Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 16

Notice: This material is protected by copyright law and may only

be used for personal, non-commercial and educational use. It


may not be copied or shared with others.

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS, VOL. 10, 31-45 (1982)

IMPACT STUDY BY VARIOUS BRIDGE MODELS


A. WIRIYACHAI*

Ciuil Engineering Department, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.


KAUNG-HAN C H U t

Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.


AND

v.

K. GARG$

Dynamic Research Division, Association of American Railroads, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A

SUMMARY
In previous studies of train-bridge interactions, impact percentages for member forces have been obtained by use of a pinconnected truss model and for both member forces and moments by use of a rigid joint truss model. The purpose of this
study is three-fold (a)to investigate if improved results can be obtained by use of semirigid connections at the ends of the
floor beams and stringers; (b)to develop partial bridge models, for studying impacts and the range offorces and moments in
members subjected to fatigue; (c) to employ a partial bridge model to study the influences of various factors on the impact
factors and stress ranges of the various members and connections of the truss bridge. Descriptions ofthe bridge and vehicle
models and the associated equations ofmotion are briefly stated, and results from the various bridge models are compared.

INTRODUCTION
In previous studies of train-bridge interactions, impact percentages for various member forces were obtained,
using a simplified model for pin-connected trusses,3* and for member forces and moments, using a more
complex bridge model with rigid joint^.^ A brief review of the literature has also been given in previous

publication^.^.
This study has three principal objectives:
(a) to determine if improved results can be obtained by using a bridge model that incorporates semirigid
connections at the ends of the floor beahs and stringers;
(b) to develop a partial bridge model to determine the impact factors, and force and moment amplitude
ranges in selected critical members, such as the hangers, floor beams and stringers; and
(c)to study the influences of various factors, such as stringer stiffnesses, floor beam connections above the
truss joints, stringer vibrations, vehicle damping, the inner axle spacing of long vehicles and train speed, upon
the impact factors and stress ranges.
It should be mentioned that, prior to developing the partial bridge model, another alternative to the
complete bridge model was considered for reducing the computing cost. The alternative was to take advantage
of the symmetric property of the bridge by introducing joints at the centre of the floor beams and top struts as
well as at the intersections of the top and bottom lateral bracings. The total nodes involved were about the
same; however the calculations involved both the symmetric and antisymmetric loadings, separately and their
combination. This alternative was abandoned, because the computing costs were slightly higher than for the
original model.

Graduate Student.
Professor of Civil Engineering.
$' Manager.

0098-8847/82/01OO3 1-1 5$01.50


@ 1982 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 5 August 1980


Revised 23 December 1980

32

A. WIRIYACHAI, K-H. CHU A N D V. K. GARG

BRIDGE AND VEHICLE MODELS


Complete bridge model
Figure 1 shows the bridge span that is used in this study, and which involves dead load masses, lumped at the
truss joints. The same truss bridge was used in a previous s t ~ d yIn
. ~the model, all of the truss joints are
considered to be either hinged or rigid.
The connections at the ends of the bracing members are assumed to be hinged, whereas the connections at
the ends of the floor beams are taken to be hinged, rigid or semirigid. All of the stringers are assumed to be rigid
and simply-supported.
Partial bridge model
Because of excessive computational costs associated with the complete bridge model, it became imperative
to develop several partial bridge models in order to investigate the dynamic behaviour of the critical members,
such as the hangers, stringers and floor beams.* These members are critical from a fatigue standpoint, because
they experience a complete cycle whenever a pair of adjacent trucks passes over a given stringer or its
neighbouring stringers6
The partial bridge models are shown in Figures 2 and 3. The member properties used in the partial bridge
models are the same as those used in the complete model. The lumped masses at the truss joints are, however,
different at those places where members are discontinued, or omitted, or a node is removed or inserted. In the
partial bridge models, shown in Figures 2 and 3, the stringer end-connections are assumed to be semirigid
whenever the stringer stiffnesses are taken into account.
The partial bridge model, shown in Figure 2, differs from the complete model, in that the vertical and
rotational springs have been introduced at the discontinuous ends of the lower chord members of each truss.
The vertical (or rotational) spring stiffnesses are obtained from the inverse of the deflections (or rotations),
calculated by means of a unit load (or moment) applied a t the discontinuous end of the lower chord joint. A
rotational spring is also introduced at the discontinuous end of the stringer. The spring stiffness is obtained by
using the inverse of the rotation of the three-span continuous stringer, with semirigid joints, resting on rigid
supports.
The partial bridge model, shown in Figure 3, differs from the model shown in Figure 2 in the following ways:
(a) the floor beam connection is not located at the truss joint;
(b) a node is introduced at the centre of each stringer in order to assess the dynamic behaviour of the
stringer.
Sti@iess of members with semirigid connections
The initial study of semirigid connections was conducted during the 1930s.'- l 6 The analytical method
used in this study is based on the formulation by Baker (Reference 7, second report p. 200) and extended by
Johnston and Mount in 1942." Matrix formulations were later proposed by Monforton and Wu,14 and
Lionberger and Weaver.12 In the formulation of the floor beam stiffness matrix, both Johnston and Mount,
and Lionberger and Weaver assumed the half-depth of the vertical member, to which a floor beam is
connected, to be rigid. In this study, the formulation shown in Reference 12 is extended into a threedimensional form.
An analytical method, to obtain the stiffness constant of a semirigid connection, was developed by
Lothers,13 and his results have been verified, for joint rotations up to about 0.005 rad, against the test results
given by Rathbun. l 6 Since this value ofjoint rotation is reasonably correct, for the various cases studied herein,
Lothers' method is used in calculating the stiffness of a semirigid connection. The connectional details and
symbols are shown in Figure 4.
The rotational stiffness of a joint is given as:
3
''

I;
'

Figure 1. Dimensions, joint and member numbers, and global and local co-ordinates for the 175ft single track railway truss bridge

(b) Rear view and bottom bracing

(a) Front view and top bracing

7025' =-175

34

A. WIRIYACHAI, K-H. CHU AND V. K. GARG

35

IMPACT STUDY

a- a

Sym.

L o f Roil
1

(a) Floor beam

LL

(b) Stringer

(c) Symbols for semirigid connection


Figure 4. Connectional details and symbols for semirigid connection

where
a=

h(nw - J(nwt))
(nw - t )

and

Vehicle model
The vehicle model is shown in Figure 5. A four-axle vehicle is idealized as a rigid body with three degrees of
freedom; bounce, pitch and roll. The vertical primary suspension springs, located between the wheel-axle set
and side frames, and the vertical secondary suspension springs, located between the side frames and car body,

36

A. WIRIYACHAI, K-H. CHU AND V. K. GARG

Figure 5. Idealized vehicle model

are considered to be linear springs in series, and are replaced by an equivalent spring of stiffness, k,. Vehicle
damping is ignored in all cases, except one. The couplings between adjacent vehicles are assumed to be hinged
connections. The wheels of each vehicle are assumed to remain in contact with the rails at all time.
EQUATIONS OF MOTION, METHOD OF SOLUTION AND COMPUTATION OF IMPACT
Equations of motion and method of solution
In order to reduce the degrees of freedom, only vertical displacements are considered in the dynamic
analysis. The equations of motion consist of (a) those for the bridge, (b) those for the vehicle, and (c) the
interacting force between the bridge and the vehicle. The details of these equations are given in Reference 4.
Also, as shown in Reference 4,Newmark's /3 method15 is used for solving the dynamic equations numerically.
Static and dynamic response amplijcation and impact factors
The amplification factors Ad and As for the dynamic ( r d ) and static (r,)responses are defined as follows:

where r,, is the maximum static response. The response is defined in terms of a deflection, reaction, shear,
moment, member force or stress in the bridge members. For computing impact factors, if the response has
positive and negative signs, then Ad and As are based on Tsmfor each sign. The signs of Ad and A, are always
positive. However, for plotting purposes and in order to show the possibility of stress reversal, r,, is
considered as the absolute maximum of the static response. The impact factor, Imp, is defined as:
Imp = max Ad- 1

( 3)

RESULTS
Data for Bridge and Vehicle Models
A single-track, rivetted truss bridge of 175ft (53.34m) span, as shown in Figure 1, is used in this study. The
member properties for the complete bridge model are given in Reference 4. The dead loads, concentrated at the
nodal points, are listed in Table I. The stiffness l/$ of the floor beam connection (with details), as shown in
Figure 4, is 3.55 x lo7 in-kip/rad (0.400x lo7m-kN/rad). It should be noted that, in generating the floor beam
member stiffness, only a half-depth of the vertical member, to which the floor beam is connected, is considered
as rigid.

37

IMPACT STUDY

Table I. Concentrated dead loads for the bridge shown in Figure 1


Joint

1,2,11,12

5,6,7,8
15.16,21,22
25,26,27,2a
31 to 40

Load (kip)

Joint

Load (kip)

6.42
14.51
13.00
4.90
13.70

for Dahrs Model8 Joint 13,14,23,24 = 14.1 kips and adding13.70 kips at joint 1 to 1 2 ; 1 kip = 4.45 kN

For the partial bridge models, member properties are the same as for the complete bridge model except that
in the latter case stringer stiffnesses are neglected. Vertical and rotational springs are provided at the
discontinuous ends of the lower chord members (i.e. joints 17, 18 or 29,30). The vertical spring stiffness, k,, is
328 kip/in (57.46kN/mm) and the rotational spring stiffness,k,, is 5.78 x lo6 in-kip/rad (0.65 x lo6m-kN/rad).
The concentrated dead loads at the nodes for the partial bridge model shown in Figure 2, are listed in Table I1
and for the model shown in Figure 3, are listed in Table 111.
A train, consisting of three, four-axle locomotives, which occupied almost the entire length of the bridge, is
considered. The vehicle model is shown in Figure 5 and its associated data is given in Table IV. In the analysis,
vehicle damping is neglected, and with one exception, the train is assumed to cross the bridge at a constant
speed of 60 mph (26.8 m/s), with an initial deflection and roll of 0.5 in (12.7mm) and 0.04 rad, respectively, for
each vehicle. (Note that the spacing of the locomotive is included in the distance Lo.)
Table 11. Concentrated dead loads for the bridge shown in Figure 2
~

Joint

1,2

596
9.10
17~18

Load (kip)

6.42
14.10
7.72
10 a 39

Joint

3,4
718
11 to 16

Load (kip)

12.07

13.00
13.70

1 kip = 4.45 kN

Table 111. Concentrated dead loads for the bridge shown in Figure 3
~

Joint

192

5,6

9,lO

13,14
17,18,21,22,25,26
29-70

Load (kip)

5.01
1.64

3,4
798

1.01

11,12

13.00
6.20

~~~

Joint

15116
19,20,23,24,27,28

Load (kip)

9.72
2.17
14.10
6.80
7.50

10.30

1 kip = 4.45 kN

Comparisons between the complete bridge models


All of the calculations for the complete bridge models are based upon hinged, rigid or semirigid connections.
Table V lists the calculated member forces and impact factors for the three models. Table VI shows the
moments in the plane of the truss and impact factors for the models with rigid and semirigid connections. The

38

A. WIRIYACHAI, K-H. CHU AND V. K. GARG

Table IV. Basic data for four-axle locomotives


Properties

Regular Locomotive

Long Locomotive

L = One-half distance
between truck
centers

204.00 in.

296.00 in.

Lo= One-half of the


overall length

298.75 in.

371.00 in.

b = One-half distance
between wheel
contact points

29.50 in.

29.50 in.

= One-half length

54.00 in.

34.00 in.

of wheel base

Ib= Pitch moment of


inertia

Jb= Roll moment of


inertia
Total sprung weight

1.8
107~
lb-in. -sec
6
1.2 x 10 2
lb-in. -sec
225.97 kip

2.20
107~
lb-in.-sec
6
1.2 x 10
lb-in.-see
225.97 kip

Sprung weight/wheel

= 1/8 of total sprung weight

Unsprung weight/wheel

= 4.27 kip

Spring stiffness

= 7 kip/in.

Damping/wheel

= 0.225 kip-sec/in.

1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 lb-in.-secL = 0.113 kg-mz


1 kip = 4.45 kN; 1 kip/in. = 0.175 kN/mm

double moment values refer to the two ends ofeach member. For the horizontal and diagonal members, the left
end values are listed first, whereas for the vertical members, the bottom end values are listed first. In Table VII,
the out-of-plane moments and impact factors for the models with rigid and semirigid connections are given.
The floor beam moment at the node closest to the centre is listed first, and the floor beam end moment is listed
second. Each floor beam end moment is the same as the bottom end moment of the vertical member to which it
is connected.
The forces and moments given in Tables V, VI and VII refer to the truss which is subjected to the maximum
rolling effect. Since rolling may occur in either clock-wise or counter clock-wise directions, the forces and
moments listed for members of the first truss are also applicable to the corresponding members of the second
truss. The values for the model with rigid connections are taken from Reference 4.
The following conclusions are made from the data shown in the tables.
(a)The axial member forces are in good agreement for all three models;
(b) The differences between the in-plane and out-of-plane member moments are negligible for the bridge
models with rigid and semirigid connections, except that the latter model gives a slightly smaller end
moment, and a slightly larger centre moment for the floor beam members;
(c) There is good agreement among the impact percentages for all three models;
(d) The impact percentages are not uniform.
For the case studied herein, the values are generally smaller than the American Railway Engineering
Association (AREA) specified values for bridge design. The AREA values are 25.6 per cent for truss members
and 44.4 per cent for hangers, floorbeams and stringers. The AREA formulas for calculating impact
percentages are as follows;
100
Imp(%) = S+ 16+- '0 for L > 80 ft, and
L- 30
100
Imp(%) = T+40-3'-1 1600 for LG80ft

39

IMPACT STUDY

Table V. Axial forces and impact percentages, for all members of the complete bridge model with
rigid and semirigid connections
Member Member
Type
Number

Lower
Chord

Dead
Load

Max.L.L. Pin Connection Rigid Connection Semirigid Connection


Static
Max.L.L. Impact W . L . L . Impact Max.L.L. Impact
(%)
Dynamic
(8)
(%I
Dynamic
Dynamic

2,30 87.06 144.50


3,31 157.20 250.84
4,32 187.00 301.18

153.88
263.27
330.07

6.49
4.96
9.59

154.15
264.63
331.13

6.68
5.50

9.94

154.13
264.59
331.04

6.61
5.48
9.91

10.38 -180.40 -298.92 -335.29


9,37 -182.70 -298.78 -338.48
8,36 -149.50 -248.07 -271.29

12.14 -336.50
13.29 -339.96
9.36 -272.27

12.55 -336.46
13.78 -339.91
9.76 -272.22

12.54
13.77
9.74

19,47 -148.00 -245.52 -271.36


20,48 -143.90 -245.51 -271.18
Floor 57,59 -11.02 -18.19
-

10.52 -272.70
10.46 -272.08
-19.49

11.07
7.13

272.59
271.99
-19.38

11.03
10.79
6.54

12.72
15.30
2.05
14.99
-2.71

13.29
16.12
3.71
16.93
-2.30

98.01

93.62
21.72
26.59
21.99

13.15
16.01
3.38
16.57
-2.40

Upper
Chord
End
Post

10.82

Beam

86.62
Verti- 13,41 19.14
cal
14,42 -50.86 -80.70
Member
21.01
15,43

-8.69 -22.81
22.53

Diago- 23,51 101.00 178.43


nal
-8.81
Member 24,52 51.36 105.58

25,53

P o r t a l 75,76

4.15

7.17

97.64
-93.05
21.44
-26.23
21.92

98.13
-93.71
21.79
-26.67
22.01

-25.99
30.80

189.02
5.94
-6.08 -30.98
123.86 17.31
-26.47
1.85
39.01 26.66

189.98
6.47
-6.09 -30.87
124.30 17.73
-26.88
3.42
39.41 27.94

189.82
6.38
-6.09 -30.87
124.21 17.65
-26.87
3.39
39.38 27.86

-30.03

26.63 -11.32

-26.98 -10.16

-26.96 -10.22

11.68

12.98

11.13

13.01

11.34

13.00

11.30

Strut
L.L. = live load; 1 kip =4.45 kN

in which: s is the truss spacing = 18 ft, L is the span length of the stringer = 25 ft, for hangers, floor beams and
stringers, L is the span length of the bridge = 175 ft for all other members.
The amplification factors (impact factor = amplification factor - 1) for the member forces, the out-of-plane
moments in hanger and floor beam moment at the nodal point, close to the centre, are shown in Figures 6 , 7
and 8 respectively. A good agreement between the results of the various models can be seen. It can also be seen
in these figures that a peak is developed whenever the rear axle of the preceding vehicle, and front axle of the
following vehicle pass over the stringer, adjacent to the floor beam or hanger under consideration.
Comparisons between the partial and complete bridge models
Comparisons are made for the critical members, e.g. hangers, floor beams and stringers, and the results are
shown in Table VIII. The values from the complete bridge models, with rigid and semirigid connections,
shown as Case (a) and Case (b), respectively, are taken from previous tables, in order to facilitate the
comparisons. For the partial bridge model shown in Figure 2 with stringer stiffness neglected, the values
obtained for the rigid and semirigid connections are listed as Case (c) and Case (d), respectively. The values of
M , at the bottom end of hanger, are equal to M l z , for the end of floor beam, whereas M , , refers to the floor
beam moment near the centre. It can be seen that good agreement is obtained for both the rigid and semirigid
connection cases, in both the complete and partial bridge models. Comparisons among the amplification
factors (or impact factors) are shown in Figures 6, 7 and 8.
Comparisons of hanger end moments, in the plane of the truss, are not given since the peak value for this
moment occurs when a train occupies the whole span of the bridge. Since this condition cannot be realized in
the partial bridge model, no comparison can be made for the two models. In addition, the stress range

40

A. WIRIYACHAI, K-H. CHU AND V. K. GARG

Table VI. In-plane bending moments and impact percentages for the complete bridge model
with rigid and semirigid connections

Member
Type

Member
Number

Dead
Max.L.L.
Load
Static
(in.-kip) (in.-kip)

Rigid
Connection

Semirigid
Connection

Max.L.L.
Dynamic
(in.-kip)

Impact

Max.L.L.
Dynamic
(in.-kip)

Impact

278.60
118.96
-188.47
-358.45

12.47
15.89
16.59
15.49
13.56
5.12
18.13
0.91
2.94
19-07
26.86
2.90

12.58
36 87
36 * 87
17.45

232.86
-199.50
227.20
-283* 33
-213.02
-347.97
225.71
113.49
-113.49
155.48
22.05
20.56
129.27
137.10

9.38
8.84
19.55
19.95
1.55
2.65

21.00

17.38
6.53
10.49

(%I

63.32
-3* 76
-61.35
-156.50
105.20
-105.20

247.72
102.65
-161.65
-310.36
237.92
-237.04

278.62
118.97
-188.48
-358.48
270.22
-249.22

12.47
15.90
16.60
15* 50
13 58
5.14

Upper
Chord

95.93
-95.93
113.00
-119.40
-224.80
-212.10

197.12
-197.71
220.72
-237.96
-167.91
-338.17

18.13
0.91
2.94
19.07
26.96
2.90

End
Post

40.69
-100.90
100.90
212.60

200.52

82.93
-82.93
132.41

232.86
-199.50
227.20
-283.33
-218.02
-347.97
225.76
113.52
-113 52
155.52

20.16
18.89
108.05
114.22
64.43
55.00

22.07
20.57
129.22
137.10
65.46
56.48

9.47
8.85
19.59
20.03

17.89
13.62
69.33
41.35
3.96
-6.90

21.01

17.45
6.59
12.13
-0 98
6.56
14.05

Lower
Chord

9.15
7.16
62.59
71.48

Vertical
Member

27.11

21.92
5.03
2.52
47.66
21.07
15.64
-3* 07
-0.1823

Diagonal

Portal
StrLlt
~~

1.60

2.69

14.52
76.61
41.31
4.21
-7.87
-0.5524

-0.503

9.81

-;z;:8

223

14.51
76.60
41.30
4.21
-7.86
-0

- 5524

(%I

12.56
36.85
36.85
17.42

-0.12

6.31
13.91
9.81

L.L. = live load: 1 in.-kip = 0.113 m-kN

Table VII. Out-of-plane bending moments and impact percentage for the complete bridge model,
with rigid and semirigid connections
Member
Type

Member
Number

Max.L.L. Max.L.L.
Static
Dynamic
(in.-kip) (in.-kip)

Floor Beam
Vertical
Member

57,59
13,41
14,42
15,43

Semirigid Connection

Rigid Connection
Impact

(9s)

Max.L.L. Max.L.L. Impact


Static
Dynamic
(%)
(in.-kip) (in.-kip)

6004.36
56.60

6090.37
59.56

13.30

5.08

6085.22
55.82

6917.07
59.16

13.67
5.98

56.60
96.11

59.56
25.61
51.98

5.08
-10.92
-28.88

55.82
95.25

59.16
93.87
52.64

5.08
-1.48
-26.19

72.10

71.32

-~

L.L

live load1 1 kip = 4.45 kN: 1 in.-kip

0.113 m-kN

41

IMPACT STUDY
P A R T I A L B R I D G E MODEL
(FIGURE 3 )
C O M m T E AND P A R T I A L B R I D G E
MODELS ( S T R I N G E R NOT I N C L U D E D )

a: 1.2.
0

STATIC RESPONSE

_r-.

0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

?241..T <--1.6

;:8

Vt,L

Figure 6. Hanger axial forces from various bridge models

P A R T I A L B R I D G E MODFL

7
(FIGURE
e: 1 . 2 -

3)

COMPLETE AND P A R T I A L B R I D G E
MODELS ( S T R I N G E R NOT I N C L U D E D )

0.2

0.4 0.6

---

0.8

1.0 1.2

1.4 1.6 1 . 8 Vt,L

Figure 7. Out-of-plane hanger moments from various bridge models

k.. /

&STATIC

RESPONSE

Figure 8. Floor beam moments near the middle, from various bridge models

associated with this moment is small, and produces only one cycle for each train's passage. Its contribution,
therefore, to fatigue failure ofa member is very small. From these considerations, it is concluded that the partial
bridge model is sufficiently accurate to evaluate the forces, moments, impact factors and stress ranges in the
critical members.

42

A. WIRIYACHAI, K-H. CHU A N D V. K. GARG

Table VIII. Comparison of forces, moments and impact percentages in critical members of the
complete bridge model and partial bridge model, shown in Figure 2 (Stringerstiffnessnot included)
Member

Hanger

Floor Beam

Case Analyzed

Force
(kip)
O r Moment
(in.-kip)

Max.L.L.

Max.L.L.

Static
(kip or
in.-kip)

Dynamic
(kip or
in.-kip)

98.13
59 56

13.29
5.08

Impact

(4s)

Complete Bridge
(a) Rigid Connection

Fx
tdY

36.62

Complete Bridge
(b) Semirigid Connection

Fg
My

86.62

55.82

98.01
59.16

13.15
5.98

Partial Bridge
(c) Rigid Connection

F,
My

86.65
56.61

98.22
59.52

13.35
5.14

Partial Bridge
(d) Semirigid Connection

Fx
My

86.65
55475

98.18
59.08

13 -31
5.97

Complete Bridge
(a) Rigid Connection

Mzl

84.36
56.68

6898.37
59.56

13.38
5.08

Me1

mZ2

6085.22
55.82

6917.07
59.16

13.67
5.98

Partial Bridge
(c) Rigid Connection

Mzl

6084.28
56.61

6898.96
59.52

13.39
5.14

Partial Bridge
(d) Semirigid Connection

mzl 6085.14 6918.20

13.69
5.97

Complete Bridge
(b) Semirigid Connection

mZ2

mZ2
MZ2

56.69

55.75

59.08

L.L = live load! I kip = 4.45 kN; 1 in.-kip = 0.113 m-kN

FACTORS AFFECTING THE FORCES, MOMENTS AND ASSOCIATED RANGES, AND IMPACT
PERCENTAGES IN THE CRITICAL MEMBERS

A parametric study is made to evaluate the influences of various parameters, and the results of this study are
given below. Note that in most cases instead of using the partial bridge model shown in Figure 2, the model
shown in Figure 3 (with concentrated loads given in Table IV) is used in this study.
Effect of stringer sti;ffness
This effect is studied by comparing the Table IX values which include the stringer stiffness, and the Case (d)
values, shown in Table VIII, where the stringer stiffness is not included. Each stringer is a built-up member
with four 6 x 6 x 11/16in flange angles and one 48 x 3/8 in web plate. It has a gross cross-sectional area of
49.10 in2 (316.7 cm2),gross second moment of area of 19,179in4 (7.9875 x lo5cm4) and net second moment of
area of 17,324in4 (7.2068cm4). It has a rotational stiffness, 4, equal to 1.818 x 10in-kip/rad (02054 x
lo7m-kN/rad) at continuous ends and a rotational spring stiffness, k,, equal to 3.175 x lo6 in-kip/rad
(0.3588 x lo6m-kN/rad) at the discontinuous ends (joints 15, 16 or 27, 28).
It can be seen that the forces in the hangers, the moments near the centre of the floor beam and at the
connection of the floor beam and hanger, and their associated impact percentages are increased when the
stringer stiffness is included. No appreciable effect, however, on the ranges of the forces and moments is
observed. The increases in impact percentages can also be seen from the amplification factors, shown in
Figures 6, 7 and 8.
Effect of floor beams not connected at the truss joints
The results shown in Table X are compared with those in Table IX for the case of a floor beam connected at
the truss joints. The values of the forces and moments change very slightly; however, the increases in the impact
factors are primarily due to a decrease in the static response, or an increase in the dynamic response. It is

43

IMPACT STUDY

Table IX. Forces, moments, impact percentages and ranges in


critical members of the partial bridge model, shown in Figure 2, with
semirigid connections (stringer stiffness included)
Member

Force Max.L.L. Max.L.L.


(kip) or Static Dynamic
Moment (kip o r (kip o r
(in.-kip) in.-kip) in.-kip)

Hanger

Fx

86.69
55.75

106.13
66.09

Floor
Beam

MY
Mzl
Mz2

6085.14
55.75

Stringer Mz2

892.53

Im act Min.L.L.
Range
Dynamic (kip or
(kip or
in.in.-kip) kip)

7%)

22.42
18.55

35.68
22.48

70.45
43.81

7330.77
66.09

20.47 2409.42
18.55
22.48

4942.35
43.81

1056.22

18.34

347.64

708.58

L.L. = live load: 1 kip = 4.45 kN: 1 in.-kip = 0.113 m-kN

Table X. Forces, moments, impact percentages and ranges in critical


members of the partial bridge model, shown in Figure 3, with semirigid
connections (without middle joints of stringers)
Member

Force Max.L.L.
(kip) o r Static
Moment (kip or
(in.-kip) in.-kip)

Max.L.L.
Dynamic
(kip or
in.-kip)

Impact Min.L.L.
Range
(46) D-ic
(kip o r
(kip or in.-kip)
in. -kip)

82.72
55.97

105.78
67.33

27.27
20.39

35.04
22.76

70.74
44.62

MZ2

6085.02
55.97

7463.68
67.38

22.65
20.39

2490.83
22.76

4972.85
44.62

Stringer Mz2

892.71

1075.80

20.51

349.68

726.12

Hanger

Fx
MY

Floor
Beam

Mzl

L.L. = live load: 1 kip = 4.45 Wi; 1 in.-kip = 0.113 m-kN

concluded that floor beams that are not connected at the truss joints have little effect, and future studies should
be based only on connections a t the truss joints.

Eflect of stringer vibrations


This effect is studied by inserting a rigid joint at the centre ofeach stringer, as shown in Figure 3. The results,
shown as Case (a) of Table XI, are compared with those shown in Table X (without a middle joint). It can be
seen that stringer vibrations cause a moderate increase in the forces and moments, and their ranges, and impact
factors in the hangers, floor beams and stringers.
Effect of vehicle suspension damping
This effect is studied by comparing the results from Case (a) and (b) in Table XI. Vehicle damping (given in
Table IV) slightly increases the forces and moments, and their ranges, and impact factors in the critical
members. However, since the structural damping of the bridge tends to reduce the corresponding values," the
net effect of these two dampings can be considered to be a cancellation ofeach other. The results will, therefore,
be fairly close to the true response values even if both the bridge and vehicle dampings are neglected.
Effect of train speed
The train speed is reduced from 60 to 50mph, and the results are shown under Case (c) in Table XI.
Comparing these results with those shown in Case (a) in the same table, it can be observed that a reduction in
speed causes a moderate reduction in the forces, moments and their ranges and the impact factors in the critical
members.

44

A. WIRIYACHAI, K-H. CHU AND V. K. GARG

1.4,

DYNAMIC RESPONSE
STATIC RESPONSE
AT MIDDLE

AT END
H

0.2
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 :1.0-1.2

1.4 1.6

l.BVtiL
Figure 9. Stringer moments for the partial bridge model shown in Figure 3

Table XI. Forces, moments, impact percentages and ranges in critical


members of the partial bridge model shown in Figure 3 with semirigid
connections, and with middle joints of stringers
Member

Force Max.L.L. Max.L.L. Zmpact Min.L.L. Range


(kip) or Static Dynamic
($)
Dynamic (kip or
Moment !kip or (kip or
(kip or in.-kip)
(in.-kip) in.-kip) in.-kip)
in. -kip)

(a) Damping of Locomotive not Considered at 60 mph

Hanger
Floor
Beam

F,
MY
M,1
MZ 2

Stringer Mzl
%2

82.72
55.97

111.34
71.91

34.60
28.48

37.28
24.85

74.06
47.06

6085.02 7844.68
71.91
55.97

28.92 2649.06 5195.62


24.85
47.06
28.48

4397.05 5360.44
892.71 1110.71

21.91 1437.46 3922.98


24.42 361.46 749.32

(b) Damping of Locomotives Considered at 60 mph

Hanger

82.72
55.97

114.80
73.34

38.78
31.04

38.58
25.65

76.22
47.69

6085.02 7962.25
73.34
55.97
4397.05 5480.04
892.71 1138.08

30.85 2718.30 5243.95


31.04
25.65
47.69
Stringer Mzl
24.63 1492.87 3987.17
27.52 374.54 763.54
MZ 2
(c) Damping of Locomotives not Considered at 50 mph

Floor
Beam

Mzl

Mz2

82.72 108.60
70.56
55.97
6085.02 7675.04
70.56
55.97
5291.41
4397.05
892.71 1094.02

36.49
72.11
32.29
26.07
25.31
45.25
Floor
26.13 2667.25 5007.79
26.07
26.45
45.25
Beam
Stringer Mz1
20.34 1401.84 3889.57
22.55 362.37 731.65
MZ2
(d) Long Locomotives without Damping at 60 mph

Hanger

Fx
MY
M z ~
Mz2

Hanger

F,
MY

Floor
Beam

MZ2

M,1

Stringer M,1
M,2

83.16
56.89

111.76
73.62

34.39
29.41

6196.29 7952.94
73.62
56.89
3862.31 5045.34
747.22 951.58

28.35
29.41
30.63
27.35

11.71
3.64

100.39
69.98

325.00 7627.94
3.64
69.98
62.75 5108.09
181.48 770.10

L.L. = live load; 1 kip = 4.45 kN; 1 in.-kip = 0.113 m-W

IMPACT STUDY

45

Effect of longer vehicle


This study is intended to evaluate the effects of vehicle axle spacing on the forces and moments, and their
ranges. The data for a long vehicle is listed in Table IV, and results of the study are shown in Case (d)in Table
XI. These values are compared with those shown in Case (a) of the same table, and it can be seen that the
changes in forces and moments are small, but the impact factors in the stringers are noticeably increased. The
ranges for the forces and moments are substantially higher for the long vehicle, as compared with those for the
regular vehicle, except for the stringer connection moments. As an example, the range for the hanger force is
100 kips (445 kN) for the long vehicle, but only 70 kips ( 3 11 kN) for the regular vehicle. This is also true for the
floor beam and stringer moments.
Comments on impact factors
The impact factors, in all of the cases investigated, are generally below the 44.4 per cent value shown in the
AREA specifications.
CONCLUSIONS

In previous studies, the bridge models are formulated with either hinged or rigid connections. In this study, the
bridge model is extended to include semirigid connections. In addition, partial bridge models are developed to
study the impacts and the force and moment ranges in the critical members, while reducing the associated
computational costs.
The results from several partial bridge models are compared, and the axial forces for the hinged, rigid and
semirigid connection models are found to be practically the same. The values of both the in-plane and out-ofplane moments differ very little for the bridge models with rigid and semirigid connections. The calculated
impact factors are, in general, less than the AREA specified values.
The results for fatigue critical members are in good agreement, for both the partial and complete bridge
models. The partial bridge model is also used to perform a parametric study, and the following conclusions are
made: (a) floor beam connections above the truss joints have negligible effects upon the member forces and
moments; (b) vehicle damping, stringer stiffness, stringer vibration and an increase in train speed tend to
increase the impact factors, member forces and moments; (c) structural damping of the bridge reduces the
impact factors; (d) long vehicles, with longer distance between the truck centres of adjacent vehicles, cause
substantial increases in the stress ranges, and consequently, reduce the fatigue lives of the bridge members; (e)
the calculated impact percentages are generally lower than the AREA specified values.
REFERENCES
1. K. J. Bathe and E. L. Wilson, Numerical Methods in Finite Element Analysis, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1976.

2. J. M. Biggs, Introduction to Structural Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964.


3. K. H. Chu, V. K. Garg and C. L. Dhar, Railway-bridge impact-simplified train and bridge models, J . Struct. Diu., ASCE 105,18231844 (1979).
4. K. H. Chu, V. K. Garg and A. Wiriyachai, Dynamic interaction of railway trains and bridges, Vehicle System Dynamics 9,207-236
(1980).
5. C. L. Dhar, K. H. Chu and V. K. Garg, Dynamic response of a single track truss bridge, Transportation Research Board Record 665,
St. Louis, Mo., Sept. (1978).
6. E. P. Drew, Record stress histories in railway bridges, J . Struct. Diu., ASCE, 94, 2713-2724 (1968).
7. First, Second and Final Reports of the Steel Structures Research Committee, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research of
Great Britain, H.M. Stationary Office, London, England, 1931-36.
8. J. W. Fisher, Guide t o 1974 A A S H T O Fatigue Specijications, American Institute of Steel Construction, New York. Revised in 1977.
9. W. C. Hurty, and M. F. Rubinstein, Dynamics of Structures, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1964.
10. B. Johnston and E. H. Mount, Designing welded frames for continuity, Welding J . , 18, 3555-3745 (1939).
1 1 . B. Johnston and E. H. Mount, Analysis of building frames with semirigid connections, Trans. ASCE, 107, 993-1019 (1942).
12. S. R. Lionberger and W. Weaver, Jr., Dynamic response offrames with non-rigid connections,J . Engng Mech. Diu., ASCE, 95,95-114
(1969).
13. J. E. Lothers, Elastic restraint equations for semirigid connections, Trans. ASCE, 116,48@494 (1951)(see also Lothers, Advanced
Design in Structural Steel, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.)
14. G. R. Monforton and T. S. Wu, Matrix analysis of semirigid connected frames, J . Struct. Diu. ASCE, 89, No. ST6, 1 3 4 2 (1963).
15. N. M. Newmark, A method of computation for structural dynamics, J . Engng Mech. Diu., ASCE, 85, No. EM3, 67-94 (1959).
16. J. C. Rathbun, Elastic properties of riveted connections, Trans. A S C E 101, 524-563 (1936).
17. Specifications for steel railway bridges, American Railway Engineering Association, Manual for Railway Engineering, Chicago,
Illinois, 1973, Chapter 15.
18. J. C. Urquhart and C. E. ORourke, Design ofSteel Structures, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1930.