Dynamic Response of a Bridge With Surface Deck

Irregularities

G. T. MICHALTSOS
T G. KONSTANTAKOPOULOS
National Technical University of Athens, 42 Patisslon St., Athens 10682, Greece

(Received 16 October 1998; accepted 30 April 1999)

Abstract: This paper examines the effects of the surface deck irregularities on the dynamic response of a
bridge, during the passage of a light or heavy vehicle. The authors especially try to find the effect of the
shape, the size, and the position of an irregularity in connection with the length of the span of a bridge and
the velocity of a vehicle. For this reason, two types of irregularity are considered. The first with an abnormal
shape and the second with a normal shape. The authors also examine the effect on the dynamic response of a
bridge of the position of an irregularity for different positions of a vehicle. Finally, they try to determine the
effect of replacing the true vehicle by a model, consisting of one, two, or three moving loads connected with
each other. The dynamic response of the bridge is calculated by modeling the bridge and the moving load
separately and combining the models with an iterative procedure according to the known technique in use.

Key Words: Deck irregularities, bridge dynamic

1. INTRODUCTION

A lot of work has been reported during the past 100 years, dealing with the dynamic
response of railway bridges and later of highway bridges under the influence of moving loads.
Extensive references to the literature on this subject can be found in Frýba’s book (1972).
Two early interesting contributions in this area exist thanks to Stokes (1849) and
Zimmerman (1896). In 1905, Krylov gave a complete solution to the problem of the dynamic
behavior of a prismatic bar acted on by a load of constant magnitude, moving with a constant
velocity. In 1922, Timoshenko solved the same problem, but for a harmonic pulsative moving
force. Another pioneer work on this subject was presented in 1934, by Inglis, in which
numerous parameters were taken into account. In 1951, Hillerborg gave an analytical solution
to the previous problem, by means of Fourier’s method.
Despite the availability of high-speed computers, most of the methods used today for
analyzing bridge vibration problems are essentially based on Inglis’s or Hillerborg’s early
techniques. Relevant publications are Saller (1921); Jeffcott (1929); Steuding (1934, 1935);
Honda, Kajikawa, and Kobori (1982); Gillespi et al. (1993); Green and Cebon (1994);
Green, Cebon, and Cole (1995); Zibdeh and Reckwitz (1996); Lee (1996); Michaltsos,

667-
668

Sophianopoulos, and Kounadis (1996); Xu, Xu, and Genin (1997); and Foda and Abduljabbar
(1998).
On the other hand, in practice, in spite of the great number of works, for more than 50
years, bridges (as also other constructions that are acted on by dynamic loads) have been
designed to account for dynamic loads by increasing the design live loads by a semiempirical
&dquo;impact factor&dquo; or &dquo;dynamic load allowance&dquo; (American Association of State, Highway and
Transportation Officials, 1977).
Recently, there have been many programs of research in different countries on the effect
of the characteristics of a bridge, or a vehicle, on the dynamic response of a bridge. We
can mention the programs in the United States (American Association of State, Highway
and Transportation Officials, 1977), in the United Kingdom and Canada (Leonard, 1982;
Ontario Ministry of Transport and Communications, 1983), in the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) (Council of European Communities, 1992), in
Switzerland (Organization for Standardization, 1972), and so on. &dquo;

Although there are also important publications in this field, we must especially refer to
the important experimental research by Cantieri (1991) on different models of moving loads.
From the three factors (vehicle speed, matching of bridge and vehicle natural frequencies,
and irregularities and roughness of bridge surface deck) that affect the vibration of a bridge,
the third is the one that has been more researched in the past years, mainly by experimental
methods.
The present paper examines primarily the effect of the surface deck irregularities on the
dynamic response of a bridge and secondarily the effect of the use of a simple, one axis
moving load (instead of the real vehicle of two or more axes) and the error from such a
substitution. That is the reason for the use of a simpler model. There are very exact models
like that of Drosner ( 1989), which even Cantieri considered too complicated for such studies
(these exact models are used for the study of special parts of the cars).
The common technique is that of the separate examination of the moving load, on one
hand, and of the bridge, on the other, and the combined use of the models (Green, Cebon,
and Cole, 1995). This method has the advantage of producing functions P(t) of wheel
loads, independent of the bridge characteristics and number of axes of the vehicle. These
functions are possible to be used for any bridge or to be adapted to any wheel (with the same
characteristics of springs and dampers) of a vehicle because they depend only on the shape
of the irregularity.
We suppose that the examined irregularities have a shape that can be expressed in
mathematical form. Two types of irregularity are examined:

1. The one, shown in Figure 1 a, is where the vehicle enters and exits the irregularity
as

abnormally because of the nonhorizontal tangents on points A and B. This irregularity,

named Type I, has a form given by

2. The other, in Figure 1 b, is the one in which the tangents are on points A and B horizontal.
This irregularity, named Type II, has a form given by
 669

Figure 1. Types of irregularities. (a) Type I. (b) Type II.

Figure 2. (a) One-axis model. (b) Two-axis model.

670

Figure 3. One-axis model moving on an irregularity.

The actual moving load is an idealized moving mass M, with constant speed v , on a
spring with constant k and on a damper with constant c. The mass of the wheel is mT (Figure
2a). We assume also that the wheels are always in contact with the roadway of the bridge.
The vehicle used is shown in Figure 2b.

2. MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION .

2.1. Forces Caused by the Irregularities

2.1.1. Introductory Concepts

We consider the irregularity of Figure 3 with the following equation:

The above described moving mass M (in which M includes the mass mT of the wheel) passes
from the beginning of the irregularity in time t = 0. In time t < 0, the mass M moves on the
horizontal level a-a, from which we will measure the deflections z.
_
F mg where
In time t = 0, all the system has a constant statical deflection, equal =

k kk to k
g is the gravity acceleration. According to Newton’s second law, we have
 671

The solution of (4) is given by Duhamel’s form:

2.1.2. Irregularity of Type I .

_~

The irregularity of Type I has a form given by equation (1). Because of the passage of the
moving mass on the irregularity, we have the following forces:
a) Forces caused by the change of the level a-a (Figure 3), on which mass M moves.
’

b) Forces caused by the impact that takes place the instant of entrance and exit of the
moving mass M from the irregularity.
2.1.2.1.Change of the leveL The deflection z(t) of the moving mass M is given by equation
(5). With initial conditions z(0) = z(0) 0, give Dl D2 0. Then because of (1), (5),
= = =

and (4c), we can write the following:

The corresponding forces, because of the change of the level, are

672

Figure 4. Impact while the mass enters and exits an irregularity of Type 1.

2.1.2.2. Impactforces. The wheel, which has a mass MT and on which the moving mass M
is being carried, has a horizontal speed v (see Figure 4). In time t = 0, this mass mT strikes
against the irregularity, which has a mass equal to infinity and speed equal to zero. The mass
mT , after the impact, bounces in the direction Kl w, with speed w.
From the general theory of impact (Goldsmith, 1960), we can write (see also Figure 4)

2f
phenomenon takes place during the exit from the irregularity in time t 2£.
~

The same =

v
Now the only difference is that the speed v is parallel to the tangent of w(x) on point B (see
Figure 4), whose angle is equal to cp. Therefore, we can write
 673

2.1.3. Ir-regularity of Tj~pe 11 .

The irregularity of Type II has a form given by equation (2). Because of the passage of the
moving mass on the irregularity and also of its curve, we have forces caused by the change
of the level a-a (Figure 3).
Therefore, the deflection ~(t) of the moving mass Mis given by equation (5). With initial
conditions 2-(0) =
z(0) =
0, we obtain

Then, because of (2), (5), and (4c), we can write

and S; , Ci from equations (6).

The corresponding forces, because of the change of the level, are

2.2. Dyranric Response of a Bridge

Let us consider the simply supported beam that is shown in Figure 5, with length L, mass

per unit length 112, and flexural rigidity EI, made from uniform, homogeneous, and isotropic
material. The beam is subjected to a load P, having mass M, moving with a constant velocity
v (see Figure 5).
At a distance a, from the point A, there is the irregularity C. Neglecting the effect of the
mass M in the vibrating bridge (for this effect, see (12)), the following equations of motion
can be written: ,
674

Figure 5. Single-span bridge with an irregularity at Xl = a and a moving mass at ~2 = d.

where the prime denotes differentiation with respect to x, while the dot denotes differentiation
with respect to time t and 6 is the Dirac delta function. A usual solution of equation (12) can
be shown through the following form:

n ~rx .
where Xn = sin is the shape function of the freely vibrating bridge, illn is the circular
e
eigenfrequency, An , Bn constants, which are determined from the time conditions, and Tn (t)
is the modal amplitude, given from
 675

where: P;,°&dquo;p. , P;I,~ from equations (8), (9), P; (t) from equations (7) for i = 1
r
rm y
and for i = 2 and On =

&horbar;r&horbar; -
Finally,

To reach the above equations in dimensionless form, we put

676

and theprevious equations can be written in dimensionless form, as follows:

Equations (7) (Irregularity of Type I):

Equations (8) and (9):

 677

Equations ( 11 ) (Irregularity of Type II):

And finally, equation (13) becomes

where Xn =
sin(n~rx) the dimensionless shape function and
T&dquo; (T ) the dimensionless modal amplitude, given from
678

3. NUMERICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The purpose of this paper was to study the influence of the following parameters on the
dynamic response of a bridge:
a) The shape, the length, and especially the position of an irregularity.
b) The model used in the response of a bridge and the accuracy of the obtained results.

Therefore, we have studied several types of bridges, irregularities, and vehicles, which are
described below Note should be taken of the following:
-

The vehicles are supposed to move along the center line of the bridge.
-

The displacements in the middle of the span of the bridge are studied.
-

Only the first three flexural modes (no torsion) are taken into account.

3.1. Bridges
Let consider two kinds of bridges. The first one is short (with a length of - 1.5 times the
us

length of a big lorry) and the second one is long (with a length of about 7 times the length of
a big lorry). That means about 10 m in length for the shorter bridge and about 40 m in length

for the longer one.

 679

3.2. Types of Irregularities

Two types of irregularities, in relation to their shape, were taken into consideration. The first
one of Type I (see Figure 1 a) and the second one of Type II (see Figure 1 b).
In Type I, the vehicle enters with impact, whereas in Type II, the vehicle enters normally
In the short bridges with both types of irregularities, we have studied first the small
irregularities with characteristics ~ ’&dquo; 0.05, f = 0.004, and, second, the middle irregularities
with characteristics e 0.2, f = 0.007.
=

In the long bridges again with both types of irregularities, we studied the small one
with characteristics P 0.0125, f 0.001, the middle one with characteristics e = 0.05,
= =

f = 0.00175, and the big one with characteristics fl 0.10, f = 0.0025.

=

These in dimension quantities correspond to

fl = 0.50 m, f = 0.04 m for the small irregularities;
~ = 2.00 m, f = 0.07 m for the middle irregularities;
~ = 4.00 m, f = 0.10 m for the big irregularities.

Considering their position on each eighth of the span of the bridge

8
( ~nL , n =
1, 2, ... , 8), we
studied their effect on the behavior of the bridge.

3.3. Vehicles

The passage of two types of vehicle is studied (the constants of the springs k are taken
from the Kraemer & Freund catalogues and those of the dampers c from the Sachs-Stabilus
catalogues):
The light vehicle has the following characteristics:

The big lorry has the following characteristics:

680

Table 1. Explanatory table.

The above values correspond to the following dimension quantities:

For both vehicles, the impact coefficient is E = 0.95.

Except for the above two vehicles (which are shown in Figure 2b), we have also studied
the movement of the model (with one axis) of Figure 2a on the bridge with P = 20, OOON
for the light and P =
250, OOON for the heavy model.
All the previous results are compared with the ones, which were taken from the movement
of a single load (P = 20, OOON or P =
250, OOOI~ of the same speed (v = 60 km/h and
v = 50 km/h, respectively) without mass, spring, and damping, and which we usually use
to have a first approximation of the dynamic response of a bridge.

3.4. Dynamic Response of a Bridge

We consider two different bridges, types of vehicles, and types of irregularities (in different
positions onthe bridge). From all the above data, we got 180 solutions and 180 diagrams.
Eight of the above 180 diagrams are presented in Figures 6 to 13 (see also explanatory
Table 1).
For all the 180 solutions (of which some have been shown in Figures 6 to 13), we
get the following 20 diagrams, in which are compared the increments or decrements of
the displacement of the middle of the span of the bridge. The displacement of the bridge
 681

Figure 6. Short bridge, abnormal short irregularity, light vehicle.

Figure 7. Short bridge, normal short irregularity, light vehicle.

682

Figure 8. Long bridge, abnormal middle irregularity, light vehicle.

Figure 9. Long bridge, normal middle irregularity, light vehicle.

 683

Figure 10. Short bridge, abnormal short irregularity, big lorry.

Figure 11. Short bridge, normal short irregularity, big lorry.

684

Figure 12. Long bridge, abnormal middle irregularity, big lorry.

Figure 13. Long bridge, normal middle irregularity, big lorry.

 685

Table 2. Absolute maximum ratios.

acted on by the two-axis-vehicle is symbolized with woo. The one that is caused by the one-
axis moving load with spring and damper is symbolized with wo, and the one caused by a
moving load without spring and damper and which moves on a bridge without irregularity, is
symbolized by w.
The 20 diagrams are given in Table 2.
For the use of the above Table 2, we present the following example:
Woo - Wo
Line 6 of Table 2, for example, shows the absolute maximum ratios 9lo,
wo
Woo - w and ~ > ° 1t , >
w w
for the most unfavorable
positions of the irregularity on the span
of the bridge. The irregularity is of Type I, the bridge is long, the length of the irregularity
is short, the vehicle is a heavy lorry, and the above ratios are, respectively, 1.5% when the
irregularity is placed at 2L/8 of the bridge, and 0% and 3% when the irregularity is placed
at 2L/8 of the bridge. These results are shown in diagrams 1 to 10 under number 6 with
a continuous line for the first ratio and with a dotted line for the second one, for different
positions of the irregularity on the span of the bridge.
Study of the previous diagrams leads to the following results:
686

of the middle of the bridge:

Diagrams 1 to 10. Comparison percentage of the change of the displacement
W°° W° % Biaxial model to one axis model. - - - - - Woo - W % Biaxial model to without
’
w
~

Wo
mass moving force.
 687

Diagrams 11 to 20. Comparison percentage of the change of the displacement of the middle of the bridge:

W° ~° W° %
moving
mass
wo
force.
Biaxial model to one axis model; - - - - -
W° ~ ~~
w
% Biaxial model to without
 688

1. Regarding the models of vehicles:

The use of the exact biaxial model is necessary in the light vehicles, where the differ-
ence goes up to 44% in relation to the one-axis model, while this difference reaches

85% in relation to the simple moving load (without irregularity, spring, etc.). For short
bridges, the deviation from the true values is about 25% and 62%, respectively. For big
lorries, the exact model vehicle gives results less than 40% (for short bridges) to 2% to
5% (for long bridges). But if we take into account that a significant factor on the design
of a long bridge is the economy, then it is necessary to use the exact biaxial model.
2. Regarding the type of irregularity:
The one of Type I gives an increment of the dynamic deflection of a bridge from 9% to
52% for the light vehicles, but from 0% to 5% for the big lorries. The irregularities of
Type II give minor rates of the increment on the dynamic deflection of a bridge from
2% to 12% for the light vehicles, but from 0% to 2% for the big lorries.

3. Regarding the position of the irregularity:

The existence of an irregularity at the beginning of a bridge gives more unfavorable
results, with significant differences (it doubles the influence). While the existence of an
irregularity at positions 2L/8 to 4L/8 is also quite insecure. Therefore, the construction
(for the reduction of the speed of a vehicle) or the accidental existence of an irregularity
on the bridge, and especially at its beginning, is the worst design (or case) of all.

Finally, we would like to point out that the short irregularities up to 1 m have the most
unfavorable influence. Therefore, we propose that the whole length of the irregularity be
from 2 to 4 m. A longer length has the effect of two irregularities instead of one, because
the beginning and the end of the long irregularity act like two independent irregularities,
especially for Type I (where we have the impact phenomenon).
-

We note that the optimum length of an irregularity is connected with the particular
characteristics of a bridge and, especially, with the specter of the eigenfrequencies.

4. CONCLUSIONS
From the above results, we come to the following basic conclusions:
1. Regarding the irregularities:

a. We must avoid constructing irregularities at the entrance (and generally on the first
eighth) of a bridge.
b. We must avoid irregularities with abnormal shapes because of the impact phenomenon.
c. The length of an irregularity must be longer than I m and shorter than the vehicle wheel
base for us to avoid forces because of a double impact.
2. As for the vehicle model used: ;~ .

a. The model of the simple moving load (without springs, etc.) must be avoided in the
design of a bridge.
b. The one axis model can be used in the design of long-span bridges, while an exact
model (of two or more axes) must be used for the design of middle-span bridges.
 689

REFERENCES

American Association of State, Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1977, Standard Specifications for
Highway Bridges, 12th ed., Author, Washington, DC.
Cantieri, R.,1991, Beitrag zur dynamik von Strassenbrucken unter der uberfahrt schwerer Fahrzeuge, Diss. ETH Nr
9505, Technische hochschule, Zurich.
Council of European Communities, 1992, Council Directive, 92/7/EEC Amending Directive 85/3/EEC on the Weights,
Dimensions and Certain Technical Characteristics of Certain Road Vehicles, Author, Brussels, Belgium.
Drosner, R. A., 1989, Beitrag zur Berechnung der dynamischen Beanspruchungen von Brucken under Verkehrlast, Diss.
RWTH, Fakultat fur Bauingenieur und Vermeisungswesen, Aachen.
Foda, M. A. and Abduljabbar, Z., 1998, "A dynamic green function formulation for the response of a beam structure to
a moving mass," Journal of Sound and Vibration 210 (3), 295-306.
Fr&yacute;ba, L., 1972, Vibrations of Solids and Structures Under Moving Loads, Nordhoff, Groningen.
Gillespi, T D., Karamihas, S. M., Sayers, M. W, Nasim, M. A., Hansen, W, Ehsan, N., and Cebon, D., 1993, Effect of
Heavy Vehicle Characteristics on Pavement Response and Performance, NCHRP, Rep. 353, Trans Res. Board
(TRB), Washington, DC.
Goldsmith, W, 1960, Impact, Edward Arnold, London.
Green, M. F. and Cebon, D., 1994, "Dynamic response of highway bridges to heavy vehicle loads: Theory and experi-
mental validations," Journal of Sound and Vibration 170
(1), 181-194.
Green, M. E, Cebon, D., and Cole, D. J., 1995, "Effects of vehicle suspension design on dynamics of highway bridges,"
Journal of Structural Engineering 121(2), 211-220.
Hillerborg, A., 1951, Dynamic Influences of Smoothly Running Loads of Simply Supported Girders, Kungl. Tekhn. H&ouml;gs
kolan, Stockholm.
Honda, H., Kajikawa, Y., and Kobori, T, 1982, "Spectra of road surface roughness on bridges," Journal of Structure
Engineering ASCE 108
(9), 249-256.
A Mathematical
Inglis, C. E., 1934, Treatise on Vibration in Railway Bridges, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 1972, Proposals for Generalized Road Inputs to Vehicles, ISO/TC
108/WG9 Draft No 3c, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jeffcott, H. H., 1929, "On the vibration of beams under the action of moving loads," Philosophical Magazine Series
(48), 66-67.
7,8
Kr&yacute;lov, N., 1905a, Mathematical Collection of Papers of the Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg 61.
A.
Kr&yacute;lov, A. N., 1905b, "&Uuml;ber die erzwungenen Schwingungen von gleichf&ouml;rmigen elastigchen St&auml;ben," Mathematical
Annalen 61, 211.
(2), 289-296.
Lee, H. P., 1996, "Dynamic response of a beam with a moving mass," Journal of Sound and Vibration 191
Leonard, D., 1982, Damping and Frequency Measurements on Eigh Bog Girder Bridges, Transport and Rd. Res. Lab.
Growthome, TRRL, Lab. Re. 682, England.
Michaltsos, G. T, Sophianopoulos, D., and Kounadis, A. N., 1996, "The effect of a moving mass and other parameters
dynamic response of a simply supported beam," Journal of Sound and Vibration 191
on the (3), 357-362.
Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications, 1983, Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code, Author, Downs-
view, Ontario.
Saller, H., 1921, Einfluss bewegter Last auf Eisenbahnoberbau und Br&uuml;cken, Kreidels Verlag, Berlin.
Steuding, H., 1934, "Die Schwingungen von Tr&auml;gern bei bewegten Lasten I," Ingenieur Archiv 5 (4), 275-305.
Steuding, H., 1935, "Die Schwingungen von Tr&auml;gern bei bewegten Lasten II," Ingenieur Archiv (4), 265-270.
6
Stokes, G. G., 1849, "Discussion of a differential equation relating to the breaking of railway bridges," Transactions of
the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 707-735.
Timoshenko, S. P., 1922, "On the forced vibration of bridges," Philosophical Magazine Series 6 (43), 1018.
Xu, X., Xu, W, and Genin, J., 1997, "A non linear moving mass problem," Journal of Sound and Vibration 204(3),
495-504.
Zibdeh, H. S. and Reckwitz, R., 1996, "Moving loads on beams with general boundary conditions," Journal of Sound
(1), 85-102.
and Vibration 195
Zimmermann, H., 1896, "Die Schwingungen eines Tr&auml;gers mit bewegter Last," Centralblatt der Bauverwaltung 16
(23),
249-251; 23A, 257-260; 24, 264-266; 26, 288.