See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330105970

A NEW GERNERATION OF INTEGRAL HIGH SPEED RAILWAY BRIDGES IN

GERMANY

Conference Paper · November 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 733

2 authors:

Steffen Marx Chongjie Kang

Technische Universität Dresden Technische Universität Dresden
218 PUBLICATIONS   971 CITATIONS    13 PUBLICATIONS   91 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

HyTowering View project

High-speed railway bridge View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chongjie Kang on 18 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Wrocławskie Dni Mostowe
MOSTY HYBRYDOWE
Wrocław, 29–30 listopada 2018

Steffen MARX1
Chongjie KANG2

A NEW GERNERATION OF INTEGRAL HIGH SPEED RAILWAY

BRIDGES IN GERMANY

1. Abstract

High speed railway bridges (HSRB) are structures with extremely high requirements for
stiffness, load bearing capacity and dynamic stability. At the same time, they have to be
durable and require low maintenance costs. Additionally, they also need to be slender and
aesthetic and fit to their environment. To meet all this requirements, a new generation of
semi-integral and integral concrete bridges was developed and built during the last decade
in Germany. In this contribution, the development of HSRB in Germany is firstly be
introduced. Subsequently, this new generation of bridges is thoroughly discussed. Finally,
this paper concludes with a short summary about the current situation and future trend of
HSR bridges.

2. Introduction

There are now 1658 km HSR lines in Germany under operation till June 2018
according to a UIC report [1]. As a part of HSR lines, bridges are essential to cross valleys,
existing train lines, and other obstacles. In the initial years of German HSR line construction,
many simply supported bridges were built. Especially for the first lines like Hannover –
Würzburg and Stuttgart – Mannheim and Köln – Rhein / Main, more than 70% of the
bridges were built as pre-stresses simply supported box girders. However, due to its better
dynamic behaviour, pre-stresses continuous box bridge began to be more frequently
constructed in the following lines for the following lines like Hannover – Berlin, Nürnberg –
München. This structure type still plays an important role for the new lines these days. In
2006, a bridge council, which consists of experienced civil engineers and architects, was
established by the Deutsche Bahn AG (DB). The aim of the council was to evaluate existing
standardized bridge designs and promote innovative designs by compiling a series of design
examples for different site conditions. The council suggested that the engineers deviate from
common practice, use their imagination and creativity, and in turn achieve high-quality
results with respect to the cost of construction and functional requirements of the bridges.

1
Professor and director of the Institute of Concrete Constructions, Leibniz University Hannover
2
PhD student at the Institute of Concrete Constructions, Leibniz University Hannover
 A new generation of integral high speed railway bridges in Germany

Integral and semi-integral bridge designs are recommended by due to their efficient
mechanical structure, transparency, as well as their economic and aesthetic value [2]. After
that, several innovative (semi-)integral bridges have been designed and constructed.

3. Integral and semi-integral bridges

A special feature of these bridges is the use of continuous, multi-span pre-stressed

concrete girders, as well as the omission of structural bearings for the superstructure. Instead
of bearings, the substructure and the superstructure are monolithically connected. Thus, they
can be built much more slender than conventional bridges. Due to the absence of bearings
and dilatation joints, they are also very robust and durable. These bridge types are therefore
“integral” bridges. “Semi-integral” bridges have bearings or joints only at some of the piers
or abutments. In general, the integral load-bearing behaviour proves itself to be
extraordinarily advantageous compared with that of superstructures resting on bearings.
Firstly, a slender structure improves the elegance and transparency of the bridge. Secondly,
the lack of bearings and joints contributes to the robustness of the structure and results in
lower maintenance costs. Thirdly, the slender and solid piers need no internal formworks.
Despite their very slender dimensions, these piers are often less prone to stability problems
than the more common piers with bearings on top because of their reduced buckling lengths.
Integral and semi-integral bridge constructions are gaining more and more acceptance in
Germany and are increasingly being built on German high-speed railway lines owned by DB
AG, as they boast good functionality, long service life, as well as low maintenance costs and
high aesthetic value [3]. There are now five integral and semi-integral bridges, which are
Scherkonde Viaduct, Gänsebach Viaduct, Unstrut Viaduct, Gruben Viaduct and Stöbnitz
Viaduct, on the newly operated line from Berlin to Munich. Additionally, the Fils Viaducts
with a semi-integral system are under construction on the new line from Stuttgart to Ulm. An
overview information of these bridges are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Integral and semi-integral bridges on HSR lines in Germany [2]

Main Construction
Completed Length
Bridge Superstructure cross section span cost
year [m]
in fields at supports
[m] [million €]
2.00

Scherkonde
3.50

2011 576.5 44 20
Viaduct
13.91

Gänsebach
2.07

2012 1001 24.75 25

Viaduct
13.83

Unstrut
4.75

2012 2668 108 60

Viaduct
13.80

2.60
2.00 0.40

Gruben 1.5 1.5

2013 215 90 4.5
Viaduct 0.4 3.75 1.00 3.80 1.00 3.75 0.4
13.30
 A new generation of integral high speed railway bridges in Germany

Stöbnitz
2012 297 24 8

1.95
Viaduct
13.72

3.5% 1.5% 3.5% 1.5%

0.45 -
0.565
2021 485
Fils Viaduct 150 53

2.8 -4.65

2.20
(plan) 0.60
2.05 1.20 2.05
(472)

0.30
1.15 5.30 1.15 1.15 5.30 1.15
7.60 7.60

3.1 Scherkonde Viaduct

Scherkonde Viaduct (Fig. 1) was the first semi-integral bridge constructed in German
HSR history. It was designed to replace the original continuous box girder bridge
(13 × 44 m = 572 m), which was designed based on the “Rahmenplannung Talbrücken”.
Compared to the original continuous bridge, a reduction of the superstructure height of 50%
was achieved, thereby dramatically increasing the clearance under the bridge. Additionally, a
rail expansion joint, which was planned to be installed in the middle of the whole bridge
length, can also be omitted for the new design. For static and design reasons, the outer spans
were shorter than in the original bridge (44 m vs. 36.5 m). The final span arrangement of the
bridge is 27+2×36.5+10×44+36.5 m=576.5 m (see Fig. 2). The occurring constraint forces
were taken into account during the bridge design. Their magnitude was decreased by
choosing an advantageous distribution of the stiffness in the structure, especially the
substructure [4]. The abutment 0 and the piers 1a to 10 are rigidly connected with the
superstructure, pier 11, 12 and abutment 13 are connected with the superstructure by
bearings. In order to balance the stiffness of the substructure, the thickness of the short piers
1a to 3, vary from 1.00 m to 1.35 m; the thicknesses of the piers 4 to 10 are all 1.5 m,
respectively. The original pier thickness for all piers (4.0 m) was greatly reduced. However,
due to the monolithic connection of the piers and superstructure between pier 1 and 10,
enormous constraining caused by pre-stressing, temperature, creep and shrinkage would lead
to longitudinal displacement of the bridge. As most of the effects due to creep and shrinkage
in concretes are developed in the first months, a specific construction method was developed
to eliminate these effects. At first, the abutment 13 was constructed as a fixed point, then the
bridge was constructed section by section from east to west, during the construction, the
superstructure deformed to the east. After the concreting of the last span, the fixed constraint
of abutment 13 was released and abutment 0 was constructed as a fixed point on the west
side of the bridge. Under this situation, the longitudinal deformation of the bridge was
reversed. As a results, the constraining forces because of creep and shrinkage was almost
completely eliminated.
The slender and transparent structure blends perfectly into the surrounding landscape.
Dynamic calculations considering the acceleration and deformation limit values given in the
“DIN-Fachbericht” [5] and Guideline 804 [6] proved that the dynamic behaviour of the
bridge is on the safe side of the stipulated limitations, despite its slenderness. The maximum
acceleration along the entire superstructure is 0.098 m/s 2. Detailed calculations of the
interaction bridge and connecting embankment and tunnel can be found in the publication of
Wolfersdorff et al. [7].
 A new generation of integral high speed railway bridges in Germany

Fig. 1 Scherkonde Viaduct

Fig. 2 Static system of the Scherkonde Viaduct

3.2 Gruben Viaduct

The 35-m-tall semi-integral Gruben Viaduct (Fig. 3) has the span arrangement of
2 × 25 + 90 + 3 × 25 = 215 m. The superstructure is monolithically connected with the
substructure on all the piers; bearings are constructed on the abutments. The double-T-beam
superstructure is supported on a double-hinged arch. The structure has a main span of 90 m
and a stiff crown area. The thickness of the arch varies from 1.70 m at the foot of the arch to
3.30 m at its crown. The arch is monolithically connected to the massive arch crest, which is
why the large longitudinal forces introduced by braking and acceleration of the trains are
mostly carried by the arch. The width of the piers at the bottom of the superstructure is 5.9 m
in the transverse direction, and it decreases with a slope of 1:70 towards the bottom of the
piers, where it is 6.40 m. In order to ensure sufficient resistance of the structure to constraint
forces such as those caused by temperature differences, the thickness of the piers in the
longitudinal direction of the bridge varies between 60 cm and 90 cm. During the design
phase, the following aspects were additionally considered and verified: interaction between
the bridge and abutment; dynamic calculation by taking the train speed from 160 km / h to
360 km / h into consideration; the stresses in the rail, fatigue verification of the substructure;
verification and design of the monolithic area. In order to monitor and investigate the
behaviour of this new structure type, a comprehensive monitoring concept was developed by
Marx Krontal Partner for this bridge. The static and dynamic response of this bridge and rails
on this bridge have been monitored for several years, which has been continuously approving
the efficiency of this structure. Detailed calculations and construction details can refer to
Keil et al [8; 9].

Fig. 3: Gruben Viaduct

 A new generation of integral high speed railway bridges in Germany

3.3 Stöbniz Viaduct

The Stöbnitz Viaduct (Fig. 4) was completed in 2012, it consists of four sections,
two consisting of two spans (22 m and 24 m long), and two sections with the following span
configuration: 24+24+6.5+24+24=102.5 m. The double-T-beams are monolithically
connected to the piers, the diameter of the piers is 1.5 m. The abutments and double-coupled
piers are stiff enough to bear the longitudinal forces from the superstructure. To reduce the
restraining force due to temperature, braking, traction, creep and shrinkage, the foundations
under other piers were constructed as a pile row (Fig. 5), this leads to a reduction of the
substructure stiffness and finally to a restraining force reduction by a factor of 5. The sliced
piers (Fig. 4) allow longitudinal movement of the girders, which makes the structure more
flexible and enables the longitudinal stresses to be partly released. Most of the traffic-
induced natural oscillations of the bridge range from 5.4 Hz to 5.7 Hz [10]. These are
relatively low frequencies that lead to an increased susceptibility of the bridge to vertical
excitations. In the unfavourable case of LM 71, the damping of the structure of Δζ=0.005
resulting from the actions induced by train crossing the bridge on an adjacent track can also
be disregarded [10]. The maximum vertical acceleration is about 2.5 m/s2, the comfort
criteria defined by EN1991-2 [11] can be met.

Fig. 4: Stöbnitz Viaduct

Fig. 5: Schematic of the Stöbnitz Viaduct

3.4 Gänsebach Viaduct

The original plan for Gänsebach Viaduct (Fig. 6) was a 23 × 44 m continuous box
girder bridge with 3.8 m construction height. The major reason for an alternative design is to
realize a slim superstructure with short span. The superstructure of the finally constructed
bridge is a monolithically pre-stressed concrete double-T-beam bridge with circular columns.
The superstructure construction height was reduced to 2.07 m， which is only 54.5 % of that
from the original plan. In the longitudinal direction, the bridge consists of ten segments
(52.5 + 8 × 112 + 52.5 = 1,001 m) separated by joints. The span configurations of the 112 m
and 52.5 m frames are: 1.5 + 24.5 + 24.5 + 11 + 24.5 + 24.5 + 1.5 = 112 m, and
1.5 + 2 × 24.75 + 1.5 = 52.5 m. The standard piers of the Gänsebach Viaduct have a diameter
of 1.0 m. The diameter of piers at both ends of each segment and the V-shaped diaphragm is
1.1 m. The fixed, coupled V-shaped piers are located at the centre of the 112 m segments.
Their heights are between 10 m and 12 m, depending on the distance of the superstructure
 A new generation of integral high speed railway bridges in Germany

from the terrain and the ground conditions. Therefore, the lengths of the individual spans
deviate slightly from the average value of 24.5 m. Detailed verifications of rail stress,
superstructure deformation, dynamic behaviours, resonance risk, , fatigue and Eigen
frequency can be found in the work of M.Schenkel [12].

Fig. 6: Gänsebach Viaduct (Right photo: Störfix)

3.5 Unstrut Viaduct

The Unstrut Viaduct (Fig. 7), which is the longest integral bridge on German HSR
lines, has a span arrangement of 3×58+4×(4×58+116+4×58)+3×58=2.668 m. The original
design was also a continuous box girder structure and finally replaced by the integral system.
This bridge shares a similar shape like Gruben Viaduct, but with longer span and higher
piers. To suit this situation, a box superstructure with was chosen instead of double-T
structure. The piers were designed as pier discs to reach effectively stiffness in the transverse
direction and realize sufficient flexibility in the longitudinal direction to accommodate
temperature deformations. A special detail of the whole bridge is the so-called separating
piers (Fig. 7 right photo). The thickness of the upper part of these separating piers is only
0.6 m, which has reached an unbelievable slenderness for HSRB piers. To bear the
temperature forces of the superstructure, the upper part of the separating piers should be
more than 20 m according to calculation [13]. The final design of these parts is 26 m. The
thickness of other normal piers is 1.5 m.

Fig. 7: Unstrut Viaduct

3.6 Fils Viaduct

The under construction parallel Fils Viaducts locate on the line from Alps to Ulm
near Stuttgart across the river Fils. This line has a large longitudinal gradient of about 2.3%,
 A new generation of integral high speed railway bridges in Germany

this leads to an altitude difference of about 11 m between two bridge ends. The whole line
has been planned to be opened on December 2021. The bridges were designed as slender
concrete structures with Y-shaped main pylons. The span arrangements of these two bridges
are 44+95+150+93+58+45 = 485 m (Fig. 8) and 44+95+150+88+50+45 = 472 m
respectively. The construction height of the superstructure various from 2.8 m to 4.65 m. The
height of the piers can reach up to 75 m. The Y-shaped pylons are designed to be
monolithically connected with the pre-stressed box-girder superstructure. The challenges for
this bridge are also the large restraining forces and the large wind forces in the valley. In
order to deal with this challenges, a specific study of the constraint system above the
abutments was carried out by Marx Krontal Partner. In the end, fixed bearings and movable
bearings were chosen on the north and south abutment respectively. Moreover, to reduce the
creep and shrinkage effects, the formwork carriage construction method will be carefully
designed and controlled. In the first step, an abutment and a first pier on the south side are
constructed. Subsequently, the superstructure is constructed from south to north after the
piers. Besides the five bridge piers, four temporary steel lattice piers are also planned to be
built to provide temporary support. After the superstructure is completed, the top of the Y-
shaped main piers (the V part) will be casted. Before the north end of the girder is finally
fixed with the abutment, the longitudinal displacement of the bridge will be adjusted with
hydraulic jacks to accommodate the effects of creep and shrinkage. The thicknesses of the
solid rectangular piers 20, 50, and 60 have been designed to be 1.8 m, 1.8 m and 1.1 m
respectively. The Y-shaped pylons 30 and 40 have been designed to have rectangular hollow
cross sections, the thickness of the cross section wall is about 60 cm; the height of the pier
cross section in the longitudinal direction changes from 4.50 m at pier bottom to 3.10 m at
the fork. A steel frame structure has been designed to be constructed in the casted concrete of
the fork part for each Y-shaped pylon. Therefore, the reliability of the connection between
the vertical pier and two branches can be ensured.

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

North South
Stuttgart Ulm

Fig. 8: Schematic of the Fils Viaduct

Fig. 9: Fils Viaduct under construction

 A new generation of integral high speed railway bridges in Germany

4. Summary

This new generation of integral and semi-integral HSR bridges on the line from
Berlin to Munich in Germany were carefully designed and constructed. After two years of
operation, they have proved their functionality and reliability according to monitoring
results. They have already shown great economic advantages because of the omitting of
bearings and less formwork in many cases during construction. Additionally their unique and
elegant structures have provided great aesthetic and cultural value to the environment. One
obvious challenge for the design and construction of this integral method is the restraining
force. Fortunately, this challenge has been perfectly handled by applying different smart
construction solutions. It is believed and also proved by experience that this integral method
is a good solution for HSR bridge structures and will prevail in the near future.

Literature

[1] UIC. High Speed Lines in The World. UIC.2018.

[2] Kang, Chongjie; Schneider, Sebastian; Wenner, Marc; Marx, Steffen. Development of
design and construction of high-speed railway bridges in Germany. Engineering Structures
2018:184–196.
[3] Marx, Steffen; Seidl, Günter. Integral Railway Bridges in Germany. Structural
Engineering International 2011(3):332–340.
[4] Marx, Steffen; Wenner, Marc. Structural Health Monitoring of the Scherkondetalbrücke-
a semi integral concrete railway bridge. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 2015(S2):2–8.
[5] DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung. DIN-Fachbericht 101, 2009.
[6] DB. Richtlinie 804 - Eisenbnahnbrücken (und sontigue Ingenieurbauwerke) planen,
bauen und instand halten. [Guideline 804 - railway bridges (and special engineering
structures), design, construction and maintain], 2013.
[7] P.-A.v.Wolffersdorff; A. Koletzko; S. Rosner; S. Marx. Scherkondetalbrücke -
Investigations of the interaction behavior between bridge abutment and connecting dam.
[8] Keil, Andreas; Wenger, Philipp. The semi-integral Grubental-Bridge – specific
challenges during construction. Bautechnik 2015(2):134–143.
[9] Keil, Andreas; Wenger, Philipp; Fackler, Thomas; Schilling, Jürgen. The semi-integral
Gruben Viaduct - special features in planning. Bautechnik 2011(10):723–730.
[10] Jung, Rolf; Marx, Steffen. The Bridge over Stoebnitz Valley-a Bridge without Bearings
on High-Speed Railway Route Erfurt – Leipzig/Halle. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau
2011(2):81–88.
[11] EUROPEAN STANDARD. EN 1991-2: Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 2:
Traffic loads on bridges, 2010.
[12] Schenkel, Marcus; Goldack, Arndt; Schlaich, Jörg; Kraft, Stefan. The Gänsebach Valley
Bridge, an Integral Valley Bridge owned by the DB AG on the New Railway Erfurt-
Leipzig/Halle. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 2010(9):590–598.
[13] Schenkel, Marcus; Marx, Steffen; Krontal, Ludolf. Innovative of large bridges in high
speed railway lines by using the example of the new Erfurt-Leipzig / Halle line. Beton- und
Stahlbetonbau 2009(11):782–789.

View publication stats