R.

West PhD, LIMA , MBCS

CI/SfB
182
|
(23.4)
| |
(K)

UDC
624.21.095 : 624.073.74

C&CA /CIRIA
Recommendations on the use
of grillage analysis for slab and
pseudo-slab bridge decks

Cement and Concrete Association

Construction Industry Research and Information Association
 Foreword
In any but the most straightforward of situations, some
form of computer calculation is bound to be needed for
final detailed analysis of bridge decks. As part of the
C1 R1A research project on the design of bridges and
elevated motorways, the Cement and Concrete
Association has examined a number of possible methods
-
of analysis for slab and pseudo slab bridge decks. It has
been concluded that grillage analysis is the most suitable
method for general use ; it is cheap, widely applicable
and sufficiently accurate for the majority of bridge
decks.
A separate CIRIA report will give a comparison of the
various methods of analysis . Grillage analysis has been
thoroughly investigated and compared with test data
-
from 53 model and full scale structures; details of this
work are given in C & C A Research Report 21 . This
present document gives recommendations for the
structural idealization which enables engineers to apply
grillage analysis to a wide range of bridge decks.
A. R . Collins
Director CIRIA
R . E. Rowe
Director of Research and Development
Cement and Concrete Association

This report has been examined by the Highway Engineering

Computer Branch of the Department of the Environment and
.
they are in general agreement with the advice it contains The
Department may, however, wish to issue modified advice when
the results of research work currently being sponsored by HECB
are complete.

Publication 46.017
First published 1973
SBN 7210 0897 6
Price 50p
Designed and printed by the Cement and Concrete Association,
52 Grosvenor Gardens, London SW1 W OAQ
Published by the Cement and Concrete Association and the
Construction Industry Research and Information Association.
Although the Cement and Concrete Association does its best to
ensure that any advice, recommendation or information it may
give is accurate, no liability or responsibility of any kind
(including liability for negligence) is accepted in this respect by
the Association, its servants or agents.
© Cement and Concrete Association 1973

liltf i
 C&CA/CIRIA
Recommendations on the use
of grillage analysis for slab and
pseudo-slab bridge decks
R. West PhD, LIMA, MBCS

Contents
2 Summary
2 Notation
3 Introduction
3 Choice of program
3 Idealization of the deck
7 Application of loads
7 Interpretation of results
9 Local effects
9 References
Appendix 1 : Equations for calculating torsional inertia
12 Method 1 : Rectangular beams
12 Method 2: T or I beams
!3 Method 3 : Box beams
13 Method 4: Plates held rigidly apart by side braces
Appendix 2 : Suggested grillage layouts for typical forms of construction
16 Example 1 : 1 beams with in situ concrete top slab
17 Example 2 : I beams with prestressed diaphragms
18 Example 3: Inverted T beams with in situ concrete top slab only
19 Example 4 : Solid reinforced concrete slab
20 Example 5: Inverted T beams with bottom transverse steel and in situ concrete
21 Example 6 : Precast box beams with prestressed diaphragms
22 Example 7 : Continuous I beams with in situ concrete top slab
23 Example 8 : Inverted T beams with bottom transverse steel placed parallel
to the abutments and in situ concrete forming a voided structure
24 Example 9 : Inverted T beams with bottom transverse steel placed orthogonally
to the longitudinal steel and in situ concrete forming a voided
structure
 Summary Notation
This booklet contains recommendations on the use of Mx bending moment on a longitudinal grillage beam
-
grillage analysis for slab and pseudo slab bridge decks , Mxy twisting moment on a longitudinal grillage beam
based on the comparisons made in the Cement and
Concrete Association’s Research Report 21. The research
My bending moment on an orthogonal transverse
grillage beam
report describes in detail the comparisons made between
the results from 53 model and full-size bridges and those Myx twisting moment on an orthogonal transverse
.
predicted by grillage analysis grillage beam
Guidance is given on the choice of computer program , M „ bending moment on a skew transverse grillage
the layout of grillage beams to represent the actual beam
structure and the methods of calculating the structural Mvu twisting moment on a skew transverse grillage
parameters. Also a method of interpreting the grillage beam
results into the form required for the design of the M' x, M' y, M\ bending moment at a point for a
structure is shown, together with some suggestions on physical beam
how to design the reinforcing steel for different forms of
M' xy , M' yx, M ' u , twisting moment at a point for a
construction . physical beam
An Appendix contains the formulae necessary for V x shear force at a point for a physical beam
'
calculating the torsional stiffnesses required for the
various forms of construction. A second Appendix mx bending moment per unit width in a slab
comprises a series of examples of grillage beam layout mxy twisting moment per unit width in a slab
for nine common forms of construction and geometry. vx shear force per unit width in a slab
There is enough information in this booklet for an w deflection at a point
engineer to analyse and design a bridge deck by using a R reaction at bearing
grillage analogy. Reference to the research report need
be made only for background information . A selected x direction of longitudinal beams or main
reinforcing steel
set of references from the research report is repeated in
this booklet. These repeated references include all those y direction orthogonal to x
which refer to the actual utilization of grillage analysis ; v direction of transverse beams or transverse steel
the first 119 in Research Report 21, which are omitted direction orthogonal to v
from this report , are concerned solely with the
u
background comparisons.

2
 Introduction
The purpose of this booklet is to define methods of
arranging the geometric layouts of grillage beams to
simulate the behaviour of slab and pseudo-slab bridge
decks, together with the methods of calculating and
apportioning the structural parameters required for the
analysis. Also given are some considerations to be borne
in mind when choosing a program, and guidance on the
application of loads to the grillage and interpretation of
the results.
Some of the information has been published previously
as ITN 1.113’ ) + There is no fundamental change in this
booklet ; where changes have been made, they are
essentially for clarification or in presenting new material .
For any given deck , there will invariably be a choice
between a number of analyses that give acceptable
results : load distribution, finite differences, finite
elements , finite strips, folded plates and grillage. When
the complete field of pseudo-slab structures is
considered , only grillage analysis is universally
applicable, with the exception of a suitable choice of
elements from a ‘super’ finite element package and this
will always carry a heavy cost penalty for a structure as
simple as a slab bridge. When compared with other
analyses, particularly with finite plate elements , on a cost
basis , grillage analysis will invariably be cheaper to use
on a computer. It is extremely easy for an engineer to
visualize and prepare the data for a grillage, albeit
sometimes tedious for the more poorly conceived
program. In a design office the majority of engineers
will rarely analyse decks more frequently than once in
six months ; if they are required to use a multiplicity of
programs depending upon the type of deck, they will
need to learn the requirements afresh virtually every
time an analysis is required. It is in this that the greatest
advantage of grillage analysis lies ; the engineer need
only be familiar with one program , and a simple one at
that.
The recommendations given herein have been chosen,
where possible, to be similar to methods used in other
analyses. However, the criterion for the recommendations
has always finally been that of agreement between
predictions from grillage analysis and observations from
experiments . Some of the recommended methods of
calculating stiffness parameters are not in accord with
classical plate theory, but it should be borne in mind,
when it has been decided to perform a grillage analysis,
that the fact that the original structure was a plate does
not automatically imply that equivalent plate stiffnesses
should be used for the grillage beams. The best results
are obtained by considering isolated sections of the deck
as if they are individual beams and not pieces of plate.
Choice of program
Some of the programs currently generally available are
given in the references. <146 -151 > For any given grillage, all
these programs will give results identical to within
acceptable engineering accuracy. The only programs of
those listed which in any way differ from the others in
the analysis are the IBM Strudl program , the C & C A
program and LEAP, each of which has an option to
allow for shear deformation of the beam elements ;
EDITOR S NOTE : Owing to the wide circulation that reference 134 ,
a comprehensive bibliography on the subject, has received, and
the fact that the references in it have been frequently quoted , the
existing numbering of these references has been retained in this
booklet and in Research Report 21 .
-
whilst this may be relevant in very-thin walled cellular
structures, it is not a significant consideration for the
type of structure covered by these recommendations. In
addition to the basic prismatic grillage beam programs,
there are a few special programs available to deal with
-
bridge decks with non uniform beams and for curved
bridges. Whilst it is possible to approximate to varying
sections and curved beams by an increased number of
straight uniform beams, it may be preferable to use a
special program to keep the total number of members
within reasonable limits.
If the user’s organization has a inhouse computer, the
choice of program will be between a program supplied
by the particular manufacturer and the Department of
the Environment’s grillage program 1151\ When there is a
completely free choice of program, four considerations
should be borne in mind :
( 1 ) ease of preparation of data ;
(2) cost of analysis ;
(3) ease of interpretation of the results ;
(4) ease of access and speed of turn- round .
( 1) Ease of preparation of data
To specify a completely general grillage, the amount of
data required is considerable: details of the joints which
-
are restrained, joint co ordinates, beam properties and
details of the loading applied . The programs are all
written to accept completely general grillages, but the
idealized grillage for a bridge deck tends to be regular.
It is to exploit this regularity that the Cement and
Concrete Association program has been written. ( l 46 )
Also included in this program is the facility to apply HA
and HB loadings in a single data statement.
(2) Cost of analysis
This varies between wide limits ; not only is there a
considerable difference between programs, but the same
programs run on different machines can also show large
cost differences. As a very rough guide, the computer
time needed to analyse a 100 joint grillage with two
loading cases should not at today’s prices cost more than
£10. In particular, the programs quoted as references 146
and 148 are comparatively cheap and simple to use.
( 3 ) Ease of interpretation of results
The output from grillage programs consists of lists of
deflections, bending moments, twisting moments and
shears at all the joints. All the programs referenced give
similar output, which can become considerable even for
a moderate sized grillage if it has more than a few
loading cases. Some programs do exist which give
maximum envelopes for deflections and moments from
all the loading cases, but these are not at the present
time generally available.
(4) Ease of access and speed of turn-round
This ideally should be as simple and as quick as possible,
certainly shorter than one week. A large proportion of
data when initially presented contains simple errors and
a computer service which will correct these errors
intelligently can save a large amount of time and
frustration. Many design offices where the computer is in
a different department find it quicker and more efficient
to send work to a specialist bureau .
Idealization of the deck
As a first step in a grillage analysis, the continum of the
deck must be idealized into a series of discrete elements.
These elements are connected at joints and it is at these
joints that restraints to movement , i.e . supports or fixity,
and loads can be applied . Restraints may be applied at
3
 any joint and members framing into a joint can be at
any angle. It is thus possible to analyse a deck with any
support conditions : simply supported, built-in ,
continuous, discretely supported or skew. With all the
programs referenced it is possible to include some or all
of the restraints as elastic restraints, thus simulating
-
rubber bearing deformation or elastic shortening of
support columns. It has been found from the analysis of
,
they must be replaced by grillage beams of equivalent
stiffness and the internal uniform section treated as above
but with a reduced number of beams. If the deck is
extremely wide and is formed from many physical
beams, it may be necessary to increase the number of
longitudinal grillage beams so that, as a general rule,
one grillage beam does not replace more than two
physical beams.

experimental work that quite small movements of

supports can have pronounced effects upon the moments
and reactions in the slab. It is therefore desirable to
have, in the grillage simulation, a true representation of
the whole structure, including the supports.
An additional use of the option to apply elastic rotation
restraints is in a continuous structure. Rather than
idealizing all the spans as grillage beams , the restraining
effect of the deck more than one span removed from the
position at which moments are required can be
simulated by an elastic rotation restraint.
The following remarks on the three structural types of
It is not usually obvious how to define the positions of
the transverse grillage beams except in the case where
three or more diaphragms exist within the span, in which
case the idealized beams should be in the same positions
as the physical beams. For decks with only top slab in
the transverse direction, transverse beams should be
substituted at :
(a) the abutments (these will invariably replace
abutment diaphragms) ;
(b) intermediately such that the ratio of spacing of
transverse grillage beams to the spacing of
longitudinal grillage beams is approximately 1 5:1
*

deck are general for any type of support condition. A
separate section deals with the particular problems
associated with skew.
Grid type structures (Figure 1)
Choice of grillage geometry
The general form of construction for the beam-and-slab
or I beam deck ( Figure la) is relatively few (ten or
-
fewer) longitudinal beams at 1 -5 to 2 5 m spacing
connected by a top slab. There will invariably be
transverse diaphragms at the supports and there may be
diaphragms within the span. The exception in this
structural form is the use of inverted T beams with top
slab only (Figure lb) ; these will be placed closer
together and there will therefore be more longitudinal
beams.
The logical choice of longitudinal grillage beams for the
I beam decks is to have them coincident with the
physical beams. However, when inverted T beam decks
are being considered, if there are many more than nine
physical beams, these should be replaced by about nine
(it is preferable that there should be an odd number)
equally spaced grillage beams positioned so that the
centre-lines of the edge grillage beams are coincident
with the centre-lines of the edge physical beams. Should
the physical edge beams be different from the internal ,
and that the total number of transverse beams is odd .
This is not an absolute ratio and should tend to
reflect the span : width ratio of the deck. Therefore
for longer, narrow decks the ratio could approach
2 :1 and for square and wider decks 1 :1. If extra
transverse grillage beams are added and the ratio
decreases below 1:1, no increase in accuracy ensues,
merely a more costly structure to analyse. When a
deck has only one or two within-span diaphragms,
these should be replaced by transverse beams, and
additional beams, to represent only slab, added to
comply with the above criteria.
Parameter evaluation
The inertias used for deriving the stiffness parameters for
such grid- type structures are calculated by using the
same methods as for the Morice-Little load
distribution. (123’ 124 ) For the longitudinal beams, the
bending inertia I for a physical beam and its associated
top slab is calculated and this is apportioned to all the
grillage beams as / x number of physical beams divided
by the number of grillage beams. The torsional inertia is
calculated by using Method 2 in Appendix 1, and
apportioned in exactly the same way.
The transverse grillage beams within the span represent
top slab plus diaphragm or top slab only and are usually

rnniTTi
( a ) J beam deck

JUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULX
(.b) Inverted T beam deck

Figure 1 : Grid-type structures .

Figure 2 : Box beams connected by top slab .

4
 plain rectangles the width of a transverse grillage beam .
The torsional inertia from Method 1 or 2, whichever is
applicable, is used.
Box or ‘U’ beams connected by top slab (Figure 2)
Choice of grillage geometry
. If
L< r i .J - This -
form of construction is basically beam and-slab
y'' v' construction but there is a behavioural difference because
i 'cU the transverse stiffness varies between alternate strips of
; crM. stiff and flexible deck . For these decks, the grillage must
fjt- y J be related to the physical beams and the longitudinal
o .l tl. .i jt.t -
beams placed on the centre line of the webs of the boxes.
UV 4i- ' ' }
'
f
. The transverse beams are positioned in the same manner
-
:
f £ {" ' *, tr,
• > '
t as for grid structures.
i\ U Decks where transverse shear deformation of the cells
Parameter evaluation
The longitudinal bending stiffness is calculated for a
complete box with its associated top slab and , if it is an
edge beam , with additional stiffness due to parapets, this
is also included . This stiffness is divided equally between
the two grillage beams which replace the actual beam .
To find the longitudinal torsional stiffness, only the box
is considered ; if the structure is formed of box beams
with additional top slab, the top flange of the box is
thickened to include the slab. This value of torsional
inertia is halved and the new value halved again and
given to the two grillage beams.
In the transverse direction, the beams are alternate
lengths of stiff and weak beams. For the grillage beams
representing slab only, bending and twisting stiffnesses
are calculated for top slab only . A slice along the
centre-line of the box is used to calculate the transverse
bending stiffness for the ‘stiff ’ section and the torsional
stiffness is the half of the longitudinal torsional stiffness
which has not yet been used. This value is multiplied by
the spacing ratio to proportion it to the different width
of the transverse beam.
If this type of deck is used with diaphragms, the
diaphragms will perform the transverse distribution and
they can be considered in exactly the same manner as an
-
ordinary grid type structure.
Slab structures
Choice of grillage geometry
With this type of deck, it is common for the deck to be
wider than the span and the choice of nine longitudinal
beams and a width ratio, as recommended for
grillage-type structures, may give fewer than five
transverse equivalent beams. As five should be
considered a minimum, it will be necessary to decrease
the spacing ratio or to increase the number of
longitudinal beams or a combination of the two. The
ofDiDjQisiHOOinyDiDifDiDiHOfgiD
-beam deck
( a ) Box
oooo oooo oooo oooo
(b ) In situ slab with circular voids
(c) Inverted T beam deck
-
Figure 3: Pseudo slab structures .
A
only physical characteristic to consider is the fact that it
may be convenient to relate the positions of the
longitudinal beams to the centres of discrete bearings,
should these exist.
Parameter evaluation
A width of slab equal to (width of deck )/ /:, where n is
the number of longitudinal grillage beams, is isolated ,
This section is used to determine 4he bendi ng and
torsional inertias ( Method 1, Appendix 1). A similar
calculation is made for the transverse beams but a
section of slab equal to span/ m, where m is the number
of transverse beams, is used.
-
Pseudo slab structures ( Figure 3)
may influence the distribution of loading are excluded
from the following recommendations. For this booklet,
such structures are assumed to be those in which the area
of longitudinal voids is more than 60 % of the area of the
total longitudinal section, and no stiffeners are provided.
Choice of grillage geometry
The choice of grillage geometry is tackled exactly as
-
described for grid type structures. If there are fewer than
ten physical beams and grillage beams are aligned with
the physical beams, the centre-lines may be coincident
with the centre of the void or the web, whichever is
convenient. If they are coincident with the webs, there
will be one more grillage beam than physical beams, and
the stiffness of a typical internal beam should be
calculated as described below and apportioned equally
to all the grillage beams, e.g. if there are eight boxes and
nine grillage beams, each grillage beam has the stiffness
.
of 8/9 of a box In no circumstances should the internal
beams be given inertias equal to a box and the edge
beams half this inertia.
Parameter evaluation
I
The longitudinal bending inertias are calculated and
proportioned as for the grid-type structure.
The transverse bending inertia is calculated by using
different sections depending upon the type of
construction.
(a) Box beams and in situ rectangular-voided slabs
( Figure 3a). A section along the centre- line of the
void is considered and only the concrete is used to
evaluate the second moment of area.
( b) In situ circular-voided slabs (Figure 3 b). The
circular hole is replaced by a square hole of the
same area and treated as in (a).
(c) Pseudo- boxes formed from precast inverted T beams
and in situ concrete ( M beams) ( Figure 3c). A part
? S~7
 of the span equal to the spacing of the holes for the
bottom transverse steel is considered : the top slab is
taken as acting together with a quantity of bottom
in situ concrete round each bottom transverse bar ;
this quantity of bottom in situ concrete has an area,
Ab, given by 4 D x 2\D where D is the diameter of
an equivalent single bar passing through the
transverse hole. Note that Ab is a concrete area and
the steel is ignored .
The second moment of area for each grillage beam is
/r =|x 7 < primarily at the grillage analysis and are not necessarily
where / = inertia calculated as above ;
S= transverse steel spacing ;
q = spacing of the grillage beams .
The abutment diaphragms for these types of deck will
usually be rectangular and the calculation of bending
inertia will present no problem.
The torsional inertias must be considered separately for
two types of bridge deck
(a ) Decks with within-span diaphragms. The longitudinal
and transverse inertias are calculated as boxes using
Method 3, Appendix 1 ; the values of C calculated
are divided by two, and proportioned to all grillage
beams as
—C Number of physical beams
2
x —
Number of grillage beams
*
( b) Decks without diaphragms. Before the inertias for
this type of deck are calculated , the requirements of
the grillage simulation must be viewed against the
actual behaviour of the deck . The analysis requires
two twisting inertias, one longitudinal and one
transverse, whereas an actual deck has only an
over-all twisting inertia. It is possible to consider the
deck longitudinally and transversely and calculate
two twisting inertias ; these must both be estimates
of the true over-all twisting inertia of the deck . If
both these values are used unmodified in the
analysis, the torsional stiffness will have been
overestimated . For the type of deck considered in
this section , the inertia calculated using the
longitudinal section can be considered a good
estimate, as it takes account of the top and bottom
slabs and the longitudinal beams, i.e. the inertia is
calculated considering a single box ( Method 3,
Appendix 1 ).
The transverse section can be calculated by using
.
Method 4, Appendix 1 The twisting inertias for the
grillage analysis, CL and Cr, can now be calculated
as follows. If C is the twisting inertia from the
longitudinal cross-section and qC is the twisting
inertia from the transverse cross-section where q is
a proportioning factor to be calculated , C is
considered the best approximation to the actual
inertia.
C will give acceptable results when used in the correct
Longitudinal torsional inertia, CL = situation. If the deck is expected to behave perfectly
1 +q
Transverse torsional inertia, Cr = rr~
—
1 + q
In the above it is assumed that the widths of the
transverse and longitudinal grillage beams are equal ;
if they are not, qC is found by dividing the
calculated value by .the width ratio, and Cj is
multiplied by the width ratio to give the actual value
of inertia for the transverse beam . The above
approach is consistent with that used for grid- and
slab- type structures where tbe value of torsional
6
inertia for slabs which are considered in both
directions is halved .
If a structure contains only one or two within span-
diaphragms, the above method may still be used with
the actual diaphragm thickness added to the equivalent
thickness calculated from Method 4, Appendix 1. For
-
three or more within span diaphragms, the approach
outlined in (a ) should be used and the stiffening effect of
the longitudinal beams ignored in the transverse
direction .
The recommendations made in this section are aimed
applicable to other forms of analysis , particularly those
which treat the structure as a continuum , e.g . load
distribution.
Skew
The recommendations made in the preceding sections on
the choice of equivalent grillage beams apply to skew
decks, but some extra thought must be given to the
layout and orientation of the beams for solid and voided
slabs.
The orientation of the longitudinal members should
always be parallel to the free edges. The positioning of
the transverse members can be either :
(a ) parallel to the supports with the structural
parameters calculated using the orthogonal distance
between the grillage beams.
( b) orthogonal to the longitudinal beams.
When layout ( b) is used and the spacing of longitudinal
beams is different from that of the transverse beams, an
adjustment will be necessary in the region of the supports
as it is recommended, for convenience, that the
transverse beams should intersect the longitudinal beams
at the supports as shown in Figure 4. For small angles
of skew ( less than 35°), this will result in an excess of
transverse beams in this area and transverse beams
intersecting alternate longitudinal beams will suffice.
—
r t
1
/*
/
t
Figure 4 : Layout of an orthogonal mesh for a skew deck .
Any diaphragm in the deck must be represented by an
equivalent beam in the grillage simulation and if these
are within the span this will define the direction of the
transverse members. If the choice is free, as it will be for
decks with no physical transverse beams, both layouts
elastically , the orthogonal mesh will give the correct
results ; a skew grid in tbis situation will overestimate
maximum deflections and moments, the amount
increasing with the angle of skew. When the concrete is
expected to crack under the design loads (as with M
beams with bottom steel ), the transverse grillage beams
must lie parallel to the lower transverse steel. The
orthogonal mesh will make the preparation of the input
data more difficult, especially if an automatic
mesh-generating system is being used . It has , however,
the distinct advantage that , for slabs, the moments, Mx ,
 My and Mxy , can be used directly in the Wood -Armer
equationsU 38,139 ) to calculate the steel required in any
direction. In general, therefore, the grillage should be
orthogonal unless the transverse steel is in the skew
direction .
When an M beam type of deck with in situ concrete in
the bottom forming a box type of structure is being
analysed , the transverse grillage beams should be
parallel to the transverse reinforcement. If they are not,
the method of calculating the transverse bending inertia
proposed in this booklet is not applicable.
It is extremely important that, if the reactions are
required accurately, the grillage should be supported in
exactly the same positions as the actual deck , and that
the supports should be of similar stiffness. The exact
stiffness is not critical as obviously the bearing cannot
be chosen until the reaction is known . But the
differences between a steel rocker, a rubber bearing or a
long column will cause considerable differences in
reaction and, for multi-span decks, in moments. Where
the bearing position does not coincide with the line of
the longitudinal members, a transverse beam of nominal
stiffness should be aligned through the bearings with
intermediate joints at the bearing positions. A typical
stiffness for this beam could be that of a rectangle of
width equal to half the depth of the slab. The slab will
frequently have an overhang of this size which has not
been considered in the transverse stiffnesses already.
Application of loads
Programs vary regarding the types of load that it is
possible to apply to the structure . All will permit the
application of point loads and moments at the joints and
some will allow point loads, distributed loads and
moments on the members. As any member loading can
be replaced by point loads and moments at the ends of
the member, it is therefore possible to apply any form
of loading with any of the programs .
i i
5
4 2
•9 1 ! :
2 1
Figure 5 : Distribution of load from a panel to the surrounding
nodes.
When a bridge deck loaded with uniformly distributed
loads or with the HB vehicle is being analysed , it is
sufficiently accurate to consider the loads as point loads
acting at the joints, e.g. for a point load acting within a
quadrilateral formed by grillage members ( Figure 5),
consider it statically proportioned to a pair of opposite
members, then in the same way from these members to
the joints as point loads.
Interpretation of results
The output listing should contain first a summary of the
structure and the loadings applied ; in programs where
this is an option, it is advisable to request it in order to
check the input data. This is followed by lists of
deflections and rotations at the joints and by shears and
moments at the beam ends.
Bending moments
When examining the longitudinal and transverse bending
moments, the user should bear in mind all the time the
sign convention used by the program , which will be fully
explained in the manual relating to the particular
program. Where a grillage beam continues across a
joint, the values of moment from end 2 of one member
and end 1 of the continuation member will be different.
If the two moments are of the same sense, the signs will
be opposite. The method of dealing with these moments
depends upon the actual structure . Where all the
members meeting at the node are physical beams , there
will be a genuine step in the bending moments at this
point and the actual values output from the program
should be used . This also applies if the longitudinal
grillage beams replace more than one physical beam and
-
the deck has within span diaphragms. This method will
always cause a slight overestimate of the moment
because with every deck there will be some continuous
slab present. If any of the grillage beams are hypothetical
and represent sections of slab, the two moments may be
averaged, as in the structure no step would occur in
moment diagram. The method of averaging is shown in
Figure 6.
— 4000 5000 — 6000 5500
JOINT 13
end 1 end 2 end 1 end 2
member 8 member 9
The moment at joint 13 is ^ 6000 _
Figure 6 : Averaging moments at a node.
Shear and reactions
Shear at any node should be evaluated from the output
results in the same manner as the bending moments. If
the reactions are not printed automatically by the
program, they may be evaluated by summing the shear
forces at the supported node.
Twisting moments
The way in which twisting moments are catered for
depends upon the type of deck under consideration. For
decks consisting of longitudinal beams and top slab,
there is no rigorous way of dealing with the torsions : a
suggested method applicable within the span of this type
of deck is given on page 9 . The torsional moments for
this type of deck , even if it is skewed , will be small
except in the abutment diaphragm where large torsional
moments will occur . This diaphragm should be designed
as a beam in bending and torsion because, if significant
torsional cracking occurs, the distribution of the deck
will deteriorate .
With slabs and voided slabs, it is possible to include
torsional moments in the design using the method of
Wood and Armer. < 137 139 ) This method requires that the
'
unit moment triad mx , my and mxy be known at the point
under consideration . This is not immediately available
from a grillage analysis. If the grid is skew, Mx , Mxy> Mv
and Mvu will be known ; but if the grid is orthogonal,
Mx, Mxy , My and Myx will be known.
For decks with skew members, the first step is to
transform iff , and Mm into My and Myx ; for the
orthogonal deck , this is not necessary.
(1) Consider node 35 in Figure 7. The majority of
7
 >0
<5

'3
45

36
ISO
35 30
K nr,

K 50' Sg
36
K.
K 2 -S2
35
5, £° S-3g

FA Jr
" 140
W,
35 30

35

-L ^
9
FG] &fe <}
K*

45
45

K > 30
r *= 66 K I 3S
38
K " 2S
K an
35 ’gure jj
% 55
% an
'5
28
5.5
K i 4n
K 70
45

FA
rfr/re jQ
2S
8
'35
Sfl

FixVUre J2
35
<3 3 -
45-s
 programs will give eight numbers relating to the
moments at this joint ; these will be of the form shown
in Figure 8.
( 2) The My and Mru may be transformed to My and
Myx by using the following transformation (Figure 9).
My — Mvu sin 0 -I- My cos 0
—
Myx = Myu cos 0 My sin 0
This gives the values shown in Figure 10.
(3) As it is a slab type structure which is under
consideration, these values may now be averaged . The
sign given to the average values is that for end 1 of the
member (Figure 11 ).
(4) These values must now be converted to values per
unit width (Figure 12).
(5) The final set of moments can now be calculated
mxy (Wood’s notation) = \( mxy — myx )
i.e . mx = 135
my — -
23 3
mxy — -
56 9
NOTE : The above sign convention is consistent for one
given grillage program. The engineer should check that
the sense is correct for his particular grillage program.
Deflections and rotations
The deflections and rotations are valid results, provided
the elastic modulus used is achieved in the structure .
They are, however, of little interest in the design process
unless a vibration analysis is being considered ..
NOTE : In the following sections, if the transverse steel is
not orthogonal to the longitudinal steel , due allowance
must be made for this.
In attu solid slabs, composite solid slab and in situ
'
voided slabs
The most suitable method of obtaining design moments at
the present time is that due to Wood and Armer. <138’139
)
This approach requires the calculation of the equivalent
moments ni* x and m* v (which incorporate the twisting
moment ) in the direction of the reinforcing steel . The
moments mx , my and mxy from which these are derived
can be conveniently arrived at from grillage analysis
output ; the method has been described on pages 7 to 9.
When m* x and m* v have been calculated , the
appropriate reinforcement is detailed for the two chosen
directions. The results required for design are :
mx , my , mxy, vx, vy, w, R
These are obtained as shown in the preceding section .
Beam-and-slab decks with diaphragms
This is almost the case of the genuine grillage and should
be designed as such. Each beam, whether longitudinal or
transverse, is treated individually with its bending and
twisting moments and shear forces. Bending and shear
are designed for in the conventional manner and
torsional stresses are taken on closed links within the
beam sections.
The results required for design are:
M' x , M' y , M' Xy , M' yx , V' X , V' y, W , R
These are obtained by taking the maximum value for
each node.
Beam-and-slab decks without diaphragms
The longitudinal moments are catered for in the same
way as in the previous section. In the transverse
direction, bending is designed for in the conventional
manner and the torsion can be considered as an
additional moment in the slab in the longitudinal
direction. The additional moment should be resisted by
extra steel placed in the top and bottom of the slab.
The results required for design are :
M' x , M' y , M' Xy , M' vu , V' x , V' y , w, R
These are obtained by averaging the results at each node.
Voided slab formed from precast box beams
with diaphragms
Longitudinally the beams will be prestressed against
bending and closed links should be provided to cater for
torsion in these beams. In the transverse direction,
bending will be taken by the diaphragm beam and its
associated top slab, and torsion by placing additional
steel in the top and bottom flanges of the box beams,
similarly to the previous type of deck.
The results required for design are :
M' x , M' y , M' xy , M' yx , V' x , V' y , >V, R
These are obtained by taking the maximum value for
each node.
Voided slab formed by inverted T beams
The bending moments are designed for in accordance
with the Department of the Environment requirements
for this type of deck. (140 ) The longitudinal torsion is
taken on additional top and bottom steel in the
transverse direction, and the area of steel in the links in
the precast beams should be equal to or greater than the
area of this additional steel. In the transverse direction,
the torsion is catered for by steel in the longitudinal
direction ; this should be placed in the top slab and the
bottom of the precast beam.
The results required for design are :
M X , M v, M xy , M vn , V x , Vy , w, R
averaging the results at each
These are obtained
node. ^
From the above observations, it may be thought that
some decks need to be designed for torsional moments,
whereas current methods ignore it . This is not so, as for
right decks the torsional moments will be negligible and
can be resisted by the concrete alone . Only for skew
slabs and voided slabs and skew decks with diaphragms
should additional torsion steel be necessary.
Local effects
A grillage analysis of a deck using this approach
produces only the over-all deformation ; the final design
stresses will be calculated using in addition the stresses
from any local deformation which may occur in the top
slab between physical longitudinal beams. (143 )
References
The references given below are those of the references of
Research Report 21 ( which gives the background and the
comparisons underlying the recommendations given in this
booklet) that are relevant to the application of grillage
analysis. The numbering used for them, as explained in a
footnote on page 3, is that which has already become familiar
to many potential users of this booklet through its use in
reference 134 below.
120. JANSSONIUS, G . F. New relaxation methods for calculation
of grid frameworks. Thesis submitted to the Technical
Highschool , Delft , for the degree of Drlng. 1948.
9
 121. LAZARIDES, T .
o. The design and analysis of openwork 141 . KOLLBRUNNER , c. F. and BASLER , K. Torsion in
prestressed concrete beam grillages . Civil Engineering structures. Translated by E. C. GLAUSER , Berlin , Springer
and Public Works Review. Volumes 47 and 48 , June VerJag, 1969. pp. 280.
1952. pp . 471 . 142. MORELEY, L . s. D. The analysis of column supported
122. HENDRY, A . w. and JAEGER , L. G. The analysis of grid plates with special application to bridges. Farn borough,
frameworks and related structures . London , Chatto and Royal Aircraft Establishment, December 1966.
Windus, 1958. pp . 308. pp. 57 and Figures. Technical Report 66376.
123. .
MORICE, p. H . and LITTLE, G Analysis of right bridge 143. WESTERGAARD , H. M. Computation of stresses in bridge
.
decks subject to abnormal loading London , Cement and slab due to wheel loads. Public Roads. Vol . 11 , No. 1 .
.
Concrete Association , July 1956. pp. 43 Publication March 1930.
32.002. 144. prGEAUD, M. Calcul des plaques rectangulaires minces
124 . ROWE, R . E. Concrete bridge design . London , C.R. Books appuyees a leur pourtour. Annates des Ponts et
Ltd ., 1962. pp. 336. Chaussees Memoirs. 1929. Pt II.
LIVESLEY, R. K . Matrix methods of structural analysis.
125. 145. PUCKER , A . Einflussfelder elasticher Platten. ( Influence
Oxford , Perganion Press Ltd , 1964. pp. 265. surfaces of elastic plates.) Third edition . Vienna,
Springer -Verlag, pp / 36 + 93 Charts,
126. RUBINSTEIN, M . F. Matrix computer analysis of structures.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall Inc. , 1966. 146. CEMENT AND CONCRETE ASSOCIATION programs SGR 2
pp. 402. and SGR 3 , 1972. Structural analysis of elastic grids for
bridge decks, pp. 81 . Program Specification PS/ 25.
127. LIGHTFOOT, E. and SAWKO , F. Structural frame analysis
by electronic computer. Grid frameworks resolved by 147. INTERNATIONAL COMPUTERS LTD . Analysis of plane frames
generalised slope deflection. Engineering. Vol. 187, and grids. 1900 series. London , 1967 . pp . 135. Technical
No. 4843. 2 January 1959. pp. 18-20. Publication 4178 .
148. COMPUTER CONSORTIUM. LEAP, Linear engineering
128 . SAWKO, F . Analysis of grid frameworks and related
analysis program, Users manual. London , pp. 40.
structures. Thesis submitted to the University of Leeds
for the degree of MSc. 1960. 149. THE GENESYS CENTRE. Users manual for ‘Frame analysis / 1’
., LIGHTFOOT, E. and SAWKO, F. Analysis of a Genesys subsystem. Loughborough , July 1972,
129. GOLDSTEIN, A
a three span continuous grillage having varying section
properties. The Structural Engineer. Vol . 39, No. 8.
150. IBM UNITED KINGDOM LTD. ICES STRUDL 1. The —
structural design language : Engineering user’s manual .
August 1961. pp. 245-254. London , September 1967. pp. 143.
130. SAWKO, F. Analysis of grillages in the elasto- plastic 151. DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (MOT) . Analysis of
range. Civil Engineering and Public Works Review . .
grillages (To be published . )
Vol, 59. No. 6. June 1964. pp. 737-739. No. 7. July 152. TIMOSHENKO, s. and GOODIER , J. N . Theory of elasticity.
1964. pp . 866-869.
131. SAWKO, F. Electronic computors versus distribution pp. xviii , 506.
-
New York , McGraw Hill Book Company Inc., 1951.

methods. Civil Engineering and Public Works Review. 153. JACKSON, N. The torsional rigidity of concrete bridge
Vol. 60. No. 4. April J 965. pp . 534-538. Discussion :
decks. Concrete. Vol. 2, No. 11. November 1968.
No. 6. June 1965. pp. 807-809. pp. 469-471.
132. SAWKO, F. Computer analysis of grillages curved in plan.
International Association for Bridge and Structural
154. OTTER , J. R. H ., CASSELL, A . .
c. and HOBBS, R E. Dynamic
relaxation . Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineering . Publications. Vol . 27. 1967. pp. 151 170.— Engineers. Vol . 35. December 1966. pp. 633-656.
133: DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT . Suite of bridge 155. .
CASSELL, A. c., HOBBS, R. E and BRIDGETT, M . S.
design and analysis programs. Program BECP / 1 . Vol . 1 :
Rectangular bridge slabs. A program users manual .
User manual. London , May 1969. pp. 61 . London, Imperial College, May 1969. pp. 44.
134. CLARK , L. A. and WEST, R. Bibliography of experimental
156. CASSELL, A. C., HOBBS, R. E. and BRIDGETT, M . S. Skew
work on slab and pseudo -slab bridges. London , Cement bridge slabs. Moment function program users manual.
and Concrete Association , June 1971 . pp. 51 . DN / 7004. London , Imperial College, August 1969. pp. 45.
Revised February 1973 as DN/ 7008. pp. 58.
157. CASSELL, A . .
c , HOBBS, R. E. and BRIDGETT, M. S. Skew
135. WEST, R .Recommendations on the use of grillage analysis bridge slabs. Orthotropic program users manual . London ,
for slab and pseudo -slab bridge decks. London , Cement .
Imperial College, October 1969 pp. 59.
and Concrete Association , February 1971 . pp. 13.
ITN I . 158. .
CASSELL, A C., HOBBS, R . E . and BRIDGETT, M. S. Skew
bridge slabs. Skew co-ordinates program users manual .
136. . . Finite element methods for the analysis
CRISFIELD, M A London, Imperial College, November 1969. pp. 50.
of multicellular structures. Discussion of reference 17.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers , Vol. 51 .
159. . . . and BRIDGETT, M. S. Curved
CASSELL, A C., HOBBS, R E

January 1972. pp. 153-165. bridge slabs. Program users manual. London , Imperial
College, Civil Engineering Department, November 1969.
137. CLARK , L. A. The provision of reinforcement in simply pp. 45.
supported skew bridge slabs in accordance with elastic '
moment fields. London , Cement and Concrete
160. R. TRAVERS MORGAN AND PARTNERS . Box section
bridges. A folded plate analysis. Report and user
Association , November 1970. pp. 18. Publication 42.450.
manual . London, Department of the Environment,
138. WOOD, R. H. The reinforcement of slabs in accordance November 1970. pp. 80 + data + Figures.
with a pre-determined field of moments. Coucrete.
161 . CHEUNG, Y. K . The finite strip method in the analysis of
Vol . 2, No. 2. February 1968. pp. 69-76.
elastic plates with two opposite simply supported ends.
139. ARMER , G. s. T. Discussion on reference 138. Concrete. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Vol . 40.
Vol. 2, No. 8. August T 968. pp . 319-320. May 1968. pp. 1-8.
140. MANTON, B. H. and WILSON, .
C B. MoT. C&CA Standard 163. WEST, R. Tbe use of a grillage analogy for the analysis of
.
bridge beams London , Cement and Concrete slab and pseudo -slab bridge decks. London, Cement and
Association , March 1971 . pp. 36. Publication 32.012. Concrete Association, 1973. Research Report 41.021 .

10
Appendix 1
Equations for calculating torsional
inertia
** * \

Method 1: Rectangular beams

Method 2: T or I beams
Method 3: Box beams
Method 4 : Plates held rigidly apart by side braces
 METHOD 1 : Rectangular beams (152 ) METHOD 2 : T or I beams 1124’ 152 ’

Torsional inertia , C
b
=
is the length of the short side
k
^bmax If the elements forming the T or I beams are ‘thin’, the
total inertia can be considered to be the sum of the
inertias of the individual rectangles where only half the
bmax is the length of the long side value of the top slab is taken. The modification
suggested by Jackson (153 ) for thick slabs has been found
k] is a factor depending upon bm
, axlb I
to have negligible effect upon the distribution .
b„ Jb ki bmax / b
Example
10 - -
0 141 23- -
0 242
11 -
0 154 2- 5 -
0 249 Consider the MoT/C&CA standard beam M7 with top
-
12 0 - 166 28- -
0 258 slab only (Figure 14a). This can be idealized into four
rectangles as shown in Figure 14 b.
-
13 -
0 175 30- 0 -263
-
14 -
0 186 40- 0 -281
-
0 300 x 1603 x 1000 x 0 - 5 , ax
--
15
18
0 - 196
-
0 216
50
75
-
-
-
0 291
-
0 305
Q
0 - 614 x 109 mm 4
bm
V 6 - 25
-
20 -
0 229
INF
-
10 0 0-312
-
0 333
(value halved as
it is top slab)
Linear interpolation may be used for intermediate values
or alternatively
C2 - 0 294 x 903 x 400 bm
, ax
~ -
5 33
= - 0 086 x 109 mm 4 T
(1) kx = T [l — 0 63 7
'
— (l — 64
12A 4,max:)] C3 = 0- 292 x I 603 x 815 bm
, ax
5 -09
= 0 -975 x 109 mm 4 b
generally or, if bmaxib 2, then
C4 = 0- 292 x 1853 x 950 bmax
-
< 2)
and so
0 -
nJB 41=1 = 1 -756 x 109 mm
Therefore
b
5 14

C = - - -
(0 614 + 0 086 + 0 975 + 1 - 756) x 109
3 V \
k , * ( \ - 0 63 T ' )
bmaxJ - -
= 3 431 x I 09 mm 4
Example
Consider the section of top slab shown in Figure 13. 1000
This is typical of an idealized transverse grillage beam
in an inverted T beam deck with top slab only. Here
bmaxib = 2000/ 160 > 10
Therefore
60
4
k 1 = 0 - 333
Torsional inertia C —
=
-
0 333 x 1603 x 2000 mm 4
2 - 73 x 109 mm 4
680
160

Inertia used in analysis = 1 - 365 x 109 mm 4 as the slab

will also be considered in the longitudinal direction .
60

2000
-1 ( a ) actual

II 160
1000
*1

Figure ! 3 : Transverse beam of top slab only ( mm ) . JZ

160
90
400

815
160

185

950
H
(b) idealized

Figure 14 : T beam and top slab ( m ).

12
 METHOD 3 : Box beams'1521 METHOD 4 : Plates held rigidly apart by
side braces ' 1411

-
This expression is for ‘thin walled’ boxes but will give In a voided deck without transverse diaphragms, if the
sufficiently accurate results for box sections where both portion of deck replaced by a transverse grillage beam is
the void dimensions are greater than the total thickness considered , it consists of solid top and bottom slabs
of concrete in the same direction. ( the full in situ concretes in the inverted T beam deck )
rigidly held apart by sections of longitudinal beam . This
4 A2 is analogous to a box beam with open lattice sides. The
Torsional inertia, C = —— method proposed replaces these open sides with webs of
fj equivalent thickness.

where A is the area inside the median line of the concrete It is assumed that the actual section through the deck
(Figure 16a ) can be idealized in the form shown in
walls andj — is the sum of the lengths of the sides around Figure 16 b. The stiffness of the side struts is taken as
the stiffness of the length of beam which they replace,
the median line each divided by the appropriate wall i .e. half The length of beam in any section goes to each
thickness. side. The side struts are now replaced by continuous
side walls of equivalent stiffness and Method 3 is used
Example to calculate the torsional inertia.
Consider the MoT/ C&CA standard beam M7 in
pseudo- box construction (Figure 15a). This is idealized E r ab 2 a 2b / 1 1 \ ~|
as shown in Figure 15 b. Note that the thickness of the
~
G
X
\ 2Ibz
+ Xll
48 /n
+ ( ijJ
bottom in situ concrete is taken as the maximum where t* = thickness of the equivalent continuous side
thickness. wall
A = 170 x 800 + 775 x 920 = 0- 849 x 106 mm
_ 2
In = bending inertia of the top slab

h- mx - ,3,:w 5. —
ids 170 775 800 920 bending inertia of the bottom slab
. 1( Is2
2+
8o *
2+
76o + iro
4 x (0- 849 x 106)2
Ib, — bending inertia of the equivalent length of
longitudinal beam about the z axis
C
33 - 15
-
86 97 x 109 mm 4
a = spacing of the longitudinal beams
b = distance between the neutral axis of the top
slab and the neutral axis of the bottom slab.
1000
r
!
+
160
250
200
^
80

1000

221°

( a ) actual spacing of transverse grillage beams

y

1000
800
h - _L_ -1
l • " l
250 -
1 70
j W f c t* 200

80 80
840 775
-- -tPr? --
I; sV'iP.FurFf -
|l 30 Figure 16 : Transverse slice through a voided deck .

( b ) idealized
k
1
920 - Example
Consider a 2000 m transverse slice through a
pseudo-slab deck formed from MoT/C&CA standard
beams M7. The section will look similar to Figure 16a .
Note that the full depth of the in situ concrete is taken
Figure 15 : Inverted T section as a pseudo-box . ( Figure 17).

13
 a = 1000 mm
b = 945 mm
width of section = 2000 mm
, 2000 x 1603
n ~
12
= 0 -
683 x 109 mm 4
7 2000 x 1303
s2 ~ "
'
12

To calculate If ,? , a weighted of the web and the

— mean
0- 366 x 109 mm 4

thickened portion at the top of the web are taken. The

thickened section is taken as 300 mm , i .e. its minimum
thickness.
Length of web between faces of in situ
concrete = 800 mm
Length of thickened section (300 mm thick ) = 90 mm
Length of web (160 mm thick ) = 7 1 0 mm
T
1000 x 3003 9Q 3000 x 1603 710
Ihz X 1 X
12 800 12 800
= 0 - 556 x 109 mm 4
„„ 1000 x 9452 10002 x 945
41 + 5)/
' * ~
° ‘
Ll 2 x 0-556 x 109 + 48
x

<^
» >0 +
MSS x «
- ’ 10 58 mm
' ’)] - -
“

0 83
This is the equivalent thickness of one side ; the other
side will be identical.
A = 945 x (2000 - 10- 58)
= -
1 88 x 106 mm 2
ds 945 , 1989 -4 1989 -4
t 10 58 - 160 130
= 206 - 4
C
_ 4 x 1 882 x I 0 ' 2 -
206 4 -
= 68 -5 x 109 mm 4

2000

|
160
t

— t*

1 _
r"

-
—- 1090

130
T
Figure 17 : Equivalent box section for lattice girder ( mm ).

5v
'

14
 Appendix 2
Suggested grillage layouts for typical
forms of construction
-*
U.t K

Example 1:1 beams with in situ concrete top slab

Example 2 : 1 beams with prestressed diaphragms
Example 3: Inverted T beams with in situ concrete top
slab only
Example 4: Solid reinforced concrete slab
Example 5 : Inverted T beams with bottom transverse
steel and in situ concrete
Example 6 : Precast box beams with prestressed
diaphragms
Example 7: Continuous I beams with in situ concrete
top slab
Example 8: Inverted T beams with bottom transverse
steel placed parallel to the abutments and in situ
concrete forming a voided structure
Example 9 : Inverted T beams with bottom transverse
steel placed orthogonally to the longitudinal steel and
in situ concrete forming a voided structure
 EXAMPLE 1 : I beams with in situ concrete top slab ( Figure 18)

Span : 25 m Equivalent grillage

With this type of construction, the longitudinal beams
Width : 17 m should be chosen to be coincident with the physical
beams , i.e. nine beams of equal stiffness with the inertias
Construction
Nine precast I beams at 2 m spacing . calculated as for an internal beam with 2 m width of
top slab.
In situ reinforced concrete slab.
Using a ratio of 1 5:1, the spacing of transverse beams
*

In situ post-tensioned abutment diaphragms. should be approximately 3 m. Nine beams at 3 - 125 m

spacing are chosen ; this gives a ratio of 1 - 56:1. The
inertias for the abutment beams are calculated by using
the full diaphragm concrete section with a 1 -56 m
section of slab as an L beam. The internal beams are
-
rectangles 3 125 m wide (Figure 18).

) 1 1 )l 1 li K I 1 17m

CROSS - SECTION

-
25 m j
LONGITUDINAL SECTION

-
ffi -6)
o- -o
o- <>
CH

o
o -o
-o
o- -o

0 - -©
GRILLAGE GEOMETRY

-
1 5625 m -
3 1 25 m

<
{
u
transverse abutment beam transverse interna! beam longitudinal beam
SECTIONS USED FOB CALCULATING PROPERTIES

Figure 18 : Details of example 1.

16
 5

EXAMPLE 2: I beams with prestressed diaphragms ( Figure 19)

Span : 25 m
Width: 17 m
Equivalent grillage
The longitudinal beams are exactly as for Example 1.
Five transverse beams are used coincident with the five
I
i

physical diaphragms. The three internal beams are T

Construction -
beams 6 25 m wide, and the abutment diaphragms are
Nine precast I beams at 2 m spacing. L beams with 3 T 25 m of top slab.
In situ reinforced concrete slab . The idealization will model the deck satisfactorily, but
-
In situ post tensioned diaphragms at abutments and at the spacing of the transverse beams is a quarter of the
quarter-span points. span and it may be convenient to have extra transverse
beams at 3/8 and 5/8 span to receive the loading from
the HB vehicle.

1 = T
" _
J
U

17 m
CROSS -SECTION
'O'

u
-

25m
LONGITUDINAL SECTION

A 8 C D C B A
>

O- o
O- r>
O - -o
o- -o
o- -o
o- -o
o- -o

o- -e . j
A B C D C B A
GRILLAGE GEOMETRY

3-125m
-
3 125m 4 - 6875 m
i r J
r

transverse section B - B transverse section C - C

transverse section A- A

2m
-
3 125m

I j
I

transverse section D - D
ch
longitudinal beam
SECTIONS USED FOR CALCULATING PROPERTIES

Figure 19 : Details of example 2 .

17
EXAMPLE 3: Inverted T beams with in situ concrete top slab only ( Figure 20
)

Span : 20 m Equivalent grillage

Nine longitudinal beams should be chosen , the
Width: 17 m centre-lines of the edge beams coinciding with the
physical edge beams. All beams are of equal stiffness,
Construction which is calculated by assuming one inverted T beam
Seventeen precast M beams at 1 m spacing. with its associated top slab and multiplying by 17/ 9.
In situ reinforced concrete top slab. The spacing of the transverse beams should be
Reinforced concrete abutment diaphragms. approximately 3 m. If an odd number of beams is to be
-
used , the choice is between seven (3 33 m) or nine
(2 50 m ). Nine is preferable, as the ratio 1 - 25 :1 is close
-
-
to the span : width ratio (1 18 :1). The inertias can be
calculated as in Example 1, with the exception of the
torsional inertia of the abutment diaphragm ; with the
information available at the present time, this should be
taken as twice the inertia of the top slab only.

V V If % 1 If JUUUUUUUUUUCA i 7m
CROSS- SECTION
————
u
j 20m
LONGITUDINAL SECTION
!
i
-|

ffi- -©

O - -o

o- -o

o- o
o~ o
o- o
o- -o

o- -o
©- ->
GRILLAGE GEOMETRY

1 - 26m
L
2 -5 m

—-
itl'.u 1
1
I
1m

—
~
t
1

abutment bending inertia

.
internal transverse beams and abutment awnii eKj inertia longitudinal beam
;

SECTIONS USEO FOR CALCULATING PROPERTIES

Figure 20 : Details of example 3 .

\

18
 EXAMPLE 4 : Solid reinforced concrete slab ( Figure 21 )

Span : 10 m Equivalent grillage

Nine longitudinal beams should be chosen, with the edge
Width : 17 m beams at the edge of the slab. Each beam is assumed to

Construction
-
represent one ninth of the total width of the deck and
its inertias are calculated for a slab of this width.
In situ reinforced concrete slab.
The minimum number of transverse beams should be
five ; this gives a width ratio of T 2 ; seven beams give a
- -
ratio of 0 81. As the span : width ratio is 0 59, the
choice of seven transverse beams is appropriate. The
inertias are calculated similarly to the longitudinal
inertias.

17 m
CROSS -SECTION

10 m
LONGITUDINAL SECTION

9-
o- i)

o- <)
( > -o
o- -O
o- -E >
o -O
o- -o
;
© -6
GRILLAGE GEOMETRY

1 -89 m 1 - 43m
1
*

longitudinal transverse

SECTIONS USED FOR CALCULATING PROPERTIES

Figure 21 : Details of example 4.

19
 EXAMPLE 5 : Inverted T beams with bottom transverse steel and in situ concrete ( Figure 22 )

Span : 20 m Equivalent grillage

Width : 17 m
Construction
Seventeen precast M beams at 1 m spacing .
In situ concrete cover to lower transverse steel .
In situ reinforced concrete top slab.
Reinforced concrete abutment diaphragms.
The grillage layout i exactly the same as for Example 3.
The longitudinal inertias are calculated for a single box
and proportioned to the grillage beams.
The transverse bending stiffness is calculated as
described on pages 5 and 6 of this booklet and the
transverse torsional stiffness by Method 4 in Appendix 1.
The value of longitudinal torsional inertia is proportioned
between the longitudinal and transverse directions as
detailed on page 6.

pppuuuuocjaappogooc
_
j J
CROSS - SECTION

20 m
LONGITUDINAL SECTION

ffi- >
O- i)

O- o
o- -o
o- -o
( -o
CE -o
<> -f )

© -0
GRILLAGE GEOMETRY

-
2 5m
4
2 - 5m
-
I

L J
transverse torsional transverse bending
SECTIONS USED FOR CALCULATING PROPERTIES

Figure 22 : Details of example 5 .

20
EXAMPLE 6 : Precast box beams with prestressed diaphragms ( Figure 23)

-
Span : 24 38 m Equivalent grillage

—
Nine longitudinal beams should be chosen with the
Width : 17 m -
centre line of the edge beams at the longitudinal
Construction
-
centre lines, of the outer box beams: The properties of a
single box should be calculated and proportioned in the
Seventeen PCDG standard box beams. ratio 17: 9.
-
Eleven prestressed diaphragms at 2 438 m spacing. Eleven transverse beams , each replacing a diaphragm,
are used with their properties calculated as for a box
-
2 438 m wide.

i
! [lot] c
i

17m
i

i TOC
-
CROSS SECTION

II 1 II 1
-
24 38 m
LONGITUDINAL SECTION

©- fi>

O- O

O-

o- o
o- -o

o- -o
-E >

o- -E )
& -0
GRILLAGE GEOMETRY

-
2 438 m

transverse longitudinal
SECTIONS USED FOR CALCULATING PROPERTIES

Figure 23 : Details of example 6 .

21
 EXAMPLE 7: Continuous I beams with in situ concrete top slab ( Figure 18 )

Continuous over six spans Equivalent grillage

It is unnecessary to simulate all the spans of the deck as
Each span : 25 m
a grillage ( Figure 24) ; only the spans considered as
Width : 17 m loaded need be simulated fully. The adjacent spans may
be considered with a reduced number of beams and the
Construction effect of further spans taken into account by the
As for Example 1 . application of moment restraints, i .e. the centre span
should be regarded as loaded with the HB vehicle ; the
equivalent grillage used for this span is the same as for
Example 1 . To obtain the correct support moment , one
of the adjacent spans must be fully idealized . The spans
adjacent to this pair will have a reduced number of
and J span will suffice. At the
transverse beams ; at
^
outer end of these adjacent spans, the longitudinal
heams will be restrained by moment springs. The spring
resistance, M , is the moment required to produce a
rotation of one radian. For a beam, M = 2 EI / I , where
/ = the length of the span.
The preceding approach will only produce the forces due
to loads on the spans idealized ; additional forces from
loads on spans ignored or replaced by elastic restraints
may be calculated by assuming concentrated loads are
knife-edge loads across the full width of the deck and
using continuous- beam theory.
To analyse either the first or the second spans of the
bridge, the same principle is used but omitting one of the
moment restraints and the reduced spans as appropriate.

support to be
analysed

f
I
fJ TI span to be
analysed
tI lI Tl TI
ACTUAL STRUCTURE

cf
f
.
reduced
idealization Ij
full T full
idealization J idealization
T
J
reduced
3
idealization
T
I
moment
springs

GRILLAGE SIMULATION

Figure 24 : Simplification of mesh for a continuous deck . •i I

’
.SVr? \ i

22
EXAMPLE 8 : Inverted T beams with bottom transvers e steel placed parallel to the abutments
)
and in situ concrete forming a voided structure ( Figure 25

Equivalent grillage
Skew angle : 35°
The grillage used is shown in Figure 25. An alternative
Skew span : 25 m to this would be a grid with additional nodes on the
17 m abutment beams at the positions of - the physical
Width : bearings; this would give a more accurate assessment of
the bearing reactions, but would make little difference
Construction
to moments.
Seventeen precast M beams at 1 m spacing.
Transverse steel placed parallel to the abutments. The transverse bending stiffness is calculated as
described on pages 5 and 6 and the transverse torsional
In situ concrete cover to transverse steel. stiffness by Method 4 in Appendix I . In both cases, the
width of the grillage beam is considered to be half the
In situ reinforced concrete top slab.
square distance between the members on either of the
Reinforced concrete abutment diaphragms. beams in question .
The value of the longitudinal inertia is proportioned
between the longitudinal and transverse directions as
detail on page 6.

T
2 -12 b

SS

2 -875

230

Figure 25 : Example 8 : Equivalent grillage (M).

23
 EXAMPLE 9 : Inverted T beams with bottom transverse steel placed orthogonally to the
longitudinal beams and in situ concrete forming a voided structure ( Figure 26 )

Skew angle: 35° Equivalent grillage

The grillage beam layout is shown in Figure 26. In the
Skew span : 23 m
abutment region, the transverse members connect with
Width : 17 m alternate longitudinal members at the supports ; if the
skew angle is greater than 35 °, members connecting with
Construction every longitudinal beam are used. The member
Seventeen precast M beams at 1 m spacing. properties are calculated in the same way as for a right
Transverse steel placed orthogonally to the longitudinal deck, where the proportioning of torsional stiffness is
beams . made by using the ‘width’ of transverse beam from the
central area of the deck . The torsional stiffness of the
In situ concrete cover to the transverse steel . narrower beams in the triangular regions is a linear
In situ reinforced concrete top slab. reduction depending upon their ‘width’.

Reinforced concrete abutment diaphragms. It is not possible with M beams to place the transverse
-
steel exactly at right angles to the longitudinal beams for
angles other than 31° and 50°. However, by a suitable
choice, it is always possible to be within 10° which, for
the analysis , can be considered orthogonal . In this
particular case, the steel will be at 4° to the orthogonal .
It should also be noted that a considerable reduction in
transverse steel will result from placing it in this
direction , and in most cases a reduction in maximum
longitudinal moment will also occur.

23 o

2 - 974
1

2 - 125

Figure 26 : Example 9 : Equivalent grillage ( M ) .

M
f t?
‘
I

24
 IS m
= The Cement and Concrete Association The Construction Industry
Research and Information Association
The Cement and Concrete Association offers to users of
jjj h cement and concrete a free service of technical The Construction Industry Research and Information
f Association (CIRIA ) undertakes research by enlisting
f :
information and advice, based on the work of its
Research Station , combined with wide practical the active participation of experts , mainly members, in
i
vpppip experience and the collection of information on a identifying the R & D needs of the construction
'
. ’ world-wide basis. The Association’s Training Centre industry, and in implementing and exploiting results.
provides an extensive range of courses on concrete The projects are managed by the CIRIA staff.
1

| _ practice, technology , and design . Information is

disseminated through scientific and technical papers,
CIRIA has no laboratories of its own, and therefore
employs, under contract, the organizations best able to
!j , reports and other publications, and through films . carry out the work . This method of operation ensures
The Cement arrd Concrete Association is an independent flexibility and strict control of costs.
SI
'
-
non- profit making organization , the only members of The Association is a non- profit-making organization
I rl ' '
which are the cement companies listed below . financed by members’ annual subscriptions,
The Association is financed by the member companies contributions to specific research projects, and a
' and is not subsidized from public funds. Government grant administered by the Department of
the Environment.
Abcrthaw & Bristol Channel Portland Cement
i:
'
Company Limited Members are mainly contractors, consultants and local
f ; ): y authorities, but others include public authorities,
'

,
:' y .- The Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Limited manufacturers and suppliers to the construction
The Cement Marketing Company Limited industry, universities and technical colleges.
, and subsidiary companies
ff The Ketton Portland Cement Company Limited
Ribblesdale Cement Limited
The Rugby Portland Cement Company Limited
and subsidiary companies
Tunnel Cement Limited
. : - and subsidiary companies

'
. •

:
 )

’• • • .
a

:
:•

„• ••
... . ,* • •’ . . ..
••

• .
•
•• * • . '

.*

• ::

:' *

:
• : •
:

.• •
•• ! • ;
•: .. :
». •
•«

:
• *
:• * . . :

• - ’•

:
•

r
'

:M . .. r
!
•:
•* • .. * >

* •' •. * *‘
4
••
* • * . •

:
. . i .= :

. . . . . :

:
• • •• ’
* *

-
: .
*

• ••

• : .• :
•• ;:\x ; / s: ;-
' '
:;
•• ••
•

• :
*
' - ' ' •
- *
.
:
t i <
.. ‘-,
4

V _
•
•••
v » u< -
:
'
•
••
-

. •

• •• • . . .. ; .V V' ; - .
v • • i • \ :
: • • .... v, \ • ••
. • •
>’ ; «

• . N