3.8 Proceedings Paper

Adaptive Multi-category Train Scheduling Validation Based on Fatigue Reliability of a Long-Span Suspension Bridge

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG SINGAPORE PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-07254-3_27

关键词

Train scheduling; Fatigue damage; Trainload; Structural health monitoring; Suspension bridge; Probability density distribution

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes an adaptive multi-category train schedule validation approach based on bridge monitoring data to address fatigue issues in long-span cable-supported bridges. By establishing a database and calculating fatigue damage, the number of different types of trains in a typical daily schedule can be obtained and checked.
Fatigue is an important issue in the durability of long-span cable-supported bridges. These structures are submitted repetitively to loads such as strong winds, varying temperatures, and increasing roadway or railway traffic. The trainload accounts for a relatively significant portion of the fatigue of critical members. Usually, trains consist of different numbers of carriages, and they cause different levels of stress. Consequently, the induced fatigue damage varies accordingly. This paper proposes an adaptive multi-category train schedule validation approach based on fatigue reliability using bridge monitoring data. The method involves three steps. Firstly, the typical train categories are identified based on long-term train weigh-in-motion (WIM) data, and their percentages are obtained. Secondly, the stress responses under each type of train are collected to establish a database, and fatigue damage is calculated to generate the probability density distribution. Thirdly, the number of different types of trains can be obtained for a typical train daily schedule, and the fatigue damage is calculated and checked with the design fatigue life. The case study of a suspension bridge is used to verify the approach, and conclusions are drawn from the perspective of the bridge management.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据