Structures and Buildings Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Volume 164 Issue SB1 Structures and Buildings 164 February 2011 Issue SB1
Pages 13–18 doi: 10.1680/stbu.8.00056
Grillage analysis of cellular decks with Paper 800056
inclined webs Received 14/04/2009 Accepted 24/11/2009
Published online 10/01/2011
Mozos and Aparicio Keywords: bridges/buildings, structure & design/concrete structures

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Grillage analysis of cellular

decks with inclined webs
Carlos M. Mozos PhD Ángel C. Aparicio PhD
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering and Buildings, University of Professor, Department of Construction Engineering, Technical University
Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain

Although grillage analysis is a very popular method for obtaining the response of flat slabs and bridge decks, there
are very few guidelines on how to apply the method to decks with inclined webs. This paper presents new and more
accurate criteria for obtaining the torsion constant of longitudinal and transverse grillage beams and for splitting a
deck into longitudinal beams. These criteria are applied in a numerical study of three different decks with inclined
webs. The static response of the numerical models under three load cases is compared with the response of three-
dimensional finite-element numerical models.

Notation 2000). For this reason, extensive theoretical research has

E Young’s modulus been focused on developing techniques for modelling contin-
e1 slab thickness uous three-dimensional (3D) structures using exclusively one-
e2 web thickness dimensional (1D) elements with two nodes and six degrees of
G shear modulus freedom per node (Aparicio and Casas, 2001; Hambly, 1991;
J torsion constant Hambly and Pennells, 1975; Jaeger and Bakht, 1982; Manterola,
J12 torsion constant of portion of deck between y ¼ y1 and 1977, 2000; O’Brien and Keoh, 1999; Sawko, 1968). This
y ¼ y2 method has been used for modelling bridge decks through
Jeq torsion constant of equivalent transverse beam with grillage analysis and several research works and guidelines
constant cross-section (Aparicio and Casas, 2001; Hambly, 1991; Hambly and Pennells,
Mt torque 1975; Jaeger and Bakht, 1982; Manterola, 1977, 2000; O’Brien
ST distance between transverse beams in the grillage and Keoh, 1999) provide criteria for applying grillage analysis
model to different types of bridge decks. In spite of this, only Hambly
u displacement in x-direction (1991) has proposed a general procedure for applying grillage
v displacement in y-direction analysis to decks with inclined webs. Hambly suggests using, for
w displacement in z-direction non-rectangular cells, torsion stiffness provided by the top and
x x-axis coordinate bottom slabs, and considering that the centres of the slabs are
y y-axis coordinate separated by a distance equal to the average height of the cell.
z z-axis coordinate On the other hand, for decks with rectangular cells, Jaeger and
z1 distance of a point of the slab to grillage plane in Bakht (1982) and Aparicio and Casas (2001) suggest distributing
z-direction the Saint Venant torsion constant of the deck in proportion to
z2 distance of a point of the inclined web to the grillage the area enclosed by the cell.
plane in z-direction
Æ angle of the inclined web This paper deals with how to split a deck into longitudinal
ª xy shear strain in xy plane beams and how to calculate the torsion constant of the long-
Ł12 relative rotation of the end of transverse beam about itudinal and transverse beams when grillage analysis is applied
its longitudinal axis to determine the behaviour of a deck with inclined webs. A new

Poisson’s ratio criterion, based on integration of the torsion stiffness provided
 shear stress by each portion of the deck, is presented in Section 2. In the
 xy shear stress in xy plane numerical study presented in Section 3, three cellular decks with
 xy curvature in xy plane inclined webs and different depths are studied from a static
point of view. The behaviour of each deck is investigated with a
plane grillage model obtained with the proposed criteria for
1. Introduction splitting the deck and for calculating the torsion constant of the
Matrix analysis of structures is an efficient method for evaluat- beams. The response is compared with the behaviour of 3D
ing the static and dynamic behaviour of structures (Ryall et al., reference models.

13
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings Grillage analysis of cellular decks with
Volume 164 Issue SB1 inclined webs
Mozos and Aparicio

2. Torsion constant of beams in grillage and the shear stress is

analysis applied to decks with inclined
webs
A total torque M acting on the deck generates torques M i and 4:  xy ¼
2zG xy
shear forces Vi on the grillage longitudinal beams and torques on
the transverse beams (Figure 1). Each torque and force produces
vertical displacements and rotations about the longitudinal axis the torsion curvature can be obtained by integrating the differ-
on the grillage beams and a shear flow on the slabs and webs of ential torque dMt from y1 to y2
the deck (Calgaro and Virlogeux, 1994; Kollbrunner et al., 1970;
Vlassov, 1962). Consequently, the torsion constant must be
calculated considering that each portion of the deck rotates along  xy ¼
the longitudinal axis of the grillage beam to which it has been

M 12
assigned. Thus, the torsion constant J12 of a portion of deck ð yc tð
y2
between y ¼ y1 and y ¼ y2 (Figure 2) can be obtained by G2 (e1 z21 þ e2 z22 ) d y þ G2(e1 z21
e2 z22 ) d y
summing the torsion stiffness provided by every differential 5: y1 yc
portion dy. For a portion dy between y ¼ y1 and y ¼ yc, the torque
is
Thus, the torsion constant of a longitudinal beam that represents
e2 the portion of deck between y ¼ y1 and y ¼ y2 is
dM t ¼ e1 d yz1 þ  cos Æ d yz2
1: cos Æ
"ð
yc
12
J ¼2 (e1 z21 þ e2 z22 ) d y
and for dy between y ¼ yc and y ¼ y2, the torque is y1

ð y2 #
e2
dM t ¼ e1 d yz1
 cos Æ d yz2 þ (e1 z21
e2 z22 )
2: cos Æ dy
6: yc

Since the shear strain is

In the grillage model, a transverse beam 1–2 (Figure 3) with a
non-variable torsion constant Jeq is used. This equivalent torsion
@u @v @2 w  xy constant is obtained by considering equality of the relative
ª xy ¼ þ ¼
2z ¼
2z xy ¼
3: @ y @x @x@ y G rotations of ends 1 and 2 of both variable and non-variable
beams

ð xT
Mt Mt
Ł12 ¼ dx ¼ xT
Mi
7: 0 GJ GJ eq
M
Vi

Figure 1. Torques and shear forces on grillage beams due to where xT is defined in Figure 3. Considering the shear stress at
torsion sections A–A and B–B (Figure 3), the torsion constant at these
sections is

z
y2
yc
dy dy y1
z2

e1
z1

c.o.g. y
Grillage
plane
z2

e2

Figure 2. Shear flow on deck cross-section

14
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings Grillage analysis of cellular decks with
Volume 164 Issue SB1 inclined webs
Mozos and Aparicio

B A
xT
xc ST ST

z
e1

z1
z1
y
zc

c.o.g.
zT

x 2

z2
1

z2
α
e2

A–A B–B
B A

Figure 3. Local system of coordinates for transverse beam 1–2,

BT12


e2 3. Numerical analysis
J ¼ 2 e1 z21  z22 ST
8: cos Æ The static behaviour of three decks with inclined webs was
studied using grillage models and compared with the behaviour
of 3D finite-element reference models (in all cases, a 31.0 m long
where the  sign depends on the relative position of the shear cantilever). The software used in the numerical analysis was
stress flow on the inclined web and the centre of gravity (c.o.g.). Sofistik version 2.3.
Thus, the relative rotation of the beam ends becomes
3.1 Studied decks
ð xc Figure 4 illustrates the three decks, taken from the parametric
Mt
Ł12 ¼ dx study of Walther et al. (1999). The distance between diaphragms
G2[e1 z21
(e2 =cos Æ)z22 ]ST
x0 (6.20 m) is defined by the anchorages of the stays, and the
ð xT thickness of the diaphragms is 0.35 m. The slabs, webs and
Mt
þ dx diaphragms are concrete with an elastic modulus
xc G2[e1 z21 þ (e2 =cos Æ)z22 ]ST
E ¼ 36 342.4 MPa and Poisson’s ratio
¼ 0.2.
Mt
¼ xT
9: GJ eq 3.2 Reference numerical models
A 3D finite-element reference model was developed for each
deck. Figure 5 shows the reference model of the 1.55 m deep
deck (Figure 4(b)).
where the lower limit x0 is defined by

8 9 3.3 Grillage numerical models

< "
#1=2 = The grillage mesh, with longitudinal beams BL1 and BL2 and
cos Æ e21 z1 xT
x0 ¼ : zc
e1 z21
; zT
transverse beams BT12 and BT22, is shown in Figure 6. The
10: e2 2 grillage plane coincides with the principal axis of the deck as a
whole. Longitudinal and transverse cuts are placed midway
between the grillage members and the deck portions are assigned
in order to provide a minimum torsion stiffness at the initial end to the closed grillage beam. The criteria used for calculating
of the beam. areas and inertia of the grillage members are as follows.

Thus, the equivalent torsion constant of the transverse beam is (a) The cross-sectional area assigned to each beam is the area of
the portion of the deck that is represented by the beam.
(ð xc
dx
J eq ¼ xT (b) In-plane shear deformation has been included in the bending
2
x0 2[e1 z1
(e2 = cos Æ)z22 ]ST about z-axis deformation. Consequently, the beams are
ð xT ) considered as shear-rigid for forces acting along the y-axis.
dx
þ
11: xc 2[e1 z21 þ (e2 = cos Æ)z22 ]ST (c) The shear area about the z-axis was obtained by considering
the criteria suggested by Hambly (1991).

15
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings Grillage analysis of cellular decks with
Volume 164 Issue SB1 inclined webs
Mozos and Aparicio

(d ) The torsion constant of the longitudinal and transverse beams

was obtained by applying the criterion presented in Section 2.
2·50 2·50
(e) The bending inertia about the y-axis of the longitudinal
0·22
beams is the second moment of area about the y-axis, which
1·15

0·21 is located at the same level as the c.o.g. of the deck.

0·16 Otherwise, the bending inertia of the transverse beams is the
0·20
(a) second moment of area about the c.o.g. of the portion of the
deck in each section.
0·20
( f ) The in-plane bending inertia suggested by Hambly (1991) for
1·55

0·21
cruciform elements was considered.
0·16
0·20
(b)
3.4 Load cases
0·18
The static behaviour of the models was investigated for two
concentrated loads Q acting in the three different cases (Q1 to
0·17
2·25

Q3) shown in Figure 7.

0·17
0·18
(c) 3.5 Results
The displacements w and v of nodes 1 to 4 (Figure 6) along
the z- and y-axes were obtained by static linear analysis for
each grillage model and for the equivalent nodes of the
reference models for load cases Q1 to Q3. Figure 8 shows the
Figure 4. Deck dimensions (in metres): (a) deck D1.15; (b) deck
ratio of the displacements of the nodes of the grillage model
D1.55; (c) deck D2.25
to the reference model. Note that all of the grillage models
show homogeneous behaviour and provide an accurate response
z under longitudinal bending, torsion and transverse bending.
y The criteria proposed here for splitting the deck and calculat-
ing the torsion constant of the beams thus allows reproduction
of the static response of the decks under torsion (load case
Q2). In this case, the maximum error, 4.5%, is smaller than
the error incurred using the criterion proposed in Hambly
(1991), which is close to 14%, or the criterion proposed by
Aparicio and Casas (2001) and Jaeger and Bakht (1982) (30%)
for the same decks (see Mozos (2007)). Load case Q3 shows
Figure 5. 3D finite-element reference model for deck D1.55 an acceptable response of the grillage models under transverse
bending.

z
y

31
x ·00

BL1
0·46 3·54 5·00 3·54 0·46 BL2
BL 2
2
BT1
T22
BL

B 4
1

BT12 BT22 BT12 2

BT1 3
BL1 BL1
BL2 BL2 2
1·5

1
5

Figure 6. Grillage mesh and reference nodes 1–4 (dimensions in

metres)

16
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings Grillage analysis of cellular decks with
Volume 164 Issue SB1 inclined webs
Mozos and Aparicio

Q1 Q2 Q3
z z z
y y y

x x x

Q Q

Q Q
Q

Figure 7. Load cases; Q ¼ 1000 kN

1·013 1·08 0·97

1·012 1·06 0·96

wgrillage/wFEM

wgrillage/wFEM

wgrillage/wFEM
1·011 1·04 0·95

1·010 1·02 0·94

1·009 1·00 0·93

1·008 0·98 0·92

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Node Node Node
(a) (b) (c)

Deck D1·15 Deck D1·55 Deck D2·25

Figure 8. Ratio of the displacements of grillage models to finite-

element reference model for decks D1.15, D1.55 and D2.25
(nodes 1–4) under (a) load Q1, (b) load Q2 and (c) load Q3

4. Conclusions
The objectives of this study were to present a new and more
accurate criterion for obtaining the torsion constant of long-
itudinal and transverse grillage beams, and to define a criterion
for splitting a deck into longitudinal beams. Three cellular decks
of different depths were studied from a static point of view using
plane grillage models. Such grillage models were obtained by
placing longitudinal ‘cuts’ midway between the grillage members
and assigning deck portions to the closed grillage beam. The
torsion constant of the longitudinal and transverse beams was
obtained using the criterion described. The response of the
grillage models was compared with the 3D finite-element refer-
ence models.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the numerical
analysis.
(a) The proposed criterion for obtaining the torsion constant of
the beams allows one to obtain a grillage model with a
torsion stiffness very close to the cellular deck and to
reproduce its static behaviour under torsional load with
adequate precision.
(b) Splitting the deck into longitudinal beams mainly affects the
transverse bending response of the grillage model. The results
obtained by placing cuts midway between the longitudinal
beams yield acceptable accuracy.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Spanish Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-
La Mancha and the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science
for financial support under research projects PBI-05-031 and
BIA2006-15471-C02-02 respectively.

17
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings
Volume 164 Issue SB1
REFERENCES
Aparicio AC and Casas JR (2001) Apuntes de Puentes. E.T.S. de
Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos de Barcelona,
Barcelona.
Calgaro J and Virlogeux M (1994) Projet et Construction des
Ponts. Analyse Structurale des Tabliers de Ponts, vol. 2, 2nd
edn. Presses de l’école Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées,
Paris.
Hambly EC (1991) Bridge Deck Behaviour, 2nd edn. Taylor &
Francis, London.
Hambly E and Pennells E (1975) Grillage analysis applied to
cellular bridge decks. The Structural Engineer 53(7): 267–275.
Jaeger L and Bakht B (1982) The grillage analogy in bridge
analysis. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 9(2): 224–
235.
Kollbrunner C, Basler K and Eperon PA (1970) Torsion:
Application à l’étude des Structures. Spes S.A., Lausanne.
Manterola J (1977) Cálculo de tableros de puente por el método
del emparrillado. Hormigón y Acero 122(1): 93–149.
18
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Grillage analysis of cellular decks with
inclined webs
Mozos and Aparicio
Manterola J (2000) Puentes. E.T.S. de Ingenieros de Caminos,
Canales y Puertos de Madrid, Madrid.
Mozos CM (2007) Theoretical and Experimental Study on the
Structural Response of Cable Stayed Bridges to a Stay
Failure. Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real (in
Spanish).
O’Brien E and Keoh D (1999) Bridge Deck Analysis, vol. 1,
1st edn. Taylor & Francis, London.
Ryall M, Parke G and Harging J (2000) Manual of Bridge
Engineering, 1st edn. Thomas Telford, London.
Sawko F (1968) Recent developments in the analysis of steel
bridges using electronic computers. Proceedings of
Conference on Steel Bridges. British Constructional
Steelwork Association, London. pp. 1–10.
Vlassov BA (1962) Piéces Longues En Voiles Minces, 10th edn.
Editions Nationales Physico-mathématiques, Éditions
Eyrolles, Paris.
Walther R, Houriet B, Isler W, Moı̈a P and Klein J-F (1999) Cable
Stayed Bridges, 2nd edn. Thomas Telford, London.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as a
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and students.
Papers should be 2000–5000 words long (briefing papers
should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate illustra-
tions and references. You can submit your paper online via
www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you
will also find detailed author guidelines.