Rail Track Analysis User Manual with Worked Example

Rail Track Analysis User Manual with Worked Example
Rail Track Analysis
User Manual
LUSAS Version 15.0 : Issue 1
LUSAS
Forge House, 66 High Street, Kingston upon Thames,
Surrey, KT1 1HN, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)20 8541 1999
Fax +44 (0)20 8549 9399
Email: [email protected]
http://www.lusas.com
Distributors Worldwide
Copyright ©1982-2013 LUSAS
All Rights Reserved.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Rail Track Analysis
1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
UIC774-3 Code of Practice ................................................................................................... 1
LUSAS Rail Track Analysis ................................................................................................. 4
Worked Example .................................................................................................................. 4
The Rail Track Analysis Spreadsheet ................................................................................. 4
Worksheet 1: Decks, Tracks and Embankment Lengths ......................................................................... 5
Worksheet 2: Structure Definition .......................................................................................................... 6
Worksheet 3: Geometric Properties ...................................................................................................... 11
Worksheet 4: Material Properties ......................................................................................................... 22
Worksheet 5: Interaction and Expansion Joint Properties ..................................................................... 23
Worksheet 6: Thermal and Train Loading ............................................................................................ 27
Rail Track Analysis Menu Options .................................................................................... 31
Build Model Dialog .............................................................................................................................. 32
Apply Rail Loads Dialog ...................................................................................................................... 35
Extract Results To Microsoft Excel Dialog .......................................................................................... 37
Rail Track Analysis Results Spreadsheet......................................................................... 38
Results worksheets created ................................................................................................................... 38
Post-processing of automatically defined groups.................................................................................. 39
Additional Results from Enveloping in Microsoft Excel ...................................................................... 46
Post-processing of selected track / rail nodes ....................................................................................... 59
Post-processing of selected lines if groups are missing ........................................................................ 60
Limitations of Use .............................................................................................................. 62
Worked Example: Track-Structure Interaction to UIC774-3
65
Description ......................................................................................................................... 65
Defining Model Data ........................................................................................................... 66
Defining Decks, Tracks and Embankment Lengths .............................................................................. 67
Defining the Structure .......................................................................................................................... 68
Defining the Geometric Properties for the Structure ............................................................................ 69
Modelling Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 71
Defining the Material Properties for the Structure ................................................................................ 72
Defining the Track-Structure Interaction and Expansion Joint Properties for the Structure ................. 73
Defining the Trainset Loading for the Structure ................................................................................... 75
Modelling / Running an Analysis ...................................................................................... 77
Running LUSAS Modeller ................................................................................................................... 77
Creating a Temperature-only Model..................................................................................................... 77
Applying Trainset Rail Loading to the Temperature Model ................................................................. 78
If errors were detected... ....................................................................................................................... 79
Viewing the Results ........................................................................................................... 79
Automatic Extraction of Results into Microsoft Excel ......................................................................... 79
Peak Relative Railbed Displacement .................................................................................................... 81
Peak Axial Rail Stresses ....................................................................................................................... 84
Peak Longitudinal Reactions at the Abutments .................................................................................... 86
Alternative Analyses with Same Temperature Only Model ............................................. 87
Applying Alternative Trainset Rail Loading ........................................................................................ 87
Defining the Trainset Loading for the Structure ................................................................................... 88
Applying the Trainset Rail Loading to the Analysis ............................................................................. 89
If errors were detected... ....................................................................................................................... 89
Automatic Extraction of Results into Microsoft Excel ......................................................................... 90
Peak Relative Railbed Displacement .................................................................................................... 90
Peak Axial Rail Stresses ....................................................................................................................... 91
Peak Longitudinal Reactions at the Abutments .................................................................................... 91
General Modelling Discussion ............................................................................................................. 92
i
Table Of Contents
Running Analyses with Multiple Decks ................................................................................................ 93
Appendix A: Verification Testing
97
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 97
Description ......................................................................................................................... 97
Combination of Separate Thermal and Rail Loading ....................................................... 98
Analysis of Combined Thermal and Rail Loading (One Step) ....................................... 106
Analysis of Combined Thermal and Rail Loading Taking Account of Effects of Material
Change Under Rail Loading ............................................................................................. 108
Discussion........................................................................................................................................... 111
Revisit of UIC774-3 Test E1-3 Using the Separate and LUSAS Methods of Analysis .. 121
Separate Analyses ............................................................................................................................... 121
LUSAS Nonlinear Analysis ................................................................................................................ 123
Discussion........................................................................................................................................... 125
Revisit of UIC774-3 Test H1-3 Using the Separate and LUSAS Methods of Analysis .. 130
Separate Analyses ............................................................................................................................... 130
LUSAS Nonlinear Analysis ................................................................................................................ 132
Discussion........................................................................................................................................... 134
Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 137
Separate Thermal and Rail Loading Analysis ..................................................................................... 137
Concurrent Thermal and Rail Loading Analysis ................................................................................. 137
LUSAS Nonlinear Thermal and Rail Analysis with Material Change ................................................ 137
References ........................................................................................................................ 138
ii
Introduction
Rail Track Analysis
Introduction
The passage of one or more trains crossing a rail bridge causes forces and moments to
occur in the rails that, in turn, induce displacements in the supporting bridge deck,
bearings and piers. As part of the design process for rail bridges it is necessary to
ensure that any interaction between the track and the bridge as a result of temperature
and train loading is within specified design limits.
UIC774-3 Code of Practice
According to the Union Internationale des Chemins de fer (International Union of
Railways) UIC774-3 Code of Practice, the track-structure interaction effects should be
evaluated in terms of the longitudinal reactions at support locations, rail stresses
induced by the temperature and train loading effects in addition to the absolute and
relative displacements of the rails and deck. To accurately assess the behaviour these
interaction effects should be evaluated through the use of a series of nonlinear analyses
where all thermal and train loads are taken into account. These loads should be:
 Thermal loading on the bridge deck
 Thermal loading on the rail if any rail expansion devices are fitted
 Vertical loads associated with the trainsets
 Longitudinal braking and/or acceleration loads associated with the
trainsets
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Rail Expansion Joint
(If Present)
Non-linear Springs
Representing Ballast or Connection
Track
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Bridge Deck
Embankment
Figure 1: Representation of Structural System for Evaluation of Interaction Effects
1
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
Non-linear spring
representing ballast/connection
Z
Z
Z
Track (rail)
centreline
Deck
centreline
Bearing
Z
Remaining Structure
(Piers/Foundations)
Longitudinal Schematic Of The Model
Transverse Cross-Section Of Track-Deck-Bearing System
Figure 2: Typical Model of Track-Deck-Bearing System
The interaction between the track and the bridge is approximated in the UIC774-3
Code of Practice by a bilinear relationship as indicated in the following figure. The
resistance of the track to the longitudinal displacements for a particular track type is a
function of both the relative displacement of the rail to the supporting structure and the
loading applied to the track. If the track is subjected to no train loads then the ultimate
resistance of the track to relative movement is governed by the lower curve in the
figure (based on the track type). Application of train loads increases the resistance of
the track to the relative displacements and the upper curve should be used for the
interaction between the track and bridge where these train loads are present – unloaded
resistance is still used for all other locations.
2
UIC774-3 Code of Practice
Resistance of rail to sliding relative to sleeper (Loaded Track)
(Frozen ballast or track without ballast)
Resistance (k)
of the track
Resistance of sleeper in ballast (Loaded Track)
Resistance of rail to sliding relative to sleeper (Unloaded Track)
(Frozen ballast or track without ballast)
Resistance of sleeper in ballast (Unloaded Track)
u0(Frozen/No Ballast)
Displacement (u)
u0(Ballast)
Figure 3: Resistance (k) of the Track per Unit Length versus Longitudinal Relative
Displacement of Rails
The values of displacement and resistance to use in these bilinear curves are governed
by the track structure and maintenance procedures adopted and will be specified in the
design specifications for the structure. Typical values are listed in the Code of Practice
for ballast, frozen ballast and track without ballast for moderate to good maintenance
and are repeated below.
Displacement between the elastic and plastic zones, uo:
Resistance of the rail to sliding relative to sleeper = 0.5 mm
Resistance of sleeper in the ballast = 2.0 mm
Resistance in the plastic zone, k:
Resistance of sleeper in ballast (unloaded track), moderate maintenance = 12 kN/m
Resistance of sleeper in ballast (unloaded track), good maintenance = 20 kN/m
Resistance of loaded track or track with frozen ballast = 60 kN/m
Resistance of unloaded track for unballasted track = 40 kN/m
Resistance of loaded track for unballasted track = 60 kN/m
3
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
According to the UIC774-3 Code of Practice there is no requirement to consider a
detailed model of the substructure (bearing-pier-foundation and bearing-abutmentfoundation systems) when ‘standard’ bridges are considered, instead this can be
modelled simply through constraints and/or spring supports that approximate the
horizontal flexibility due to pier translational, bending and rotational movement. The
LUSAS Rail Track Analysis option allows this type of analysis to be carried out where
the behaviour of the bearing and the pier/abutment-foundation are individually
specified but also provides the capability of explicitly modelling the bearingpier/abutment-foundation systems where each component is defined, including the
height and properties of the pier/abutment.
LUSAS Rail Track Analysis
The Rail Track Analysis option in LUSAS provides the means to automate the finite
element analyses required for conducting bridge/track interaction analyses in
accordance with the UIC774-3 Code of Practice. The key features are:
 LUSAS finite element models are automatically built from general arrangement,
deck/abutment/pier properties, expansion joints, supports, interaction effects,
and thermal and train loading data defined in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.
 Batch capabilities allow both multiple structures to be built and multiple rail
load configurations to be analysed to investigate the interaction effects on
different structures, the results of which can be enveloped to determine worst
effects
 Rail and structure results are automatically extracted to Microsoft Excel for
presentation and further processing
Worked Example
A worked example “Track-Structure Interaction to UIC774-3” is provided in the
Application Examples Manual (Bridge, Civil & Structural). This examines the trackstructure interaction between a braking train and a single span bridge to replicate (as far
as the original test data allows) testcase E1-3 which can be found in Appendix D.1 of
the UIC774-3 Code of Practice.
The Rail Track Analysis Spreadsheet
A Microsoft Excel spreadsheet is used to define the data from which a LUSAS finite
element model is built and a track/bridge interaction analysis carried out. The
spreadsheet is separated into a number of worksheets that relate to particular aspects of
the Rail Track Analysis input requirements. These worksheets cover:
 Number of Decks, Tracks and Embankment Lengths
 Structure Definition
 Geometric Properties
 Material Properties
 Interaction and Expansion Joint Properties
4
The Rail Track Analysis Spreadsheet
 Loading
For each worksheet comments are included to advise on the appropriate input to the
spreadsheet. These can be seen when hovering the mouse cursor over the cell of
interest.
The template for the input spreadsheet is located in the \<Lusas Installation
Folder>\Programs\Scripts\User folder. This template should be edited and saved
under a different file name in the working folder in order to carry out analyses.
Note. All of the data entered into the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet should be in metric
units. The required units are indicated in the various sections of the spreadsheet and
should be adhered to for the correct modelling of the interaction analysis. When the
model is built, all input will be converted to SI units of N, m, kg, C and s.

Worksheet 1: Decks, Tracks and Embankment Lengths
Figure 4: Definition of Number of Decks, Tracks and Embankment Lengths
This worksheet defines the global arrangement details of the bridge structure. The
inputs to the worksheet are:
Number of Decks
Defines the number of decks in the structure and controls the importing of the structure
layout in the Structure Definition worksheet. The number of decks is initially limited
to 100 but this number can be increased by modifying the Structure Definition
worksheet as outlined in the following section.
5
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
Number of Tracks
Defines the number of railway tracks that pass along the structure and embankments.
The number of tracks can be set as either one or two. For two tracks, one track should
take the braking load of a trainset and the other the acceleration load of a separate
trainset in accordance with the UIC77-3 Code of Practice (Clause 1.4.3). Each track
consists of two rails which act together (see the Geometric Properties section).
Left and Right Embankment Length
Defines the lengths of the left and right embankments in the model illustrated in the
figure below. These lengths should be sufficiently long to allow the trainset loading to
be placed in the model and, according to the UIC774-3 Code of Practice, should be
greater than 100m (Clause 1.7.3).
Left Embankment
Right Embankment
Figure 5: Left and Right Embankments in Model
Worksheet 2: Structure Definition
Figure 6: Structure Definition
6
The Rail Track Analysis Spreadsheet
The Structure Definition worksheet allows the geometry of the bridge to be input deck
by deck. For each deck the worksheet allows the definition of the length, geometric and
material assignments of the internal spans plus pier/abutment arrangements along with
their support and bearing characteristic. The input allows the modelling of the piers
through equivalent springs using the method proposed in the UIC774-3 Code of
Practice (see note below) or through the physical modelling of the piers by entering
input of the pier heights plus geometric and material assignments. The inputs to the
worksheet are:
Spring Support for each abutment/pier
Defines the longitudinal stiffness for the abutment or pier. The longitudinal stiffness for
the abutment or pier should be entered as either free ‘F’, restrained ‘R’ or a positive
stiffness in kN/mm.
For the equivalent spring approach, if the displacement behaviour of the support and
the bearings are modelled separately the supports should be set to take account of the
displacement at the top of the support due to elastic deformation, the displacement at
the top of the support due to the rotation of the foundation and the displacement at the
top of the support due to the longitudinal movement of the foundation. If instead the
displacement behaviour of the support and bearings are lumped together, as illustrated
in the example in Figure 6, the spring supports for the piers and abutments should be
set to ‘R’ for restrained.
If the piers are physically modelled then the spring support for the pier should represent
the longitudinal stiffness of the foundation at the base of the pier.
Note. The pier properties for the last pier of one deck must exactly match the
properties defined for the next deck or an error will be reported when the Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet is used to carry out the analysis.

Note. When the pier/foundation system is modelled as a spring this spring can be
calculated by combining the component movements associated with the pier as
indicated below and described further in the UIC774-3 Code of Practice:

 total   p      h  b
where
dp = displacement at top of support due to elastic deformation
d = displacement at top of support due to rotation of the foundation
dh = displacement at top of support due to horizontal movement of the foundation
db = relative displacement between the upper and lower parts of bearing (Only
included if bearings effects lumped into support conditions)
and the total spring stiffness is calculated from:
7
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
H
 total
(in kN/mm)
p

h
H
K
H
H
H

Figure 7: Component Behaviour for Calculating Support Stiffness
Note. If the piers are modelled in the analysis the rotation of the foundation is
assumed to be zero in the analysis. This can be adjusted by modifying the support
conditions manually after a temperature only analysis has been performed (see user
interface discussions)

Bearing springs on top of each pier
Defines the longitudinal stiffness of the bearings between the top of the support and the
deck. The longitudinal stiffness for the bearing should be entered as either free ‘F’,
restrained ‘R’ or a positive stiffness in kN/mm.
For the equivalent spring approach where the stiffness of the support due to elastic
deformation, rotation of the foundation and horizontal movement of the foundation are
lumped with the bearing behaviour this input should include all of the stiffness
contributions and the Spring support for each abutment/pier should be set to ‘R’. If
the bearing behaviour is separated from the behaviour of the support the input should
match the requirements for the bearing alone.
When the piers are physically modelled in the model by setting their height and
properties the longitudinal stiffness of the bearing alone should be input since the
behaviour of the pier will be incorporated by the extra beam elements representing the
pier in the model.
8
The Rail Track Analysis Spreadsheet
Span Length
Defines the span length between support locations for a deck. Up to nine spans can be
defined for each deck. In the example illustrated in Figure 6 the first two decks have
two 25m spans each and the third deck has three 25m spans.
Geometric Assignment
Defines the geometric properties that are assigned to the spans of the decks. The integer
ID must match one of the geometric properties that is defined in the Geometric
Properties worksheet. Different properties can be assigned to each span of the deck.
Although the input only allows a single ID to be assigned to each span, continuously
varying properties can also be modelled (see the section on Geometric Properties).
Material Assignment
Defines the material properties that are assigned to the spans of the decks. The integer
ID must match one of the material properties that is defined in the Material Properties
worksheet.
If physical modelling of the piers is to be included in the analysis then additional input
is required for these piers. The inputs to the worksheet are:
Pier Height
Defines the height of the support / pier for the current location in the deck. If the pier
height is blank the wizard assumes that the pier behaviour is represented solely by the
spring supports and bearing springs.
Pier Geometric Assignment
Defines the geometric properties that are assigned to the support / pier for the current
location in the deck. The integer ID must match one of the geometric properties that is
defined in the Geometric Properties worksheet. Although the input only allows a single
ID to be assigned to the support / pier, continuously varying properties can also be
modelled (see the section on Geometric Properties).
Pier Material Assignment
Defines the material properties that are assigned to the support / pier for the current
location in the deck. The integer ID must match one of the material properties that is
defined in the Material Properties worksheet.
9
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
Increasing the number of decks modelled
If more than 100 decks are required the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet can be modified.
To do this, scroll to the end of the Structure Definition worksheet and select the last
complete deck definition as indicated on the figure below.
Figure 8: Selection and Copying of Structure Definition Worksheet to Increase
Number of Decks
Copy and paste this section as many times as required at the end of the worksheet,
ensuring that the row formatting is not altered as indicated below. If successful, the
deck number should be correctly calculated for the added entries. The number of decks
in the first worksheet of the spreadsheet can now be increased to the number of decks
added to the structure definition.
Note. This may require the worksheet to be unprotected first which can be done
under the Review options in Microsoft Excel. This worksheet protection should be
turned back on immediately after the extra entries for additional decks have been
inserted into the worksheet to avoid accidental changes to other parts of the worksheet
that could cause errors when the spreadsheet is imported into the Rail Track Analysis
tool.

10
The Rail Track Analysis Spreadsheet
Figure 9: Pasting of Additional Decks to Ensure Formatting Maintained
Worksheet 3: Geometric Properties
Figure 10: Geometric Properties Table for Structure
11
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
The geometric properties worksheet should list all of the section properties required for
the modelling of the structure and the unique ID numbers must include all of the
geometric properties that have been assigned in the Structure Definition worksheet.
The properties should be entered in metres and are all standard LUSAS values except
the Depth of Section to Support entry that is needed by the model building to ensure
the support conditions occur at the correct elevation.
Element Orientations
The orientations of the sectional properties should obey the element local axes
indicated in the following figure where the double-headed arrow indicates the element
local x-axis, the single headed arrow indicates the element local y-axis and the line
without an arrowhead indicates the element local z-axis. For both the spans and the
piers the element local y-axis is orientated into the lateral direction for the bridge with
the local z-axis orientated vertically for the spans and in the longitudinal direction for
the piers.
Figure 11: Beam Element Local Axes for Deck and Pier Modelling
For defining the geometric properties of the decks and rails the section axes are
illustrated in Figure 12.
12
The Rail Track Analysis Spreadsheet
z
z
y
y
y
y
z
z
Figure 12: Section Axes for Deck and Rail Definitions
When the tracks are modelled the two rails of a track are assumed to behave together
and the section properties should therefore take account of both rails. When analysing a
single track structure it is possible to approximate the behaviour of individual rails by
choosing to model two tracks and only defining the section properties for a single rail
in the Geometric Properties worksheet. Caution should be used when considering
modelling of this type as the analysis will ignore any connectivity between the two rails
that may be provided by the sleeper arrangement.
Eccentricity
All eccentricity in the modelling is defined relative to the nodal line of the track/rail
and therefore a positive eccentricity will place a section below this line as indicated in
the following figure. If an eccentricity is entered for the geometric property of the rail
then the neutral axis of the rail will be offset from this nodal line based on the positive
sense described. For this reason the eccentricity of the rail should generally be set to
zero for all cases.
Notes

The number of entries can be increased by adding data to the bottom of the table. Data
input will terminate on the first blank ID number in column B.
The depth of section should not be defined for geometric properties assigned to piers.
The eccentricity between the rail/slab indicated in the figure is defined later in the
interaction worksheet and should not be defined as a geometric property.
13
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
Eccentricity Of Section
(+ve Sense)
Eccentricity Between Rail/Slab
(+ve Sense)
Nodal Line Of T rack/Rail
Neutral Axis Of Section
Location Of Support Conditions
Depth Of Section
Figure 13: Eccentricity Definition for Geometric Properties and Depth of Section
Varying Section Geometric Properties
Although the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet does not allow the input of geometric
properties with varying sections it is possible to analyse structures with varying
sections by modifying the temperature loading only model after it has been built by the
wizard before subsequently using the Apply Rail Loads dialog to include the trainset
loading. To do this the model should be defined in the spreadsheet with an initial set of
deck geometric properties.
All sections that will be used to define the varying sections of the deck must be defined
externally in separate models using either the Precast Beam Section Generator, the Box
Section Property Calculator or the Arbitrary Section Property Calculator and the
sections added to either a local library or the server library. This will make these
sections available to other models.
Note. The Depth of Section must be correctly set in the Geometric Properties
worksheet for each of the deck support locations to ensure that the behaviour of the
decks is correct. All other entries will be determined from the varying section.

2 x 25m
3 x 25m
1.42m
2.84m
Figure 14: Example Varying Section Structure
14
The Rail Track Analysis Spreadsheet
If the structure in Figure 14 was required, the main track-structure interaction model
could be set up using a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet with the Structure Definition and
Geometric Properties indicated in Figure 15 and Figure 16. This would define the base
model indicated in Figure 17.
Figure 15: Structure Definition for Sample Varying Section Structure
Figure 16: Geometric Properties for Sample Varying Section Structure
15
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
Figure 17: Base Model for Sample Varying Section Structure
In order to define the smooth variation for a single span of the decks the minimum
number of sections for interpolation is five. For the 2.84m deep deck spans these
sections are illustrated in the figure below and are calculated with the Arbitrary Section
Property Calculator and added to the local library so they can be accessed from other
models (NOTE: Only three actual sizes defined due to symmetry). A similar procedure
is followed for the 1.42m deep deck spans.
Figure 18: Arbitrary Section Property Calculation for 2.84m Depth of Section Spans
These sections can now be used to define Multiple Varying Section facility in
Modeller. Before defining these multiple varying sections the reference paths along
which the variation will take place must be defined. Define a reference path for each of
16
The Rail Track Analysis Spreadsheet
the spans as illustrated in Figure 19 for the first span of the first deck. In this definition
the X coordinates match the extent of the span and the Y coordinate has been set to 10
so it can be visualised easily. Four additional reference paths should also be defined,
one for each of the other spans. On completion the model will resemble the one in
Figure 20 where each reference path has been offset in the Y direction for visualisation
purposes.
Figure 19: Definition of Reference Path for Deck 1, Span 1
Figure 20: Reference Path for all Decks and Spans (Offset for Visualisation Purposes)
The varying sections can now be defined using the Multiple Varying Section dialog.
For the definition of the varying section for the first span of the first deck the distance
interpretation should be set to Along reference path and the path for the first span of
the first deck selected (“Path – Deck 1, Span 1” in this example – see Figure 19). For
the start of the varying section the 2.84m deep section should be selected from the user
library and the section edited. The Offset Rz would be set to the required value of
17
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
1.42m to obtain the required eccentricity of the neutral axis of the section from the
nodal line of the track / rail which would have been entered into the Geometric
Properties worksheet. At this stage the Multiple Varying Section dialog will just have
the starting section as illustrated in Figure 21.
Figure 21: Definition of Multiple Varying Section for Deck 1, Span 1 (1 of 2)
The other sections defining the span also need to be added to the varying section
definition and these are input as follows with the Vertical alignment set to Centre to
centre and the Horizontal alignment set to Right to right:
Section
Shape Interpolation
Distance
2-84mDepth_Section2
Smoothed
5.0
2-84mDepth_Section3
Smoothed
12.5
2-84mDepth_Section2
Smoothed
20.0
2-84mDepth_Section1
Smoothed
25.0
Table 1: Section Interpolation for Deck 1, Span 1
18
The Rail Track Analysis Spreadsheet
Figure 22: Definition of Multiple Varying Section for Deck 1, Span 1 (2 of 2)
This multiple varying section can now be assigned to all of the lines defining the first
span of the first deck, overwriting the original assignment from the wizard. A similar
multiple varying section can also be defined and assigned but using the appropriate
reference path for the second span of the first deck.
The same procedure should also be followed for the 1.42m deep section using
associated sections and a starting offset of 0.71m to obtain the required eccentricity of
the neutral axis of the section from the nodal line of the track / rail which would have
been entered into the Geometric Properties worksheet. On completion and assignment
of the multiple varying section geometric attributes to the appropriate spans of the
model the structure would look similar to the model in Figure 23.
19
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
Figure 23: Model after Assignment of Multiple Varying Sections
Note. The multiple varying section could be defined with just two reference paths,
one for each of the decks and the geometric attributes defined as indicated in Figure 24.
When modelling structures where the sections do not vary smoothly, for example over
a pier as indicated in Figure 14, caution should be exercised as using a single reference
path per deck could lead to artificial smoothing of the section variation. This is
illustrated in Figure 25 and Figure 26 which examine the behaviour at an intermediate
pier of a deck when a single path is used for each deck. In Figure 26 the image on the
left is from the use of a single reference path for the whole deck and shows the
smoothing that has occurred over the pier when compared to the image on the right
which is from the use of a single reference path for each span of the deck.

20
The Rail Track Analysis Spreadsheet
Figure 24: Definition of Multiple Varying Section for Deck 1 and Deck 2 for Two
Reference Paths
Figure 25: Model after Assignment of Multiple Varying Sections with Two Reference
Paths
(a)
(b)
Figure 26: Zoomed Plot of Pier Location between Spans of Deck 1 Showing (a)
Smoothed Section for a Multiple Varying Sections with One Reference Path per Deck
and (b) Correct Unsmoothed Section for a Multiple Varying Sections with One
Reference Path per Span
21
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
Worksheet 4: Material Properties
Figure 27: Material Properties Table for Structure
The material properties worksheet should list all of the material properties required for
the modelling of the structure and the unique ID numbers must include all of the
material properties that have been assigned in the Structure Definition worksheet. The
elastic properties are all standard LUSAS values which should be entered in Newtons,
millimetres and kilograms. The mass density () is not used in the analysis but is
provided to allow the model to be solved with self-weight loading and for it to be
combined with the thermal/train loading effects covered in these analyses.
Note. The number of entries can be increased by adding data to the bottom of the
table. Data input will terminate on the first blank ID number in column B.

22
The Rail Track Analysis Spreadsheet
Worksheet 5: Interaction and Expansion Joint Properties
Figure 28: Interaction Properties Between the Track/Bridge and Expansion Joint
Definition
The main bilinear interaction effects for the track/bridge interaction are defined in this
worksheet along with additional properties associated with the rail/track. These include
the eccentricity between the rail/slab (see Figure 11 and the Geometric Properties
section) and the presence of any rail expansion joints.
Eccentricity Between Rail/Slab
The eccentricity between the rail/slab is used to define the distance between the nodal
line of the rail/track and the top of the bridge slab/deck as indicated in Figure 11. In
general, all eccentricities will be positive in the modelling unless the neutral axis of the
structure section is above the level of the rails. This only happens for certain types of
structures and the definitions of eccentricity should generally follow the sign
conventions defined in the following figure.
Parametric Distance of Interaction Joint from Rail
The position of the interaction joint from the rail is controlled by this entry. When the
eccentricity between the rail/track and the top of the bridge slab/deck is small the
eccentricity can be modelled using eccentricity in the elements representing the
23
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
components of the model. For larger eccentricities the positioning of the rail/track
relative to the bridge slab/deck should be modelled using rigid offsets and the
positioning of the interaction joints can be set to be at the elevation of the rail/track by
setting this entry to 0, at the elevation of the bridge slab/deck by setting this entry to 1,
or at any position in between by setting a value between 0 and 1. If the entry is
undefined the Rail Track Analysis tool will assume a value of 0.5 to place the
interaction joints midway between the rail/track and the bridge slab/deck.
Eccentricity Of Section (+ve)
Eccentricity Between Rail/Slab (+ve)
Nodal Line Of T rack/Rail
Neutral Axis Of Section
Location Of Support Conditions
Depth Of Section
Eccentricity Definitions (Section Neutral Axis Below Rail Level, Support At Base)
Eccentricity Of Section (-ve)
Eccentricity Between Rail/Slab (+ve)
Neutral Axis Of Section
Nodal Line Of T rack/Rail
Location Of Support
Conditions
Depth Of Section
Eccentricity Definitions (Section Neutral Axis Above Rail Level, Support At Base)
Figure 29: Sign Conventions for Eccentricity Definition
Bilinear Interaction Properties
The bilinear interaction properties are derived from the bilinear curves defined in the
UIC774-3 Code of Practice. Properties are entered for both the unloaded state where
just temperature loads are applied in the model to the track and the loaded state where
both temperature and trainset loads are applied to the track. For each state of loading
the contact stiffness is defined in kN/mm per metre length of track, the lift-off force
24
The Rail Track Analysis Spreadsheet
(onset of plastic yield) is defined in kN per metre length and the lift-off stiffness
defined as a small value so there is no stiffness once plastic yielding has started. The
values in Figure 28 are for unballasted track where the displacement between the
elastic and plastic zones and the associated resistance in the plastic zone are (see the
earlier discussion on the bilinear relationship):
u 0  0.5mm
k = 40kN / m (Unloaded)
k = 60kN / m (Loaded)
The contact stiffness is calculated directly from:
k
Contact Stiffness =
u0
giving 80 kN/mm/m for the unloaded and 120 kN/mm/m for the loaded interaction
contact stiffness values. The transverse spring properties of the interaction should
always be infinite (as the analysis is two-dimensional even though the elements are
three-dimensional) but the vertical spring properties can be adjusted from this to
include vertical deformation effects of the ballast by building the temperature only
model and editing the model before applying the trainset rail loads. If this type of
analysis is carried out, care must be taken to ensure that the spring remains in the
elastic regime. This is achieved by setting a very high value for the lift-off force
(1.0E12 kN/mm per metre length for example) and ensuring that the lift-off springs are
set to the same stiffness value as the contact stiffness.
Note. If a zero or small lift-off force is used in the interaction characteristics the
default settings for the nonlinear convergence scheme used in the solution may not
result in a converged solution. These convergence parameters my need to be adjusted
and the model resolved if this occurs.

Defining Rail Expansion Joints
If rail expansion joints are present in the bridge then the information for these can be
entered into the worksheet for each track. The data input takes the form of a unique
positive ID number that is placed in column B, the positions and initial gaps. The
expansion joint data will be read from the spreadsheet until a blank ID entry is
detected. For each unique ID number an expansion joint can be defined for either track
by entering the position in metres from the start of the left-hand embankment and
initial gap in millimetres.
25
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
Figure 30: Sample Expansion Joint Definitions
26
The Rail Track Analysis Spreadsheet
Worksheet 6: Thermal and Train Loading
Figure 31: Definition of Thermal and Train Loading for Structure
The loading worksheet allows the input of the temperature and trainset loading
characteristics that are to be considered for the structure. This includes the capability of
defining multiple trainset locations using the parametric loading facility which is
described below.
Temperature Loading
The temperature effects in the rails for a continuously welded rail (CWR) track do not
cause a displacement of the track and do not need to be considered (UIC774-3 Clause
1.4.2). For all other tracks the change in temperature of the bridge deck and rails
relative to the reference temperature of the deck when the rail was fixed needs to be
considered in accordance to the code of practice and design specifications. The
temperature loads for both the slab/deck and the rail should be entered (zero if not
required) in Celsius (degrees centigrade) where temperature rises are entered as
positive values and temperature drops are entered as negative values.
Note. For structures where more than one temperature loading may need to be
entered for the deck (e.g. mixed steel and concrete bridges) the model should be
defined with a single deck temperature and then a temperature only model built. This
model can then have its temperature loading for the deck adjusted before the Apply
Rail Loads dialog is then used to include the trainset loading to the railtracks.

27
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
Trainset Loading to Rails of Tracks
The trainset loading is defined in terms of the type, track to load, position and
magnitude. The loading allows for multiple trainset loading positions to be defined in a
single spreadsheet and all of these positions to be analysed on one go by the wizard. All
of the trainset loading must fit within the length of the tracks of the model with the lefthand end of the left embankment at a position of 0.0m and the right-hand end of the
right embankment at a position equal to the total length of the model reported in the
Decks, Tracks And Embankment worksheet.
As many rail/train loads that are required can be defined in the spreadsheet with data
input terminating when blank data is detected in the loading type column. This allows
more complex loading patterns to be defined such as the accelerating trainset loading
illustrated in Figure 32. To extend the bottom of the table extra rows can be inserted
(making sure to copy the formulae in columns G and J) or the last rows copied and
pasted as many times as required.
Note. This may require the worksheet to be unprotected first which can be done
under the Review options in Microsoft Excel. This worksheet protection should be
turned back on immediately after the extra entries for additional loads have been
inserted into the worksheet to avoid accidental changes to other parts of the worksheet
that could cause errors when the spreadsheet is imported into the Rail Track Analysis
tool.

Figure 32: More Complex Train Loading Definition in Spreadsheet
28
The Rail Track Analysis Spreadsheet
The inputs to the worksheet are:
Number of track loading locations
Defines the number of parametric locations for the placement of the trainset loading
carried out in the analysis. If only a single position of the trainset loading is to be
considered then this should be set to 1. To analyse more than 1 location the number
should be set to a positive integer.
Loading type
Defines the loading type that will be assigned to the selected track. The first character
governs the loading type with valid options being Acceleration, Braking and Vertical.
A more descriptive definition of the loading type may be entered if required as
illustrated in Figure 32 so long as the first character is set to either A, B or V.
Track selection to be loaded
Defines the track that the loading will be assigned to and can be either 1 or 2 (only if
the structure is a two track structure). For two tracks the UIC774-3 Code of Practice
(Clause 1.4.3) states that the accelerating and braking forces from trainsets should be
applied to different tracks.
Parametric starting position for loadings
Defines the start of the loading of the trainset. For the trainset the starting position is
the left-most position of the load when considering the trainset alone (i.e. independent
of the structure). The reference parametric position used for the combination of the
trainset loading and the current position on the structure is at a value of zero so
positions that are negative will place the defined loading to the left of the reference
position defined using the entries in columns H and I and positions that are positive
will place the loading to the right.
Parametric end position for loadings
Defines the end of the loading of the trainset. For the trainset the ending position is the
right-most position of the load when considering the trainset alone (i.e. independent of
the structure). These are relative to the reference position as described for the
parametric starting position above.
Amount (per unit length)
Defines the magnitude of the trainset loading in units of kN per metre length. For
longitudinal loads such as acceleration and braking loads a positive value will cause the
loading to act towards the right embankment, a negative value will cause the loading to
act towards the left embankment. For vertical loads a positive value will cause the
loading to act downwards onto the track and structure.
29
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
Loaded length
The loaded length is automatically calculated from the parametric starting and end
position for the loading and provides a check that these values have been entered
correctly. Negative or zero loaded lengths are not permitted in the modelling.
Figure 33 illustrates some trainset loading configurations and their input into the
worksheet. Examples (d) and (e) in this figure are equivalent and both definition
methods are equally valid in the worksheet.
0
300
20 kN/m
(a)
A
Block A: Start = 0, End = 300, Amount = 20
0
300
30 kN/m
20 kN/m
(b)
Block A: Start = 0, End = 50, Amount = 30
Block B: Start = 50, End = 100, Amount = 10
Block C: Start = 100, End = 300, Amount = 20
10 kN/m
A
C
B
0
50
100
300
157 kN/m
80 kN/m
80 kN/m
Block A: Start = 0, End = 27, Amount = 80
Block B: Start = 27, End = 33, Amount = 157
Block C: Start = 33, End = 300, Amount = 80
B
(c)
A
C
27
33
0
300
30 kN/m
30 kN/m
A
B
(d)
0
33
267
30 kN/m
300
30 kN/m
A
(e)
Block A: Start = 0, End = 33, Amount = 30
Block B: Start = 267, End = 300, Amount = 30
Block A: Start = 0, End = 33, Amount = 30
Block B: Start = 33, End = 267, Amount = 0
Block C: Start = 267, End = 300, Amount = 30
C
0 kN/m
B
0
33
267
300
Figure 33: Sample Trainset Loading Position Definitions
Starting location of loading for first analysis
Defines the starting location of the reference position of the parametric trainset loading
on the track for the first analysis and should be defined from the left-most end of the
left-hand embankment which is at a location of 0.0m. The starting position should
allow for the inclusion of any load that is to the left of this position on the track
(defined with a negative position in the parametric loading position) or to the right of
this position (defined with a positive position in the parametric loading position). For
example, if the parametric trainset loading has been defined from -150m to 150m
representing a 300m long trainset centred on the reference position the minimum
location for the loading would be +150m relative to the left-most end of the left-hand
embankment. Any value less than 150m would mean that it would be impossible to fit
the whole of the trainset loading onto the track. Similarly, the maximum location for
30
Rail Track Analysis Menu Options
the loading would be (TotalLengthTrack - 150)m relative to the left-most end of the
left-hand embankment.
Finishing location of loading for last analysis
Defines the finishing location of the reference position of the parametric trainset
loading on the track for the last analysis and should be defined from the left-most end
of the left-hand embankment which is at a location of 0.0m. The finishing position
should allow for the inclusion of any load that is to the left of this position on the track
(defined with a negative position in the parametric loading position) or to the right of
this position (defined with a positive position in the parametric loading position). The
limits of the finishing location are identical to those for the starting location discussed
above.
Location increment for each analysis
The location increment for the loading for each analysis is automatically calculated
from the starting and finishing locations of the loading and the defined number of track
loading locations. All of the loading for a given track should have the same increment
to ensure that each component of the loading moves as a group. Generally the starting
and finishing locations for the reference position of the loading for a given track should
be identical for that track. Different location increments are possible between tracks
when more than one track is analysed with positive location increments indicating that
the trainset is moving from left to right and negative location increments indicating that
the trainset is moving from right to left.
For a single track structure the trainset loading may be stationary (location increment =
0.0m) but for this condition the number of track loading locations must be set to 1. For
a two track structure, one of the trainsets on one of the tracks may be stationary but an
error will result if both of the trainsets loading the track are stationary if the number of
track loading locations is greater than 1. To analyse two stationary trainsets on a two
track structure the number of track loading locations must be set to 1.
Rail Track Analysis Menu Options
The Rail Track Analysis option is accessed through the Bridge menu by selecting the
Rail Track Analysis UIC774-3 entry. This menu entry provides the following three
options:
 Build Model…
 Apply Rail Loads…
 Extract Results To Excel…
31
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
Build Model Dialog
Figure 34: UIC774-3 Model Builder Dialog
 Model filename The model filename for the analysis should be entered into the
box if batch processing is not being used (see below). The file should not
contain any folder specification as all models created will be placed in the
current working folder indicated on the dialog.
 Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or batch text file If batch processing is not
being used and a single model is being created, the filename of the Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet that will be used to define the analysis must be entered into
the box (including file extension). If no folder structure is specified the
spreadsheet should be located in the current working folder. Alternatively, the
Browse… button may be used to locate the spreadsheet.
If batch processing of multiple models is being performed then a batch text file listing
the Microsoft Excel spreadsheets to use for defining the models should be entered into
the box (must have a *.txt file extension). The batch text file can be entered explicitly
into the dialog or located using the Browse… button and selecting “Batch text file
(*.txt)” as the file type.
The format of the batch text file is indicated below and simply contains a TAB
delimited list of the Microsoft Excel files to build the models from and an optional
LUSAS model name (if no model name is supplied the basename of the Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet will be used) with one model entry per line. If no folder structure is
defined for the Microsoft Excel files then the current working folder will be assumed to
contain the spreadsheet files, otherwise they may exist at any folder level on the
computer system. If a spreadsheet file cannot be found or contains invalid data it will
be skipped in the batch processing and an error reported in the “UIC7743_BuildModel.log” file created in the current working folder. Blank lines are ignored
32
Rail Track Analysis Menu Options
and batch processing will terminate at the end of the batch text file. The number of
analyses in the batch process is unlimited.
In the example below the first model built from the Bridge1.xlsx spreadsheet will be
called LUSAS_Bridge1.mdl, the second model will take its basename from the
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and will be called Bridge2.mdl and the third model will be
called RTA_Bridge3.mdl .
Bridge1.xlsx
LUSAS_Bridge1
..\SomeFolder\Bridge2.xlsx
D:\Project\Spreadsheet\Bridge3.xlsx
RTA_Bridge3
Figure 35: Example Batch Text File With Three Bridges To Build
 Element Size The element size to use in the Finite Element mesh should be
specified in this box. According to the UIC774-3 Code of Practice, the
maximum element size that is permitted in an analysis is 2.0m (Clause 1.7.3).
The dialog therefore generally allows element sizes of 0 < Element Size ≤ 2.0m
for the building of the models. Larger element sizes can be used (up to the
length of the smallest bridge deck span) but a warning will be issued about noncompliance with the UIC774-3 Code of Practice.
Note. For large bridges and/or embankments the use of small element sizes can
generate excessively large models which take significant time to manipulate / solve.
Use of element sizes below 1.0m should be used with caution.

 Apply temperature and rail loads in same analysis Two analysis types are
available from the model building dialog. These are:
 The solution of the combined temperature and rail loading effects
(option turned on)
 The solution of just the temperature effects (option turned off)
If only a single rail loading configuration is going to be analysed for a particular model
then this option should be switched on.
If, on the other hand, a range of rail loading configurations needs to be applied to a
model (for different train positions with varying braking / accelerating loading
configurations) then this option should be turned off to allow the rail loads to be
applied separately by the Apply Rail Loads dialog described below.
Building a model to solve only temperature effects also allows the model to be updated
prior to applying the rail loading. A situation where this may be needed is the case of a
mixed bridge type (for example, one having concrete and steel sections) where the
temperature loading of the bridge/deck cannot be classified by the single temperature
change available in the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. If only the temperature model is
33
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
built, additional temperature loading attributes can be defined and assigned to the
temperature loadcase prior to the rail load application.
Solving only the temperature effects will also allow the support conditions to be
modified for pier foundations that require rotational stiffness rather than rigidity (see
the discussion of Structure Definition section of the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet) or
the addition of varying sections to the decks and spans of the structure.
Note. Models created from spreadsheet data contain named groups that are used in
the creation of results worksheets. Care should be taken to avoid making major changes
to the layout of the model and the loadcases, otherwise the application of the rail
loading may fail.

 Wait for solution If the option to wait for the solution is selected then all of the
analyses will be run from Modeller and nothing can be carried out in the current
Modeller window until the solution has finished. For relatively small structures
or analyses with a limited set of parametric trainset loading locations this is may
be fine. If a large number of parametric trainset loading locations are included in
an analysis and/or a large number of models are being built using the batch
processing then waiting for the solution can take a considerable amount of time.
Under this situation the wait for solution option can be turned off which will
cause the analyses to be built and run but the Modeller application will be free
for additional tasks.
Note. If the Wait for solution option is not selected then VBScript files with the
same base name as the LUSAS model(s) will be created in the working folder to allow
easy loading of the results. To post-process a particular model, load the model without
the results on top (choose No when Modeller reports that a results file of the same
name has been detected) and then load the VBScript file named ?????_Reload.vbs
(where ????? is the base name of the model) using the File>Script>Run Script... menu
item. These files are also generated if the wait for solution option is selected but will
only be required if batch model building is being used or a model and parametric
results need to be reloaded at some time in the future.

Caution. You should not attempt to run another rail track analysis in the same folder
as an existing analysis is being built or solved. Attempting to do this will corrupt the
current analysis that is being built or solved. If sufficient rail track analysis licenses are
available on the machine that is being used then additional rail track analyses can be
performed so long as each analysis is performed in a different folder.

34
Rail Track Analysis Menu Options
Apply Rail Loads Dialog
Figure 36: UIC774-3 Apply Rail Loads Dialog
If the bridge model was built and solved with only the temperature loads (Apply
temperature and rail loads in same analysis turned off in model building dialog)
then this model can subsequently be used for applying rail load configurations using
this dialog. The dialog should not be used for models that have been built with both the
temperature and rail loading applied and will report an error if attempted.
 Apply train loads to current model If the current model loaded was generated
from the Build Model... dialog with the Apply temperature and rail loads in
same analysis option turned off then this option can be selected. If this option is
not selected then the Original model filename entry is available for manual
selection of the original model containing only temperature loads.
 Original model filename If a single rail load configuration is to be analysed
and the currently loaded model is not being used, the original model filename
should be entered into the box. Alternatively, the Browse… button can be used
to locate the original model file containing only the temperature loading. For
batch processing the original model filename is ignored.
 Rail load model filename If a single rail load configuration is to be analysed
the new filename for the model incorporating the temperature and rail loads
should be entered into the box. This filename can contain the path name for the
model location (folder must exist) but should generally only have the filename
defined which will then be saved in the current working folder. This filename
can be the same as the original model filename but should generally be different
to allow the temperature loading model to be reused for another rail load
configuration. For batch processing the new rail load model filename is ignored.
 Rail load Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or batch text file If a single rail load
configuration is to be analysed for the specified bridge model the filename of
35
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet containing the required loading should be
entered into the box. Alternatively the Browse… button can be used to locate
the file. Once the spreadsheet has been specified the OK button can be clicked
to carry out the modification of the original bridge model to include the
combined effects of the temperature and rail loading.
If multiple models and/or multiple rail load configurations are to be analysed
then only the batch text file (which must have a *.txt file extension) listing the
information required by the software should be entered into this box.
Alternatively, the Browse… button can be used, selecting “Batch text file
(*.txt)” as the file type.
For each model/rail configuration analysis the batch text file should contain a
separate line of data. Each line should specify the original temperature model,
the new combined loading model to create and the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet
that contains the rail configuration definition. Each item on a line should be
TAB delimited to allow spaces to be used in the filenames. An example batch
text file is shown below.
Bridge1.mdl
Bridge1_RailConfig1.mdl
Bridge1_RailConfig1.xls
Bridge1.mdl
Bridge1_RailConfig2.mdl
Bridge1_RailConfig2.xls
Bridge1.mdl
Bridge1_RailConfig3.mdl
Bridge1_RailConfig3.xls
Bridge1.mdl
Bridge1_RailConfig4.mdl
Bridge1_RailConfig4.xls
Bridge2.mdl
Bridge2_RailConfig1.mdl
Bridge2_RailConfig1.xls
Bridge2.mdl
Bridge2_RailConfig2.mdl
Bridge2_RailConfig2.xls
Bridge3.mdl
Bridge3_RailConfig1.mdl
Bridge3_RailConfig1.xls
Figure 37: Sample Rail Loading Batch Text File
In the above example, three different bridge deck temperature models have been
selected and four rail load configurations analysed for the first, two rail load
configurations for the second and one rail load configuration for the third. The number
of entries in the batch text file is unlimited and batch processing will terminate once the
end of the file is reached. If any analysis fails due to missing or invalid files an error
will be reported to the “UIC774-3_RailLoads.log” file in the current working folder.
Note. If the batch text file method is being used the Apply train loads to current
model option will be ignored since the list of temperature only models to use for the
applying of the rail loads for each of the analyses is contained within the batch text file.

 Wait for solution If the option to wait for the solution is selected then all of the
analyses will be run from Modeller and nothing can be carried out in the current
Modeller window until the solution has finished. For relatively small structures
or analyses with a limited set of parametric trainset loading locations this is may
be fine. If a large number of parametric trainset loading locations are included in
an analysis and/or a large number of models are being built using the batch
36
Rail Track Analysis Menu Options
processing then waiting for the solution can take a considerable amount of time.
Under this situation the wait for solution option can be turned off which will
cause the analyses to be built and run but the Modeller application will be free
for additional tasks.
Note. If the Wait for solution option is not selected then VBScript files with the
same base name as the LUSAS model(s) will be created in the working folder to allow
easy loading of the results. To post-process a particular model, load the model without
the results on top (choose No when Modeller reports that a results file of the same
name has been detected) and then load the VBScript file named <model_name>
_Reload.vbs using the File>Script>Run Script... menu item. These files are also
generated if the wait for solution option is selected but will only be required if batch
model building is being used or a model and parametric results need to be reloaded at
some time in the future.

Caution. You should not attempt to run another rail track analysis in the same folder
as the one where an existing analysis is being built or solved. Attempting to do this will
corrupt the current analysis that is being built or solved. If sufficient rail track analysis
licenses are available on the computer that is being used then additional rail track
analyses can be performed so long as each analysis is performed in a different folder.

Extract Results To Microsoft Excel Dialog
Figure 38: UIC774-3 Post Processor Dialog
A dedicated post-processing dialog is provided that allows the automatic extraction of
the results from the track/bridge interaction analysis to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.
On start-up, if nothing is selected in Modeller, the dialog will inspect the active model
to ensure that there are results present and also detect whether the UIC774-3 groups
defined during the model building process are present in the Groups Treeview. For this
reason any manual editing of the model should be kept to a minimum and the “Track
1”, “Track 2”, “Decks” and interaction joint groups should not be modified or renamed.
37
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
 Filename The filename for the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that will be created
should be entered into this box. The filename must not have any folder structure
specified as the file will be placed in the folder selected below.
 Working folder / Save In If the spreadsheet is to be saved in a folder other
than the current working folder then the User defined option can be selected and
the required folder entered into the box or browsed for using the … button.
 After clicking OK the option to carry out enveloping of results within Excel is
available.
Note. When large models and / or large numbers of results files are being postprocessed then the time required for the post-processing can become significant due to
the amount of data that is transferred between Modeller and Microsoft Excel. During
the post-processing it will not be possible to perform any other tasks in Modeller.

Caution. You should not have any other Microsoft Excel windows open while the
post-processing is carried out. Starting Microsoft Excel or opening another Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet while the post-processing is running will break the connection
between Modeller and Microsoft Excel resulting in an error and termination of the
post-processing.

Rail Track Analysis Results Spreadsheet
The results spreadsheet contains worksheets of results for specific areas of interest. The
number of worksheets created will depend upon the number of tracks and decks
modelled and whether enveloping of results was selected.
In using the Rail Track Analysis post-processor dialog the post-processing carried out
is dependent upon whether any selections have been made in LUSAS Modeller. The
Rail Track analysis post-processor can carry out:
 Post-processing of automatically defined groups (when no selections have
been made in Modeller)
 Post-processing of selected track / rail nodes
 Post-processing of selected lines if groups are missing
Results worksheets created
The spreadsheet created will contain worksheets that typically include results for :
 Track 1, 2
 Deck 1, 2, 3 etc
 Envelope, Track 1, 2
 Envelope, Deck 1, 2, 3 etc
 Railbed Check
 Longitudinal Reactions Check
 Rail Stresses Check
38
Rail Track Analysis Results Spreadsheet
Post-processing of automatically defined groups
If nothing is selected in the Modeller window and all of the UIC774-3 groups are
present in the Groups Treeview then separate results worksheets are generated for the
tracks/rails and decks. If more than one results file is loaded, no combinations or
envelopes are defined in the LUSAS model and enveloping in Microsoft Excel has
been selected then additional envelope results output is generated in separate results
worksheets.
If basic combinations or envelopes were defined in the LUSAS model the results from
these are output to the tracks/rails and decks worksheets in addition to the temperature
only and combined temperature and train loading results. If enveloping in Microsoft
Excel has been selected then an additional envelope will be generated for the basic
combinations included in the model (and these results will be included in the overall
envelope of all results). LUSAS envelopes will not be included in the Microsoft Excel
enveloping.
Note. Basic combinations that contain only pure loadcases can be post-processed but
basic combinations that contain envelopes or smart combinations cannot be postprocessed. Envelopes cannot be post-processed if they contain smart combinations.

Rail Track Results
A separate results worksheet is created for each track in the model. In this worksheet
the displacement (including railbed relative displacement), forces / moments and axial
stresses in the track rails are reported for all of the results files. If only temperature
results exist in a results file the post-processing will only generate the output for these
(Increment 1 of the nonlinear analysis), Figure 39 to Figure 41. If trainset loading is
also present in the analyses then for each results file the results for the temperature only
(Increment 1 of the nonlinear analysis) and the combined temperature and trainset
loading (Increment 2 of the nonlinear analysis) are output for each results file, Figure
42 to Figure 44. Figure 45 shows a zoomed out version of the worksheet showing the
output for multiple results files. In this figure the temperature only and combined
results for two results files are illustrated with the analyses incrementing from left to
right and for each, the first column of results and graphs are for the temperature only
case and the second column are for the combined case for each analysis.
39
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
Figure 39: Track Worksheet Summary and Railbed Graph for Temperature Only
Results of Analysis, Increment 1 (1 of 3)
Figure 40: Track Worksheet Rail Stress Graphs for Temperature Only Results of
Analysis, Increment 1 (2 of 3)
40
Rail Track Analysis Results Spreadsheet
Figure 41: Track Worksheet Tabulated Output for Temperature Only Results of
Analysis, Increment 1 (3 of 3)
Figure 42: Track Worksheet Summary and Railbed Graph for Temperature and
Trainset Results of Analysis, Increment 2 (1 of 3)
41
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
Figure 43: Track Worksheet Rail Stress Graphs for Temperature and Trainset Results
of Analysis, Increment 2 (2 of 3)
Figure 44: Track Worksheet Tabulated Output for Temperature and Trainset Results
of Analysis, Increment 2 (3 of 3)
42
Rail Track Analysis Results Spreadsheet
Figure 45: Track Worksheet for Multiple Results Files
If valid basic combinations or envelopes that match the criteria described in Postprocessing of automatically defined groups are present in the model then additional
results for these will be tabulated into the Microsoft Excel worksheets for the tracks.
For basic combinations a warning will be added at the top of the extracted results
indicating that basic combinations of nonlinear results are not strictly valid. For
envelopes all quantities other than the railbed displacements will be calculated for the
tracks but the results from LUSAS envelopes will be excluded from any enveloping
carried out in Microsoft Excel.
Deck Results
A separate worksheet is created for the deck in the model. In this worksheet the
displacement and forces / moments in the deck are reported for all of the results files. If
only temperature results exist in a results file the post-processing will only generate the
output for these (Increment 1 of the nonlinear analysis). If trainset loading is also
present in the analyses then for each results file the results for the temperature only
(Increment 1 of the nonlinear analysis) and the combined temperature and trainset
loading (Increment 2 of the nonlinear analysis) are output for each results file. Figure
46 to Figure 49 show the tabulated and graph output generated for the deck for all of
the loading conditions included in the analyses. Figure 50 shows a zoomed out version
of the worksheet showing the output for multiple results files. In this figure the
temperature only and combined results for more than two results files are illustrated
with the analyses incrementing from left to right and for each, the first column of
43
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
results and graphs are for the temperature only case and the second column are for the
combined case for each analysis.
Figure 46: Deck Worksheet Summary and Longitudinal Displacement Graph for
Results of Analysis (1 of 4)
Figure 47: Deck Worksheet Vertical and Rotational Displacement Graphs for Results
of Analysis (2 of 4)
44
Rail Track Analysis Results Spreadsheet
Figure 48: Deck Worksheet Axial and Shear Force Graphs for Results of Analysis (3 of
4)
Figure 49: Deck Worksheet Bending Moment Graph and Tabulated Output for
Results of Analysis (4 of 4)
45
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
Figure 50: Deck Worksheet for Multiple Results Files
If valid basic combinations or envelopes that match the criteria described in Postprocessing of automatically defined groups are present in the model then additional
results for these will be tabulated into the Microsoft Excel worksheets for the decks.
For basic combinations a warning will be added at the top of the extracted results
indicating that basic combinations of nonlinear results are not strictly valid. For
envelopes all quantities will be calculated for the decks but the results from the LUSAS
envelopes will be excluded from any enveloping carried out in Microsoft Excel.
Additional Results from Enveloping in Microsoft Excel
If more than one results file is loaded, basic combinations are defined in the model that
may be post-processed (see the restrictions under the Post-processing of
automatically defined groups section) and enveloping in Microsoft Excel has been
selected then additional envelope results output is generated by the post-processor in
separate worksheets in Microsoft Excel. These additional worksheets include envelopes
of the raw results and summary tables for key results that are required for checking
against the UIC774-3 code. The track and deck envelopes produce the same summary
tables, graphs and results highlighted in the previous two sections for the following
envelopes:
 Maximum and minimum envelopes for temperature loading only
 Maximum and minimum envelopes for temperature and trainset rail
loading
 Maximum and minimum envelopes for all of the basic combinations
defined in the model (if valid basic combinations are present)
46
Rail Track Analysis Results Spreadsheet
 Maximum and minimum envelopes for all loading (an envelope of all of the
above results)
The additional UIC774-3 summary tables output by the post-processor are dependent
upon the configuration of the model (the number of tracks and the number of decks in
the structure) but will include some or all of the following tables:
 Longitudinal Relative Displacement of Railbed (Relative Displacement
between Rails and Deck)
 Longitudinal Relative Displacement between Ends of Decks (Axial)
 Longitudinal Relative Displacement between Ends of Decks (End
Rotations)
 Longitudinal Relative Displacement between Ends of Decks (Total Effects)
 Vertical Relative Displacement between Ends of Decks
 Longitudinal Reactions
 Axial Rail Stress
Note. The ‘total effect’ longitudinal relative displacement between the ends of the
decks is the sum of the axial movement of the deck support position and the movement
of the top of the deck from the rotation of the deck about this support position.

Sample tables are shown in the following figures which provide the peak values, the
track that the peak is occurring in (if appropriate), the distance from the left end of the
structure of the peak and also a description of where the peak is occurring. In all of the
worksheets the worst effects are highlighted in bold and blue text to allow the quick
determination of which analysis is causing the worst effects for each of the checks that
need to be performed.
47
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
Figure 51: Railbed Check Worksheet for Multiple Results Files
Figure 52: Longitudinal Deck End Displacement due to Axial Effects Check Worksheet
for Multiple Results Files
48
Rail Track Analysis Results Spreadsheet
Figure 53: Longitudinal Deck End Displacement due to End Rotation Effects Check
Worksheet for Multiple Results Files
Figure 54: Longitudinal Deck End Displacement due to Total Effects Check Worksheet
for Multiple Results Files
49
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
Figure 55: Longitudinal Deck End Displacement due to Vertical Loading Check
Worksheet for Multiple Results Files
Figure 56: Vertical Deck End Displacement Check Worksheet for Multiple Results
Files
50
Rail Track Analysis Results Spreadsheet
Figure 57: Longitudinal Reaction Check Worksheet for Multiple Results Files
Figure 58: Axial Rail Stress Check Worksheet for Multiple Results Files
51
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
If valid basic combinations or envelopes that match the criteria described in Postprocessing of automatically defined groups are present in the model then additional
results for these will be tabulated into the Microsoft Excel summary worksheets
underneath the results for the temperature only and combined temperature and trainset
rail loading results. A separate set of the peak results within these basic combinations
will be highlighted in bold blue text as illustrated in the figures below for the railbed
displacement and reaction results for a model that includes valid basic combinations.
Figure 59: Railbed Check Worksheet for Rail Track Analysis Results and Basic
Combinations of these Results
Figure 60: Longitudinal Reaction Check Worksheet for Rail Track Analysis Results
and Basic Combinations of these Results
Microsoft Excel Fails with Insufficient Resources when
Enveloping
If Microsoft Excel fails to complete the post-processing successfully with a complaint
of insufficient resources (with messages similar to those in the following figure) when
performing the enveloping within Microsoft Excel the post-processing will need to be
carried out using a different method. These memory limitations with Microsoft Excel
are dependent upon both the size of the rail track model being post-processed and the
number of results files loaded.
52
Rail Track Analysis Results Spreadsheet
Figure 61: Insufficient Resources for Microsoft Excel to Complete the Post-Processing
Note. After the failure of a post-processing the Microsoft Excel application will still
be dormant on the computer and must be terminated by ending the process in Windows
Task Manager.

If there are insufficient resources for Microsoft Excel to carry out the enveloping of the
analyses and it is not appropriate to increase the size of the elements used for the
modelling of the analysis then two automatic post-processing options are generally
available. The first option is to post-process the results files in smaller groups to
minimise the amount of memory that Microsoft Excel needs for holding the data. The
number of results files loaded can be altered by editing the ?????_Reload.vbs VBScript
file (and renaming it) in the working folder (where ????? is the base name of the
model) using a text editor and then running the file using the File>Script>Run Script...
menu item.
Note. A copy of the original ?????_Reload.vbs VBScript file should be kept in the
working folder if the original file is overwritten.

The advantage of this first option is that it still allows the creation of the additional
summary tables of derived quantities such as the relative railbed displacements. The
second option is to perform the enveloping in Modeller itself which is illustrated
below. The disadvantage of this method is the inability to envelope derived quantities
such as the relative railbed displacements. Calculation of the relative railbed
displacement from enveloped values of the displacement of the structure and the track
will result in the incorrect value being reported and is therefore disabled.
The envelopes can be defined manually but for the number of results files that are
generally used for the rail track analyses for analysing different trainset positions it is
easier to define the envelopes using VBScript. Figure 62 shows an example of a
VBScript file that will automatically generate the equivalent envelopes for 101 separate
results files loaded on top of the model. If a different number of results files are to be
53
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
considered then the line that reads numResFile = 101 can be changed to the number
required. Alternatively if enveloping is always going to be performed over all of the
results files loaded then this line can be replaced with numResFile =
database.countResultsFiles() .
$ENGINE=VBScript
' Sample VBScript to define envelopes in Modeller equivalent to those carried out
' in Microsoft Excel
'
' The number of results files loaded on top of the model
numResFile = 101
' Define the envelope objects
Set envTempOnly = database.createEnvelope("Envelope of Temperature Only")
Set envTempTrain = database.createEnvelope("Envelope of Temperature and Train Loads")
Set envAllConfig = database.createEnvelope("Envelope of All Configurations")
' Loop over the results files
For ires = 1 To numResFile
' Add the temperature only results to the appropriate envelopes
Call envTempOnly.addEntry(1, ires, -1, -1)
Call envAllConfig.addEntry(1, ires, -1, -1)
' Add the temperature and train results to the appropriate envelopes
Call envTempTrain.addEntry(2, ires, -1, -1)
Call envAllConfig.addEntry(2, ires, -1, -1)
Next
' Release envelope objects
Set envTempOnly = Nothing
Set envTempTrain = Nothing
Set envAllConfig = Nothing
Figure 62: Example VBScript to Define Equivalent Envelopes in Modeller
If the envelopes in Modeller have been defined correctly then identical results will be
obtained from the post-processor for the Modeller and Microsoft Excel enveloping
methods. Generation of the envelopes in Modeller through VBScripting removes the
potential for errors in the generation of these envelopes and is therefore recommended,
particularly for large numbers of results files.
Figure 63 and Figure 64 show the results from the enveloping of the combined
temperature and trainset loading for the track of a model. Comparison of the tables and
graphs shows that the results are identical for both enveloping methods. In Figure 64
which shows the results for the track from enveloping in Modeller both the summary
tables and the graphs have omitted the relative railbed displacement results because
these cannot be calculated from the enveloping in Modeller.
Figure 65 and Figure 66 show the results from the enveloping of the combined
temperature and trainset loading for the deck of a model. Comparison of the tables and
graphs shows that the results are identical for both enveloping methods.
54
Rail Track Analysis Results Spreadsheet
Figure 63: Track Envelopes Performed in Microsoft Excel
Figure 64: Track Envelopes Performed in Modeller
55
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
Figure 65: Deck Envelopes Performed in Microsoft Excel
Figure 66: Deck Envelopes Performed in Modeller
56
Rail Track Analysis Results Spreadsheet
One final option available (that should be used with caution, particularly if there is a
possibility for the peak behaviours in the track / railbed being observed over the
embankments rather than over the structure) is the reduction of the track/rail groups in
the model so that they contain the bare minimum of features/mesh over the
embankments plus all of the track/rail over the structure. Any modifications of this sort
should be done in a copy of the rail track analysis model so the original models are not
corrupted in any way and can be recovered. The procedure is described below:
 Using any of the automatically generated models containing the loading
required, save the model with a different filename,
 Ensure the whole model is visible and that the selection allows the selection of
any geometry and mesh features with the Select All cursor
,
 Select the track features and mesh to be removed from the post-processing as
illustrated below ensuring that the extremes of the embankments are not
selected,
 Remove the selected features and mesh from the Track 1 group by rightclicking on the Track 1 group in the Groups Treeview and choosing the
Remove from Group option as illustrated below,
 If there is more than one track, repeat the removing of the features and mesh
from the Track 2 group,
57
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
 Save the model,
 Ensure that the results files are loaded using the automatically generated
VBScript file (?????_Reload.vbs where ????? was the original analysis name)
and post-process the model as before.
In the example below the post-processing of the 101 parametric trainset positions
initially failed due to insufficient resources in Microsoft Excel. On removing 93% of
each of the two embankments the full 101 parametric trainset positions could be postprocessed successfully in Microsoft Excel.
Note. This approach may not always work and is generally more applicable when
the lengths of the embankments are similar to the length of the structure. If the
embankment lengths are significantly smaller than the length of the structure minimal
change in the computer memory usage by Microsoft Excel will be observed.

Caution. The extremes of the track/rail over the embankments must be left within
the track groups to ensure that the post-processing is carried out correctly. Errors may
be observed and inaccurate results obtained if this is not the case.

Caution. Excluding the embankments from the track could give misleading results
if the peak behaviours actually occur over the embankments rather than over the
structure. Judgement should be exercised before accepting the results after exclusion of
the embankments.

58
Rail Track Analysis Results Spreadsheet
Figure 67: Railbed Enveloped Results for 101 Parametric Trainset Positions in
Microsoft Excel
Post-processing of selected track / rail nodes
If spot checks need to be performed at specific locations on the tracks, the nodes of the
track/rail can be post-processed individually. To perform the post-processing the
selection in the LUSAS model created by the Rail Track Analysis spreadsheet must
contain nodes that are part of the track/rail. If nodes from other parts of the model are
59
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
selected then these nodes will be ignored. All other selected objects will also be
ignored.
Figure 68 shows sample output from the post-processing of a track. For each results file
that is loaded the axial stress at the node(s) will be reported in a separate worksheet for
each node.
Figure 68: Sample Output from an Individual Track/Rail Node
Note. The stresses reported in the track/rail node worksheets are the averaged nodal
stresses. The stresses reported previously in the post-processing performed on the
UIC774-3 groups is the unaveraged nodal stresses and therefore the values will differ
slightly. The averaged nodal stresses can be obtained for the post-processing of the
UIC77-3 groups by averaging the values reported for the elements either side of the
node.

Post-processing of selected lines if groups are missing
If the model does not contain the expected rail track model group names (“Track 1”,
“Track 2” and “Decks”) or expected group contents then post-processing can be carried
out on a line by line basis. To use this option the selection must contain lines that have
3D Thick Beam elements assigned. All other lines and objects will be ignored by the
post-processor.
60
Rail Track Analysis Results Spreadsheet
When post-processing selected lines it is assumed that these lines define a single path
which travels in the direction of increasing line ID number. The lines will therefore be
post-processed in increasing line ID order and the lowest line ID start point will be
assumed to provide the reference position for the x-coordinate used to calculate the
distances reported.
The output is almost identical to the output that is generated for the decks group with a
summary table and tabulated output reported for all of the elements associated with the
lines that have been selected. No graphs are generated for the post-processing of the
selected lines since the distances may not be sequential if lines of the tracks / rails or
decks have been omitted from the selection as illustrated in Figure 69 where there is a
jump between distances of 10 and 32 m. Results are output for the temperature only
(Increment 1) and the combined temperature and trainset loading (Increment 2) with
additional results files tabulated from left to right in the worksheet. If basic
combinations or envelopes have been defined in the LUSAS model the results from
these will also be output to the worksheet if they can be post-processed.
Figure 69: Sample Output from Post-Processing of Selected Lines when the Groups are
Missing or Invalid
If more than one results file is loaded, basic combinations are defined in the model that
may be post-processed (see the restrictions under the Post-processing of
automatically defined groups section) and enveloping in Microsoft Excel has been
61
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
selected then the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet will contain an additional worksheet that
holds these enveloping results. The envelopes generated will be the same as those for
the tracks and decks:
 Maximum and minimum envelopes for temperature loading only
 Maximum and minimum envelopes for temperature and trainset rail
loading
 Maximum and minimum envelopes for all of the basic combinations
defined in the model (if valid basic combinations are present)
 Maximum and minimum envelopes for all loading (an envelope of the
above results)
Limitations of Use
 Since the analysis is two-dimensional (even though three-dimensional elements
are used) the offsets are not modelled for the bearing/section centrelines nor for
the section/rail centrelines (see figure below). Currently all track centrelines are
coincident with the centreline of the deck.
 Curved bridges cannot be modelled.
 Only up to two tracks can be considered.
 Thermal loading for mixed steel and concrete bridges in the same model cannot
be generated through the input spreadsheet. The model can however be
modified to include these different thermal loads if no rail loading is applied
when the model is built and the resulting LUSAS model modified manually.
Care should be taken carrying this out and generally only additional temperature
loading attributes should be defined and assigned to the model.
62
Limitations of Use
Centreline
Track 1
Centreline
Deck
Offset Track 1
Centreline
Track 2
Offset Track 2
Centreline
Abutment/Pier
Offset
Abutment/Pier
Offset
Bearing 1
Offset
Bearing 2
Offset
Bearing CL
Centreline
Bearings
Figure 70: Offsets of Tracks/Bearings/Piers from Centreline Of Deck
63
Rail Track Analysis User Manual
64
Description
Worked Example:
Track-Structure
Interaction to
UIC774-3
For software product(s):
LUSAS Bridge
With product option(s):
Nonlinear, Rail Track
Note: The example exceeds the limits of the LUSAS Teaching and Training Version.
Description
This example examines the track-structure interaction between a braking train and a
single span bridge and considers the cases where the trainset is just about to enter the
left-side side of structure through to the front of the train being 90m beyond the righthand side. It approximates (as far as the original test data allows) testcase E1-3 which
can be found in Appendix D.1 of the UIC774-3 Code of Practice.
90 m
300 m
60 m
6m
65
300 m
Worked Example: Track-Structure Interaction to UIC774-3
Objectives
The output requirements of the analysis are:
 Maximum relative displacement between the track and the structure in the
longitudinal direction (relative railbed displacement),
 Peak axial rail stresses,
 Peak longitudinal reactions at the abutments.
Keywords
UIC774-3, track-structure interaction
Associated Files

 UIC_Template.xlsx or UIC_Template.xls
Excel input spreadsheet (unpopulated)
UIC774-3 Microsoft
 UIC E1-3 Analysis.xlsx or UIC E1-3 Analysis.xls UIC774-3
Microsoft Excel input spreadsheet populated with data defined in this example
 UIC E4-6 Analysis.xlsx or UIC E4-6 Analysis.xls UIC774-3
Microsoft Excel input spreadsheet populated with data defined in this example
Defining Model Data
The LUSAS Rail Track Analysis software option automatically builds LUSAS models
suitable for track/structure interaction analysis from data defined in Excel spreadsheets.
 Copy the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet named UIC_Template.xlsx (use
UIC_Template.xls if using an older version of Microsoft Excel) from the \<
LUSAS Installation Folder>\Programs\Scripts\User folder to the working
folder where the track-structure interaction model is to be built.
 Rename the spreadsheet to UIC E1-3 Analysis.xlsx if using Microsoft Excel
2007 and above or UIC E1-3 Analysis.xls if using an older version of Microsoft
Excel.
 Open the spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
The modelling spreadsheet contains six worksheets titled:

Decks, Tracks and Embankment
 Structure Definition
 Geometric Properties
 Material Properties
66
Defining Model Data
 Interaction and Expansion Joint
 Loading
Note. Data should only be entered into the yellow regions of the Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet to define the modelling and analysis requirements. Numeric values in the
white cells are automatically populated according to data entered in other worksheets.
These cells are protected from editing or user input.

Note. Whilst it is recommended that an unpopulated spreadsheet is used with this
example, populated spreadsheets are supplied for those not wishing to enter all details
as listed or for use if any errors are encountered with user-input into the general
spreadsheet that cannot easily be fixed. Populated spreadsheets can be found in the
\<LUSAS Installation Folder>\Examples\Modeller folder. A spreadsheet compatible
for an installed version of version of Microsoft Excel should be copied to the working
folder where the track-structure interaction example model is to be created.

Defining Decks, Tracks and Embankment Lengths
 Pick the Decks, Tracks and
Embankment worksheet.
 Enter 1 for the Number of Decks.
 Enter 1 for the Number of
Tracks.
 The UIC774-3 Code of Practice specifies the embankment lengths for the test
cases to be 300m. Enter 300 for both the Left Embankment Length and Right
Embankment Length.
Note that the Length of Decks Only and Total Length cells are populated using data on
this and another worksheet.
67
Worked Example: Track-Structure Interaction to UIC774-3
Defining the Structure
 Pick the Structure Definition worksheet.
 The left abutment has a stiffness of 600000kN/m according to test case E1-3.
Enter 600 for the Spring Support for each Abutment/Pier for the left end of
the deck because the units for the worksheet entry are kN/mm.
 No bearing behaviour is modelled in the E1-3 test case so enter R for the
Bearing Springs on Top of each Pier for the left end of the deck.
 The first and only span of the deck has a free support in the longitudinal
direction and can be specified through either no restraint in the spring support
for the abutment / pier or through no restraint in the bearing springs. For this
example the condition has been modelled using no restraint in the bearing
springs.
 Enter R for the Spring Support for each Abutment/Pier for the first span of
the deck.
 Enter F for the Bearing Springs on Top of each Pier for the first span of the
deck.
 Enter 60 for the Span Length.
 Enter 1 for the Geometric Assignment. This ID will match a geometric
definition in the Geometric Properties worksheet covered next.
68
Defining Model Data
 Enter 1 for the Material Assignment. This ID will match a material definition
in the Material Properties worksheet covered later.
Note. If more spans were present in the deck or the structure consisted of multiple
decks this information would be entered into this worksheet.

The UIC774-3 fundamental tests do not incorporate modelling of the piers of the
structure, so are not included in this example. However, LUSAS offers two methods of
modelling piers when this is required to be done. The first method represents the pier
through the equivalent stiffness which should be entered into the Spring Support for
each Abutment/Pier entry and is calculated in accordance with Clause 1.3.2.2 in the
UIC774-3 Code of Practice. The second method physically includes the pier in the
finite element model and requires additional data entry into the columns for the Pier
Height, Pier Geometric Assignment and Pier Material Assignment. For further
details see the Rail Track Analysis User Manual.
Defining the Geometric Properties for the Structure
 Pick the Geometric Properties worksheet.
The first line of data should always be called Rail and contains the geometric
properties for the rail track. All other lines define the geometric properties for the
unique IDs used in the Structure Definition worksheet.
The details of the rail used in the UIC774-3 test cases are not provided so it has been
assumed that the track is formed of UIC 60 rails and for the purposes of this example
the properties are approximated. Enter the following values for the rail:
 Enter 0.01379182 for the area (A) in m2 of the two rails of the track (This value
is the total area per track for a track comprising of two UIC 60 rails).
69
Worked Example: Track-Structure Interaction to UIC774-3
 Enter 5.76942E-5 for the second moment of inertia about the horizontal y-axis
(Iyy) in m4.
 Enter 1.02222E-5 for the second moment of inertia about the vertical z-axis
(Izz) in m4.
 Enter 2.59616E-6 for the torsional constant (J) in m4.
 Enter 0.01093138 for the shear area for the y-direction (Asy) in m2.
 Enter 0.00566618 for the shear area for the z-direction (Asz) in m2.
 Enter 0 for the Eccentricity in the rail in m.
 Enter Track with 2 UIC 60 Rails in the Description for the rails.
Note. The UIC774-3 Code of Practice assumes that a 2D analysis is performed
where the longitudinal and vertical behaviours of the track and structure are of interest.
The current rail track analysis also assumes a 2D analysis but for its solution it requires
the features of an element type which is only available in 3D in LUSAS. The properties
entered into the worksheet therefore require geometric properties for all freedoms of
the 3D element and the lateral behaviour and torsion the properties for two rails have
been assumed to be twice those of the single rail. This will be discussed further in the
Modelling Discussion section that follows.

Some of the properties for the 2D bending behaviour of the deck are provided in
Appendix D.1 of the code of practice. As for the track rails, while the analysis is 2D the
elements used are 3D so dummy properties have been included for the lateral behaviour
and torsion of the deck although these will not affect the results obtained. In the model
it has therefore been assumed that these properties are equal to the values provided for
the vertical behaviour. Enter the following values for the deck:
 Enter 1 for the ID in the first column to match the geometric assignment ID for
the deck in the Structure Definition worksheet.
 Enter 6 for the Depth of Section in m.
 Enter 0.74 for the area (A) in m2.
 Enter 2.59 for the second moment of inertia about the horizontal y-axis (Iyy) in
m4.
 Enter 2.59 for the second moment of inertia about the vertical z-axis (Izz) in m4.
 Enter 2.59 for the torsional constant (J) in m4.
 Enter 740 for the shear area for the y-direction (Asy) in m2. The UIC774-3 test
cases do not indicate whether shear deformations were included in the
70
Defining Model Data
calculation of the target results so these have been ignored by setting the shear
area to 1000*A in accordance with the Element Reference Manual.
 Enter 740 for the shear area for the z-direction (Asz) in m2.
 Enter 1.21 for the Eccentricity in the deck in m. The UIC774-3 test cases
assume that the track is at the top surface of the section and the neutral axis
ordinate specified is from the base of the section. The depth of the section is 6m
and the neutral axis ordinate is 4.79m giving an eccentricity of 6 – 4.79 =
1.21m.
 Enter Deck Cross-Section in the Description for the deck.
Modelling Discussion
While the UIC774-3 Code of Practice treats the track-structure interaction as a 2D
problem the rail track analysis software uses 3D thick nonlinear beam elements for the
modelling of this problem but restrains the out of plan behaviour thus reducing it back
to an equivalent 2D analysis. In the definition of the geometric properties for the track
rails and structure the rail track analysis software therefore requires all of the 3D
geometric properties to be defined for the worksheet. The properties entered for Izz, J
and Asy will be used in the analysis but these will not affect the results. They should
however be set to similar magnitudes to the properties in I yy and Asz which are used for
the bending deflection and shear deflection in the geometric properties to avoid
mechanisms.
The properties (in units of mm) for a
single UIC 60 rail of simplified crosssection were calculated in LUSAS using
the arbitrary section property calculator.
Since only the vertical bending of the
track is considered the combined
geometric section properties for the two
rails of the track can be calculated by
doubling the values calculated for the
single rail. These combined values are
the ones entered into the Rail properties
section of the Geometric Properties
worksheet
Note. The doubling of the Izz, J and Asy properties could be considered to be
inappropriate but since these properties are not used in the effective 2D analysis their
doubling is considered acceptable.

71
Worked Example: Track-Structure Interaction to UIC774-3
Defining the Material Properties for the Structure
 Pick the Material Properties worksheet.
The first line of data should always be called Rail and contains the material properties
for the rail track. All other lines define the material properties for the unique IDs used
in the Structure Definition worksheet.
Enter the following values for the rail:
 Enter 210000 for the Young’s modulus (E) in N/mm2 which is equivalent to a
value of 210 GPa.
 Enter 0.3 for the Poisson’s ratio ().
 Enter 0 for the mass density (). Setting this to the representative value allows
the self-weight deflections to be calculated for the structure and track system if
they are required but it is not used for the track-structure interaction analysis.
 Enter 1.0E-5 for the coefficient of thermal expansion ().
 Enter Rails in the Description for the rails.
Enter the following values for the deck:
 Enter 1 for the ID in the first column to match the material assignment ID for
the deck in the Structure Definition worksheet.
 Enter 210000 for the Young’s modulus (E) in N/mm2.
 Enter 0.3 for the Poisson’s ratio ().
 Enter 0 for the mass density ().
 Enter 1.0E-5 for the coefficient of thermal expansion ().
 Enter Deck in the Description for the material properties.
72
Defining Model Data
Note. The documentation accompanying the UIC774-3 test cases does not mention
the exact material properties that were used for the rail track in the target solutions and
also does not mention the Poisson’s ratio or coefficient of thermal expansion used for
the track / deck. These material properties have therefore been assumed to be identical
for both and the coefficient of thermal expansion used is identical to the value
mentioned in Example 1 in Appendix C.1 of the UIC774-3 Code of Practice.

From the temperature behaviour of a restrained bar it can, however, be back calculated
that the coefficient of thermal expansion was more likely 1.2E-5 to obtain a
compressive stress of 126 MPa in the track alone under thermal loading. To replicate
the exact test case the example should potentially have this coefficient of thermal
expansion and accurate UIC60 track properties.
Defining the Track-Structure Interaction and Expansion
Joint Properties for the Structure
 Pick the Interaction and Expansion Joint worksheet.
73
Worked Example: Track-Structure Interaction to UIC774-3
 Enter 0 for the eccentricity between the rail and slab as the UIC774-3 test cases
in Appendix D.1 are assumed to have their centre of gravity coincident with the
top of the reinforced concrete slab of the deck.
 Enter 0.5 for the Parametric Distance of Interaction Joint from Rail. For
modelling with no eccentricity between the rail and the slab this parameter is not
used but they are placed halfway between the rail and slab by default for
eccentric track if entry is blank
Note. The UIC774-3 test cases assume that the track is ballasted without specifying
the exact interaction properties that are to be used. It is therefore assumed that the value
of u0 in the test cases is equal to 2mm which is the representative value for a sleeper in
ballast (as opposed to ‘frozen’ ballast track) indicated in Clause 1.2.1.2.

 Enter 10 for the Unloaded Contact Stiffness in the longitudinal direction in
kN/m/mm. The resistance parameter for the unloaded track is 20kN/m in the test
and this gives a stiffness of 20kN/m / 2mm = 10kN/m/mm (see note above).
 Enter 20 for the Unloaded Lift-off Force in the longitudinal direction in kN/m.
 Enter 1.0E-6 for the Unloaded Lift-off Springs in the longitudinal direction in
kN/m/mm.
 Enter 30 for the Loaded Contact Stiffness in the longitudinal direction in
kN/m/mm. The resistance parameter for the unloaded track is 60 kN/m in the
test and this gives a stiffness of 60kN/m / 2mm = 30 kN/m/mm (see note
above).
 Enter 60 for the Loaded Lift-off Force in the longitudinal direction in kN/m.
 Enter 1.0E-6 for the Loaded Lift-off Springs in the longitudinal direction in
kN/m/mm.
Note. The interaction springs are modelled using nonlinear joints with elasticperfectly plastic behaviour in the longitudinal direction. This is achieved using the
elasto-plastic uniform tension and compression material where the lift-off force is
equivalent to the yield force and the lift-off spring is equivalent to the hardening
stiffness. The lift-off spring should always be set to a very small value to avoid
numerical instabilities.

 Ensure that there is no data specified in the Rail Expansion Joints region of the
worksheet.
74
Defining Model Data
Defining the Trainset Loading for the Structure
 Pick the Loading worksheet.
 Enter 35 for the Temperature variation of the deck in °C.
 Enter 50 for the Temperature variation of the rail tracks in °C.
For the UIC774-3 E1-3 test case the 300m long trainset travels from the left-hand
abutment of the 60m long deck to 90m past the right-hand abutment of the deck, a total
distance of 150m. For the example this trainset passage will be broken up into 10m
increments.
90 m
300 m
60 m
300 m
 Enter 16 for the Number of Track Loading Locations based on the formula
Number of track loading locations = Travel / Increment + 1 giving 150 / 10 + 1
= 16.
75
Worked Example: Track-Structure Interaction to UIC774-3
 Enter Braking for the Loading Type in the first row of loading.
 Enter 1 in the Track Selection to be Loaded since there is only a single track in
the analysis.
 Enter 0 for the Parametric Starting Position for Loadings (in m) to indicate
the left-hand limit of the trainset loading.
 Enter 300 for the Parametric End Position for Loadings (in m) to indicate the
right-hand limit of the trainset loading. The train is 300m long in the test case.
 Enter 20 for the Amount (per unit length) to apply 20kN/m horizontal braking
forces acting to the right for the trainset moving from left to right.
 Enter 0 for the Starting Location of Loading for First Analysis to place the
trainset in a location where it is just about to enter the deck structure for the first
analysis, recalling that the left-hand embankment is 300m long.
 Enter 150 for the Finishing Location of Loading for Last Analysis to place
the right-hand extent of the trainset 90m past the 60m deck span for the last
analysis.
 Enter Vertical for the Loading Type in the second row of loading.
 Enter 1 in the Track Selection to be Loaded since there is only a single track in
the analysis.
 Enter 0 for the Parametric Starting Position for Loadings (in m) to indicate
the left-hand limit of the trainset loading.
 Enter 300 for the Parametric End Position for Loadings (in m) to indicate the
right-hand limit of the trainset loading. The train is 300m long in the test case.
 Enter 80 for the Amount (per unit length) to apply 80 kN/m vertically
downwards for the trainset.
 Enter 0 for the Starting Location of Loading for First Analysis to place the
trainset in a location where it is just about to enter the deck structure for the first
analysis, recalling that the left-hand embankment is 300m long.
 Enter 150 for the Finishing Location of Loading for Last Analysis to place
the right-hand extent of the trainset 90m past the 60m deck span for the last
analysis.
 Save the spreadsheet and close the Microsoft Excel application.
Note. The horizontal and vertical loading of the trainset in the test cases have
identical configurations. More complex trainset loading configurations and

76
Modelling / Running an Analysis
acceleration loading can be also specified (see the Rail Track Analysis User Manual
for more information).
Modelling / Running an Analysis
All of the model construction and analysis is automatically performed by the Rail
Track Analysis software option but, to do so, a blank LUSAS model must be initially
created or a suitable existing LUSAS model (that was created by the Rail Track
Analysis option) must be opened.
Running LUSAS Modeller
For details of how to run LUSAS Modeller see the heading Running LUSAS Modeller
in the Examples Manual Introduction.
Creating a Temperature-only Model
An initial temperature-only analysis can form the basis for carrying out more than one
track-structure interaction analysis with different trainset loading configurations being
used. For large analyses time savings can result from not having to re-run a temperature
analysis for each trainset loading.
File
New…
 Enter UIC774_testcase for the model name and click OK.
This model is created solely to allow the Rail Track Analysis option to be selected. It is
not used after the option has been run.
Bridge
Rail Track Analysis
UIC774-3
>
Build Model…
 Enter
E13_TemperatureOnly for the
Model filename.
 Enter the filename of the
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet
created for the analysis or
browse for it using the
Browse... button in the
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or batch text file input. If the full folder
information is not entered it will be assumed that the Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet is in the current working folder which is reported in the dialog.
 Ensure an Element size of 2 is specified which will create elements of a
maximum length of 2m in the LUSAS model.
 Ensure that the Apply temperature and rail loads in same analysis option is
not selected.
 Ensure the Wait for solution option is selected and click the OK button.
77
Worked Example: Track-Structure Interaction to UIC774-3
Assuming that there have been no errors in the input for the Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet the Rail Track Analysis software option will automatically generate a
LUSAS model from the spreadsheet data and run a rail track analysis for temperatureonly loading. If the Rail Track Analysis software option detected errors with modelling
data these will be reported and must be corrected prior to re-running the Rail Track
Analysis option.
Note. If the intention was to only perform this analysis and investigate the thermal
effects then post-processing could be performed on the results of the analysis. In
addition, if the Apply temperature and rail loads in same analysis option was
selected the combined temperature and rail track loading results would now be
available. For this example we will however be using this temperature only analysis as
a starting point for more than one track-structure interaction analysis so no postprocessing will be performed at this stage.

Applying Trainset Rail Loading to the Temperature Model
The temperature only model will now be used as the starting point for the application
of the trainset rail loading that needs to be considered for the track-structure interaction
analysis.
Bridge
Rail Track Analysis
UIC774-3
>
Apply Rail
Loads…
 Select the Apply train loads to
current model option as we have just
performed the temperature only
analysis and will use this model as the
base model for the application of the
trainset rail loading.
 Enter E1-3_TemperatureAndRailLoads as the Rail load model filename.
 Enter the UIC E1-3 Analysis.xlsx (or UIC E1-3 Analysis.xls) filename of the
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet created for the analysis or browse for it using the
Browse... button in the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or batch text file input. If
the full folder information is not entered it will be assumed that the Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet is in the current working folder.
 Ensure the Wait for solution option is selected.
 Click the OK button and choose No to saving the changes to the current model
as no manual changes have been made.
78
Viewing the Results
Assuming that there have been no errors in the trainset loading input for the Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet the Rail Track Analysis software option will now automatically
generate a LUSAS model and run a track-structure analysis for the combined
temperature and trainset rail loading using the trainset loading information defined in
the spreadsheet.
Note. If both the temperature and trainset rail loads were applied to the original
model the program would detect this and report that the original model is not a valid
temperature-only model. If this were to happen, repeat the model building process
above before reattempting to apply the trainset rail loading to the analysis.

If errors were detected...
If errors were detected with the modelling data or the post-processing in the next
section gives different results the values in the spreadsheet should be corrected before
re-selecting the previous Rail Track Analysis menu item. If it proves impossible for
you to correct the errors reported a populated spreadsheet file is provided to enable you
to create the model and run an analysis successfully.

 UIC E1-3 Analysis.xlsx (.xls) is a populated spreadsheet containing all
input data for the example.
A spreadsheet compatible for an installed version of version of Microsoft Excel should
be copied to the working folder where the track-structure interaction example model is
to be created, and the Bridge > Rail Track Analysis UIC774-3 > Apply Rail Loads
menu item re-selected.
Viewing the Results
If the analyses were run from within LUSAS Modeller with the Wait for solution
option the results will be loaded on top of the current model.
File
Script
Run Script...
>
If the results from the analyses were not automatically loaded then these should be
loaded manually using the VBScript file created by the program in the working folder.
 To load the results on top of the current model, select the file E13_TemperatureAndRailLoads_Reload.vbs located in the folder where the models
were generated and the analysis performed.
Automatic Extraction of Results into Microsoft Excel
The Rail Track Analysis option provides a post-processing tool that automatically
extracts the results of the analyses into tabular form in Microsoft Excel and generates
commonly required graphs and tables of quantities that can be compared against
prescribed limits for the track-structure interaction.
79
Worked Example: Track-Structure Interaction to UIC774-3
Bridge
Rail Track Analysis
UIC774-3
>
Extract Results to
Excel…
 Enter E1-3_PostProcess for the
Filename. No *.xlsx or *.xls
extension is required.
 Ensure the Working folder is set
to Current to place the postprocessing
Microsoft
Excel
spreadsheet into the same folder as
the analyses.
 Click the OK button.
 Click on Yes when asked whether envelopes are to be created in Microsoft
Excel.
The automatic post-processor will now extract the results from the loaded analysis
results and generate the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet in the working folder.
Note. The post-processing can take a noticeable length of time and will occupy the
LUSAS licence for this time. The post-processing for this example should take less
than 10 minutes to complete.

Caution. You should not have any other Microsoft Excel windows open while the
post-processing is carried out. Starting Microsoft Excel or opening another Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet while the post-processing is running will break the connection
between Modeller and Microsoft Excel resulting in an error and termination of the
post-processing.

 Open the spreadsheet E1-3_PostProcess in Microsoft Excel.
Because the creation of envelopes was specified earlier the results spreadsheet will
contain seven worksheets that contain the results from the analyses. These are titled:
 Track 1
 Decks
 Envelope – Track 1
 Envelope – Decks
 Railbed Check
 Longitudinal Reactions Check
 Rail Stresses Check
80
Viewing the Results
Peak Relative Railbed Displacement
For a continuously welded rail (CWR) track the typical criteria to be met for the
relative railbed displacements is quoted in Clause 1.5.3 of UIC774-3 which states that:
“The maximum permissible displacement between rail and deck or embankment under
braking and/or acceleration forces is 4 mm”
To permit checking of this criteria rail bed displacements are included in the Track 1
Microsoft Excel worksheet which reports all of the relative railbed displacements
calculated for the track-structure interaction model. These are output in the form of the
maximum and minimum values which are reported in the summaries at the top of the
sets of results, the values over the structure graphed in the top chart and the individual
values along the length of the track in tabular form – as highlighted in the following
figure.
Because the option to create envelopes in Microsoft Excel was chosen when the postprocessor was run the spreadsheet includes additional post-processing of the relative
railbed displacement in the form of envelopes and a table of peak values for each
trainset position.
For the envelopes worksheet the output is identical to the tabular and chart output for
the individual results in the analyses. Six envelopes are generated by the postprocessor, namely:
81
Worked Example: Track-Structure Interaction to UIC774-3






Envelope - Temperature Only (Max)
Envelope - Temperature Only (Min)
Envelope - Temperature and Train (Max)
Envelope - Temperature and Train (Min)
Envelope - All Configurations (Max)
Envelope - All Configurations (Min)
Concentrating on the envelopes for the combination of the temperature and trainset
loading, these are illustrated in the following figure.
Zooming into the summary tables at the top of the columns of results and charts (see
images that follow) allows the extraction of the peak relative railbed displacements of
+0.00341 m movement of the track to the right relative to the base of the ballast over
the deck, +0.007 m movement of the track to the right relative to the base of the ballast
over the whole track length and -0.0174 m movement of the track to the left relative to
the base of the ballast over the whole track length and deck.
82
Viewing the Results
The peak relative railbed displacement is therefore -0.0174 m which compares well
with the UIC774-3 E1-3 test case published result of -1.73E-2 m with a difference of
+0.6%.
In addition to the envelope worksheet, the peak relative railbed displacement can also
be found in the Railbed Check worksheet shown below. This shows that the peak
relative railbed displacement occurs when the braking trainset is placed at the 5 th
position when the front of the 300 m long trainset is just over half way across the 60 m
deck. This is highlighted in bold blue text in the worksheet.
83
Worked Example: Track-Structure Interaction to UIC774-3
Note. The peak relative railbed displacement in test case E1-3 is 0.0174 m or 17.4
mm which would be greater than the limit stated in Clause 1.5.3 of the UIC774-3 code
of practice. All of the test cases in Appendix D.1 of the code of practice exceed this
limit.

Peak Axial Rail Stresses
For a continuously welded rail track with UIC 60 rails the typical criteria to be met for
the rail stress are quoted in Clause 1.5.2 of UIC774-3 which states that
“The maximum permissible additional compressive rail stress is 72 N/mm2”
and
“The maximum permissible additional tensile rail stress is 92 N/mm 2”
To permit checking of these criteria rail axial stress values are included in the Track 1
Microsoft Excel worksheet. These are output in the form of the maximum and
minimum values which are reported in the summaries at the top of the sets of results,
the values over the track length graphed in the bottom chart and the individual values
along the length of the track in tabular form – as highlighted in the following figure.
For the temperature-only loadcase (Increment 1) the maximum and minimum stresses
observed in the rail track were -76.71MPa in compression and -137.0MPa in
compression. For the temperature and trainset rail loading loadcase (Increment 2) the
maximum and minimum stresses observed in the rail track were -78.88MPa in
compression and -137.66MPa in compression.
84
Viewing the Results
Concentrating on the envelopes for the combination of the temperature and trainset
loading in the Envelope - Track 1 worksheet the maximum and minimum stresses
observed in the rail track were -30.73MPa in compression and -176.32MPa in
compression. The value of -176.32MPa compares well with the UIC774-3 E1-3 test
case published results of -182.4MPa with a difference of -3.4%.
85
Worked Example: Track-Structure Interaction to UIC774-3
In addition to the envelope worksheet, the peak axial stresses in the rails can also be
found in the Rail Stresses Check worksheet shown below. This shows that the peak
most compressive axial stress of 176.32MPa occurs when the braking trainset is placed
at the 9th position when the front of the 300m long trainset is 20m past the right-hand
abutment side of the deck. The peak most tensile axial stress occurs at the 7 th position.
Both peaks are highlighted in bold blue text in the worksheet.
Peak Longitudinal Reactions at the Abutments
The left-hand abutment provides all of the longitudinal restraint to the deck of the
structure and the peak longitudinal reactions at this abutment are now investigated.
When post-processing, the option to create the envelopes in Microsoft Excel was
chosen which caused an additional worksheet tabulating the peak longitudinal reactions
for all of the analyses to be created. This can be found in the Longitudinal Reactions
Check worksheet shown below.
86
Alternative Analyses with Same Temperature Only Model
This shows that the peak longitudinal reaction occurs when the braking trainset is
placed at the 9th position (highlighted in bold blue text in the worksheet) when the front
of the 300m long trainset is 20m past the right-hand abutment side of the deck and
gives a reaction of 861.667 N which compares well with the UIC774-3 E1-3 test case
published result of 874.42kN with a difference of -1.5%.
 Close the Microsoft Excel application.
Alternative Analyses with Same Temperature Only Model
If further studies are required on the same structure for identical temperature conditions
but with different trainset loading the Rail Track Analysis option can make use of the
temperature only analysis from a previous analysis for a new one. For small structures
the time saving from avoiding the reconstruction of an identical track-structure
interaction model will generally not be significant but where the structure is very long
and has many decks and spans this time saving can become significant.
Applying Alternative Trainset Rail Loading
90 m
300 m
60 m
300 m
UIC774-3 test case E4-6 (shown above) is very similar to the one for test case E1-3.
The only difference between the two tests is the direction that the braking trainset is
travelling. As a result the temperature only model from test case E1-3 can and will be
used as the starting point for the application of the alternative trainset rail loading that
needs to be considered for the E4-6 track-structure interaction analysis.
87
Worked Example: Track-Structure Interaction to UIC774-3
Defining the Trainset Loading for the Structure
 Copy the UIC E1-3 Analysis.xlsx (or UIC E1-3 Analysis.xls) Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet created for the E1-3 test case and save it as a new Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet with the filename UIC E4-6 Analysis.xlsx (or UIC E4-6
Analysis.xls).
 Open the spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
 Pick the Loading worksheet.
 Enter -20 in the Amount (per unit length) for the trainset braking loading to
indicate that the braking load is now acting to the left for a trainset that is
travelling from right to left.
 Enter 360 for the Starting Location of Loading for First Analysis of both the
Braking and Vertical loading to place the trainset in a location where it is just
about to enter the deck structure for the first analysis, recalling that the left-hand
embankment is 300m long and the deck is 60m long.
 Enter 210 for the Finishing Location of Loading for Last Analysis of both the
Braking and Vertical loading to place the left-hand extent of the trainset 90m
past the 60m deck span for the last analysis.
 Save the spreadsheet and close the Microsoft Excel application.
88
Alternative Analyses with Same Temperature Only Model
Applying the Trainset Rail Loading to the Analysis
The E1-3 temperature only model can now be specified along with the updated rail load
spreadsheet containing the revised trainset loading for the Rail Track Analysis software
option to carry out an analysis for this test case.
Bridge
Rail Track Analysis
UIC774-3
>
Apply Rail
Loads…
 Ensure that the Apply train
loads to current model option is
not selected. The current model
loaded
is
a
combined
temperature and trainset rail
loads model for the E1-3
analysis and should not be used.
 Enter E1-3_TemperatureOnly.mdl for the Original model filename which
holds the temperature only analysis from the previous section or browse for it
using the Browse... button. If the full folder is not specified then it will be
assumed that the model is in the current working folder.
 Enter E4-6_TemperatureAndRailLoads as the Rail load model filename.
 Enter the UIC E4-6 Analysis.xlsx (or UIC E4-6 Analysis.xls) filename of the
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet created for the analysis or browse for it using the
Browse... button in the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or batch text file input. If
the full folder information is not entered it will be assumed that the Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet is in the current working folder.
 Ensure the Wait for solution option is selected.
 Click the OK button and choose No when asked to save the changes to the
current model since there have been no manual changes to it.
Assuming that there have been no errors in the input for the Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet the Rail Track Analysis software option will automatically generate a
LUSAS model from the spreadsheet data and run a rail track analysis for the alternative
trainset positions defined by the spreadsheet data.
If errors were detected...
If errors were detected with the modelling data or the post-processing in the next
section gives different results the values in the spreadsheet should be corrected before
re-selecting the previous Rail Track Analysis menu item. If it proves impossible for
you to correct the errors reported a populated spreadsheet file is provided to enable you
to create the model and run an analysis successfully.
89
Worked Example: Track-Structure Interaction to UIC774-3

 UIC E4-6 Analysis.xlsx (.xls) is a populated spreadsheet containing all
input data for the example.
A spreadsheet compatible for an installed version of version of Microsoft Excel should
be copied to the working folder where the track-structure interaction example model is
to be created, and the Bridge > Rail Track Analysis UIC774-3 > Apply Rail Loads
menu item re-selected.
Automatic Extraction of Results into Microsoft Excel
Bridge
Rail Track Analysis
UIC774-3
>
Extract Results to
Excel…
 Enter E4-6_PostProcess for the
Filename.
 Ensure the Working folder is set
to Current to place the postprocessing
Microsoft
Excel
spreadsheet into the same folder as
the analyses.
 Click the OK button.
 Click on Yes when asked whether envelopes are to be created in Microsoft
Excel.
The automatic post-processor will now extract the results from the loaded analysis
results and generate the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet in the working folder.
 Open the spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
Peak Relative Railbed Displacement
From the Railbed Check worksheet of the results spreadsheet the peak relative railbed
displacement is shown to be 0.01722m when the braking trainset is placed at the 6 th
position where it is 10 m from the left-hand abutment of the deck. This peak relative
90
Alternative Analyses with Same Temperature Only Model
railbed displacement compares well with the UIC774-3 E4-6 test case published result
of 1.78E-2 m with a difference of -3.4%.
Peak Axial Rail Stresses
From the Rail Stresses Check worksheet of the results spreadsheet the peak axial rail
stress is shown to be -147.13 MPa when the braking trainset is placed at the 6 th position
where it is 10 m from the left-hand abutment of the deck. This peak rail stress
compares well with the UIC774-3 E4-6 test case published result of -162.06 MPa with
a difference of -10.15% which is just outside the 10% limit specified in the code of
practice due to the coarseness of the modelling.
Peak Longitudinal Reactions at the Abutments
From the Longitudinal Reactions Check worksheet of the results spreadsheet the peak
reaction is shown to be 2398.81kN when the braking trainset is placed at the last
position where the front of it is 90m past the left-hand abutment of the deck. This peak
reaction compares well with the UIC774-3 E4-6 test case published result of 2196.1kN
with a difference of +8.4% which is within the 20% limit specified in the code of
practice. The maximum reaction is also comparable with the alternative calculation
method which gives 2373.47kN.
91
Worked Example: Track-Structure Interaction to UIC774-3
 Close the Microsoft Excel application.
This completes the example.
General Modelling Discussion
The modelling of the structure and approach embankments in this example is relatively
crude to ensure that the track-structure analyses can be carried out within a reasonable
length of time. As a result the accuracy of some calculated results such as the rail
stresses has been reduced and some results (for test case E4-6) are outside the permitted
accuracy stated in UIC774-3.
Description
2m Elements
16 Location
Increments of 10m
Test
Case
E1-3
E4-6
1m Elements
16 Location
Increments of 10m
E1-3
1m Elements
31 Location
Increments of 5m
E1-3
1m Elements
151 Location
Increments of 1m
E1-3
0.6m Elements
251 Location
Increments of 0.6m
E1-3
0.5m Elements
301 Location
Increments of 0.5m
E1-3
0.3m Elements
501 Location
Increments of 0.3m
E1-3
E4-6
E4-6
E4-6
E4-6
E4-6
E4-6
Railbed
Displacement
0.01740 m
+0.6%
0.01722 m
-3.4%
0.01740 m
+0.6%
0.01722 m
-3.4%
0.01741 m
+0.6%
0.01723 m
-3.3%
0.01741 m
+0.6%
0.01724 m
-3.2%
0.01741 m
+0.6%
0.01724 m
-3.2%
0.01741 m
+0.6%
0.01724 m
-3.2%
0.01741 m
+0.6%
0.01724 m
-3.2%
Reaction
Rail Stress
861.67 kN
-1.5%
2398.81 kN
+8.4%
860.41 kN
-1.6%
2398.76 kN
+8.4%
860.41 kN
-1.6%
2398.76 kN
+8.4%
860.72 kN
-1.6%
2398.76 kN
+8.4%
860.00 kN
-1.7%
2398.81 kN
+8.5%
859.86 kN
-1.7%
2398.86 kN
+8.5%
859.73 kN
-1.7%
2398.98 kN
+8.5%
-176.32 MPa
-3.4%
-147.13 MPa
-10.15%
-177.63 MPa
-2.7%
-148.04 MPa
-9.5%
-177.63 MPa
-2.7%
-148.50 MPa
-9.1%
-177.66 MPa
-2.7%
-148.51 MPa
-9.1%
-178.18 MPa
-2.4%
-148.90 MPa
-8.8%
-178.31 MPa
-2.3%
-149.00 MPa
-8.8%
-178.58 MPa
-2.1%
-149.20 MPa
-8.6%
Refinement of the modelling will improve the accuracy of the solution at the cost of
increased computer memory requirements and increased modelling / analysis and postprocessing time. The previous table shows the improvement of accuracy for the two
test cases when element sizes of less than 2m and trainset location increments of less
than 10m are used. For the UIC774-3 code of practice the computed values should be
92
Alternative Analyses with Same Temperature Only Model
within -10% and +20% (if on the safe side) and based on this criterion all results with
the exception of those from the 2m element analysis pass the criterion.
In the previous table the meshing and increment size can be seen to have a less
significant effect on the railbed displacement and reactions obtained than on the rail
stress values. This is because the Finite Element solution is a displacement method and
reactions should be in equilibrium with the applied load which is constant. An element
size of 1m can be seen to satisfy the accuracy of the rail stresses against the
fundamental test cases in UIC774-3 but a refinement of the incrementation will allow
more accurate capture of the value of the maximum stress and location of the trainset
where the maximum rail stress occurs.
Running Analyses with Multiple Decks
To model a structure with multiple decks spreadsheet data similar to that shown on the
following pages would need to be defined.
60 m
300 m
60 m
60 m
60 m
6m
93
60 m
60 m
300 m
Worked Example: Track-Structure Interaction to UIC774-3
94
Alternative Analyses with Same Temperature Only Model
95
Worked Example: Track-Structure Interaction to UIC774-3
96
Introduction
Appendix A:
Verification Testing
Introduction
This appendix includes some background to the calculation of the UIC774-3
track/bridge interaction analyses in LUSAS. It explains why results from running a
LUSAS nonlinear analysis that considers all thermal and train effects for the test cases
in question in one analysis does not over-predict the rail stresses occurring under the
combined thermal and rail loading - unlike results from simplified hand calculations or
from results from other finite element analysis software systems where thermal and
train effects are carried out by running separate nonlinear analyses.
From the verification testing carried out we can say that…
Even though a computer program may be validated against the standard test
cases in the UIC774-3 code of practice, in situations when combined thermal
and train loading from separate analyses gives track-structure interaction
forces that exceed the stated yield resistance of the track-restraint system (i.e.
the ballast) then the separate analysis method will potentially over predict the
rail stresses unless the loaded track yield surface is reduced by the mobilised
track resistance over the extent of the train loading. Rail stress overpredictions of up to 30% have been seen when thermal and train loading
results are combined from separate analyses.
Description
The rail track analysis (UIC774-3) option in LUSAS allows the construction and
solution of finite element models to study the interaction between the rail track and a
bridge. This forms an essential part of the design process as the stresses within the rails
of the tracks must remain within specified limits based upon the design and the state of
maintenance. A number of calculation methods are available and each of these can lead
to a slightly different solution for the combined thermal and rail loading condition.
Each of these methods (except the hand calculation) has been investigated in this
97
Appendix A: Verification Testing
technical note prior to carrying out the analysis in LUSAS using the rail track analysis
option.
The Hwashil Viaduct, a railway bridge in South Korea, has been used for this testing
with continuous welded rail (CWR) and thermal effects only present in the structure for
the following analyses:
 Combination of Separate Thermal And Rail Loading
 Analysis Of Combined Thermal And Rail Loading (One Step)
 Analysis Of Combined Thermal And Rail Loading Taking Account Of
Effects Of Material Change Under Rail Loading
In addition, two of the UIC standard test cases have also been reinvestigated to
demonstrate that these results can be matched even if the analysis type is potentially
invalid prior to providing guidance and conclusions on this type of analysis. These
analyses were:
 Revisit Of UIC774-3 Test E1-3 Using The Separate And LUSAS Methods
Of Analysis
 Revisit Of UIC774-3 Test H1-3 Using The Separate And LUSAS Methods
Of Analysis
Combination of Separate Thermal and Rail Loading
In this form of analysis two or more separate analyses are carried out with each
analysis considering a different loading regime to the structure. This is the simplest
form of analysis of the track/bridge interaction as it assumes that superposition is valid
for a nonlinear system and, according to the UIC774-3 code of practice, can generally
overestimate the rail stresses with percentage errors up to 20 to 30% be it through hand
calculation or computer methods.
This analysis procedure is replicated in LUSAS by performing two separate nonlinear
analyses. The first considers only the thermal effects and uses the unloaded resistance
bilinear curve for modelling the interaction between the track and bridge. The results of
this analysis are identical for the two tracks in the model and so only the results for the
first track are presented in the following figure.
98
Combination of Separate Thermal and Rail Loading
Figure 71: Axial Force In Rails Due To Thermal Effects Only
These thermal effects give a peak compressive rail stress of 46.06 N/mm2 (F/A =
0.7065E+06/0.0153389). Having carried out the thermal analysis the rail loading will
be considered in a separate analysis (both horizontal and vertical loading) for the
‘worst’ conditions. This rail load analysis is again a nonlinear analysis but it has no
knowledge of the history from the thermal effects and therefore assumes a zero strain
initial state prior to the application of the load. In addition to this unstrained condition,
the loaded resistance bilinear curve is used underneath the locations of the rail loading
while the unloaded lengths of track use the unloaded resistance bilinear curve. The
results from the rail loading analyses are presented in the following two figures, the
first being the track that has the braking train loading and the second being the track
that has the accelerating train loading.
99
Appendix A: Verification Testing
Figure 72: Axial Force In Rails Due To Braking Train Loads On Track 1
Figure 73: Axial Force In Rails Due To AcceleratingTrain Loads On Track 2
100
Combination of Separate Thermal and Rail Loading
From these results the peak compressive rail stresses for the two tracks are as follows:
Track 1:
48.93 N/mm2
Track 2:
57.59 N/mm2
A basic combination of the loading can be defined to add the results from the thermal
and rail loading analyses together which gives the following track peak compressive
stresses (see following figures):
Track 1:
94.99 N/mm2
Track 2:
103.66 N/mm2
Figure 74: Axial Force In Rails Due To Combined Thermal And Train Loads In Track
1
101
Appendix A: Verification Testing
Figure 75: Axial Force In Rails Due To Combined Thermal And Train Loads In Track
2
Inspection of the two plots shows that there is a reduction in the axial force / rail
stresses over the first two span transition piers towards the left end of the structure for
track 1 only (subjected to the braking train). The following figures show zoomed plots
of the rail axial force for this location with the thermal diagram showing identical
values either side of these piers for all of the spans in the model. The reason for the
reduction in the axial force becomes clear from the axial force diagram for the train
braking load alone, Figure 77, where the axial force has a positive peak over the span
transition piers which is not symmetrical. Looking at the transition from the first span
to the second (2nd pier from left abutment) the axial force in the rail over the end of the
first span is equal to a tension force of 362.4 kN while the axial force over the start of
the second span is equal to a tension force of 344.7 kN. Like for like comparison of the
elements a certain distance from the pier for each span shows that the second span is
consistently lower and this difference has caused the non-symmetric nature of the
combined axial force / rail stress diagram over the span transition piers.
102
Combination of Separate Thermal and Rail Loading
Figure 76: Zoomed Axial Force In Rails Due To Thermal Effects Only
Figure 77: Zoomed Axial Force In Rails Due To Braking Train Loads On Track 1
103
Appendix A: Verification Testing
NOTE: When viewing this axial force diagram it should be recognised that while the
first two spans (2*25m each) have identical geometry and pier/bearing properties, the
first span segment of the first span does not carry any of the braking train load and this
is contributing to the difference in the behaviours observed over the piers.
Looking at the yield in the track/bridge interaction for this track, Figure 78, the reason
for the differences in axial force either side of the pier becomes clear as yielding has
occurred to the left but not to the right of the span transition pier for these first two
spans.
Figure 78: Yield In Track/Bridge Interaction Due To Train Braking Load On Track 1
104
Combination of Separate Thermal and Rail Loading
Looking now at the second track where the accelerating train is at the right-hand end of
the structure, the interaction remains unloaded and so the rail axial force / stress
observed it basically due to the bending of the bridge deck due to the action of the
braking train load on the other track. Because there is no direct loading to the track then
the axial force in the rail displays a continuous variation over the span transition piers
and therefore no reduction is observed in the combined diagram for this track.
Figure 79: Zoomed Axial Force In Rails Due To Accelerating Train Loads On Track 2
Looking again at the yielding, Figure 80, the difference between this track and the one
with the braking train becomes obvious as, without the action of any train load over the
span transition for this track, the yield is roughly symmetrical and occurring across the
transition between spans – colour change indicates changing yield direction. This yield
over the whole region of the span transition is the whole reason why a smooth
behaviour is observed in the rail force / stress in the second track as opposed to the first
track that has the braking train load.
105
Appendix A: Verification Testing
Figure 80: Yield In Track/Bridge Interaction Due To Train Acceleration Load On
Track 2
Analysis of Combined Thermal and Rail Loading (One Step)
In this form of analysis a single nonlinear analysis is carried out where the thermal and
rail loading are applied concurrently to the model. In terms of the track/bridge
interaction, the resistance bilinear curves used in the modelling are determined by the
positioning of the rail loading so that loaded properties are used where the rail loading
is applied and unloaded properties everywhere else. As with the separate method
highlighted above, this analysis ignores any initial straining of the track/bridge
interaction under pure thermal loading and therefore assumes that the loaded resistance
properties are active under the thermal loading over the extent of the train loading.
The results from the analysis are shown in the following figures and give the following
results for the track peak compressive stresses:
Track 1:
85.6 N/mm2
Track 2:
100.6 N/mm2
NOTE: For this analysis the reduction in axial force / rail stress is not observed at the
span discontinuities towards the left end of the structure.
106
Analysis of Combined Thermal and Rail Loading (One Step)
Figure 81: Axial Force In Rails Due To Combined Thermal And Train Loads In Track
1 (One Step)
Figure 82: Axial Force In Rails Due To Combined Thermal And Train Loads In Track
2 (One Step)
107
Appendix A: Verification Testing
Analysis of Combined Thermal and Rail Loading Taking
Account of Effects of Material Change Under Rail Loading
The previous two analysis methods fail to take account of the train rail loading being
applied to the rail when it has already undergone movement/stresses due to thermal
effects alone. In this current form of analysis (implemented into LUSAS) the initial
thermal effects are considered prior to the application of the train rail loading and the
behaviour under this rail loading takes account of this history.
To illustrate the analysis, consider the following:
When the train is not on the track the stresses in the rails are governed purely by the
thermal effects. For the Hwashil Viaduct the thermal effects due to the bridge only are
considered and therefore the action of this causes the structure to move thus inducing
relative movement between the track and the bridge and therefore an associated stress
in the rail. For this condition the unloaded resistance properties apply across the whole
extent of the track
As the train load arrives over a particular part of the bridge the initial relative
movement of the track/bridge from the thermal effects remains and therefore the
application of the train load changes the resistance state from unloaded to loaded
without the loss of this initial rail stress caused by the relative movement
The train load causes increased slip of the interaction based on the loaded resistance
with the end of the force-displacement curve for the unloaded resistance used as the
starting point for the loaded resistance
If it was modelled, the departure of the train load would change the resistance state
back to unloaded
108
Analysis of Combined Thermal and Rail Loading Taking Account of
Effects of Material Change Under Rail Loading
Yield Of Loaded Track
Force
Loaded Resistance Under
Thermal And Train Load
Yield Of Unloaded Track
Unloaded Resistance
During Thermal Load
Force-strain corresponding to
applied thermal loading (no train)
Strain
Figure 83: Representation of Transition From Unloaded To Loaded In LUSAS
The key is that the interaction resistance switches from unloaded to loaded the moment
the rail load arrives thereby ‘locking in’ any initial movement that has occurred under
the thermal loading until that rail load departs. The results from this form of analysis
are shown in the following figures which give peak compressive rail stresses of:
Track 1 and 2 (Thermal Only):
46.06 N/mm2
Track 1 (Thermal and Train):
79.08 N/mm2
Track 2 (Thermal and Train):
92.58 N/mm2
109
Appendix A: Verification Testing
Figure 84: Axial Force In Rails Due To Thermal Only
Figure 85: Axial Force In Rails Due To Combined Thermal And Train Loads In Track
1
110
Analysis of Combined Thermal and Rail Loading Taking Account of
Effects of Material Change Under Rail Loading
Figure 86: Axial Force In Rails Due To Combined Thermal And Train Loads In Track
2
The analyses produced using this method can give a lower peak compressive stress in
the rails than observed using the other approaches but agrees closely with the published
test cases using rigorous methods in UIC774-3 as observed in the following sections
for test E1-3 and H1-3.
Discussion
The peak compressive stresses in track/rail 2 which has the accelerating load and
track/rail 1 that is subjected to the braking train show differences in the peak
compressive stress in the rails based on the position of the train loads used in the
analysis. As the loading and geometry of the models are identical the differences can
only be associated with the track resistance modelling/behaviour. It has been noted
previously in Section 0 above that the transition from unloaded resistance to loaded
resistance is only incorporated into the LUSAS modelling so this track resistance is
investigated by looking at the yield under the effects of the rail loading.
Looking first at the second track/rail that has the accelerating load, the yielding
occurring from the three analyses are shown in the following figures. Comparing the
yield layout for the LUSAS analysis (Figure 90) and the concurrent thermal/train
loading analysis (Figure 89) shows that the overall yield behaviour is almost identical,
hence the similarity in the peak compressive rail stresses obtained albeit with the
LUSAS value slightly lower. Looking now at the separate analysis, the yield layout for
both the LUSAS and concurrent thermal/train loading analyses are comparable with the
111
Appendix A: Verification Testing
yield layout for thermal effects alone (Figure 87) with very little yield associated with
the accelerating rail load analysis (Figure 88). This is primarily due to the accelerating
train only just entering the bridge with the majority of the loads over the right approach
embankment which are vertical not horizontal.
Figure 87: Track/Rail 2 Yield Due To Thermal Load On Track Alone
Figure 88: Track/Rail 2 Yield Due To Accelerating Train Loads On Track 2 – Separate
Analysis
112
Analysis of Combined Thermal and Rail Loading Taking Account of
Effects of Material Change Under Rail Loading
Figure 89: Track/Rail 2 Yield Due To Accelerating Train Loads On Track 2 - Thermal
And Rail Applied Concurrently
Figure 90: Track/Rail 2 Yield Due To Accelerating Train Load On Track 2 - LUSAS
Combined Analysis
113
Appendix A: Verification Testing
Looking at what is effectively happening in these analyses, Figure 91, the concurrent
loading analysis uses the loaded resistance throughout the analysis and follows the
loaded stiffness curve from the origin and potentially gives the location indicated on
the plastic part of this curve as illustrated with a force in the interaction limited to the
resistance of the loaded track. For the separate analysis, the thermal effects use the
unloaded curve and the behaviour of this part of the analysis is limited by the resistance
of the unloaded track. Under these conditions the analysis may give a location
indicated by the ‘Thermal Alone’ point on the unloaded curve. Separate consideration
of the train loading effectively places the origin of the loaded bilinear curve at this
‘Thermal Alone’ position and any loading could potentially give the location indicated
by the ‘Separate Train Load Added To Thermal’ position. This could give an apparent
increase in the resistance of the track and therefore increase rail stresses in the loaded
track.
Separate Train Load
Added To Thermal
Concurrent thermal and train
loading (loaded resistance)
Thermal Alone
Limit of resistance
of unloaded track
Loaded Stiffness
Limit of resistance of loaded track
Force
Apparent increase in
resistance of loaded track
Strain
Unloaded stiffness
(Thermal)
Figure 91: Illustration Of Behaviour Of Separate Analysis Vs. Concurrent Thermal
And Rail Loading
114
Analysis of Combined Thermal and Rail Loading Taking Account of
Effects of Material Change Under Rail Loading
Similar comparisons can be made between the separate analysis and the LUSAS
analysis - Figure 92. While both of these effectively use the ‘Thermal Alone’ location
as an origin for the loaded resistance curve, the key difference between the two
approaches is that the LUSAS analysis enforces the track resistance at which plasticity
occurs instead of allowing the potential for an apparent increase in the track resistance
equal up to the unloaded plus the loaded track resistance.
These differences have affected the peak compressive rail stresses in the track
subjected to accelerating train loads with all three analyses predicting stresses in the
range of 93 to 103 N/mm2.
Separate Train Load
Added To Thermal
LUSAS Analysis
Thermal Alone
Limit of resistance
of unloaded track
Loaded Stiffness
Limit of resistance of loaded track
Force
Apparent increase in
resistance of loaded track
Strain
Unloaded stiffness
(Thermal)
Figure 92: Illustration Of Behaviour Of Separate Analysis Vs. LUSAS Analysis
Looking now at the track/rail that has the braking train on it, the following figures
show the same yield plots for this track/rail resistance. The immediate observation is
the different yield behaviour observed for the LUSAS analysis. Looking initially at the
separate analysis and the concurrent thermal and rail loading analysis the yielding
observed in the thermal alone for the separate analysis (Figure 93) shows close
similarity to the yielding observed when the thermal and train loading are applied
concurrently (Figure 95) – minimal yielding is observed under the action of the train
load alone in the separate analysis (Figure 94).
115
Appendix A: Verification Testing
Concentrating on the LUSAS analysis, the front of the braking train load is just over
the right end of the structure and the carriages cover most of the remaining bridge. This
has the effect, unlike the accelerating track, of changing nearly all of the resistance
from unloaded to loaded for this track over the bridge and therefore the interaction is
no longer under yield because the loaded resistance now governs plastic yield. The
LUSAS analysis however does not display the possible apparent increase in the
resistance of the track that can be observed with the separate analysis method. This
means the track interaction around the front of the braking train resisting the movement
of the rails cannot sustain the same level of loading and therefore yield to a larger
extent than observed in the separate analysis, thereby reducing the compressive stress
in the rails underneath the train – compare Figure 94 and Figure 96 where the yielding
underneath the braking train is greater for the LUSAS analysis than in the separate rail
load analysis.
Figure 93: Track/Rail 1 Yield Due To Thermal Load On Track Alone
116
Analysis of Combined Thermal and Rail Loading Taking Account of
Effects of Material Change Under Rail Loading
Figure 94: Track/Rail 1 Yield Due To Braking Train Loads On Track 1 – Separate
Analysis
Figure 95: Track/Rail 1 Yield Due To Braking Train Loads On Track 1 - Thermal And
Rail Applied Concurrently
117
Appendix A: Verification Testing
Figure 96: Track/Rail 1 Yield Due To Braking Train Load On Track 1 - LUSAS
Combined Analysis
118
Analysis of Combined Thermal and Rail Loading Taking Account of
Effects of Material Change Under Rail Loading
Looking at the behaviour of the track interaction for the separate analysis we can plot
the values of the force per metre length for the track subjected to the braking train
loads. Figure 97 and Figure 98 show the forces per metre length for the thermal loading
and the train braking loading for the separate analyses. Clearly, near the right-hand
abutment, the force per metre length under the thermal loading is equal to 40kN/m and
due to the train loading is equal to 60kN/m. Combination of these two results means
that the track interaction has mobilised 100kN/m in this region when it is actually only
able to mobilise 60kN/m based on the loaded track resistance bilinear curve – the
separate analysis method is giving an apparent increase in the loaded track resistance
that can be mobilised before plastic yielding occurs. This apparent increase in the
loaded track resistance has the consequence of allowing the rail stresses to increase
beyond the value that would occur if the true loaded track resistance was used as in the
LUSAS modelling where the track resistance is correctly limited to the loaded value of
60kN/m – Figure 99.
NOTE: This difference in the amount of track resistance that can be mobilised in the
loaded condition is the main reason for the differences in the solutions obtained for the
separate and LUSAS methods and demonstrates that the correct modelling of the
interaction is critical to the solution.
Figure 97: Force In Interaction At Right-Hand End Of Structure Where Peak
Compressive Stresses Occur In The Rail - Track 1 – Separate Thermal Loading (N/m
length)
119
Appendix A: Verification Testing
Figure 98: Force In Interaction At Right-Hand End Of Structure Where Peak
Compressive Stresses Occur In The Rail - Track 1 - Separate Train Loading (N/m
length)
Figure 99: Force In Interaction At Right-Hand End Of Structure Where Peak
Compressive Stresses Occur In THe Rail - Track 1 – LUSAS Nonlinear (N/m length)
120
Revisit of UIC774-3 Test E1-3 Using the Separate and LUSAS Methods of
Analysis
Revisit of UIC774-3 Test E1-3 Using the Separate and
LUSAS Methods of Analysis
The standard UIC774-3 test E1-3 has been reanalysed using the following two
approaches:
 Separate analysis of thermal and rail loading effects
 LUSAS full nonlinear analysis
The results of these two analyses are presented in the following sections and then
discussed briefly.
Separate Analyses
The analysis of the thermal effects due to the temperature in the bridge and rail are
presented in the following figure. These two thermal effects give a peak compressive
rail stress of 150.21 N/mm2 which compares well with the code of practice value of
156.67 N/mm2 (allowing for slight differences in material properties which have been
estimated).
Figure 100: Axial Force In Rails Due To Temperature In Bridge And Rail
To determine the worst location of the train load for compressive rail stresses the
bridge has been analysed with the rail loading at 31 separate locations (starting from
the left abutment of the bridge and finishing 90m from the right abutment of the bridge
– train moving from left to right) and these results enveloped. The results of this
121
Appendix A: Verification Testing
analysis are presented in the following figure which give a peak compressive rail stress
of 40.64 N/mm2.
Figure 101: Envelope Of Axial Force In Rails Due To Rail Loading
Manual combination of the peaks would give a peak compressive rail stress of 190.85
N/mm2 (ignoring locations of the peaks) and combination of the results in LUSAS
gives 190.82 N/mm2.
122
Revisit of UIC774-3 Test E1-3 Using the Separate and LUSAS Methods of
Analysis
Figure 102: Axial Force In Rails Due To Combined Temperature And Rail Loading
Comparison of these results with the UIC774-3 code of practice test results shows that
the result compares directly with the 190.07 N/mm2 compressive rail stress from the
simplified analysis in the test case (which is based on evaluating the effect of each part
of the loading separately) and are close to the rigorous answer of 182.4 N/mm 2.
LUSAS Nonlinear Analysis
The UIC774-3 E1-3 test case has been reanalysed using the LUSAS rail option and
gives the following peak compressive rail stress for the thermal loading alone and the
combined thermal and rail loading:
Thermal:
150.21 N/mm2
Thermal & Rail: 187.56 N/mm2
Comparison of the results shows that the rail stresses are in excellent agreement for
both parts of the analysis with the compressive rail stress having a percentage error of
2.83% when compared against the target rigorous solution of 182.4 N/mm 2.
123
Appendix A: Verification Testing
Figure 103: Axial Force In Rails Due To Temperature In Bridge And Rail
Figure 104: Axial Force In Rails Due To Combined Temperature And Enveloped Rail
Loading
124
Revisit of UIC774-3 Test E1-3 Using the Separate and LUSAS Methods of
Analysis
Discussion
For this test case the difference in the results due to the track resistance modelling
between the two methods is minimal. Combining the results of two nonlinear analysis,
while invalid, gives almost identical results to the LUSAS analysis which correctly
represents the transition from unloaded to loaded resistance on arrival of the train load.
The train load position that gives the worst compressive stress in the rail does however
differ slightly between the two analyses with the separate analysis giving a train front
position of 75m from the left abutment of the bridge and the LUSAS combined
analysis giving a train front position of 80m from the left abutment of the bridge.
Looking at the yield behaviour it becomes clear why the two methods agree so closely
for this UIC774-3 standard test case and not for the Hwashil Viaduct. For both
analyses, the rail stresses and interaction yield over the single span bridge due to
thermal loading are identical – Figure 105. On consideration of the train loading, the
right-hand end of the structure (roller bearing) where the peak compressive rail stresses
are observed shows no sign of yield with yield only occurring over the left end and
embankment – Figure 106 and Figure 107. This indicates that the separate analysis,
while invalid due to the linear combination of two nonlinear analyses, is giving the
correct result and this only occurs because the interaction over the structure at this
location is nowhere near yield.
Figure 105: Yield Layout For Thermal Loading Only
125
Appendix A: Verification Testing
Figure 106: Yield Layout For Train Loading Only From Separate Analysis
Figure 107: Yield Layout For Combined Thermal And Train Loading From LUSAS
Nonlinear Analysis
126
Revisit of UIC774-3 Test E1-3 Using the Separate and LUSAS Methods of
Analysis
The following two plots show the forces in the interaction joints for the thermal and
train loads from the separate analysis. The thermal loading has caused yielding of the
unloaded track interaction with a value of 20 kN/m in accordance with the unloaded
resistance but the train loads have only induced up to about 25.7 kN/m over the
structure. Combining these two results means that the total force per unit length for the
separate analysis is 45.7 kN/m which is comparable to the LUSAS nonlinear solution
of 40.4 kN/m – see Figure 110. Because the interaction is well below yield for the
loaded interaction resistance of 60 kN/m the two solution method effectively have
identical solutions and their behaviour can be visualised in Figure 111.
If, however, the train loading had induced interaction forces in the region of 40 kN/m
(taking account of the track resistance already mobilised by the thermal loading)
instead of the observed 25.7 kN/m then significant differences could be observed in the
two analysis methods as the separate method would still allow a further 20 kN/m track
resistance to be mobilised before the onset of plastic yielding and the separate analysis
would potentially over predict the rail stresses occurring. This potentially means that…
…even though a computer program is validated against the standard test
cases in the UIC774-3 code of practice, it may be predicting excessive rail
stresses if it does not correctly take account of the loaded track resistance
that can be mobilised.
Figure 108: Force Per Metre Length In Interaction From Thermal Loading - Separate
Analysis
127
Appendix A: Verification Testing
Figure 109: Force Per Metre Length In Interaction From Train Loading - Separate
Analysis
Figure 110: Force Per Metre Length In Interaction From Combined Loading - LUSAS
Analysis
128
Revisit of UIC774-3 Test E1-3 Using the Separate and LUSAS Methods of
Analysis
Apparent Loaded Yield Separate Analysis
Force
Loaded Yield LUSAS Analysis
Thermal Alone
Limit of resistance
of unloaded track
Loaded Stiffness
Limit of resistance of loaded track
Separate Train Load
Added To Thermal
And LUSAS Analysis
Strain
Unloaded stiffness
(Thermal)
Figure 111: Illustration Of Behvaiour For UIC774-3 Standard Test E1-3 For Separate
And LUSAS Analyses
129
Appendix A: Verification Testing
Revisit of UIC774-3 Test H1-3 Using the Separate and
LUSAS Methods of Analysis
The previous test case (E1-3) is one of the key test cases that must be matched for
computer programs carrying out this form of analysis with the results for both the
separate method and the LUSAS method being in close agreement to the results
required. The deck type for this test is however a concrete slab underlain by I-section
steel beams which does not compare with the deck being used for Hwashil Viaduct. For
this reason the H1-3 test is also revisited and solved using the two methods of analysis.
Separate Analyses
The analysis of the thermal effects due to the temperature in the bridge and rail are
presented in the following figure. These two thermal effects give a peak compressive
rail stress of 161.48 N/mm2 which compares well with the code of practice value of
169.14 N/mm2 (allowing for slight differences in material properties which have been
estimated).
Figure 112: Axial Force In Rails Due To Temperature In Bridge And Rail
To determine the worst location of the train load for compressive rail stresses the
bridge has been analysed with the rail loading at 37 separate locations (starting from
the left abutment of the bridge and finishing 90m from the right abutment of the bridge
– train moving from left to right) and these results enveloped. The results of this
130
Revisit of UIC774-3 Test H1-3 Using the Separate and LUSAS Methods of
Analysis
analysis are presented in the following figure which give a peak compressive rail stress
of 29.09 N/mm2.
Figure 113: Envelope Of Axial Force In Rails Due To Rail Loading
Manual combination of the peaks would give a peak compressive rail stress of 190.57
N/mm2 (ignoring locations of the peaks) and combination of the results in LUSAS
gives 190.56 N/mm2.
131
Appendix A: Verification Testing
Figure 114: Axial Force In Rails Due To Combined Temperature And Rail Loading
Comparison of these results with the UIC774-3 code of practice test results shows that
the result compares well with the 188.23 N/mm2 compressive rail stress from the
complex analysis in the test case.
LUSAS Nonlinear Analysis
The UIC774-3 H1-3 test case has been reanalysed using the LUSAS rail option and
gives the following peak compressive rail stress for the thermal loading alone and the
combined thermal and rail loading:
Thermal:
161.48 N/mm2
Thermal & Rail: 189.65 N/mm2
Comparison of the results shows that the rail stresses are in excellent agreement for
both parts of the analysis with the compressive rail stress having a percentage error of
0.75% when compared against the target solution of 188.23 N/mm 2.
132
Revisit of UIC774-3 Test H1-3 Using the Separate and LUSAS Methods of
Analysis
Figure 115: Axial Force In Rails Due To Temperature In Bridge And Rail
Figure 116: Axial Force In Rails Due To Combined Temperature And Enveloped Rail
Loading
133
Appendix A: Verification Testing
Discussion
As with the previous E1-3 test case, the difference in the results due to the track
resistance modelling between the two methods is minimal. Combining the results of
two nonlinear analysis, while invalid, gives almost identical results to the LUSAS
analysis which correctly represents the transition from unloaded to loaded resistance on
arrival of the train load. The train load position that gives the worst compressive stress
in the rail does however differ slightly between the two analyses with the separate
analysis giving a train front position of 100m from the left abutment of the bridge and
the LUSAS combined analysis giving a train front position of 110m from the left
abutment of the bridge.
Referring back to test E1-3, similar plots can be generated for the yield and forces in
the interaction. These, as with the E1-3 test, show that the train loading is not bringing
the force per metre length in the interaction close the loaded yield resistance of 60
kN/m and therefore the separate analysis and LUSAS analysis methods agree even
though the separate method potentially allows more track resistance to be mobilised
than is allowed when the thermal and rail results are combined.
Separate:
27.8 kN/m
LUSAS:
26.1 kN/m
Figure 117: Force Per Metre Length In Interaction From Thermal Loading - Separate
Analysis
134
Revisit of UIC774-3 Test H1-3 Using the Separate and LUSAS Methods of
Analysis
Figure 118: Force Per Metre Length In Interaction From Train Loading - Separate
Analysis
Figure 119: Force Per Metre Length In Interaction From Combined Loading - LUSAS
Analysis
135
Appendix A: Verification Testing
136
Conclusions
Conclusions
Three solution methods for carrying out the UIC track/bridge interaction analyses have
been investigated and differences observed in the assumed behaviour and results
highlighted. The key observations were as follows:
Separate Thermal and Rail Loading Analysis
 Correct unloaded track resistance used for thermal effects across whole model
 Correct yielding of unloaded ballast/frozen ballast-no ballast track under
thermal effects
 Incorrect yielding of loaded ballast/frozen ballast-no ballast track assuming that
thermal effects are present, only correct if there are no thermal effects
 Invalid combination of two nonlinear analyses results gives apparent increase in
the resistance of the track due to stresses in ballast/frozen ballast-no ballast track
from the unloaded thermal effects being ignored in the ultimate yield of the
loaded analysis – to correctly model the reduction of the resistance of the track
before yielding occurs under loaded conditions, the yield resistance for the
loaded condition should be reduced by the amount of resistance already
mobilised due to the thermal effects
 Separate analysis ignores the movement that has already occurred under the
thermal effects when the load from the train acts on the rails
Concurrent Thermal and Rail Loading Analysis
 Incorrect loaded track resistance used for thermal effects under location of train
loads
 Incorrect yielding of ballast/frozen ballast-no ballast track under thermal effects
as loaded track resistance used
 Correct track resistance for yielding under the train loading
 Movement due to thermal effects alone only approximated
LUSAS Nonlinear Thermal and Rail Analysis with Material
Change
 Correct unloaded track resistance used for thermal effects across whole model
 Correct yielding of unloaded ballast/frozen ballast-no ballast track under
thermal effects
 Correct yielding of loaded ballast/frozen ballast-no ballast track under action of
combined thermal and train loading effects as track resistance correctly
modelled (yield occurs at the correct loading – no apparent increase in the yield
value)
 Instantaneous change from unloaded to loaded track resistance correctly takes
account of movement that has already occurred under thermal effects alone
137
Appendix A: Verification Testing
Referring back to Figure 91 and Figure 92, the key issue with the separate analysis
approach is the ability for the track resistance to be overestimated by the combination
of the two nonlinear analyses and potentially cause the rail stresses to be overestimated.
In the concurrent loading and LUSAS rail option analyses the limit of track resistance
is correctly modelled as the value determined from the loaded bilinear curve and
therefore this potentially leads to reduced rail stresses observed in the analyses. As the
initial movement under pure thermal loading in the concurrent analysis uses the loaded
track resistance this will give different results to the LUSAS rail option analysis.
Referring back to the Hwashil Viaduct analyses, the rail stresses observed for the three
analysis types are:
Separate Analysis
Of Thermal And
Train Loading
Track 1 (Braking)
Track 2 (Accelerating)
Concurrent
Thermal And
Train Loading
LUSAS Nonlinear
Thermal And Train
Loading With Material
Change
94.99
85.6
79.08
103.66
100.6
92.58
Table 2: Comparison Of Peak Compressive Rail Stresses (in N/mm2) For Different
Analysis Methods
Comparison of the results for the separate and LUSAS analyses shows that the peak
compressive stress for the separate analysis is 1.2 times that of the LUSAS analysis for
track 1 and 1.12 times for track 2. It should be noted however that the separate analysis
could be giving an apparent increase in track resistance of up to 1.6 times that of the
loaded track due to the combination of the nonlinear results. The concurrent analysis
gave results that are between the separate and LUSAS analysis as expected since the
correct limit of loaded track resistance is modelled even though the thermal effects are
only approximated.
One overall conclusion is obvious from these test case analyses and discussions made
in this appendix:
When a combined thermal and train loading from a separate analysis
gives interaction forces that exceed the stated yield resistance then the
separate analysis method will potentially over predict the rail stresses
unless the loaded track yield surface is reduced by the mobilised track
resistance over the extent of the train loading.
References
U1 UIC Code 774-3 R. Track/bridge Interaction. Recommendations for
Calculations (2001) Union Internationale des Chemins de fer, Paris, France
138
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement