Lateral Railway Loading Nosing N All PDF

A simplified model for assessing lateral railway
bridge resonance behavior
study on the lateral dynamics of railway bridges.
Sijian Deng
A thesis presented for the degree of

Master of Science
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geo-science Iv-Infra

Delft University of Technology Iv-Groep
The Netherlands
March 15, 2015
Abstract
Dynamics of railway bridges is a complicated problem that normally needs nu-
merical simulation to conduct researches on. However, this thesis takes advan-
tage of the numerical results provided in previous researches and based on these
researches, further conclusions are made by using them in simplified model.
Recently long span railway bridges being designed in the Netherlands are being
rejected by a particular Eurocode criterion that requires bridges to possess a
first lateral natural frequency higher than 1.2Hz. Due to the fact that generally
bridges first lateral natural frequency decreases as the span increases, it can be
seen that 1.2Hz criterion is rejecting almost all bridge with a span longer than
150m.
This report succeeds in pursuing the original documents of 1.2Hz criterion and
the knowledge in the documents initiates further researches on the lateral dy-
namics of railway bridges. Besides 1.2Hz criterion itself, following topics are
researched with the information provided by previous researches:
1. Train-bridge lateral resonance mechanisms, including axle repeat pattern
resonance and kinematic movement resonance,
2. Lateral force on tracks caused by the operation of railway vehicle and key
parameters influencing the force.
Taking advantage of the items above, a simplified model for checking the lateral
railway bridge dynamics is developed to quantify the lateral dynamic resonance
response of railway bridge under horizontal dynamic vehicle load. This method
aims to serve for engineering purposes and provide an alternative way of ver-
ifying railway bridge lateral dynamics. The practical method is developed by
an analytical approach, based on the numerical simulation results provided by
other researches.
An illustration of the usage of the practical method is conducted on the basis
of a real bridge project. The method is also implemented in Matlab scripts to
automate the checking procedure.
Keywords: Eurocode, railway bridge dynamics, lateral dynamics, rail dy-

namics, analytical solution, 1.2Hz criterion, train wavelength, nosing force, lat-
eral force on track
Acknowledgments
Hereby I would like to express my deepest appreciation to all those who helped
me in completing this thesis and my engineering studies.
First of all, I would like to thank to Matthijs van Almen, my daily supervisor at
Iv-Infra, for his patient guidance during the entire thesis process. His guidance is
like the light that helps me finding the right path in the darkness. Nevertheless,
his way of thinking also enlightened me. I would never have completed the
thesis without his help.
I also want to express my appreciation to Prof. Frans Bijaard, Ir. Roland Ab-
spoel, Dr. Michael Steenbergen, Prof. Rolf Dollevoet, the members of the thesis
committee from Delft University of Technology. Their professional knowledge
and general interest in the topic were valuable assets to my work.
Special thanks to Michel Koop, who provided me with the opportunity to carry
out this research at Iv-Infra, to Charalampos Bouras, who was always eager to
provide help whenever I needed, and to all the colleagues at the steel department
of Iv-Infra, who provided me a friendly atmosphere.
I really appreciate the help of Ron van der Zwan and the access to ERRI D181
research resources he provided. I also appreciate Paul Vos, Jean-Jacques Re-
ber sharing their background information of D181 committee. Same apprecia-
tion goes to Alan Minnis from DeltaRail for providing the information of D181
DT329 researches.
I am deeply grateful to my parents, Guolin Deng and Jiafen Wang, who always
believed in me and were supporting my studies in The Netherlands.
Last but not least, I am thankful to all my friends in Delft, who gave me many
unforgettable memories during my studies.
Sijian Deng
Delft, March 15, 2015
1
Contents
1 Introduction 8
1.1 Context of the thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2 Lateral dynamics of railway bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3 Objectives and research question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4 Main steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.5 Outline of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2 Theoretical background for lateral railway bridge dynamics 11

2.1 Wheel-rail interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 Lateral Track Irregularities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3 Lateral movement of wheelsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4 Bridge natural frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.5 Lateral vehicle-bridge resonance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3 Analysis of Eurocode criteria 18

3.1 Criterion based on bridge natural frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.2 Criterion based on vehicle-induced lateral force . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4 Methods for lateral dynamics assessment 23

4.1 Numerical methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5 Simplified model for assessing lateral railway bridge resonance

behavior 25
5.1 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.2 Equation of motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.3 The explicit solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.4 Mathematical validation of derived expressions . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.5 Parameter calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.5.1 Peak lateral force model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.5.2 Hypothesis expression for amplitude Q . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.6 Benchmark for the model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.7 Supplementary parameter calculation and benchmark . . . . . . 39
5.8 Evaluation on the model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2
6 Practical usage of simplified model 41
6.1 Case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.2 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7 Conclusion 44
8 Recommendations for future researches 46

8.1 Recommendations on numerical simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Appendices 48
A Literature Review of regulations regarding lateral railway bridge

dynamics in 1991-2 49
A.1 Factors influencing dynamic behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
A.2 Requirements for railway bridge verification . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
A.3 Horizontal transverse dynamic effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
A.3.1 Nosing force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
A.3.2 Verification of the Limit States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
A.3.3 Serviceability limit states - traffic safety . . . . . . . . . . 53
A.3.3.1 Transverse deformations and vibrations . . . . . 53
A.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
B General information of report series D181 and its selected doc-

uments 56
B.1 Structure of report series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
B.2 Modelling of Parametric Research DT329 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
B.2.1 Model of bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
B.2.2 Bridge parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
B.2.3 Vehicle parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
B.2.4 Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
B.2.5 Contact data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
B.2.6 Data produced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
C Plots and diagrams used in D181 DT 329 61
D Speeds which do not require dynamic compatibility checks 78
E MU-Groups and MU-Classes 82

E.1 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
E.1.1 Train parameters of MU-Class CB 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
E.1.2 Train parameters of MU-Class CB 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
E.1.3 Train parameters of MU-Class AB 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
E.1.7 Train parameters of MU-Class SA 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
E.1.8 Train parameters of MU-Class SA 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3
F Regression commands for R console 86
G Matlab scripts 87
G.1 fog.m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
G.2 Speedenvelop.m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
H Train vehicles 92
H.1 Locomotives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
H.1.1 4-axle locomotives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
H.1.2 6-axle locomotives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
H.2 Trains in Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4
List of Figures
2.1 Wheelset and track dimensions. Extracted from [9, p.17] . . . . . 11

2.2 Coning of a wheel thread . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3 Wheel profile S1002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4 Lateral track irregularity deviation definition[3] . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5 Single and double contact of wheel-rail interface . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.6 Klingel movement. Extracted from [9, Figure 2.3] . . . . . . . . . 15
2.7 Influence of flanging on lateral wheelset movement. Extracted
from [9, Figure 2.5] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1 Figure C9 extracted from D181Committee [8] . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.1 A sample project being conducted in VAMPIRE . . . . . . . . . 24
5.1 Schematic representation of a generic beam crossed by a harmonic

load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.2 Reference plot extracted from Abu-Hilal and Mohsen [2]. Condi-
tion: = 0.25, = 0.05, = 1. Y axis for dynamic amplification
factor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.3 Time history of dynamic amplification factor in mid-span of the
beam. Parameters:EJ = 2.43e10N m2 ,L = 54m, = 6000kg/m,c =
29.26m/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.4 Total peak lateral track forces over all track qualities(worn profile
scenario neglected) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.9 Figure C14 extracted from D181Committee [8]. An minor error
is observed in y-axis label. Upper boundary of y-axis should be
0.116 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.10 Comparison between VAMPIRE peak simulation result and an-
alytical peak result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5
6.1 Peak deflection at mid-span with regard to changing train speed.
Parameters: EJ = 6.56e12N m2 , L = 255m, = 20478kg/m,
cmin = 1m/s, cmax = 30m/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
B.1 Overview of modelling setups for different studies conducted in

DT329 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
B.2 Bridge parameter combination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
C.1 BR CLASS 56 LOCOMOTIVE. Extract from D181Committee

[8, Appendix 2] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
C.2 BR CLASS 56 LOCOMOTIVE. Extract from D181Committee
[8, Appendix 2] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
C.3 UIC FREIGHT WAGON (LADEN). Extract from D181Committee
[8, Appendix 2] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
C.4 UIC FREIGHT WAGON (LADEN). Extract from D181Committee
[8, Appendix 2] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
C.5 FS ETR500 LOCOMOTIVE. Extract from D181Committee [8,
Appendix 2] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
C.6 FS ETR500 LOCOMOTIVE. Extract from D181Committee [8,
Appendix 2] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
C.7 FS ETR500 COACH. Extract from D181Committee [8, Appendix
2] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
C.8 FS ETR500 COACH. Extract from D181Committee [8, Appendix
2] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
C.9 FS E444 LOCOMOTIVE. Extract from D181Committee [8, Ap-
pendix 2] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
C.10 FS E444 LOCOMOTIVE. Extract from D181Committee [8, Ap-
pendix 2] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
C.11 UIC COACH. Extract from D181Committee [8, Appendix 2] . . 73
C.12 UIC COACH. Extract from D181Committee [8, Appendix 2] . . 74
C.13 Horizontal track irregularities for freight trains. Extract from
D181Committee [7, Figure 2.1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
C.14 Horizontal track irregularities for standard passenger trains. Ex-
tract from D181Committee [7, Figure 2.1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
C.15 Horizontal track irregularities for high speed passenger train. Ex-
tract from D181Committee [7, Figure 2.1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
D.1 Speed limit (in km/h) in relationship Line Category/Locomotive

Class and vehicle type. Extract from CEN [6, Appendix F] . . . 79
D.2 LATERAL WHEEL AND AXLE FORCES FOR BRIDGES. Ex-
tract from D181Committee [7, Fig 3.1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
D.3 Example run file. Extracted from D181Committee [8]. . . . . . 81
E.1 Train parameters related to MU-Groups. Extracted from CEN

[6, Annex C] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6
List of Tables
2.1 Lateral standard deviation[Extracted from 3, Table B.6] . . . . . 14
5.1 Peak Lateral Track Force Over All Track Qualities. Extracted
From D181Committee [8, Tab. B1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.2 Parameter inputs and magnitude of amplitude Q . . . . . . . . . 35
5.3 Comparison of results of simulation output and analytical output
using refined load model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.4 Constant component of amplitude Q(N ) from all available setups 39
5.5 Benchmark of explicit solution results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
A.1 Maxiumum horizontal rotation and maximum change of radius

of curvature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
C.1 Axle repeat patterns and typical frequencies. Extracted from

D181Committee [8, Appendix C] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
C.2 Kinematic wavelength ranges per vehicle, with BR P1 profiles.
Extracted from D181Committee [8, Appendix C] . . . . . . . . . 62
E.1 Relationship MU-groups - MU-classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

E.2 Explanation of train parameters. Extracted from CEN [6, Annex
C] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
E.3 Train parameters for conformity with MU-Class CB 1 . . . . . . 84
E.4 Train parameters for conformity with MU-Class CB 2 . . . . . . 84
E.5 Train parameters for conformity with MU-Class AB 1 . . . . . . 85
E.9 Train parameters for conformity with MU-Class SA 1 . . . . . . 85
E.10 Train parameters for conformity with MU-Class SA 2 . . . . . . 85
7
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Context of the thesis

This master thesis is initiated by Iv-Infra to assist the designing of a long-span
railway bridge.
During the validation process of bridge lateral dynamics, the bridge could not
meet the Eurocode standard, that all railway bridges should possess first lat-
eral natural frequency higher than 1.2Hz. However, for long-span(longer than
100m) bridges with adequate structural safety, they normally possess first lat-
eral natural frequencies that are below 1.0Hz. It is costly and excessive wasting
to increase their first lateral natural frequency to 1.2Hz. Moreover, for the cur-
rent stage of the project, it is not possible to modify the design of the bridge.
Thus increasing the natural frequency of the bridge to meet the criterion is not
a valid solution.
Moreover, there is no further instruction to guide the design when bridge can
not meet this particular criterion. With no option left within the codes, Iv-Infra
seeks alternative assessment for the safety of lateral dynamics of the railway
bridge by initiating this thesis.
1.2 Lateral dynamics of railway bridge

Lateral dynamics of railway bridge is an engineering topic that relates to both
bridge structure and operating railway vehicles. Till now there is no record of
bridge/vehicle failure due to lateral railway vehicle dynamic loading.
There are few researches done on this topic. European Rail Research Insti-
tute(ERRI), former International Union of Railways(UIC), had systematically
8
investigated this topic in 1994. Several criteria proposed by the investigation
were adopted in Eurocode.
1.3 Objectives and research question

The main objective of this thesis is to help Iv-Infra to assess the lateral dynamics
of railway bridge. In order to do so, the principle of assessing lateral dynamics
must be comprehended first.
Eurocode has offered assessing methods in its criteria related to lateral dynamics
of railway bridges. However, theres no additional explanation for these criteria.
In other words, the principle of the assessing methods is uncertain. Thus, the
first objective of this thesis is to analyze the criteria in Eurocode, in order to
interpret the principle of Eurocode assessing methods. By using the principle
interpreted in previous step, the development of an alternative assessing method
can be inspired and guided.
As a conclusion, the objectives of this thesis can be summarized as follows:
- Analyze Eurocode criteria and interpret the principle of lateral dynamics
assessing process
- Find an alternative method to assess the lateral dynamics of railway
bridges
The research question can be summarized as:
Interpret the principle of lateral dynamics validation process and develop an

alternative method to assess the lateral dynamics of railway bridges
1.4 Main steps

In order to carry out the objectives and research questions, the thesis project is
planned to be conducted in following steps:
1. Literature research on the theory of lateral railway bridge dynamics
2. Filter out Eurocode criteria related to lateral dynamics of railway bridges
and trace the origin of these criteria
3. Analyze these criteria and conclude the principle of Eurocode assessing
method
4. Develop an alternative method for assessing the lateral dynamics of railway
bridges
9
5. Use the alternative method to validate the bridge design of Iv-Infra
1.5 Outline of the report

The report is consists of 3 main parts: Introduction, Body and Conclusion.
Introduction contains Context of the thesis, Brief introduction to the topic,
Research objectives and question and Outline of the report.
Body is consisted of three parts. The first part contains literature research on
the theory of lateral railway bridge dynamics. The second part mainly aims to
describe the analysis process and the conclusion of the analysis while the third
part aims to describe the development of the alternative assessing method.
Conclusion contains conclusions for the whole thesis and recommendations for
whom may concern in the future.
Thus the outline can be concluded as follows:
1. Introduction
a. Context of the thesis
b. Brief introduction to the topic
c. Research objectives and question
d. Outline of the report
2. Body
a. Literature research on the theory of lateral railway bridge dynamics
b. Analysis of Eurocode criteria
c. Development of alternative assessing method
3. Conclusion
a. Conclusions
b. Recommendations
10
Chapter 2
Theoretical background for

lateral railway bridge
dynamics
This chapter contains theoretical basis of lateral railway bridge dynamics. The
lateral dynamics of railway bridge is related to both structural dynamics and
railway vehicle dynamics. This chapter aims to elaborate the basic concepts of
both dynamics topics.
The railway vehicle dynamics part contains knowledge of Wheel-rail interface,
Lateral track irregularities and Lateral movement of wheelsets. The structural
dynamics part will introduce knowledge about Bridge natural frequency.
A brief introduction to the resonant interaction between bridge and vehicle is
described in Lateral vehicle-bridge resonance.
2.1 Wheel-rail interface
Figure 2.1: Wheelset and track dimensions. Extracted from [9, p.17]
11
dgd
A\!d :A2\p\gd gJ YA 2gd!2u
gAA8 YA K Ap \d YA YAA_ E !\_ 2gd!2
2gd\:A YA
A\!d bg:A_\!\gd !\dQ Jgb ! \bp_A bg:A_ gJ YA YAA_Au
u
8
J YA !2^ \ 2gd\:AA: g )A \Q\:8 YAd YA !\_! YAA_A Y! g b!\d :AQAA gJ J
YA _!A!_ :\p_!2AbAd8 g Y\J8

5
5 YA
Wheelset and !dQ_A8 The dimensions of wheelset and track
!dimensions
track
are regulated by International Union of Railways(UIC). Nowadays most of the
Dutch rail uses standard international dimension. The bridge being designed
YAd YA )AY!\g gJ ! YAA_A \ d!)_A8 YA :d!b\2 2gb)\d!\gd gJ YAA g :A
by Iv-Infra will also apply standard rail dimensions.
JAA:gb \ 2!__A: Yd\dQu
The dimension of wheelset and track is explained in Figure.2.1.
YA _!A!_ :\p_!2AbAd !d: YA ! !dQ_A b )A 2gd\:AA: ! g b!__ :\p_!
Track gauge is defined
A_!\A g YA as a distance
!2^u between
YA p_! \__the
)A two
YA rails.
_\b\OngJ standard track
YA _!A!_ :\p_!2AbAd )AAAd YA
the gauge is 1435+10 mm with with a maximum gradient of 1 : 3000. For new
2gd!2u 3 \ QAdA!__ !ppg\b!A_ B bbu
track, however, NS apply the following standards[9]:
YA gYA :AQAA gJ JAA:gb !A 2gd!\dA:7 YA :\p_!2AbAd !_gdQ !d: YA !_A
1. Mean gauge per 200 m: 1435+10 1 mm
pAA: K !gd: !A :AAb\dA: ) YA _gdQ\:\d!_ pAA: !d: YA g__\dQ !:\ gJ Y
\Y7 h K J YA YAA_A 2AdA
2. Standard deviation within a 200 m section lessgJthan
Q!\
1 mm YA\QY !d: YA g__ !dQ_A !gd: !A _
YA !\_ YAd YAA \ 2gd!2 gd )gY !\_u
Conicity of YA !\_!
wheels YAA_A conicity
and equivalent \ )!\2!__
of wheels:A2\)A: )of g
Conicity wheels2gd\2!_8 dA!_ 2_\d:\2!_
is an important
r\QA Ouj !d: \QA Ous8 _\d^A: gQAYA \Y ! \Q\: !_Au af-
factor influencing the lateral movement of wheelset. Conicity !2Y YAA_ \ Az\ppA: \Y
fects the dynamic behavior of wheelsets, therefore affecting the lateral dynamics
YA g_A gJ Y\2Y
of the railway vehicles.
\ g pAAd :A!\_bAdu d ! !\QY _\dA YA M!dQA !A dg \d 2gd!2
The conicity is the inclination of a wheel thread section. Originally conical
wheel thread profiles an inclination of 1:20 as shown in Figure.2.2.
VV e
6
3
>V -

Figure 2.2: Coning of a wheel thread

Ouj YAA_A :AQAA gJ JAA:gbu
However, during the manufacturing the tires are given a different shape from
a straight conicity. The shape is hollow thus the straight conicity can not
effectively
2006describe
by Taylor &the geometry
Francis Group, LLCof a actual wheel profile. For instance, the
S1002 profile defined by UIC is shown in Figure.2.3.
Equivalent conicity is defined to describe the over-all inclination characteristics
of a wheel profile. Generally, the equivalent conicity is defined as[9]:
r r1 r2
e = =
2y 2y
r1 r2 is the instantaneous difference in rolling radius of the wheel treads;

generally speaking this is a non-linear function of the lateral displacement y of
12
Literature study
Figure 2.3: Wheel profile S1002
the wheelset with respect to the central position.
Worn wheel profiles Wheel wears during usage and wheel profiles will change
under the effect of wear. Over a period of time wheel profiles stabilize with wear
at an equivalent conicity of 0.2 to 0.3[9].
2.2 Lateral
Figure 2 4 Track
Cross level Irregularities
definition. 1:
4: hypotenuse [1].
cross level, 2: running surface, 3: horizontal reference plane and
Lateral (Alignment)
Lateral track irregularities is a source inducing the lateral movement of wheelsets.
yp y P
Track irregularities are minor track deformations that deviate from the origi-
nal track reference. Well-maintained railway tracks have reduced lateral track
P vehicle lateral stability.
irregularities and higher
D1
The definition
D2
is shown
D3
in Figure.2.4. See Eurocode[3] for
D1
detailed information
about the definition.
Figure 2 5 Lateral deviation definition. Lateral deviations yp for each rail with 1: running surface,
Figure2: reference
2.4: Lateral
line and 3:track irregularity
centre line of running tabledeviation
[1]. definition[3]
Twist
Table 2.1[3] defines the allowable standard deviation for lateral track irregular-
ities.
13
Table 2.1: Lateral standard deviation[Extracted from 3, Table B.6]
Speed(km/h) Standard deviation(mm)

V 90 1.5 to 1.8
80 < V 120 1.2 to 1.5
120 < V 160 1.0 to 1.3
160 < V 230 0.8 to 1.1
230 < V 300 0.7 to 1.0
2.3 Lateral movement of wheelsets

Lateral movement of wheelsets is an essential topic to lateral dynamics of rail-
way bridge because lateral loads on bridge are in direct consequence of lateral
movement of wheelsets.
Contact between wheel and rail The movement characteristics of wheels

depends on the contact type. There are two types of wheel-rail contact: single-
point contact and two-point contact.
In the case of single-point contact, according to Figure.2.5a, wheel load and
lateral force act on the same point. This situation occurs when using worn wheel
profiles. In the case of two-point contact, shown in Figure.2.5b, the application
points do not coincide.
Flanging occurs in the situation of two-point contact.
(a) Single con-

tact point. Ex- (b) Double contact points. Forces on rails
tracted from [9, in case of lateral slip in curves. Extracted
Figure 2.13] from [9, Figure 2.14]
Figure 2.5: Single and double contact of wheel-rail interface
Klingel movement The Klingel movement happens under single-point con-

tact.
14
Klingel described a periodical movement of the wheelset with conical tire pro-
files, which is also know as Klingel movement. It was assumed that the wheelset
is laterally displaced from central position and the track is ideally straight. This
displacement is expected to be counteracted due to different rolling radii of
wheels.
Analysis visualizes the Klingel movement, shown in Figure.2.6. The lateral
displacement y is a harmonic, undamped function of the distance co-ordinate x
as long as the amplitude moves within the wheel flangeway clearance. However,
it should be noted that forces play no part in the derivation. Thus Klingel
movement is purely a kinematic movement.
Figure 2.6: Klingel movement. Extracted from [9, Figure 2.3]
The expression for wavelength of Klingel movement is shown in Eq.2.1.
r
rs
Lk = 2 (2.1)
2
where :
Lk Wavelength of Klingel movement
r Radius of wheels
s Gauge distance
Conicity of wheels
Introducing the speed, the frequency of Klingel movement is Eq.2.2.
V
f= (2.2)
Lk
Hunting movement The hunting movement happens under two-point con-

tact. Flanging happens in hunting movement.
It should be noted that the Klingel theory is simple and instructive but does not
include the effect of coupled axes, mass forces, and adhesion forces. In reality,
the amplitude y0 of the Klingel movement is dependent on alignment, dynamic
vehicle behavior, and the speed of the rolling stock.
15
Generally speaking, y0 due to slip will increase with speed until it is equal to
half the flangeway clearance. Flanging then occurs as a result of which the axle
will rebound.
This means that the lateral movement takes on a completely different behavior
which is known as hunting. As shown in the drawing in Figure2.7 the movement
changes from a harmonic to a zig-zag shape. The wavelength becomes shorter
and the frequency increases quickly as hunting effect builds up.
Figure 2.7: Influence of flanging on lateral wheelset movement. Extracted from [9,
Figure 2.5]
2.4 Bridge natural frequency

The natural frequency of a bridge is an important characteristics of its structural
dynamics.
Research[11] shows simplified method can be used to predict the natural fre-
quencies of a bridge. The bridge is modeled as a uniform, simply supported
beam. It is validated that the natural frequency of the beam approximately
equals to the natural frequency of the bridge.
The beam is simply supported at both ends, and the stiffness of the beam is
specified as a deflection at the mid span per unit span length arising from a
static point load of 100kN at mid span on the bridge. The length of the beam
equals to the span of the bridge. The total mass of the bridge is uniformly
distributed over the beam.
The derived natural frequencies of the bridge is shown in Eq.2.3.
2.5 Lateral vehicle-bridge resonance

The resonance mechanism between railway vehicle and bridge is a complicated
topic. Two types of vehicle-bridge resonance have been validated to be possible
by UIC[8]. They are:
1. Resonance caused by axle repeat pattern
16
r
r2 EI
fr = (2.3)
2L2 m
where :
r Natural mode:1,2,3...
L Span of the bridge
EI Equivalent stiffness of the bridge
m Mass per unit length of the bridge
2. Resonance caused by kinematic movement
Resonance caused by axle repeat pattern Axle repeat pattern is the

periodic pattern of train axles passing on a fixed location. The axle repeat
pattern introduces forces to rail track on both vertical and lateral direction.
The wavelength of the axle repeat pattern is only dependent on the layout of
the train. Although the distance between any two axles can form a wavelength,
due to the regular arrangement coaches/wagons, there are only a few dominant
wavelength.
Since frequency is speed divided by wavelength, the frequency of the axle repeat
patterns vary with train speed. A table of axle repeat pattern lengths, and
typical frequencies arising from train speed are given in Figure.C.1
Research[8, 3.4.3] shows that by running train at different speeds, resonance is
possible between train and bridge if the axle passing frequency coincides with
the first lateral bridge mode. The resonance effect is more pronounced compared
to kinematic movement resonance[8, Chapter 5, Research Phase II].
Resonance caused by kinematic movement The lateral kinematic move-

ment of railway vehicles is also wavelength phenomenon. However, the wave-
length of lateral kinematic movement is much more complicated than axle repeat
pattern. Many factors affect the wavelength of vehicle lateral kinematic move-
ment. These factors include track irregularities, wheel profile, rail profile and
other factors that may influence the lateral movement of wheelsets.
The lateral kinematic wavelength of railway vehicles are hard to predict. Research[8]
obtains the lateral kinematic wavelength of the vehicle by numerical modeling
a running railway vehicle.
The frequency of kinematic movement resonance is speed divided by wavelength.
By coinciding the lateral kinematic frequency of the vehicle and bridge first
lateral natural frequency, the resonance caused by kinematic movement was
successfully validated[8].
17
Chapter 3
Analysis of Eurocode
criteria
This chapter aims to analyze the Eurocode criteria that are related to lateral
dynamics of railway bridges and discover their background principle. There
are two types of criteria: bridge-natural frequency based criterion and vehicle-
induced lateral force criterion.
It has been discovered that UIC research[7] is the original research that proposed
both types of criteria.
3.1 Criterion based on bridge natural frequency

Criterion definition and background The bridge natural frequency based
criterion is defined in [4, A24.4.2.4] by following statement:
...
The first natural frequency of lateral vibration of a span should not
be less than fh0 . The value for fh0 may be defined in the National
Annex. The recommended value is: fh0 = 1.2Hz
...
The original proposal can be found in [7, Proposed criteria]. The original inten-
sion of criterion is explained by following quote text:
To avoid the occurrence of resonance in the lateral motion of the
vehicles due to the lateral motion of the bridge, a limit value lower
than the first natural frequency f1 t of the lateral vibration of the span
studied should be fixed. The natural frequency for lateral movements
18
is between 0.5 and 0.7 Hz for coaches and between 0.7 and 1 Hz for
locomotives. We therefore propose a safety margin Flt 1.2Hz
Criterion principle From the original proposal, it can be concluded that this
criterion intends to avoid the resonance between the vehicle and the bridge.
There is no additional explanation about what type of resonance is being avoided.
The natural frequency in the original text is also unclear. There is no explana-
tion on the natural frequency, either.
It can be concluded that the original text is referring to the natural frequency
of an uncertain vibrating mode of the vehicle. The magnitude of the frequency
in original proposal is independent of speed, thus it can be guessed that the
frequency refers to the natural frequency of a typical rigid body mode of the
vehicle. It may be the lateral swing mode of railway vehicles.
However, the resonance described in the original text does not belong to any
resonance type validated in previous research. This is because resonance caused
by both axle repeat pattern and kinematic movement happens at frequencies
related to vehicle speed. There is no research supports the resonance theory
described in this criterion.
As a conclusion, the criterion lacks theoretical support. No evidence proofs the
resonance mentioned in the original text can happen. No background principle
can be extracted from this criterion.
3.2 Criterion based on vehicle-induced lateral

force
The criterion based on vehicle-induced lateral force is the global criterion gov-
erning the validation of structural safety. The criterion itself is generic and
unrelated to the topic of lateral dynamics of railway bridge. To be more spe-
cific, this section aims to analyze the vehicle-induced lateral force which is a
load input for the global criterion.
There are several types of vehicle-induced lateral force mention in Eurocode[4]
but this thesis only concerns uniform motion and straight railway tracks. Thus
one type of force, Nosing force, is selected and analyzed.
Definition and background of nosing force The nosing force is defined in

[4, 6.5.2] with following statement:
(1)P The nosing force shall be taken as a concentrated force acting
horizontally, at the top of the rails, perpendicular to the centre-line
of track. It shall be applied on both straight track and curved track.
19
(2)P The characteristic value of the nosing force shall be taken as
Qsk = 100kN . It shall not be multiplied by the factor (see 6.4.5)
or by the factor f in 6.5.1(4).
(3) The characteristic value of the nosing force in 6.5.2(2) should be
multiplied by the factor in accordance with 6.3.2(3) for values of
1.
(4)P The nosing force shall always be combined with a vertical traffic
load.
The background research[8] illustrates detailed information about nosing force.
The research sets up different scenarios and simulates the scenarios in numerical
modeling software. The peak total lateral forces on track are generated from
these simulations. After that these peak lateral forces are used to generate the
magnitude of the nosing force.
The research obtains peak lateral force by running simulations over a large
range of track qualities and wheel conicity from 0.42 mm to 6.2 mm and 0.05 to
0.4 respectively. The track quality range represents a range from best quality
high-speed line to poor quality freight track and would therefore be expected
to cover the full range of track qualities likely to be found on a railway bridge.
The conicity range represents that which can usually be expected to occur for
trains running on conventional speed lines.
It has been verified that the peak lateral force on track is greatly affected by
track irregularities and wheel conicity. In other words, the poorer the tracks
and wheels are maintained, the greater the peak lateral force on track will be.
Analysis of nosing force From the definition of nosing force, it can be seen
that nosing force is an imaginary concentrated force which does not represent
the real lateral force distribution on track. It aims to represent the total peak
lateral force magnitude generated by the whole vehicle.
For long-span railway bridges, the actual lateral force is axle forces distributed
along the the span. Compared to concentrated nosing force, whose magnitude
equals to the total sum of magnitude axle forces, the distributed axle force yields
lower structural deformation. The nosing force is conservative compared to axle
forces in terms of structural mechanics.
However, for nowadays Dutch railways, the wheels and tracks are maintained
according to Eurocode regulations so the track irregularities and wheel conicity
are well below the most unfavorable scenario simulated in UIC research. This
means the peak lateral forces generated by these simulations are too high com-
pared to real peak lateral forces on nowadays Dutch railway tracks. Thus for
the same reason, the nosing force whose magnitude is determined using those
simulation is too conservative.
20
Verification on nosing force magnitude Nosing force in Eurocode has
characteristic value of 100kN, which is lower than the original proposed magni-
tude in its background research. Additional calculation is carried out to verify
if the magnitude is sufficient.
The verification is done by comparing peak displacement caused by 100kN nos-
ing force and peak displacement result of numerical simulation done on the same
bridge. The numerical simulation is provide by UIC research[8].
120m Span, 1/1 0000 Stiff, 6 tonne/m Bridge

Freight train, varying speed
Displ. (mm) Accn. (m/s2)

20...--c==========---""""=="""""'" 1.2
15 0.9
Lateral mid-span:
0.6 -- Displacement
+- Acceleration
5
10 12 IS 17 22 27
Speed (m/s)
ERRI D 181 PARAMETER STUDY
DJ/82879/D001
British Rail Research Figure C9
Figure 3.1: Figure C9 extracted from D181Committee [8]
Figure.3.1 illustrates a chosen simulation case. The bridge possesses following

parameters:
l = 120m
Stif f 1 : 1/10000
= 6000kg/m
Peak result for numerical simulation: 17mm

According to the definition, the characteristic value of the nosing force shall be
taken as Qsk = 100kN . It shall not be multiplied by the factor or by the
factor f . Thus, according to simple support Euler-beam theory, the deflection
under 100kN nosing force is:
nosing = 120m 1/10000 = 0.012m = 12mm
It can be seen that nosing force does not give conservative result compared to
numerical simulations. The reason for the nonconservative result is that this
simulation case reproduced vehicle-bridge resonance so the peak displacement
is amplified. It can be concluded that nosing force in Eurocode does not take
resonance effects into account. It is nonconservative when resonance between
vehicle and bridge happens.
1 defleciton/span ratio at midspan under 100kN point load at midspan
21
3.3 Conclusion
According to the analysis, the Eurocode criterion based on bridge natural fre-
quency lacks theoretical support thus no principle can be extracted from this
criterion. The resonance type described in the criterion is not validated by any
research and the criterion can not avoid any known resonance type.
The criterion based on lateral forces is feasible but too conservative in original
proposal because nowadays tracks and wheels are well maintained so lateral
forces on tracks are much smaller than those generated from UIC simulations.
However, nosing force in Eurocode is reduced in magnitude due to unknown
reasons and the reduction may result in nonconservative result when resonance
happens.
Thus it can be concluded that Eurocode criteria on lateral dynamics of railway
bridge lack adequate verification on resonance effects.
Since the bridge of Iv-Infra can not meet bridge natural frequency based criterion
and this criterion is intended to solve resonance issues, the bridge should be
verified for its lateral resonance behavior. Since the Eurocode criterion does not
make sense, alternative assessment method for lateral railway bridge resonance
behavior needs to be applied on the bridge of Iv-Infra.
22
Chapter 4
Methods for lateral

dynamics assessment
Several analysing methods for vertical dynamics of railway bridges were briefed
in UIC [13, A6.2]. Methods that can be applied also on lateral direction are
selected:
...
Various programs such as ANSYS, NASTRAN, ABAQUS, SAP,
FASTRUDL and so on, can be used to obtain the modal responses of
bridge decks. Modeling can be done with beam models using torsional
characteristics if the bridge is not a skew bridge and the structure is
not a special case (see above). However, spatial modeling is neces-
sary in such cases. ...
4.1 Numerical methods

When the analysis uses numerical methods to directly integrate the dynamic
equation, the loads become the dynamic system in the case of vehicles and their
internal behavior impacts the response from the structure.
- the two systems can be considered separate systems,
- the vehicle can be considered a finite element.
This last method takes track profile defects into account and deduces the force
of interaction between the structure and the vehicle as well as the internal forces
in the dynamic system that is built.
23
In this method, the equation of the dynamics is solved, with or without prior
transformation, by using the conventional algorithms for numerical resolution
of second-degree differential equations. These numerical methods calculates
the response to regularly spaced time intervals(in general). The selected time
pitch determines the accuracy of the results and has a bearing on the length of
computer calculations.
Numerical integration methods are all based on the search for balanced solutions
of the dynamic equation at regular time intervals.
VAMPIRE VAMPIRE is a FEM simulation software developed by DeltaRail.

It allows the user to build a dynamic model of any rail vehicle and study the
response of the vehicle to real measured track geometry or user specified inputs
in the form of track displacements and external force inputs. Rail vehicles can be
modeled with simulated instrumentation allowing almost any aspect of behavior
to be studied.
Figure 4.1: A sample project being conducted in VAMPIRE
There are also many similar simulation software on the market which puts em-
phasis on railway vehicle dynamic behavior, but VAMPIRE is specially selected
for introduction because it was the software used by UIC committee, whose re-
port series originally proposed 1.2Hz criterion by using the assistance of VAM-
PIRE. Also, the output results provided by UIC reports is an important foun-
dation for the development of new practical method.
24
Chapter 5
Simplified model for

assessing lateral railway
bridge resonance behavior
This simplified model aims to simulate the lateral resonance behavior of a rail-
way bridge.
5.1 Assumptions
It is assumed that the bridge is straight and uniform, simply supported on both
ends. One track is installed on the center-line of the bridge. A train is moving
uniformly along the track. The train and the bridge are under resonance. Only
lateral displacement is taken into account. Deformations of other directions are
neglected.
The bridge is modeled as a uniform, simply supported beam. The deflection
of the beam represents the lateral deflection of the bridge. The stiffness of the
beam is specified as a deflection at the mid span per unit span length arising
from a static point load at mid span on the bridge. The length of the beam
equals to the span of the bridge. The mass of the beam equals to the mass of
the bridge.
A concentrated load presenting the total lateral force induced from the vehicle
to the bridge is applied on the beam. The concentrated load is harmonically
exciting the beam thus simulating the vehicle-bridge resonance.
The resonance is simulated by setting the magnitude of the concentrated load
to oscillate under the same frequency as the first lateral natural frequency of
25
the bridge. The movement of the vehicle is also simulated by setting the load
to move at a constant speed, from one end of the beam towards the other end
of the beam.
The force initially locates at one end when time is 0. Force initial phase is 0.
The model diagram is presented Figure.5.1.
Figure 5.1: Schematic representation of a generic beam crossed by a harmonic load
5.2 Equation of motion

The governing equation motion for the model is shown in Eq.5.1.
4 v(x, t) 2 v(x, t) v(x, t)

EJ + + 2b = (x ct)Q sin t (5.1)
x4 t2 t
where :
EJ Lateral stiffness of the beam
v Lateral displacement of the beam
x Horizontal axis label
Mass per unit length of the beam
b Circular frequency of damping
c Speed of moving load
Q Amplitude of load
Circular frequency of load. equals to first lateral
natural frequency of the bridge
Delft function
5.3 The explicit solution

The explicit solution of the motion equation is derived by Fryba[10]. Derived
equation for mid-span lateral displacement is Eq.5.2. This equation will be
referred as the explicit solution in following paragraphs.
26
l3 Q(1) cos (1) t
v(l/2, t) = [(cos t eb t ) b sin t] (5.2)
4 EJ 2 + b2
where :
l span of the beam(m)
damping ratio
1 first natural
q circular frequency of the beam
2
= l2 EJ
= c/l
b = 12 1
Damping in the expression This paragraph aims to derive the correct ex-
pression for the damping component in the expression for Eq.5.2.
Eq.5.1 uses a form of damping expression b , which can be converted from
normal damping coefficient. Equation of motion using damping coefficient is
shown in Eq.5.3:
4 v(x, t) 2 v(x, t) v(x, t)

EJ 4
+ + = (x ct)Q sin t (5.3)
x t2 t
where stands for damping coefficient. By comparing 5.3 and 5.1:

b = (5.4)
2
where:
b : circular frequency of damping
: damping coefficient
: mass per unit length of the bridge
also, in [2, Page.704] it is mentioned that:
The external and internal damping of the beam are assumed to be
proportional to the mass and stiffness of the beam respectively,i.e.,
ra = 1 .., where 1 and 2 are proportionality constants.
thus:
1
b = (5.5)
2
and it is mentioned in [2, Eq.8] that:
27
1
=
1
so:
1 = 1
so:
s
1 1 2 EJ
b = 1 =
2 2 l2
5.4 Mathematical validation of derived expres-

sions
Since circular frequency of damping b is not clearly defined by Fryba, it is
necessary to verify the correctness of both explicit solution and deduced b
expression.
The verification is done by comparing the result of Eq.5.2 with the result of a
explicit solution in a different form obtained by another deducing method.
The result in Abu-Hilal and Mohsen [2] is selected to be the benchmark for
verification. This report is researching vibration of beams with general bound-
ary conditions due to a moving harmonic load. The differential equation is
illustrated as follows:
EIv 0000 + v + ra v + ri v 000 = p(x, t) (5.6)
The difference between Eq.5.6 and Eq.5.2 is that it offers broader boundary
conditions such as changing speed of the load and various kinds of supports. As
a result of more general equation, the deduction steps are much more compli-
cated. However, two solutions should yield same results under same boundary
conditions that:
1. Load moving at constant speed,
2. Frequency of load equals frequency of the beam,
3. Internal damping is 0,
4. Simple hinge support at both ends of the beam.
28
Figure 5.2: Reference plot extracted from Abu-Hilal and Mohsen [2]. Condition: =
0.25, = 0.05, = 1. Y axis for dynamic amplification factor.
One plot from the parametric study of Abu-Hilal and Mohsen [2] meets the
above requirement and is selected and illustrated in Figure. Parameters used in
this plot is = 0.25, = 0.05, = 1
Next step is to translate parameters used in above plot to usable parameters in
Eq.5.2.
s
1 L EJ
ccr = =
l
s
pinned beam, varying the excitation frequency !: !"0)25,
c = ccr =
EJ ""0)05.
l
EJ,,l needs to be selected to yield value for c, thus following values are ran-
domly selected:
her from equation (21) or equation (23), where only the
sidered (i.e., k"1).
2
EJ = 2.43e10N m
l = 54m
eous, isotropic and originally at rest.c They = are subjected
6000kg/m
= 117.05m/s cr
ith constant amplitudes. The forces enter the beams from
c = 29.26m/s
0 and move to theAright withis the

Matlab script writtenfollowing threecalculating
to automate numerical types procedure.
of The
script is presented in Appendix.G. By typing
x "0. Its motion

>>fog(2.43e10,54,6000,29.26,0.05)
rts to act on a beam
intoat
the rest
console.at position
Figure.5.3
!
is obtained.
t reaches the velocity c atFigure.5.2
By observing position x".
and Figure.5.3 it can The time
be concluded thattresults are the
same on y-axis. The difference of x-axis is because in Figure.5.2" time axis is
corresponding acceleration are given as [1]
29
2 c#
t " , a" . (25)
" c 2
moving with constant velocity enters a beam at rest from
4
4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Figure 5.3: Time history of dynamic amplification factor in mid-span of the beam.
Parameters:EJ = 2.43e10N m2 ,L = 54m, = 6000kg/m,c = 29.26m/s
scaled to 1 but in Figure.5.3 time is not scaled. Then it can be further concluded
that Eq.5.2 and expression for b are both correct.
5.5 Parameter calculation

The parameters needed for solving the explicit solution(Eq.5.2) are:
l Length of the beam

Damping ratio
Q Amplitude of the load
EJ Lateral stiffness of the beam
Mass per unit length
c Speed of train
Despite parameter Q, other parameters are the fundamental attributes of bridge

and vehicle which do not need further derivation. Thus this section aims to
derive the expression for Q.
The expression of Q will be determined in following sequence:
Firstly a hypothesis expression for amplitude Q will be made depend on a peak
lateral force model. Then the hypothesis amplitude, together with the explicit
solution embedding it, will be validated by confirming if the explicit solution is
able to reproduce similar results with numerical vehicle-bridge resonance simu-
lations.1 .
Paragraphs in this section are arranged accordingly to above sequence. They
are written in following layout:
1 Lateral resonance research[8, Figure.C1,C2,...,C30] provides input and output data of
these simulations
30
1. Peak lateral model
2. Hypothesis expression for Q
3. Validation of the explicit solution
5.5.1 Peak lateral force model
The peak lateral force model is obtained by statistically fitting the peak force
results of different train speeds provided by UIC research[8]. The model is
expected to describe the relationship between peak lateral force and train speed.
The peak lateral force of different train types under different train speeds are
presented in Table.5.1. Two figures(bold numbers) are modified2 from original
table. The data in the table will be used to create the speed-based expression
for peak lateral force model.
Table 5.1: Peak Lateral Track Force Over All Track Qualities. Extracted From
D181Committee [8, Tab. B1]
Peak lateral force(kN)

Train type and speed Locomotive Coach/Wagon Total
Freight 60 km/h 50 60 110
Freight 100 km/h 90 80 170
Freight 120 km/h 75 110 185
Passenger 200 km/h 140 50 190
High Speed 350 km/h 125 125 250
Passenger 200 km/h(worn) 190 80 270
High Speed 350 km/h 330 225 555
The model is created by fitting the data in Table.5.1 to a function. The function
should be able to satisfy following characteristics:
1. 0kN lateral force when speed is 0km/h
2. Simply increasing in value but generally decreasing in increment3
Finally function form F = a v b is selected because its satisfying characteris-
tics. The first regression is conducted according to freight train data because
2 The original values are 160 and 250 respectively. Output data in the table should have
been filtered by standard deviation filter. The table data does not represent true maximum
lateral force but a value greater than 99.5% of all force values. However, it is obvious that
output data of 160kN was not filtered. It is the greatest value among all raw output data of
freight train running at 100 km/h. It is not possible to calculate the explicit standard value
because raw data are presented in the form of chart image. The modified value of 80kN is
obtained by approximate observation. As a result, the total lateral force is modified to 170kN.
3 It can be observed from Table.5.1 that the relationship between lateral force and speed is
not linear. The fact that force increment decreases as speed increases can also be observed.
31
it possesses the most sets of data. R language was used to perform regression
process.
The fitting result is presented in Formula.5.7. It is in good likelihood with
original data. Achieved convergence tolerance is 2.868e 06. See Appendix.F
for code.
Flf = 5.2064 v 0.7495 (5.7)
Since 1 set of data is available for passenger train, Formula.5.7 is scaled by

a constant factor to create regression for passenger trains. Please note that
this regression can not be verified because lack of data. However, since freight
train has a greater lateral force then passenger train, it is conservative to adopt
lateral force of freight train when calculating consequences related to passenger
trains. It is still reasonable to adopt this regression since passenger trains are
just simply less stiff than freight trains.
The scale factor kpf is obtained by comparing force value yielded by Formula.5.7
at 200km/h and original passenger train force(190kN) data at 200km/h.
190
kpf =
alf 200blf
alp = alf kpf
merge above two equations, yield
190 190
alp = = 3.58
200blf 2000.7495
and
Flp = alp v 0.7495
thus
Flp = 3.58 v 0.7495 (5.8)
Lateral force for high speed train were obtained in same manner. The scale fac-
tor khf is obtained by comparing force value yielded by Formula.5.7 at 350km/h
and original high speed train force(250kN) data at 350km/h.
250
khf =
alf 350blf
alh = alf khf
32
merge above two equations, yield
250 250
alh = = 3.10
350blf 3500.7495
and
Flh = alh v 0.7495

thus
Flh = 3.10 v 0.7495 (5.9)
250
200
F (kN )
150
high speed train

100
passenger train
freight train
approximate freight train
50 approximate passenger train
approximate high speed train
EN1991-2 nosing force
60 100120 200 350

v(km/s)
Figure 5.4: Total peak lateral track forces over all track qualities(worn profile scenario
neglected)
Evaluation on the peak lateral force model By examining the magnitude

of forces illustrated in Figure.5.4, it is found that these forces are not reasonable
because their magnitude is obviously too high. According to [12], the lateral
wheel force for speed of 300km/h Shinkansen is approximately 68kN, which is
much smaller than the result of Figure.5.4.
33
The reason for this phenomenon is because the force data are extracted from
simulations whose track quality ranges from well-maintained to very poor4 . Poor
tracks result in extremely high lateral forces, however such tracks are not allowed
in the Netherlands.
The magnitude of forces can be calibrated if simulations based on realistic data
of Dutch rails are provided. See Section.8.1 for recommendations on conducting
simulations.
5.5.2 Hypothesis expression for amplitude Q
In this chapter a hypothesis expression for amplitude Q is obtained. The hy-

pothesis is based on peak lateral force model in Section.5.5.1 and numerical
simulation results 5 .
The numerical simulations[8, among Figure.C1,C2,...,C30] used in this section
successfully produced resonance between railway vehicle and bridge. Thus they
are suitable for calculating the parameters of resonance model. Simulations
used in this paragraph uses input from normal tracks and wheels data which is
representative for British railway tracks and vehicles in 1990s. Thus although
the peak lateral force model is very conservative, the amplitude determined
based on representative simulations still generates reasonable results.
There are two steps to create the hypothesis:
1. Calculate the magnitude of Q using inputs of different numerical simula-
tion
2. Make hypothesis based on calculated magnitude
The following paragraphs of this section are written in above order.
Magnitude of Q Inputs of 3 simulation cases are selected to calculate Q.

They are abbreviated to C1,C3,C96 and presented in Figure.5.5,5.6 and 3.1
respectively. Q is calculated by substituting the peak displacement value of
simulation output into the left hand side of the explicit solution and simulation
inputs into right hand side of the same equation. With 3 sets of input and output
data, 3 values of Q are obtained. They are illustrated in Table.5.2 together with
the corresponding input data.
Hypothesis expression By observing calculated magnitudes of amplitude

Q, it is found that Q possesses the general characteristics of peak lateral force
4 Up to 6mm deviation
5 Allthe numerical simulation results used in this chapter are extracted from a lateral force
research[8]. The correctness of these numerical simulations are verified during the research.
6 Abbreviations are used in following paragraphs to represent simulation cases
34
54m Span, 1/4000 Stiff, 6 tonne/m Bridge
Freight train, varying speed
Accn. (m/s2)
Displ. (mm)
1.2
16 .....
0.9
12 .
Lateral mid-span:
0.6 --<>- Displacement
-1- Acceleration
4 ., . . _ ", '" . ;. . ,. ... '" ..... ",'" ,.

. . ", .' . . ... . ;. .: . ;. '." . . .; . -._"... 0 .3
..
10 12 14 16 18 20
Speed (m/s)
ERR! D181 PARAMETER STUDY

DJ/82879/D001
Figure C 1
British Rail Research
54m Span, 6 tonne/m Bridge, varying stiffness

Freight train @ 60km/h
(x axis not to scale)
Displ. (mm) Accn. (m/s2)

14 r'". 1 .4
12 . . ......... , .' , .. ; . ,'. 1.2
10
lateral mid-span:
-- Displacement
4 ..... ' . .. . .. ,.<,. > ' .. 0.4 -+- Acceleration

2 . . . . -,.. ._. "_ ,.. .-.- ,. ".: . . . . . . . . . _. _.,-;..,
.. '.,- 0.2
o . 0
1/3000 1/3404 1/4000 1/5576 1[1000
Span stiffness
ERRI D181 PARAMETER STUDY
DJ/82879/DOO1
British Rail Research Figure C3
Table 5.2: Parameter inputs and magnitude of amplitude Q
Simulation cases
Parameters C1 C3 C9
EJ(0/l) 1/4000 1/4000 1/10000
l(m) 54m 54 120
(kg/m) 6000 6000 6000
c(m/s) 14 16.67(60km/h) 14
1% 1% 1%
Train Freight Freight Freight
Track Freight Freight Freight
Amplitude Q(kN) 14 15 14
model that the lateral force is only relevant to speed if track quality and wheel
conicity are fixed. And lateral force is irrelevant to the bridge parameters.
Because amplitude Q possesses the general lateral force characteristics, it is fur-
35
ther expected that Q also has a similar form of force-speed relationship as peak
lateral force model. Thus hypothesis expression is created by scaling Eq.5.7.
The exponential component does not change when scaling, so to scale the equa-
tion one set of input and output data is needed. Data (Q = 14kN, c = 14m/s)
from C1 is selected. Please note only C1 was used in creating the hypothesis
expression so C3 and C9 remains available for the verification.
The hypothesis expression for amplitude Q, which is the result of scaling, is
presented in Eq.5.10.
Q = 1928 c0.7495 (5.10)
Please note that this hypothesis expression is created based on a specifically cho-
sen simulation case C1. To be scientific, expression based on other simulations
will be investigated in Section.5.7.
5.6 Benchmark for the model

Since amplitude Q is a function of train speed c, the explicit solution is fully
derived and only contains basic parameters. This sections aims to validate the
capability of the explicit solution in yielding reasonable output.
New simulation cases7 C12,C13,C148 are selected to take part in validation
process. They are presented in Figure.5.7, 5.8 and 5.9 respectively. As men-
tioned above, C3 and C9 are also available for the validation, therefore there
are altogether 5 sets of simulation can be used for validation.
The explicit solution is solved by inputing bridge parameters and trains speed
of these 5 cases(C3,C9,C12,C13,C14). The results and their corresponding pa-
rameters are presented in Table.5.3.
To clearer illustrate the comparison of both peak results from simulation and ex-
plicit solution, Figure.5.10 is created with rearranged order to make descending
trend more obvious.
Benchmark conclusion It can be seen that explicit solution results always

keep a conservative margin above the numerical simulation results.
Difference between explicit solution and numerical simulation result for C12,C13
and C14 is bigger compared to difference for C9 and C3. It is due to the fact that
7 To assure conservativeness during the validation process, only axle repeat pattern res-
onance simulations are selected because their output are more pronounced than kinematic
resonance effect.[8]
8 Abbreviation in original research. These abbreviation will continually be used in the
following paragraphs.
36
27:JUL:94
12:24
VAMPIRE NON-LINEAR TRANSIENT ANALYSIS
1 .479
470.0 I'll
I'll I'll
-1 .48
Passenger train, 55.6m/s

Passenger t rai n, 58.1m/s
Passenger train, 64.Sm/s
Figure C12: Mid span lateral displacement, 54m, 1/10000, G tonne/m bridge
eS:JAN:95
VAMPIRE NON-LINEAR TRANSIENT ANALYSIS 20:58
1.4139
470.0 Pl
Passenger train. stiffness 1/7BBB

Passenger train. bridge stiffness I/IBBBB
Passenger train. bridge stiffness 1/12BBB
Figure (13: Mid span lateral displacement, 54[11. 6 t/[11 bridge. 200 km/h
'.:
01 :FEB:95
VAMPIRE NON-LINEAR TRANSIENT ANALYSIS 10:54
1166
469.9 m
- .117
ETR500 train, 65.0m/s

ETR500 trai n, 71.7r>'i/S
ETR500 train, 80.0m/s
F10ure
v
C14: Mid soan
, lateral di sol
, acement, 38m, 1/10000, 10 tonne/m "'riO'QC
v ... .J v
Figure 5.9: Figure C14 extracted from D181Committee [8]. An minor error is observed
in y-axis label. Upper boundary of y-axis should be 0.116
the amplitude Q is calculated based on freight train lateral forces and freight
37
Table 5.3: Comparison of results of simulation output and analytical output using
refined load model
Simulation cases
Parameters C3 C9 C12 C13 C14
EJ(0/t) 1/4000 1/10000 1/10000 1/12000 1/10000
l(m) 54 120 54 54 38
(kg/m) 6000 6000 6000 6000 10000
c(m/s) 16.67 14 55.6 55.6 65
1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Train Freight Freight Passenger Passenger High
speed
Track Freight Freight Passenger Passenger High
speed
PSD(mm) 12.5 17.8 1.48 1.41 0.117
RES(mm) 14.1 19.7 6.6 5.8 3.0
PSD: Peak simulation displacement

RES: Result of the explicit solution
19.7
20
17.8
14.1
12.5
10
6.6 5.8
3
1.48 1.41
0.12
0
C9 C3 C12 C13 C14

Result of explicit solution Peak displacement of numerical simulation
Figure 5.10: Comparison between VAMPIRE peak simulation result and analytical
peak result
trains induce greater lateral force compared to passenger trains and high speed
trains(See Figure.5.4).
The descending trend of explicit solution results follows the descending trend of
numerical simulation results perfectly regardless of train types.
Thus considering above reasons, the model shows satisfying performance. How-
ever, since there are few data available as benchmark, this model is still not
38
verified for real-life application.
5.7 Supplementary parameter calculation and bench-

mark
Although the hypothesis expression based on C1 has been validated, this pro-
cess is not generic because C1 is chosen specifically. To be scientific it is also
necessary to derive expression of amplitude Q based on other 5 simulation cases.
The load equivalent amplitude of other 5 setups are calculated and their constant
component are presented in the Table.5.4. Their corresponding benchmarks are
presented in Table.5.5. Calculation processes are omitted because they are
conducted in the same way as C1-based amplitude Q.
Table 5.4: Constant component of amplitude Q(N ) from all available setups
C1 C3 C9 C12 C13 C14

1928 1721 1760 427 463 228
Table 5.5: Benchmark of explicit solution results

Analytical results of cases
Base simu- C1 C3 C9 C12 C13 C14
lation cases
for Q
C1 0.0145 0.0141 0.0197 0.0066 0.0058 0.003
C3 0.013 0.0125 0.0174 0.0059 0.0051 0.0036
C9 0.013 0.0128 0.0178 0.0061 0.0053 0.0032
C12 0.0032 0.0031 0.0043 0.00148 0.0013 0.0008
C13 0.0035 0.0034 0.0047 0.0016 0.00141 0.0002
C14 0.0021 0.0020 0.0028 0.0010 0.0008 0.00012
Simulation 0.014 0.0125 0.0178 0.00148 0.00141 0.00012
Peak Dis-
placement
Among all amplitude Q, the one created from C1 is most satisfying because
its outputs are all conservative towards numerical simulation output. Other
amplitude shows at least one nonconservative output.
It can also be observed that the results of C12,C13 and C14 are unacceptable due
to the reason that their output are too small compared to numerical simulation
output . They cant predict reliable result for C1,C3 and C9.
Since there is few data available, its meaningless to conduct further statistical
procedures. The rest of the thesis will use amplitude Q base C1 because it is
conservative on all benchmark.
39
5.8 Evaluation on the model
A simplified model for checking lateral resonance response of railway bridge
is developed in this chapter. This model is capable of simulating a resonance
scenario where the bridge is passed by a moving railway vehicle. However,
several disadvantages of the current model should be noted:
1. Only one concentrated force is modeled to represent the lateral dynamic
effect induced by railway vehicle. It means the load in the model can not
represent the distribution of vehicle axle forces.
2. Amplitude Q is calculated based on a specifically chosen numerical sim-
ulation case. However, the aim of the model is to generically simulate
vehicle-bridge response behavior, and such specifically choosing may be
against this principle of generic.
3. The model is not fully validated because of the small quantity of avail-
able simulation results for validation. These simulation scenarios can not
represent generic real-life scenarios.
4. The model is not calibrated for modern Dutch railway because model
parameter Q is based on data generated by old railway vehicles.9
9 Simulations[8] were conducted during 1990s using parameters extracted from real trains
at the time. Compared to trains of 1990s, modern railway vehicles possess more sophisti-
cated suspension systems designed to suppress the lateral motion of the vehicle thus they are
expected to induce lower lateral forces to tracks.
40
Chapter 6
Practical usage of simplified

model
In practical usage, the speed that generates the highest peak response is un-
known. Thus it is necessary to obtain the peak response for all speeds within
the possible speed range. This is done by iteratively solving the explicit solu-
tion Eq.5.2 with a speed range. The increment in speed iteration is set in a way
that ensures at least 1000 runs are done to guarantee precession. An example
is illustrated as follows to show the usage on a real bridge project.
A case study is done to illustrate the work flow in using the simplified model.
Matlab scripts are written to automate the process. Scripts are presented in
Appendix.G.
6.1 Case study

For an arch railway bridge located near Amsterdam, first step to is to collect
following parameters:
L = 255m, m = 5222e3kg, = 2.0478e4kg/m, EJ = 6.56e12N m2
where:
L: span of the bridge
: uniform mass per unit length of the bridge
EJ: lateral stiffness of the bridge
to test through a speed range of 1m/s 30m/s
41
By inputting following command into Matlab console1 ,
>>Speedenvelop(6.56e12,255,2.0478e4,1,30,0.01)
the envelop for displacement is generated and illustrated in Figure.6.1
102
1.1
1
Deflection(m)
0.9
0.8
0 10 20 30
v(m/s)
Figure 6.1: Peak deflection at mid-span with regard to changing train speed. Parame-
ters: EJ = 6.56e12N m2 , L = 255m, = 20478kg/m, cmin = 1m/s, cmax = 30m/s
The plot shows that the critical speed appears at approximately 5m/s and
corresponding peak deflection response is approximately 11mm.
Since the relationship between end support rotation angle and mid-span deflec-
tion is widely known as:
3
= 0
L
and rotation is yielded as:
3
= 0.011 = 0.00013
255
This value is much lower than the rotation value regulated in EN1991-2. See
Section.A.3.3.1 for criteria details.
Thus the conclusion can be made that this bridge is safe subjected to lateral
dynamic load.
1 Before beginning the calculation, make sure fog.m and Speedenvelop.m are in current
working directory.
42
6.2 Conclusion
A general conclusion of practical method is, for a certain bridge, faster train
speed does not necessary result in higher resonance response of the bridge. As
can be seen in Figure.6.1, critical speed appears at approximately 5m/s, and
response start to fall when speed is higher than 5m/s. This means compar-
ing to higher load amplitude caused by higher train speed, the shorter loading
time caused by same reason is more dominating. By considering the fact in Fig-
ure.5.10 that the explicit solution is even more conservative for higher speed. Tt
can be concluded that high-speed trains cause less dynamic problem for lateral
bridge dynamics.
Matlab scripts are already written and attached for the convenience of designers.
Since the explicit solution has been given in the chapter, its completely possible
to adopt them in other mathematical software for different preferences.
43
Chapter 7
Conclusion
This thesis successfully fulfilled the required tasks in the research objectives and
question.
To assist the design of a long-span bridge of Iv-infra, a simplified model for
assessing lateral bridge resonance behavior is developed in this thesis. This
model is validated to be conservative and reasonable by benchmark.
However, due to the lack of data available in creating the model, the model
is not validated to be applied universally on real-life project. Currently it has
following disadvantages:
1. Only one concentrated force is modeled to represent the lateral dynamic
effect induced by railway vehicle. It means the load in the model can not
represent the distribution of vehicle axle forces.
2. Amplitude Q is calculated based on a specifically chosen numerical sim-
ulation case. However, the aim of the model is to generically simulate
vehicle-bridge response behavior, and such specifically choosing may be
against this principle of generic.
3. The model is not fully validated because of the small quantity of avail-
able simulation results for validation. These simulation scenarios can not
represent generic real-life scenarios.
4. The model is not calibrated for modern Dutch railway because model
parameter Q is based on data generated by old railway vehicles.1
5. The longest bridge in numerical simulation is 120m long. Thus the model
is not validated for bridges longer than 120m.
1 Simulations[8] were conducted during 1990s using parameters extracted from real trains
at the time. Compared to trains of 1990s, modern railway vehicles possess more sophisti-
cated suspension systems designed to suppress the lateral motion of the vehicle thus they are
expected to induce lower lateral forces to tracks.
44
Despite the disadvantages of the current model, it provides a direction of an-
alyzing lateral dynamics of railway bridges which is different from nowadays
available analyzing techniques. It offers a simple approach to avoid heavy nu-
merical simulations during the analysis and therefore, saves the effort and cost
for designers. The model shall be regarded as a prototype that can be improved
and expanded by future researches. See Chapter.8 for details of recommenda-
tions for future researches.
45
Chapter 8
Recommendations for
future researches
The recommendations aims to guide future researches to be conducted according

to the disadvantages mentioned in previous chapter.
General recommendations:
1. Improve the model by make more sophisticated assumption to better re-
flect real-life scenario. For example: use more than one concentrated force
to represent the lateral dynamic load.
2. It is recommended to use a larger database when determining the expres-
sion for parameters.
3. Conduct more numerical simulations to provide database for the sake of
creation and validation of the model. See Section.8.1 for detailed expla-
nation on how to conduct these simulations.
8.1 Recommendations on numerical simulations

More accurate statistical result can be yielded with more simulation data. Since
now only 6 sets of data are used, the simplified model is not globally reliable.
However, it is recommended that future research uses a larger simulation data
base to further improve the accuracy of the model.
It is possible to modify the amplitude of the model to a less conservative value
according to newly conducted simulations. It is expected that newly conducted
simulations yield smaller lateral force on tracks because of the advanced suspen-
sion systems implemented in modern vehicle designs and better track quality.
46
Therefore, numerical simulations are recommended to be conducted according
to following suggestions:
1. Use more realistic and up-to-date data on modern Dutch train vehicles
and railway. The result will help the model to be applicable for Dutch
bridges.
2. Investigate over a broader range of bridge span(greater than 150m).
47
Appendices
48
Appendix A
Literature Review of
regulations regarding
lateral railway bridge
dynamics in 1991-2
Eurocode 1990 and Eurocode 1991-2 and their corresponding National Annex
are primary codes to be fulfilled through out the whole process of conducting a
railway bridge in Netherlands. It is of great importance to study dynamic effect
on railway bridges due to increasing usage of public train service.
This literature review aims to filter out criteria and requirements related to
lateral railway bridge dynamics in EN1991-2.
A.1 Factors influencing dynamic behaviour

As stated inCEN [4, 6.4.2] there are 11 factors influencing dynamic behaviour
of a railway bridge. The principal factors which influence dynamic behaviour
are:
- the speed of traffic across the bridge
- the span L of the element and the influence line length for deflection of
the element being considered
- the mass of the structure
- the natural frequencies of the whole structure and relevant elements of the
structure and the associated mode shapes (eigenforms) along the line of
49
the track
- the number of axles, axle loads and the spacing of axles
- the damping of the structure
- vertical irregularities in the track
- the unsprung/sprung mass and suspension characteristics of the vehicle
- the presence of regularly spaced supports of the deck slab and/or track
(cross girders, sleepers etc.)
- vehicle imperfections (wheel flats, out of round wheels, suspension defects
etc.)
- the dynamic characteristics of the track (ballast, sleepers, track compo-
nents etc.)
Other factors may include:

1. The track number of the bridge and their alignment.
2. Multiple trains running on bridge simultaneously.
3. Track alignment
A.2 Requirements for railway bridge verifica-

tion
CEN [5] propose following requirements. Criteria regarding lateral direction are
bolded.
1. Checks on bridge deformations shall be performed for traffic safety pur-
poses for the following items:
- vertical accelerations of the deck
- vertical deflection of the deck throughout each span
- unrestrained uplift at the bearings(to avoid premature bearing fail-
ure)
- vertical deflection of the end of the deck beyond bearings(to avoid
destabilising the track, limit uplift forces on rail fastening systems
and limit additional rail stresses)
- twist of the deck measured along the centre line of each track on the
approaches to a bridge and across a bridge(to minimise the risk of
train derailment)
50
- rotation of the ends of each deck about a transverse axis or the rel-
ative total rotation between adjacent deck ends(to limit additional
rail stresses, limit uplift forces on rail fastening systems and limit
angular discontinuity at expansion devices and switch blades)
- longitudinal displacement of the end of the upper surface of the deck
due to longitudinal displacement and rotation of the deck end(to limit
additional rail stresses and minimise disturbance to track ballast and
adjacent track formation)
- horizontal transverse deflection(to ensure acceptable hori-
zontal track radii)
- horizontal rotation of a deck about a vertical axis at ends of
a deck (to ensure acceptable horizontal track geometry and
passenger comfort)
- limits on the first natural frequency of lateral vibration of
the span to avoid the occurrence of resonance between the
lateral motion of vehicles on their suspension and the bridge
2. Checks on bridge deformations should be performed for passenger comfort,
i.e. vertical deflection of the deck to limit coach body acceleration in
accordance with A2.4.4.3CEN [5]
3. The limits given in A2.4.4.2 and A2.4.4.3CEN [5] take into account the
mitigating effects of track maintenance (for example to overcome the ef-
fects of the settlement of foundations, creep, etc.)
A.3 Horizontal transverse dynamic effects

Theres only one criterion in the Eurocodes mentiones that the bridges first
lateral natural frequency should not be lower that 1.2 Hz.
However, as more and more long-span bridges are built nowadays, this require-
ment is not valid for more bridges. This is because, in general, the lateral
natural frequency of a bridge decreases when span increases. For bridges with
span longer than 150m, theres few bridge can have a lateral frequency higher
than 1.2Hz, according to senior engineers designing experience.
So it is vital to discuss horizontal dynamic effects for the sake of longer span
bridges. In addition, a study has been carried out on the requirements for
horizontal vibration of railway bridges to make the results of dynamic analysis
usable.
51
A.3.1 Nosing force
Nosing force is defined in Eurocode 1991-2. Its original background can be found
in D181Committee [7, Proposed criteria]. It is defined as a representation of
actions, in combine with actions like vertical loads, dynamic effects, centrifugal
forces, traction and braking forces, etc.
The evidence of RP6 is the background of nosing force in EN1991-2 is the
following repeating literature:
In CEN [4, 6.5.2]:
(1)P The nosing force shall be taken as a concentrated force acting
horizontally, at the top of the rails, perpendicular to the centre-line
of track. It shall be applied on both straight track....
In D181Committee [7, 4.1B]:
These forces shall be applied at the top of the rails in the most
unfavourable position and acting horizontally, perpendicular to the
track centreline...
With another statement also helps proofing RP6 is the background of nosing
force in EN1991-2 in D181Committee [7, 4:Draft Recommendations]:
These can therefore be expressed as follows: (Article 6.5.2 of ENV
1991-3 of 1994)...
ENV 1991-3 was renamed to EN 1991-2 in 2003.
Originally in D181Committee [7, 4:Draft Recommendations], nosing forces was
defined as lateral forces from vehicle/bridge interaction as a result of hunting.
The characteristic value of the nosing force shall be taken as Qsk = 100kN . It
shall not be multiplied by the factor (CEN [4, 6.45]) or by the factor f in
CEN [4, 6.51].
The characteristic value of the nosing force should be multiplied by the factor
in accordance with CEN [4, 6.3.2] for values of 1
The nosing force shall always be combined with a vertical traffic load.
A.3.2 Verification of the Limit States
CEN [4, 6.4.6.5] proposes following principles to be followed during design:

To ensure traffic safety:
1. The verification of maximum peak deck acceleration shall be regarded as
a traffic safety requirement checked at the serviceability limit state for the
prevention of track instability
52
2. The dynamic enhancement of load effects shall be allowed for by multiply-
ing the static loading by the dynamic factor defined in CEN [4, 6.4.5]. If
a dynamic analysis is necessary, the results of the dynamic analysis shall
be compared with the results of the static analysis enhanced by (and if
required multiplied by in accordance with CEN [4, 6.3.2]) and the most
unfavourable load effects shall be used for the bridge design.
3. If a dynamic analysis is necessary, a check shall be carried out according
to CEN [4, 6.4.6.6] to establish whether the additional fatigue loading at
high speeds and at resonance is covered by consideration of the stresses
due to load effects from LM 71 (and if required LoadM odelSW/0
for continuous structures and classified vertical load in accordance with
CEN [4, 6.3.2(3)] where required). The most adverse fatigue loading shall
be used in the design.
A.3.3 Serviceability limit states - traffic safety
A.3.3.1 Transverse deformations and vibrations
199 [1, A2.4.4.2.4] proposed that transverse deformation and vibration of the
deck shall be checked for characteristic combinations of Load Model 71 and
SW/0 as appropriate multiplied by the dynamic factor and (or real train
with the relevant dynamic factor if appropriate), wind loads, nosing force, cen-
trifugal forces in accordance with CEN [4, 6] and the effect of a transverse
temperature differential across the bridge.
The transverse deflection h at the top of the deck should be limited to ensure:
1. a horizontal angle of rotation of the end of a deck about a vertical axis
not greater than the values given in Table. A.1 , or
2. the change of radius of the track across a deck is not greater than the
values in Table. A.1 , or
3. at the end of a deck the differential transverse deflection between the deck
and adjacent track formation or between adjacent decks does not exceed
the specified value
The first natural frequency of lateral vibration of a span should not
be less than fh0 . The value for fh0 may be defined in the National
Annex. The recommended value is: fh0 = 1.2Hz
Evidence of D181Committee [7] is the origin of CEN [4, A.2.4.4.2.4(3)] is found
in D181Committee [7, p4.2: Lateral Frequencies]:
In order to avoid the phenomena of lateral resonance in vehicles, the
first natural frequency of lateral vibration of the span flt such that:
53
Speed range V(km/h) Maximum
Maximum change of radius of curvature
hor-
i-
zon-
tal
ro-
ta-
tion(radian)
Single deck Multi-deck bridge
V 120 1 r1 r4
120 V 200 2 r2 r5
V > 200 3 r3 r6
NOTE 1 The change of the radius of curvature may be determined using:
L2
r=
8h
NOTE 2 The transverse deformation includes the deformation of the bridge
deck and the substructure(including piers, piles and foundations).
NOTE 3 The values for the set of i and ri may be defined in the National
Annex. The recommended values are:
1 = 0.0035; 2 = 0.0020; 3 = 0.0015;
r1 = 1700; r2 = 6000; r3 = 14000;
r4 = 3500; r5 = 9500; r6 = 17500
Table A.1: Maxiumum horizontal rotation and maximum change of radius of curvature
flt 1.2Hz
Until now theres no further instructions in EN1991-2 for bridges which can not
pass 1.2Hz criterion. However, for bridges longer than 100 meters, they are
almost guaranteed to fail 1.2Hz criterion.
A.4 Conclusion
By reviewing EN1991-2 thoroughly, it is found that there are altogether two
regulations regarding lateral dynamics of railway bridges. They are:
1. Nosing force(action)
2. 1.2Hz criterion
Although vertical dynamics of railway bridges is focused a lot, theres only two
statements about lateral dynamics of railway bridges. Whats more, theres no
quantifying criteria even if a dynamic analysis is done.
54
These two regulations have the same background documents: D181 report series.
The analysis of D181 report series will be carried out in following chapter.
55
Appendix B
General information of
report series D181 and its
selected documents
B.1 Structure of report series

Reports involved in the series are listed below in the order of publishing time:
1. RP 1: Summaries of national standards and literature survey
2. RP 2: Submitted programs and example of application
3. RP 3: Dynamic measurements on the steel bridge over the Brenta river
on the MilanVenice line at 234 + 0.963 km
4. RP 4: Dynamic measurements on steel bridges over the Vh river by Sala
on the MarcheggSzob line at 117 748 km
5. DT 312: Etude de linfluence de la frquence du filtre sur les valeurs mesures
des forces verticales et latrales sur les rails
6. RP 5: Dynamic measurements on the metal arched bridge on PKP
7. DT 313: Analyse des dformations latrales dun pont souple (cas du PONT
de LIXHE) Ligne SNCB de TONGRESMONTZEN par J.J. REBER SBB
Bau GD
8. DT 329: Parametric study Part 1: Parametric study Initial phase (Septem-
ber 1994) Part 2: Parametric study Phase 2 (February 1995) Authors:
L.T. James and G.A. Scott
9. RP 6: Final Report
56
In this thesis document DT 329 and document RP 6 are obtained and studied,
but other reports in English version are not available to the researcher.
B.2 Modelling of Parametric Research DT329

A special version of VAMPIRE with bridge module implemented was used to
run simulation analysis.
For an overview of modelling setup in both research phases, see Figure B.1.
Following paragraphs will give details of modelling.
bridge model
(span, stiffness, mass)
Phase I: all researches
vehicle parameters
resonant study
3 track profiles Phase II:
viaduct study
fixed conicity 0.05
coefficient of friction 0.3
bridge model
(span, stiffness, mass)
vehicle parameters
Phase II: track quality study
14 track profiles
conicity 0.05 , 0.2 , 0.4
coefficient of friction 0.3
Figure B.1: Overview of modelling setups for different studies conducted in DT329
B.2.1 Model of bridge
The bridge cases were modelled by assuming the bridges to behave as simply
supported uniform beams. Transverse beam theory was then used to determine
the frequencies and mode shapes of vibration for a given combination of span,
mass per unit length and flexural rigidity. The modal information for the bridge
was then used in a Normal Modes analysis of the bridge.
For each case, all lateral modes of vibration up to and including 20 Hz were
used. In order to prevent this artificially over-simplifying the model, if fewer
than five modes were 20 Hz or less, all of the first five were used.
B.2.2 Bridge parameters
The spans considered were: 20 m, 33 m, 54 m, 90 m and 120 m. The flexibilities,

defined as deflection of mid span over span length due to a static point load of
57
4 DATA USED
4.1 Bridge Parameters
The Committee wish to know the effects of varying span length, flexibility, and mass per
unit length on the lateral dynamics at mid span. The spans to be considered are: 20 m,
33 m, 54 m, 90 m and 120 m. The flexibilities, defined as deflection of mid span over span
length due to a static point load of 100 kN at mid span, are: 114000, 1/10000, and 1120000.
100
ThekNmass
at mid
perspan, are: 1/4000,
unit lengths 1/10000,
required are: 2and 1/20000.6 The
tonnes/m, mass per
tonnes/m, andunit
10 tonnes/m.
lengths required are: 2 tonnes/m, 6 tonnes/m, and 10 tonnes/m.
However,
For the initialfor the initial
phase, phase,
see Figure B.2 aforselection of of
a selection eleven
elevenofofthe
thepossible
possible combinations are
combinations
examined: examined.
Span Flexibility Mass/Length Cases

20 1110000 6 36-40, 52
33 1110000 6 41-43
54 114000 2 16-20
54 114000 10 21-25
54 1110000 2 1-5
54 1110000 6 6-10
54 1110000 10 11-15
54 1120000 2 26-30
54 1120000 10 31-35
90 1110000 6 44-46
120 1110000 6 47-51
4.2 Vehicle Parameters

Figure B.2: Bridge parameter combination
Three train types are considered: a typical freight train, a typical standard passenger train,
and a typical high speed passenger train. Appendix 2 details the parameters used to construct
B.2.3 Vehicle parameters
each model. In general, each model consists of a locomotive and a number of identical
vehicles appropriate to the train type. The total number of axles in each train is 24.
Three train types are considered: a typical freight train, a typical standard
Although effects
passenger train, and on the train
a typical highare onlypassenger
speed examined on the
train. first vehicle
Appendix.C of each type, extra
details
vehicles are added to the train to see what cumulative effects occur to
the parameters used to construct each model. In general, each model consists of the bridge.
a locomotive and a number of identical vehicles appropriate to the train type.
Thetotal
The freight trainofconsists
number axles in of a British
each train is Railways Classeffects
24. Although 56 locomotive
on the trainand
arenine UIC wagons.
This
only has a total
examined length
on the firstof 131.56
vehicle m, which
of each type, assumes a nominal
extra vehicles vehicle
are added coupling distance of
to the
4 m.to Runs
train at 60
see what km/h andeffects
cumulative 100 km/h
occur are required.
to the bridge.
The freight train consists of a British Railways Class 56 locomotive and nine
UIC wagons. This has a total length of 131.56 m, which assumes a nominal
vehicle coupling distance of 4 m. Runs at 60 km/h and 100 km/h are required.
The standard passenger train consists of an E444 locomotive and five UIC
8 958223/01
coaches. This has a total length of 143.8 m. It is based on one of two train
58
models used as part of the study of the FS Bridge discussed in report RP 3 of
the Committee, differing only by the addition of three extra coaches. This is
required to run at 160 km/h and 200 km/h.
The high speed passenger train consists of an ETR500 locomotive and five
ETR500 coaches, having a total length of 145.8 m. It is based on the other
FS bridge study train model mentioned above, differing from the original by an
additional three ETR500 coaches. It is required to run at 300 km/h and 350
km/h.
B.2.4 Track
For initial study phase, the track samples used were consistent with each train
type. PSD plots of each are shown in Figures C.13 to C.15. Sample TRACK-
FRT.DAT was used for all analysis runs for the freight train. This is measured
data from a typical BR freight line. Sample TRACKPN.DAT was used for the
standard passenger train analysis runs. This is measured data from a part of
the BR East Coast main line. Sample TRACKPH.DAT was used for high speed
passenger train analysis runs. This is measured data from a typical DB high
speed line.
Samples of 500 m were chosen so that there would be 100 m before the bridge
and at least 100 m after the bridge for all combinations of span and train length.
The initial 100 m is required to check vehicle behaviour on the track irregularity
alone, and the portion after the train has left the bridge is required to check
that the bridge vibrations decay.
For secondary study phase, the track data used to excite the mathematical
models was taken from the British Rail Research library of measured track
data. For the viaduct and resonance investigations, the track files used were
the same as those used in the first part of the study. For the investigation of
the influence of track quality, additional track data was used so as to give the
widest possible range of realistic track qualities.
B.2.5 Contact data
For each run the same contact data was used, consisting of rails inclined at 1:20,
and wheel profiles of conicity of 0.05 (based on standard British Rail 113A rails
and PI wheel profiles). The coefficient of friction applied was 0.3.
B.2.6 Data produced
For every analysis run the following results were obtained at intervals of 0.01
seconds.
59
BRIDGE DATA:
Lateral displacement at mid span Lateral acceleration at mid span
VEHICLE LATERAL ACCELERATION DATA:

Loco body at leading pivot
Leading coach/wagon body at leading pivot/axle
Loco leading bogie
Leading coach/wagon leading bogie/axle
TOTAL LATERAL FORCE DATA:

Loco leading bogie
Leading coach/wagon leading bogie/axle
LATERAL FORCES ON INDIVIDUAL WHEELS

Leading coach/wagon, first axle, left and right wheels
Leading coach/wagon, second axle, left and right wheels
Loco, first axle, left and right wheels
Loco, second axle, left and right wheels
In addition, for freight train runs, since the locomotive has two bogies of three
axles, the forces on the individual wheels of the third axle were also produced.
Peak values for each of the outputs produced for the required ranges were ob-
tained. For bridge outputs, peak values were taken for the period where any
part of the train was on the bridge. For loco and leading coach/wagon outputs,
peak values were taken whilst the vehicle in question was in contact with the
bridge.
Peak values for each output were then read into a spread sheet where they could
be compared more easily to check for emerging trends. The spread sheet has
been partially automated to produce graphs of a single output for each train
type for a single varying bridge parameter, for given values of the other bridge
parameters. Figures 4 to 30 of original D181Committee [8] report show typical
plots which have been produced in this manner.
60
Appendix C
Plots and diagrams used in

D181 DT 329
dist Speed
Freight train: Principle axle repeat patterns
m 60 km/h 100 km/h
wagon n axle 2 - wagon n+1 axle 1 4.00 4.17 6.94
wagon wheelbase 9.00 1.85 3.09
wagon n axle m - wagon n+1 axle m 13.0 1.28 2.14
wagon n axle m - wagon n+2 axle m 26.0 0.64 1.07
dist Speed
Passenger train: Principle axle repeat patterns
m 160 km/h 200 km/h
coach n axle 1 - 2, and coach n axle 3 - 4 2.56 17.36 21.70
coach n axle m - coach n+1 axle m 26.4 1.68 2.10
dist Speed
ETR 500 train: Principle axle repeat patterns
m 300 km/h 350 km/h
coach n axle 1 - 2 and coach n axle 3-4 3.0 27.78 32.41
Table C.1: Axle repeat patterns and typical frequencies. Extracted from
D181Committee [8, Appendix C]
61
Kinematic wavelength, m Freight train Passenger train ETR500 train
Locomotive 39 - 45 32 - 38 39 - 45
Coach/wagon 24 - 39 34 - 38 36 - 40
Table C.2: Kinematic wavelength ranges per vehicle, with BR P1 profiles. Extracted
from D181Committee [8, Appendix C]
62
ERRI D 181IDT 329 Appendix 2
VEHICLE MODEL PARAMETER LISTS
VEHICLE TIITLE BR CLASS 56 LOCOMOTIVE
MASSES & INERTIAS
Number of bogies 2
Number of axles (per bogie) 3
Body mass 81.2 Mg

Body roll inertia lO7.0 Mgm2
Body pitch inertia 1400.0 Mgm2
Body yaw inertia 1400.0 Mgm2
Bogie mass 5.6 Mg

Bogie roll inertia 5.0 Mgm2
Bogie pitch inertia 21.6 Mgm2
Bogie yaw inertia 21.6 Mgm2
Wheel set mass 2.2 Mg

Whcelset roll and yaw inertia 2.7 Mgm2
DIMENSIONS
Semi pivot spacing 5.19 m

Semi wheelbase 2.09 m
Wheel radius 0.57 m
Body centre of gravity height above rail level 1.85 m
Bogic centre of gravity height above rail level 0.86 m
PRIMARY SUSPENSION
Lateral stiffness (per axle) 0.1 MN/m

Vertical stiffness (per axle) 2.63 MN/m
Yaw stiffness (per axle) 29.0 MNm/r
Lateral damper rate (per axle) - MNs/m

Vertical damper rate (per axle) 0.05 MNs/m
Vertical friction breakout (per axle) - KN
Height above rail level of lateral springs 0.67 m

Lateral semi spacing of vertical springs 1.035m
Height above rail level of lateral dampers -m
Lateral semi spacing of vertical dampers 1.035 m
Lateral semi spacing of vertical friction -m
958223/01 1
Figure C.1: BR CLASS 56 LOCOMOTIVE. Extract from D181Committee [8, Ap-

pendix 2]
63
iN
Appendix 2
SECONDARY SUSPENSION
Lateral stiffness (per bogie) 0.77 MN/m

Vertical stiffness (per bogie) 2.72 MN/m
Roll bar stiffness (per bogie) - MNmlr
Yaw stiffness (per bogie) 1,22 MNmlr
Lateral damper rate (per bogie) 0.084 MNs/m

Vertical damper rate (per bogie) 0.15 MNs/m
Yaw damper rate (per bogie) 0.055 MNms/r
Height above rail level of lateral springs l.31 m

Lateral semi spacing of vertical springs l.062 m
Height above rail level of lateral dampers 1.06 m
Lateral semi spacing of vertical dampers l.062 m
2 958223/01
Figure C.2: BR CLASS 56 LOCOMOTIVE. Extract from D181Committee [8, Ap-

pendix 2]
64
$
Appendix 2
VEHICLE TITLE mc FREIGHT WAGON (LADEN)
MASSES & INERTIAS
Number of bogies
Number of axles (per wagon) 2
Body mass 41.0 Mg

Body roll inertia 3S.0 Mgm2
Body pitch inertia SOO.O Mgm2
Body yaw inertia SOO.O Mgm2
Bogie mass - Mg
Bogie roll inertia - Mgm2
Bogie pitch inertia - Mgm2
Bogie yaw inertia - Mgm2

Wheelset roll and yaw inertia 1.7 Mgm2
DIMENSIONS
Semi pivot spacing -m

Semi wheelbase 4.S m
Wheel radius 0.46 m
Body centre of gravity height above rail level I.S m
Bogie centre of gravity height above rail level -m
IF'RXMARY SUSPENSION
Lateral stiffness (per axle) 1.S MN/m

Lateral damper rate (per axle) 0.034 MNs/m

Vertical damper rate (per axle) - MNs/m
Vertical friction breakout (per axle) 3.0KN

Lateral semi spacing of vertical springs 1.0 m
Lateral semi spacing of vertical dampers -m
Lateral semi spacing of vertical friction 1.0 m
958223/01 3
Figure C.3: UIC FREIGHT WAGON (LADEN). Extract from D181Committee [8,
Appendix 2]
65
Appendix 2
Lateral stiffness (per bogie) - MN/m

Vertical stiffness (per bogie) - MN/m
Roll bar stiffness (per bogie) - MNm/r
Yaw stiffness (per bogie) -MNm/r
Lateral damper rate (per bogie) - MNs/m

Vertical damper rate (per bogie) - MNs/m
Yaw damper rate (per bogie) - MNms/r
I-Ieight above rail level of lateral springs -m

Lateral semi spacing of vertical springs -m
Lateral semi spacing of vertical dampers -m
4 958223{Ol
Figure C.4: UIC FREIGHT WAGON (LADEN). Extract from D181Committee [8,
Appendix 2]
66
Appendix 2
VEHICLE TITLE FS ETR500 LOCOMOTIVE
MASSES & INERTIAS
Number of bogies 2
Body mass 55.98 Mg

Body roll inertia 53.366 Mgm2
Bogie mass 3.896 Mg

Bogic roll inertia 3.115 Mgm2
Wheelset mass 2.059 Mg

Wheel set roll and yaw inertia 1.164 Mgm2
DIMENSIONS

Wheel radius 0.55 m
Bogie centre of gravity height above rail level 0.64 m
PRIMARY SUSPENSION


l'Ieight above rail level of lateral springs 0.55 m

958223/01 5
Figure C.5: FS ETR500 LOCOMOTIVE. Extract from D181Committee [8, Appendix

2]
67
Appendix 2

Roll bar stiffness (per bogie) 1.0 MNm/r
Yaw stiffness (per bogie) - MNm/r


6 958223/01
Figure C.6: FS ETR500 LOCOMOTIVE. Extract from D181Committee [8, Appendix

2]
68
Appendix 2
VEHICLE TITLE FS ETR500 COACH
MASSES & INERTIAS
Number of bogies 2
Body mass 34.23 Mg

Bogie mass 2.76 Mg

Wheelset mass 1.58 Mg

Wheelset roll and yaw inertia 0.753 Mgm 2
DIMENSIONS

Wheel radius 0.44 m
PRRMARY SUSPENSION



958223fOl 7
Figure C.7: FS ETR500 COACH. Extract from D181Committee [8, Appendix 2]
69
...
Appendix 2

Yaw stiffness (per bogie) - MNm/r
Lateral damper rate (per bogie) 0.04 MNsim

8 958223/01
Figure C.8: FS ETR500 COACH. Extract from D181Committee [8, Appendix 2]
70
Appendix 2
VEHICLE TITLE FS E444 LOCOMOTIVE
MASSES & INERTIAS
Number of bogies 2
Body mass 64.6 Mg

Bogie mass 4.0 Mg

Bogie roll inertia 3.115 Mgm 2

Wheelset roll and yaw inertia 1.164 Mgm2
DIMENSIONS

Wheel radius 0.55 m
Bogie centre of gravity height above rail level O.Mm
PRIMARY SUSPENSION

Yaw stiffness (per axle) 15.4 MNmlr


I-Ieight above rail level of lateral dampers -m
958223f01 9
Figure C.9: FS E444 LOCOMOTIVE. Extract from D181Committee [8, Appendix 2]
71
Appendix 2

Vertical stiffness (per bogie) 2.1 N/m
Roll bar stiffness (per bogie) 1.0 Nm/r
Yaw stiffness (per bogie) - Nm/r


I
I
i
I
!
II
10 958223101
Figure C.10: FS E444 LOCOMOTIVE. Extract from D181Committee [8, Appendix 2]
72
....------------------------------
<'0'
it'
Appendix 2
VlmICLE TITLE mc COACH
MASSES & INERTIAS
Number of bogies 2
Number of axles (per bogie) 2.
Body mass 32.0 Mg

Bogie mass 2.615 Mg


Wheel set roll and yaw inertia 1.30 Mgm2
DIMENSIONS

Wheel radius 0.445 m
I'lUMARY SUSPENSION

Yaw stiffness (per axle) 60.0 MNmlr


958223fOl 11
Figure C.11: UIC COACH. Extract from D181Committee [8, Appendix 2]
73
Appendix 2

Yaw stiffness (per bogie) -MNm/r


12 958223f01
,
i
Figure C.12: UIC COACH. Extract from D181Committee [8, Appendix 2]
74
Figure C.13: Horizontal track irregularities for freight trains. Extract from
D181Committee [7, Figure 2.1]
75
Figure C.14: Horizontal track irregularities for standard passenger trains. Extract
from D181Committee [7, Figure 2.1]
76
Figure C.15: Horizontal track irregularities for high speed passenger train. Extract
from D181Committee [7, Figure 2.1]
77
Appendix D
Speeds which do not

require dynamic
compatibility checks
78
prEN 15528:2013 (E)
Annex F
(informative)
Speeds which do not require dynamic compatibility checks
Table F.1 gives an overview of the relationship between Line Category/Locomotive Class, vehicle type and
maximum speed, where the verification of compatibility does not require additional dynamic checks.
Table F.1 Speed limit (in km/h) in relationship Line Category/Locomotive Class and vehicle type
Line category Freight Passenger Multiple Special

Locomotive
Locomotive class wagon carriage unit vehicle
a10 a - - - - -
a12 a - - - - -
a14 a - - - - -
A 120 120 b / 160 160 c 160 c 120
B1 120 120 b / 160 160 c 160 c 120
b
B2 120 120 / 160 - - 120
C2 120 120 b / 160 140 c 140 c 120
C3 120 120 - - 120
C4 120 120 - - 120
D2 120 120 b / 160 120 c 120 c 120
D3 120 120 - - 120
D4 120 120 - - 120
D4xL 120 d 120 - - 120 d
D5 100 - - - 100
E4 100 - - - 100
E5 100 - - - 100
E6 80 - - - 80
L4 - 120 b / 160 - - -
L6 - 120 - - -
a Light railways normal operating speeds are generally significantly less than speed at which additional
dynamic checks would need to be considered.
b Three or more adjacent couples locomotives.
c Additional values for max p (see Table F.2).
d Option.
Figure D.1: Speed limit (in km/h) Tablein

F.2relationship
Max values forLine
p (t/m)Category/Locomotive Class and
vehicle type. Extract fromLine
CEN [6, Appendix
category A F]
B1 C2 D2
max p 2,45 2,75 3,10 3,50
47
79
I ERRI D 181/RP 6 LATERAL WHEEL AND AXLE FORCES FOR BRIDGES IFig. 3.1
Wheel load Axle load
Case 1 - Freight train wagon wag:Jn wagon wagon

90 kN 90 kN
v < 120 km/h SOkN - SOkN
4,4m 4.4m
Loco. Coach LOC:J Coach

Case 2 - Normal passenger train
40 kN 65kN
35 kN
v < 200 km/h 30 kN
Sm 6m
Loco Coach Coach
70 kN 75 kN
Case 3 - High-speed passenger train
45kN SOkN
v < 350 km/h
4.4 m 4.5m
9581 48/06 77
Figure D.2: LATERAL WHEEL AND AXLE FORCES FOR BRIDGES. Extract from
D181Committee [7, Fig 3.1]
80
ERRl D 181IDT 329 Appendix 3
EXAMPLE RUN FILE
Case 7: Passenger train/track, 160kph, S4m span, 1110000 flex., 6 Mg/m Lat force, COACH I wset 2, right wheel kN
EUROLONG FR06Y
Lat force, LOCO wset I, left wheel kN
*TRANSIENT
470. 0.0010 0.01 FLOIY
Lat force, LOCO wset I, right wheel kN
44.444
FR01Y
Lat force, LOCO wset 2, left wheel kN
trackPN
*CREEP FL02Y
0.3000 0.3000 8.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Lat force, LOCO wset 2, right wheel kN
NON-LINEAR FR02Y
Lat force, LOCO wset 3, left wheel kN
stdpl
'OUTPUT FL03Y
Lat displacement of bridge @ mid span mm Lat force, LOCO wset 3, right wheel kN
1000'UOI FR03Y
Lat acceleration of bridge @ mid span m/s2 COACH S body lat accel @ leading pivot m/s2
U02 A36Y + 9.S*A36W
LOCO body lat accel @ leading pivot m/s2 COACH Slat accel of leading bogie m/s2
AOIY + 4.S*AOIW A37Y
COACH I body lat accel @ leading pivot m/s2 Total lat force on COA<::H S leading bogie kN
A08Y + 9.S*A08W FW21Y + FW22Y
LOCO lat accel of leading bogie m/s2 Lat force, COACH S wset I, left wheel kN
A02Y FL2IY
COACH I lat accel of leading bogie m/s2 Lat force, COACH S wset I, right wheel kN
A09Y FR2IY
Total lat force on LOCO leading bogie kN Lat force, COACH S wset 2, left wheel kN
FWOIY + FW02Y FL22Y
Total lat force on COACH I leading bogie kN Lat force, COACH S wset 2, right wheel kN
FWOSY + FW06Y FR22Y
Lat force, COACH 1 wset I, left wheel kN *
FLOSY
Lat force, COACH I wset 1, right wheel kN
FROSY
Lat force, COACH I wset 2, left wheel kN
FL06Y
958223f01
Figure D.3: Example run file. Extracted from D181Committee [8].
81
Appendix E
MU-Groups and
MU-Classes
E.1 Definition
Multiple units can be grouped according to type of traffic service(high speed -
long distance, intercity - regional and commuter/suburban) or to the kind of
running gear (conventional bogies, articulated bogies and single axles).
In some cases due to potential excessive dynamic load effects in bridge line
category checks are not sufficient to demonstrate compatibility. To minimise the
need for undertaking a dynamic check of individual trains, several typical and
wide spread MU-designs have been grouped in MU-classes. For these groups
of vehicles, load models covering the specified design parameter ranges have
been developed to allow the efficient dynamic analysis of bridges. For practical
reasons, the number of MU classes was limited and for trains outside the range
of parameters covered, the process of checking an individual train existing at
the time of publication of this standard as state of the art shall be used.
Each MU-class is defined by:
- ranges of train parameters covered and;
- a corresponding load model for carrying out dynamic checks on bridges.
Each MU-Group comprises of serveral MU-Classes. Table
82
MU-Group MU-Class
CB1
conventional bogie(CB)
CB2
AB1
AB2
articulated bogie(AB)
AB3
AB4
SA1
single axle(SA)
SA2
Table E.1: Relationship MU-groups - MU-classes
Name Parameter Unit

2a Bogie spacing between pivot centres within a vehicle m
2a+ Axle spacing in bogie m
u1 + u2 Bogie spacing between pivot centres of adjacent vehicles m
u3 Overhang of end coaches m
L Coa Coach length m
No Coa Number of coaches within an unit -
No Units Number of units within a train -
Table E.2: Explanation of train parameters. Extracted from CEN [6, Annex C]
E.1.1 Train parameters of MU-Class CB 1
E.1.2 Train parameters of MU-Class CB 2
E.1.3 Train parameters of MU-Class AB 1
E.1.7 Train parameters of MU-Class SA 1
E.1.8 Train parameters of MU-Class SA 2
83
prEN 15528:2013 (E)
Figure C.1 and Table C.2 provide the definition of the relevant train parameters that determine the MU-class.
Key
CB conventional bogie
AB articulated bogie
SA single axle
Figure C.1 Train parameters related to MU-Groups

Figure E.1: Train parameters related to MU-Groups. Extracted from CEN [6, Annex
Table C.2 Explanation of train parameters
C]
Name Parameter Unit
2a* Bogie spacing between pivot centres within a vehicle m
2a+ Axle spacing in bogie m

u1+u2 Bogie spacing between pivot centres of adjacent vehicles m
max
u3
No Units Overhang of end coaches2 m
max No Coa
L_Coa Coach length 8 m
No_CoaL Coa of coaches
Number23.8m LanCoa
within unit 25.3m-
No_Units 2a Number16.8m
of units within
2a 18.0m -
a train
+
2a 2m 2a+ 3m
If a real MU-train fulfils the parameters of one of the following sets the allocation to this MU-class has been
proved. (u1 + u2) 7.0m (u1 + u2) 7.6m
An example of a train checku3 against the parameters of the4m u3
MU-classes 6m
is given in C.5.
Table E.3: Train parameters for conformity with MU-Class CB 1

30
max No Units 2
max No Coa 7
L Coa 25.3m L Coa 27.5m
2a 18.0m 2a 19.5m
2a+ 2m 2a+ 3m
(u1 + u2) 7.2m (u1 + u2) 8.0m
u3 4m u3 6m
Table E.4: Train parameters for conformity with MU-Class CB 2
84
max No Units 4
max No Coa 5
2a 14.9m 2a 16.0m
2a+ 2m 2a+ 3m
u3 3m u3 5.5m
Table E.5: Train parameters for conformity with MU-Class AB 1
max No Units 4
max No Coa 5
2a 18.8m 2a 19.5m
2a+ 2m 2a+ 3m
u3 3m u3 5.5m
max No Units 2
max No Coa 11
2a 17.0m 2a 17.5m
2a+ 2m 2a+ 3m
u3 4.5m u3 5.7m
max No Units 2
max No Coa 10
2a 18.7m 2a 19.2m
2a+ 2m 2a+ 3m
u3 4.3m u3 5.3m
max No Units 3
max No Coa 10
2a 9.2m 2a 9.8m
u3 4.25m u3 6.25m
Table E.9: Train parameters for conformity with MU-Class SA 1
max No Units 2
max No Coa 14
2a 12.8m 2a 13.5m
u3 4.25m u3 6.25m
Table E.10: Train parameters for conformity with MU-Class SA 2
85
Appendix F
Regression commands for R

console
> F < c (0 ,110 ,170 ,185)

> v < c (0 ,60 ,100 ,120)
> f < function ( a , b , v ) { avb}
> dat < data . frame ( v , F)
> dat
v F
1 0 0
2 60 110
3 100 170
4 120 185
> fm < n l s (F f ( a , b , v ) , data = dat , s t a r t = c ( a=1, b=1))

> fm
N o n l i n e a r r e g r e s s i o n model
model : F f ( a , b , v )
data : dat
a b
5.2064 0.7498
r e s i d u a l sum of s q u a r e s : 4 7 . 8 4
Number o f i t e r a t i o n s t o c o n v e r g e n c e : 6
Achieved c o n v e r g e n c e t o l e r a n c e : 2 . 8 6 8 e 0 6
86
Appendix G
Matlab scripts
G.1 fog.m
% This s c r i p t i s t h e main u t i l i t y t o f u n c t i o n automated
b r i d g e l a t e r a l dynamic r e s p o n s e e v a l u a t i o n
f u n c t i o n O=f o g ( EJ , l , mu, c , z e t a )
i f EJ<1
EJ = 100000 l 2 / ( 4 8 EJ ) ;
end
omega1 = p i 2/ l 2 s q r t ( EJ/mu) ;
omega = p i c / l ;
omegab = z e t a s q r t ( EJ/mu) ;
omegab = 0 . 5 z e t a omega1 ;
% omegab = omega1 s q r t ( 1 z e t a 2 )
omega1a = s q r t ( abs ( omega1 2 omegab 2 ) ) ;
Omega = 2 p i c / 1 0 ;
r 1 = Omega + omega ;
r 2 = Omega omega ;
% i f c >= ( 2 0 0 / 3 . 6 )
% Q = 3.10( c 3.6) 0.7495;
% end
%
% i f c >= ( 1 2 0 / 3 . 6 ) && c < ( 2 0 0 / 3 . 6 )
87
% Q = 3.58( c 3.6) 0.7495;
% end
%
% i f c < (120/3.6)
% Q = 5.2064( c 3.6) 0.7495;
% end
% Q = Q;
% Q = 10000
Q = 1928 c 0 . 7 4 9 5 ;
f = omega1 / ( 2 p i ) ;
v 0 = Q l 3 / ( 4 8 EJ ) ;
%omegab = 0 . 0 0 0 1 s q r t ( EJ/mu) ;
b e t a = omegab/omega1 ;
v1 = @( t ) l 3Qomega1 / ( p i 4EJ ) c o s ( omega1 t ) / ( omega

2+omegab 2 ) ;
v2 = @( t ) omega ( c o s ( omega t ) exp ( omegab t ) ) omegab s i n (
omega t ) ;
v = @( t ) v1 ( t ) v2 ( t ) ;
% v11 = 1 / ( ( omega1 2 r 2 2 ) 2+4omegab 2 r 2 2 ) ;

% v12 = @( t ) ( omega1 2 r 2 2 ) ( c o s ( r 2 t ) exp ( omegab t )
c o s ( omega1a t ) ) ;
% v13 = @( t ) 2 omegab r 2 s i n ( r 2 t ) ;
% v14 = @( t ) omegab/ omega1a ( omega12+ r 2 2 ) exp ( omegab
t ) s i n ( omega1a t ) ;
% v21 = 1 / ( ( omega1 2 r 1 2 ) 2+4omegab 2 r 1 2 ) ;
% v22 = @( t ) ( omega1 2 r 1 2 ) ( c o s ( r 1 t ) exp ( omegab t )
c o s ( omega1a t ) ) ;
% v23 = @( t ) 2 omegab r 1 s i n ( r 1 t ) ;
% v24 = @( t ) omegab/ omega1a ( omega12+ r 1 2 ) exp ( omegab
t ) s i n ( omega1a t ) ;
% v = @( t ) Q/ (mu l ) ( v11 ( v12 ( t )+v13 ( t )+v14 ( t ) )+v21 ( v22 (
t )+v23 ( t )+v24 ( t ) ) ) ;
a11 = @( t ) l 3Qomega1 3 c o s ( omega1 t ) / ( p i 4EJ ( omega

2+omegab 2 ) ) ;
a12 = @( t ) omega ( c o s ( omega t ) exp ( omegab t ) ) omegab s i n
( omega t ) ;
a21 = @( t ) l 3Qomega1 c o s ( omega1 t ) / ( p i 4EJ ( omega2+
omegab 2 ) ) ;
88
a221 = @( t ) omega ( c o s ( omega t ) omega 2 exp ( omegab t )
omegab 2 ) ;
a222 = @( t ) omegab s i n ( omega t ) omega 2 ;
a22 = @( t ) a221 ( t )+a222 ( t ) ;
a31 = @( t ) 2 l 3Qomega1 2 s i n ( omega1 t ) / ( p i 4EJ (
omega2+omegab 2 ) ) ;
a32 = @( t ) omega ( s i n ( omega t )+exp ( omegab t ) omegab )
omegab c o s ( omega t ) omega ;
a = @( t ) a11 ( t ) a12 ( t )+a21 ( t ) a22 ( t )+a31 ( t ) a32 ( t ) ;
maxt = l / c ;
dt = maxt / 1 0 0 0 ;
tdomain = [ 0 : dt : maxt ] ;
f o r i =1: l e n g t h ( tdomain )
p ( i , 1 ) = v ( tdomain ( i , 1 ) ) ;
p ( i , 2 ) = a ( tdomain ( i , 1 ) ) ;
p( i ,3) = p( i ,1) /v 0 ;
end
O = [ max( abs ( p ( : , 1 ) ) ) ,max( abs ( p ( : , 2 ) ) ) ,max( abs ( p ( : , 3 ) ) ) ] ;
namedef = s t r c a t ( EJ , i n t 2 s t r ( EJ ) , L , i n t 2 s t r ( l ) , mu ,
i n t 2 s t r (mu) , c , i n t 2 s t r ( c ) , daf , . t i k z ) ;
%%
% figure (1)
% p l o t ( tdomain , p ( : , 1 ) , l i n e c o l o r )
% g r i d on
% t i t l e ( s t r c a t ( Max D e f l e c t i o n : , m a t 2 s t r (O( 1 , 1 ) ) ) ) ;
% % % m a t l a b 2 t i k z ( namedef , h e i g h t , \ f i g u r e h e i g h t ,
width , \ f i g u r e w i d t h , showInfo , f a l s e ) ;
%%%
% figure (2)
% p l o t ( tdomain , p ( : , 2 ) )
% g r i d on
% t i t l e ( s t r c a t ( Max A c c e l e r a t i o n : , m a t 2 s t r (O( 1 , 2 ) ) ) ) ;
% % % m a t l a b 2 t i k z ( nameacc , h e i g h t , \ f i g u r e h e i g h t ,
width , \ f i g u r e w i d t h , showInfo , f a l s e ) ;
%%%
% figure (3)
% p l o t ( tdomain , p ( : , 3 ) )
% g r i d on
% t i t l e ( s t r c a t ( Max D e f l e c t i o n : , m a t 2 s t r (O( 1 , 1 ) ) , , Max
A c c e l e r a t i o n : , m a t 2 s t r (O( 1 , 2 ) ) ) ) ;
% m a t l a b 2 t i k z ( namedaf , h e i g h t , \ f i g u r e h e i g h t , width
89
, \ f i g u r e w i d t h , showInfo , f a l s e ) ;
G.2 Speedenvelop.m
f u n c t i o n O=S p e e d e n v e l o p ( EJ , l , mu, min , max , z e t a )
dv = 0 . 2 ;
v = [ min : dv : max ] ;
f o r i =1: l e n g t h ( v )
maxres ( : , i ) = f o g ( EJ , l , mu, v ( i , 1 ) , z e t a , b ) ;
speed = v ( i , 1 ) ;
end
% f i g u r e ( name , s p e e d e n v o l o p ) ;
% p l o t ( v , maxres ) ;
namedef = s t r c a t ( s p e d e f , EJ , i n t 2 s t r ( EJ ) , L , i n t 2 s t r ( l )
, min , i n t 2 s t r ( min ) , max , i n t 2 s t r (max) , mu , i n t 2 s t r (mu
) , . tikz )
nameacc = s t r c a t ( s p e a c c , EJ , i n t 2 s t r ( EJ ) , L , i n t 2 s t r ( l )
) , . tikz )
nameaco = s t r c a t ( speaco , EJ , i n t 2 s t r ( EJ ) , L , i n t 2 s t r ( l )
) , . tikz )
figure (1)
p l o t ( v , maxres ( 1 , : ) )
t i t l e ( s t r c a t ( SpeedEnvelop d e f from , i n t 2 s t r ( min ) , t o ,
i n t 2 s t r (max) ) ) ;
m a t l a b 2 t i k z ( namedef , h e i g h t , \ f i g u r e h e i g h t , width ,
\ f i g u r e w i d t h , showInfo , f a l s e ) ;
figure (2)
p l o t ( v , maxres ( 2 , : ) )
t i t l e ( s t r c a t ( SpeedEnvelop a c c from , i n t 2 s t r ( min ) , t o ,
i n t 2 s t r (max) ) ) ;
%m a t l a b 2 t i k z ( nameacc , h e i g h t , \ f i g u r e h e i g h t , width ,
figure (3)
p l o t ( v , maxres ( 3 , : ) )
90
t i t l e ( s t r c a t ( SpeedEnvelop dc from , i n t 2 s t r ( min ) , t o ,
i n t 2 s t r (max) ) ) ;
%m a t l a b 2 t i k z ( nameaco , h e i g h t , \ f i g u r e h e i g h t , width ,
91
Appendix H
Train vehicles
H.1 Locomotives
H.1.1 4-axle locomotives
Generally, the relevant parameters for categorisation of 4-axle locomotives are

axle load P (18 t to 22,5 t) and the bogie axle spacing (2,2 m to 3,4 m).
Typically the mass per unit length is less than 6,4 t/m and the distance from
the end axle to the end of the nearest coupling plane is greater than 1,9 m
H.1.2 6-axle locomotives
Generally, the relevant parameters for categorisation of 6-axle locomotives are:

- the maximum axle load P (18 t to 22 t) in combination with;
- the distance between axles within a bogie (1,80 m to 2,25 m).
Typically, the mass per unit length (p) is less than 6,4 t/m and the distance
from end axle to the end of the nearest coupling plane (a) is greater than 2,1
m.
H.2 Trains in Netherlands

Passenger trains now in service include following models:
1. The DD-AR (Dubbeldeksaggloregiomaterieel)
EMUs were delivered as DDM-2/3 resembling the bilevel rail cars series
92
DDM-1 from 1985 and operates in fixed formations of 3 or 4 coaches. 4 car
trains use a class 1700 locomotive for traction, 3 car trains use an mDDM
motorcar, which resembles a DD-AR driving trailer but has electric motors
and a single passenger deck on top; the level of this deck is higher than that
of a regular single deck rail car, but lower than the upper deck of the other
coaches. Three types of coaches are available: Bv (second class), ABv (first
and second class) and Bvk (second class driving trailer). The DDM-2/3
series are being modernised from 20102013 and after modernisation the
series was renamed as NID (Nieuwe Intercity Dubbeldekker).
2. The VIRM (Verlengd Interregiomaterieel)
also called Regiorunner was partially rebuilt from trainsets DD-IRM (Dubbeldeks
Interregiomaterieel). DD-IRM was delivered in 3- and 4-car trainsets. 3-
car trainsets got one extra coach, 4-car trainsets got two extra coaches.
Also, new 4- and 6-car trainsets were built. Thus, a train consists of one
or more combinations of 4 or 6 double deck coaches; each combination
(multiple unit) has electric motors. More than three hundred coaches are
currently operative in the Netherlands.
3. The Koploper (ICM) (Intercitymaterieel)
is a 3- or 4-car multiple unit that when coupled with another one, allows
passengers to walk through (the name Koploper being a play on words
literally head walker, but in actual use meaning front runner). The
Dutch Railway Company decided to close the heads permanently on 31
October 2005 because the mechanism broke down too often. A scheduled
modernisation of around 7 million euro will see the ICM fleet updated.
The renovated ICM trains provide 13% more seats (reducing the leg room
to uncomfortable small for the long haul journeys they serve in 2nd class,
which is further aggravated by a waste bin that is placed on the back-
sides of the seats in front), have a new interior, a bathroom accessible by
wheelchairs, airconditioning as well as upgrades to the engine and connec-
tion systems. The head doors are removed. Also, these (renovated) trains
are the first trains in the NS fleet equipped with OBIS. OBIS provides a
(free) WiFi-connection on board, along with in-train journey information
provided through screens and (automated) vocal announcements through
the trains speakers. This journey information provides the actual status,
and thus is always up-to-date to the actual situation this trip, and the
stations is passes.
4. The Sprinter (SGM, Stads Gewestelijk Materieel)
is a two or three car electric, used on small distances. They are named
Sprinter because theyre able to accelerate and brake quite fast, making
them very suitable for stoptrein services. They were also specifically
designed for urban environments where they run commuter services. As a
result, they are most commonly found in the Randstad area. The initial
idea was that the Sprinter would provide somewhat of a subway/metro
service but this plan failed as the cities of Amsterdam and Rotterdam
93
continued to construct their own rapid transit systems. Nevertheless, in
the densely populated Randstad, the Sprinters remain popular. Two car
versions were revised and renamed to Citypendel. All Sprinters are now
refurbished into the new white/yellow/dark blue livery.
94
Bibliography
[1] EN 1990 AMD 2 : 2005(E) Annex A2 to EN 1990.

[2] M Abu-Hilal and M Mohsen. Vibration of beams with general boundary
conditions due to a moving harmonic load. Journal of Sound and Vibration,
232(4):703717, 2000.
[3] CEN. EN 13848-5:2008+A1 Railway applications - Track - Track geometry
quality - Part 5: Geometric quality levels - Plain line.
[4] CEN. 1: Actions on structures, part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. Brussels:
European Standard EN, 2:2003, 1991.
[5] CEN. Eurocode: Basis of structural design. BSI, 2002.
[6] CEN. pren 15528:2013, railway applications line categories for managing
the interface between load limits of vehicles and infrastructure. Brussels:
European Standard EN, 2013.
[7] D181Committee. RP6: Final report, D181 LATERAL FORCES ON
RAILWAY BRIDGES. UIC, .
[8] D181Committee. ERRI D 181/DT 329 E: LATERAL FORCES ON RAIL-
WAY BRIDGES, PARAMETRIC STUDY PART1,PART 2. UIC, .
[9] Coenraad Esveld. Modern railway track. 2001.
[10] Ladislav Fryba. Vibration of solids and structures under moving loads.
Thomas Telford, 1999.
[11] JJ Reber. Presentation on lateral stiffness of railway bridges. 2013.
[12] H Tanaka and A Furukawa. The estimation method of wheel load and
lateral force using the axlebox acceleration. In Proceedings of the 8th World
Congress on Railway Research, Seoul, Korea, 2008.
[13] UIC. UIC Leaflet 776-2:Design requirements for rail-bridges based on in-
teraction phenomena between train, track and bridge. UIC, June 2009.
95

Lateral Railway Loading Nosing N All PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lateral Railway Loading Nosing N All PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lateral Railway Loading Nosing N All PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the thesis about?

What is the thesis about?

What topics are researched in the thesis?

What topics are researched in the thesis?

A simplified model for assessing lateral railway

bridge resonance behavior

study on the lateral dynamics of railway bridges.

A thesis presented for the degree of

Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geo-science Iv-Infra

Keywords: Eurocode, railway bridge dynamics, lateral dynamics, rail dy-

2 Theoretical background for lateral railway bridge dynamics 11

3 Analysis of Eurocode criteria 18

4 Methods for lateral dynamics assessment 23

5 Simplified model for assessing lateral railway bridge resonance

8 Recommendations for future researches 46

A Literature Review of regulations regarding lateral railway bridge

B General information of report series D181 and its selected doc-

C Plots and diagrams used in D181 DT 329 61

D Speeds which do not require dynamic compatibility checks 78

E MU-Groups and MU-Classes 82

2.1 Wheelset and track dimensions. Extracted from [9, p.17] . . . . . 11

3.1 Figure C9 extracted from D181Committee [8] . . . . . . . . . . 21

4.1 A sample project being conducted in VAMPIRE . . . . . . . . . 24

5.1 Schematic representation of a generic beam crossed by a harmonic

B.1 Overview of modelling setups for different studies conducted in

C.1 BR CLASS 56 LOCOMOTIVE. Extract from D181Committee

D.1 Speed limit (in km/h) in relationship Line Category/Locomotive

E.1 Train parameters related to MU-Groups. Extracted from CEN

2.1 Lateral standard deviation[Extracted from 3, Table B.6] . . . . . 14

A.1 Maxiumum horizontal rotation and maximum change of radius

C.1 Axle repeat patterns and typical frequencies. Extracted from

E.1 Relationship MU-groups - MU-classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

1.1 Context of the thesis

1.2 Lateral dynamics of railway bridge

1.3 Objectives and research question

The research question can be summarized as:

Interpret the principle of lateral dynamics validation process and develop an

1.4 Main steps

1.5 Outline of the report

Theoretical background for

2.1 Wheel-rail interface

YA _!A!_ :\p_!2AbAd8 g Y\J8

Figure 2.2: Coning of a wheel thread

r1 r2 is the instantaneous difference in rolling radius of the wheel treads;

Figure 2.3: Wheel profile S1002

the wheelset with respect to the central position.

Speed(km/h) Standard deviation(mm)

2.3 Lateral movement of wheelsets

Contact between wheel and rail The movement characteristics of wheels

(a) Single con-

Figure 2.5: Single and double contact of wheel-rail interface

Klingel movement The Klingel movement happens under single-point con-

Figure 2.6: Klingel movement. Extracted from [9, Figure 2.3]

The expression for wavelength of Klingel movement is shown in Eq.2.1.

Introducing the speed, the frequency of Klingel movement is Eq.2.2.

Hunting movement The hunting movement happens under two-point con-

2.4 Bridge natural frequency

2.5 Lateral vehicle-bridge resonance

2. Resonance caused by kinematic movement

YA _!A!_ :\p_!2AbAd8 g Y\J8