See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233566066

Integral Railway B ridges in Germany

Article in Structural Engineering International August 2011

DOI: 10.2749/101686611X12994961034534

CITATIONS READS

4 144

2 authors:

Steffen Marx Gnter Seidl

Leibniz Universitt Hannover SSF Ingenieure AG
116 PUBLICATIONS 108 CITATIONS 44 PUBLICATIONS 204 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

FOSTA P804 - New Systems for Composite Bridges View project

Concrete Hinges in Bridge Engineering History and Heritage, Proceedings of the Insitution of
Civil Engineers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Steffen Marx on 26 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Integral Railway Bridges in Germany
Steffen Marx, Prof. Dr.-Ing., Jacobs School of Engineering, University of California, San Diego, USA and Gnter Seidl, Dr, Eng.,
SSF Ingenieure, Berlin, Germany. Contact: gseidl@ssf-ing.de
DOI: 10.2749/101686611X12994961034534
Abstract
In Germany, integral bridges for rail-
way lines take a higher level of rele-
vance. This paper describes the recent
development of structures with inte-
gral abutments and gives an outlook on
large bridges currently in the making
on newly built railway lines.
In the German railway network, rein-
forced concrete frames for spans up
to 20 m have been used for more than
25 years. Lateral launching of frame
bridges into existing railway links are
an economical option. Following the
good experience with frame construc-
tion, even longer frame bridges with
integral abutments were implemented
as an economical variant. The advan-
tages are highlighted by the examples
of viaduct Rednitztal, the flying junc-
tion Dresdner Bahn and the composite
bridge over River Saaleflut.
On the basis of these successful expe-
riences, especially regarding low-cost
construction, robust construction
type and simple maintenance, these
bridges are also integrated into newly
built railway lines. The starting point
for the construction of frame bridges
was the very high-quality design of
the frames compared with the single-
span girder bridges implemented until
then. The bridges on the railway line
from Erfurt to Halle/Leipzig, which
are currently in progress, are good
examples for this implementation.
The viaducts Scherkonde, Unstruttal,
Gnsebachtal and Stbnitztal por-
tray in detail the design and con-
struction principles for long frame
bridges.
In conclusion, the advantages of
frame bridges, such as high stiff-
ness, favourable transmission of
horizontal loads and simple con-
struction without bearings, are dis-
cussed comprehensively and quality is
assessed on the basis of the gathered
experience.
Keywords: integral bridges, semi-
integral bridges, frame bridges, railway
bridges, high speed railway, composite
structures.
332 Technical Report
4,000
3,500
Number of bridges ()
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1840 1860
Fig. 1: Bridge types built in Germany from the 1840s (reverence period 10 years)
Introduction
In Germany, frame bridges have been
built since the beginning of railway
traffic. Integral arched bridges have
been replaced by frame bridges made
of concrete since the 1960s (Fig. 1).
During the second peak of construc-
tion of new railway lines between 1970
and 1990, superstructures with bear-
ings were mainly designed to satisfy the
requirements of railway line operators
in order to replace the superstructure
independently from the substruc-
ture. Construction with uninterrupted
railway links, that is, with only short
interruptions to traffic on existing
lines to replace bridges, required new
construction methods with respect
to bridge fabrication. In Germany, in
the 1980s, integral frame bridges were
developed, consisting of superstruc-
ture and substructure, launched from
the side into the existing lines.1 The
launching of the whole bridge necessi-
tated a monolithic connection between
the abutment and the superstructure.2
Starting with these structures, the
frame construction gained acceptance
as an economically efficient method
for short and medium span widths.
The materials used were reinforced
concrete, pre-stressed concrete and
steelconcrete composite. In Germany,
typical cross sections are reinforced
concrete slabs for short spans (Fig. 2a)
Steel
Arched bridges
Filler beam deck
Frame
Concrete
Pre-stressed concrete
1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
Year
and T-beams for medium spans
(Fig. 2b). In the case of larger span
widths and difficult to access traffic
routes that undercross, such as water
ways, motorways or railway lines, com-
posite prefabricated element girders3,4
were used; these have low weight and
are easy to integrate in the framing
effect (Fig. 2c).
Double-track cross sections were
bridged by pre-stressed concrete
superstructures or multiple web com-
posite cross sections (Fig. 2d and e).
Requirements on Railway
Bridges
Functional requirements such as load-
bearing capacity and stiffness of the
superstructure are much higher for
railway bridges than for road bridges.
The vertical loads reach double or four
times the valuedepending on the
bridge length (Fig. 3).
The probability of an event of the pass-
ing of a train with maximum admissible
tonnage is relatively strong. On some
railway links in Germany, more than
300 passenger trains and 100 freight
trains pass per day, subjecting the rail-
way bridges to very high fatigue loading.
Horizontal loads are, however, much
more severe than vertical loads.
Especially, forces from braking and
Structural Engineering International 3/2011
 (a) acceleration can achieve values 14
times higher than on road bridges,
particularly on long railway bridges.
Mostly in case of large bridge piers,
these forces determine the design of
the whole structural system.
In addition to these high loads, high
(b) demands are placed on railway bridges
in view of deformation and vibration
behaviour under traffic loads. Primarily
on high-speed lines, the dynamic traffic
load has to be taken into consideration
as long trains with the same wheel set
distances cause significant excitation
frequency on the bridge. In particular,
(c) high speeds can lead to heavy reso-
nance problems.

Frame Bridges
These high demands lead to some par-
ticularities in the design of integral
and semi-integral railway bridges. On
the whole, the integral load-bearing
(d) behaviour proves itself to be extraor-
dinarily advantageous compared with
superstructures on bearings, as the
bridges complete load-bearing behav-
iour is activated and participates dur-
ing load distribution and reduction of
deformation and vibration.
With regard to the longitudinal load-
bearing behaviour, in Germany, inte-
(e) gral and semi-integral bridges are
distinguished.
Fully integral bridges are monolithi-
cally connected to the supports and
abutments in all axes of the substruc-
ture. The temperature dilatations have
to be entirely compensated by cen-
tric tensile or compressive forces in
the superstructure (eges = eT eel = 0).
Through the almost complete defor-
Fig. 2: Typical cross sections for railway frame bridges: (ac) Single-track cross sections;
mation dilatation under constraint, the
(a) made of reinforced concrete for short spans; (b) for medium span widths; (c) for span
occurring forces are independent of
widths over 30 m using composite prefabricated element girders; (d and e) double-track
cross section for span widths up to 45 m; (d) double T-beam with pre-stressed concrete; (e) the bridge length but depend linearly
using composite prefabricated element girders construction method on the axial stiffness of the superstruc-
ture. Tensile and compressive forces
introduced by the superstructure are
25
absorbed by the abutments, whereas
in the longitudinal direction of the
20 bridge almost no loads are exerted on
Axle load limit (t)

the piers. Therefore, the abutments of

15 integral bridges have a very high hori-
zontal load-bearing capacity. In reality,
a certain flexibility of the abutments
10
remains which is why on very short
integral bridges almost no horizontal
5 forces from temperature occur.
Railway
Road The longer the length, the lower the
0
1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
influence of the abutments stiffness;
horizontal forces due to temperature
Year
and, consequently, the high effort of
Fig. 3: Increase of axle loads since 1840 their introduction, approximate the

Structural Engineering International 3/2011 Technical Report 333

 (a)
Semi-integral
(b)
Semi-integral with fixed point by struts
(c)
Semi-integral with fixed point at the abutment
Fig. 4: Semi-integral frame with different fixed points: (a) Distributed over the bridge
length on all piles (b) Fixation by strut bracings at the centre of the structure (c) Connec-
tion to one abutment
theoretic limit value of N = EAaTT.
Therefore, fully integral bridges are
primarily suitable for very short and
also very long bridges; however, axial
stiffness of the superstructures had
to be kept as low as possible. This
was achieved by reducing the cross
sections surface in case of short span
widths and reducing crack formation
by avoiding pre-stressing.
On semi-integral bridges the super-
structure is placed longitudinally
movable on bearings on one or both
abutments and if necessary also on the
bridge piers.
The load-bearing behaviour, particu-
larly under constraint stresses, can
be distinguished essentially from the
behaviour of integral bridges. The
superstructure expands or shortens
nearly without hindrance because
the bending-resistant connected piers
deform largely in the longitudinal
direction of the bridge. The piers are
exposed to significant constraint forces
which depend on their bending stiff-
ness and deformable length. The piers
should therefore be slender and flexible
to avoid large constraint forces. On the
other hand, the substructures should
distribute the longitudinal forces
caused by braking and accelerating in
a safe manner and without large defor-
mations. The braking force of semi-
integral road bridges is usually evenly
distributed on all piers (Fig. 4a). For
the extremely high horizontal forces on
railway bridges this structural solution
is not sufficient. Especially high semi-
integral railway bridges necessitate
the design of a defined fixed point,
which absorbs horizontal loads almost
entirely because of its high stiffness.
The fixed point can be implemented by
connection to an abutment or by spe-
cific strut bracings at the centre of the
bridge (Fig. 4b and c).
334 Technical Report
This leads to horizontal force applica-
tion on the other piles only by con-
straint forces. To diminish bending
stiffness they should be extremely slen-
der. Despite very slender dimensions,
these piles are often less endangered
by stability failure than usual piles with
bearings at the pile head because of
their reduced buckling length.
Depending on their height and bend-
ing stiffness, piers with large distance
to the fixed point can be connected to
the superstructure rigidly.
By elaborating a well thought-out con-
struction process (see section Valley
Bridges) or by employing concrete
hinges, the constraint forces in the pile
connections can be reduced consider-
ably, just as the amount of reinforce-
ment in the supports can be reduced
to a reasonable quantity, through the
span-wise calculation of traffic loads5.
The constraint forces have to be partic-
ularly analysed for frame bridges. But
they can be controlled by a well-devel-
oped design concept and thoughtful
execution.
12,000
10,000
Number of bridges ()
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
5 10
Fig. 5: Distribution of maximum span width of each construction method
On the other hand, integral load-
bearing structures have the advantage
of distribution of static and dynamic
loads. The individual construction
elements such as superstructure and
supports can be made much more
slender than in the case of common
railway bridges. The high static inde-
terminancy and the related partici-
pation of all load-bearing parts at
load distribution leads to high load-
bearing capacity and total stiffness
despite slender construction elements.
Moreover, comprehensive parameter
studies showed that integral load-
bearing structures have high ductility
and are very robust when overloaded
or subjected to varying soil or mate-
rial coefficients. In the case of frame
bridges in high-speed railway lines,
the dynamic behaviour of the heav-
ily charged load-bearing structures
is positively influenced, because the
monolithic structure integrates the
substructures in the vibrating system.
This leads to a significant increase
in the stiffness and, because of the
direct transfer of vibrations into the
ground, to a considerable increase in
the system damping. In case of multi-
span girders, resonance excitation
caused by passing trains is much more
improbable compared to single-span
girders on bearings, because vibra-
tions of adjacent fields influence or
even eliminate each other.
Examples of Small and
Medium Span Frame Bridges
A look at the span division in Fig. 5
shows that the majority of bridges,
that is, about three-fourths, have a
span width of less than 15 m. Short and
medium span widths are demonstrated
in the examples in this section. Longer
Steel
Arched bridges
Filler beam deck
Frame
Concrete
Pre-stressed concrete
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Span (m)
Structural Engineering International 3/2011
 10 20
18,00 m 26,96 m
Fig. 6: Viaduct Rednitztal, longitudinal section of frame system with a total length of approximately 170 m
viaducts are discussed in detail in sec-
tion Valley Bridges.
Reinforced Concrete Frame
Structures
In the following, the construction meth-
ods and load-bearing behaviour are
explained on recently built examples
of the first long-frame bridges with a
total length over 100 m in Germany.
The advantages of a closed frame sys-
tem become very clear when looking
at the example of the railway bridge
Rednitztal near Nuremberg, which
has been under operation since 1999.
Initially planned as continuous gird-
ers on bearings, a frame system with
seven spans and a total length of 18,00
+ 26,96 + 26,98 + 26,77 + 26,58 + 26,36
+ 18,00, circa. 170 m was designed as an
alternative (Fig. 6).
Fig. 7: Combination of stonewall arch
bridge in the background and new frame
bridge in the foreground in the valley
Rednitztal; the stonewall has been replaced
after 100 years using reinforced concrete as
the construction material
Fig. 8: Distribution of braking forces by a direct activation of substructures in the frame system
Structural Engineering International 3/2011
30 40 50
26,98 m 26,77 m 26,58 m
Huge horizontal forces, especially from
braking trains, required a foundation
with low deformation and pile supports
and difficult bearing constructions,
including connections (Fig. 7). The
decisive horizontal forces are directly
transferred into the ground with small
deformation paths by a monolithic
connection of the substructures to the
superstructure (Figs. 8 and 9). For slow
stresses such as temperature and sup-
port settlement, the simple subgrade
reaction modulus was applied, and
for horizontal traffic loads, a dynamic
subgrade reaction modulus up to three
times higher was applied.
Other examples of this type of con-
struction are the viaducts Mainbachtal
and Schwabachtal.7 An extraordinary
example in this context is the junc-
tion bridge Dresdner Bahn in Berlin.
The extremely oblique crossing was
resolved by a long fly-over structure
Fig. 9: Viaduct Rednitztal: monolithically
connected superstructure with pier and
abutment
60 70 80
26,38 m 18,00 m
with a rectangular end section. By
introducing transverse frames mono-
lithically coupled to the superstructure
and double piles at the end of a fram-
ing module (see Fig. 10), enormous
material quantities were saved during
the construction compared with the
usual structure types.
When only low construction heights
are possible for superstructures, the
clearance of the undercrossing route
can be achieved by a vault in the longi-
tudinal section. An example of this is a
frame structure in Berlin, as part of the
railway line over the Glienicker Weg.
The cross section is a T-beam as repre-
sented in Fig. 2b. The superstructure is
slender, with a span width of 26,20 m
and a variable construction height of
1,00 to 1,75 m to L/26 at the centre
of the span and L/15 at the abutment
(Fig. 11). The frame was founded on
spread footings because of the good
Fig. 10: Modern crossing structure: framing
module end with double pile and mono-
lithic transverse frame
Technical Report 335
 Fig. 13: View on River Saale two-span
frame bridge

The horizontal fix point of the bridge

Fig. 11: Longitudinal section and view on a single-cell frame with 26,20 m span width in
Berlin
quality of construction and the dense
soil.
Composite Frame Structures
Since 1998, with over 600 structures,
the usage of composite prefabricated
element girders3,4 has proved to be
economically efficient in the construc-
tion of road bridges. Since 2001, this
method has been implemented for
railway bridges too. One example of a
two-span frame is the bridge over the
River Saale: a single-track, two-span
haunch structure with 2 32,50 m span
widths (Fig. 12). By connecting the
composite prefabricated element gird-
ers to the substructures, the construc-
tion height of the superstructure was
reduced to 1,80 m at the centre of the
span. The framing effect distributes the
braking forces of trains to the founda-
tion much better than systems on bear-
ings, leading to savings in the bored
pile foundation. The slender, haunched
superstructure provides a very pleas-
ant view (Fig. 13) of the structure.
Viaduct Scherkondetal
One example of semi-integral struc-
tures with a fix point at the abutment
(Fig. 4c) is the 576,5 m long viaduct
crossing Scherkonde Valley (Figs. 14
and 15). Owing to the slender piles
and the favourable valley geometry,
it was possible to connect most of the
piles integrally with the superstructure
despite the greater length.
(a) 32,50
1,00 30,50 1,00
(b)
to assure absorption of acceleration
and braking forces with low deforma-
tion was implemented by a bending
stiff connection of the superstructure
with the flat abutment (left side of
Fig. 14).
Sliding bearings had to be designed
only in the last two of the 13 support
axes as well as on the high abutment
because of the large displacements.
An alternative to superstructures
with box sections, which are mostly
employed for railway bridges with
large span widths, a haunched cross sec-
tion of the middle girder was devised.
This haunch and the bending stiff con-
nection of the supports to the super-
structure allow a very low construction
height of 2,0 m at the centre of the
32,50
1,00 30,50 1,00
3,86

Valley Bridges
Frame-like, integral or semi-integral
bridge constructions gain more and
more acceptance on German high-
speed railway lines of the DB AG as
they provide good functionality, long
service life and at the same time low
maintenance costs and high aesthetic
design.5 Currently, on the newly built
line between Erfurt and Leipzig/Halle, 1,75
several viaducts are constructed in
accordance with new design concepts. Fig. 12: River Saale bridge with 2 32,50 m span (a) longitudinal section, (b) cross section
They are described in the following. (unit [m])

336 Technical Report Structural Engineering International 3/2011

 00 01a 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13
576,50 13,91
27,00 36,50 36,50 44,00 44,00 44,00 44,00 44,00 44,00 44,00 44,00 44,00 44,00 36,50

2,00

3,50
Fig. 14: Longitudinal and cross section of the viaduct Scherkondetal (unit [m])

(a) 05 06 07 08

44,00 m 44,00 m 44,00 m

Dilatation joint

6 f120 cm
L = 14,00 m 8 f120 cm 8 f120 cm 8 f120 cm
Fig. 15: Viaduct Scherkondetal L = 14,50 m L = 8,00 m L = 8,00 m

(b) 06 07 08
spans, with a regular span width of 05

44 m. Apart from this slenderness of 44,00 m 44,00 m 44,00 m

L/d = 22, which is very high for high-

speed railway bridges, all requirements 12,5 DN 250 BMI
Drainage
with respect to limiting deformation
and vibration are satisfied. The bridge
has a very stiff and robust total load-
bearing capacity, but offers a pleas-
ant design contrast compared to the
usually plump appearance of many
railway viaducts made of reinforced 5 f120 cm
L = 14,00 m 5 f120 cm
or pre-stressed concrete. In Fig. 16, a 5 f120 cm 5 f120 cm
L = 14,50 m L = 8,00 m L = 8,00 m
part of the implemented load-bearing
structure is compared to a common Fig. 16: Comparison of longitudinal sections of a viaduct on bearings and a viaduct as
construction. frame structure
Of great importance for load-bear-
ing design as well as for the choice Moreover, the construction sequences technical innovation and consistent
of construction technology is the were chosen in such way that the super- implementation of the new concept
minimization of constraint forces of structure was built on a launching truss from design to construction execution.
the supports caused by pre-stress- in sections from a temporary fix point
ing, creep, shrinkage and tempera- at the right abutment in the direction Viaduct Unstruttal
ture changes of the superstructure. of the left abutment. After the last step
The viaduct Unstruttal, with a total
Therefore, the frame piers are founded of launching, the fix point was changed
length of 2668 m and a track gradient
at only one instead of two or more pile to the left abutment in the final stage.
of about 50 m above the valley bottom,
rows, thereby reducing significantly This construction technique has the is one of the largest railway bridges
the rotational stiffness of the founda- outstanding advantage that girder in Europe made of pre-stressed con-
tions and the horizontal displacement compressions caused by elastic short- crete. The load-bearing structure of
resistance of the supports. In light of ening of the superstructure due to the viaduct consists of four continuous
a suitability test, a very low Youngs pre-stressing and the creep and shrink
modulus of the piers concrete and reductions that occur deform the frame
a very high Youngs modulus of the piles first in the direction of abutment
superstructure were considered as the 13 and then, after the change of the fix
criteria for the choice of concrete mix- point, lead to a return deformation.
ture. To minimise the pier inclination
in the final stage, some of the frame Therefore, the horizontal total defor-
piers were constructed obliquely up mation and bending moment at the
to 100 mm in the direction of the support connection was significantly
right abutment and were additionally reduced, leading to a minimum rein-
deflected elastically up to 100 mm by forcement of most of the supports.
using the launching truss before con- The viaduct Scherkondetal has been
creting the individual superstructure awarded the prize for engineering of
sections. the publishing house8 for extraordinary Fig. 17: Arch-shaped strut bracing

Structural Engineering International 3/2011 Technical Report 337


Fig. 18: Section piers of viaduct Unstruttal
with one integral modulus of 580 m length
joint- and bearing-less ten-span gird-
ers of 580 m total length each. At the
centre of the continuous girders, arch-
shaped strut bracings are designed,
forming the horizontal fix points in the
longitudinal direction of the bridge
(Figs. 4b, 17 and 18).
The arch crowns are merged with
the superstructure box sections to
guarantee a very high total stiffness.
The distances of the arches are deter-
mined according to the probable
expansion length of the rail fasteners.
In the transverse direction of the bridge,
the arch base points are executed with
a spread, entailing a higher transverse
stability and higher transverse load-
bearing capacity. The arch can now
transfer loads from traffic, wind and
temperature in the transversal direc-
tion of the bridges longitudinal axis
into the abutment by a force couple.
At the edges of the bridge, at the abut-
ments on the west and east, three-span
girders are realised, fixed connected to
the abutment. The regular span width
of the superstructure is 58 m.
112,00 m
Fig. 19: Structural concept of the integral bridge in several standard modules
338 Technical Report
All 41 piles are implemented as very
slender pier walls which efficiently
stiffen the deck girder in transverse
direction. However, in the longitudi-
nal direction of the bridge, they have
sufficient flexibility to distribute tem-
perature deformations.
The particularities are the separating
piles. Separated by a structural joint of
0,40 m width, the deck girder ends are
connected monolithically at the tran-
sition between the continuous gird-
ers and 0,60-m-slender pier wall cross
section. The height of the pier walls
of 26 m absorbs the superstructures
deformation caused by temperature
without needing a bearing construc-
tion. To reduce the total deformations
of the pier caps that occur, the piers
at the end of a module were previ-
ously deformed against the shorten-
ing direction of the superstructures
after pre-stressing, creep and shrink-
age. The gap between the separating
piles was therefore clamped together.
After construction and pre-stressing of
the superstructure, the clamping was
released so that the superstructures
now deform almost freely in longitu-
dinal direction.
Work on the foundations of the arch
abutments was difficult as enormous
horizontal loads had to be transferred
into the ground with deformations as
low as possible. Therefore, per founda-
tion, axis 21 large-bored piles, partially
inclined by 1/10, with a diameter of
1,80 m were built.
The superstructures cross section is
a single-cell box section made of pre-
stressed concrete, already used on
many viaducts of the German Railway
Company. It was constructed mostly
on a launching truss; only in the area
where it merged with the arches, con-
struction was required on the form-
work, together with the archs frame
construction. This allowed the use of
the arch as support for the launching
truss, and the whole truss travelled
112,00 m
Structural Engineering International 3/2011
over the crown area without necessi-
tating conversion of the framework.
Viaduct Gnsebachtal
The viaduct Gnsebachtal has, analo-
gous to the viaduct Unstruttal, a semi-
integral load-bearing structure in
which the individual load-bearing sec-
tions were stiffened by a specifically
stiffened braking span at the centre of
each section (Fig. 19). The 1012 m long
bridge, however, has a much lower
gradient height of 9 to 19 m above the
bottom of the valley. The integral sec-
tions of the structure are much shorter
in order to control the stresses applied
to the pier heads. For this reason, the
section length was generally limited to
112 m. Therewith, an interruption of
the continuous track by rail expansions
was completely avoided. The execu-
tion of the structure using a continuous
track slab over all structural joints was
advantageous for operation security
and maintenance of the structure.
The rail stresses arising from load
cases braking and acceleration depend
mostly on the longitudinal stiffness of
the bridge in the presented design.9
Stiffening was implemented, fulfilling
the necessities imposed by reinforced
concrete, by a shell-like construction
element, which was recessed as much
as possible to improve transparency.
Because of the varying height of the
bridge, the stiffening sections were
very differently loaded. To assure
despite of those differences a sufficient
stiffness of each section, the stiffening
shells were carried out with variable
widths between 10 and 12 m, to obtain
a (Fig. 20).
In the transversal direction, the same
principle was applied by stiffening the
support couples at the end of each
section by recessed reinforced con-
crete walls.
The superstructure consists of a dou-
ble-tracked, double-web pre-stressed
112,00 m
 On the other side, the visual slen-
derness of the superstructure is very
good because of the slender supports
and the predominant braking span, as
shown clearly in Fig. 22.

Further Investigations in the Valley

Bridges
For semi-integral viaducts realized
according to the new design concept,
a comprehensive sensitivity test was
accomplished because of their early
execution and the influence that all
constructional elements exerted onto
each other because of their monolithic
connection. The stiffness parameters of
the concrete and the ground, creep and
shrinkage behaviour and crack forma-
Fig. 20: Architectural expressive horizontal fixing of the superstructure
tion, especially, were varied in many
combinations and the effects of these
combinations were analysed in view
of values of deformation and vibra-
13,83 m 13,83 m
tion as well as rail stresses to obtain
new limit values. It was detected that
the semi-integral structures showed
robust behaviour even to highly vary-
ing input values and showed very high
redundancy in the load-bearing behav-
iour when the load-bearing design was
0,92 m

0,92 m
accurately conceived on the whole, that
is, well harmonised stiffness relations.
3,00 m

3,00 m
2,08 m
2,08 m

A particular challenge for railway

bridges on high-speed lines is the veri-
fication of dynamic behaviour. For
bridges with span widths of more than
40 m, the force application is rather low
because of the superstructures mass
11,80 m
11,80 m

and stiffness. Moreover, in case of large

span widths, often more than one train
axle loads one span so that no distinc-
tive, harmonious application occurs.
In contrast, small span widths up to
Fig. 21: Cross section at lateral fixed piers and standard piers 25 m necessitate a very careful analysis

T-beam with a construction height of

2,08 m, monolithically connected to
the circular reinforced concrete col-
umns. The reinforced concrete col-
umns have a diameter of 1,00 m at the
joints and 1,10 m at the centre of each
section (Fig. 21).
With an average span of 24,50 m, the
superstructure has a technical slen-
derness of 12a rather low value for
pre-stressed T-beams. However, the
stiffness requirements to ensure limit
values of deformation and vibration on
high-speed railway bridges, especially
with non-ballast track, are extremely
high. Experience shows that a slender
implementation is impossible to realize
in accordance with the requirements. Fig. 22: High visual slenderness in spite of low technical slenderness

Structural Engineering International 3/2011 Technical Report 339

 and adaptation of the construction to
exclude resonance in case of passing
trains.
The European high-speed models
HSLM A01 to A10 differ from one
another mainly in view of the so called
length above buffers or distance of
wheel sets. This results in a wide range
of critical excitation frequencies for
dynamic calculation. At speeds of more
than 250 km/h, this range leads to a point
where the danger of resonance cannot
be controlled only by adjustment, in gen-
eral, an increase of the first resonance.
This would lead to uneconomic and
non-favourable construction heights.
Therefore, a model that would allow a
certain excitation of the bridge in case
of some trains and some speeds has to
be worked out. However, this excitation
has to be kept so low, by the existing
dampening and an adequate dimension-
ing of constructional elements, that the
arising vibration ranges stay below the
fatigue limit of the assembled reinforce-
ment or the concrete.
Conclusions
Integral bridge structures are in prin-
ciple nothing new. All historic arch
bridges are based on this basic idea and
prove by their existence over centuries,
even thousands of years, how extraor-
dinary their function, robustness and
longevity are. The modern equivalent
of arch bridge is a frame structure,
or in general an integral structure.
340 Technical Report
View publication stats
These structures are very economical,
almost maintenance free, when their
load-bearing concept is thoughtfully
designed. Despite slender dimensions,
they dispose of very high stiffness.
When the advantages of integral load-
bearing behaviour are harnessed and visu-
alized in the load-bearing structure, design
processes generate almost automati-
cally well designed, aesthetic structures
without leading to supplementary costs.
Support in finding an appropriate load-
bearing concept is given by the Leitfaden
Gestalten von Eisenbahnbrcken (Guide
to the design of railway bridges).10
The requirements for modern railway
bridges, particularly for those on high-
speed railway lines, are extremely high
and need significant additional effort in
the design compared to road bridges.
The design effort for integral bridges is
increased once more because of the vari-
ous interactions of the individual load-
bearing elements of integral bridges
compared to usual bridges on bearings,
which allow an almost separate consider-
ation of substructure and superstructure.
The considerably improved total eco-
nomic efficiency of these structures as
well as the excellent design of the bridges,
however, justify this supplementary
effort entirely. This was demonstrated
in the recent past by the successfully
implemented integral and semi-integral
bridges of the Deutsche Bahn AG on
the existing German railway network as
well as on the newly built high-speed line
Erfurt to Leipzig/Halle.
Structural Engineering International 3/2011
References
[1] Verfahren und Einrichtung zum Verschieben
von Bauteilen, insbesondere von Brckenbauteilen,
1989, Patent DE 3419449 C2.
[2] Gunzelmann H, Stumpf D. Eisenbahn-
berfhrung in Neustadt (Weinstr.), Aufweitung
in unkonventioneller Bauweise, Der Eisenbahn-
ingenieur, Heft 10, 1989.
[3] Schmitt V, Seidl G. Eisenbahnbrcken in
Stahlverbundbauweise, Stahlbau 79, Heft 3, 2010,
159166.
[4] Weizenegger M. Hybrid frame bridge over
river Saale, Merseburg, Germany. Struct. Eng.
Int. 2003; 13(3): 197181.
[5] Marx S, Schacht G. Concrete Hinges
Historical Development and Contemporary Use,
3rd Congress of the International Federation for
Structural Concrete (fib), Washington DC, May
29June 2, 2010, 20 p.
[6] Seidl G, Braun A. VFT-WIB-Brcke bei
Vigaun Verbundbrcke mit externer Bewehrung,
Stahlbau 78, Heft 2, 8693.
[7] Braun A et al., Rahmentragwerke im
Brckenbau, Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 101,
Heft 3, 2006, 187ff.
[8] Marx S, Krontal L, Btz S, Vehlow A. Die
Scherkondetalbrcke, die erste semi-integrale
Talbrcke der DB AG auf der Neubaustrecke
ErfurtLeipzig/Halle VDE 8.2. Beton- und
Stahlbetonbau 2010; 105; Heft~3: S.~134141.
doi:10.1002/best.201090021.
[9] Schenkel M, Goldack A, Schlaich J, Kraft
S. Die Gnsebachtalbrcke, eine integrale
Talbrcke der DB AG auf der Neubaustrecke
ErfurtLeipzig/Halle. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau
2010; 105; Heft~9: 590598.
[10] Schlaich J, Schmitt V, Marx S. u. a.: Leitfaden
Gestalten von Eisenbahnbrcken. 1. Auflage;
Berlin: DB AG Dezember, 2008.