Superstructure for wheel-rail-traffic

Interaction between rail and bridge

Track/Bridge Interaction – State of the art and examples
Track/Bridge Interaction significantly influences the choice of
bridge systems, construction and calculation because of actions
caused by rail traffic (braking and acceleration, LM 71) and tem-
perature changes. Main parameters with regard to the construc-
tion are the track superstructure, the expansion length of the
bridge superstructure, the support stiffness, the transition struc-
tures for bridges and the bridge design. Whereas in the majority
of cases simplified calculation methods are sufficient, in certain
difficult cases special and complex calculation methods are ne­
cessary. This article demonstrates the technical background and
the state of the art with a prospect of further developments.

System observations
The track/bridge interaction plays a significant role when plan-
ning and dimensioning railway bridges. Due to acceleration and
braking forces, temperature variations and resulting longitudinal
extension of the superstructure – especially in the rail –, con-
straining forces occur in the track. In some load-bearing struc-
tures and for some lengths, these forces are only manageable by
structural solutions such as expansion joints or by exact verifica-
tion through calculation.

The course of additional rail stresses (see figure 3) due to tem-

perature in case of a beam on two supports can be derived from
the substructures stiffness.

LM 71: loadmodel acc. to DIN-Fb 101 (german annex to the Eurocode) Figure 1+2 New railway line Erfurt-Leipzig/Halle - Gänsebach Viaduct
The image shows the following characteristics of interaction be- of the train convoy. This causes compressive stresses between
tween track and bridge: the train coaches. As a result the individual, block-braked vehicle
- The substructure’s stiffness plays a decisive role in distributing shows constant friction values, but the long, block-braked convoy
additional rail stresses . shows a linear increase of braking jerks due to the slow emptying
- The load-bearing behaviour of a bridge with elastic support (sub- of the main air line.
structure stiffness ≈ 0 kN/cm) demonstrates that displacement
in longitudinal direction can be reduced. When the thermal fixe The braking jerk, immediately before the train comes to a halt,
point of the superstructure is shifted to the bridge centre, rail which is relevant for the dimensioning of railway bridges, occurs
stresses decrease. The shift of the fixe point to the bridge centre within 0.04 to 0.54 seconds. Freight trains present the highest
leads thus directly to an elongation of the admissible extension braking forces on the rail during braking jerks due to their high
length of the rail (without installation of a maintenance-inten- dead weight and braking system. In DIN-Fb 101 characteristic val-
sive expansion joint). ues for acceleration and braking are determined:
- Acceleration force: QIak = 33 kN/m · La,b [m] ≤ 1000 kN for load
Parameters of influences of track/bridge interaction models 71, SW/0, SW/2 and HSLM
Admissible compensation and expansion lengths of the - Braking force: Qlbk = 20 kN/m · La,b [m] ≤ 6000 kN for load ­models
superstructure 71, SW/0 and HSLM
In the German railway technical regulations maximum expansion - Qlbk = 35 kN/m · La,b [m] for load model SW/2
lengths, for single- or multi-tracked railway bridges with ballasted
and ballastless track as well as continuously welded rail, are de- In the load model ‘trains without cargo’ forces are negligible. ­The
termined as follows: characteristic value of 20 kN/m braking force corresponds to ¼ of
- 60 m for steel bridge the line load of 80 kN/m of the load pattern LM 71.
- 90 m for solid bridges and composite bridges The maximum length of action is chosen at 300 m so that in gen-
These values vary as steel bridges, in contrast to solid or compo­ eral no braking forces exceeding 6000 kN (600 to) occur. It has to
site bridges, react more sensitive to temperature changes. be taken into consideration that heavy freight trains (2000 to and
more) are usually not longer than 300 to 400 m because of the
Influences of acceleration and braking limited draw hook load (at acceleration).
The forces exerted on the rail track and the superstructure
caused by acceleration and braking are only briefly acting forces Stiffness of substructure
compared to temperature changes, which are absorbed by the The relation of load induction into the fixed bearings or the rail
bridge’s load-bearing structure, transferred via the track and de- depends largely on the stiffness of the bridge’s substructure. Piers
pendent on the rail resistances as well as the horizontal stiffness of high viaducts are sometimes yielding. During short-term acting
of the bearings including the substructure (abutments, piers). loads due to braking and accelerating, the superstructure does
­The forces are limited by the maximum possible friction between not participate in distribution of longitudinal forces leading to ad-
wheel and rail (steel on steel) and lead to tensile stresses in the ditional rail stresses (see figure 4).
rail directly behind the braking train and to compressive stresses The substructure’s stiffness is composed of
in front of the braking train. - bending stiffness of pier shafts δP
The friction brakes are mainly actuated by compressed air. Be- - resistance of the ground δϕ underneath the foundations against
cause when the brake is actuated by the operators brake valve tilting of the foundations and footings
(in the traction vehicle) the pressure wave in the main line only - resistance δh of the piers as a result of displacement of pile cap
spreads with 250 to 280 m/s, the train is slowed down with a time
delay, the so called breakdown time. This delayed braking effect Expansion joints, functionality and dimensioning
entails longitudinal dynamic forces, especially in long train con- When for reason of the terrains topography or other constraints
voys, i.e. the rear end, slowed down belatedly, runs into the front (e.g. rivers etc.), the maximum expansion length of the rails of

DIN-Fb 101: german annex to the Eurocode

Figure 3 Additional rail stresse due to support stiffness

substructures stiffness (kN/cm)

longitudinal stresses

Figure 4 Factors influencing support stiffness

60 m/90 m cannot be maintained, the additional rail stresses are - Open joints with fixed rail furrow underneath the separation joint
to be reduced in another way and the expansion joints to be as- for large joint movements: opening of joint (underneath the sys-
sembled above the bearings in order to reduce rail stresses due to tem’s level): minimum 200 mm, maximum 600 mm acceptable
elongation of the superstructure (see figure 5). joint movement: Δx ≤ ±200 mm
So theoretically, infinitely long superstructures can be implement-
ed if the rails bending stiffness would not have a restricting effect. - Open joints with furrow and movable fastening which fixes
Expansion joints, however, should be avoided because of the first the furrow centrically underneath the separation joint in case
initial investment and long-term maintenance costs. of large joint movements Opening of joint (underneath the sys-
tem’s level): minimum 200 mm, maximum 1000 mm acceptable
Carriageway joints joint movement: Δx ≤ ±200 mm
To bridge expansion joints at the superstructure end in the area
of the bearings and of fixed bearings to compensate the rotation For larger expansions, the use of full web rails type UIC 60/Vo 1-60
angle of the final tangent, closed or open joint constructions can is recommended. They allow a maximum distance of 110 cm be-
be implemented. tween the sleepers. Displacements of up to 66 cm can be absorbed
(110 cm minus double the required distance between sleeper
Closed joints and track edge (2 × ½ x 44 cm). This represents an expansion
Closed joints are preferred as they are easier to assemble and to length of a single-piece steel superstructure of up to 714 m under
drain. They are mostly used above the fixed bearings. On top of consideration of the temperature difference ΔT = 77 k (acc. to­
movable bearings their use is limited to bridges with small expan- DIN-Fb 101).
sion, as already displacements of 1 to 2 cm under frequent load
change lead to loosening of the ballast in the space between the
sleepers.
- Installation width 260 to 310 mm
- Acceptable joint movement Δx ≤ ±65 mm
Expansion joints
Open joints A standard design of expansion joints is fabricated and assembled.
When using expansion joints of rail UIC 60, open joints (see ­figure In Germany, expansion joints are chosen and dimensioned accord-
7/8) only allow displacements of the superstructure of at maxi- ing to RiL 820.2040 (guidelines of the DB AG). Influencing effects
mum 200 mm at the movable bearing because of the limited dis- are shown in figure 9. During installation, high quality and preci-
tance to the neighbouring sleepers of 65 cm. sion requirements are to be met regarding adjustment criteria.

Figure 5 Rail stresses when expansion joint on one end

expansions joint

rail stress

rail

sleepers / fasteners
Figure 6 Detail of a closed joint

expansion path

base slab base slab

superstructure abutment

Figure 7 Detail of a open joint

773
300

153
130

450 450

650 773 650

2073

Figure 8 Top view on a section pier with an open joint

Superstructure height, projection, gravity centre of super-
structure
Not only in longitudinal direction, can forces cause additional rail fied to a bi-linear behaviour to facilitate verification procedures (see
stresses. Occasionally an unfavourable formation of the final cross figure 11). The resistance factor depends on whether the track is
girder with large projection or a high superstructure (e.g. com- loaded or unloaded.
posite truss bridge with carriageway on top) causes longitudinal
displacement as well as height displacement due to bending from Admissible additional rail stresses
vertical traffic influences (φ LM71). Admissible additional rail stresses are to be verified for critical con-
ditions. The limit values of traction and compression result from
It results thereof: different physical backgrounds and are briefly described in the fol-
- a longitudinal displacement at the movable bearing (see figure lowing.
10 a) compared to the difference δH LM71 between longitudinal
displacement due to movement of the superstructure’s gravity Free stress portion (tensile stresses) of track/bridge interaction
centre caused by traffic action and displacement of the super- Of additional rail stresses (traction) on the bridge for displacements
structure’s edge resulting from torsion of the superstructure from
- a vertical displacement due to the superstructure’s torsion - Φ LM71 (due to torsion and displacement due to the height
caused by traffic action and by the projection of the superstruc- difference between bridge bearing and gravity centre of the
ture behind the bearing axis (see figure 10 b). superstructure)
- temperature expansion of the superstructure and
Rack behaviour against displacement of ballasted and ballast- - longitudinal displacement due to acceleration and braking
less track Thereof results a free stress portion of 112 N/mm2 for additional
The behaviour of the rail in longitudinal direction is divided in rail stresses. The bridge’s bending due to traffic loads results in
resistance to longitudinal displacement of the track (in ballast) additional nominal stress in the rail. This effect is taken into con-
and the longitudinal rail restraint in the rail fasteners (decisive for sideration with reduction by a general free stress portion of 20
ballasted track in the winter (frozen rail bed) as well as ballastless N/mm2. Under consideration of influences from bridge bending,
track). The displacement behaviour is non-linear and was simpli- admissible additional stresses of σ= 92 N/mm2 result.

Figure 9 Calculation of rail expansion joint lenght

max. change in length

rail fastener

ΔLab due to acceleration/braking

ΔLks due to creep/shrinkage

ΔLkt due to temperature ΔLkt due to temperature

ΔLab due to acceleration/braking

shortening
expansion
Figure 10 Effect of deck bending on the end sections
δ
δh=Δx

ΔSLM71 ΔS
ΔSLM71 δv=Δz
ΔSHLM71

φ φ
a b
h
ü

δv +φ

fixed bearing movable bearing fixed bearing

Figure 11 Rack behaviour of track against displacements

force parameters of resistance per unit length of rail

kN/m

longitudinal slipping restraint (estimated)

60 on loaded track
longitudinal displacement resistance on
loaded track with 80 kN/m

50

40

30
longitudinal slipping restraint on
unloaded track (frozen track or balastless track)

20 longitudinal displacement resistance

stabilized rail, unloaded track

10

relative displacement of rail

1 2 3 4 5 6 u in mm
Free stress portion (compressive stresses) for track/bridge
­interaction
The verification of admissible additional rail stresses (compression) - Analysis of bridges:
is derived from the warping criterion of the continuously welded ΔTvorh = 122 K– (38 K+ 50 K+ 3K) = 31 K
track. Reliable and scientifically proven is the verification of pos- with
sible additional rail stresses by Leykauf/Eisenmann in the context - 38 K rail temperature relative to buckling temperature
of introduction of the linear eddy current retarder for the ICE - 50 K safety margin for high-speed traffic v ≥ 230 km/h
This verification is demonstrated in the following in abridged ver- - 3 K elongation of the rail under railway operation
sion. (see figure 12).
The difference of 31 K (more or less 30 K) can be calculated to 72
- Critical temperature rise acc. to Chatkeo/Meier: For a critical N/mm2 in the values of admissible additional rail stresses.
temperature rise, uniform assumptions of approximately 122 K As a result of the above considerations, DIN-Fb 101 admits the
established themselves as reference value. following additional rail stresses:
- Maximum rail temperature: The rail temperature increases to a - ballasted track:
maximum of 18 to 20 K above the outside temperature whereas +92 N/mm2 for tensile forces
the highest external air temperature is assumed at 38°C. Un- –72 N/mm2 for compressive forces
like the habitually supposed maximum temperature in the rail of - ballastless track:
65°C – also anchored in the regulations –,track verifications can +/– 92 N/mm2
be carried out with 58°C. Hence, an equivalent temperature rise
of 38 K (= 58 K – 20 K) can be assumed relative to the lowest (The increase of compressive stresses in case of ballastless track
buckling temperature of 20°C. to 92 N/mm2 is possible because of the much more advantageous
- Safety margin: To take into consideration the differences of the behaviour of ballastless track towards distortion).
buckling temperature occurring in-situ, the influences of braking
forces and force build-up as well as the effects of higher lateral Selection of adequate bridge systems
forces a safety margin depending on running speed acc. to table When designing a bridge, an appropriate bridge system has to
1 has to be included in the verifications. be chosen early on. Bridge systems are divided into single- or

Figure 12 Stresses at rail flange (UIC 60, 900 N/mm2)

Table 1 – Safety margin due to running speed
V in km/h < 80 100 120 140 160 > 230 > 230
maximum stress and minimum stress
ΔTSich 10 20 25 30 40 50 60
900

800

700

600

500
470

400 feasible
Explanation: 335
310 300 free stress portion
admissible σ 470 N/mm2, admissible rail stresses (yield point at 90 % static safety)
less deduction of
2 σA = σbD 205 N/mm2, rigidity of corroded rails acc. to test results of the Technical University Munich
20 N/mm² = 92 N/mm²
admissible σbD 160 N/mm2, admissible maximum tensile bending strength 200
σQ calculated tensile bending stress at the rail foot from wheel force Q due to axle weights (rail UIC 60
130
coefficient of subgrade c = 100 N/cm3, σ= 0,2 ϕ) z. B. 158 N/mm2 at 21 t with v = 200 km/h) 80 100
σT stress from temperature variations in the rail, T = 50 K
σE internal stress (due to rolling)
σU low stress of endurance test (dynamic fatigue test) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
23 38 47
average stress
 multi-piece superstructures with individual or continuous girder
systems. In general, the length of the superstructure is chosen
in such way that no expansion joints are required if possible. It
is evident that coordination with the sector of track construction
is already recommendable at the very beginning. For arrange-
ment of the expansion joints, the bridge’s expansion length LT
is decisive. The expansion length of single-piece bridges are the
section lengths of the bridge superstructure, measured from the
fixe point or the point of zero motion to a movable bridge end. The
consi­deration of the bridge length and the decision to use sin-
gle- or multi-piece bridges lead to standardized solutions which
don’t require supplementary calculations regarding track/bridge
interaction.

Special constructions
To avoid expansion joints in the 70s and 80s, when numerous long
bridges were built in the context of widening navigation channels
which met the limits of expansion lengths (60 m to 90 m), special
constructions were conceived allowing larger expansion lengths.
The most frequent is the so called Meyer-Wunstorf steering bar
(figure13), a simple, mechanical solution. By follower pins, oscil-
lating links/levers and centring rods the centring beam is coupled
at the underside to the superstructure and the abutment. The sim-
abutment abutment ple lever principle centres the superstructure in the middle in such
way that the steel bridge can be implemented with an expansion
abutment A abutment B
superstructure length length of up to 120 m instead of 60 m.
section joint section joint

Calculation methods
Simplified calculation method
For single-piece superstructures under the following conditions:
- rail UIC 60 with tensile strength of minimum 900 N/mm2
- straight rail or rail radii r ≥ 1500 m
- for ballasted track concrete sleepers B 70 W at a distance of at
steering bar
maximum 65 cm or similar sleeper types with at least similar
weight
- for ballasted track of at least 30 cm compacted ballast under
the sleepers
- expansion length are 60 m/90 m or use of expansion joints
calculations can be carried out according to the simplified proce-
dure described in DIN-Fb 101, annex K, chapter 2, without verify-
ing additional rail stresses. In railway construction this applies to
90% of cases. Bearing forces are calculated according to DIN-Fb
101, annex K. Displacements at the movable bridge end caused by
traffic loads and acceleration/braking are to be calculated accord-
Figure 13 Details of the Meyer-Wunsdorf steering bar ing to DIN-Fb 101, annex K, chapter 2.1(P).
Figure 14 Simplified structural model for interaction analyses Figure 15 Actions due to temperature

1 2 5 4

3 3
6 centre of gravity
a b c d

1 Track
2 Superstructure (the image shows a superstructure with two spans and a single-span girder)
3 Earthwork construction
4 Expansion joint (if existing)
5 Non-linear longitudinal springs demonstrate the longitudinal loading/displacement behaviour of the track
6 Longitudinal springs demonstrate stiffness K in longitudinal direction of a fixed bearing under considerati-
on of stiffness of foundation, columns and bearings etc.

Universally applicable verification of track/bridge interaction

In all other cases, exact analyses of a simplified bridge system consideration of eccentricities between rail, bottom sleeper edge
(see figure 14) have to be undertaken. System data: and upper edge of carriageway as well as torsion possibilities of
- The calculation is to be carried out on the embankment area up the sleeper on the ballast and changes of ballast characteristics.
to 90 m behind the superstructure end. Influences are analyzed and show the result that eccentricity be-
tween rail and gravity centre as well as bearing axis of the super-
- For longitudinal rail restraint and rail resistance to longitudinal structure made of box sections lead to marginal differences and
displacement, the relation has to be represented by a bilinear are thus negligible.
spring acc. to figure 9. In case of loaded rail, q is to be assumed
for the loaded rail and in case of unloaded rail for the unloaded The consideration of eccentricity for ballasted track, e.g. the dis-
rail. The number of springs should be set at 10 per section on tance of the force application point of the ballast onto the sleeper
the bridge and double the amount in the embankment area. Al- and the distance of the gravity centre of the rail to the force appli-
ternatively the springs can be simulated by expansion-rigid bars cation point of the ballast onto the sleeper are, within calculation
between the rail and the superstructure. Their bending stiffness accuracy and can also be neglected.
is determined by iteration methods so that from a displacement
larger than 0.5 mm or 2 mm the bending stiffness is set to zero. Influences
- Temperature: For the analyses, temperature variations are de-
The substructures stiffness is to be calculated acc. to figure 4 and cisive (figure 15a). Considerable influences (up to 6 % in case
to be considered in a simplified way as springs at bearing height. of box sections) result from the temperature gradient in verti-
Longitudinal forces of the rail and the bearings resulting from cal direction of the ­superstructure (figure 15c), the temperature
individual influences, are only to be superposed linearly, this esti- gradient in horizontal direction (figure 15b) as well as the tem-
mation is however conservative. The discretization of the system perature gradient in the pier in longitudinal direction due to sun
poses the question if it suffices to take into account eccentrici- incidence.
ties between rail/sleeper, the gravity centre of the superstructure - Acceleration and braking: a) load assumptions see DIN Fb 101
and the bearing axis or even more accurate spring models with b) on multi-tracked load-bearing structures, at the same time
Figure 16 Limitation of deflections at the end of bridge deck

superstructure

abutment

Table 2 – Limit values of deformation paths at superstructure and due to traffic action
Span width L Design speed ve Limit value δ
of final span
ve < 160 km/h δ3 = 5 mm
<3m 160 km/h < ve < 230 km/h δ3 = 4 mm
ve > 230 km/h δ3 = 3 mm
> 25 m for all ve δ3 = 9 mm
3 m < L < 25 m intermediate values are to be interpolated linearly δL = δ3 + (L-3)*(δ25- δ3)V22, L(m)

Table 3 – Slab track – area of application

ballastless track ATD Züblin or Rheda Bögl

type / bridge Rheda simplified on bridges on bridges
Up to 10 m X X X X
and earth-covered bridges
Frame X X X X
up to 20 m
Up to 25 m – X X X
and earth-covered bridges
Vault and rows of vaults X X X X
Over 25 m – – X X
 acting braking on one track and acceleration on the other (on depends not so much on the distribution of longitudinal forces
double- and multi-tracked bridges of lengths up to > 100 m the but on the limitation of tensile forces in the asphalt and concrete
load case braking/braking can be decisive) layers or the movements in the concrete slabs at the transitions
- loading due to Φ · LM71 (on multi-tracked bridge on both tracks) between bridge and ­earthwork due to bending caused by traf-
- s hrinkage and creeping acc. to DIN Fb 102 fic loads. The application limits seen in table 3 result thereof.
- load group: Lgr 11 or. Lgr 23 including temperature acc. to DIN
Fb 101, table 6.6 Ballastless track on short bridges
Bridges are considered to be short up to an expansion length of
Calculation method (admissible rail stresses, deformation, 25 m. By limiting this expansion length, horizontal forces in lon-
bearing, ballastless track) gitudinal direction caused by braking or acceleration can be dis-
The following calculations have to be carried out: tributed by the continuously welded track without exceeding the
- Maximum additional longitudinal rail stress in the area of the admissible rail stresses of 92 N/mm. The continuously welded
bridge and the abutments track has to be continued up to 40 m over the bridge length. In
- Deformation verification general, the track slab has to be ‘floating’, i.e. movable in longitu-
a) admissible displacement of the movable bearing caused by dinal direction achieved by lateral guiding blocks or longitudinal
acceleration and braking guiding. Guide bearings are to be assembled on the hump plate
< 4 mm for continuously welded rail and expansion joints on one to absorb lateral forces.
side < 30 mm for expansions joints on both sides
b) displacement in longitudinal and height direction has to be Ballastless track on long bridges
limited acc. to figure 16 (Lgr 11 only on one track) Long bridges start at an expansion length of 25 m. On long bridges
- Depending on the above mentioned influences (temperature, the track slabs have to be anchored to the superstructure in order
traffic, acceleration and braking) the longitudinal bearing forces to distribute the larger part of longitudinal forces caused by bra­
are to be calculated. Relevant verifications (DIN-Fb 101, annex 0) king or acceleration via the bridge bearings so that the admissi-
are to be carried out. The bearings are to be verified in accord- ble rail stresses remaining in the track are not exceeded (coupled
ance with DIN Fb 101, annex 0 and relevant standards. system bridge/track). To assure optimum maintenance, the track
- For ballastless track, verifications are required slabs are divided in short slabs. Their length should be between
4.00 and 5.50 m. The weight can be moved by regular cranes and
Ballastless track on bridges drainage in the joints is assured. To distribute longitudinal forces,
The construction and dimensioning of ballastless track on bridges a force-fit connection between track slab and bridge is achieved
is essentially influenced by the type of ballastless track. For rea- by a hump structure. Usually, the track slab is fixed to the super-
sons of construction technology and maintenance, it is advisable structure, i.e. unmovable in longitudinal and transversal direction.
to continue the same system of ballastless track on bridges as it In case of continuous girders, the lengths of individual slabs are to
is used on the rest of the line. In addition to longitudinal force be designed in such way that the transverse joints of the ballast-
distribution, the transition from bridge to the other sections as less track are above the pile axes. Consequently, tensile forces in
well as the bridge spans is fundamental for the use of ballast- the support areas of the main girder are not transmitted into the
less track on bridges. Therefore, in general the length of the track slab through participation.
bridge is decisive for use of ballastless track on bridges. A dif- The different systems of ballastless track respect especially the
ference is hence to be made between ballastless track on short requirements related to bridge construction, replacement within a
and on long bridges. Whether ballastless track systems are used short amount of time, drainage and bending restrictions. Detailed

above: Figure 17 Ballastless track on long bridges

down: Figure 18 Ballastless track on short bridges
 rail fastener with reduced longitudinal rail resistance

ballastless track on bridge ballastless track on earthwork

transition transition abut- transition ballastless

superstructure/ ment/backfill track from bridge to
abutment earthwork

area of superstructure area of abutment area of backfill

superstructure abutment

cement-stabilized backfill backfill acc. to special technical require-

ments fo ballastless track on earthworks

rail fastener with reduced longitudinal rail resistance

ballastless track on bridge ballastless track on earthwork

transition at transition to transition ballastless

superstructure backfill track from bridge to
end earthwork

area of superstructure area of backfill

superstructure

cement-stabilized backfill backfill acc. to special technical

abutment requirements fo ballastless track on
earthworks
 Φ
F2 F3 F1
F1
F2 F3

Figure 19 Forces of rail base for the slab track due to traffic actions

requirements are described in regulations Ril 804 and the cata- tribution. The rail fastening forces result from spring stiffness of
logue of requirements for ballastless track (AKFF, issue 08/2002) the fastening and are thus largely dependent on the stiffness of
of the German Railway Company DB AG. the intermediate layers. For normal rail fasteners (Ioarv 300 with
Skl 15B and Zwp 104) the admissible tensile force is 12 kN.
Analyses of transition areas on bridges
The analysis of transitions between the superstructures as well as At the bridge joints (joints between abutment/superstructure and
between superstructure and abutment are indispensible for ap- superstructure/superstructure), track verifications are to be car-
plication of ballastless track. ried out according to German regulations (catalogue of require-
ments for ballastless track, Ril 804, supplements to Ril 804 for
Situation for analyses “Verification of superstructure ends of ballastless track” and “In-
From figure 19 several factors of vertical displacement and tor- dications for serviceability verification at superstructure ends of
sion can be deduced. Vertical displacement and torsion cause ballastless track”). This comprises the following verifications:
vertical compressive forces on the neighbouring rail fasteners on - rail stress calculations
the bridge as well as tensile forces at the rail fasteners on the - calculations of lifting forces at rail fastenings incl. verification of
abutments. It is evident that vertical displacement has a much position permanence of track elements
larger influence onto fastening forces which can be directly de- - verification of maximum distances of rail fastenings at bridge
duced as the vertical displacement has essentially to be distrib- joints
uted by the neighbouring rail fasteners arising as force couple - calculation of lateral offset due to bearing clearance and tem-
with a maximum distance of 650 mm, whereas in case of torsion perature
the additional forces are distributed onto a greater length by the Depending on the results of above listed verifications, special ele-
elastic embedding of the rail in the ballastless track and the more ments (special fastenings, compensating slabs, expansion joints,
distanced rail fasteners participate to a larger extent in force dis- etc.) are to be implemented at bridge joints.
 fasteners

anchoring block compensating slab anchoring block

bridge bridge

bearing

Figure 20 Detail of a compensating slab, Type Stog

Structural possibilities for limitation of rail fastening force - Design of integral and semi-integral railway bridges: In case
- Installation of special rail fasteners: By installing special rail of integral bridges (figure 1+2), piles and abutments are con-
fasteners with high flexibility, high tensile forces up to 27 kN can nected to the superstructure monolithically and bending-re-
be absorbed. Disadvantages are high costs and difficult mainte- sistant, without joints and bearings.
nance. In case of semi-integral structures, parts of the substructure
- Installation of compensating slabs: A significant contribution take on the loads from the bridge deck through bearings. Pref-
to the analysis is made by vertical displacement which can be erably, such bridges are built when piles have to be high and
restricted by compensating slabs between the superstructure’s settlement susceptibility of the ground is low. Integral structures
bearing axes between superstructure and abutment or between are suited to considerably reduce investment costs as well as
two superstructures. The compensating slabs are movable in lon- life cycle costs (inspection, maintenance, repair, life expectan-
gitudinal direction but are fixed in transverse direction by small cy). Essential factors to this are the absence of maintenance-
bridges made of concrete, steel or steel composite with lengths intensive and damage-sensitive joints and bearings, the use of
of around 6 m. Vertical displacement is transformed into a longi- complete cross-section instead of box section and the reduction
tudinal incline above the whole length of the compensating slabs. of foundation elements. The nonexistence of transversal joints
Only torsion remains whose influence is however manageable. in the bridge deck decreases also the planning effort when con-
The production of compensating slabs is rather complex and thus structing the bridge superstructure. Another advantage of these
expensive as initial investment. Further costs arise for mainte- bridges is that, in relation to their stiffness, the monolithically
nance and repair and also the maintenance effort is much higher connected substructures participate at the distribution of brak-
than compared to other common solutions. In general, nowadays ing forces of railway traffic (figure 21).
solutions entail much more intensive maintenance. The transfer of horizontal loads in transversal direction follows
- Reduction of the projections: The projection of the superstructure a short path (monolithically) without bearings as intermediate
can be reduced when the abutment runs up to the bearing axis. structure.
Outlook and summary

Influence of the bilinear tension-expansion relation and the Steel and solid bridges without rail fasteners are also possible
non-linear calculation on the results for larger expansion lengths
Influence of the bilinear tension-expansion relation and the non- Indications of the maximum expansion length (60 m on steel
linear calculation on the results. The load cases temperature, bridges, 90 m on concrete or composite bridges) are proven val-
braking etc. have to be superposed non-linearly. The linear addi- ues which take into consideration influences from temperature,
tion of load cases leads in general to conservative results. acceleration and braking and of course the superstructure (con-
struction height, projection) as well as track parameters to be on
Change of the unloaded ballast bed to a loaded ballast bed the safe side. By an accurate verification, expansion joints can be
In the load case temperature, which in general causes large relinquished on larger bridges, too, in general a length increase of
displacements (larger than 0.5 mm or 2 mm), the ballast bed on 12 to 20 % is achieved.
bridges slips in many areas. According to DIN-Fb load cases tem-
perature, braking and bending are calculated individually with Use of sleeper anchors
loaded and unloaded ballast bed. In reality, in load cases brak- By using protective caps or sleeper anchors, e.g. at the critical
ing and bending under traffic influence, the loaded and unloaded bridge transitions, the transverse displacement resistance can in-
state alter. Rail stresses are sometimes overestimated but bearing crease. The use of sleeper anchors at every third sleeper increase
forces not always seized realistically. The track does hence not par- the buckling load and thus the admissible rail stresses by around
ticipate in force distribution and higher loads act on the bearings. 10 %. However, these supporting devices should only be applied
in some special cases as they interfere with mechanization of mainly due to subgrade characteristics evaluated by habitual
track maintenance. investigation methods that are in fact higher in case of impulse-
like braking jerks (< 0.5 s) and to the inability to activate the
Dynamic behaviour of the load-bearing structure in case necessary displacements and torsion.
of braking - Friction on bridge bearings
Resulting from actual measures of braking carried out with ore The evaluation of braking test on bridges showed deficits of
trains on bridges of newly built lines of the first generation, dif- horizontal loads in the piles and the superstructures and a
ferences between reality and theoretically calculated values of fast decrease of displacement amplitudes of the load-bearing
additional rail stresses of sometimes 50 % occurred. Variations structure in the swinging areas. This leads to the assumption of
result frequently from: a dissipative influence of the bearing friction.

-m odelling of the substructure’s/pile’s stiffness especially in case

of deviating moments of inertia between bearing structures and
feet of the piles.
- Young’s
 modulus of piles and foundation
Especially for the load case braking in-situ tests showed that
the additional rail stresses are frequently overestimated. This is Figure 21 Forces caused by braking or acceleration on a long bridge