 original innovation
 Open access
 Published:
Study on train safety control of highspeed railway bridge under the action of nearfault earthquake
Advances in Bridge Engineering volume 5, Article number: 20 (2024)
Abstract
In order to study the effect of the velocity pulse on the dynamic response of the trainbridge system of the highspeed railway simple supported beam bridge, the velocity pulse is simulated by the trigonometric function method and superimposed with the farfield earthquake without pulse to synthesize the pulse with different pulse types, pulse periods and pulse peaks. A 10\(\times\)32m typical highspeed railway simple supported beam bridge is considered an case illustrating study. Then, the dynamic response of traintrackbridge coupling system is calculated by traintrackbridge seismic analysis software TTBSAS. Afterwards, the influence of pulse nearfield earthquakes parameters and vertical components on dynamic response of trainbridge system and the safety of the train on the bridge are discussed in detail.The new derailment evaluation index is adopted to evaluate driving safety under earthquakes. The train safety control of simply supported beam bridge under the action of nearfield earthquake is studied. The results show that the impact of pulse ground motion on the dynamic response of the traintrackbridge coupling system is significantly higher than that of nopulse ground motion, especially the impact on the bridge and rail subsystem is more significant than that of train subsystem. Under the excitation of ground motion intensity of 0.05g\(\sim\)0.15g, the safe speed threshold of pulse nearfield ground motion is smaller than that of farfield ground motion. When the ground motion intensity is 0.20g\(\sim\)0.30g, the safe speed threshold of pulse nearfield ground motion and far field ground motion is 200km/h. So, the pulse nearfield earthquake poses a greater threat to the safety of the train on the bridge than the farfield earthquake. Therefore, the influence of pulse nearfield earthquakes should be considered in the seismic design. The research results of this paper can provide theoretitcal support for the design of a highspeed railway bridge in the nearfield area.
1 Introduction
Earthquakes in China are densely distributed with high frequency and high intensity. With the continuous encryption of the highspeed railway network, it is inevitable that the highspeed railway bridge crosses the fault or areas within 20km of the fault, and the earthquakes that occur in this area are called “nearfield earthquakes”. The Code for Seismic Design of Railway Engineering (2009 edition) points out that when a bridge must cross a fault, it is appropriate to use a simplesupported beam bridge with a small span and low pier. Therefore, simply supported beam bridges have been widely used in highspeed railways in the nearfield area. This type of bridge has a high probability of being subjected to nearfield earthquakes in their designed service life.
Domestic and foreign scholars are paying more and more attention to nearfield earthquakes due to their particularity. For the first time, Some scholars pointed out that nearfield earthquakes contain energy pulses (Housner et al. 1965; Hudson and Housner 1958). Since then, some scholars proposed that the nearfield vibration contains the characteristics of large values and long periods and pointed out that the peak values of acceleration, velocity and displacement are the main influencing parameters (Bertero et al. 1978; Hall et al. 1995; Malhotra 1999; Somerville 2002). The research on nearfield impulse earthquakes at home and abroad is mostly limited by few historical records and scattered recording stations. Artificial simulation of nearfield impulse earthquakes is an important way to break through this bottleneck. Some simplified methods have been presented for the simulation of a nearfield pulse earthquake. Among them, Alavi and Krawinkler (2004) first, indicated to represent the nearfield motion with simplified pulse based on the similarity of the structure dynamic response under the pulse nearfield earthquake, and then pointed out the concept of the equivalent pulse. Makris and Chang (2000) used trigonometric functions to simulate three typical velocity pulse waveforms and verified that the pulse waveform had a high degree of agreement with the actual nearfield seismic records. Subsequently, Wang et al. (2012) superimposed trigonometric function pulses based on the farfield vibration to simulate the nearfield vibration with different parameters. Tian et al. (2007) expressed the equivalent velocity pulse as a simplified function and superimposed the lowfrequency and highfrequency components of the seismic wave to synthesize the nearfield vibration. Fan et al. (2008) adopted timefrequency analysis tools to simulate nearfield impulse ground motions with local characteristics of the site and nearfield pulse earthquakes. From the above researches, the current nearfield vibration simulation methods can be classified into two categories: one is to simulate nearfault ground motion by a mathematical model or numerical model; The other is to synthesize nearfault ground motion by superposition of the lowfrequency components simulated by impulse function and the highfrequency components recorded. The former is highly theoretical and has a amount of calculation, which is not convenient for application; the latter can simulate nearfault ground motions more accurately, but at present, this method cannot effectively react to the influence of site characteristics. In this paper, the second type of method is adopted to simulate the pulse nearfield vibration.
Because highspeed trains have extremely high requirements on the smoothness and stability of the lines on the bridge, the large displacement caused by nearfield seismic velocity pulse may be very unfavorable to the highspeed railway bridge. The seismic problem of railway bridges caused by nearfield seismic velocity pulses has been widely concerned. Ellsworth and Champion et al. pointed out that large ground motion pulses would cause large displacements and that balance strength and ductility should be fully considered in structural design and analysis. They also showed that changes in the pulse period and ductility had a significant impact on the predicted damage capability (Ellsworth et al. 2004; Champion and Liel 2012). Zhai et al. (2016) examined the effect of the nearfault earthquakes on the response of nonstructural components. The results indicate that the amplification factors of nonstructural components of primary structural period can significantly increase under nearfault pulse ground motions. Ju S H, Mu D et al. established a finite element model based on contact mode and separation mode under the premise of considering the track irregularity and carried out a numerical simulation of the trainbridge interaction under seismic load and studied the influence of track mass and the dynamic response of the trainbridge system. The research findings suggest that the gap of the simple supported beam under seismic load will produce derailment coefficient (Ju et al. 2012; Mu et al. 2016). Rail irregularity can increase the dynamic response of the trainbridge system. As the train speed increases, the impact of strong seismic load on the trainbridge system decreases gradually. Lei Hujun and many other researchers had systematically studied the safety of highspeed trains under earthquakes and provided a reasonable safety threshold, which provided a valuable reference for the current engineering application (Lei 2015; Zhang 2009; Chen et al. 2014; Chen and Jiang 2013; Xia et al. 2017). Liang (2017) concluded that the train operation safety indicators gradually increase with the increase of the train speed, and the appropriate track spectrum excitation should be selected in the analysis of the train earthquake alarm threshold and operation safety. Liu et al. (2019) established the model of highspeed railway continuous girder bridge and inputted three nearfield earthquakes and three farfield earthquakes for simulation calculation, respectively, and studied the isolation effect of friction pendulum support. The results show that the pulse effect of nearfield earthquakes would aggravate the collision between adjacent beams of the continuous girder bridge. Chen et al. (2020) took the ChiChi seismic records in Taiwan as input to analyze the seismic vulnerability of highspeed rail continuous girder bridges, The results show that nearfield earthquakes have destructive force. Chen et al. (2014; 2021) inputted a group of pulsed nearfield earthquakes and a group of farfield earthquakes, respectively, and compared and analyzed the elastoplastic seismic response of the highspeed railway simple supported beam bridge. The results show that the nonlinear seismic response of the bridge will be intensified when the pulse period approaches the elastoplastic period of the structure. Subsequently, this paper also researched the elastoplastic seismic response of light rail transit bridges under the combined action of nearfield vertical and horizontal earthquakes. The results show that the vertical component has a impact on the seismic response of light rail vehicles in lowfrequency operation safety. In addition, Jiang et al. (2020) systematically explained the research status and prospect of the damage characteristics and damage mechanism of the highspeed railway trackbridge system under the action of earthquakes. Numerous researches have shown that earthquakes not only threaten the safety of bridges but also induce significant traffic safety problems (Zhai and Xia 2011; Jin et al. 2016; Li et al. 2020). However, up to now, there have been few research on the effect of nearfield seismic velocity pulse on the dynamic response of highspeed railway simple supported beam bridges and trains on the bridges, which is very dangerous to the safety of highspeed railway bridges and running safety of the train in the nearfield area.
Based on previous researches, this paper first adopts the method of bottom wave superimposed velocity pulse to synthesize nearfield pulse earthquakes with different parameters. It takes a typical highspeed railway simple supported beam bridge with a span of 32m as an example and inputs the nearfield vibrations of different pulse types, pulse periods and pulse amplitudes into selfmade traintrackbridge seismic analysis program TTBSAS to carry out the simulation calculation. After that, it discusses the influence of pulse parameters and vertical effects on the dynamic response of the highspeed railway traintrackbridge system and obtains the safe speed threshold when the train passing the bridge. The research results can provide theoretical support for the design of simple supported beam bridge of highspeed railway in the nearfield areas.
2 Nearfield pulse ground motion simulation
Due to the small number of actual nearfield earthquake records, the response spectrum of each record is different, so that its response to the structure will also be different, which will affect the reliability of the research results. Therefore, the synthetic nearfield ground motion has been recognized by more scholars and has opened up a new way to study the nearfield earthquakes. In this paper, We adopted the superposition of velocity pulse and farfield earthquakes as the bottom wave to synthesize pulsed nearfield earthquakes (Wang et al. 2012). The selection of the pulse model, the synthesis and verification process of seismic wave are described in detail below.

(1)
The typical pulse model proposed by Makris et al. was adopted (Makris and Chang 2000; Tian et al. 2007), and according to the regression Eqs.1 and 2 proposed by Somerville (1998) and Mavroeidis and Papageorgiou (2003), the pulse period \({T_{\text {P}}}\) and pulse amplitude \({V_{\text {P}}}\) could be determined by the magnitude and epicentral distance R. Then, it simulated three kinds of velocity pulses, which are the singlehalf wave, doublehalf wave and threehalf wave.

(2)
The acceleration time history is downloaded from the PEER Ground Motion Database (Pacific Earthquakes Engineering Research Center) and integrated. The lowfrequency components <1Hz are filtered to get the highfrequency velocity time history as the bottom wave.
$$\begin{aligned} \ln ({V_{\text {p}}}) =  2.31 + 1.15M_{\text {w}}  0.5\ln (R) \end{aligned}$$(1)$$\begin{aligned} Lg({T_{\text {p}}}) =  2.9 + 0.5{M_{\rm{w}}} \end{aligned}$$(2) 
(3)
Use MATLAB to superimpose the peak time of the first wave of the pulse and the peak of the bottom wave velocity to obtain the velocity time history that containing the pulse. Then the acceleration time history and displacement time history of the synthesized wave are obtained by differentiating and integrating them respectively.

(4)
The least square method is used to correct the baseline of the acceleration time history of the composite wave.

(5)
The response spectrum, Fourier spectrum and power spectrum are compared with the seismic wave of Taiwan ChiChi as the historical record wave. The feasibility of synthetic near field earthquakes is verified. Comparison of Fourier spectrum, and power spectrum is shown in Fig. 1.
It can be seen from Fig. 1 that the Fourier spectrum amplitudes of the measured wave and synthetic wave of the nearfield vibration are both between 0 and 0.5 Hz, and the peak value is concentrated in the lowfrequency range. This can also verify that the nearfield earthquakes mainly affect the longperiod structure. The power spectrum energy of the measured wave and synthetic wave of nearfield earthquakes is most significant between 0 and 0.5 Hz, concentrated in the lowfrequency range.
In addition, the PGV/PGA of all nearfield earthquakes simulated in this paper is greater than 0.2, which meets the basic judgment criteria of nearfield earthquakes. Therefore, it can be verified that the synthetic method and the pulse nearfield earthquakes generation program compiled in this paper are effective.
3 Earthquaketrainbridge system coupled vibration model
This paper adopts the TTBSAS program for simulation calculation. The TTBSAS program (Lei 2015) is developed based on the BDAP program (Li 2000) and is widely used in the analysis of vehiclebridge coupled vibration under earthquake action. The earthquaketraintrackbridge dynamic model is the basic model of the TTBSAS program. It is a strongly nonlinear timevarying system composed of 6 parts: vehicle model, track model, bridge model, wheelrail relationship model, bridgerail relationship model and boundary conditions of seismic force. The seismic force directly acts on the bridge piers, and the support points of the left and right subgrade through the ground support points, as shown in Fig. 2.
3.1 Vehicle model
The vehicle model in this paper is a fouraxle vehicle with a twostage suspension. Each vehicle has of 35 dofs, including one car body, two bogies, four wheel sets and a total of seven rigid bodies. Five dofs are considered for each rigid body: transverse motion, sink and float, roll, nod, and shake head. The rigid bodies are connected by springdamping elements. The motion equation of the vehicle subsystem can be deduced by D ’Alembert principle:
Where \({M_{\text {v}}}\), \({C_{\text {v}}}\) and \({K_{\text {v}}}\) are, respectively, the mass, damping and stiffness matrices of the vehicle subsystem; \(\ddot{u}_{\text {v}}\), \({\dot u_{\rm{v}}}\) and \({u_{\text {v}}}\) are the acceleration, velocity and displacement column vectors of the vehicle subsystem respectively; \({P_{{\text {tv}}}}\) is the load column vector of the track acting on the vehicle subsystem.
3.2 Track model
The track model adopts the slab ballastless track, which is composed of steel rails, fasteners, prefabricated track slabs, cement asphalt mortar adjustment layer, concrete support layer or reinforced concrete base and other parts. The vibration of the track reflects on the vibration of the steel rail and the track slab (Zhai and Xia 2011).The effect of the concrete base is considered in the bridge dynamics model through the form of vibrational mass. Consider the vertical vibration of the track plate according to the thin rectangular plate of equal thickness on the elastic foundation. The lateral vibration is regarded as the rigid body motion. The motion equation of the track subsystem is:
Where \({M_{\text {t}}}\), \({C_{\text {t}}}\) and \({K_{\text {t}}}\) are, respectively, the mass, damping and stiffness matrices of the track subsystem; \(\ddot{u}_{\text {t}}\), \({\dot u_{\rm{t}}}\) and \({u_{\text {t}}}\) are the acceleration, velocity, and displacement column vectors of the track subsystem respectively; \({P_{{\text {vt}}}}\) and \({P_{{\text {bt}}}}\) are the load sequence vector of the vehicle and bridge subsystem acting on the track; \({P_{{\text {gt}}}}\) is the seismic force acting on the track on the left and rightside roadbed.
3.3 Bridge model
The bridge model uses spatial beam elements to simulate the main beams and piers. The top of the pier and the main beam is connected by the principal and subordinate degree of freedom, and the bottom of the pier is rigidly consolidated. The motion equation of the bridge subsystem is:
Where \({M_{\text {b}}}\), \({C_{\text {b}}}\) and \({K_{\text {b}}}\) are, respectively, the mass, damping and stiffness matrices of the bridge subsystem; \(\ddot{u}_{\text {b}}\), \({\dot u_{\rm{b}}}\) and \({u_{\text {b}}}\) are the acceleration, velocity and displacement column vectors of the bridge subsystem respectively; \({P_{{\text {tb}}}}\) is the load acting on the bridge by the track subsystem Column vector; \({P_{{\text {gb}}}}\) is the seismic force of the foundation acting on the bridge subsystem.
3.4 The wheelrail relationship and the bridgerail relationship model
The wheelrail relationship and the bridgerail relationship connection are composed of the vehicle subsystem, the track subsystem, the bridge subsystem and the track subsystem, respectively, including the wheelrail contact geometric relationship and the wheelrail force relyearationship. The calculation assumes rigid contact between the wheel and the rail, and disengagement is allowed. The normal contact force and tangential force are solved by Hertz nonlinear elastic contact theory (Johnson 1987) and Kalker linear creep theory (Kalker 1991) respectively. The nonlinear correction is based on Shen ZhiyunHedrickElkins theory. \({P_{{\text {tv}}}}\) and \({P_{{\text {vt}}}}\) are the interaction forces between vehicle and track determined by the above theory, respectively. The displacement of the support point of the track slab is obtained by interpolation of the displacement of the bridge nodes, and the lateral force and vertical force acting on it are obtained from the relative displacement of the track slab, and then obtain the interaction forces \({P_{{\text {bt}}}}\) and \({P_{{\text {tb}}}}\) between the track and the bridge.
3.5 Boundary conditions of seismic forces
From the mechanism of earthquake load and the way of force transmission, it can be known that as long as the part in contact with the ground must directly bear the action of the earthquake load. In the traintrackbridge coupling system, the parts in direct contact with the ground include the support points of the bridge piers (bridge abutments) and the support points of the subgrade at the transition section of the road and bridge. Therefore, the boundary conditions of seismic force include the boundary of bridge seismic force and subgrade seismic force. In subsequent calculations, the relative motion method is used to input the acceleration and velocity time history of seismic waves according to uniform excitation, and it is assumed that the time when the earthquake occurs is the same as the time when the train enters the bridge. After the various forces acting on the vehicle, track, and bridge subsystems are determined, the dynamic responses of each subsystem can be obtained by numerical integration from Eqs. 3 to 5 (Lei 2015).
4 Case study
4.1 Computational condition
Taking a highspeed railway simple supported beam bridge with a span of 10 holes of 32m as an example, the design speed is 350km/h. The main girder is the single box and single chamber, the length of the box beam is 32.6m, the height is 3.5m, the width of the top slab is 12m, and the width of the bottom slab is 5m. The piers are cylindrical piers with a height of 10m and a diameter of 4m. The bridge analysis model is established by Midas Civil 2020 and imported into the TTBSAS program to obtain the simulated bridge model. The singlespan simple supported beam bridge model is shown in Fig. 3. The track adopts a slab ballastless track, and the vehicle adopts an 8section highspeed train (Li et al. 2016).
According to the site type of the bridge, four farfield seismic waves are taken as the bottom waves, shown in Fig. 4. The nearfield seismic waves with different parameters are synthesized by these four bottom waves. The detailed information of these farfield seismic waves as shown in Table 1. Among them, the synthesized wave contains three pulse types, and each pulse type has seven pulse periods to be considered. In addition, each pulse period is divided into 11 pulse amplitudes, and four bottom waves synthesize 924 pulse nearfield ground motions.
4.2 Influence analysis of pulse type
In order to research the variation law of the response of the traintrackbridge coupling system under the action of the nearfield earthquake with different pulse types, the velocity pulse types are divided into singlehalf wave type, doublehalf wave type, and threehalf wave type, and the no pulse is assumed to be the farfield earthquake wave. KCMNB, NTMNB, BBMNB and ELMNB are nearfield seismic waves synthesis of four farfield seismic wavesKern Country, Northridge, Big Bear and EL Centro as bottom waves, respectively. In order to facilitate the comparison and analysis, the pulse period is \({T_{\text {P}}}\)=3.0s and the peak value of the pulse velocity is \({V_{\text {P}}}\)=1.0m/s in the calculation. The acceleration response spectrum and Fourier spectrum change with the pulse type as shown in Fig. 5. When other parameters are fixed, the pulse type mainly affects the pulse peak of the long period of the acceleration response spectrum and the peak value of the Fourier spectrum in the lowfrequency range.
Figure 6 shows the variation of train safety indices with different pulse types under the action of nearfield seismic ground motions. (index 1: derailment coefficient; index 2: wheel load reduction; index 3: wheelset lateral force). The design speed of the train crossing the bridge is 300km/h, and the simulated wave synthesized by 4 bottom waves is used as the earthquake input for comparative analysis of the dynamic response. In the figure, N, S, D, and T represent nopulse, singlehalf wave pulses, doublehalf wave pulses, and threehalf wave pulses respectively.
Referring to these figures, the influence of nearfield seismic ground motions on train safety indices can be summarized as follows: (1) The train safety indices considering velocity pulse are larger than that without velocity pulse. The maximum increase of index 13 are 16.50%, 0.65%, 23.37%, respectively. (2) The train safety indices have a trend of increasing first and decreasing then, but the change is not significant. (3) Among the three train safety indices, the pulse type has the greatest impact on index 3, which is 23.37% higher than that without pulse. It can be seen that the pulse types have a more significant effect on bridge and rail midspan displacement than train safety indices.
Figure 7 shows the dynamic response of each subsystem under the action of different pulse types of earthquakes.
Comparing Fig. 7, as the pulse type changes from singlehalf wave type to threehalf wave type, the amplitude of dynamic response of each subsystem generally increases at first and then decreases. The dynamic response of each subsystem under various pulse types of earthquakes increases relative to that under the action of no pulse earthquake. Under the action of 4 kinds of simulated waves, KCMNB, NTMNB, BBMNB and ELMNB, the bridge’s midspan displacement response increased by 56.85%, 27.88%, 110.86%, and 24.79%, respectively. The acceleration response of the bridge span increases by 40.08%, 28.25%, 35.75%, and 5.67%, respectively. The displacement response of the midspan track increases by 49.76%, 30.10%, 35.75%, and 15.05%, respectively. The acceleration response of the vehicle mass center increases by 12.37%, 22.22%, 10.96%, and 1.55%, respectively.
In summary, as the pulse type changes from singlehalf wave type to threehalf wave type, the influence of pulse type on each subsystem of the traintrackbridge coupling system mainly increases at first and then decreases or gradually increases, because the singlehalf wave type is caused by directivity effect and permanent ground displacement effect. However, the doublehalf wave type and the threehalf wave type pulse are both caused by the directional effect, which have a greater influence on the structure. The pulse type mainly affects the displacement response of the bridge and track. However, it has little effect on the dynamic response of train subsystem and acceleration response of the bridge. Therefore, the deformation coordination between the track and the bridge is verified.
4.3 Influence analysis of pulse period
In order to explore the influence of the pulse period on the dynamic response of the traintrackbridge coupling system, the pulse period is set as 0.0, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, and 5.0s respectively, and it is assumed that 0.0s means no pulse. For the convenience of comparison, the peak value of velocity pulse is kept at 1.0m/s during calculation, and the pulse type is assumed to be doublehalf wave type. The acceleration response spectrum and Fourier spectrum change with the pulse period are shown in Fig. 8.
When other parameters are fixed, the pulse period mainly affects the pulse peak and the long period of the acceleration response spectrum and the frequency corresponding to the Fourier spectrum peak in the lowfrequency range.
Shown in Fig. 9 are the variation of train safety indices with pulse period under the action of nearfield seismic ground motions. The design speed of the train crossing the bridge is 300km/h, and the dynamic response is compared and analyzed with the simulated wave synthesized by four bottom waves as the seismic input.
Referring to Fig. 9, the influence of farfield seismic ground motions on train safety indices can be summarized as follows: (1) Generally, the larger the pulse period, the smaller the train safety indices, but the variation is not significant. (2) Comparing to no pulse, the train safety indices have the largest amplification when the pulse period \({T_{\text {P}}}\)=2.0s, which increase by 29.46%, 15.18%, 36.12%. It can be seen that train safety indices are not sensitive to the change of nearfield seismic velocity pulse for highspeed railway simply supported beam. For the condition of this paper, there has the largest train safety indices when the pulse period \({T_{\text {P}}}\)=2.0s.
Figure 10 shows the dynamic response of each subsystem under the action of earthquakes with different pulse periods.
Comparing Fig. 10, it can be shown that as the pulse period gradually increases from \({T_{\text {P}}}\)=2.0s to \({T_{\text {P}}}\)=5.0s, the dynamic response amplitude of each subsystem generally shows a gradually decreasing trend. The dynamic response amplitude of the system is increased compared with that under the action of the earthquake when \({T_{\text {P}}}\)=0.0s and the increase is the most significant when \({T_{\text {P}}}\)=2.0s. Under the action of the four simulations waves of KCMNB, NTMNB, BBMNB, and ELMNB, the bridge’s midspan displacement response increased by 127.31%, 78.55%, 154.44%, and 59.95%, and the bridge’s midspan acceleration response increased by 66.06%, 42.39%, 92.31%, and 26.35% respectively; when the pulse period \({T_{\text {P}}}\)=2.0s, under the action of KCMNB, the midspan rail displacement amplitude increases most significantly, which is 92.09%; on the same pulse period, the acceleration response of the car body’s center of mass under the action of three analog waves of KCMNB, NTMNB and BBMNB increase most significant, the maximum increase is 16.49%, 35.80%, and 34.25%, respectively. Under the action of ELMNB, it also shows a gradual decrease with the increase of the pulse period, the maximum increase is 4.74%.
In summary, as the pulse period gradually increases from \({T_{\text {P}}}\)=2.0s to \({T_{\text {P}}}\) =5.0s, the influence of the pulse period on each subsystem of the traintrackbridge coupling system mainly shows a decreasing trend, indicating that the smaller the pulse period is, the greater the response to each substructure will be. The pulse period mainly affects the displacement and acceleration response of the bridge structure, with the maximum increase of 127.31% and 92.31% relative to \({T_{\text {P}}}\)=0s, respectively. However, it has little influence on the dynamic response of train subsystem, mainly because the support part of the bridge structure is the direct action part of the earthquake load. Then the vibration of the rail subsystem is transmitted upward through the vibration and deformation of the bridge, the vibration of the vehicle subsystem is finally transmitted upward through the dynamic wheelrail relationship. On the other hand, because the bridge has lowpass filtering characteristics, it will reduce the highfrequency components of the seismic wave. Although the dynamic response of the vehicle subsystem will increase due to the seismic action, the dynamic response of the bridge increases much more than that of the structure because of its lowpass filtering characteristics.
4.4 Influence analysis of pulse amplitude
In order to explore the influence of pulse amplitude on the dynamic response of the traintrackbridge coupling system, the pulse period remains at 3.0s, and the pulse amplitude is set as 0.0, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5m/s in turn. It is assumed that the pulse amplitude is 0.0, indicating no pulse. The acceleration response spectrum and the Fourier spectrum change with the pulse peak value are shown in Fig. 11. When other parameters are fixed, the pulse peak mainly affects the pulse peak of the long period of the acceleration response spectrum and the peak of the Fourier spectrum in the lowfrequency range.
Shown in Fig. 12 are the variation of train safety indices with pulse peak under the action of nearfield seismic ground motions. The design speed of the train crossing the bridge is 300km/h, and the dynamic response is compared and analyzed with the simulated wave synthesized by four bottom waves as the seismic input.
Referring to Fig. 12, the influence of nearfield seismic ground motions on train safety indices can be summarized as follows: (1) Generally, the train safety indices increase with the increase of the pulse peak, but the growth is less than the bridge midspan displacement. (2) Under the action of four simulated waves, the maximum increased amplitude of train safety indices changes with pulse peak in 20.16%, 1.32%, 28.31%, respectively. It can be seen that the pulse peak has an effect on train safety indices, but the effect is less than bridge, rail subsystem.
Figure 13 shows the dynamic response of each subsystem under the action of earthquakes with different pulse amplitudes.
Comparing Fig. 13, we can see that as the pulse peak value gradually increases from \({V_{\text {P}}}\)=0.5m/s to \({V_{\text {P}}}\)=1.5m/s, the dynamic response amplitude of each subsystem shows a gradually increasing trend. The dynamic response amplitude of each subsystem increases relative to that under the action of an earthquake when \({V_{\text {P}}}\)=0m/s. The increase is the most significant when the pulse peak value is \({V_{\text {P}}}\)=1.5m/s. Under the action of 4 kinds of simulated waves of KCMNB, NTMNB, BBMNB and ELMNB, the displacement response of the bridge midspan increased by 92.79%, 55.35%, 202.58% and 49.09% respectively, the acceleration response of the bridge midspan increased by 67.51%, 40.91%, 57.97% and 5.67% respectively; the midspan displacement response increased by 73.02%, 56.97%, 1.81% and 50.94% respectively; the acceleration response of the car body’s center of mass increased by 15.46%, 32.10%, 28.77% and 1.05%, respectively.
When other parameters are fixed, the pulse period mainly affects the pulse peak and the long period of the acceleration response spectrum and the frequency corresponding to the Fourier spectrum peak in the lowfrequency range.
In summary, as the pulse peak value gradually increases from \({V_{\text {P}}}\)=0.5m/s to 1.5m/s, the influence of pulse peak on each subsystem of the traintrackbridge coupling system mainly presents an increasing trend, indicating that the larger the pulse amplitude is, the greater the influence on the response of each substructure will be. Relative to \({V_{\text {P}}}\)=0m/s,the maximum increase is 202.58%, 67.51% and 73.02% respectively. However, it has little influence on the dynamic response of train subsystem.
4.5 Influence of vertical effect on the dynamic response of traintrackbridge coupling system
The ratio of the vertical and horizontal acceleration peak of the nearfield seismic wave is generally greater than 2/3, or even more than 1, which is called the vertical effect of the nearfield vibration. Based on the research in the previous section, the influence of the vertical effect of nearfield earthquakes on the dynamic response of the traintrackbridge coupling system is explored. The peak ratios of vertical and horizontal accelerations are respectively set to 0.65, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5.
Shown in Fig. 14 are the variation of train safety indices with acceleration peak ratio under the action of nearfield seismic ground motions.
Referring to Fig. 14, comparing to 0.65, under the action of four simulated waves, the maximum increased amplitude of train safety indices is 0.92%, 1.60%, 0.49%, respectively. Therefore, the change of train safety indices with the increasing of acceleration peak ratio is not significant.
Comparing Fig. 15, it can be seen that as the peak acceleration ratio gradually increases from 0.65 to 1.5, it has a significant influence on the vertical displacement amplitude and vertical acceleration in the midspan of the bridge, and the amplitude presents a trend of gradual increase. Compared with the specified value of 0.65, the increase is the most significant when the peak acceleration ratio is 1.5. Under the action of the four simulated waves of KCMNB, NTMNB, BBMNB and ELMNB, the bridge midspan displacement response increases by 120.72%, 134.92%, 117.28%, and 131.49% respectively. The maximum increase in the velocity response of the bridge span is 125.90%, 112.74%, 133.52% and 121.72%, respectively. As the acceleration peak ratio gradually increases from 0.65 to 1.5, the midspan rail displacement tends to be stable. Therefore, it can be concluded that the acceleration peak ratio has little effect on the rail subsystem. As the peak acceleration ratio gradually increases from 0.65 to 1.5, the lateral acceleration of the vehicle mass center is stable. In contrast, the vertical acceleration amplitude shows a trend of gradual increase. Under the action of four kinds of simulated waves of KCMNB, NTMNB, BBMNB and ElMNB, the maximum amplitude of the vertical acceleration of the vehicle mass center increases by 23.60%, 34.52%, 17.11% and 31.25%, respectively.
In summary, under the calculation conditions in this paper, the dynamic response of the traintrackbridge coupling system is mainly reflected in the transverse aspect. Besides, the nearfield vibration acceleration peak ratio has little influence on the lateral response of the dynamic system of the traintrackbridge coupling system, so that the vertical effect can be ignored in the calculation. The vertical ground motion is only used for the dynamic analysis by taking 65% of the basic acceleration of the horizontal earthquake according to the specified value of the code.
4.6 Research on the safety of highspeed trains crossing the simply supported beam bridge under nearfield earthquake
This section takes a 10span 32m prestressed highspeed railway simple supported box beam bridge as an example to research the influence of the change of nearfield earthquake intensity on the evaluation index of the new derailment (Lei 2015). The track irregularity adopts the German lowdisturbance track. The track type is slab ballastless track model. The vehicle is German ICE3 highspeed train. It adopts the uniform excitation mode to input the seismic wave according to the horizontal and vertical 1:0.65. This section explores the driving safety of highspeed trains crossing bridges at different speeds and ground motion intensity under the action of nearfield earthquakes, and divides the speeds into nine grades: 200, 225, 250, 275, 300, 325, 350, 375, 400km/h and sets the intensity as 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.3g.
4.6.1 Maximum response analysis
In order to explore the effect of the nearfield earthquakes on the safety of the train on the bridge, this section mainly analyzes the dynamic response of the vehicle subsystem under different ground motion intensity and different speeds of the highspeed train crossing the bridge. The maximum value of the derailment coefficient (index 1), overrun duration of derailment coefficient (index 2) and equivalent overrun duration of derailment coefficient (index 3), the maximum value of wheel load reduction (index 4), overrun duration of wheel load reduction (index 5) and equivalent overrun duration of wheel load reduction (index 6), maximum lateral displacement of the contact point (index 7), and maximum wheel vertical rise (index 8) under different ground motion intensity and speed change are shown in Figs. 16, 17, 18 and 19 respectively.
It can be shown from Fig. 16: (1) The indices 13 increase as the seismic intensity and train speed increase. When the seismic intensity keeps a fixed value, the indices 13 show an overall growth trend with the increase of train speed. Therefore, the seismic intensity and train speed are two important factors that affect the train running safety. (2) However, with the increase of train speed under different seismic intensity, the influence on indices 13 is different. It has the greatest impact when the seismic intensity is 0.3g. (3) When the seismic intensity is 0.05g, the index1 exceeds the traditional limit of 0.8 when the train speed reaches 375 km/h under farfield earthquakes and 350 km/h under pulse nearfield earthquakes. When the train speed is 350 km/h, the farfield earthquake intensity reaches 0.20g, and the pulse nearfield seismic intensity reaches 0.05g, the index 1 exceeds the traditional derailment limit of 0.8. (4) The index 3 increases gradually with the increase of seismic intensity and train speed. When the seismic intensity is 0.05g, the index 3 exceeds the equivalent overrun duration limit of 15ms when train speed reaches 375km/h under farfield earthquakes and 350km/h under pulse nearfield earthquakes. When the train speed is 350km/h, the farfield seismic intensity reaches 0.15g, and the pulse nearfield seismic intensity reaches 0.05g, the index3 exceeds equivalent overrun duration limit of 15ms.
It can be shown from Fig. 17: (1) The indices 46 increase with the increase of seismic intensity and train speed. When the seismic intensity remains at a fixed value, the indices 46 show an overall increasing trend with the increase of train speed. Under the same conditions, the indices 46 of the pulse nearfield earthquakes have a larger increase compared with that of the farfield earthquakes. (2) When the earthquake intensity is 0.05g and the train speed under the farfield earthquakes and the pulse nearfield earthquakes both reaches 375 km/h, the index 4 exceeds the traditional limit of 0.6. (3) The index 3 increases gradually with the increase of seismic intensity and train speed. When the seismic intensity is 0.05g and train speed reaches 400km/h, the index 4 exceeds equivalent overrun duration limit of 15ms under farfield and pulse nearfield earthquakes, the train has derailed. When the seismic intensity is 0.3g, the index 4 has already exceeded equivalent overrun duration of 15ms when train speed is 300km/h under farfield and pulse nearfield earthquakes, the train has derailed.
It can be shown from Fig. 18: (1) The index 7 shows an overall increasing trend with the increase of seismic intensity and train speed. Under the same conditions, the pulse nearfield earthquakes have a larger increase compared with the farfield earthquakes. (2) The amplitude of index 7 changes slighter than index 1 and index 4. (3) When the earthquake intensity is 0.05g, and the train speed under the farfield earthquake and the pulse nearfield earthquake reaches 350 km/h, the index 7 exceeds the traditional limit of 38mm, and the train has derailed. When the pulse nearfield earthquake intensity is 0.15g, the safety speed threshold is less than 200 km/h; when the farfield earthquake intensity is 0.20g, the safety speed threshold is less than 200 km/h. It can be seen that the index 7 reaches the threshold at a lower seismic intensity under nearfield earthquakes.
It can be shown from Fig. 19: (1) The index 8 increases with the increase of seismic intensity and train speed; When the earthquake intensity maintains a fixed value, as the train speed increases, the index 8 generally shows an increasing trend, and the pulse nearfield earthquakes have a larger overall increase compared to the farfield earthquakes. (2) In particular, when the earthquake intensity is 0.05g, and the train speed reaches 350km/h, the index 8 rise increases sharply from 5.591 to 23.742, an increase of 324.65%, under the action of pulse nearfield earthquakes. At this time, the wheelrail relationship is destroyed, and the train derails. (3) When the pulse nearfield seismic intensity is 0.20g, the safety speed threshold is less than 200 km/h; when the farfield earthquakes intensity is 0.25g, the safety speed threshold is less than 200 km/h.
In summary, under seismic excitation, the safe driving speed and earthquake intensity of pulse nearfield earthquakes are smaller than those of farfield earthquakes. The pulse nearfield earthquakes have a greater impact on the safety of train on the bridge than farfield earthquakes.
4.6.2 Discussion on the threshold of safe speed
Through the analysis in the previous section, the thresholds of safe train speed on simple supported beam bridges under different nearsite vibration intensities can be obtained according to the overrun duration of equivalent derailment coefficient, overrun duration of equivalent wheel unloading rate, lateral displacement of contact point and wheel vertical rise, which is shown in Fig. 20.
It can be shown from Fig. 20 that the new derailment evaluation index is adopted to evaluate the driving safety, and the overrun duration of equivalent wheel load reduction and the lateral displacement of contact point is the upper and lower limits of the train safe speed threshold respectively (Lei 2015). When the earthquake intensity is 0.05g, the safe speed threshold is 325km/h under the excitation of both nearfield and farfield earthquakes. When the intensity of farfield earthquakes is 0.10g and 0.15g, the corresponding safety speed threshold is 300km/h, and the corresponding safety threshold is 200km/h for the range of 0.20g to 0.30g. Under the pulse nearfield earthquakes, when the intensity of the earthquake is 0.10g, the corresponding safe speed threshold is 225km/h, and the corresponding safety threshold for 0.20g\(\sim\)0.30g is 200km/h. Therefore, under the excitation of ground the intensity of 0.05g\(\sim\)0.15g, the safety speed threshold of pulse nearfield earthquakes is smaller than that of farfield earthquakes, which poses a greater threat to the safety of the train on the bridge. Under the calculation condition in this paper, the safety speed threshold of the train crossing the bridge will be overestimated when the train is judged by a single evaluation index.
5 Conclusion
In this paper, based on the vibration theory of traintrackbridge coupling and using TTBSAS program as the calculation tool, through the artificial synthesis of pulsed nearfield earthquakes with different parameters, the influence of the vertical component and the changes in nearfield earthquake parameters on the dynamic response of the traintrackbridge coupling system are explored. After obtaining the most unfavorable condition, the safety of the train moving on the simple supported beam bridge under nearfield and farfield earthquake is studied. Some conclusions are as follows.

(1)
The pulse type mainly affects the pulse peak of the long period of the acceleration response spectrum and the peak value of the Fourier spectrum in the lowfrequency range. As the pulse type changes from singlehalf wave type to threehalf wave type, the response of each subsystem of the traintrackbridge coupling system roughly increases first and then decreases; compared to no pulse earthquake, the response amplitudes of bridges, rail, and vehicle subsystems are increased under the action of pulse nearfield earthquakes. Among them, bridge midspan displacement and acceleration of bridge subsystem increase most significantly.

(2)
The pulse period mainly affects the pulse peak and the long period of the acceleration response spectrum and the frequency corresponding to the peak of the Fourier spectrum in the lowfrequency range. The shorter the pulse action time, the greater the response to each substructure. As the pulse period changes from \({T_{\text {P}}}\)=0.0s to \({T_{\text {P}}}\)=5.0s, the response of each subsystem of the traintrackbridge coupling system shows a gradually decreasing trend. Compared with no pulse ground motions, the pulse period mainly affects the displacement and acceleration response of the bridge structure. However, it has little influence on the acceleration of car body’s center of mass.

(3)
The change of the pulse peak does not affect the shape and duration of the pulse, but mainly affects the pulse peak of the long period of the acceleration response spectrum and the peak of the Fourier spectrum in the lowfrequency range. As the pulse peak value changes from \({V_{\text {P}}}\)=0.5m/s to \({V_{\text {P}}}\)=1.5m/s, the response of each subsystem of the traintrackbridge coupling system shows a gradual increasing trend. The displacement of bridge and rail midspan and the acceleration of the bridge midspan have a more significant influence than the acceleration of car body’s center of mass on the dynamic response of traintrackbridge coupling system.

(4)
Compared with nopulse ground motions, the impact of impulsive ground motion on the response of the traintrackbridge coupling system is significantly increased, especially the impact on the structural displacement, acceleration, and track displacement of the bridge is more significant than that of other indicators. According to the calculation conditions in this paper, it can be concluded that when the pulse type is a double halfwave type, \({T_{\text {P}}}\)=2.0s and \({V_{\text {P}}}\)=1.5m/s are the most unfavorable conditions. As the three parameters of pulse type, pulse period, and pulse peak value change, they have different effects on the response of the coupling system. Therefore, it is recommended to classify and consider the parameter types when analyzing.

(5)
Under the calculation conditions in this paper, as the peak acceleration ratio gradually increases from 0.65 to 1.5, the vertical displacement and acceleration of the bridge and the vertical acceleration of the car body center gradually increase. However, there is little influence on the transverse displacement, transverse acceleration of the bridge, the rail subsystem, and the transverse acceleration of the car body. In addition, because the dynamic response of the traintrackbridge coupling system is mainly reflected in the transverse aspect, the vertical effect cannot be considered in the calculation, and the vertical ground motion effect is only 65% of the horizontal seismic basic acceleration according to the specified value of the code for dynamic analysis.

(6)
Under the excitation of ground motion intensity of 0.05g\(\sim\)0.15g, the safe speed threshold of pulse type nearfield earthquakes is smaller than that of farfield earthquakes, and the maximum difference is 100km/h; when the earthquake intensity is 0.20g\(\sim\)0.30g, the safe speed threshold of pulse nearfield earthquakes and farfield earthquakes are both 200km/h. Therefore, the pulse nearfield earthquake poses a greater threat to the safety of the train on the bridge than the farfield earthquakes, and its influence should be considered in the seismic design. This paper only studies the traintrackbridge coupling system of simple supported girder bridges, which is the most widely used in highspeed railway lines in the nearfield area, and the impact of nearfield seismic velocity pulses on other bridge types needs to be further studied.
Availability of data and materials
Some or all of the data and FEM model will be available upon reasonable request.
References
Alavi B, Krawinkler H (2004) Behavior of momentresisting frame structures subjected to nearfault ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 33(6):687–706
Bertero VV, Mahin SA, Herrera RA (1978) Aseismic design implications of nearfault san fernando earthquake records. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 6(1):31–42
Champion C, Liel A (2012) The effect of nearfault directivity on building seismic collapse risk. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 41(10):1391–1409
Chen L, Jiang L (2013) Research on the dynamic response of highspeed railway trainballastless trackbridge system and train running safety under earthquake. Chin Acad Railw Sci 34(1):131–133
Lk Chen, Zhang N, Lz Jiang et al (2014) Nearfault directivity pulselike ground motion effect on highspeed railway bridge. J Cent South Univ 21(6):2425–2436
Chen LK, Qin HX, Jiang LZ et al (2021) A nearfault vertical scenario earthquakesbased generic simulation framework for elastoplastic seismic analysis of light rail vehicleviaduct system. Veh Syst Dyn 59(6):949–973
Cheng W, Wang G, Du Y et al (2020) Vulnerability analysis of the continuous highspeed railway bridge under nearfault earthquake. J Harbin Eng Univ 41:212–218
Ellsworth W, Celebi M, Evans J et al (2004) Nearfield ground motion of the 2002 denali fault, alaska, earthquake recorded at pump station 10. Earthq Spectra 20(3):597–615
Fan J, Tu J, Chao L et al (2008) Generation of artificial nearfault ground motions based on timefrequency filtering. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technol (Nat Sci Ed) 36(11):116–119
Guo HXNZW (2017) Dynamic Interaction of TrainBridge Systems in HighSpeed Railways. Springer, Berlin
Hall JF, Heaton TH, Halling MW et al (1995) Nearsource ground motion and its effects on flexible buildings. Earthq Spectra 11(4):569–605
Housner GW (1965) Intensity of earthquake ground shaking near the causative fault. In: Proc. of 3rd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand. pp 94–115
Hudson DE, Housner GW (1958) An analysis of strongmotion accelerometer data from the San Francisco earthquake of March 22, 1957. Bull Seismol Soc Am 48(3):253–268
Jin Z, Pei S, Li X et al (2016) Effect of vertical ground motion on earthquakeinduced derailment of railway vehicles over simplysupported bridges. J Sound Vib 383:277–294
Johnson KL (1987) Contact mechanics. Cambridge University Press, London
Ju SH (2012) Nonlinear analysis of highspeed trains moving on bridges during earthquakes. Nonlinear Dyn 69:173–183
Kalker J (1991) Wheelrail rolling contact theory. Wear 144(1–2):243–261
Lei H (2015) Coupling vibration and running safety of traintrackbridge system under nonuniform seismic excitations. PhD thesis, Southwest Jiaotong University
Li X (2000) Studies on theory and application of trainbridge system coupling vibration in highspeed railway. PhD thesis, Southwest Jiaotong University
Li X, Zhang Z, Zhang X (2016) Using elastic bridge bearings to reduce traininduced ground vibrations: An experimental and numerical study. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 85:78–90
Li X, Xin L, Wang M et al (2020) Stateoftheart review of vehiclebridge interactions in 2019. J Civil Environ Eng 42(5):126–138
Liang S (2017) Seismic safety analysis of train based on highspeed operating trainbridge coupling model. Master’s thesis, Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration
Lingkun C, Lizhong J, Wei G, et al (2014) The seismic response of highspeed railway bridges subjected to nearfault forward directivity ground motions using a vehicletrackbridge element. Shock Vib 2014 985602 17. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/985602
Liu Z, Chen X, Zhang Y et al (2019) Research on seismic mitigation and isolation of continuous beam bridge for high speed railway based on friction pendulum bearing under nearandfar field ground motions. Zhongguo Tiedao Kexue China Railw Sci 40(1):47–54
Lizhong J, Wangbao Z, Biao W et al (2020) Research progress of traintrackbridge system safety of highspeed railway under earthquake action. Civil Eng J 53(9):1–13
Makris N, Chang SP (2000) Effect of viscous, viscoplastic and friction damping on the response of seismic isolated structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 29(1):85–107
Malhotra PK (1999) Response of buildings to nearfield pulselike ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28(11):1309–1326
Mavroeidis GP, Papageorgiou AS (2003) A mathematical representation of nearfault ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(3):1099–1131
Mu D, Gwon SG, Choi DH (2016) Dynamic responses of a cablestayed bridge under a high speed train with random track irregularities and a vertical seismic load. Int J Steel Struct 16:1339–1354
Somerville P (1998) Development of an improved representation of near fault ground motions. In: SMIP98 Seminar on Utilization of StrongMotion Data. Oakland, California, September 1998.
Somerville P (2002) Characterizing near fault ground motion for the design and evaluation of bridges. In: Proceedings of the 3rd National Seismic Conference and Workshop on Bridges and Highways. pp 137–148
Tian YJ, Yang QS, Lu MQ (2007) Simulation method of nearfault pulsetype ground motion. Acta Seismologica Sin 20:80–87
Wang Y, Xie X, Shen YG (2012) Seismic response of isolated railway bridge subjected to nearfault ground motion. J China Railw Soc 34(12):102–109
Zhai CH, Zheng Z, Li S et al (2016) Seismic response of nonstructural components considering the nearfault pulselike ground motions. Earthq Struct 10(5):1213–1232
Zhai W, Xia H (2011) Traintrackbridge dynamic interaction: theory and engineering application. Science Press, Beijing
Zhang Z (2009) Trainbridge coupling vibration of highspeed railway continuous steel truss bridge under seismic action. Master’s thesis, Central South University
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude for the support received.
Funding
This work was supported by: the Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant No.51878173, No.51608120],the Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province [Grant No. 2020J01883].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Lei Hujun determined the direction of the article, edited the manuscript and supervised the project. Liu Wei established the numerical models(FEM), superimposed and validated the nearfield pulse and simulated. Feng Hancong integrated related information.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Lei, H., Feng, H. & Liu, W. Study on train safety control of highspeed railway bridge under the action of nearfault earthquake. ABEN 5, 20 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43251024001317
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43251024001317