4.7 Article

Analysis of the lateral dynamic response of high pier viaducts under high-speed train travel

Journal

ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
Volume 56, Issue -, Pages 1384-1401

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.07.012

Keywords

High-speed railway; Train-bridge systems; Dynamic interaction; Finite element model; Numerical methods; High piers

Ask authors/readers for more resources

With the development of high-speed railways in the last decade, the dynamic behaviour of trains and bridges has been studied more thoroughly. However, it is difficult to find papers in the scientific literature about the lateral response of high-speed trains travel over long viaducts with high piers. In order to evaluate the riding comfort or vehicle dynamic response of a train over this kind of bridges, an efficient nonlinear dynamic interaction model of the train-track-bridge system was developed and checked. In that model, a three-dimensional multi-body train and a finite element bridge and track system are considered. Ballast stiffness and rail flexibility are taken into account in the finite element model. For reproducing the interaction between wheel and rail, a simplified nonlinear creep contact model has been included. In this study, track irregularities and wheel-hunting movement are considered as the system lateral excitation. The influence of pier height on the response of train and bridge is also studied. Continuous bridges, straight and constant section deck viaducts with variable height and tapered piers are the structures which have been considered. The height of the tested viaduct ranges between 60 and 120 m. The results of this study show that train behaviour is in accordance with riding comfort standards. And, although some bridge response values obtained are not allowed in the currently recognized train traffic safety standards of bridges, they can be easily improved. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available