Integral model for train-track-bridge interaction on the Sesia

viaduct: Dynamic simulation and critical assessment

W.W. Guo
a,b,
, H. Xia
a
, G. De Roeck
b
, K. Liu
b
a
School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China
b
Department of Civil Engineering, K.U. Leuven, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 3 February 2012
Accepted 2 September 2012
Available online 29 September 2012
Keywords:
Sesia viaduct
ETR500Y train
Dynamic response
Coupled train-bridge system
Resonant train speed
a b s t r a c t
A 3-D dynamic analysis model for a coupled train-bridge system is established. The vehicle subsystem is
modeled by multibody dynamics and each 4-axle coach is simulated as a 27-degree-of-freedom model.
For the bridge subsystem a 3-D rail-ballast-beam nite element model is created, considering the elastic-
ity and the continuity of the track system. The dynamic interaction between the bridge and the train is
realized through the contact forces between the wheels and the track. Track irregularities and wheel
hunting are included. The track irregularities are generated with the German high-speed track spectra,
whereas the wheel hunting is simulated by a sinusoidal function with a random phase. The equations
of motion of the coupled train-bridge system are derived by representing the bridge subsystem through
its vibration modes. The proposed formulations are then applied to the Sesia viaduct located on the new
Italian high-speed line between Torino and Milano. The dynamic responses of the bridge subjected to an
Italian high-speed ETR500Y train are calculated and some results are compared with the measured data.
The resonant train speed of the train-bridge system is discussed, and the running safety and the stability
of the train vehicles on the bridge are evaluated. The results show that the Sesia viaduct is stiff enough in
both vertical and lateral directions, fullling the design criteria for high-speed train passage. The numer-
ical method proposed in this paper can be used to predict efciently the dynamic behavior of coupled
train-bridge systems with reasonable computational effort.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The high-speed railway, owing to its fast speed, safe running,
comfortable riding, high transportation capacity, low environmen-
tal pollution and less land use, is becoming a new trend of railway
development in the world. The design of a high-speed railway re-
quires more strict design conditions than a conventional railway,
because it needs large curve radius and fully closed operation,
resulting in much more bridges than a conventional railway. In
France, the percentage of bridge length is 6.0% in TGV Southeast
Line from Paris to Lyon, 21.5% in TGV Northern Line from Paris to
Lille, and 32.2% in TGV South-East Extension Line from Lyon to Va-
lence. In Japan, the average percentage of high-speed railway
bridges is 48%, and this value is continuously increasing. In Taiwan,
this percentage reaches 73% in the North-to-South high-speed rail-
way from Taipei to Kaohsiung. In China mainland, the percentage
of bridge length in the BeijingTianjin Inter-city high-speed
railway is as high as 87.7%. In the 1318 km BeijingShanghai
high-speed railway, there are 244 bridges with a total length of
1059.4 km, occupying 80.5% of the total length.
The dynamic response of a railway bridge due to moving train
vehicles is a major factor for design and maintenance in high-speed
railways. Owing to the high speed, the moving trains produce a
much higher dynamic impact on the bridge structures, making
the structures to vibrate. The strong vibrations not only directly
inuence the working state and serviceability of the bridge, but
also reduce the moving stability and safety of the train vehicles,
deteriorate the passenger riding comfort, and sometimes, may
destabilize the ballast track on the bridge [1,2]. The vibrations of
the train vehicles and the bridge interact on and inter-affect each
other, forming a complex coupled vibration system. Researchers
have made continuously efforts to study the interaction effects be-
tween train vehicles and railway bridges. A number of sophisti-
cated analytical models were developed during the last decades
[312]. Based on these models, vertical and lateral dynamic inter-
actions of train-bridge system could be predicted and many useful
results have been derived for practical bridge engineering.
When a train composed of a row of vehicles travels through a
railway bridge, the series of axle-loads will form a periodical
excitation. The loading frequency changes with the train speed,
and when it coincides with a vibration frequency of the bridge, a
0045-7949/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2012.09.001

Corresponding author at: School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong Univer-

sity, Beijing 100044, China. Tel.: +86 10 62279621; fax: +86 10 51682764.
E-mail address: junedragon@163.com (W.W. Guo).
Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 205216
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Computers and Structures
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ compst r uc
resonant vibration may occur [13]. It is observed that trains at
speeds above 200 km/h may induce resonance in bridges or via-
ducts. Once the resonance occurs, the dynamic responses of the
bridge will be greatly amplied, which is harmful to the service-
ability of the train and the bridge. Therefore, it is necessary to ana-
lyze this problem for high-speed railway bridges.
The track structure is an important component in the coupled
train-bridge system. However, the elastic effects of track system
were completely neglected in most researches for the sake of brev-
ity [113], by neglecting the relative displacement between the
track and bridge deck and assuming direct transmission of the
forces from the wheels of the train to the bridge deck. Only a few
researchers included a detailed track model in the coupled train-
bridge system [1417]. However, these models are more compli-
cated and need iteration during calculation.
The aim of this paper is to investigate the dynamic behavior of
the whole bridge under high-speed train vehicles both in vertical
and lateral directions, considering the effects of the track system.
The Sesia viaduct is taken for demonstration and validation. It is
a composite railway bridge with seven simply-supported spans
of 46 m and a total length of 322 m, located on the new Italian
high-speed line between Torino and Milano. Liu et al. [18] estab-
lished a 2-D train-bridge interaction model to investigate the ver-
tical deection and acceleration responses of the bridge due to an
ETR500Y train. In their study, only one span of the bridge was mod-
eled and analyzed by assuming a perfect contact between the
wheel and the rail, while wheel hunting and track irregularities
were neglected. In this study, a 3-D coupled train-bridge model
is established. The train on the bridge is composed of a sequence
of identical vehicles and each 4-axle vehicle is modeled by a 27-de-
gree-of-freedom dynamic system. The bridge composed of seven
simply-supported spans is modeled by a 3-D nite element model
with two-layer spring-damper supports to consider the elasticity
and the continuity of the track system. The equations of motion
of the coupled train-bridge system are derived by assuming the
wheel/rail rigid contact and using the track irregularities and the
wheel hunting as the system excitation. The dynamic responses
of the Sesia viaduct subjected to an Italian high-speed ETR500Y
train at various speeds are thus computed in the time domain.
The validity and the rationality of the proposed method are veried
by comparing the numerical results with the measured data. The
resonant train speed is discussed, and the running safety and the
stability of the train vehicles on the bridge are evaluated based
on the computed results.
2. Analysis method for the train-bridge interaction system
The behavior of the train-bridge system is a complex coupled
time-varying dynamic problem. Such a problem is generally solved
by a numerical simulation based on a dynamic interaction model
for the whole train-bridge system, as shown in Fig. 1. Theoretically,
the analysis model for the train-bridge system is composed of two
subsystems, the moving vehicle subsystem and the bridge subsys-
tem, which are simulated as two elastic substructures, each of
them characterized by some vibration patterns. The two subsys-
tems interact with each other through the contact forces between
the wheels and the rail surface.
2.1. Vehicle subsystem
The train on the bridge is composed of several locomotives and
carriages moving at constant speed. Each vehicle is a complicated
multi-degree-of-freedom vibration system consisting of car-body,
bogies, wheel-sets, suspension springs and dashpots. The car body,
bogies and wheel-sets are regarded as rigid components. Each car-
body or bogie has ve degrees-of-freedom to be concerned. They
are designated by the lateral displacement y
ci
and y
tij
, roll displace-
ment h
ci
and h
tij
, yaw displacement W
ci
and W
tij
, vertical displace-
ment z
ci
and z
tij
, and pitch displacement u
ci
and u
ci
, respectively,
while the longitudinal displacement is neglected (see Fig. 2). For
each wheel-set only three degrees-of-freedom are considered:
the lateral displacement y
wijl
, roll displacement h
wijl
and vertical
displacement z
wijl
. The connections between car-body and bogies
are represented by linear springs and viscous dashpots in both ver-
tical and lateral directions, as well as the connections between bo-
gies and wheel-sets. Thus a 27 degrees-of-freedom model is
established for a 4-axle train vehicle, as shown in Fig. 2.
2.2. Bridge subsystem
A railway bridge consists of piers, girders, bearings and track
with rails, pads, sleepers and ballasts. The track is an important
component in the coupled train-bridge system, which distributes
and transmits loads from the vehicle wheels to the bridge deck
and helps to reduce vibration. In this analysis, the bridge and the
track are simulated by an integrated 3-D nite element model with
spring-damper suspension supports, as shown in Fig. 3. The rail
and the girder are both modeled as BernoulliEuler beams. The
sleepers are modeled as separated masses at distances of 0.6 m.
The distributed spring-dashpot units are used to connect the rail
and the sleepers in both lateral and vertical directions to simulate
the dynamic behavior of the rail pads. The ballasts are also mod-
eled as separated masses, which are connected to the sleepers with
spring-dashpot units, while connected to the beams with rigid
arms. Moreover, the shear stiffness of the ballast bed is modeled
also with spring-dashpot units.
Fig. 1. Dynamic model of the coupled train-bridge system.
206 W.W. Guo et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 205216
2.3. Equations of motion for the coupled train-bridge system
In the present FE model developed for the Sesia viaduct, 10,714
nodes and 10,168 elements are included. To reduce computational
efforts efciently, the modal superposition technique is adopted to
solve the equations of motion of the bridge, which makes the cou-
pled FE equations of motion related to the bridge nodes become
the superposition of independent modal equations. Therefore, the
bridge subsystem is modeled by its rst N modes and the modal
data are normalized to the mass matrix. The equations of motion
for the train-bridge system can be expressed as:
M
v

d
v
C
v
_
d
v
K
v
d
v
F
v

q
b
C
b
_
q
b
K
b
q
b
F
b
(
1
where the subscripts v and b denote the vehicles and the bridge,
respectively; d;
_
d, and

d are the displacement, velocity, and acceler-
ation vector, respectively; The mass, damping and stiffness matrices
M
v
, C
v
, and K
v
of the vehicle can be deduced from multibody
dynamics [7]; q represents the displacement vector in modal coor-
dinates;
b
C
b
;
b
K
b
, and
b
F
b
can be calculated by Eqs. (2)(4),
respectively.
b
C
b
U
T
C
b
U 2
b
K
b
U
T
K
b
U 3
b
F
b
U
T
F
b
4
where U is the matrix containing the rst N-modes of the bridge;
The damping and stiffness matrices C
b
, K
b
of the bridge can be ob-
tained by FEM; F
v
and F
b
are the force vectors due to the interaction
at the wheel/rail interfaces.
The two sets of equations of motion are dynamically coupled
with each other through the wheel/rail contact forces F
v
and F
b
.
Therefore, the analysis model of wheel/rail contact relationship,
Fig. 2. A 27-DOF model for a 4-axle vehicle.
Fig. 3. The rail-ballast-beam model for the bridge subsystem: (a) front view; (b) side view.
W.W. Guo et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 205216 207
which links the bridge movement and the vehicle movement, is
one of the key problems to be solved in the train-bridge system
analysis. In this study, the wheel/rail contact forces are obtained
by assuming a rigid contact in both lateral and vertical directions,
and taking the track irregularities and wheel hunting as the system
input that control the relative displacement between wheels and
rails. Since the input data come from actual measurements, this
method can reect the principal characteristics of the wheel/rail
relationship. The applicability of this method has been veried
by many research papers, such as Refs. [5,7,9,12].
According to the wheel/rail rigid contact theory, the wheel dis-
placement vector d
w
can be deduced as:
d
w

y
w
h
w
z
w
8
>
<
>
:
9
>
=
>
;

X
N
i1
q
i
/
yi
x
w
h
wb
/
hi
x
w

q
n
/
hi
x
w

q
i
/
zi
x
w
e /
hi
x
w

8
>
<
>
:
9
>
=
>
;

y
irre
x
w
y
h
x
w

h
irre
x
w

z
irre
x
w

8
>
<
>
:
9
>
=
>
;
5
where q
i
is the generalized co-ordinate of the ith mode of the
bridge; N is the number of considered modes; x
w
is the coordinate
of the wheel along the bridge deck; /
yi
(x
w
), /
zi
(x
w
), and /
hi
(x
w
)
are the values of the lateral, vertical, and rotational components
of the ith bridge mode at the position of the wheel-set; e and h
wb
are the horizontal and vertical distance between wheel-set centre
and girder body centre (see Fig. 4); y
irre
, h
irre
, and z
irre
are the lateral,
rotational, and vertical components of the track irregularity, respec-
tively. y
h
is the wheel hunting movement in the lateral direction
and can be assumed to be a sinusoid function with certain ampli-
tude and random phase:
y
h
t A
h
sin
2pVt
L
h
u
h

6
where A
h
and L
h
are respectively the amplitude and wavelength of
wheel hunting movement; u
h
is the random phase ranging between
0 and 2p and V is the traveling speed of the vehicle.
The force vector transmitted from a single wheel to the bogie F
t
can be determined by the displacement and the velocity of the
wheel and the properties of the primary suspension system:
F
t

F
t-y
F
t-h
F
t-w
F
t-z
F
t-u
8
>
>
>
>
>
>
<
>
>
>
>
>
>
:
9
>
>
>
>
>
>
=
>
>
>
>
>
>
;

k
h
1
y
w
c
h
1
_ y
w
2a
2
k
v
1
h
w
c
v
1
_
h
w
h
t
wk
h
1
y
w
c
h
1
_ y
w

2gdk
h
1
y
w
c
h
1
_ y
w

k
v
1
z
w
c
v
1
_
z
w
2gdk
v
1
z
w
c
v
1
_
z
w

8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
:
9
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
=
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
;
7
in which, k
h
1
, k
v
1
, c
h
1
and c
v
1
are the lateral and vertical stiffness and
damping coefcient of the primary suspension system, respectively;
a is the half span of the primary suspension system; d is the half dis-
tance of two wheel-sets; h
tw
is the vertical distance between the bo-
gie and wheel-sets; g is position function of wheel-set: g = 1 when
the wheel-set is on the front of the bogie, and g = 1 when on the
rear.
Suppose that the number of vehicles on the bridge is N
v
, the
force vector acting on the vehicles F
v
can be expressed as:
F
v
F
v1
F
v2
F
v;Nv

T
8
where F
vi
is the force vector on the ith vehicle. From Eq. (5), one can
nd that the wheel displacements are not independent from the
bridge displacements. Thus the equations of motion for each vehicle
only include those of car-body and two bogies. In the case without
external load, such as winds or earthquakes, the force on the car-
body is zero and F
vi
can be expressed as:
F
vi
0 F
t1
F
t2

T
i
9
where F
t1
and F
t2
are the forces transmitted from the wheel through
the primary springs and dashpots to the front and rear bogies,
respectively, and can be obtained by Eqs. (5)(7).
Suppose that the number of nodes on the bridge deck is N
b
, the
force vector acting on the bridge F
b
can be deduced as:
F
b
F
b1
F
b2
F
b;N
b

T
10
F
bi

F
b-y
F
b-z
F
b-h
8
>
<
>
:
9
>
=
>
;

Mw
yw c
h
1
_ yt htw
_
ht 2gd
_
wt _ yw k
h
1
y
t
htwht 2gdw
t
y
w

Mw
zw c
v
1
_ zt 2gd _ ut _ zw k
v
1
zt 2gdu
t
zw gMw 0:5Mc Mt =2
J
w

hw 2a
2
c
v
1

_
ht
_
hw 2a
2
k
v
1
ht hw h
wb
F
b-y
eF
b-z
8
>
<
>
:
9
>
=
>
;
11
Fig. 4. Vehicle forces on bridge deck.
208 W.W. Guo et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 205216
where F
bi
is the force vector transmitted from a single wheel to the
ith node of the bridge deck (see Fig. 4); F
b-y
, F
b-z
, and F
b-h
are the lat-
eral, vertical, and rotational forces transmitted from a single wheel
to the bridge; the subscripts w, t, and c represent the wheel, bogie,
and car-body, respectively; M and J denote the mass and mass mo-
ment, respectively; other parameters are the same as dened
before.
Suppose the number of mode shapes concerned is N, the gener-
alize force vector
b
F
b
can be written as:
b
F
b

b
F
b1
b
F
b2

b
F
bN

T
12
b
F
bi
/
yi
x
w
F
b-y
/
zi
x
w
F
b-z
/
hi
x
w
F
b-h
13
where
b
F
bi
is the generalized force for the ith bridge mode.
Substituting F
v
and
b
F
b
into Eq. (1), the coupled train-bridge sys-
tem can be solved by a step-by-step algorithm such as the New-
mark-b method or the Wilson-h method, to obtain the dynamic
responses of the vehicle and the bridge simultaneously in the time
domain. Due to application of the modal superposition technique
to the bridge subsystem, large computational efforts are avoided,
and the computation time is reduced from hundreds of hours to
dozens of minutes.
3. Case study
3.1. Input data
The Sesia viaduct, located on the new Italian high-speed railway
between Torino and Milano, is composed of seven simply-sup-
ported composite spans of 43.6 m as shown in Fig. 5. The total
length is 322 m. Each composite span consists of a concrete deck
slab and a steel double box girder with a constant cross section
(Fig. 6). The steel box is composed of upper and bottom anges
and three webs. The concrete slab has a width of 13.6 m, and an
average thickness of 0.4 m, and is connected to the upper ange
of the steel girder by studs. The total mass of each composite span
is about 1380 ton. A ballast track is used on the bridge.
The physical parameters involved in the track structure (indi-
cated in Fig. 3) and the bridge are summarized in Table 1 [18,19].
A 3-D FE model, including rails, ballast, beams, and their con-
nections, is then created for the Sesia viaduct by the MIDAS soft-
ware (see Fig. 7). A modal analysis is then performed to analyze
the vibration characteristics of the bridge, and the rst 300 mode
shapes and frequencies of the bridge are calculated by using the
subspace iteration method. In the rst 40 vibration modes of the
Sesia viaduct, there are 26 vertical bending modes with the natural
frequency ranging from 3.69 to 30.62 Hz, 7 coupled lateral-and-
torsional bending modes with the frequency ranging from 8.78 to
15.50 Hz, and 7 torsional modes with the frequency ranging from
22.96 to 24.02 Hz. According to the mode shapes of the adjacent
spans, the vibration modes of the bridge can be approximately
distinguished as symmetrical and anti-symmetrical patterns [18].
Fig. 810 show the calculated rst vertical bending modes, coupled
lateral-and-torsional modes and torsional modes of the Sesia
viaduct.
A eld experiment was carried out on the Sesia viaduct, in
which eight vibration modes of the bridge were identied using
the ambient vibration data, free vibration data and train passage
data [18], as shown in Table 2. In the table, the calculated frequen-
cies related to the eight modes of the bridge are also given for com-
parison, showing a good correspondence between the calculated
results and the measured data.
According to the European standard, for the determination of the
maximum deck acceleration, frequencies in the dynamic analysis
should be considered up to a maximum of: (i) 30 Hz; (ii) 1.5 times
the frequency of the rst mode of the structural element being con-
sidered, including at least the rst three modes. Since the bridge
subsystem includes the bridge span and the track, in analysis of
the coupled train-bridge system, the modes either mainly to the
bridge vibration or mainly to the track vibration are selected for cal-
culation. For the bridge, 40 modes with frequencies from 3.69 to
30.62 Hz are used to describe the bridge vibration, with a uniform
damping ratio equal to 2.5% for all bridge modes [18]. While for
the track, the other 30 modes mainly to track vibration, with the
corresponding frequency ranging from 137.52 to 162.18 Hz, are
used to take into account the effects of track deformability. The
damping ratio related to the track mode is taken as 5.0% [19],
according to the properties of the track listed in Table 1.
The Italian ETR500Y train is considered in this study, which is
composed of a locomotive followed by eight carriages and another
locomotive (see Fig. 11). The length of the locomotive is 19.7 m,
while the length of the carriage is 26.1 m. The average static axle
loads for the locomotive and the carriage are 176.4 and 112.9 kN,
respectively. Detailed parameters of the Italian ETR500Y train vehi-
cles can be found in Ref. [18]. Table 3 gives the computed modal
parameters of the ETR500Y vehicles. The amplitude and the wave-
length of the wheel hunting movement are taken as 3 mm and
17 m, respectively [20].
Many measurements demonstrate that the track irregularity
can be regarded as a stationary stochastic process and described
through spectral power density functions. In this study, the Ger-
man track spectra for high-speed railways in three directions are
adopted:
Vertical profile : S
v
X
AvX
2
c
X
2
X
2
r
X
2
X
2
c

m
2
=rad=m
Alignment : S
a
X
AaX
2
c
X
2
X
2
r
X
2
X
2
c

m
2
=rad=m
Cross level : S
c
X
Avb
2
X
2
c
X
2
X
2
X
2
r
X
2
X
2
c
X
2
X
2
s

m
2
=rad=m
8
>
>
>
>
<
>
>
>
>
:
14
in which, X
c
= 0.8246 rad/m, X
r
= 0.0206 rad/m, X
s
= 0.4380 rad/m,
A
a
= 2.119 10
7
m
2
rad/m, A
v
= 4.032 10
7
m
2
rad/m.
Fig. 5. Global view of the Sesia viaduct.
W.W. Guo et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 205216 209
z
1800 1800 2500 2500 2500 2500
13600
6950 1025 1025 2300 2300
4
5
8
6
.
5
3
3
5
0
0
Fig. 6. Cross section of the Sesia viaduct (unit: mm).
Table 1
Properties of the track and bridge.
Item Notation Unit Value
Track Per-unit-length mass of rail m
r
kg 60
Youngs modulus of rail E
r
N/m
2
2.059 10
11
Flexural moment of inertia of rail I
r
m
4
3.217 10
5
Sectional area of rail A
r
m
2
7.686 10
3
Poissons ratio of rail m
r
0.3
Mass of sleeper m
s
kg 290
Per-unit-length stiffness of rail pad k
p
N/m 6.0 10
7
Per-unit-length damping of rail pad c
p
N.s/m 7.5 10
4
Density of ballast layer q
b
kg/m
3
1.7 10
3
Per-unit-length vertical stiffness of ballast layer k
bv
N/m 5.0 10
8
Per-unit-length vertical damping of ballast layer c
bv
N.s/m 2.0 10
5
Per-unit-length horizontal stiffness of ballast layer k
bh
N/m 1.56 10
8
Per-unit-length horizontal damping of ballast layer c
bh
N.s/m 8.0 10
4
Per-unit-length shear stiffness of ballast layer k
w
N/m 7.84 10
7
Per-unit-length shear damping of ballast layer c
w
N.s/m 8.0 10
4
Bridge Youngs modulus of concrete slab E
c
N/m
2
3.1 10
10
Density of concrete slab q
c
kg/m
3
2.5 10
3
Poissons ratio of concrete slab m
c
0.17
Youngs modulus of steel box E
s
N/m
2
2.056 10
11
Density of steel box q
s
kg/m
3
7.85 10
3
Poissons ratio of steel box m
s
0.3
Fig. 7. Segment FE model of the Sesia viaduct.
Fig. 8. Calculated rst vertical bending modes of the Sesia Bridge: (a) anti-symmetrical mode at 3.69 Hz; (b) symmetrical mode at 4.20 Hz.
210 W.W. Guo et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 205216
The wavelength range of track irregularity spectrum has big
inuence on the dynamic analysis result of train-bridge system.
Generally, short wave components affect the running safety indices
such as derailment factors and ofoad factors, while long wave
components affect the car-body accelerations and the riding com-
fort of passengers. In this analysis, the wavelength range of track
irregularity is from 1.0 to 80 m, which can satisfy the dynamic
analysis requirement of high-speed train-bridge system. Fig. 12
shows a track irregularity prole of 2000 m.
3.2. Measurements
To investigate the dynamic behavior of the Sesia viaduct under
high-speed trains, a eld measurement was performed on the
bridge under both ambient excitation and the excitation of Italian
ETR500Y high-speed trains. Some measured results are adopted to
verify the proposed numerical method.
Because of the large extension of the bridge, mainly the second
span from Torino to Milano side was tested with just a few sensors
Fig. 9. Calculated rst coupled lateral-and-torsional modes of the Sesia Bridge: (a) anti-symmetrical mode at 8.78 Hz; (b) symmetrical mode at 9.30 Hz.
Fig. 10. Calculated rst torsional modes of the Sesia Bridge: (a) anti-symmetrical mode at 22.96 Hz; (b) symmetrical mode at 23.25 Hz.
Table 2
Calculated and measured natural frequencies and measured damping ratios of the bridge.
Modes Anti-symmetrical about bearing Symmetrical about bearing
Frequency (Hz) Damping ratio(%) Frequency (Hz) Damping ratio(%)
First vertical bending mode Measured 3.62 1.70 4.14 2.17
Calculated 3.69 4.20
Second vertical bending mode Measured 10.00 1.84 10.44 2.64
Calculated 11.54 11.69
First coupled lateral-and- torsional mode Measured 8.35 1.79 9.00 1.84
Calculated 8.78 9.30
Second coupled lateral-and- torsional mode Measured 11.26 2.20 14.28 1.69
Calculated 12.17 14.94
19.7m 19.7m
4*176.4 kN
32*112.9 kN
4*176.4 kN
8*26.1m=208.8m
Fig. 11. Composition of Italian ETR500Y train.
Table 3
Computed modal parameters of the ETR500Y vehicles.
Mode description Frequency (Hz)
Locomotive Carriage
Lateral-and-rolling movement of car-body,
lateral and rolling swings in phase
0.2507 0.2630
Yawing movement of car-body 0.3338 0.3957
Vertical movement of car-body 0.6138 0.4899
Pitching movement of car-body 0.6796 0.6376
Lateral-and-rolling movement of car-body,
lateral and rolling swings out of phase
0.7262 0.4709
Lateral movement of bogie 1.7763 3.1969
Vertical movement of bogie 5.1404 4.0656
W.W. Guo et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 205216 211
on the rst and the third span [18]. Herein, focus will be on four
measurement points A, B, C, D of the second span, respectively at
9.34, 15.57, 21.8, and 34.26 m, from the support at the Torino side
(see Fig. 13). At these measurement points, accelerometers and
strain gauges were installed. The vertical accelerations and strains
due to train speed of 288 km/h were measured.
3.3. Dynamic responses of the viaduct
In order to investigate the dynamic behavior of the Sesia via-
duct under high-speed trains in detail, the whole histories of the
train passing through the bridge, with the train speed ranging from
200 to 400 km/h, are calculated with a step of 20 km/h.
Shown in Figs. 14 and 15 are, respectively, the computed and
measured vertical acceleration time histories at points A and C
(see Fig. 13), where the measured data are ltered to 30 Hz. A good
agreement between the experimental and the predict results is
observed.
In Fig. 16 the computed and the measured maximum accelera-
tion responses along the bridge deck in the vertical direction are
compared. The relative discrepancies (RD) between the two sets
of results are listed in Table 4, where the relative discrepancy is de-
ned as the difference between the computed and the measured
result divided by the measured result. It can be seen that for the
second span, the computed maximum acceleration responses of
the bridge deck are all close to the measured results. The absolute
relative discrepancies are less than 9.3%.
Displayed in Fig. 17 is the distribution curve of the computed
maximum vertical acceleration responses of the bridge deck versus
train speed. Computations are made in the train speed range of
200 400 km/h with a step of 10 km/h. It can be seen that the ver-
tical acceleration increases with the train speed in general, and the
maximum acceleration is 1.12 m/s
2
occurring at the train speed of
400 km/h. At the train speed of 350 km/h, there is a peak value of
0.91 m/s
2
.
Shown in Fig. 18 is the computed time history curve of the ver-
tical displacement response of the bridge deck at mid-span under
the train speed of 288 km/h. It is seen that the maximum response
of the bridge reaches 2.49 mm.
Fig. 19 shows the curve of the displacement dynamic magnica-
tion factor (the ratio of the dynamic response to the static one) at
mid-span as a function of the train speeds. One can see that there is
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Distance (m)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

i
r
r
e
.
(
m
m
)
Sesia
viaduct
(a)
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Distance (m)
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

i
r
r
e
.
(
m
m
)
(b)
Sesia
viaduct
-2
0
2
4
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Distance (m)
T
o
r
s
i
o
n
a
l

i
r
r
e
.
(
r
a
d
)
(c)
10
-3
Sesia
viaduct
Fig. 12. Samples of German HSR track irregularities: (a) lateral; (b) vertical; (c) torsional.
Fig. 13. Sensor layout at the measurement.
212 W.W. Guo et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 205216
an obvious peak value at the train speed of 340 km/h, indicating
that bridge resonance may occur.
The periodical loading of moving vehicles with uniform spacing
can cause bridge resonance. The resonant train speed V
res
can be
estimated as follows [13]:
V
res

3:6 f
bn
d
v
i
km=h; n 1; 2; 3; . . . ; i 1; 2; 3; . . . 15
in which, f
bn
is the nth vertical natural frequency of the bridge (Hz);
d
v
is the interval of the moving vehicles (m).
For Italian ETR500Y high-speed train, d
v
is 26.10 m. With re-
spect to the rst vertical natural frequency 3.69 Hz, the resonant
train speed is calculated by Eq. (15) as:
i 1; V
br

3:6 3:69 26:1
1
346:7km=h
Comparing to the curve in Fig. 19, one can nd that the har-
monic resonance is obvious when the multiplicator i equals to 1.
The resonant train speed is 346.7 km/h, which is very close to
but slightly higher than the critical value based on the train-bridge
interaction analysis. Considering that the natural frequency of the
bridge will decrease when loaded by the train, the two sets of
results are in good coincidence.
It can be noticed that with the train speed range of 200
400 km/h, the displacement dynamic magnication factor ranges
from 1.07 to 1.40. The static deection of the bridge deck at
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time (s)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
(a)
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time (s)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
(b)
Fig. 14. Comparison of measured and computed acceleration time histories of bridge deck at Point A: (a) ltered measured and (b) computed.
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time (s)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
(a)
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time (s)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
(b)
Fig. 15. Comparison of measured and computed acceleration time histories of bridge deck at Point C: (a) ltered measured and (b) computed.
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance along span (m)
M
a
x
.

A
c
c
v
.

(
m
/
s
2
)
Fig. 16. Comparison of measured (Solid square) and computed (solid line)
maximum accelerations of bridge deck at mid-span.
Table 4
Computed and measured deck maximum dynamic responses and relative discrepan-
cies (RD).
Result Unit Point A Point B Point C Point D
Computed m/s
2
0.265 0.237 0.299 0.282
Measured m/s
2
0.245 0.217 0.288 0.277
RD % 8.16% 9.22% 3.82% 1.81%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400
Train speed (km/h)
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

a
c
c
.
(
m
/
s
2
)
Fig. 17. Computed maximum vertical accelerations of bridge deck vs. train speed.
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time (s)
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

d
i
s
p
.
(
m
m
)
Fig. 18. Computed time history of vertical displacement at mid-span (V = 288 km/
h).
W.W. Guo et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 205216 213
mid-span due to a series of the ETR500Y train vehicles is 2.14 mm.
It indicates that the Sesia viaduct is very stiff: for the high-speed
train passage, the maximumdynamic deection is only 3 mm, with
a very small deection to span ratio of only 1/14533.
The lateral response histories of the bridge deck under the train
speed of 288 km/h and the distribution of the maximum bridge re-
sponses versus train speed are shown in Figs. 2023, respectively.
It is seen that within the train speed range of 200400 km/h, the
lateral displacements are small and a maximum value 0.14 mm
is occurring at the train speed of 400 km/h. The maximum lateral
acceleration is 0.921 m/s
2
, also at the train speed of 400 km/h. Both
the displacements and the accelerations increase with the train
speed in a similar trend.
3.4. Dynamic responses of the train vehicles
No measurement data of the running trains are available and
only the computed results are presented for illustrative purpose.
Shown in Figs. 24 and 25 are the time history curves of the ver-
tical and lateral car-body accelerations at the train speed of
288 km/h. The maximum car-body accelerations are, respectively,
0.34 m/s
2
in the rst direction at the rst locomotive, and
0.12 m/s
2
in the lateral direction occurring at the rst carriage.
Shown in Fig. 26 are the distribution curves of the maximum
car-body accelerations of the locomotives and the carriages versus
the train speed. In the train speed range of 200400 km/h, the
maximum vertical car-body accelerations for the locomotive and
the carriages are 0.396 and 0.268 m/s
2
, respectively. The maximum
lateral car-body accelerations of the locomotives and the carriages
are 0.064 and 0.122 m/s
2
, respectively.
The acceleration of a car-body is mainly affected by the stiffness
of its suspension system, which is reected in its natural frequen-
cies. It is found in Table 3 that in the vertical direction, the vertical
and pitching frequencies of car-body for the locomotive are higher,
while in the lateral direction, the Lateral-and-rolling and yawing
frequencies of car-body for the locomotive are lower, than for
the carriage. This explains why the car-body accelerations of the
locomotive in lateral direction are smaller, while in vertical direc-
tion are greater, than those of the carriage.
The distributions of the maximum car-body accelerations of the
vehicle at the train speed of 288 km/h are shown in Figs. 27 and 28,
in which L denotes the locomotive and C denotes the carriage. The
results show that for the Italian ETR500Y high-speed train, the
lateral car-body accelerations of the carriages are greater, while
the vertical ones are smaller, than those of the locomotives.
From Figs. 2428, one can observe that within the train speed
range of 200400 km/h, the maximum accelerations of the vehicle
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400
Train speed (km/h)
M
a
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

f
a
c
t
o
r
Fig. 19. Computed displacement magnication factor at mid-span vs. train speed.
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time (s)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

d
i
s
p
.
(
m
m
)
Fig. 20. Computed time history of lateral displacement of bridge deck (V = 288 km/
h).
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400
Train speed (km/h)
L
a
t
r
a
l

d
i
s
p
.
(
m
m
)
Fig. 21. Computed maximum lateral displacements (solid diamond) and tted
trend line (dotted curve) of bridge deck at mid-span vs. train speeds.
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time (s)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

a
c
c
.
(
m
/
s
2
)
Fig. 22. Computed time history of lateral acceleration of bridge deck (V = 288 km/
h).
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400
Train speed (km/h)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

a
c
c
.
(
m
/
s
2
)
Fig. 23. Computed maximum lateral accelerations (solid diamond) and tted trend
line (dotted curve) of bridge deck at mid-span vs. train speed.
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (s)
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

a
c
c
.
(
m
/
s
2
)
Fig. 24. Computed time history of vertical car-body acceleration (V = 288 km/h).
214 W.W. Guo et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 205216
are small, from which it can be concluded that passing the viaduct
happens with good riding comfort.
In the Chinese Code for design of high-speed railway, the allow-
ances on train running safety indices are given: the allowable
derailment factor and ofoad factor are both 0.8, while the allow-
able lateral wheel/rail force for the locomotives and carriages are
68.8 and 47.63 kN, corresponding to their static axle loads 176.4
and 112.9 kN, respectively. Shown in Figs. 2931 are, respectively,
the time history curves of the derailment factor, the ofoad factor
and the lateral wheel/rail force of the train vehicles at the train
speed of 288 km/h. Numerical results show that the derailment
factor of the vehicles on the bridge is small and the maximum
value is 0.3, occurring at the third carriage. The ofoad factor is
very small and the maximum value is only 0.14 occurring at the
rst locomotive. The maximum lateral wheel/rail force for the
locomotive and carriage are 17.07 and 23.68 kN, respectively. The
lateral wheel/rail force of a vehicle is partly affected by the lateral
suspension stiffness of the bogie, which is reected in its lateral
frequency. One can nd in Table 3 that the lateral frequency of
the bogie for the locomotive is lower than for the carriage, which
results in smaller lateral wheel/rail force than the carriage.
It can be seen that the computed values are far less than the
limits, indicating that the running safety of the train vehicles on
the Sesia viaduct can be well guaranteed in the absence of lateral
action of wind, earthquake or other external excitations.
4. Conclusions
The framework for performing a dynamic analysis of the cou-
pled high-speed train and railway bridge systems both in vertical
and lateral directions has been established and then applied to
the Sesia viaduct in Italy. The bridge responses are computed in
the time domain and some of them are compared with the mea-
sured ones. The train vehicle responses are also computed. The
main conclusions are summarized as follows:
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (s)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

a
c
c
.
(
m
/
s
2
)
Fig. 25. Computed time history of lateral car-body acceleration (V = 288 km/h).
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400
Train speed (km/h)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
Fig. 26. Distribution of car-body acceleration vs. train speed ( Locomotive
lateral; Locomotive vertical; Carriage lateral; Carriage vertical).
0.00
0.06
0.12
0.18
0.24
0.30
0.36
L C C C C C C C C L
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

a
c
c
.
(
m
/
s
2
)
Fig. 27. Maximum vertical accelerations of vehicles (V = 288 km/h).
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
L C C C C C C C C L
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

a
c
c
.
(
m
/
s
2
)
Fig. 28. Maximum lateral accelerations of vehicles (V = 288 km/h).
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (s)
D
e
r
a
i
l
m
e
n
t

f
a
c
t
o
r
Fig. 29. Computed time history of derailment factor of vehicle (V = 288 km/h).
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (s)
O
f
f
l
o
a
d

f
a
c
t
o
r
Fig. 30. Computed time history of ofoad factor of vehicle (V = 288 km/h).
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (s)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Fig. 31. Computed time history of lateral wheel/rail force for locomotive (solid) and
carriage (dotted). (V = 288 km/h).
W.W. Guo et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 205216 215
(1) The Sesia viaduct has perfect dynamic characteristics. Under
the ETR500Y high-speed train passage, the ratios of deec-
tion to span both in vertical and lateral directions are very
small, indicating that the bridge is very stiff.
(2) For the vertical displacements of the bridge, a peak value
appears at the train speed of 340 km/h, and a vertical accel-
eration peak value occurs at the train speed of 350 km/h.
This indicates that bridge resonance due to periodical load-
ing by the axle weights of the train may occur at the train
speed of 340350 km/h. Numerical results are in good coin-
cidence with the results from theoretical estimation for the
resonant train speed.
(3) The ETR500Y high-speed train has a rather good running
property on the bridge, which also helps to reduce the
impact on the bridge structures.
(4) It is worthwhile to point out that the case study presented in
this paper is only one single event. It is obviously insufcient
for the a complete validation of the proposed method for
dynamic analysis of the coupled train-bridge system,
because some measurement data regarding the track irregu-
larities, lateral responses of the bridge and the responses of
train vehicles on the bridge are not available in the case
study. Therefore, further investigation on these topics and
more case studies are needed in the future.
Acknowledgments
The research of this project is supported by the Natural Science
Foundation of China (51078029), the Fundamental Research 973
Program of China (2013CB036203), the Fundamental Research
Funds for the Central Universities (2012JBM075), and the Flanders
(Belgium)-China Bilateral Project (BIL 04/17).
References
[1] Ju SH, Lin HT. Resonance characteristics of high-speed trains passing simply
supported bridges. J Sound Vib 2003;257:112741.
[2] Yang YB, Yau JD, Wu YS. Vehicle-bridge interaction dynamics, with
applications to high-speed railways. Singapore: World Scientic Publishing
Co. Pte. Ltd.; 2004.
[3] Tanabe M, Yamada Y. Model method for interaction of train and bridge.
Comput Struct 1987;27(1):11927.
[4] Diana G, Cheli F. Dynamic interaction of railway systems with large bridges.
Vehicle Syst Dyn 1989;18:71106.
[5] Yang YB, Yau JD. Vehicle-bridge interaction element for dynamic analysis. J
Struct Eng-ASCE 1997;123(11):15128.
[6] Fry ba L. Vibration of solids and structures under moving
loads. London: Thomas Telford; 1999.
[7] Xia H, Xu YL, Chan THT. Dynamic interaction of long suspension bridges with
running trains. J Sound Vib 2000;237:26380.
[8] Au FTK, Wang JJ, Cheung YK. Impact study of cable-stayed bridge under
railway trafc using various models. J Sound Vib 2001;240(3):44765.
[9] Song MK, Noh HC, Choi CK. A new three-dimensional nite element analysis
model of high-speed trainbridge interactions. Eng Struct 2003;25:161126.
[10] Lou P, Zeng QY. Finite element based formulations for vehicle-bridge
interaction system considering vertical motion. J Struct Eng-ASCE
2005;32(4):26173.
[11] Majka M, Hartnett M. Dynamic response of bridges to moving trains: a study
on effects of random track irregularities and bridge skewness. Comput Struct
2009;87(1920):123352.
[12] Zhang N, Xia H, Guo WW, De Roeck G. A vehicle-bridge linear interaction
model and its validation. Int J Struct Stab Dyn 2010;10(2):33561.
[13] Xia H, Zhang N, Guo WW. Analysis of resonance mechanism and conditions of
train-bridge system. J Sound Vib 2006;297:81022.
[14] Zhai WM, Cai CB, Guo SZ. Coupling model of vertical and lateral vehicle/track
interactions. Vehicle Syst Dyn 1996;26(1):6179.
[15] Cheng YS, Au FTK, Cheung YK. Vibration of railway bridges under a moving
train by using bridge-track-vehicle element. Eng Struct
2001;23(12):1597606.
[16] Lou P. A vehicle-track-bridge interaction element considering vehicles
pitching effect. Finite Elem Anal Des 2005;41:397427.
[17] Lee YS, Kim SH, Jung J. Three-dimensional nite element analysis model of
high-speed train-track-bridge dynamic interactions. Adv Struct Eng
2005;8(5):51328.
[18] Liu K, Reynders E, De Roeck G, Lombaert G. Experimental and numerical
analysis of a composite bridge for high-speed trains. J Sound Vib
2008;320:20120.
[19] Zhai WM. Vehicle-track coupling dynamics. 3rd ed. Beijing: Science Press;
2007. pp. 398399 (in Chinese).
[20] Xia H, De Roeck G, Goicolea JM. Bridge vibration and controls: new
research. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.; 2012. pp. 3537.
216 W.W. Guo et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 205216