Masters Thesis: Assessment of passenger comfort according to Eurocode in Dutch trains travelling

282 Pages·2016·12.18 MB·English

by  B. Komen

Assessment of passenger com-
fort according to Eurocode in
Dutch trains travelling over tied-
arch railway bridges
B. Komen
s
i
s
e
h
T
e
c
n
e
i
c
S
f
o
r
e
t
s
a
M
Civil Engineering and Geosciences

Assessment of passenger comfort
according to Eurocode in Dutch trains
travelling over tied-arch railway bridges
Master of Science Thesis
For the degree of Master of Science in Structural Engineering at Delft
University of Technology
B. Komen
June 15, 2016
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences (CEG) · Delft University of Technology
Except for all third party content, this report is licensed under the Creative Commons Attri-
bution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 Licence, CC BY-NC-SA 3.0.
Graduation Committee
Prof. ir. F.S.K. Bijlaard (Chairman)
Department of Structural Engineering, Steel Structures
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences
Delft University of Technology
Dr.ir. M.J.M.M. Steenbergen
Department of Structural Engineering, Road and Railway Engineering
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences
Delft University of Technology
Dr.ir. P.C.J. Hoogenboom
Department of Structural Engineering, Structural Mechanics
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences
Delft University of Technology
Ing. M. van Almen
Section Steel and Movable Bridges
Senior Structural Engineer at Iv-Infra B.V.
Ir. L.J.M. Houben (Secretary)
Department of Structural Engineering, Road and Railway Engineering
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences
Delft University of Technology
Master of Science Thesis B. Komen
ii
B. Komen Master of Science Thesis
Abstract
With increasing velocities of trains, passenger comfort starts to play a larger role in the design of
railway bridges. There is little experience with the Eurocode passenger comfort criterion in the
Netherlands. It is relevant for the industry to have a way to fulfil this criterion, also in an early
stage of railway bridge design. A sufficiently simple method to give a proper first estimation would
be really useful.
According to the Eurocode, the comfort experienced by passengers in a train passing a railway
bridgemustbesufficient. Thecomfortlevelisexpressedasamaximumverticalaccelerationinside
the coach. In this research, a method to compute this vertical acceleration is developed. The
scope of the research is limited to steel tied-arch bridge with vertical hangers.
To find the accelerations in trains passing over bridges a numerical vehicle-bridge interaction
model was developed using Ansys, a FEM program. Several bridge models and vehicle models
were made using mass, spring-dashpots, bar and beam elements. Simple versions of the Ansys
model were compared with analytical-numerical solutions written in Matlab and with literature.
The more complex Ansys models were compared with measurements in a Dutch train travelling
over a bridge. Apart from looking at the vertical accelerations also frequencies of vibrations were
considered.
The used modelling technique proved to be feasible to execute with acceptable time to make and
time to run. The results did compare well to analytical-numerical solutions for the simple models,
but unfortunately the coach acceleration of the most complex bridge and vehicle model did not
compare well with the performed measurements.
AlthoughtheresultsareapplicablespecificallyfortheDutchVIRMtrainandsteeltied-archbridges
with vertical hangers, the modelling technique can easily be generalized to other train types and
other bridge types.
Master of Science Thesis B. Komen
iv
B. Komen Master of Science Thesis
Table of Contents
Preface xv
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Motivation of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Aim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4 Assumptions and limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.5 Structure of report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.6 Note on references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Literature review 5
2.1 Structural standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1 Relevant Eurocodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.2 Background of Eurocodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Critique on comfort criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.1 Peak acceleration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.2 Frequency weighting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4 Railway track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5 Train . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.6 Structural dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6.1 Unsprung mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6.2 1 DOF sprung mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.6.3 2 DOF sprung mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.6.4 Full coach model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.7 Solution methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Master of Science Thesis B. Komen
vi Table of Contents
3 Modelling 19
3.1 Model choice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.1.1 Contact force model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.1.2 Direct contact model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1.3 Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.2 Simple models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2.1 Single 1 DOF sprung mass on simply supported bridge . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2.2 Multiple 1 DOF sprung masses on simply supported bridge . . . . . . . . 23
3.3 Bridge models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.3.1 2D bridge model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.3.2 3D bridge model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.4 Vehicle models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.4.1 1 DOF schematization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.4.2 2 DOF schematization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.4.3 Full coach schematization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.5 Nodes and accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.6 Parameter study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.6.1 Train velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.6.2 Suspension damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.7 Model comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.7.1 Computation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.7.2 Acceleration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4 Measurements 41
4.1 Why, what and how . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.2 Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.3 Trial measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.4 Real measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.4.1 Comparison with Ansys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5 Conclusion 49
5.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.2 Response to the research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.3 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Appendices 55
A Structural standards 55
A.1 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges . . . . . . . 55
A.1.1 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
A.2 Eurocode 0 - Basis of structural design: Annex 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
B. Komen Master of Science Thesis