 containing the requirements related to loading, dynamic increment of loading, requirements for a dynamic analysis. EN 1991-2 provides a flow chart considering speed, bridge type, span arrangements, first bending and first torsional mode. For bridges with a behavior similar to a simply supported beam, a dynamic analysis might not be necessary as indicated by a span and frequency depending diagram. For all other structures and speed greater than 200km/h a complete dynamic analysis is deemed necessary. [1] 2.Verification whether dynamic analysis is required The requirements for determining a static or a dynamic analysis is required are shown in figure 1. The National Annex may specify alternative requirements. The use of the flow chart in figure 1 is recommended. [2] where: V is the Maximum Line Speed at the Site [km/h] L is the span length [m] n0 is the first natural bending frequency of the bridge loaded by permanent actions [Hz] nT is the first natural torsional frequency of the bridge loaded by permanent actions [Hz] v is the Maximum Nominal Speed [m/s] (v/n0)lim is given in annex F

Design Basis - Land Viaduct

April 2009 Perunding FAISAL, ABRAHAM dan AUGUSTIN sdn bhd

Figure 1: Flow chart for determining whether a dynamic analysis is required

Design Basis - Land Viaduct

April 2009 Perunding FAISAL, ABRAHAM dan AUGUSTIN sdn bhd

NOTE 1 Valid for simply supported bridges with only longitudinal line beam or simple plate behavior with negligible skew effects on rigid supports. NOTE 2 For Tables F1 and F2 and associated limits of validity see annex F. NOTE 3 A dynamic analysis is required where the Frequent Operating Speed of a Real Train equals a Resonant Speed of the structure. See 6.4.6.6 and annex F. NOTE 4 dyn is the dynamic impact component for Real Trains for the structure given in 6.4.6.5(3). NOTE 5 Valid providing the bridge meets the requirements for resistance, deformation limits given in EN 1990 A2.4.4 and the maximum coach body acceleration (or associated deflection limits) corresponding to a very good standard of passenger comfort given in EN 1990 A2. NOTE 6 For bridges with a first natural frequency n0 within the limits given by Figure 6.10 and a Maximum Line Speed at the Site not exceeding 200km/h, a dynamic analysis is not required. NOTE 7 For bridges with a first natural frequency n0 exceeding the upper limit (1) in Figure 6.10 a dynamic analysis is required. Also see 6.4.6.1.1(7). in order to use this flow chart, a spread sheet has been prepared as described further.

Design Basis - Land Viaduct

April 2009 Perunding FAISAL, ABRAHAM dan AUGUSTIN sdn bhd

Figure 2: 3D view of modeling in PROKON

Design Basis - Land Viaduct

April 2009 Perunding FAISAL, ABRAHAM dan AUGUSTIN sdn bhd

2.1.Double Tracking Bridge 2.1.1.Modeling and Analysis The bridge view in modeling is as illustrated herein. (figure 2). This bridge has been modeled using PROKON 3D program. A modal analysis has been carried to find out maximum deflection in each direction and also frequencies of different modes. The bridge is considered combination of 15 meter long spans with continuous beams.

Design Basis - Land Viaduct

April 2009 Perunding FAISAL, ABRAHAM dan AUGUSTIN sdn bhd

2.1.2. Results The results of modal analysis is given afterwards in table 1. M shape 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Freq.(Hz) 1.01 1.11 1.23 1.9 2.75 4.13 5.19 5.29 5.42 5.47 Period (s) 0.99 0.9 0.82 0.53 0.36 0.24 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 Modal stiffn. 1.32E+005 1.06E+005 6.42E+004 1.39E+005 2.98E+005 6.02E+005 4.32E+005 4.94E+005 1.42E+006 4.58E+005 Modal Mass Part (kg) 3.26E+003 2.17E+003 1.08E+003 971.6 998.1 892.8 406.1 446.9 1.22E+003 387.8 Participation Fac 1.01 1.1 1.00E-003 1.54E-001 2.88E-003 2.62E-002 9.29E-002 4.33E-002 4.56E-002 3.33E-002 Eff. Mass (kg) 3.34E+006 2.63E+006 1.09 2.30E+004 8.3 610.6 3.50E+003 835.8 2.55E+003 429.6

Table 1: Analysis Output-NATURAL FREQUENCY FOR EACH MODE SHAPE Mode shapes are represented herein.

Design Basis - Land Viaduct

April 2009 Perunding FAISAL, ABRAHAM dan AUGUSTIN sdn bhd

Figure3: Mode Shape No.1

Design Basis - Land Viaduct

April 2009 Perunding FAISAL, ABRAHAM dan AUGUSTIN sdn bhd

Figure 4: Mode Shape No.2

Design Basis - Land Viaduct

April 2009 Perunding FAISAL, ABRAHAM dan AUGUSTIN sdn bhd

Figure 5: Mode Shape No.3

Design Basis - Land Viaduct

April 2009 Perunding FAISAL, ABRAHAM dan AUGUSTIN sdn bhd

Figure 6: Mode Shape No.4

Design Basis - Land Viaduct

April 2009 Perunding FAISAL, ABRAHAM dan AUGUSTIN sdn bhd

Figure 7: Mode Shape No.5

Design Basis - Land Viaduct

April 2009 Perunding FAISAL, ABRAHAM dan AUGUSTIN sdn bhd

Figure 8: Mode Shape No.6

Design Basis - Land Viaduct

April 2009 Perunding FAISAL, ABRAHAM dan AUGUSTIN sdn bhd

Figure 9: Mode Shape No.7

Design Basis - Land Viaduct

April 2009 Perunding FAISAL, ABRAHAM dan AUGUSTIN sdn bhd

Land Viaduct Behavior Vertical Deflection Figure 10 Annex A2 of EN1990 2002 gives the envelopes for limiting deflections of Span Length vs Line Speed. This is to ensure rider comfort. Very Good rider comfort conforms to Figure 10 which is associated with vertical track acceleration of 1m/s2. The double track project has been designed for a maximum line speed of 180kM/hr. It is assumed that at this operating speed the rider comfort level will be good corresponding to a vertical track acceleration of 1.3m/s 2. At 2.0m/s2 deck acceleration rider comfort is assumed as acceptable.

Design Basis - Land Viaduct

April 2009 Perunding FAISAL, ABRAHAM dan AUGUSTIN sdn bhd

Figure 10: Maximum permissible vertical deflection for railway bridges with 3or more successive simply supported spans corresponding to a permissible vertical acceleration of bv = 1 m/s in a coach for speed V [km/h]

Design Basis - Land Viaduct

April 2009 Perunding FAISAL, ABRAHAM dan AUGUSTIN sdn bhd

For the Land Viaduct , assuming the maximum Line Speed to 180 km/h, d/L is 900. For continuous beams with three or more spans the values of d/L given in figure 3 should be multiplied by 0.9 and Regarding good level of comfort this figure is divided with 1.3, which results to: d= d
L 900 = Variable given for more than 3 span continuous beams d Vb

Figure 10: L d =900 Vb = 1.3 (Comfort Level for good level of comfort at speed of 180 km/h is 1.3)
L 900 = 0.9=623.08 d 1.3

L= 15 m thus :
allowable

=15000 /623.08 = 24 mm

Double Tracking maximum vertical deflection = 19 mm The corollary to satisfying deflection is that it will also satisfy dynamic requirements. Nonetheless a spreadsheet was written to determine if dynamic analysis was required following the Flowchart ,Figure 6.9 of Clause 6.4.4 Requirement for a static or dynamic analysis, EN 1991-2:2003 (E).

Design Basis - Land Viaduct

April 2009 Perunding FAISAL, ABRAHAM dan AUGUSTIN sdn bhd

2.1.3. Running the Flowchart for Electrified Double Tracking Bridge Input data are provided as below: V: The Maximum Line Speed at the Site [km/h] of double tracking is limited to 180 km/h. L: The span length [m] for double tracking is 15 m. n0: The first natural bending frequency ( Mode 7 ) of the bridge loaded by permanent actions [Hz] is 5.19 Hz. Maximum line speed is less than 200 km/h. Thus we move to right.(Figure 1). The next step is defining type of bridge regarding span types. This bridge is of continuous spans however following the flowchart one should refer to annex A2 of EN 1990:2002 to determine that deflections are in allowable range to consider bridge as continuous span bridge. Allowable vertical deflection for this particular bridge can be obtained from Figure A2.3 of EN 1990. [3] - the span length L [m], - the train speed V [km/h], The last step is to calculate the dynamic impact factor of loads is defining the dynamic factor to impose on static loads.

Design Basis - Land Viaduct

April 2009 Perunding FAISAL, ABRAHAM dan AUGUSTIN sdn bhd

Dynamic factor is defined according to this equations given in : 6.4.5.2 Definition of the dynamic factor , EN 1991-2:2003 (E). Running the spread sheet it is found there is no need for dynamic analysis and dynamic factor should be imposed on loads is 1.32 . All this procedure has been summarized in a spreadsheet . Another thing to point out is the difference between natural frequency and exciting frequency. Natural frequency is 5.19 for this bridge while exiting frequency is as below: V/Lvehicle=50/20=2.5 Hz , where a trin length of 20m has been assumed. For shorter trains , the exciting frequency becomes higher and is further from the spectrum that can cause resonence. Thus natural and exciting frequencies are far apart and resonance will not happen.

Design Basis - Land Viaduct

April 2009 Perunding FAISAL, ABRAHAM dan AUGUSTIN sdn bhd

3. FATIGUE The verification on the need for a dynamic analysis showed that it was unnecessary. However this exercise was carried a step further to show that fatigue is never a problem. 3.1 Requirements for satisfying fatigue for bridge structure is given in BRITISH STANDARD BS 5400-4: 1990, Steel, concrete and composite bridges Part 4: Code of practice for design of concrete bridges Clause 4.7 Fatigue. The effect of repeated live loading on the fatigue strength of a bridge should be considered in respect of reinforcing bars that have been subjected to welding; details of compliance criteria are given in Part 10. Welding may be used to connect bars subjected to fatigue loading provided that: a) the connection is made to standard workmanship levels as given in Part 7; b) the welded bar is not part of a deck slab spanning between longitudinal and/or transverse members and subjected to the effect of concentrated wheel loads in a traffic lane; c) the detail has an acceptable fatigue life determined in accordance with Part 10; d) lap welding is not used.

Design Basis - Land Viaduct

April 2009 Perunding FAISAL, ABRAHAM dan AUGUSTIN sdn bhd

For unwelded reinforcing bars, the stress range under load combinations 1 to 5 for the serviceability limit state should be limited to 325 N/mm2 for grade 460 bars and to 265 N/mm2 for grade 250 bars. 3.2 Examination of Stresses in Land Viaduct Structure Clause 4.7 Stress Calculations to derive the stresses in the reinforcement are carried out in accordance to Clause 5.3.2 Resistance moment of beams and Clause 5.3.2.1 Analysis of sections. The common method of calculating these stresses is the routine used when calculating crack widths in structures. When crack width are satisfied , the stresses usually satisfy Clause 4.7 .

Design Basis - Land Viaduct

April 2009 Perunding FAISAL, ABRAHAM dan AUGUSTIN sdn bhd

3.3 Crack Width Calculations for Land Viaduct Structure The Land Viaduct has short spans. The governing ultimate design bending moments are almost entirely due to the application of the derailment load which are higher than the normal train loads.. Therefore it is not surprising that the fatigue stress limits are easily satisfied for Grade 460 bars and also within the limits of Grade 250 bars. It is also to be noted that concrete stresses are in a very comfortable zone. A brief summary is appended below for the most heavily loaded beams which are found in the first span with. The complete results given in the appendix.

RESULTS FROM SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE ANALYSIS BEAM 1 OF VIADUCT SPAN1 BEAM 2 SPAN 1 LAND VIADUCT
Depth to Neutral Axis 289.24 mm Depth to Neutral Axis 311.34mm
Concrete Stresses Concrete Stresses Cross Stress at top Permissible Cross Stress at top Permissible -section N/mm2 N/mm2 -section N/mm2 N/mm2 1 5.05 20 1 5.2466 20 Layer

Depth mm 1235 1195

Stress N/mm2 -173.87 -166.52

Permissible N/mm2 -345 -345 0.13611 mm

Layer

Depth mm 1235 1200

Stress N/mm2 -163.19 -157

Permissible N/mm2 -345 -345 0.11538mm

1 2

1 2

Design crack width

Design crack width

Reinforcement stresses ( tension-negative, compression-positive )

Design Basis - Land Viaduct

April 2009 Perunding FAISAL, ABRAHAM dan AUGUSTIN sdn bhd

4.References 1. M. Heiden & H. Bokan et al. Dynamic Effects of Railway Bridges for High Speed Usage: Application Example Steel- Composite Truss Bridge, Congresso de Construccao Metalica e Mista, Lisboa, December 2003 EN 1991-2:2003, Action on Structures- Part 2: Traffic Loads on Bridges

2.

3. EN 1990:2002, Annex A2