A presentation

DESIGN ISSUES for Railway Bridges

on High Speed &
A Case Study : Cable Stayed Bridge

 Jogesh S. Sondhi
EDCE(B&S)-II, Railway Board

Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 1

 HIGH SPEED - Issues
For High Speed*, essential to address
 Track Stability - Lateral Forces
Quasi-static & Low Freq. Loads: Satisfy Prud’homme Criteria

 Rail- Wheel Interaction SAFETY &

Rail Forces, Acceleration at Track Level
Passenger Comfort
 Vehicle body Dynamics av, at Values
Vert. & Transverse Acceleration
at Coach( Passenger) level

UIC: High Speed on SG if :

•Maximum speed is at least 200 Kmph but generally > 250 kmph

Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 2

 Establishing High-Speed (HS)

Limits for Safety and Passenger Comfort

Bogie Level Abs. Safety Limit HS Lines- Normal
(per SNCF)
Trans. Acceleration 6 m/s2 (0.6 g) ( 0.4 g)

Car Body Level (on TGV, ICE system)

Trans. Acceleration at 2.5 m/s2 (0.25g) ( 0.15 g)* for Cd < 120mm
(V < 350 km/hr) (0.175 g) for Cd > 120mm
Vertical Acceleration av 3 m/s2 (0.3g)
______________________________________________________________
At Bridge DECK LEVEL: EN Code Limits a v to 0.35g

* At Car Body Level, as per UIC -703 R 1988: For Speed | 120-200I , Max. lateral Acceleration: 0.15g

Track parameters-C, Cd, Output - Acceleration in

Response of Car Body
Bridge response (stiffness) at traveling speed.
Time Domain.
under Train Loads Determine Passenger Comfort

Jan-09
>> Bridge DesignHighSpeed-
influenced by HS requirements
Bridge Issues 3
High Speed - Railway Bridge Issues
Client’s Requirements
 Speed, Track Tolerance
Design Issues, Specs and Parameters
 Applicable Codes, Design Loads, Specs.
 Span & Configuration - Designers’ Decision?
Special Issues
 Bridge Approach Transition
 Noise Control in Urban Areas.
 Aerodynamic Effects on Structures
Construction:
 Casting,QA/QC Issues- ITPs
 Constructability

Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 4

 BRIDGES on H S - Design Issues, Criteria

Design Loads (V, H), distribution, factors, load combinations

Dynamic Issues- Resonance, Impact Factor
Dynamic Interaction (T-R-S) ;VBI Analysis
Static Interaction ( T-R-S) Longitudinal Forces at Deck Level
Horizontal Forces Centrifugal, Noising, Traction/ Braking
Serviceability Limit States
Fatigue Limit State
Seismic Analysis and Accidental Forces

EuroCode
Euro CodeEN
EN1991-2:2003
1991-2:2003((Sec
Sec6)6):: ‘Structural
‘StructuralCode’
Code’for
forRail
RailBridges,
Bridges,(HS
(HS
200-350kmph)
200-350 kmph)with
withother
other EN
EN1990-99;
1990-99;EN EN1337
1337((Bearings)
Bearings)
EachCountry
Each CountryRailway
Railwayhas
hasframed
framedown own‘Code’/
‘Code’/ Guidelines
Guidelinesfor
forHS
HS

Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 5

 Design Criteria- Code, Design Loads
EN Code specify: Load Models (LM) Trains: 5 Types
LM71, SW/0- Standard Rail Traffic-- multiply by alpha= 0.75 to 1.46, for lines carrying
lighter or heavier than the Standard loads >> ‘Classified’ Vertical Load
SW/2 – Heavy rail traffic
HSLM- A& B - Passenger trains, for Speed > 200kmph
‘Unloaded train for lateral stability of single track bridge
Also: -- Eccentricity of Loads, Typical Static Analysis- Framed Structure
P D1 PL P D2 P D3
HL HL = H1 + H2 + H3 + H4
-- Long. Load Distribution, Eccentricity across track P D1/2 PD1/2 P D2/2+PL1 P D2/2+P L2 PD3/2 P D3/2
P s4
P s1 Ps2

LM71
Ps3
Fixity level of Pile R3 H4R4
R1 R2
H1
PD1 , PD2 , PD3 Dead Loads & Superimposed Load from Superstructure
H2 :
Fixity level of Pile H3
PL : Live Loads
Ps1 , P s2 , P s 3 Ps4 : Weight of Substructure
R : Reaction

SW/0, SW/2

Load
qvk (kN/m) a (m) c(m)

SW/0 133 15.0 5.3

SW/2 150 25.0 7.0 Eccentricity across Track Distribution of Axle Load
along track on Sleepers
Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 6
 DESIGN ISSUE- Dynamic Effect
Dynamic Effect:
Static stresses, deformation ( and acceleration at bridge deck level) increase
under moving loads,
= f ( V, Lab, M, no , Mode shape, damping, Track irregularities,
sprung/ unsprung mass, suspension of coach, wheel defects)
 Taken care by Impact Factor Φ based on Loaded Length of Span
 Natural Frequency, Resonance check also required

EN Code: Dynamic Analysis: Essential for cases

 When, no above Line(1) in diagram
 Speed of Real Train equals Resonant Speed of Structure vi =
n0 . λi ; n0 = first natural freq.; λi = d/ i;
d= regular spacing of group of axles, i=1,2,3 or 4;

n0 [Hz] = 17.75 / √δo; δo = deflection (mm) at mid-span with Eci

 For SS spans < 40m, & Frame/ Continuous Bridges
>> Bridge Deck Accel. and Φ determined
( < 3.5 m/s2, and Φ < Φ values in Code)

Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 7

 Design Issue- Impact Factors
For Load Model 71, SW/0 and SW/2, shall be taken as Φ2 or Φ3:
 Φ2 =1.44/ (√LΦ -0.2) + 0.82 with 1.00 ≤ Φ2 ≤1.67 For carefully maintained track
 Φ3 =2.16/ (√LΦ -0.2) + 0.73 with 1.00 ≤ Φ2 ≤2.00 Track with standard
maintenance
(1+ φ) for HSLM or Actual (Real) Trains
 Dynamic load effects ( stresses, deflections, bridge deck accel, etc) due to track
and vehicle imperfections, estimated by multiplying calculated static effects by
factor of:
 ( 1+ φ’ + φ” ) for track with standard maintenance
 ( 1+ φ ‘ + 0.5 φ” ) for carefully maintained track
where, φ’ relates to dynamic characteristic of bridge and train
axles nos, loads, spacing, & is a function of { v, LΦ, n0 }
φ” relates to track vertical irregularities, wheel flats, out of round
wheel, suspension defects.
N:B: Impact Factor do not take in account effect of Resonance

Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 8

 Design Issue-
Dynamic Train-Rail-Structure (TRS)
Simple Model by Travelling Loads on Bridge
Neglecting vehicle structure mass interaction;
Many Methods…….
Harmonic Series Method; ERRI D214(a) 1998
- LIR method, accel at mid-span for SS bridge
amax= Cacc . A(r) . G(λ)

where, Cacc = 1/Total Mass of span;

λ = v (train speed)/ fo (eigen freq. 1st mode); r = λ/ (2l).
A(r) - Dynamic influence line of the bridge =f { speed v, bridge span l, eigen value and dampimg ζ }.
G(λ) - Dynamic signature of the Train load, depends on axle load distribution and damping ratio,
independent of Bridge
ENCode:
EN Code:For
ForConventional
ConventionalStructure,
Structure,simplified
simplifiedmethod
methodadopted
adoptedtotocheck
check
 Max.
Max.vertical
verticalaccel.
accel.at
atmid-span
mid-spanisis << than than0.35g
0.35g
 Impact
ImpactFactor
Factor((δreal=
δreal=δdyn
δdyn/ /δstat)
δstat)isislower
lowerthan
than2.5
2.5

ForNon-conventional
For Non-conventionalstructures:
structures:Runnability
Runnabilityanalysis
analysisto
tocheck
checkSafety
Safetyofof
trainand
train andPassenger
PassengerComfort:
Comfort:(Non-Linear
(Non-LinearDynamic
DynamicAnalysis)
Analysis)
 Needtotoconsider
Need considerbridge,
bridge,suspension
suspensionsystem,
system,rail
railfastening
fasteningsystem,
system,and
and
 CheckAccel.
Check Accel. and
and Impact
ImpactFactor
Factor

Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 9

 Design Issues- Vehicle-Bridge-Interaction( VBI)
VBI-Is interaction of two Sub-systems: Bridge &
Vehicle; considers mass & inertia of bogie and
vehicle box

ERRI Based LIR method simplified,

estimates amax mid-span
amax= (1/M) .A(r). G(λ)
G(λ) dynamic signature of the Train

for Different damping, λ

Few Studies Reflect:
For short span beams (10– 30 m), vertical accel at deck
often exceeds amax = 3.5m/sec2, for double track deck.
VBI, based on first principles method shows reduction of
dynamic effects for short-span Simply Supported bridges;
are low as (45% of the values obtained without taking
interaction in account.

Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 10

 Design Issues- Horizontal Forces
Centrifugal Forces- on curved bridges
 Outwards at 1.8m from ref. plane
 Ballast pressure higher on high rail

Noising Forces- Acts horizontally, perpendicular to CL of

Track, Qsk = 100 kN; not multiplied by Φ factor, however, multiplied
by the factor alpha ≥ 1 ; always combined with vertical load.

Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 11

 Design Issues-
Static Train-Rail-Structure (TRS)
To consider forces due to
 Thermal variations Issues
 Longitudinal Loads – Braking & Traction  Expansion Length - Lt
  Rail Expansion Device
Longitudinal displacements under Vertical Loads
 Resistance to slip at ballast interface
For SS beam with some limits for L, Stiffness of structural  Long resistance of Fdn Support, bearings
subsystems, a simplified method based on Longitudinal
resistance Model is used.

Typical Values- Long. Shear Force per m.

Unloade track: k= 20 to 40 kN per m of track;
Loaded Track: = 60kN per m of Track; Plastic zone : uo = 2mm.

ToCheck:
To Check: - -Rail
RailStress
Stress(UIC
(UIC60,
60,90UTS,
90UTS,PSC
PSC65
65cm c/c):σσc<<7272N/mm2
cmc/c): N/mm2 ; σT < 92 N/mm2
; σT < 92 N/mm2
c
- -Relative
Relativedisplacement
displacementbetween
betweenbridge
bridgedeck
deckand
andrail
rail<<5mm.
5mm.
Limitrelative
Limit relativedisplacement
displacementδH δHbetween
betweentwotwoconsecutive
consecutivedecks
decksororbetween
betweendeck
deckandandabutment:
abutment:
- -55mm
mmforforCWR
CWRwithout
withoutRail
RailExpansion
ExpansionDevice,
Device,ororononone
oneend
endofofdeck
deck

- -30mm
30mmfor forrail
railexpansion
expansiondevices
devicesatatboth
bothend
endofofthe
thedeck,
deck,ballast
ballastcontinuous
continuousatatdeck
deckends
ends
Verticaldisplacement
Vertical displacementofofupper
upper deck
decksurface
surfacerelative
relativetotoadjacent
adjacent( (abutment
abutmentororother
otherdeck)
deck)due
duetoto
variableactions
variable actionsshall
shallnot
notexceed:
exceed:22mmmmforformaximum
maximum speed speedover
over160kmph.
160kmph.

Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 12

 Longitudinal Forces: Traction & Braking
Traction Force: Qtk = 33 [kN/m] x Lab ≤ 1000 [kN]
for LM 71, SW/0, SW/2, and
 Braking Force: Qtk = 20 [kN/m] x Lab ≤ 6000 [kN]
for LM71, SW/0
Both the forces, not to be multiplied by Φ

Longitudinal Force at Reduction Factor ξ

Fixed Bearing: CWR over the Rail Expansion at Rail Expansion at both end of deck
Overall Length of bridge one end of
Structure deck

≤ 40 m 0.60 0.70 1.00

Fatigue Limit State

Assessed based on realistic loads over the design period;
vertical loads including DAF with centrifugal effects taken in account.

Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 13

 Design Issues- SLS
Serviceability Limit State
EN imposes stringent requirement on deck
- governs design, cross section,
Vertical acceleration at level of the deck: < 3.5 m/sec2 ( essentially required)
Twist on Bridge Deck: For 120 < V ≤ 220 Km/h; t ≤ 3.0 mm/3m
For V > 220 Km/h; t ≤1.5 mm/3m
Rotation at end of Deck for Ballasted Tracks - Rotation Limits ( rads)

UIC 71- Permissible Vertical deflection d at the deck

- established as function of span L and speed V.
Limiting State for Passenger Comfort: is a function of δv, L, V, and type of bridge.

Speed V Span L<15 15<L<30 30<L<60 50<l<90 90<L<120

120<V<160 1/900 1/1200 1/1200 1/800 1/600 Cf: IRS Code-
160<V<200 1/1000 1/1400 1/1500 1/1300 1/600 1/600
200<V<280 1/1200 1/1500 1/2100 1/2100 1/1400

Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 14

 Design Issues- Seismic
Seismic- Normalized Response spectra used: with
Tp of bridge, expected PGA for a given return period.
 Forces attracted by overall structure is dependent on
the Time period, for bridges keeping Tp: 1- 2 sec is
an appropriate approach
 Capacity Ductility Criteria – esp. For Piers and Frame
Type Concrete Bridges - All ductile members
in a concrete bridge shall satisfy the
displacement ductility capacity requirements.

Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 15

 Bridge Design – Iterative Effort
Structrue Layout
Structure

Trial Foundation Stiffness

Column Dimension

Global Static and Dynamic Analysis Track-Structure Interaction Analysis

Determine critical Design Forces

No
Column Size & Design Satisfactory?

Calculate Plastic Hinging Forces

Foundation Analysis
No
Convergence of Stiffness?

Pile and Pilecap Design

Substructure Design
Bearing and Seismic Buffer Design
Taiwan HS Elevated Structure
Superstructure Analysis

Box girder
Box and
girder
Deck
andFurtiture
Deck Design
Design

In nutshell:
The Codal Provisions aim to achieve a sustainable structure for
expected Loads and forces with durability considerations
Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 16
 Special Issues- Transitions
Approach Transition -Stiffness
Change
Bridge Abutment is hard point Approach soil
fill is soft
-Change in Vertical Stiffness cause large
Dynamic forces
= f ( speed, stiffness ratio,
damping, transition length)
Study (by TF Dulft, Holland) shows
- Bridges with relatively hard approaches on
sandy, stiff soil perform better
-Transition Length longer for Approaches
on Clay Soil Bed
-For Transition portion, need to cater for
dynamic forces and settlements
V/Vcr ~ 90%: Clay Type, Transition Len= 25m & longer >> DAF = 2.51
V/Vcr ~ Low: Sand Type Transition Len= 8m & longer >> DAF = 1.21
DAF at the Bridge Transition
Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 17
 Special Issues: Approaches- Vertical Imperfection-
For TGV at 300 km/hr: Admissible permissible
imperfection for dynamic wheel force
of Qdyn= 170 kN at av =1 m/s2,
• 30mm over 30m.

Forms the basis for maximum permissible

differential settlement at bridge approach(rail top)
(cf. 10mm on 10m chord for the Malaysian HS Project).
Transitions design principle:
equalize the stiffness and rail deflection of the
ballasted and non ballasted tracks, by
controlling the resilience of the rail on the non-ballasted track,
or
provide a gradual increase ( ~ 20’) in the stiffness of the
ballasted track to match that of the non-ballasted track.

Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 18

 TTCI, USA – TRANSITIONS AT Bridge Approach
Research Results Digest 79 – Oct 2006
Transition Problems Test Results
Accumulated Track Geometry Degradation at Bridge Approaches

Approach
Smoothen the stiffness/modulus step change at the interface
by gradually increasing stiffness on the lower-stiffness side
of the transition
Recommended Abutment and Approaches Type:
- RC piled raft at the approach, integrated with Abutment and return walls,
- Approach slabs, HMA ( Mastic Asphalt) layers
- Special Rail seat pads on bridge,
- Rubber mats at bottom of sleepers

Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 19

 Aerodynamic Effect & Noise Issue
DB- Approach

Important for Noise barrier within 3m

Required to design adjacent structures for passing trains-
alternate wave of pressure and suction.
= f ( V2, shape of train , shape of structure,
lateral clearance)
Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 20
 Noise- Elastic Sleeper Pads- DB experience

Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 21

 Case Study- Cable Stayed Rail Bridge
At Piacenza on River PO for New Bologna-Milan HS Line, Italy
First of its kind largest span Railway Cable Stayed Bridge on HS line for
speeds upto 300 kmph.
 Span Arrangement: Central span of 192m and 104m spans on either side Deck
width= 15.7m; viaduct portions on the approaches comprise of spans of 51.4m,
67.6m, 37.2m on left bank; and spans of 45.17m, 62.7m, 33.4m on right bank.

Each H-shaped tower supports 13 stays

on either side supporting segmental box section
of depth 3.6 -4.5m and 15.7m top deck width
Tower base is on a concentric circle of large dia. piles.

Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 22

 Cable –Stayed Rail Bridge
 Designed to EN 1991-2: 2003, with certain values as per Italferr Model Studies
Bridge Code. Earthquake Design with PGA= 0.15g _ Test on full scale piles
 Continuous Welded Rails (CWR) on the main cable stayed bridge _ Test on half scale segment of
portion is isolated at approaches by two Rail expansion device the deck
(RED) within close distance on either end for each track.
_ Fatigue test on full scale
 Design Includes segment of the upper part of
 Vehicle- structure interaction: Static and Dynamic, the towers

Seismic Design, _ 1:50 scale test for the scour

 Scour and related SLS/ ULS: _ Fatigue test of the stays
For Frequent Scour: 8m >> All the ULS and SLS are satisfied
Max Scour: 16m >> Only 1 track loaded by design train;
( T=200 yrs) No seismic actions
No Comfort assured for Passenger Train.

( however Safety ensured)

Fatigue Limit State - Stays with 2 million cycles with 2 LM71 and not
Fatigue Trains.

Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 23

 Combined response of Structure and Track- results

Compression Stress in Rail

Tension Stress in Rail

Deck Rail Relative Displacement

Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 24

 High Speed Trials

Speed Trials > 250 kmph, in

Nov 2008

>>
Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 25
Preferred Cross-sections on HS
Various Sections on Italferr Sections on Spanish Rail

Attached Double Box

Double Box Beam

Courtesy Prainsa
Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 26
 HS Bridges
Recent HS systems : Mostly Elevated on Viaducts;
Continuous Spans- e:g: Taiwan, Korean
Arrangement- Framed type, continuous span,
Closed configurations- Box cells, Multiple I section
transversely presetressed.
Special attention to Longitudinal Forces: Korean-extensive use
of LUDs on bridges- 500 nos on 60km stretch.
Constructability Issues- Progress
Construction- Precise moulds, formwork, QA/QC

Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 27

 Observations & Way Forward
HS requirements of Safety and Passenger Comfort impose limits on Bridge Design.
Important issues are Dynamic Analysis (VBI), Static T-R-S interaction, Service
Limit State, Fatigue issues.
Vertical acceleration at Bridge deck( < 0.35g) is the Key value to ensure Passenger
Safety, and stringent requirement for Bridge design.
Serviceability Limit State governs BRIDGE FORM & DESIGN
 Stringent requirement of Twist, rotation, deflection both vertical and at edge of deck have
to be complied with

CWR can continue over well designed structure with R.E.D

Bridge Approach Transition need attention and special construction for new HS
lines.
IRS Bridge Code are inadequate for HS Bridges, need to set up Guidelines for HS
Line Bridges.

Case Study of Italian Railway HS line Cable –Stayed Bridge shows the way to
achieve Bridge Structures with systematic approach.

Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 28

 Thank You
…suggestions, ideas welcome
 Malaysia HS Project-Side View of New Slab
Deck Bridge with fixed end supports.

Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 30

 HIGH SPEED Survey on NG & SG
Railway Company Route Length Vehicle Design Speed On NG Maximum
Narrow Standard Locomotive Train-set speed of
Gauge gauge (D)-Diesel Train-set DMU train-set
(1067m (1435mm) (E)-Electric on Std.
EMU Gauge
m) (kms) (km/h)
(Kms)
1. East Japan Railway Co. 6,663 839 70-95(D) 95-120 95-100 240, 275
110-115(E) Few 150
2. Central Japan Railway 1,431 553 85-95(D) 100-130 95-120 220, 270
Co. 70-120(E)
3. West Japan Railway 4,435 645 70-95(D) 110-130 95-120 210 to
Co. 100-110(E) Few 160 300
4. Hakkaido Railway Co. 2,628 - 85-95(D) 110-130 95-110 -
100(E) Few 130
5. Kyushu Railway Co. 2,102 - 75-85(D) 100-130 95-110 -
100(E)
6. Shikoku Railway Co. 856 - 85(D) 100-110 95-120 -
Few 140 Few 130
7. Queensland Rail 9364 98+34* 80-110(D) 100-140 - -
(Austrailia) *Mix. 80-100(E)
gauge
8. Spoornet (South Africa) 20,085 90-100(D) 100-110 - -
Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues
75-105(E) 31
 BRIDGE DESIGN ISSUES- Vibs & Seismic
Vibration, Frequencies, Resonance
 Natural Frequency is Function of Length and Stiffness
 Resonance, Freq range to be avoided: 5-60Hz
Seismic Design, Isolation Devices, LUDs
For Railway Bridges (AREMA 2002): Analysis approach overview
 -   Analysis used to satisfy performance criteria for Level 1
 Ground Motion ( serviceability limit state)
 -    Structure Response is function of site characteristics, structure
 stiffness and damping
 -    Equivalent Static Analysis or Modal Analysis used to
 determine seismic loads

 Total member loads = Seismic + static loads

2-Span Equiv. Lateral Load or Modal
 -    Members are sized to satisfy Level 1 response limits 
Analysis Procedure
Multi Span regular Equiv. Lateral Load or Modal
Analysis Procedure
Multi-span irregular Modal Analysis Procedure

Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 32

Construction Programme
Programme and
and Cost
Cost

Programme
T Y P E O F B R I D G E END DATE

 RAIL BRIDGE All Track and

Bridge Works
 ROAD BRIDGE TO REPLACE EXISTING BRIDGE Dec
2006
 ROAD BRIDGE TO REPLACE EXISTING LEVEL CROSSING

 MOTORCYCLE/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

Cost
CONTRACT
CONTRACT SUM
SUM WITH GOVERNMENT (13x
(13x No.)
No.) RM 463 Million

ANTICIPATED
ANTICIPATED COST
COST BASED
BASED ON
ON ACTUAL
ACTUAL QUANTITY
QUANTITY (93
(93 No.)
No.) RM 583 Million

1RM ~ Rs. 12
Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 34
 Passenger Comfort Levels: UIC
Horizontal Curve Design
Parameter UIC703R- C2 Project
Limit value of Unbalanced lateral SG (120-200) MG (160)
kmph
acceleration.
Quasi-static & Low Freq. Car body PlainTrack N. Max Exc Nor.
response are important Cd mm 100 120 Max
Curve Design - MG 150
Cant, Radius 70 84
Lateral Acceleration 105 70
- Cant, Cd, Ce ad mm/s2 .67 .79 . .
Transition Curve - Clothoid, length 98 65
depends on rca, rcd, cant Gradient
At Max Speed Cmax mm 120 150
d (ad)/dt = ad Vmax/ 3.6L < Perm Value 160 100>
MG
80 100 65*
Vertical Alignment 110
- Vertical Curve: Minm R=6000m Ce mm 70 90
(for d(av)/dt <0.05g ) 110
eg: On MG project, R=10000m 65
adopted
d(Cd)/dt 25 70 - (31 )
d(ad)/dt .16 .46 - 35
28 35 50 0.28 .
d(C )/dt
.20 .30 - 41
d(av)/dt
35
Jan-09 HighSpeed- Bridge Issues 35