I Bucknall, J Lane, I Palmer

page 1

DESIGN PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR RAILWAY BRIDGES IN BS EN 1990:2002 ANNEX A2

Ian Bucknall, Network Rail, London, UK John Lane, RSSB, London, UK Ian Palmer, Mott MacDonald, Croydon, UK

Abstract
BS EN 1990 Annex A2 contains the design performance requirements that are applicable to railway bridges. Compliance with the requirements limiting deformations and deck accelerations is intended to ensure the safe operation of the railway and comfort of passengers. While limiting deformations is required for railway bridge design to BS 5400-2 and associated railway group standards, checking the bridge behaviour for the dynamic effects of railway traffic has historically been limited to applying a dynamic factor to the static load obtained from the design load models (RU and SW/0) in BS 5400-2. However, where bridge decks fall outside of the limits assumed in determining , a dynamic analysis is required to ensure that the deformation and vibration limits set in Annex A2 of BS EN 1990 are met. The background to the differences between the design performance requirements adopted for designs to BS 5400-2 and the requirements of BS EN 1990 Annex 2 and BS EN 1991-2, will be examined. The emerging requirements for clarification and amendment of the design performance requirements in Annex A2 of BS EN 1990 will also be highlighted.

Notation
L dynamic factor load classification factor effective span length deformation

I Bucknall, J Lane, I Palmer

page 2

Introduction
Rail bridges are designed to ensure the safe passage of the railway traffic. This is achieved by ensuring that the stiffness of the bridge is sufficient to prevent excessive deformations that could lead to overstress in the rails, dangerous twisting of the tracks leading to derailment or an excessive dynamic response of the bridge leading to premature failure. The bridge must also not cause uncomfortable vibrations for passengers. BS EN 1990 Annex A2[1] specifies the performance criteria for railway bridges to ensure these levels of safety and comfort are met. The limits for allowable deformations specified in BS EN 1990 Annex A2, generally align with the limits specified in UIC 776-3R[2], although the application of the load classification factor, , (BS EN 1991-2[3], 6.3.2(3)P), means that the BS EN 1990 Annex A2 railway loads are typically greater than those defined in UIC 776-3R as amended by GC/RC5510[4] (now withdrawn). Dynamic effects on railway bridges were generally included in the quasi-static analysis required in BS 5400-2[5] and UIC 776-3R. This design approach means that the static classified vertical load effects are factored to account for the dynamic effects of the loading from trains, through the application of a dynamic factor . However, this approach is valid only for bridges that satisfy certain stiffness criteria, and for standard railway traffic travelling at up to 200km/h. Where bridges or bridge floors are outside of the stiffness criteria, or line speeds exceed 200 km/h, a bridge specific dynamic analysis is required in accordance with the UK National Annex to BS EN 1991-2[6], NA.2.50. The following sections compare the BS 5400-2 requirements and methodologies with those of BS EN 1990 Annex A2.

Design Performance Safety: Deformation

In addition to the structural capacity of the bridges, the bridge is designed to ensure that the track is not overstressed or that trains are subjected to sudden changes in the track profile through excessive deformation. BS EN 1990 Annex A2 specifies deformation limits to ensure that bridge performance will not contribute to an unsafe railway. The limits take into account the mitigating effects of track maintenance that overcome, for example, the effects of settlement and creep. The performance requirements are described in the following sections and comparisons are made with the historical requirements. Track twist limitations The twist of the bridge, measured along the centreline of each track, is limited to minimise the risk of derailment (see Figure 1). The track twist must be checked on the approach to the bridge, across the bridge and on departure from the bridge, and also to include the effects of adjacent tracks being loaded, where the bridge supports more than one track.

I Bucknall, J Lane, I Palmer

page 3

Figure 1. BS EN 1990 Annex A2 definition of and limit for total track twist

BS EN 1990 Annex A2, A2.4.4.2.2 (2), requires the track twist to be checked due to the action of railway traffic loads only and BS EN 1990 Annex A2, A2.4.4.2.2 (3) requires the total track twist to be checked, i.e. with the track profile considered in addition to the deformation of the bridge under the railway traffic loads. BS EN 1990 Annex A2, A2.4.4.2.2 (2), permits the National Annex to specify the allowable twist limit when checking the twist under railway traffic load only and the UK National Annex to BS EN 1990 recommends that the requirements are specified for the individual project. Network Rails design standard, NR/L2/CIV/020[7] (planned for publication Spring 2011), states that the requirements of A2.4.4.2.2 (2) to check the maximum twist shall not apply and that the only total twist shall be considered. This is because the requirements of BS EN 1990 Annex A2, A2.4.4.2.2 (2) are considered to be conservative as a traffic safety limit and UK experience has demonstrated that compliance with the total twist limits is acceptable. The total twist limits of BS EN 1990 Annex A2, A2.4.4.2.2 (3) are the same as the limits in UIC 776-3R. For a track gauge of 1,435m and two axles spaced 3m apart, no wheel shall be more than 7,5mm out of the plane defined by the other three wheels (see Figure 1). This 7,5mm/3m total twist limit is the equivalent of the 0,0025 radians limit defined in UIC 7763R. However, the applied load for checking the total twist is different. UIC 776-3R, as amended by GC/RC5510 (now withdrawn), requires the dynamic factor to be applied to the specified design loading (i.e. vertical railway traffic loads and centrifugal effects) with partial factors equal to 1.0. BS EN 1990 Annex A2, A2.4.4.2.2(1)P states that the loads to apply are, the vertical and centrifugal effects of LM71 (also SW/0 and SW/2 as appropriate) multiplied by the dynamic factor and the load classification factor . This results in an applied railway traffic load higher than that for designs using UIC 776-3R as the UK National Annex to BS EN 1991-2, NA.2.48 specifies an value of 1,10 and NR/L2/CIV/020 specifies an value of 1,21. The latter includes a robustness factor (det = 1.1) to satisfy the High Speed Technical

I Bucknall, J Lane, I Palmer

page 4

Specification for Interoperability requirements to maintain safety and reliability over the life of the structure and shall be applied to all designs for new and, where possible, replacement bridge designs. The appropriate value for the dynamic factor has always been subject to interpretation as bridge decks deform both transversely and longitudinally and a different dynamic factor can be applicable where the stiffness of the transverse and longitudinal elements is significantly different and for decks with a significant skew. BS EN 1990 Annex A2 does not provide additional guidance on the appropriate value of to use, but non contradictory complimentary information is included in NR/L2/CIV/020, allowing a composite dynamic factor be calculated to represent the variable influence of the longitudinal and transverse elements. Vertical deformation limitations The vertical deformation limits specified in BS EN 1990:2002 Annex A2, A2.4.4.2.3 for the maximum total vertical deformation and rotations at the bridge ends ensure acceptable vertical track radii and robust structures (see Figure 2a). The deck end rotation limits ensure that additional rail stresses and uplift forces on rail fasteners are minimised, along with minimising angular discontinuities at switches or rail expansion devices near the bridge.

Figure 2a. BS EN 1990:2002 Annex A2 vertical deformation limits

Figure 2b. UIC776-3R vertical deformation limits

The total vertical deformation limit in BS EN 1990 Annex A2, A2.4.4.2.3(1) is L/600, measured along any track, where L is the effective span. A comparable safety limit is not specified in UIC 776-3R: UIC 776-3R, section 4 only states that the total vertical deflection must not encroach into the required headroom. UIC 776-3R, section 6 recommends that the rate of change of angle at the simply supported ends of the bridge deck is checked against the limits in UIC 776-3R, table 1. The change of angle is limited to 0,010 radian where ballasted track is provided on both sides of a joint at the end of the bridge, and 0,005 radian where direct fastened track is provided on oneside of the deck end joint and ballasted track provided on the other side of the joint (see Figure 2b). BS EN 1990 Annex A2, A2.4.4.2.3 refers to BS EN 1991-2, 6.5.4 for the rotation limitations at the bridge ends of ballasted track. BS EN 1991-2, 6.5.4.5.5(3)P limits the vertical

I Bucknall, J Lane, I Palmer

page 5

deformation to 3 mm for line speeds up to 160 km/h and 2 mm for line speeds over 160 km/h. For a typical bridge overhang past the bearings of 300mm, the 3mm limit (up to 160 km/h) in BS EN 1990 Annex A2 will be less than the rotation allowed in UIC 776-3R Table 1. Rotation limits for non ballasted track are required to be specified by the individual project in the UK National Annex to BS EN 1990, NA.2.3.11.6. As with the track twist checks, the applied load for checking vertical deformation appears to be different. UIC 776-3R, as amended by GC/RC5510 (now withdrawn) requires the dynamic factor to be applied to the specified design loading (i.e fL x RU or SW/0). BS EN 1990:2002 Annex A2, A2.4.4.2.3(1) specifies the classified characteristic vertical load be applied, i.e. LM71 (SW/0) multiplied by , but no mention is made of the requirement to apply the dynamic factor (). This is inconsistent with UIC 776-3 and the checks for twist of the bridge deck (BS EN 1990 Annex A2, A2.4.4.2.2) and transverse deformation (BS EN 1990:2002 Annex A2, A2.4.4.2.3), where the need to apply the dynamic factor is specifically stated. This oversight will be corrected in a future amendment of BS EN 1990 Annex A2 and A2.4.4.2.3(1), which will require the dynamic factor () to be applied when checking the vertical deformation of a deck. Transverse deformation limitations Transverse deformation of the bridge is required to be limited to ensure that the horizontal track alignment remains acceptable (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Definition of transverse deformations

The need for transverse deformation limits is generally more likely to feature where the transverse stiffness of the deck is much less than the longitudinal stiffness, although it may also be an issue for skew decks.

I Bucknall, J Lane, I Palmer

page 6

BS EN 1990 Annex A2, A2.4.4.2.4 specifies the maximum change of radius of curvature and maximum horizontal rotation in Table A2.8. The limits depend on the number of consecutive decks and the line speed. The limits are the identical to those in UIC 776-3R. The loads to be applied in accordance with BS EN 1990 Annex A2 are LM71 (SW/0) multiplied by and , including wind, nosing, centrifugal and thermal effects. Although not categorically stated in UIC 776-3R, it is implied that the same loads are to be applied as those in BS EN 1990, Annex A2, with the exception that is not required to be applied to the railway traffic loads for checking the UIC 776-3R deformation limits. Longitudinal deformation limitations The longitudinal displacement of the end of the upper surface of the deck due to longitudinal displacement and rotation of the bridge deck end shall be limited to minimise rail stresses and to minimise disturbance to the track ballast and the adjacent track formation (see Figure 4). The check of longitudinal deformation is a new concept introduced in BS EN 1990, Annex A2, A2.4.4.2.5. The requirements for determination of the required combined response of the structure and track, are defined in BS EN 1991-2, 6.5.4.5.2.

Figure 4. Definition of longitudinal deformations

I Bucknall, J Lane, I Palmer

page 7

BS EN 1991-2, 6.5.4.5.2(1)P requires that the deformation, at the bridge end between two adjacent decks, or between the deck and the substructure, under traction and braking, is checked. The loads to be applied when checking deformations are the larger of the longitudinal traction and braking loads derived in accordance with the UK National Annex to BS EN 1991-2, NA.2.45.2 or BS EN 1991-2, 6.5.3. The longitudinal deformation limits depend on the track details and are typically 5 mm for continuous welded rails without rail expansion devices or with a rail expansion device at one end of the deck, or 30 mm for rail expansion devices at both ends of the deck. In addition to checking the longitudinal deformation under longitudinal loads, the longitudinal deformation of the bridge ends under the vertical loads also needs to be considered. BS EN 1991-2, 6.5.4.5.2(2)P specifies that up to two tracks may be loaded with classified vertical traffic loads (i.e. LM71 (SW/0) multiplied by ) with any associated dynamic effects neglected. The longitudinal deformation limits depend on whether the combined response of the track and structure has been considered, being 8 mm when the combined behaviour of the structure and the track is taken into account, or 10 mm when the combined behaviour of the structure and the track is neglected.

Design Performance Safety: Vibration

The design performance of railway bridges has historically been assured through the application of a dynamic factor to the static load obtained from the design load models (RU and SW/0) in BS 5400-2. For the traffic that generally uses mainline railway bridges in the UK, a mix of passenger trains with a maximum speed of 200 km/h, and freight trains with a maximum speed of 120 km/h, has been assumed to comply with the BS 5400-2 load models. The application of a dynamic factor to the loads calculated in accordance with the requirements of BS 5400-2, has in practice been deemed to provide an adequate level of safety for the dynamic effects in most cases. The dynamic performance of a railway bridge is checked indirectly by complying with, the live load deflection limits, and limits for the first natural frequency of bending (n0), set out in UIC 776-3R. These limits are the same as those included in the UK National Annex to BS EN 1991-2, Figure NA.12. However, where train speeds exceed the maximum values stated above, or where resonance can occur, the dynamic factor calculated from BS 5400-2 may not be adequate and there could be a risk of overloading a bridge or of premature fatigue failure. To address this situation, the UK National Annex to BS EN 1991-2 contains a procedure to establish whether a bridge-specific dynamic analysis is necessary. Where a dynamic analysis is required, the deformation and vibration limits set out in BS EN 1990 Annex A2, are intended to ensure the safe performance of railway bridges subject to passenger trains travelling at speeds greater than 200 km/h. The High Speed Load Model (HSLM) was introduced to replicate the dynamic characteristics of real high speed trains for this purpose. The design requirements within BS EN 1990 Annex A2 were developed for typical Continental European slab-type railway bridge decks. However, there are railway bridge types that are prevalent in the UK (half-through types for example), which would not comply with the BS EN 1990 Annex A2 limits at speeds lower than 200 km/h and the UK National Annex to BS EN 1991-2, NA.2.50, requires consideration of these railway bridge types and for speeds below 200 km/h also.

I Bucknall, J Lane, I Palmer

page 8

The need for dynamic analysis The UK National Annex to BS EN 1991-2, NA.2.50 provides the flow charts to determine whether a dynamic analysis is required. In addition to the quasi-static analysis, the design may be checked to ensure resonance does not occur (as this could lead to unacceptable deformations and a reduced fatigue life), and that the deck response (acceleration) is within the limits set out in BS EN 1990 Annex A2. The UK National Annex to BS EN 1991-2, Figure NA.12 is applicable for simple structures (i.e. those structures that exhibit only longitudinal line beam behaviour) and the UK National Annex to BS EN 1991-2, Figure NA.13 is applicable for both simple and complex structures (i.e. those structures that require deck/floor elements to distribute axle/wheel loads to primary longitudinal elements). The UK National Annex to BS EN 1991-2, NA.2.50 allows all choices and options relating to dynamic analysis to be specified for the individual project. Consequently, where a dynamic analysis is necessary, reference to NR/L2/CIV/020 is required. Much of the information contained in NR/L2/CIV/020 was established following research undertaken for the West Coast Mainline Upgrade project. Details of the background research supporting the requirements and limits stated in NR/L2/CIV/020, for railway bridge types common on the UK railway network, are described in the paper Permissible Deck Accelerations for Rail Bridge Dynamic Assessments, Norris. P et al.[8]. Dynamic analysis design rules Where a dynamic analysis is required, the designer is required to check the effect of real trains (axle loads and spacings to be specified for the individual project) and, where the route is part of the high speed Trans European Network (TENs route), the load effects attributable to the High Speed Load Models (HSLMs). Two models, HSLM A and HSLM B, are defined in BS EN 1991-2, 6.4.6.1.1(4) and (5) respectively. Each HSLM represents a Universal Train with variable coach lengths. The pair of HSLMs together represent the dynamic load effects of articulated, conventional and regular high speed passenger trains, which comply with the requirements for the European Technical Specification for Interoperability on high speed routes (HS INS TSI). BS EN 1991-2, 6.4.6.1.1 (6), Table 6.4, specifies requirements for the application of HSLM A and HSLM B for analysis, in terms of particular structure types and for particular span ranges. It is permitted to specify additional requirements for the application of HSLM A and HSLM B in the National Annex. The UK National Annex to BS EN 1991-2, NA.2.54 allows the individual project to specify additional requirements for the application of HSLM but these are to be specified for the individual project. Bridge deck acceleration limitations BS EN 1990, Annex A2, A2.4.4.2.1(4), provides limits for bridge deck acceleration associated with particular loading frequencies. The recommended deck acceleration limits are: i. bt = 3,5 m/s2 for ballasted track. ii. df = 5,0 m/s2 for directly fastened track. These acceleration limits are associated with loading frequencies up to the greater of: i. 30 Hz. ii. 1,5 times the frequency of the fundamental mode of vibration of the member being considered. iii. The frequency of the third mode of vibration of the member.

I Bucknall, J Lane, I Palmer

page 9

The UK National Annex to BS EN 1990, NA.2.3.11.2, advises that the maximum peak values of bridge deck acceleration and the associated frequency limits, should be determined for the individual project and Railway Group Standard, GC/RT5112[9], 3.3.2, states that the recommended peak values for deck acceleration shall be used. The GC/RT5112 recommendations are valid only for typical Continental European slab-type railway bridge decks. Shake table testing in Germany, commissioned by Network Rail as part of the West Coast Route modernisation project, has demonstrated that the BS EN 1990, Annex A2, A2.4.4.2.1(4) limits are onerous for typical UK railway half through bridge types. Therefore the requirements in NR/L2/CIV/020 include increasing the limit bt = 5,0 m/s2 for ballasted track for short half wave lengths (i.e. short enough to not disturb more than two sleepers). GC/RT5112 will be amended to clarify the limitations of the recommended values in EN 1990, Annex A2, A2.4.4.2.1(4), at the earliest opportunity.

Design Performance Safety: Other Requirements

In addition to the performance requirements described in detail in BS EN 1990:2002 Annex A2 and standards referred to therein, BS EN 1990:2002 Annex A2, A2.4.4.1(2)P specifies that unrestrained uplift at bearings shall be avoided to prevent premature bearing failure.

Design Performance Passenger Comfort

Passenger comfort depends on the vertical acceleration experienced inside the coach. Although subjective, research by the Office for Research and Experiments (ORE) has derived a number of comfort levels; acceptable, good and very good, with typical levels of acceleration associated with each. The bridge response, train suspension response and condition of the track, all influence the vertical acceleration experienced by the passengers. A simplified approach with rules based on checking the vertical deflections of a railway bridge, has been established and although not specifically stated, it is assumed the approach is valid for railway bridges with a natural frequency within the limits in BS EN 1991-2, Figure 6.10.

I Bucknall, J Lane, I Palmer

page 10

Deformation limitations BS EN 1990, Annex A2, Figure A2.3, provides charts of the span / deflection limits plotted against span for three or more simply supported spans and for a very good comfort level (see Figure 5). The limits may be factored where appropriate in accordance with A2.4.4.3.2 (4), (5) and (6) for other comfort levels, span numbers and span arrangements. The UK National Annex to BS EN 1990, Annex A2, NA.2.3.11.10, allows the individual project to specify the level of comfort required. NR/L2/CIV/020 requires a good level of comfort for all bridges except for bridges on a primary route, or where the line speed exceeds 145km/h, where a very good level is specified.

Figure 5: Vertical deformation limits for very good passenger comfort and a 3 span simply supported bridge. (BS EN 1990:2002 Annex A2, Figure A2.3)

I Bucknall, J Lane, I Palmer

page 11

This approach is similar to that in UIC 776-3R which gives a number of tables with span / deflection limits for selected bridge arrangements. The values in UIC 776-3R do not cover such a range of speeds as in BS EN 1990, Annex A2. A comparison of the two indicates that the BS EN 1990, Annex A2 limits generally allow a greater deformation than UIC 776-3R. As with the safety performance requirements, the load applied in accordance with BS EN 1990, Annex A2, is LM71 multiplied by the dynamic factor and the load classification factor . For passenger comfort, BS EN 1990, Annex A2, A2.4.4.3.1(2) specifies a value of = 1,0. This is the same as the load specified in UIC 776-3R as amended by GC/RC5510 (now withdrawn). It is worth noting that the passenger comfort span / deflection limits are usually more stringent than the L/600 vertical deformation safety limit in BS EN 1990, Annex A2, A2.4.4.2.3(1).

Design Performance Future Amendments

The European Railway Agency, has submitted a proposal to CEN for amendment of BS EN 1990 Annex A2. The proposals are for revision of section A2.4.4 to: i. ii. clarify the purpose of the verifications regarding deformations and vibrations for railway bridges, review and revise the recommended limiting values for deformations and vibrations for railway bridges, especially limiting values for maximum acceleration of a bridge deck, longitudinal displacements at the ends of a bridge deck and limits relating to the transverse vibration of a bridge deck.

For the purpose of ensuring compatibility with the European Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSIs), it is necessary to improve understanding of the purpose of the performance limits set, in particular the distinction between safety and other performance requirements. It is recognised that further work undertaken by the UIC since the initial development of BS EN 1990, Annex A2, has identified areas for further study covering: i. ii. iii. iv. potential conservatism of the acceleration and deformation limits, distinction between safety and comfort limits for track twist, clarification of the purpose of the limits set i.e. safety or other compatibility with interoperability limits for axle load/speed

Conclusions
BS EN 1990 Annex A2 provides requirements for the design performance of railway bridges, through limiting deformations and deck accelerations, to ensure the safe operation of the railway and the comfort of passengers. The deformation checks will be familiar to the railway bridge designer who will not notice significant differences compared with the existing requirements of UIC 776-3R as amended by GC/RC5510 (now withdrawn). However, BS EN 1990 Annex A2 does introduce a number of checks not previously routinely checked in design. These include checking of longitudinal deformations and, more significantly, checking the response of the structure to high speed railway traffic to ensure resonance or enhanced dynamic effects are avoided.

I Bucknall, J Lane, I Palmer

page 12

The opportunity has also been taken in this paper to identify areas where additional clarification is required, such as: i. = 1,21 (specified in NR/L2/CIV/020) shall be used in the deformation checks as appropriate. ii. In checking the vertical deformation of the bridge against the L/600 limit in BS EN 1990 Annex A2, A2.4.4.2.3, the dynamic factor shall be applied.

References
[1]

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

[9]

BS EN 1990 (2002 +A1:2005). Basis of structural design. BSi, London, UK. UIC 776-3R (2001). Deformation of bridges, International Union of Railways. Paris. BS EN 1991-2 (2003). Actions on structures - Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. BSI, London, UK. GC/RC5510 (2000). Recommendations for the Design of Bridges. Railtrack, UK. BS 5400-2 (2006). Steel, concrete and composite bridges Part 2: Specification for loads. BSi, London, UK. UK National Annex to BS EN 1991-2 (2003). Actions on structures - Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. BSI, London, UK NR/L2/CIV/020 draft 13 (2010), Design of Bridges & Culverts. Network Rail, London, UK. Norris, P; Wilkins, A G, and Bucknall, I K. Permissible Deck Accelerations for Rail Bridge Dynamic Assessments Proceedings of IABSE Symposium, Structures for High Speed Railway Transportation, Antwerp 2003. GC/RT5112 (2008) Rail Traffic Loading Requirements for the Design of Railway Structures. Railway Group Standards, London, UK.