http://pif.sagepub.

com/
Transit
Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
http://pif.sagepub.com/content/222/4/385
The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1243/09544097JRRT189
2008 222: 385 Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit
G Gu, A Kapoor and D M Lilley
Calculation of dynamic impact loads for railway bridges using a direct integration method

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:

Institution of Mechanical Engineers

can be found at:
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit Additional services and information for

http://pif.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://pif.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

http://pif.sagepub.com/content/222/4/385.refs.html Citations:

What is This?

- Jul 1, 2008 Version of Record >>

by guest on October 25, 2011 pif.sagepub.com Downloaded from
385
Calculation of dynamic impact loads for railway
bridges using a direct integration method
GGu
1
, A Kapoor
2
, and DMLilley
3
1
Bridges Department, Mott MacDonald, Croydon, UK
2
Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Sciences, Hawthorn Campus, Swinburne University of Technology,
Victoria, Australia
3
School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, The University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
The manuscript was received on 26 October 2007 and was accepted after revision for publication on 8 May 2008.
DOI: 10.1243/09544097JRRT189
Abstract: This paper introduces railway bridge assessment inthe UKandthe concept of dynamic
impact loads. The dynamic impact loads demonstrated in the codes of practice in several other
countries have been reviewed and have been found to be signicantly different in the different
codes. A technique for calculating dynamic impact load using a direct integration method has
been developed. In many cases, the mass of the train may be similar to the mass of the bridge
in heavy railway bridges but the mass of the vehicle is normally neglected in an analysis due to
complexities in computation. Time-varying non-linear mass models are employed to reect the
effect of moving vehicle mass. An existing prototype bridge has been selected to compare results
from the codes of practice and the technique developed in this study. The correlation between
vehicle speed, axle load, and dynamic impact load has been investigated.
Keywords: railway bridge assessment, dynamic impact load, railway bridge dynamic, direct
integration method, non-linear mass, moving mass, bridge vehicle interaction
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
According to the results of bridge assessments made
using the current UIC (International Union of Rail-
ways) and UK codes of practice, impact loads induced
by moving vehicles over short-span railway bridges
range typically between 20 per cent and 50 per cent
of a static live load. As a result, in the UK where a
large-scale project of assessment of existing railway
bridges is in progress, the safety rating of the bridge
relies heavily on the dynamic impact load. In particu-
lar, special attention is needed where dynamic impact
loads for a bridge whose assessed capacity is close
to its required capacity because a below-standard
bridge often demands expensive strengthening work
or reduction of the maximum train speed. However,

Corresponding author: Bridges Department, Mott MacDonald,

Mott MacDonald House, Sydenham Road, Croydon CR0 2EE, UK.
email: Gunmo.gu@mottmac.com
dynamic impact loads computed fromgeneric formu-
lae stated within a code of practice are unlikely to be
sufcient to represent closely the real loads acting on
a particular bridge. Therefore, a more rened and eco-
nomical methodof analysis for calculationof dynamic
impact loadis requiredby industry. This paper reviews
the current method based on codes of practice and
introduces a technique using a direct integration
method for economic calculation of dynamic impact
loads for railway bridges [13].
1.2 Railway bridges
Although the appearance of railway bridges is similar
to that of highway bridges, there are several signicant
differences between aspects relating to their struc-
tural engineering and management. Static live loads
on railway bridges are signicantly higher than those
of similarlysizedhighwaybridges. Theratioof liveload
to dead load and dynamic impact load (which is of
prime concern in this paper) are also much higher in
railway bridges. The greater ratio of live load to dead
JRRT189 IMechE 2008 Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit
by guest on October 25, 2011 pif.sagepub.com Downloaded from
386 GGu, A Kapoor, and DMLilley
load raises issues in modelling moving vehicles as the
masses of vehicles positioned on a bridge affect the
dynamic response of the bridge. There are signicant
differences in fatigue behaviour, bridge-track interac-
tion, seismic performance, and service life between
railway and highway bridges.
1.3 Terminology
Static load is dened as weight of vehicles. It is
a product of the mass of vehicles and acceleration due
to gravity g (9.81 m/s
2
). Dead load such as weight of
the structure itself, track, ballast etc. are not included
in this denition.
Dynamic load is dened as load applied to the
structure whose values vary with time. This generic
denition is used for most issues relating to struc-
tural dynamics, such as seismicity, shedding of wind
vortices, and blast effects. However, a more rened
denition is required in order to discuss trafc-
induced dynamic loads, whose mechanisms are quite
different from wind- and seismic-induced dynamic
problems.
Impulsive load is a relatively large magnitude force
that acts over a very short but nite-time interval. With
regard to a dynamic system comprising vehicles mov-
ing at speed over a bridge, as the vehicle live load acts
for a very short time on a particular nite-mass ele-
ment of the bridge, the motion of the mass element of
the railway bridge is similar tothe motionof a dynamic
system under an impulsive force.
Dynamic impact load acting on a railway bridge
is now dened as an impulsive force applied to the
bridge, which is generated by moving vehicles. In
practice, if the frequency of the impulsive force on a
railway bridge is generated by regular wheel spacings
and is not close to a natural frequency of the bridge,
then the cyclical effect of multiple impulsive loads
can be neglected. In summary, dynamic impact loads
induced by moving vehicles do not normally cause
resonant phenomena within the structures of railway
bridges.
Dynamic increment is equivalent to the dynamic
magnication factor or system response ratio and
are common terms in structural dynamics. In this
study, the minimum and maximum amplitudes of the
motion of vibration are substituted by the static and
dynamic displacements of a particular mass element
or point in a structural member. Therefore, dynamic
increment can be determined by equation (1).
Dynamic increment
=
Maximum displacement
induced by moving vehicle
Maximum displacement
induced by static vehicle
1 (1)
Displacement of a structural member is generally
measured at elements, which govern the entire design
of the member. In simply supported girder-type
bridges, this is usually at the mid-span position where
the largest vertical bending deection occurs. If the
structural member is continuous in terms of struc-
tural behaviour, the dynamic increment investigated
at a point of interest represents the dynamic incre-
ment at all other points on the continuous member.
For example, in 2- or 3-span continuous bridges, a
value of dynamic increment obtained at a partic-
ular section can be used for assessments at other
positions.
It should be noted that dynamic increment relates
only to the displacement of the bridge. A number of
research papers discuss in depth the velocities and
accelerations of bridges. Accelerations of parts of a
bridge are not considered in this paper in determining
dynamic impact load, although they are recognized
as important with regard to track safety. For instance,
Eurocode 1 suggests that the maximum peak val-
ues of bridge deck acceleration calculated along each
track should not exceed 3.5 m/s
2
for ballasted track
and 5 m/s
2
for direct fastened tracks where track
and structural elements are designed for high speed
trafc [4].
Inuence lines for displacement obtained for
pseudo-static loading representing combined static
anddynamic loads, particularly vertical displacement,
provides key information in design and assessment
of a particular structure. As velocity and accelera-
tion can readily be derived after the computation of
displacement at each time step using available com-
puter software, many researchers studying dynamic
impact loads determine values of velocities and accel-
erations but few papers demonstrate their practical
meaning. This paper does not discuss velocities and
accelerations in detail. [510]
Dynamic impact, dynamic increment, dynamic
impact factor are needed to determine values of
dynamic impact load for a particular bridge. The cor-
relation between static load, dynamic impact load,
dynamic increment, and dynamic impact factor are
expressed as follows
Dynamic impact
= Static live load Dynamic increment
Dynamic impact factor = 1 + Dynamic increment
Dynamic impact load
= Static live load Dynamic impact factor
Dynamic impact factor is the application factor repre-
senting the dynamic amplication of the static load
effect. With regard to dynamic impact, historically,
there were two opinions about trains travelling over
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit JRRT189 IMechE 2008
by guest on October 25, 2011 pif.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Calculation of dynamic impact loads 387
bridges. The rst opinion is that the running vehicle
on the bridge generates a dynamic impact in addi-
tion to the static live load, and the second is that the
structure would not have sufcient time to attain full
deection in the time when the vehicle traverses the
bridge. This means the speed of the vehicle releases
static load to the structure rather than creating extra
force in addition to train static load. As far as engi-
neers (not physicists) are concerned, dynamic impact
factor is always greater than unity in real bridge situa-
tions. According to the UIC code of practice, dynamic
impact factor is governed by two independent fac-
tors: structural response and track irregularities. For a
bridge supporting trains travelling at speeds between
90 and200 km/h, the dynamic impact factors are given
by equation (2) [1, 2, 11]

b
= 1 +
I
+
II
(2)
where
b
is the dynamic impact factor for bending
for track with standard maintenance,
I
the dynamic
increment due to structural response, and
II
the
dynamic increment due to track irregularities.
In theory, dynamic increment due to structural
response is dependent on train speed, train type,
span length, stiffness, and mass of the bridge. Most
design codes propose the use of simple formulae
including the effects of structural response and track
irregularities. According to design codes used in the
UK, US, UIC, Korea, and Spain, only span length is
considered as a variable, with some other consid-
erations. Dynamic increments in design codes are
determinedby empirical methods andhave beenused
in the design and assessment of railway bridges in
the UK and US. Dynamic analysis for the purpose of
determining dynamic increment is not a mandatory
requirement in most codes except Eurocode 1, which
does require dynamic analysis for certain situations.
According to EN 1991-2:2003, which will soon replace
BS 5400 part 2 in the UK, dynamic analysis is generally
required for bridges with spans less than 40 m carry-
ing trains at speeds over 200 km/h. Eurocode 1 is not
yet formally adopted due to unavailability of National
Annexes [1, 2, 4, 1214].
1.4 RA1 train
In the UK, an assumed train (called RA1) is commonly
used in bridge assessment comprising 12 axle loads
followed by a uniformly distributed load. The origin
of the RA1 train is not certain, but it is believed to
have originated from early trains of railway vehicles,
which comprised a steam locomotive and a series of
freight wagons or passenger coaches. The RA1 train is
frequently used in assessing existing bridges. Designs
of new bridges use an assumed train load (called RU),
which is slightly heavier than RA1. Real trains with
accurate axle spacing and loads are used when a more
detailed analysis is required (such as calculation of
design fatigue life or assessment of a bridge which
is below-standard for safety). The arrangement of the
axles of RA1 train is given in Fig. 1 [2, 3].
1.5 Assessment
In practical terms, the assessment of railway bridges
is commonly referred to as rating the railway bridges.
In the UK, the results of rating can be either pass or
fail for a certain train running at a certain speed or
route availability (RA) number also at a certain speed.
The RA rating of heavy railway bridges ranges from
RA0 to RA15. RA1 train and RA should not be con-
fused by readers. It is a coincidence that there is a
similarity with RA. However the two terms have com-
pletely different meanings. The former refers to a train
type and the latter refers to a magnitude of load on a
bridge or a capacity of a bridge followed by a number.
Calculations for RA number are demonstrated below.
Fig. 1 Steam locomotive and RA1 train load [2, 15]
JRRT189 IMechE 2008 Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit
by guest on October 25, 2011 pif.sagepub.com Downloaded from
388 GGu, A Kapoor, and DMLilley
1.5.1 Computation of the capacity of structural
members within a bridge
Regardless of the loading ona bridge, structural capac-
ities of its individual structural elements are com-
puted. The structural capacities can relate to bending
moments, shear forces, or axial forces depending on
the elements role in a bridge and its potential mode of
failure.
1.5.2 Forces under dead load
Without a vehicle on the bridge, forces induced by
self-weight of structural members, ballast, track etc.
are computed by manual calculation or appropriate
computer software.
1.5.3 Forces in bridge under RA1 train
Another name for RA1 train loading is 20 BSU (British
Standard Units). RA1 train and BSU loadings were
dened previously in BS153:1971. This document
was withdrawn but the descriptions of the RA1 train
(BSU) are referred to in the latest Network Rail code
RT/CE/C/025 and are still in common use in indus-
try. If all values of force shown in Fig. 1 are divided
by a factor of 20, then the result will be 1 BSU load.
This 1 BSU load is meant to be imposed on the bridge
and resulting forces in the structural members are
computed [2, 16].
1.5.4 Number of static BSU
If trains crossing a bridge are moving slowly enough
not to generate dynamic effects, the number of BSU
that the bridge can support safely can be calculated.
For instance, if the answer is 20, this means that the
bridge can support the RA1 train, which is 20 BSU.
If the answer is 15, the bridge can only support a
train with 75 per cent of the weight of the RA1 train.
This is illustrated in Fig. 2 and can be calculated
Fig. 2 Calculations of static BSU
using equation (3).
Number of static BSU
=
capacity of element force due to dead load
force due to 1 static BSU load
(3)
1.5.5 Dynamic BSU and RA evaluations
In order to compute the number of dynamic BSU,
force due to 1 static BSU load in equation (3) is
replaced by force due to 1 dynamic BSU. Dynamic
BSUis relatedtostatic BSUanddynamic impact factor
and given by equation (4).
Number of dynamic BSU=
Number of static BSU
Dynamic impact factor
(4)
Finally, RA is derived by equations (5) and (6).
Static RA = Number of static BSU 10, (5)
Dynamic RA = Number of dynamic BSU 10, (6)
RAis the integers andthe minimumis 0 andmaximum
is 15.
2 CALCULATIONOF DYNAMIC IMPACT FACTOR
USINGCODES OF PRACTICE
2.1 Reviewof codes of practice
Unless a bridge supports high-speed trains, in most
cases the dynamic impact factor of a bridge is calcu-
lated in accordance with the methods described in
codes of practice. Several countries have their own
standards for railway bridges. Areviewof existing stan-
dards has shown that most countries do not take track
irregularities into account separately in their design
codes, but generally containformulae, whichincorpo-
rate impact factors that combine effects of structural
response and track irregularities. In contrast, the UIC
code suggests a separate formula for impact factor
induced by track irregularities for real train analysis.
The UK assessment code suggests formulae, which
are also recommended by the UIC code; a summary
of the application of the UK code is presented in
Fig. 3 [13, 12, 1618].
Values of dynamic increments used in other coun-
tries havebeeninvestigatedandarepresentedinFig. 4.
Spain, Germany, and the UK employ the UIC recom-
mendations, and values from Korea and USA show
commonality in the pattern of the data. As shown in
Fig. 4, depending onthe code of practice, similar-sized
bridges canhave a wide range of dynamic impact load.
Taking as an example a ballasted railway bridge with a
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit JRRT189 IMechE 2008
by guest on October 25, 2011 pif.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Calculation of dynamic impact loads 389
Fig. 3 Summary of the UK assessment method
Fig. 4 Dynamic increment in different countries
span of 10 m, the US and UIC codes suggest dynamic
increments of 0.342 and 0.585, respectively. This indi-
cates that design of this bridge using the UIC code
considers 18 per cent more live load (1.585/1.342 =
1.18) than the US code.
2.2 Dynamic impact load of an existing bridge
using code of practice
A bridge over the M25 (Structure ID: VTB2 93B) near
London is a two-span half-through deck-type railway
bridge. Each span consists of composite cross gird-
ers and two main girders. The main girders are simply
supported on each span. At the intermediate support,
the country side girders sit on top of the London
side girder in a halving-joint arrangement. A view of
the bridge and key structural information are given in
Figs 5 and 6.
Thebridgehas beenanalysedusingsimplehandcal-
culations; in addition, eigenvalue buckling and non-
linear analysis using a nite-element method have
also been performed in order to identify any poten-
tial structural problems. The effects of dynamic impact
load on the bridge have also been analysed in order
to compare results from the current code and the
method developed in this study. For vehicle speeds
of 145 km/h (90 m/h), the computed impact factor is
1.289, whentheeffect of trackirregularities is included;
this reduces to 1.211 if track irregularities are ignored.
The results are summarized in Table 1.
3 ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE USINGDIRECT
INTEGRATIONMETHOD
In the very early stage of this study, an analysis in
accordance with the theory of a continuous system
was attempted. This theory was found to be unsuit-
able for practical applications but more for theoretical
review owing to computational complexity in solv-
ing second-order partial differential equations. The
method of mode of superposition (which is a com-
monly used technique in structural dynamics) was
considered but also found to be unsuitable for this
study. This is because the technique is only valid for
JRRT189 IMechE 2008 Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit
by guest on October 25, 2011 pif.sagepub.com Downloaded from
390 GGu, A Kapoor, and DMLilley
Fig. 5 Bridge over M25: structure ID: VTB2 93B [19]
Fig. 6 Cross-section of M25 bridge [19]
Table 1 Dynamic impact factor computed using code
of practice [19]
Dynamic increment due to
structural response
0.211
Dynamic increment due to track
irregularities
0.078
Dynamic Imapct factor including
track irregularities
1 + 0.211 + 0.078 = 1.289
linear systems with simple external force patterns,
which can be represented by either sinusoidal-type
formulae or a constant value. As material non-linearity
and complex loading are required for this study, it
has been concluded that the method of direct inte-
gration, which has virtually no limitations (apart from
hardware capacity and computation time) is the only
viable technique. Another remarkable advantage in
using direct integration in this study is that it is very
economical in enabling a parametric study of the rele-
vant factors relatingtothevibrationof abridge. Results
for various types of bridges can be produced rapidly in
a similar manner to that of a spread-sheet calculation.
The authors have developed software for calculating
dynamic impact factors based on a method of direct
integration [11, 20].
3.1 Modelling
Ingeneral, bridge designis governedby vertical forces.
Calculation of transverse dynamic impact loads on
railway bridges is not common in design and assess-
ment. Therefore, two-dimensional models using sin-
gle degree of freedom for each mass element of a
bridge are sufcient unless there are more specic
requirements. A main girder of the M25 bridge can
be idealized as a simply supported beam, as shown
in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7 Modelling of the bridge
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit JRRT189 IMechE 2008
by guest on October 25, 2011 pif.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Calculation of dynamic impact loads 391
In reality, trains are supported by numerous axles or
bogies but at this early stage of the research, a simpli-
edmodel has beenstudied, where only a single axle is
assumedto support the vehicle body mass. The overall
effect of a single (very common) locomotive or coach
comprising two bogies each with two axles may not be
too different from the simple model. This view is sup-
ported by the fact that distances between axles of the
Assessment Load Wagon in the UK is 1.829 m, which
is signicantly smaller than the span of 21.26 min this
bridge [2].
Prime interest lies in the worst condition of static
loading combined with dynamic effects. In addition,
the distance between axles has a minor effect on the
dynamic impact factor althoughit is one of the param-
eters potentially governing resonance induced by the
passage of successive wheel loads.
3.2 Condensation of stiffness matrix
In developing the simple model, the rst step is to
construct the global stiffness matrix, as shown in
equation (7). This typical stiffness matrix includes
rotational freedom at each node. However, the rota-
tional inertia in the analysis of the beam has a minor
effect and, therefore, elimination of rotational degrees
of freedom using a technique of matrix condensa-
tion is performed so as to improve computational
efciency.
(7)
Prior to elimination of rotational freedoms in the
global stiffness matrix, individual elements in the
matrix are rearranged by separating displacement and
rotational terms. A modied stiffness matrix is shown
in equation (8).
[K] =
_
[K
yy
] [K
y
]
[K
y
] [K

]
_ _
[y]
[]
_
(8)
Using the condensation formula given in equation (9)
the stiffness matrix including all degrees of freedom is
downsizedtothe condensedmatrix K
y(qq)
for effective
dynamic analysis. This condensed stiffness matrix is
given in equation (10).
[K
y
] = [K
yy
] [K
y
][K

]
1
[K
y
] (9)
K
y(qq)
=

k
y(1,1)
k
y(1,2)
k
y(1,q)
k
y(2,1)
k
(2,2)





k
y(q,1)
k
y(q,q)

y
1
y
2

y
q1
y
q
(10)
The relatively small size of condensed stiffness matrix
K
y
(lesser than 25 per cent of the size of K) will greatly
increase the computational efciency during an anal-
ysis of a bridge with a large number of degrees of
freedom. An important point is that this procedure
need only be performed once prior to the following
step-by-step calculations. As rotational stiffnesses are
eliminated, rotational inertias of mass elements donot
need to be calculated. This method is highly recom-
mended as an aid in developing other models using
this form of analysis.
3.3 Eigenvalue analysis and damping matrix
Eigensolutions and predicted values of resonant fre-
quencies are not required or produced using the
method of direct integration. However, eigenvalue
extraction to determine natural frequency is very use-
ful in estimating an appropriate time-step interval to
ensure the stability, accuracy, and reasonable cost of
calculations inthemethodof direct integration. Eigen-
values for rst- and second-modes are computed by
means of inversed vector iteration and GramSchmidt
orthogonalization. Computedeigenvalues canbe con-
rmed by the results of nite-element analysis where
the entire bridge structure (comprising main girders,
cross girders, concrete deck, sleepers, rails, and bal-
last) is modelled in detail. The natural frequency from
nite-element analysis is 6.427 Hz and the value from
the idealized beammodel is 5.542 Hz, i.e. there is a dif-
ference of 0.885 Hz or 13.8 per cent between the two
values. The difference is likely to be the result of ignor-
ingstiffness of thedeckinginthesimplebeamanalysis.
This variation does not signicantly affect values of
dynamic impact factors as train speed and bridge
span have much greater inuence on dynamic impact
factor than natural frequency. In addition, the differ-
ence between predicted values of natural frequency
would not justify the signicant increase in costs, if
nite-element analysis were to be used, and it can be
concluded that sufciently accurate eigenvalues for
this type of bridge can be obtained using a simple
beam model. A nite-element model of the bridge is
showninFig. 8. Therst- andsecond-predictedmodes
of vibration are related to lateral movement. The third
mode of vibration is related to vertical movement and
JRRT189 IMechE 2008 Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit
by guest on October 25, 2011 pif.sagepub.com Downloaded from
392 GGu, A Kapoor, and DMLilley
Fig. 8 Finite-element model of the M25 bridge
Fig. 9 First mode of vibration
is of prime interest in this study. The rst and third
modes are shown in Figs 9 and 10 [6, 20, 21].
As stated earlier, only vertical deection is of inter-
est in this study and so lateral and torsional vibration
modes obtained from the nite-element analysis are
disregarded. Vibration of local elements and higher
modes of vibration are also ignored. Another advan-
tage of eigenvalue extraction is that it allows compu-
tation of a modal damping matrix. Computation of a
modal damping matrix requires the second mode of
vibration to be obtained fromeigenvalue extraction in
addition to the rst mode, although the second mode
is less likely to be produced in a real simply supported
beam. Construction of the damping matrix requires
a value for the second-natural frequency as shown in
equations (11) and (12) [3, 20, 21].
[c] = a
q
[k] +
_
2

1
M
1
_
[m] {}
1
[[m] {}
1
]
T
(11)
a
q
=
2
2

1
=
1

2
_

2
_
Fig. 10 Third mode of vibration (vertical movement
dominant)
The expanded damping matrix is given in
equation (12)
[c]
qq
=

c
y(1,1)
c
y(1,2)
c
y(1,q)
c
y(2,1)
c
y(2,2)





c
y(q,1)
c
y(q,q)

y
1
y
2

y
q1
y
q
(12)
where [c] is the damping matrix for the rst mode,

1
the natural circular frequency for rst mode,
2
the natural circular frequency for second mode,
1
the
damping ratio for rst mode,
2
the damping ratio for
second mode, {}
1
modal matrix for rst mode, and
M
1
modal mass for the rst mode.
It is difcult to evaluate the magnitude of damp-
ing in a bridge structure as it is dependent on several
parameters, and therefore, it is often ignored when
developing a safe andconservative approachtodesign
and assessment. In theory, damping in these systems
should be non-linear in situations where non-linear
properties relating to mass are assumed. However,
consideration of non-linear damping will result in
unnecessary use of computational resource, as damp-
ingratios areonlyestimatedvalues. Inthis study, linear
damping has been assumed with a damping ratio of
0.5 per cent of critical damping in accordance with the
recommendation in Eurocode 1 [4].
3.4 Nodal forces and time-varying mass
Time-varying values of nodal forces and non-linear
mass are required to be computed. Non-linear mass
models arenot normallyconsideredinthedynamics of
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit JRRT189 IMechE 2008
by guest on October 25, 2011 pif.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Calculation of dynamic impact loads 393
railwaybridges duetothehighlevel of complexity, they
introduce into the calculations. In a railway bridge,
the ratio of live load to dead load is much greater
than that of a building or a highway bridge, and there-
fore, the effects of moving masses need to be included
when considering railway bridges. The concepts of
nodal forces and time-varying masses are illustrated
in Fig. 11. In theory, formation of the effective mass
matrix (and its inverse) at every time step dramati-
cally increases the computational effort required. In
this study, a simple model with 11 degrees of freedom
is used and requires only a few additional seconds of
computing time.
[m]
qq
=

m
1
(t) 0 0
0 m
2
(t)



m
q1
(t) 0
0 0 m
q
(t)

(13)
[F]
t
=

f
1
(t)
f
2
(t)

f
q1
(t)
f
q
(t)

(14)
3.5 Train speed and load
Bridge assessments are often made using an assumed
freight train commonly referred to as the Assessment
Load Wagon with a bogie vertical load of 500 kN pro-
ducing the worst load condition on the bridge. The
maximumpermitted train speed is 145 km/h (90 m/h)
in this case. However, it is very unlikely that a fully
loaded freight train will travel at the maximum speed
of 90 m/h at the M25 Bridge, and it has been assumed
that the worst loading condition will be produced by a
passenger train with a bogie load of 300 kN [2].
3.6 Step-by-step integration
The equation of motion given in equation (15) is
directly integrated using a numerical step-by-step
procedure
[m]{ y

} + [c]{ y

} + [k]{ y} = {F(t)} (15)

In this ordinary differential equation, the rst- and
second-differential terms represent velocityandaccel-
eration, respectively, of the mass and can be replaced
by displacement terms as illustrated in Fig. 12 and
Fig. 12 Integration of time steps [22]
Fig. 11 Computation of time-varying nodal force and mass
JRRT189 IMechE 2008 Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit
by guest on October 25, 2011 pif.sagepub.com Downloaded from
394 GGu, A Kapoor, and DMLilley
equations (16) and (17) [22].

t+0.5t
=
y
t+t
y
t
t
,
t0.5t
=
y
t
y
tt
t
(16)

t
=

t+0.5t

t0.5t
t
=
y
t+t
2y
t
+ y
tt
(t)
2
(17)
Acceleration and velocity in equation (15) are substi-
tuted by equations (16) and (17) and it gives
_
1
(t)
2
[m]
t+t
+
1
2t
[c]
_
_
y
_
t+t
= {F}
t

_
_
k
_
+
2
(t)
2
[m]
t
_
_
y
_
t

_
1
(t)
2
[m]
tt

1
2t
[c]
_
_
y
_
tt
(18)
The nal stage has been to write software to calcu-
late successive values of {y} at different time intervals
using equation (18). This software has been used to
examine predictedvalues of vertical displacement and
dynamic increment and their sensitivity when using
linear or non-linear models for mass, and a limited
range of different train speeds and different axle loads.
3.7 Results
The value of the Dynamic Increment predicted by the
non-linear mass model is approximately 65% of that
obtained from the linear mass model (see Fig. 13 and
Table 2). The structural response of the non-linear
mass model along the girder is given in Fig. 14. As
might be expected, the value of Dynamic Increment
is predicted to increase as a function of train speed, as
shown in Fig. 15 andTable 3. Values of Dynamic Incre-
ment are also dependent on the magnitude of applied
load as indicated in Fig. 16 and Table 4.
3.8 Post-loading free oscillation and fatigue
It is observed from Fig. 15 that the amplitude of
vibration of the bridge after the axle force has left
the bridge is not proportional to the speed of the
train. This is thought to be caused by the combined
Fig. 13 Vertical displacements at mid-span assuming static load, dynamic load with linear mass
and dynamic load with non-linear mass, v = 145 km/h, F = 300 kN
Table 2 Maximum values of vertical displacements at mid-span and
dynamic increments using different mass models (from Fig. 13)
Dynamic loading Dynamic loading
Static loading with linear mass with non-linear mass
Deection 2.415 mm 2.707 mm 2.605 mm
Dynamic increment 0.1209 0.0787
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit JRRT189 IMechE 2008
by guest on October 25, 2011 pif.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Calculation of dynamic impact loads 395
Fig. 14 Vertical displacements at nodes along the girder = 145 km/h, F = 300 kN, non-linear mass
Fig. 15 Vertical displacements at mid-span at different train speeds, F = 300 kN, non-linear mass
Table 3 Maximum values of vertical displacements
at mid-span and dynamic increments at
different train speeds (from Fig. 15)
Dynamic
vertical Dynamic
Speed displacement increment
96.6 km/h (60 m/h) 2.539 mm 0.0513
145 km/h (90 m/h) 2.605 mm 0.0787
193 km/h (120 m/h) 2.819 mm 0.1673
241 km/h (150 m/h) 3.366 mm 0.3938
effects of the non-linear mass and damping. When
the axle force leaves the bridge the entire dynamic
system loses a large part of its mass and energy asso-
ciated with the moving mass. The structure will also
be freely vibrating where the motion is controlled by
the initial conditions, structural, and material prop-
erties including damping. The greater vehicle speed
produces greater speed of the mass of the bridge,
and thus, generates greater damping forces to restrain
the free movement of the structure. Dynamic impact
JRRT189 IMechE 2008 Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit
by guest on October 25, 2011 pif.sagepub.com Downloaded from
396 GGu, A Kapoor, and DMLilley
Fig. 16 Vertical displacements at mid-span predicted using different axle loads, v = 145 km/h,
non-linear mass
Table 4 Maximum values of vertical displacements at
mid-span and dynamic increments for different
axle loads (from Fig. 16)
Static Dynamic Dynamic
Axle load deection deection increment
100 kN 0.8049 mm 0.8894 mm 0.1050
300 kN 2.415 mm 2.605 mm 0.0787
500 kN 4.025 mm 4.322 mm 0.0738
factor is not affected by post-loading free oscillation,
but the oscillation is important in fatigue analysis,
where the ranges of stress are governing parame-
ters. Codes of practices do not address the effect of
adverse deection induced by dynamic behaviour of
bridges on fatigue life, and it is not usually consid-
ered in design. This issue needs to be investigated
further.
3.9 Assessment using a revised dynamic impact
factor
Vertical deectionof agirder is mostly causedby bend-
ing. Therefore, the dynamic impact factor relating to
deection is related to the bending capacity of the
girder andthe magnitude of appliedload. According to
the results of the assessment using the UKcode, Girder
2 (which is one of the four main girders of the M25
bridge and analysed in this paper) is RA10 in bend-
ing at a train speed of 145 km/h (90 m/h). This girder
has been re-assessed using the method described
above and found to be RA12 in bending at the same
train speed. The two assessments are summarized in
Table 5 [2].
Table 5 Comparison of assessments of Girder 2
Direct
Code integration
Bending capacity 16 600 kNm
Bending moment produced by
dead load
7002 kNm
Available moment capacity 9598 kNm
Bending moment produced by
20 unit RA1 load
7310 kNm
Bending moment produced by 1
unit static load
365.5 kNm
Static BSU 26.26
Static RA RA15
Dynamic increment due to track
irregularities
0.078
Dynamic increment due to
structural response
0.211 0.0787
Dynamic impact factor 1.289 1.157
Bending moment produced by 1
unit dynamic live load
471.1 kNm 422.9 kNm
Dynamic BSU 20.37 22.70
Dynamic RA RA10 RA12
4 CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS
The method of analysis has shown that the new rating
of RA12 for Girder 2 is higher than its previous rating
of RA10. The technique demonstrated in this paper is
not only economical in terms of computational effort
but uses a more detailed method of analysis than the
current code of practice, and it shows the structural
response more clearly. The dynamic impact load com-
puted by this technique is likely to be more reliable
than that predicted by the code of practice, as the
results are derived from the predicted motion of the
structure. However, this reliability needs to be veri-
ed by comparison with results of more sophisticated
numerical models and physical measurements.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit JRRT189 IMechE 2008
by guest on October 25, 2011 pif.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Calculation of dynamic impact loads 397
Track irregularities often have signicant effect on
the dynamic impact load that must be considered for
a particular bridge structure, but quantitative assess-
ment of certain types and magnitudes of track irregu-
larities is not yet available to industry. Real train loads,
two vehicles approaching on adjacent tracks from
opposite directions, bridges with continuous spans or
varying section properties will all inuence dynamic
impact loads. In order to improve the accuracy of the
method of analysis, the authors are currently involved
in research into these issues. It is felt that there is a
strong likelihood that, in many cases, a more rened
analysis will avoid the need for expensive strengthen-
ing work to bridges. It is therefore recommended that,
in future, values of dynamic impact factor are calcu-
lated using the technique demonstrated in this paper
and compared with values obtained from other meth-
ods (if available) for bridges where the RA number is
lower than the required target number.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is funded by Mott Macdonald UK who
was commissioned to undertake an analysis of the
bridge described in this paper by Network Rail UK.
The authors would like jointly to acknowledge the
support of Mott MacDonald, Network Rail, and the
Schools of Mechanical and Systems Engineering, and
Civil Engineering and Geosciences at the University of
Newcastle upon Tyne.
REFERENCES
1 UIC. Loads to be considered in railway bridge design.
UIC Code 776-1R, 4th edition, 1.7.94, 16 rue Jean Rey
75015 Paris, France, 1994.
2 Network Rail. The structural assessment of under-
bridges, Network Rail company standard, UK,
RT/CE/C/025, 2004.
3 BSI. Load to bridge, BS5400 part 2, 389 Chiswick High
Road, LondonW4 4AL, UK, 2006.
4 BSI. Eurocode 1: actions on structure, part 2: trafc load
on bridge. Chiswick High Road, London W4 4AL, UK,
2004.
5 Goicolea, J. M. New dynamic analysis methods for rail-
way bridges in codes IAPF and Eurocode 1. Universidad
Politecnica de Madrid, Spain, 2002.
6 LUSAS. Software manual, Forge House, 66 High Street,
Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 1HN, UK, 2006.
7 Wu, Y.-S. Three-dimensional analysis of train-rail-bridge
interaction problems, Veh. Syst. Dyn., 2001, 36, 135.
8 Sun,Y. Q., Dhanasekar, M., andRoach, D. Athree dimen-
sional model for lateral and vertical dynamic of wagon
track systems. Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs, Part F: J. Rail and
Rapid Transit, 2003, 217, 3145.
9 Xia, H., Zhang, N., and De Roeck, G. Dynamic analy-
sis of high speed railway bridge under articulated train.
Comput. Struct., 2003, 81, 24672478.
10 Xia, X. Dynamic interaction of long suspension bridge
with running train. J. Sound Vibration, 2000, 237(2),
263280.
11 Fryba, L. Dynamics of railway bridges. Thomas
Telford, 1996.
12 Ministry of Construction and Transportation. Railway
design standard, South Korea, 2004.
13 Chen, W.-F. and Duan, L. Bridge engineering handbook,
1999, (CRC Press LLC, Florida).
14 AREA. Specications for steel railway bridges, 1965
(Chicago, USA).
15 Available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_
locomotive_components
16 BSI. Specication for steel girder bridges. BS 153:Part 3A
Chiswick High Road, LondonW4 4AL, UK, 1971.
17 AASHTO. Standard specication for highway bridge,
12th edition, Washington, USA, 1973.
18 ASCE. Locomotive loadings for railroad bridges, Trans.
ASCE, 1923, 86.
19 Gu, G. Stage 2 assessment report for M25 bridge (Struc-
ture ID: VTB2 93B), Mott MacDonald, Surrey, UK, 2007.
20 Tedesco, J. W. Structural dynamics; theory and applica-
tion, 1998 (AddisonWesley Longman Inc, CA).
21 Craig, W. R., and Kurdila, A. Fundamentals of structural
dynamics, 2006 (JohnWiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New
Jersey, USA).
22 Lilley, D. M. Structural dynamics, 2001 (University of
Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chaar, N. and Berg, M. Vehicle-track dynamic simula-
tions of a locomotive considering wheelset structural
exibility and comparison with measurements. Proc.
IMechE, Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit, 2005, 219,
225238.
Corbin, J. C. and Kaufman, W. M. Classifying track by
power spectral density Mechanics of transportation
suspension systems, ASME AMD, 1975, 15, 120.
Dukkipati, R. V. The dynamic effects of conventional freight
car running over a dipped-joint. Veh. Syst. Dyn., 1999, 31,
95111.
Dukkipati, R. V. Impact loads due to wheel ats and shells.
Veh. Syst. Dyn., 1999, 31, 122.
Esveld, C. Modern railway track. MRT productions, second
edition, 2001.
Fries, R. H and Coffey, B. M. A state-space approach to the
synthesis of random vertical and cross level rail irregu-
larities. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. control ASME, 1990, 112(1),
8387.
Lei, X. Dynamic analysis of thetrackstructureof ahighspeed
railwayusingniteelements. Proc. InstnMech. Engrs, Part
F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit, 2001, 215, 301309.
Manfred, Z. Dynamics of railway bridges, In5thADAMS/Rail
Users Conference, Deutsche Bahn, AG, 2000.
Moreno Delgado, R. and dos Santos, S. M. Modelling of
railway bridgevehicle interaction on high speed tracks.
Comput. Struct., 1997, 63(3) 511523.
Nielsen, J. C. O., Lundn, R., Johansson, A., and
Vernersson,T. Train-track interactionandmechanisms of
JRRT189 IMechE 2008 Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit
by guest on October 25, 2011 pif.sagepub.com Downloaded from
398 GGu, A Kapoor, and DMLilley
irregular wear on wheel and rail surfaces. Veh. Syst. Dyn.,
2003, 40, 354.
Schneider, H.-J., Elf, H. P. and Kolle, P. Modelling
of travelling-loads and time-dependent masses with
ADINA. Compu. Struc. 1983, 17(56), 749755.
UIC. Bridges for high and very high speeds, UIC Code 776-
2R, 1st edition, 1-7-76, 16rueJeanRey75015Paris, France,
1976.
UIC. Deformation of bridges, UIC Code 776-3R, 1st edition,
01-.07.-89, 16 rue Jean Rey 75015 Paris, France, 1989.
Zhai, W. M. and Cai, C. B. Train/track/bridge dynamic
interactions: simulation and applications. Veh. Syst. Dyn.,
2003, 37, 653665.
Zhai,W. M. andCai, C. B. Dynamiceffect of vehicles ontracks
in case of raising train speeds. Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs,
Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit, 2001, 215, 125135.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit JRRT189 IMechE 2008
by guest on October 25, 2011 pif.sagepub.com Downloaded from