PSI - Issue 84

Lorenzo Sangiuliano et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 84 (2026) 1326–1333

1333

Figure 6: Dynmaic coefficient function of span length and speed train Figure 7: dynamic coefficient z-axis, y-axis train speed, x-axis span length The application of the proposed method highlighted several strengths, including its high flexibility in parameter variation, ease of use, and rapid execution time. Nevertheless, some limitations were identified, which can be readily addressed. In particular, the full automation of the workflow—especially in the transition from the Grasshopper-based modelling stage to the FEM software— would represent a significant step forward, further enhancing efficiency and reducing analysis time. 4. Conclusion This work presented a fully parametric and automated workflow for the dynamic analysis of railway bridges subjected to moving loads. The methodology integrates geometric modelling, finite element model generation, automated definition of moving load time-histories, and dynamic analysis within a unified and flexible framework. The main strength of the proposed approach lies in its high level of flexibility, allowing for the representation of complex geometries without predefined constraints, and in its computational efficiency. Once the workflow is defined, multiple analyses can be performed in a very short time by varying selected parameters, enabling systematic parametric studies and sensitivity analyses. However, some limitations must be acknowledged. In particular, the initial calibration and setup of the reference model require a significant investment in terms of time and expertise. Future developments will focus on improving the level of automation of the workflow, particularly in the data exchange between modelling and analysis environments. Additionally, the integration of more advanced train– structure interaction models represent promising directions for future research. References Savin, E., 2001. Dynamic amplification factor and response spectrum for the evaluation of vibrations of beams under successive moving loads. Journal of Sound and Vibration 248(2), 267–288. Frýba, L., 1996. Dynamics of railway bridges. Thomas Telford, London. Goicolea, J.M., Domínguez, J., Navarro, J.A., Gabaldón, F., 2002. New dynamic analysis methods for railway bridges in codes IAPF and Eurocode 1. IABSE Conference Proceedings. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2003. Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. ERRI, 1999. D214 RP 6: Rail bridges for speeds > 200 km/h. European Rail Research Institute. UIC, 2009. UIC Code 776-1R: Design requirements for rail-bridges based on interaction phenomena between train, track and bridge. International Union of Railways. Geometry Gym Pty Ltd., Geometry Gym software. McNeel, R. & Associates, Rhinoceros 8. Grasshopper, Visual programming language for Rhinoceros. Chellini, G., 2010. Identificazione strutturale e modellazione di ponti ferroviari in struttura composta acciaio-calcestruzzo per le nuove linee per l’alta velocità. Tesi di dottorato, Università di Pisa. DETAILS Project, 2020. Design for optimal life cycle costs (LCC) of high-speed railway bridges by enhanced monitoring system