4.4 Article

Fatigue Reliability Assessment of Railway Bridges Based on Probabilistic Dynamic Analysis of a Coupled Train-Bridge System

Journal

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Volume 142, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001435

Keywords

Fatigue reliability; Railway bridges; Coupled train-bridge system; Probability; Dynamic analysis; Track irregularity; Equivalent stress range; Structural safety and reliability

Funding

  1. National Basic Research Program (973 Program) [2013CB036203]
  2. 111 Project [B13002]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [U1434205]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents an approach to fatigue reliability assessment of railway bridges based on probabilistic dynamic analysis of a coupled train-bridge system. The fatigue loading from moving trains is investigated through a novel approach in which three-dimensional (3D) numerical models of both the train and the bridge are integrated with a wheel-rail interaction model to perform coupled dynamic analysis. The results of this analysis are used to estimate the long-term fatigue loading and the time-variant fatigue reliability of bridge details. Train speed and track irregularities are selected as random variables in the coupled train-bridge system model. Probabilistic dynamic stress analysis is conducted for each train passage to obtain samples of the stress range and its cycle count. This information is used to identify the probability distributions of the stress range. Fatigue reliability is evaluated by solving a fatigue limit-state function established through the S-N approach. Effects of train speed and track irregularities on the fatigue loading and fatigue reliability are analyzed and discussed. Additionally, the proposed approach is illustrated on an existing steel railway bridge. (C) 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available