Dynamic Impact Analysis of Double-Tower Cable-Stayed

Maglev Bridges Using a Simple Model

X. D. Song1; D. J. Wu2; and Q. Li3

Abstract: The strength and stiffness design of a bridge subject to moving vehicles requires the determination of its dynamic amplification
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

factors (DAFs). This paper presents a simple method for estimating the DAFs of a double-tower multicable-stayed bridge traversed by maglev
vehicles. This multicable-stayed bridge with small side spans is idealized as a simply supported Euler beam on an elastic foundation, and the
maglev vehicles are simplified as moving uniform forces. A closed-form solution for the dynamic responses of the beam is derived and applied
to parametric analysis. The accuracy of the simplified method is first validated by numerical results obtained from precise finite-element (FE)
models. The dimensionless parameters governing the DAFs of the beam are then identified: speed parameter, train-bridge length ratio, and
elastic support coefficient. Several contour maps against these dimensionless parameters are provided for quick consultation of the DAFs of
a bridge in the preliminary design stage. Frequency limits for double-tower cable-stayed bridges are suggested to control the DAFs below
a given reasonable value. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000498. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Double-tower cable-stayed bridge; Maglev vehicles; Dynamic amplification factors; Frequency limits; Simple beam on an
elastic foundation.

Introduction
Maglevs offer several advantages over traditional wheel-rail sys-
tems, including less noise, less energy consumption, and greater
environmental friendliness (Yau 2009; Yau and Yang 2004). Most
existing maglev lines comprise simple and continuous guideways
with a short-to-medium span. The dynamic interaction between
these guideways and the maglev vehicles that traverse them has been
extensively investigated in the past two decades (Cai et al. 1996; Lee
et al. 2009; Wang et al. 2007; Chung et al. 2011), with researchers
finding the vibration amplitudes and dynamic amplification factors
(DAFs) of the guideways to be closely related to their fundamental
frequencies (Lee et al. 2009; Teng et al. 2008). Thus, to avoid severe
vibrations, the fundamental frequency of a bridge should exceed
a certain low limit. For simply supported bridges, the fundamental
frequency f1 , maximum design speed v, and bridge span Lb must
meet the requirements expressed by f1 $ 1:1v=Lb per the German
design guidelines [Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural De-
velopment of the People’s Republic of China (MOHURD) 2008].
However, it remains open to question whether this formula can also
be applied to the long-span cable-stayed bridges that are widely used
to carry highway and railway traffic across complex terrains fea-
turing wide rivers and deep gorges. Because few cable-stayed bridges
have been constructed for maglev traffic, the dynamic responses of
1 Euler beam on an elastic support of uniform stiffness. The maglev
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Bridge Engineering, Tongji Univ.,1239
Siping Rd., Shanghai 200092, China. E-mail: song_4567875@163.com
2
Professor, Dept. of Bridge Engineering, Tongji Univ.,1239 Siping Rd.,
Shanghai 200092, China. E-mail: tjwdj@tongji.edu.cn
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Bridge Engineering, Tongji Univ., 1239
Siping Rd., Shanghai 200092, China (corresponding author). E-mail:
liqi_bridge@tongji.edu.cn
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 6, 2012; approved
on April 9, 2013; published online on April 12, 2013. Discussion period
open until June 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering,
Vol. 19, No. 1, January 1, 2014. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2014/
1-34–43/$25.00.
such bridges when subject to moving maglev vehicles have rarely
been discussed.
Most researchers who have investigated the dynamic responses
of cable-stayed bridges under moving vehicles have employed the
FEM because of the structural complexity involved. Au et al. (2001a,
b, 2002), for example, simulated a typical railway vehicle with
a multirigid-body model to conduct an impact study of cable-stayed
bridges focusing on the damping effects, track quality, and initial
motion of the vehicles. Yau and Yang (2004) proposed a hybrid-
tuned mass damper system to reduce the vibration of cable-stayed
bridges traversed by high-speed trains. It should be noted that
numerical methods are time-consuming and inconvenient for
parametric analysis. Meisenholder and Weidlinger (1974) used an
infinite Euler beam on a uniform elastic foundation to model the
dynamic behavior of a cable-stayed bridge. They conducted a di-
mensionless parametric study on the dynamic responses of the beam
using a closed-form solution, but their concentrated load model is
not convenient for simulating a real maglev train. Bruno et al. (2008)
investigated the dynamic responses of a double-tower cable-stayed
bridge subject to moving uniform loads on the basis of the Hamilton
principle. However, although they carried out a dimensionless
parametric analysis to quantify the DAFs of the bridge, the related
dimensionless parameters were too numerous to be applied in the
preliminary design state.
The main span of the double-tower multicable-stayed bridge with
small side spans explored in this study is idealized as a homogeneous
vehicles are simplified as uniformly distributed forces moving at
a constant speed (Chung et al. 2011). Closed-form solutions of the
beam responses are derived via the mode superposition method, and
these analytical solutions are then compared with numerical results
obtained from finite-element (FE) models of a cable-stayed bridge.
Only three key dimensionless parameters are found to significantly
govern the DAFs of the beams on an elastic foundation. The results
of a dimensionless parametric study are presented in a discussion of
the influential factors of the DAFs of the beam. Finally, frequency
limits for double-tower cable-stayed bridges of various spans are
proposed to avoid excessive vibration.

34 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 34-43

 Simplified Model and Equations of Motion
A total of 10 long-span double-tower cable-stayed bridges
designed to carry high-speed maglev trains were considered in the
study reported herein to investigate the DAFs of this type of bridge.
Table 1 lists the main spans of the 10 bridges differentiated by
structural type, height, main girder stiffness, main span length, and
side span to midspan ratio. Spatial beam elements were primarily
used to establish three-dimensional FE models of the bridges under
study. Figs. 1 and 2 illustrate the general elevation for the FE model
of a steel box girder cable-stayed bridge with a main span of 458 m.
Cable-stayed bridges designed for maglevs adopt a composite
structure system because maglev vehicles need to run on particular
simple guideways equipped with functional modules. In the German
maglev system, functional modules should be 3.096 m in length. As
a result, the optional guideways supported on cable-stayed bridges

Table 1. Properties and Dynamic Amplification Factors of Cable-Stayed Bridges

DAF (V 5 350 km=h)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Side
Height of span/midspan Eb Ib pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Numerical Analytical
Lb (m) Structural type of girder girder (m) (%) (N×m2 ) k (N=m2 ) x1 ð2=pÞ mb =ðEb Ib Þ solution solution
458 Steel box girder stiffened by steel truss 15.0 13.5 1:15 3 1013 2:45 3 105 3.25 3:93 3 1025 1.152 1.113
458 Steel box girder stiffened by steel truss 13.8 13.5 9:00 3 1012 2:29 3 105 3.53 4:25 3 1025 1.164 1.117
458 Steel-concrete composed box girder 4.5 13.5 1:13 3 1012 2:00 3 105 8.99 1:23 3 1024 1.329 1.291
458 Steel box girder 4.5 8.1 9:71 3 1011 1:56 3 105 8.58 1:13 3 1024 1.277 1.226
458 Steel box girder 4.5 13.5 9:71 3 1011 1:56 3 105 8.57 1:13 3 1024 1.295 1.227
458 Steel box girder 4.5 24.3 9:71 3 1011 1:47 3 105 8.33 1:13 3 1024 1.267 1.255
458 Steel box girder 4.5 35.2 9:71 3 1011 1:30 3 105 7.84 1:13 3 1024 1.241 1.350
706 Steel box girder stiffened by steel truss 15.0 14.0 9:06 3 1012 1:18 3 105 5.85 4:42 3 1025 1.242 1.159
706 Steel-concrete composed box girder 4.0 14.0 1:52 3 1012 1:24 3 105 14.45 1:16 3 1024 1.553 1.617
706 Steel-concrete composed box girder 4.5 14.0 1:13 3 1012 1:08 3 105 15.65 1:23 3 1024 1.521 1.632

Fig. 1. General elevation of cable-stayed bridge adopting steel box girder (millimeters)

Fig. 2. Three-dimensional FE model of a cable-stayed bridge

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 35

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 34-43

 Fig. 3. First vertical mode shape of a cable-stayed bridge

should be either 6.192 or 12.384 m in length, and the cable space

should also be uniform to comply with the guideway length re-
quirement for such bridges with multicable systems.
Fig. 3 shows the mode shape of the bridge’s first vertical vibration
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

mode. The mode shape of the main girder in the main span is clearly
similar to that of a simply supported beam. Thus, the first mode shape
of a simple beam can be regarded as the dominant term in the Fourier
series used to expand the first mode shape of the cable-stayed bridge.
For cable-stayed bridges with multiple auxiliary piers and small side
spans, the displacement of the midspan when the train is loading on Fig. 4. Simple beam on elastic foundation subjected to uniformly
the side spans is much smaller than when the train is loading on the distributed moving load
midspan. Vlahinos and Wang (1994) also noted that the axial forces
developed in the girder have an insignificant effect on the dynamic
behavior of a cable-stayed bridge. It should be noted that the cable ∂4 uðx, tÞ ∂2 uðx, tÞ
space of a long-span multicable-stayed bridge is much less than the Eb Ib þ mb þ kuðx, tÞ ¼ 0 (4)
∂x 4 ∂t2
main span of the bridge; thus, an elastic foundation can be used to
approximately represent the effect of all the cables. In view of these
One form of the solution to this equation can be obtained easily by
characteristics, the simplified model in Fig. 4 was used in this study
separating the variables (Clough and Penzien 1993)
to simulate the dynamic responses of a complex cable-stayed bridge
subject to high-speed maglev vehicles. It was assumed that the main
girder in the midspan of the bridge could be modeled by a simply uðx, tÞ ¼ fðxÞe jvt (5)
supported homogeneous Euler beam sitting on an elastic foundation
of uniform stiffness. The maglev vehicles were simulated as a uni- where fðxÞ represents the shape function; and v 5 circular fre-
formly distributed moving force with constant speed because their quency of the beam.
vibration in the vertical direction can be ignored in the primary Substituting Eq. (5) into Eq. (4) gives
design stage of a bridge.
The governing equation of the beam shown in Fig. 4 can be ∂4 fðxÞ  
Eb Ib þ k 2 mb v2 fðxÞ ¼ 0 (6)
expressed as follows (Fryba 1999): ∂x 4

∂4 uðx, tÞ ∂2 uðx, tÞ ∂uðx, tÞ The boundary conditions of the simply supported beam can be
Eb I b þ mb þ cb þ kuðx, tÞ ¼ f ðx, tÞ (1) expressed as
∂x 4 ∂t2 ∂t

where Lb denotes the span of the simple beam or main span of a
cable-stayed bridge; Eb Ib 5 vertical bending stiffness of the beam;
mb 5 mass per unit length of the beam; cb 5 damping coefficient
of the beam; k 5 per unit length stiffness of the foundation; uðx, tÞ
5 displacement of the beam at location x and time instance t; and
f ðx, tÞ 5 external force induced by the moving load
fð0Þ ¼ f99ð0Þ ¼ 0, fðLb Þ ¼ f99ðLb Þ ¼ 0 (7)
Then, the mode shape fn ðxÞ and modal circular frequency vn of the
beam’s nth mode can be obtained by solving the differential
equation in Eq. (6) together with the boundary conditions shown in
Eq. (7)

f ðx, tÞ ¼ p½Hðx 2 vt þ Lt Þ 2 Hðx 2 vtÞ np

(2) fn ðxÞ ¼ sin x ðn ¼ 1, 2, 3 . . .Þ (8)
Lb
where p represents the magnitude of the moving force of the per-unit qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
length; Lt and v denote the length and speed of the moving force,   
vn ¼ n4 p4 Eb Ib þ kLb 4 mb Lb 4 ðn ¼ 1, 2, 3 . . .Þ (9)
respectively; and H 5 Heaviside function expressed as
 It should be noted that the mode shapes of a simple beam on an
0, v,0
HðvÞ ¼ (3) elastic foundation are identical to those of a simply supported beam.
1, v$0
Hence, the displacement uðx, tÞ can be written as
This function is used in Eq. (2) to determine the time-varying states
P
S
npx
of the distributed load imposed on the simple beam when the load is uðx, tÞ ¼ qn ðtÞsin (10)
traveling at a speed of v. Eq. (1) can be solved using the mode n¼1 Lb
superposition method. The mode shapes and mode frequencies of
the beam on an elastic foundation can be derived from the undamped where qn ðtÞ 5 generalized coordinate of the nth mode shape; and
free vibration equation of motion S 5 total number of modes chosen for analysis.

36 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 34-43

 By substituting Eq. (10) into Eq. (1) and multiplying both sides Numerical Verification
by the mode shape fn ðxÞ, the resulting equation can be integrated
over the beam length Lb to give the following generalized The accuracy of the closed-form solution given by Eq. (16) was
equation: first verified using the numerical method proposed by Li et al.
(2010) with a FE model of a simple beam on equivalent discrete
€qn ðtÞ þ 2jn vn q_ n ðtÞ þ v2n qn ðtÞ ¼ Fn ðtÞ (11)
elastic supports. The dynamic responses of the beam obtained from
the analytical and numerical methods were almost identical. The
where jn 5 cb =ð2mb vn Þ 5 damping ratio of the nth mode; and vehicle-bridge interaction analysis method (Li et al. 2010) was also
Fn ðtÞ 5 generalized force given by applied to simulate the dynamic responses of all of the cable-stayed
Lðb
bridges listed in this study by modeling the Transrapid 08 (TR08)
Fn ðtÞ ¼ 2 f ðx, tÞsin npx dx (12) (ThyssenKrupp, München, Germany) vehicle as a 16-axle system
mb Lb Lb
0 with multirigid bodies and suspensions with linear elastic stiffness
and viscous damping (Zhao and Zhai 2002). Figs. 5(a and b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

By introducing the elastic support coefficient xn as follows: present a comparison of the DAFs of the midspan displacement
obtained from the vehicle-bridge coupling and moving load
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
models under various vehicle speeds. It can be seen that the effect
xn ¼ 1 þ kLb 4 =ðn4 p4 Eb Ib Þ (13)
of vehicle-bridge interaction is negligible at a vehicle speed of
350 km=h.
the circular frequency vn can be expressed as vn 5 xn vn9, where
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi One concern may be whether it is suitable to represent a complex
v9n 5 n4 p4 Eb Ib =ðmb Lb 4 Þ is the circular frequency of the nth mode of cable-stayed bridge with a simple beam on an elastic foundation. To
a simply supported beam. illustrate, the dynamic responses of the 10 bridges listed in Table 1
The initial conditions of the beam are given by were solved using the numerical method with their spatial FE
 models. A damping ratio of 0.005 was applied to all modes of the
∂uðx, tÞ bridges, and a uniform moving load with a total length of 202 m and
uðx, 0Þ ¼ 0, ¼0 (14)
∂t t¼0 per-unit length pressure of 25:6 kN=m was used to represent
a maglev train comprising eight TR08 vehicles. These numerical
Solving Eq. (11) in association with Eq. (14) and substituting qn ðtÞ results were then compared with the analytical solution obtained
into Eq. (10) yields a closed-form solution of uðx, tÞ with an equivalent simple beam on an elastic foundation. The model
parameters associated with the simplified beam are as follows. The
2pL4b P S length, bending stiffness, and mass per-unit length of the simple
uðx, tÞ ¼  1  beam are equal to those of the main girder of a cable-stayed bridge in
p Eb Ib n¼1 n5 þ n x1 2 2 1
5

    the main span. To ensure that the fundamental frequency of the
L L cable-stayed bridge f1 is equal to that of the simple beam on an
 Cn ðtÞ þ ð21Þnþ1 Cn t 2 b 2 Cn t 2 t
v v elastic foundation, the stiffness of the elastic foundation k can be
  estimated by
L þ Lt npx
2 ð21Þnþ1 Cn t 2 b sin
v Lb k ¼ 4mb p2 f12 2 p4 Eb Ib =Lb 4 (17)
(15)
Table 1 lists the equivalent parameters of the simple beams together
where with the maximum DAFs of the midspan displacements calculated by
02 0 13 the numerical and analytical methods. There is a close match between
DAFs calculated using the two methods, with a difference between
B6 B jn C7
Cn ðtÞ ¼ @41 2 e2jn vn t @cos vDn t þ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi sin vDn tA5 them of less than 9%. Fig. 6 shows the time history responses of the
1 2 jn 2 vertical displacements of the 458-m steel-girder bridge at the midspan
8 calculated by the numerical and analytical methods. Good agreement
>
<  can be observed when the vehicles are running on the main span,
1 although there is a slight phase difference. Obvious discrepancies
2  1 2 b 2
n cosvn t
1 2 b2n þ ð2jn bn Þ2 >
2
: exist in the two curves after the vehicles depart from the main span
because the simplified model does not include the effect of the side
2
spans.
6  The side span to midspan ratio of the 458-m cable-stayed bridge
þ 2jn bn sinvn t þ e2jn vn t 4 b2n 2 1 cos vDn t
employing a steel box girder was varied to investigate the side span’s
influence on the dynamic behavior of the midspan. Table 1 reveals
391 that the analytical and numerical results are well matched, with
>
=
jn   7 C a relative difference of less than 9% even when the span ratio was
2 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi b2n þ 1 sin vDn t 5 AHðtÞ (16)
>
; increased to 35.2%. Thus, the side span appears to have a negligible
1 2 j2n
influence on the behavior of the midspan in cable-stayed bridges
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi with a span ratio of less than 35%.
and x 1 5 1 1 kLb 4 =ðp4 Eb Ib Þ is obtained from Eq. (13) by allowing Figs. 5(c and d) present a comparison of the DAFs for the
n 5 1; vn 5 npv=Lb denotes the excitation circular frequency of the midspan displacements of the 458-m cable-stayed bridges with
moving force; bn 5 vn =vn is the speed parameter defined as the ratio different girder types obtained using the two methods under
of the moving force’s excitation frequency to the fundamental
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi fre- various vehicle speeds. The analytic solution is more accurate for
quency of the beam (Yang et al. 1995); and vDn 5 vn 1 2 j2n rep- the main girder with a larger degree of stiffness or smaller elastic
resents the damped circular frequency of the beam. support coefficient x1 because the first mode of the girder plays

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 37

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 34-43

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. DAFs of midspan displacement of the 458-m cable-stayed bridge against vehicle speed: (a) steel box girder; (b) steel box girder stiffened by steel
truss; (c) original steel box girder (x1 5 8:57); (d) steel box girder stiffened by steel truss (girder height: 13.8 m; x1 5 3:53); (e) steel box girder (1=4
times original girder stiffness; x1 5 15:38); (f) steel box girder (4 times original girder stiffness; x1 5 4:69)

a dominant role in its dynamic responses. However, the analytic severe vibration in vehicle-bridge systems. The applicability of
solution becomes less accurate at speeds above 400 km=h for the simple model with regard to the x1 range is discussed in the
a flexible girder because the higher modes of the cables, towers, following sections.
and main girder play increasingly dominant roles in the dynamic
responses of the girder. To further investigate the influence of the
Dimensionless Analysis of DAFs
girder’s bending stiffness on the accuracy of the analytic solution,
two new 458-m steel box girder cable-stayed bridge models were
For simplicity, the undamped vibration of the beam is discussed here
developed by changing the stiffness of the main girder to four and
to illustrate the factors influencing the DAFs. Hereafter, Eq. (16) can
one-quarter times that of the original. Figs. 5(e and f) show that the
be written as
solution obtained using the proposed method is more accurate
when x1 is much smaller. In addition, x1 decreases with an in-

b2 1 
crease in girder stiffness. The girder stiffness of real high-speed Cn ðtÞ ¼ 1 þ  n 2  cos vDn t 2  cos v n HðtÞ (18)
t
maglev or railway bridges must be sufficiently large to avoid 1 2 bn 1 2 b2n

38 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 34-43

 (
 
2pL4 b21 p
uðx, tÞ ¼ 5 b 2 1þ  cos v1 t þ cos v1 t 2
p Eb I b x 1 1 2 b21 b1
 
pg
2 cos v1 t 2 þ  1 2
b1 1 2 b1
)
px
 cosðb1 v1 t 2 pgÞ sin
Lb
(21)

By employing the trigonometric linear combination formula, Eq.

(21) can be written as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2pL4b
uðx, tÞ ¼ ½1 þ c1 cosðv1 t þ q1 Þ
p5 Eb Ib x 1
2

Fig. 6. Time history of displacements at midspan of the 458-m box þ c2 cosðb1 v1 t þ q2 Þsin px (22)
Lb
girder bridge (v 5 350 km=h)
where c1 , q1 , c2 , and q2 are functions of the nondimensional
parameters g and b1
A number of important relations can be derived as follows: sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
b21 2 p 2 4 cos p cos pg 2 p
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi c1 ¼   4 cos þ 1,
vn v 1 2 b21 2b1 2b1 b1 2b1
vn ¼ , vDn ¼ vn 1 2 j2n ¼ n 1 2 j2n
bn bn
b21
vn ×
Lb npv Lb
¼ × ¼ np, vn ×
Lt
¼ npg c2 ¼  
v Lb v v (19) 1 2 b21
0 pg 1
vn 2sin p þ sin
nb1
bn ¼ ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
vn B b1 b1 C
n þ x2 2 1
4
q1 ¼ arctan@ pg A, q2 ¼ 2pg
1 p
cos 2 cos þ1
b1 b1
where g 5 Lt =Lb denotes the train length to bridge span ratio. (23)
Because the displacements of the beam under a moving load are
dominated primarily by the first mode of vibration (Yang et al. The maximum value of uðx, tÞ during Lb =v # t # ðLb 1 Lt Þ=v can be
1997), allowing n 5 1 and supposing that g , 1 in the case of long- achieved at the beginning or ending time instance or at one of the
span bridges means that Eq. (15) can be further expressed as extreme points within the time interval
 
2pL4
2pL4b
  umax ðxÞ ¼ 5 b 2 sin px
px Lt p Eb Ib x1 Lb
uðx, tÞ ¼ C1 ðtÞsin 0#t,
p Eb Ib x21
5 Lb v 8  

    >
> þ
p
þ q 2 c2 cosðq2 Þ
2pL4b >
>
1 c 1 cos
b1
1
uðx, tÞ ¼ C1 ðtÞ 2 C1 t 2
Lt
sin
px Lt
# t ,
Lb <
p5 Eb Ib x21 v Lb v v  
× max p þ pg

    >
> 1 þ c 1 cos þ q1 2 c2 cosðpg þ q2 Þ
2pL4b Lb Lt
sin px
> >
b1
uðx, tÞ ¼
p5 Eb Ib x21
C1 ðtÞ þ C1 t 2
v
2 C1 t 2
v Lb
:
1 þ c1 cosðr þ q1 Þ þ c2 cosðb1 r þ q2 Þ
  (24)
Lb L þ Lt
#t, b
v v
where r denotes the extreme point that makes the derivation of

    c1 cosðh 1 q1 Þ 1 c2 cosðb1 h 1 q2 Þ with respect to h 5 0. Parameter
2pL4b Lb Lt
uðx, tÞ ¼ C1 ðtÞ þ C1 t 2 2 C1 t 2 r is a function of the nondimensional parameters g and b1 , although
p5 Eb Ib x21 v v it cannot be explicitly expressed in a simple way.
    The maximum displacements of the beam during other time
L þ Lb Lb þ Lt
sin px
intervals can be similarly expressed as Eq. (24). Accordingly, the
2 C1 t 2 t t$
v Lb v maximum displacement of an undamped beam can be expressed as
(20) a function of the nondimensional parameters g and b1
2pL4
umax ðxÞ ¼ 5 b 2 sin px fu ðg, b1 Þ (25)
p Eb I b x 1 Lb
Substituting Eqs. (18) and (19) into Eq. (20) yields the displace-
ment during each time interval. For instance, when Lb =v # t Considering the effect of higher modes, the maximum displacement
# ðLb 1 Lt Þ=v, the displacement of the beam can be expressed as of uðx, tÞ can be further expressed as

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 39

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 34-43

 2pL4b P S As previously noted, the proposed model is highly accurate when
umax ðxÞ ¼  1  fu ðg, b1 Þsin npx (26) the elastic support coefficient x1 is small. Fig. 8 illustrates the
p Eb Ib n¼1 n5 þ n x 21 2 1
5 Lb
contour maps of the DAFs versus x1 and b1 with various ratios of
train to bridge length. The DAFs are little affected by x1 when it is
The displacement of a simple beam on an elastic foundation subject less than 6. It is thus appropriate to use the simplified model to
to the static effect of a uniform load can be obtained as predict the DAF of a double-tower cable-stayed bridge traversed by
a high-speed maglev train when x 1 # 6.
2pL4b PS Table 1 shows that x1 increases with an increase in span length.
ust,max ðxÞ ¼ lim  1  fu ðg, b1 Þsin npx
p Eb Ib b1 →0 n¼1 n5 þ n x21 2 1
5 Lb Substituting Eq. (17) into Eq. (13) yields
(27) rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 mb
x1 ¼ f1 L2b (30)
p Eb I b
Combining Eqs. (26) and (27) after the required mode number is
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

assigned to the determined value allows the DAF of the beam to be

obtained by Table 1 also shows that the values of 2 mb =Eb Ib =p for certain
girder types generally fluctuate smoothly for the presented bridges
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
umax ðxÞ with different span lengths. The average value of 2 mb =Eb Ib =p
DAFðxÞ ¼
ust,max ðxÞ (28) for various steel box girders stiffened with steel trusses equals
4:2 3 1025 (see Table 1). Therefore, x1 for this type of girder
¼ fu ðl, b1,g, x1 Þ proposed in this paper can be approximately expressed as

where l 5 x=Lb stands for the position of the beam. It is usually set at x1 ¼ 4:2  1025 f1 L2b (31)
a constant value of 0.5 to represent the DAFs at the midspan.
Therefore, Eq. (28) can be further written as By introducing the foregoing approximate expression of x1 , it can
be seen that the DAFs of a cable-stayed bridge depend primarily
DAF ¼ fu ðb1 , g, x1 Þ (29)
on b1 and g. This treatment substantially simplifies the parametric
analysis. Fig. 9 depicts the contour map of DAFs for steel box girders
The DAFs of the beam on an elastic foundation are governed pri- stiffened by steel truss bridges versus b1 and g. Once the main
marily by three dimensionless parameters: speed parameter b1 , parameters of the vehicle and bridge are given, the DAFs of a double-
train-bridge length ratio g, and elastic support coefficient x1 . Al- tower cable-stayed bridge can be quickly acquired from Fig. 9.
though the damping effect is not involved in Eq. (29), the foregoing
conclusion can be applied to long-span bridges with light damping.
The four cases with various parameters shown in Table 2 were
applied to validate the correctness of Eq. (29). As Fig. 7 reveals, the Low Fundamental Frequency Limit
DAFs of the beams with different dimension parameters were
identical as long as the three dimensionless parameters in Eq. (29) Table 1 reveals that cable-stayed bridges with girders of greater
were kept unchanged. stiffness exhibit better dynamic performance with smaller DAFs.
Flexible girders, in contrast, may generate severe vibrations under
moving loads. A parametric study was therefore conducted to find
Table 2. Properties of Beams and Moving Forces in Different Cases the suitable stiffness for bridges with different spans.
Lb Lt mb f1 V The DAFs for specific span lengths under various vehicle speeds
Cases (m) (m) ðkg=mÞ (Hz) ðkm=hÞ g b1 x1 are plotted in Fig. 10. If the maximum vehicle speed is assumed to be
400 km/h, an envelope diagram of DAFs for bridges of various spans
1 404 202 4:0 3 104
100=Lb 180
0.5 0.500 1–20 and fundamental frequencies can be obtained (see Fig. 11). Figs. 10
2 202 101 3:5 3 104 200=Lb 360
and 11 show that larger DAFs are generally induced by higher speeds,
3 100 200 3:0 3 104 120=Lb 100–400
2 0.116–0.463 5 longer spans, and smaller fundamental frequencies. The four DAF
4 50 100 2:5 3 104 120=Lb 100–400
curves for bridge spans below 200 m coincide with one another

Fig. 7. Comparison of DAFs between different cases: (a) DAFs against elastic support coefficient; (b) DAFs against vehicle speed

40 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 34-43

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Contour map of DAFs versus speed parameter and elastic support coefficient: (a) g 5 0:505 (Lb 5 400 m); (b) g 5 0:337 (Lb 5 600 m);
(c) g 5 0:253 (Lb 5 800 m)
Fig. 9. Contour map of DAFs versus speed parameter and train-bridge-
length ratio
because the train-bridge length ratio g has little influence on the DAF
when it exceeds 1.0.
The fundamental frequency limit of a bridge can be obtained
from Fig. 11 through linear difference once the threshold value of the
DAF has been determined. Table 3 presents the limits in two forms
with the assumed threshold values (1.2 and 1.3) of the DAFs. The
first form gives the frequency limit in terms of bridge span, Lb , which
is convenient for engineering purposes. The other is expressed in
J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 34-43
dimensionless form f1 =ðv=Lb Þ, which allows direct comparison with
the frequency limit proposed in the German design guidelines
f1 =ðv=Lb Þ $ 1:1 (32)
As Table 3 illustrates, for a bridge with a span ranging from 25 to
200 m or rather in the case of train-bridge length ratio g . 1, the
fundamental frequency limits presented here are close to those in the
German design guidelines. However, when g , 1, the lower limit of
the fundamental frequency is much larger than that given by
Eq. (32), and the discrepancy between them grows larger with an
increase in span length. The research presented in this study is of
great significance to the design of long-span maglev cable-stayed
bridges because the direct adoption of the limit given in Eq. (32) is no
longer safe. It should be noted that the limits in Table 3 apply only to
bridges with x 1 # 6 or x1 5 4:2 3 1025 f1 L2b . For cable-stayed
bridges using flexible girder types, further analysis considering
the effect of the elastic support coefficient x1 is needed.
Concluding Remarks
In this study, a double-tower multicable-stayed bridge was idealized
as a simple beam on an elastic foundation. A closed-form solution of
bridge displacements subject to a uniformly distributed moving load
was presented via the mode superposition method. The dynamic
responses of 10 cable-stayed bridges subject to a TR08 maglev train
comprising eight vehicles were predicted by comparing the analyt-
ical solution with the numerical results. A dimensionless parametric
analysis was conducted to investigate the influential coefficients of
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 41
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. The DAFs versus vehicle speed: (a) f1 5 120=Lb ; (b) f1 5 160=Lb ; (c) f1 5 200=Lb

the DAFs. The conclusions that can be drawn from the study re-
ported herein are as follows:
1. The proposed simple model can be used to predict the DAFs of
long-span double-tower multicable-stayed bridges traversed
by a high-speed maglev train with a high degree of accuracy
when the span ratio is less than 35% and the elastic support
coefficient is smaller than 6.0.
2. The DAFs of the vertical displacements at the midspan of these
bridges are controlled primarily by three dimensionless param-
eters: speed parameter b1 , train-bridge length ratio g, and
elastic support coefficient x1 . Just two dimensionless param-
eters, b1 and g, are required to find the DAFs of a complex
cable-stayed bridge if x 1 # 6.
3. The fundamental frequency limits of bridges with various
spans are presented to control the DAFs below given reason-
able values. It is not safe to apply the frequency limits given by
the German guidelines to long-span cable-stayed bridges.
Fig. 11. Envelope diagram of DAFs versus span length

Acknowledgments
Table 3. Fundamental Frequency Limits of Double Tower Cable-Stayed
Bridges The authors are grateful to the financial supports from the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 50908178 and No.
Span length (m)
Threshold value 51278374).
of DAF Expression 25–200 400 600 800
f1 (Hz) 129=Lb 176=Lb 202=Lb 208=Lb
1.2 References
f1 =ðv=Lb Þ 1.16 1.58 1.82 1.87
f1 (Hz) 115=Lb 154=Lb 180=Lb 191=Lb
1.3 Au, F. T. K., Cheng, Y. S., and Cheung, Y. K. (2001a). “Effects of random
f1 =ðv=Lb Þ 1.04 1.39 1.62 1.72
road surface roughness and long-term defection of prestressed concrete

42 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 34-43

 girder and cable-stayed bridges on impact due to moving vehicles.”
Comp. Struct., 79(8), 853–872.
Au, F. T. K., Wang, J. J., and Cheung, Y. K. (2001b). “Impact study of cable-
stayed bridge under railway traffic using various models.” J. Sound
Vibrat., 240(3), 447–465.
Au, F. T. K., Wang, J. J., and Cheung, Y. K. (2002). “Impact study of cable-
stayed railway bridges with random rail irregularities.” Eng. Struct.,
24(5), 529–541.
Bruno, D., Greco, F., and Lonetti, P. (2008). “Dynamic impact analysis of
long span cable-stayed bridges under moving loads.” Eng. Struct., 30(4),
1160–1177.
Cai, Y., Chen, S. S., Rote, D. M., and Coffey, H. T. (1996). “Vehicle/
guideway dynamic interaction in maglev systems.” J. Dyn. Syst. Meas.
Control, 118(3), 526–530.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Chung, W., Jang, S. Y., Yeo, I. (2011). “Experimental and numerical in-
vestigation on dynamic amplification factors of an urban maglev
guideway.” KSCE J. Civ. Eng., 15(3), 527–536.
Clough, R. W., and Penzien, J. (1993). Dynamics of structures, 2nd Ed.,
McGraw Hill, New York.
Fryba, L. (1999). Vibration of solids and structures under moving loads,
3rd Ed., Thomas Telford, London.
Lee, J. S., Kwon, S. D., Kim, M. Y., and Yeo, I. H. (2009). “A para-
metric study on the dynamics of urban transit maglev vehicle running on
flexible guideway bridges.” J. Sound Vibrat., 328(3), 301–317.
Li, Q., Xu, Y. L., Wu, D. J., and Chen, Z. W. (2010). “Computer-aided
nonlinear vehicle-bridge interaction analysis.” J. Vib. Control, 16(12),
1791–1816.
J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 34-43
Meisenholder, S. G., and Weidlinger, P. (1974). “Dynamic interaction
aspects of cable-stayed guideways for high speed ground transporta-
tion.” J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control, 96(2), 180–192.
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Re-
public of China (MOHURD). (2008). Code for design of high-speed
maglev transportation (exposure draft), Beijing (in Chinese).
Teng, Y.-F., Teng, N.-G., and Kou, X.-J. (2008). “Vibration analysis of
maglev three-span continuous guideway considering control system.”
J. Zhejiang Univ. SCI. A, 9(1), 8–14.
Vlahinos, A. S., and Wang, Y. C. (1994). “Nonlinear dynamic behavior of
cable-stayed bridges.” Proc., 12th Int. Modal Analysis Conf., Society for
Experimental Mechanics, Bethel, CT, 1335–1341.
Wang, H. P., Li, J., and Zhang, K. (2007). “Vibration analysis of the maglev
guideway with the moving load.” J. Sound Vibrat., 305(4–5), 621–640.
Yang, Y. B., Liao, S. S., and Lin, B. H. (1995). “Impact formulas for vehicles
moving over simple and continuous beams.” J. Struct. Eng., 121(11),
1644–1650.
Yang, Y. B., Yau, J. D., and Hsu, L. C. (1997). “Vibration of simple beams
due to trains moving at high speeds.” Eng. Struct., 19(11), 936–944.
Yau, J. D. (2009). “Response of a maglev vehicle moving on a series of
guideways with differential settlement.” J. Sound Vibrat., 324(3–5),
816–831.
Yau, J. D., and Yang, Y. B. (2004). “Vibration reduction for cable-stayed bridges
traveled by high-speed trains.” Finite Elem. Anal. Des., 40(3), 341–359.
Zhao, C. F., and Zhai, W. M. (2002). “Maglev vehicle/guideway
vertical random response and ride quality.” Veh. Syst. Dyn., 38(3),
185–210.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 43