GENERAL NOTES on GRILLAGE ANALYSIS Craasty alpen beam (e by) Rena — Auk forotitign . Ge yee he awed Ce in FP D §let Cake) Robe? : : W830 1g wale 245 stds MLN. spence ha Wie JULY 1982- ale WHAY 28 _GRILLAGE ANA! Grillage analysis is probably the most popular computer aided method for analysing bridge te greatest advantage is ue that it can be applied to all feel eck. The representation Cae of a deck by a two dimensional grillage of beams for the purpose of analysis is a method readily understood in a structural design office. (A) PROTOTYPE AND (B) EQUIVALENT GRILLAGE A qrillage is composed of discrete one-dimensional members assembled into a two dimensional arrangement, the intersections of membersbeing at nodes. ‘The interaction between longitudinal and transverse force systems takes place at these nodal points. As only their lengths are dimensionally represented in the grillage model, the widths and depths of members are represented by area and stiffness properties. The grillage geometry and member properties are chosen so that the grillage behaves in a manner similar to the bridge deck, the deflectio and forces in the grillage being the same as those in the deck, The construction of the grillage is dependant on the type of deck being analysed, the positioning and spacing of the grillage members being determined by a combination of the nature and location of the Physical deck elements, and by the manner in which the deck behaves.DECK MODELLING The grillage mesh adopted will be influenced by four factors:~ 1, Engineering judgement and knowledge. 2, Knowledge of the individual deck elements and their behaviour relative to the whole. 3. The required accuracy of results. 4, The limitations of the program. The designer should consider how his structure will behave, and place grillage beams coincident with lines of designed strength (i.e. parallel to prestress or main beams, along edge beams and Giaphragms, and along lines of strength over bearings etc.) Also to be considered is the manner in which forces distribute within the deck. As a general rule, longitudinal members are the main beams (beam and slab decks) on (cellular decks). Additional longitudinal menbere of low stiffness are sometimes located along the edges of cantilevers or in link slabs to assist load description. BEAM ANO SLAB DECK WITH IDEALISED GRILAGEduent with cach ransverse gritlage members must be placed culm diaphragm, and as these are usually spaced well apart, additional moenbers are needed to reflect the load distribution characteristics of the deck. The spacing of the longitudinal and transverse grillage members should be reasonably similar to permit sensible statical dis- tribution of loads and to provide sufficiently accurate results for design purposes. The Spacing of transverse members should not exceed twice the longitudinal spacing. . Spacing the transverse members at equal intervals will facilitate the computation of the members' stiffness properties and hence simplify input pre- paration. It may, however, be necessary to provide extra transvers members in areas of sudden stress change (i.e. over internal support or in the corners of high skew slabs), but wherever possible this cose a should be avoided. Transverse grillage menbers should in all case: “be orthogonal te the longitudinal members unless, as in the case of slabs with a small angle of skew, the direction of strergth, (i.e. reinforcement) is parallel to the angle of skew. Vet ‘he grillage mesh should be designed in such a way that nodes coinci with critical stress points, (i.e. supports, mid-span positions ¢.c. All programs are limited in their capacity and a check must be made before data is input that the mesh does not exceed these limitations (i.e. maximum numbers of nodes, members, etc.) carters + Yocok effete’REQUIRED 1nd ORMAY The information required may be divided into four categories:- 1. Grillage geometry 2. Section and Material Properties of Grillage Members. Restraints 4. Loadings GRILLAGE GEOMETRY The positioning of longitudinal and transverse members has already been covered under Deck Modelling. Nodes are defined by numbering and positioned by co-ordinates related to the global axes of the deck. Members are located by the node numbers at their ends. The numbering of nodes is of significance both to the computer and the designer. The larger the joint numbering difference between the ends of a member, the more computation is required oa imitatio) on the size of the joint numbering difference., The method of of the computer. For this reason most programs have a node numbering must also be borne in mind when considering the eduired presentation of output. tn the case of the ICL Program, output is listed in the same order as that in which the members appeared in the input. iWeatyey arbre dav Anaig. tie ag ty SECTION AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES SERTION AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES Correct evaluation of the stiffness properties of the individual grillage mombers is the most important and difficult part of grillage fire!input preparation. ‘he overall behaviour of the analytical model is directly influenced by this information. Careful study of the relationship between the physical deck and the model is necessary if correct input, and hence output, is to be achieved. In this respect, the references appended to these notes should be read and understood. bene 2 sun § Facet Fovet 19 & This manual covers in detail suggestéa cele ne for evaluating the stiffness properties of qa of deck only. Successful treatment of other deck types will only be achieved by studying the relevant literature. thd c€bec This aspect of data input is self [Sdects m2 " ne are specified as either encastré or free to rotate about both global axes lying in the grillage plane. Degrees of fixity may be ‘.{. simulated by applying moment loads at the relevant nodes. Seria Loadin ‘| (oie a posdangs 1 Coy ir Rt clone 3 eld Pee (amtaretatt © nbuce fevers ov los Loads may be eathee distriblted along the grillage membare 6. applied as point loads at the nodes. They may be either linear or moment loads. Care must be exercised when specifying the axes about which the moment loads rotate. In the I.C.L. Program distributed moment loads act about the menber axes, whereas point moment loads act about the global axes. jhess Boland A ( Mavis Ceglerts — DB den yf tc foeddn, snes daria < Oe! wa zt is recommended that 1cece are statically distributed to the r murders die oa & Ti on and local -y Vongitudinal members only, so that deck disto: r : 1 Vecet ‘ate, Pending of transverse members are not confused.” Tovai bending of transversemembers due to concentrated loads may be evaluated~ 36 Reid Covlens independently from influence surface charts. nie Fz nes jek The application of NA loading as defined ia yf 7 warrants a large number of load cases to cover all the possible loading configurations. A combination of judgement and experience will assist in keeping the load cases to the minimum necessary to produce an acceptable result. 4 4ak oa. 7 EVALUATION OF RESULTS The designer must realize that any mathematical analysis carried € out is an analogy that is not always truly representative of the way in which the real structure behaves. Differences between the actual structure and the analytical model must be kept in mind, as output from the computation is only applicable to the analytical model. This particularly applies to cellular decks, whose three dimensional behaviour has to be carefully considered when evaluating results from a two dimensional grillage. Output relating to transverse members needs careful study. v Statical distributions of loading will in many cases produce erroneous results in these members, whose local system of moments and torques are only revealed by analysis of the individual members themselves. Ad daset’ Lyadr” its Axtel? The sign convention adfpted in the output presentation should be checked and, if necessary, modified to conform P that adgptea at the input stage. otdo oo pth, | ~00000-REFERENCES HAMBLY E.C. WEST R. HAMBLY E.C. PENNELLS FE PENNELLS E. NNS/CuN . ? Bridge Deck Behaviour, John Wiley & Sons Recommendations on the use of grillage analysis fc slab and pseudo-slab decks, Cement and Concrete Association Grillage Analysis applied to cellular bridge decks, the Structural Engineer, July 1975. Conerete Bridge Designer's Manual, Cement and Concrete Association.As a first step in a grid analysis the continuum of the deck must be idealized into a series of discrete elements, hereinafter referred to as members. ‘These elements are connected at joints and it is at these joints that restraints to movement, i.e. supports or rigidity, are applied. kestraints may be applied at any joint and members framing into a joint may be at any angle. It is thus possible to analyse a bridge deck with either simple or continuous supports and on any skew. * VAnghterng 7 Ah bee b - : Otreer © Mnowrter averdicte - Grid Geometry The use of a line diagram representing the grid is essential. (See worked example). Joints must exist at each point of support of the bridge deck, and at each point of intersection of two or more members, and at each Point where a member changes its sectional properties. In addition the user may consider joints to exist at points along members in order to elicit extra information from the results. For example, it may be required to obtain the deflection at the mid-point of a beam, in which case it is necessary to postilate a joint at that point. The line diagram wiil show only the basic geometrical layout of the bridge deck. For complete definition it is also necessary to choose a system of axes and their origin, and the data giving the position of each joint must be referred to these axes. This is fully describec in the section relating to data input.tion of eam and Slab Deck (see iodelling Examples) daa le vase Jeane t: AY Op OPO. hy dhatingh wh BEAM AND SLAB_DECK WITH IDEAUISED GRID. A Beam and Slab Deck usually consists of ten or fewer longitudinal beams connected with a top slab and transverse diaphragms. Grid Geometry In this type of deck the longitudinal grid beams are coincident with the physical beams. The transverse grid beams are spaced according to the deck width. + for a square deck, the transverse beam spacing is | equal to the longitudinal beam spacing, and for a narrow deck the spac anal beams: transverse beams would normally be coincident with the iaphragns. Wie bmn tet eheenys rebel A we lame be Ger Gerd Sectional Properties 5 to ~~! A_ and I for each grid member is calculated from the deo torgigav ee of the deck it represents. ‘When the deck is subjected to torsion the longitudinal beams and aiaphragmsare subjected soley to tudinal..torsion whereas the Slap-tas torsion in both diréctions. Therefore C for each longitudinal and transverse grid member is the sum of C for each bean of diaphragm plus 4 C tor che stah sectson it represents. ei e « ae 7 2 Cather joo Ae es 2 ih + _ a oa G Cea a Cs credits Ce CredtCeecsof Voided Slab beck (See Modelling Examples) KEP VOIDED_SLAB_DECK 5 WITH IGEALISED_GRIO For the following idealization the cross-sectional area of the void: °e © ao * must be less than SURETERSEAS? © of the total cross-sectional area oj mR a eveen the supports. % apparel x: phoma cane. Grid Geometry yo » tthe longitudinal grid beams are coincident with either the voids or x Ny” (the webs whichever 4s convenient. ‘the (imum paengeidghaamsuarenepe: between one and “two times’ the longitudinal beam spacing, and if poss the spacing should be constant. Sectional Properties For the longitudinal beams,A & I are calculated from the complete cr section and divided by the number of grillage beams. Transversely a are calculated by replacing the circular voids with square voids of t same area and taking a cross-section through the void. C is calcula as follows: If £, is the spacing of the longitudinal grid beams ané 4, that of the transverse beams, and if C, is the longitudinal torsi stiffness as calculated for a hollow section (Appendix 2) and ¢, th transverse tersional stiffness as calculated for slabs held apart by ve ceven members (Appenéix 2) then: 2% 4, a= 7%, x 7 and Longitudinal Torsional stiffness C, = C, /(1+q) Transverse Torsional stiffness Cy = C, /(14a)UP Me ef twin Voided Beam bee! ‘ is len In this type of deck the width of the beam has a significant effect on TWO POSSIBLE GRIDS FOR TWIN VOIDEO BEAM DECK —LWO_POSSIBLE GRIDS FOR TWIN VOIDED BEAM DECK the transverse behaviour of the deck and must be modelled accordingly. In the above figure two possible grids are given depending on the tran verse rigidity of the box itself. As in the previous types of deck, the transverse grid is spaced at between one and two times the spacing of the longitudinal beams. Sectional Properties For those grid beams that represent the slab only, A, I and C are calculated from the cross-section of the slab that the beam represents, the value of C being halved if the slab is represented by both a longitudinal and transverse grid member. The properties of the longu~ tudinal grids representing the beams are calculated as follows: A and are calculated from the beam plus associated slab and proportioned to th number of grid beams representing the physical beam. Torsional stiffne is calculated from the beam pn: ly This value is halved and then pro- portioned to the number of grid beams representing the physical heam In the transverse direction bending stiffness I is calculated from a section through the cenéze of the beam (i.e. the contre of the void iff there is one) whereas for torsional stiffness, half the value of the total torsional stiffness of the beam in the longitudinal direction joned asscording to the grid spacing, as shown is used and propor overleaf :~Idealization of a Skew Deck When analyzing skew decks the choice between skew or orthogonal grids depends on how the transverse diaphragms are positioned. The trans- verse members can be either a) Parallel to the supports with the structural parameters calculated using the orthogonal distance between the trans- vorse grid beans, ox Alot. week, rartle Coettbk b) Orthogonal to the fee eee a KEW. ORTH Eu Any diaphragm in a deck must be represented by an equivalent beam in the grid simulation and this will define the transverse members. When an orthogonal grid is used and the spacing of the longitudinal members is different to that of the transverse members, an adjustment will be necessary in the region of the supports as it is recommended that, for convenience, the transverse grid enbers should intersect as shown above. For small angles of skew, (less thal this will result in an excess of es transverse members in the support area and transverse megbers inter- secting alternate longitudinal menbers will outtice IE CeeSlab held apart by cross member Idealized section ‘This section typically arises when considering the transverse behaviour of a voided slab deck, where the longitudinal webs separating the voids form the cress members. It is idealized by replacing the cross-members with webs of equivalent stiffness (refer to above diagram). Torsional stiffness (C) is then calculated as for a hollow section Web thickness t* is calculated as follows: abt a ws 3/1 tm, * ae (ay ‘a where £/6 = 26¥) (2,4 tor concrete) Bq) a = Spacing of cross members (transverse spacing of longitudinal webs in 2 voided slab deck) b = Distance between centroid of top Slab and centroid of bottcm slab. Igy = Bending inertia of top slab Bending inertia of bottom slab Ts2 Bending inertia of cross momber spanning between the top and bottom slabs for a width equal te the cross member spacing (a). The length () of the beam is the distance between the two slabs, the width is taken as the cross member spacing (a) and the depth of the beam is ae ethos Yotmes Er fuer aeAPPENDIX uO ENERAL SECTIONAL PROPERTIES y area A Ean = fan ZA lst Moment of Area AY = Laay = /yaa centroia c= 9) . 2nd Moment of Area ty = fy? an (Moment of Inertia) tx = fx? an Polar Moment of Inertia rp ~ fx? 4a = Inter Product of tnertia tay = fxy.aa ; MOMENT OF INERTIA (Bending stittness) Go xp ted ? circle Ix = eq a4 Rectangle ba? d tx = 6 : Parallel Axis Thearem: 1a = ry + ay?TEUPLZ HO. 2 3 SIONAL CONS! lu» beam, Forces cause torate (oy cesbitiay dn rotation (g) where @ = -[%q ax, © being the torsional stiffness of the section. Unlike bending stiteness. (2) which is the second woment of aren, ¢ is not a simple geometrical property of the cross-section and various approximations have been derived. Prandti‘s membrane analogy shows that "the stiffness of a cross-sectional shape is proportional U phsho. t yo the volume under an inflated bubble stretched acvoss\d“hole of tie same shape. The shear stress at any point is along the direécio of the bubble's contours and of magnitude proportional to the gradier Migr at Fight angles to the contours Prandtl's Membrane Analogy APPROXIMATIONS FOR C Sections without Re-entrant Corners (Circles, Parallelograms, i.e where the interior angle of the Hexavensn st¢.3. ¢ comnge is greater than 180° ——7—_— General Shapes r+ c a4 : (Saint ~ Venant Approximation) = 40 ap TF Arent allel. = aa Circles Ae a J T= (shear stress) \ < c ba? a a4 b y [1 - 0,63 Sar d Rectangles d eo » 72nt i bed T = t/[ba? (0,333-0,125%a76 ) (Max shear stress - at t centre of long side) y Whe te be eed! [p+ fear een Thin Walled Open Sections | Te cc t (Shear Stress) be ie. where € > lot + Plt “Bridge Deck Behaviow™ , Edmund C HamblySECTIONS WITH RE-ENTRANT CORNERS (1, 4 oF T. Beem) General : C is derived by dividing the cross-section into shapes without re-entrant corners and summing ¢ for each element. When dividing the cross-section, Prandti‘s membrane analogy must be borne in mind, trying to NAXINICE the volume under the inflated bubble Refer to example below: 5 ae alSection to_be divided bi Correct idealization _—_c}Jacorrect_idectization Tne treatment of a compos "Modelling Examples"” HOLLOW SECTIONS fe beam «i slab is covered under When the length of the mean perimeter of a section is greater than ten times the average wall thickness, the section is considered ae thin walled. When it is less, it is considered thick walled. Thin walled box section Mean Perimeter ef one cell or two symmetrical cells. oe tht where A, = area enclosed by mean perineter as as 5: {® ana [42 12 {si 4 $2) ete “ey r 7 ‘she vc (shear stross) Thick Walled Hollow ctiol ‘Torsional Stiffness C is approximately equal to ¢ for the shape ww outer boundary Less ¢ for the shape of the inner crm POD (as boundary.BEAN AND SLAB DECK DECK CONFIGURATION: Six 40 MPa precast postensioned 'I' beans at 2 m spacing are connected by a 30 MPa reinforced concrete top slab. There are diaphragms at abutments and at quarter span points. 25m_ | Longitudinal_section GRID GEOMETRY Longitudinal grid beans are co-incident with physical beans and transverse grid beams are co-incident with diaphragms. Extra transverse grid beams are placed between the diaphragms for more accurate load distribut: eet 10 ealOnly sectional properties of specific members will be calculated to illustrate methods previously described. COMPOSITE SECTION: From gs$400 Table 2, the modulus of elasticity (E) for the beams is 31 GPa whereas the slaband diaphragms are 26 GPa. .To matics te z amount of input, 3! GPa will be used for the composite sections, vhich will teen formed by reducing the slab width by the ratio of the respective moduli, This transformed section will then be used to calculate Area (A), Bending Inertia (I) and Torsional Inertia (Cc). Tet fy 4 TRANSVERSE MEMBER 16217-(s1ab only) ‘Transformed Slab Width: 725, nN =a 3125 x 28/31 = 2823 mm A= 2623 x 160 = 451 680 mm 1 2823x160? = 963,6 x 106 nnd 4 I © = 4226255160" Je 2,927 1 20° a ef ~ Appendix 2 - Sections without re-entrant corners) . dele TRANSVERSE MEMBER “AO=TT" (slab plus diaphragm) z 7 CECA Contre ple im 5 geass Sear eS Car ackoet De i ¥ 0 eae — on |» a ig phodd lee A= 4687 x 160 + 930 x 300 = 749 920 + 279 000 = 1 028 920 mm . Eay = 749 920x 80 + 279000 x 625 = 234,4 x 108 mm \ 20. Centroid Depth =ay/a = 228 om. s >re Vaz xauyy x i6ot + 7a9 80 x Lae! fi eied 2 af + 742 x 300 x 930 + 279000 x 297" = 82.11 x 10° mm c= 2 (3 x 4687 x 160") . 1 : 300 44.2008 4,7. 619 930 x 300% [1-0,63 229 (1 304] Bertier s LONGITUDINAL MEMBER 10-16 2000 |}_}__1@_ ‘ sea. i ° 200 EE e00 | L160 160 815, 185 z a 1 ne = Wdealized transformed section Actual _ section ‘Transformed slab width = 2000 x 26/31 = 1806 mm section) bxa | area | y | ay o 1 (assed | 10m?) | com | 05am") [ad amt | ¢10mm4) 1 | ts06er60[ 269,0 | 90 | 23,1 | 52 450] 617 cof 2 400x90 36,0 205, 74 3 262 24 3 | aeoxeas | 130,4 | 657 | 95,7 | 2 973 | 218 4 | ssoxses | 175.7 fais | 20,3 | 74 262} son il Total 631,1 l 319,5 133 147 |@ 360 Centroid Depth = ray/a = 506 mm A= 631 100 mn? T= 2Ll +rAy?= 141,5x109 mn4 Calculating C (Ref. ~ Appendix 2 ~ Sections with re-entrant corners):9s0xias | 0,195 i | : ee | a a4 0,63 8 aft) Cm + c+, + Cy = 3,979 x 109 ont TYPICAL MEMBERS NOT DEALT WITH: Member 4-5 L-Bean Member 22-23: T-Beamsection | bx ad] a/b] hm c — (10% emt) 1 freoaxve0 [e,02e 0,15 | 2,330 2 | 400x90 0,225 | 0,266 | 0,083 2 | ersxico {0,196 Jo,232 | 0,975 + [psoas fotos fo.ese | 1,756 bea kbs? a aq Hoes S Osge] kt val © =dC +, +0, + Cy = 3,979 x 109 m4 Member 4-5 L-Bean Member 22-23: T-BeamVOIDED SLAB DECK DECK _CoNPIGuRATION: at 1060 ma centres. GRID GEONETRY: Ord beams ase 26.2 ge = vertically up ip se a y The slab is 1060 mn deep with seven 760 my circular voids There are diaphragns over the supports. 1050 Longitudinal grid beans are.co-incident_with the webs and transverse eon COTTE ery 8 hah — 08 — te la ip — te—the—a6 idee aJONGLYUDTHAL MEMBER 12. 4 ang 1 are calculated by dividing A and I for the whole transverse section excludi cantilevers by the number of members it represents. Ap = 7870 x 1060 - 7x TT x 380° = 5 167 000 ma? 1 7 2 7 4 i 10S mt ty = Gb x 7070 x 1050 - 7 x Ex 760 66,5. 109 in ie > Ho, of tongieusinal members = 0 (Zve%) press f A= 646 000 mm! 1 = 83,3. 109 and Nore. | 1060 THERE ARE 7 BOKES AND 8 GRILLAGE DEANS. THEREFORE EACH GRILLAGE . BEAM HAS THE STIFFNESS OF 7/8 OF A BOX. G2 escater barr |e inner poms) (Ref - appendix 2 - Thick walled hollow sections) 4 ; 1060" Pt © outer boundary = 2280 [1 oes ~ ey) = 177,0.109 am + C= 7. (17,8 ~ 32,8).10° 126,9.10 mn@ 3 This must now be corrected by a factor dependant on the transverse torsion - refer to member 23-24. TRANSVERSE MEMBER 13-23 Replacing circular void with square void of same area: ie. VWF X 380° = 674 fm square Section through centre of veid 93] 6m vn 7 eeeA= 2% 193 x 20U0 ATE 000 rn T= 2% 1937x 2000 + 2X 195 x 2000 x 433° = 173,5.109 nf Calculating C (Ref - Appendix 2 - Slabs held apart by cross mombers) ? ay wnere t+ (eee ts1 20 2 rg aa ; g ae toe oe 329 [300 [200 etiaorectad Bei" ts2 = Gf x 2000 x 150" = 562.106 mt Cn ae i a = fra i -1 Lo 760mm wa =f (830 - OSE) 1060 [<® }380 s ? st Pc Te oe Using Simpson's nutes ? feczyaz = 82 (e+ 4£, + 263 + 4ty + £5) 2 | 0 95 199 285 380 | (mm) 6 m3} #0) 3A 4,3 a1, 21,7 14,9] (106 m3) \ | | fetayar = 302,46 40 43424814 4x 21,74 149, 92008 \ 3 = 8,629,107 nnd Boats IGyo Ie $38. 109 mm4 a ee 1060_x 9107 1060? x 910 2 es al aegcarn 109 + MERE (26) 16097 2197: 150 (Ref - Appendix 2 --Thin walled hollow sections) Cy = 126,9.109 m4 (erom calculations for longitudinal ember 13-23) y= 132,2.109 ium 1060 ma 2 = 2000 mm = 0,552 ) SS = 81,8,10%nm4 — (wember 13-23) 1g ——— Cy Fy 85,2.10°mm? (Member 23-24) TYPICAL MEMBERS NOT DEALT WrTH TAPICAL MEMBERS NOT DEALT WrTH Member 3-4 Solid deck slab over support Member 1-2 Cantilever slab At Member 11-12 Cantilever slab Member 1-11 Cantilever slabveck DECK CONPIGURATION Twin Boxes with circular voids spanning 30 m with no voids over support g 1310 Bee [ hy hie 1800 CROSS SECTION, wae gr Aw 7 : cel | Axe 1 orc + GRID GEOMETRY Longitudinal grid beams coincide with the two boxes, the cantilever slabs and the link sleb. ‘Traverse grid beams are at 3 centres with nodes at the edge of each box beam so that the traverse behaviour of the grid is closer to that of the deck. at the supports these nodes are moved toward the box beams to coincide with the bearings. ty NN a a a a J Pacer Laas eee é 4 *&# #6 &@ & & of | | | | | | Se ection Stith tia tis tittle Bee eee pp th eh I I I ’ > * db oe & oh 23g sb ehSi CTORAL PROPER * Longitudinal Member 12-21 3 Section through beam 1500 ay ay? x 1dest)| tom | aolary | able | ackiyey 2] 860 | so | aor fa [Agere 2 - 450 1300 S85 104 2/36bh* =-56 3 1651 925 1527, -18 eae 217 rota | 2759 [2a [oa 1639 centroid Depth = FAL « 620 ws A= 2759 000 mt Crecay? = 948.109 om? Section Considered as Thick Walled (Appendix 2 - Hollov Sections) . Section| a y ay tx | ag iy (106mm?) (nxn) | (108ren? ) (10%mn4) | 109mm 4) | (105 mn) 2 0,450 | 1300 | ~ses 88 56 703 Total | 4,410 3 789 ~80 1256 -703 2950 controia oepth = EY = 659 am tp = Ix + Ty = (1256 ~ 80 + 2950 - 703). 109 m4 = 3 424 109 nnd 4 € of outer boundary = AL 4p = (4,410.10) 4/40. 3,424,101? = 2,762.10!2 nt C OF inner boundary = tp = 0,434.10!2 amdoe aig © = (2,762 ~ 0,434) 1012 = 2,320 10!2 $C = 1,164 3022 mm cy % 0. 0 %.2,320.10!2, 300/200 “ . 1,299.10! sun TRANSVERSE MEMBER 21 - 22 SECTION THROUGH CENTRE OF VOID Section A y ay Ay? Ix [(10? mm? )} (mum) | (10 mem? )# (109 sammy (109 m4) fr sie | coo | 10 | eo | 201 2,0 Potton stay} aso | 17s | 7 | ase a8 Foti [1050 we | 679 2 Z centeote oegtn «© F - 796 om A= 1050 000 mn* T= fay + rr = 662 109 mma From calculations of longitudinal Member 12-21 c= TYPICAL MEMBERS NOT DEALT WITH: TXEICAL MEMBERS NOT DEALT WITH: Member 14-23 slab Member 23-24 slab Member 10-11 Slab Member 10-19 slab 293 1012 mm’tro] 1206 2000 1280 | 910, | 3 280 se Longitudinal section through beam C4 of r 2500 | 30000 - 22500 a —} — 9 —22— 29— 38— 4) —50 — 57 —6¢ — 1 —78 — 85 —92 ~99 106-119 190-127 —-De—14t Aenea oe eg @-$-1 ea =2=73 85 —33 Aor—e —1h) ~128 135 — 3 “tp ee em Titi litt rt ti 6M = 18 = 25— 52-39-45 — 9 — 60-87 ~ 74-8188 — 95 - e109 - 16129 —190- BY — 14 et Op pet tp rdapbeled bled ee) Loh SOR Eee E prep teprhe@ “spacing 3750 (ons?T ee Grid_geometry WA ae prumramarntLn medelbing thir dock, lne effect of the pier on the grid is fed in os 8 rotational spring of sliffress cqual to that of the pier. As each pier is represented by two restrained nodes, the stiffness (Noment-ro- tation relationship) of the pier is calculated and half this value ap- plied to each node Mae EL For Compatibility : Gg - Gq apie 8 My gato a (me +a mh) Bh, 7 °2 Ero2 4 . @g= MAL ‘ z ah Bee pot fous Levert 04 seas 4.26.10°.1 .2,010,0% = 709.107? M, (8 - radius, M, ~ ken) weg 8 ss Stiffness = Hy = = 1,268.10 iktin/radiue a (789.10 83 X71. A RY Spring of stitiness 634 000 knn/rad acts on the Following joints : 44, 48, 47, 48, 100, 101, 103, 104 NB these joints are also restrained in the LZ direction sbeok above xB Ainslie). eocee -.{In any but the most straightforward of situations, some form of computer ealculation 's bound to be needed for Final detiied analysis of bridge decks, As pact of the CARIA esearch project on the design of bridges and elevated motorways, the Cement and Concrete Association bas exemined a number af possible methods of analysis for slab and pscudosslab bridge decks, It has been coviluded that grllage analysis is the most suitable Imcthod for general use: it is cheap, widely epplicabie and.sulficiently accurate for the majority of bridge decks. = A separate CIRIA report will give a comparison of the Various methods of unalysis. Grillage anaysis has been thoroughly investigated and compared with tes data from 53 move and uil-seale structures: details of this work ure given in C.& C A Retearch Report 21. This present docunient gives recommendations for the Structural idealization which enables engineets to appiy arillage analysis o a wide range of bridge decks. A. R. Collis Director C1RIA RE Rowe Director of Research and Development ‘Cement and Concrete Association Eniveering Envirominen ad eonaton. The ay, however, wish (6 ie rode dvi When ‘als of Festareh work curry Seng shdsvored by HECB ite conisiere. ‘This report his been examined by the ih GorapiterUewneh of the Deps msi Pibicston 46.017 Fil pabianed (979 SiIN 73100899 6 Price ng Diane and printed by the Coin and Conerete Association, 52 Gtoiven? Gardens, Lomién SWI WAG, Publis fee Comet mit Crete Assoc ici Wary Rese wa a Us seid, Ahh e Ceinent wat Certs Assim ds Ie bes to ‘enare tha any adie, rest Five fn wee no tale re (lltig Hay for eye) es ped Fn espe hy the Assoculon is rants or ngents. © Cement and Concrete Association 1973C&CA/CIRIA | A/~3D Recommendations on the use of grillage analysis for slab and pseudo-slab bridge decks R. West php, Lima, Macs Notation Introduction ‘ Choice of program Teealicatio ofthe deck Application of loads Interpretation of results Loca eects References Appendix 1: Equation for calculating torsional inertia 12. Methot 1: Rectangular beams 12 Method 2:7 or t beams 13. Method 3: Box beams 13 Method 4: Plates eld rigidly apart by side braces ‘Appendix 2: Suggested grillage Inyouts for typleal Forms of construction 16 Example |: I beams with in situ conerete top slab 17 Example 2:1 beams with prestressed diaphragms 18 Example 3: Javerted T beams with in situ conerete top slab only 19. Exathple 4 Solid reinforced concrete slab 20 Example 5: Inverted T beams with bottom transverse steel and in stu concrete 21 Example 6: Precast box beams with prestressed diaphragms 22 Example 7: Continuous 1 beams within sta conerte top slab 23 Example 8: Inverted T beams with botiom transverse steel placed paalel to the abutments and in situ concrete forming a voided structure 24 Example 9: Inverted T beams with botlom transvercslel placed orthogonally to the longitudinal stel and in stu concrete forming a voided structuresuminnasy Tis booklet contains recomendations on the use of Brillage analysis for sab and preuco-sid bridge decks, based on the comparisons made in the Cement and Conetee Association's Research Report 21. The research report deteribes in detail the comparsorsraade Between the results rom $3 model and fulsize bridges and those predicted by grilage anclys's. Guidance is given om the choice of computer program, the layout of grille beams to represent the Actual structure and the methods of elevating the structera! pararoetrs. Alto a method of interpreting tre grliage Fesuls into the form reguied forthe design ofthe structure is shown, together with some suggestions on how {6 design the reinforcing steel for diferent forms of constuction ‘An Appendix contains the formulae necessary for calculating the torsional stiffesses required forthe Yatious form of consirvction. A second Appendix gomptses «series of examples of grllage bea layout ft mise common forts of consration snd geometry. ‘There is enough information in this booklet for an engineer to analyse and design a bridge deck by using arllage analogy. Reference 10 the research report need. bbe made.only for background information. A selected set of vefeceies (rom the research report is repeated in. this booklet, These repeated references include all those Which refer to the actual utilization of grillage analysis; the first 119 in Research Report 21, which ate omitted from this teport, are concerned solely with the background coniparisons. Netauon ‘M, bending moment on a longitudinal gillage beam ‘May \wisting moment on a iongitudinal grillage bear ‘My bending moment on an orthogonal transverse srillage beam ‘Myx ‘isting moment on sn orthogonal transverse arillage bear ‘M, bending moment on a skew transverse grillage beam ‘Mny ‘isting moment on a skew transverse grillage beam M'x My My ben plivsical beam Mian M'sa, M'y-_vwisting moment ata point for a physical Geam W'p shear force at a point for a physical beam ‘mz bending moment per unit width in @ slab ‘my ‘sisting moment pet unit width in a slab My sheat force per unit wideh in a slab w defection at a point A reaction at bearing direction of longitudinal beams or main reinforcing steel ¥ direction orthogonal to x » —ditestion of transverse beams or transverse steel 4 direction orthogonal to ¥ ing ricment at a point for aIntroduction ‘The purpose of this booklet is 10 define methods of arfanging the geometric layouts of grillage beams to simulate the behaviour of siab and pseudo-slab bridge decks; iogether with the methods of calculating and apportioning the structural parameters required for the ‘analysis. Also given are sorte considerations to be borne in mind Whén choosing a program, and guidance on the ‘application of loads to the grillage and interpretation of the result, Somie of the information has been published previously as ITN 1:05) There is no fundamental change in this inere changes have beeh sade, they are iy 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, fine diferences, finite clements, finite sips, folded plates and gritlage. When the complete field of pseudo-siab structures is considered, only grilage analysis is universally applicable, with the exception of a suitable choice of. ‘lements from & ‘super finite element package and this ‘wil always carry a heavy cost penalty for a structure as slivple asa slab bridge, When compared with other analyses, particularly with finite piate elements, on a cost basis, grillage analysis will invariably be cheaper to use ‘on a computer. Its extremely easy for an engineer to Visualize and prepare the data for a grilage, albeit Sometimes tedious for the more poorly conceived rogram. In design offce the majority of engineers will arely analyse decks more frequently than once in six months; If they are required (0 use a multiplicity of programs deperiding upon the type of deck, they will ‘need (a learn the requirements afresh virtually every time an analysis is required, It isin chi that the greatest advantage of grillage analysis ies; the engineer need only be familiar with one program, and a simple one at that ‘The recommendations given herein have been chosen, where possible, (0 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 stifness parameters are not in accord with classical plate theory, but it should be borne in ming, ‘when it has been decided to perform a grillage analysis, that the fact that the original structure was @ plate does not automaticelly imply that equivalent plate stifinesses should bé Used fot the grillage beats. The best results ate obtaifed by considering isolated sections of the deck. as if they Fé individual beams ahd not pieces of plate, Choice of program Some of the proigharts curréntly generally available are given in the references. tsa In the above it is assumed that the widths of the transverse and longitudinal grilage beams are equal; if they are not, aC is found by dividing the calculated" value by the width ratio, and Cris multiplied by the width catio to give the actual value of inertia for the transverse beam. The above approach is consistent with that used for grid- and slabstype structures where the value of torsional inertia for slabs which are considered in both directions is halved. Ifa steucture 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 I. For three or more within-span daphragms, the approach ‘outlined in (a) should be used and the stiffening effect of the longitudinal beams ignored in the wansverse direction, ‘The recommendations made in this section ate aimed primarily at the grillage analysis and are not necessarily applicable to other forms of analysis, pacticularly those Which treat the structure as a continuum, eg. load distribution. Skew ‘The recommendations made in the preceding sections on the choice of equivalent grillage beams apply to skew decks, but some extra though 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 paralel to the free edges. The positioning of the transverse members can be either (2) parallet to the supports with the structural parameters calculated using the orthogonal distance between the grillage bear. (®) orthogonal to the longitucinal beams, ‘When layout (b) is used and the spacing of longitudinal bbeams is different from that of the transverse beams, an adjustment will be necessary in the region of the supports a5 its 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 (Jess than 35°), this wil result in an excess of ‘transverse beams in this area and transverse beams intersecting alternate longitudinal bears will suff. Figure 4: Layout of an orthogonal mesh fr askew 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 iransverse beams, both layouts will give acceptable results when used inthe correst situation. If the deck is expected to behave perfectly. elastically, the orthogonal mesh will give the correct. results; a skew grid in thi situation will overestimate ‘maximum defections and moments, the arvount increasing with the angle of skew. When the concrete is expected to erack uncer the design loacs (as with M beams with bottom steel) the transverse grillage beams — ‘must lie parallel to the lower transverse stel, The ‘orthogonal mesh will make the preparation ofthe input data more difficult, especially ifan automatic -mesh-generating system is being used. It hs, however, the distiret advantage that, for slabs, the moments, My5, at be seu duecty mn tie Wore ‘equations 8.1591 to caleviate the sleel required in any Giection, In general, therefore, the grillage should be forthogoral unless the transverse steel isin the skew direction. When an M beain type of deck with in situ conerete in the bottom forming @ box type of steueture is being. analysed, the transverse grlage 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 applicadle. It is extremely important that, ifthe reactions are required accurately, the grillage should be supported in exactly the same positions as the eetual deck, and that the supports should be of similar stiffness. The exact stifines is not critical as obviously the bearing cannet bbe chosen until the reaction is known. But the differences between a stee rocker, a rubber bearing or & Jong column will cause considerable differences in reaction and, for mult-span decks, in moments. Where the bearing position does not coincide with the line of the longitudinal members, a transverse beam of nominal stifness should be aligned through the bearings with Intermediate joins at the bearing positions. A typical stiffness for this bear could be that of « rectanale 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 stifinesses already. Application of loads Programs vary regarding the types of foad that itis possible to apply to the structure. All will permit the Application of point loads and moments atthe joints and ‘some will allow point loads, distributed foads and moments on the members. As any member loading can. bbe replaced by point loads and moments at the ends of the member, its therefore possible to apply any form. of loading with any of the programs. WOE Figure $: Distribution of load frome panel tothe surrounding odes. fi ‘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, eg. for a point load acting within a {quadrilateral formed by grillage members (Figute 5), consider it statically proportioned to a pair of opposite ‘members, then in the same way from these members to the joints as point ioads. Interpretation of results ‘The output listing should contain first a summary of the structure and the loadings applied; in programs where {his isan option, itis advisable to request it in order to ‘elcck the Input da, This is followed by lists of deflections und rotations al the joints und dy shears and moments at the beam ends. ‘When examining the iongitudinal and transverse bending moments, the user should bear in rind all the time the Sign contention used bythe program, which willbe [lly explained in the manual flating to the particular program. Where 2 grilage beam continues across a Joint, the values of moment from end 2 of one member and énd 1 of the continuation member willbe diferent. If the two moments are ofthe same sense, the signs will be opposite. The methad of dealing with these moments cepends upon the actual structure, Whete al the embers meeting atthe node sre physical beams, there ill bea genuine step inthe bending moments at ths point and the actual ve ves output from the program Should be used, This also applies if the longitudinal triage beams ceplace more than one physical beam and the ceck has withinspan dlaphragms. This method wil always cause « slight overestimate of the moment because with every ceck there will be some contiquous slab present. If any ofthe grillage beams are hypothetical and represent sections of sia, the (wo moments may be Averaged, as in the structure no step would occur in moment diagram, The method of averaging is shown ia Figure 6. 1000 soo 1000 ‘0 Tene ns stat wo aoa remers “remamesrp $0004 £002 00 mame apr Z Figure 6: Averaging moments at 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 Cit 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 occu's, the distribution of the deck will deteriorate. With slabs and voided slabs, itis possible to include torsional moments in the design using the method of Wood and Armer.7-1 This method requires that the unit moment triad ma, ay and may be known atthe point under consideration. This is not immediately available from a grillage analysis If the grid is skew, M,, May, My and Mf, will be known; but ifthe grid is erthogonal, May Moy, My and M,, will be known. For decks with skew members, the fist step is to transform Mand Mr into My and Mya; for the orthogonal deck, this is not necessary. (0) Consider node 35 in Figure 7. The majority of1 uns wall give eight mnabere retain Uo Ue ‘moments at this joint; these will be of the form shown, in Figure 8. {@) The My and Mu may be transformed to Mand ‘Myz by using the following transformation (Figure 3). My = Mu sin® + M, cos. Myx = Mey 08 © — M, sin @ This gives the values shown in Figure 10. @) As itis a slab type structure which is under consideration, these vaiues 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 val Unit width (Figure 12). (5) The finat set of moments can now be calculated ‘may (Wood's notation) = Hay ~ Mya) ie m= 135 ny = 233 may = 569 ‘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 prograzn 8 per Defiections and rotations ‘The deflections and rotations are valid results, provided the elastic modulus used is achieved in the structure. ‘They are, however, of litle interest in the design process unless a Vibration analysis is being considered, ‘OTE: In the following sections, ifthe transverse stet is rot orthogonal to the longitudinal stel, due allowance must be made for this Insitu 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, 38 ‘This approach requires the calculation of the equivalent ‘moments m*x and m*y (which incorporate the twisting -moment) in the direction of the reinforcing steel. The ‘moments m, my and my, 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 mtx and my have been calculated, the appropriate reinforcement is detsiled for the two chosen, 2 thn . i! ® (ee todo 1 nat Example Consider the section of top slab shown in Figure 13. ‘This is typical of an idealized transverse grillage beam in an inverted T beam deck with top slab only. Here boaalb = 2000/160 > 10 Therefore ky, = 0333 333 x 160? x 2000 mm* = 273 x 10? mm* Inertia used in analysis = 1-365 x 10° mm as the slab, red in the longitudinal direction. ‘Torsional inertia C — Figure 13: Troncversebeom of top slab only (rt. METHOD 2: T of I boame's2) If the elements forming the Tor | beams are thin’, the {otal inertia can be considered to be the sum of the inertiag of the individual rectangles where only half the value of the top slab is taken. The modification suggested by Jackson" for thick slabs has been found to have negligible effect upon the distribution. Example Consider the MoT/C&CA standard beam M7 with top slab only (Figure 14a). This can be idealized into four rectangles as shown in Figure 140. C, = 0300 x 160% x 1000 x 0-5 62s = 0614 10° mint 6 (value halved as it is top slab) Cy = 0294 903 x 400 beer ay = 0086 x 10° mm* ’ Cy = 0292 « 160" x 815 nas = 5.09 = 0975 x 10° mmt $ Cp = 0292 1859 x 980 beer pi = 1-756 x 10" mm ° ‘Therefore © = (614 + 0086 + 0975 + 1756) x 10° = 3431 x 10% mmt soe E if= wo CS Lael eats @) cctual bfeol fe | | es a /—__2 —_j @) ideoised Figure 14: T beam and top slab (»).METHOD. Tris expression is for thin-walled’ boxes but will give sufficiently accurate results for box sections where both the void dimensions are greater than the total thickness of conerete in the same direction. Torsional inet ete he a neh med ln fen, wateansf iste som of he ea of be site soand the niedian fine each divided by the appropriate wall thickness. Consider the MoT/C&CA standard beam M7 in pseudo-box construction (Figuce 15a). This is idealized as shown in Figure 1b. Note that the thickness of the bottom in situ concrete is taken as the maximum thickness. A = 110 x 800 + 775 x 920 = 0889 x 10 mm? x24 TE 2 4 OL sas = LAOH 10% 6657 « Jot mm" fe oxo (o) ecuat METHOD 4: Plates held rigidly apart by side braces!" Jn a voided deck without transverse diaphragms, if the portion of deck reslaced by a transverse grilage beam is ‘considered, it consists of solid top and bottom slabs (he full in'scu concretes in the inverted T beam deck) ‘rigidly held apart by sections of longitudinal beam. This i analogous toa box beam wih opiates. The method proposed replaces these open sides with webs of ‘equivalent thickness Iis assumed that the actual section through the deck (Figure 16a) can be idealized in the form shown in Figure 160. The stiffness of the side struts is taken as the stiffness of the length of beam which they replace, ice, half the length of beam in any section goes to each side, The side struts are now replaced by continuous side walls of equivelent stifness and Method 3 is used toeaeulate te tron ince. 7 we Exe SE eD] ete f+ = thickness of the equivalent continous side wall In, = bending inertia ofthe top slab Iq = bending inectia of the bottom slab Jia = bending inertia of the equivalent length of Jongitudinal beam about the 2 axis = spacing of the longitudinal beams = distance between the neutral axis of the top slab and the neutral axis of the bottom slab. ‘Consider 2 2000 m transverse slice through a pseudo-slab deck formed from MoT/CACA standard ‘beams M7. The secticn will look similar to Figuce 162, [Note that the full depth of the in sita concrete is taken (Figure 17) (2) idealised Figure 15: Inverted T section asa poeude-bor,= 1000 mm b= 945mm i width of section = 2000 mm deo. l Ig w BOOK 1? et ace pee 1 0.683 x 10° mmt 2000 x 130? Jy = OO 10 (0366 * 10° mm* To calculate /1,, 8 weighted mean of the web and the thickened portion at the top of the web are taken, The ena ze nko ee nono im UBickness Length of web between =e of in situ concrete = 500mm - Length of thickened section (300 mm thick) = 90mm + ly Length of web (160.qum thick) 22 = 710mm” yp 1000-3008 Bo. $000 x 160" 730 ee 05+ ae * B00 = 0356 x iF amt ooo x 945° 000? x 948 a + ony [Spar ot a (dag + 107 + gg x 10)] = 1058 mm ‘This the equivatent shicknes of one sd: the ober ie willbe een A= 945 x (2000 — 1058) 188 3 108 man? 5 HE HHH , 19 @ 058%? +e" * 0 = 254 44 188 108 et 685 5 10° ment = 2(14095) Om * cH Figure 17; Equivalent bos section for latce girder (am).Appendix 2 Suggested grillage layouts for typical forms of construction 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 conerete Example 6: Precast box beams with prestressed diaphragms Example 7: Continuous I beams with insitu concrete topslab Example 8: Inverted T beams with bottom transverse steel placed parallelto 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 fn sta concrete forming a voided structureEXAMPLE 1: I beams with in situ concrete top slab (Figure 18) ‘Span: 25m Equivalent grillage With this type of construction, the longitudinal beams Width: 17m should be chosen to be coincident with the physical beams, ie. nine beams of equal stiffness with the inertias. Construction caleulated as for an internal beam with 2 m width of Nine precast J beams at 2m spacing Sapa Jn situ reinforoed coneret sab, Using a ratio of 15:1, the spacing of transverse beams should be approximately 3 m. Nine beams at 3125 m spacing are chosen; this gives a ratio of 1-56:1. The inertas 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 3125 m wide (Figure 18). BUUrrITy In siti posi-tensioned abutment diaphragms. cross SECTION ‘GRILLAGE GEOMETAY 18826 . a0 ( eemcrmeiaest eect f jaca ——=| vanes nnstoeam angnunaltee “SECTIONS USEO FOR CALCULATING PROPERTIES Figure 18: Derals of example 1.EXAMPLE 2: I beams with prestressed diaphragms (Figure 19) Span: 25m Width: 17m Construction ‘Nine precast I beams at 2 m spacing. Jn situ reinforced concrete slab. In situ post-tensioned diaphiagms at abutments and at ‘uarter-span points, Equivalent grillage ‘The longitudinal beams are exactly as for Example 1 Five transverse beams are used coincident with the five physical diaphragms. The three internal bears are T ‘beams 6:25 m wide, and the abutment diaphragms are L beams with 3125 m of op slab. ‘The ideclization will model the deck satisfactorily, but the spacing of the transverse beams is a quarier ofthe 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, ta [ UO I U I I siya “ 320 f i i = a ae 2280 ‘SECTIONS USED FOR CALCULATING PROPERTIES ~ Sat | sro eenone-c an lonesanatoeen Figure 19: Details of exemple 2. ”chAMP LI situ concrete top siab only {Figure 20) span: 20m Equivalent grillage Nie longitiinal beams shoud be chosen, the Width: 17 m centr-lnes of the edge Beams coinciding with the physical edge beams. All beams ore of equal sifness onstruction : ‘hich is calculated by assuming one inverted T beam ‘Sextntoen precst M beams at | m spacing, with its associated top slab and multiplying by 17/9. In stu reinforced concrete top slab. Reinforced concrete abutment diaphragms ‘The spacing of the transverse beams should be approximately 3 m. Ifan odd number of beams is to be used, the choice is between seven (3-33 m) oF ane (2-50 m). Nine is preferable, asthe ratio 1 25:1 is close (0 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 inforrmation available at the present time, this should be taken as twice the inertia of the top slab only, CROSS SIC ON iat acing en 8 - ? + an ° ri | i sy é CGPLLAGE GEOMETAY ical vreveas uum andbuimentbencrg et lengiadiibam {TIONS USED FOR CALCULATING PROPERTIES Figure 20: Details of example 3,EXAMPLE 4: Solid reinforced concrete siab (Figure 21) Span: 10m ‘Width: 17 ma Construction In stu reinforced concrete slab. Equivalent grillage [Nine langitudinal teams should be chosen, with the edge ‘beams at the edge of the slab. Each beam is assumed 19 represent one-ninth of the total width of the deck and ‘nertig are ealeuated fora slab ofthis wigth ‘The minimum numter of trang fins should be five; this givgs a with ratio of(-2.Jeeven beams give a ratio of(059) As the span: width Fatio is 059, the choice oF seven transverse beams is appropriate. The inertias arg calculated similarly to the longitudinal inectias. (5 95 (a Ton ToNGiTTwal SECTION aay + + > i Trt a 1 | I GALAGE GEOMETRY om 1430 es es Tage Taare SECTIONS USED FOR CALCULATING PROPERTIES Figure 21: Detils of example 4. 19EXAMPLE Bt inverteu + beams with DOstom Graravie ow Exe! ANG An Bivu CONIC EEW (FiguE® oxy Span: 20m Equivalent grillage sWiash 17 ‘The griiage layout is exactly the same as for Example 3. ths 17 m ‘The longitudinal inertas are calculated for a single box and proportioned to the grillage beams. ‘The transverse bending stiffness is calculated as escribed on pages 5 and 6 of this booklet and the Construction Seventeen precast M beams at 1 m spacing. J sit conerete Gaver to lower trinsverse ste transverse torsional stiffness by Method 4 in Appendix I In situ reinforoed concrete top slab. ‘The value of longitucinal torsional inertia is proportioned Reinforced conerete abutment diaphragms. between the longitudinal and transverse directions as etailed on page 6, I 2 1 ttn TONGHTUDNAL BECTON TI T | Cerer er + T [ t 3 GAILAGE GLOMETI » 260 10 t r 1 Sa 2s Tonsil meron cwreatenra SECTIONS US#0 FOR CALCULATING PROPERTIES Figure 22: Detalls of exarnle 5. 20Justi ke U recast 9Ox buuins Wain proscresues Giaphraging wigure 49) Equivalent grillage eee ee Nine Ic idinal beams should be che th the ‘Whkkh 17 ma centre-line of the edge beams at the longitudinal ent lines of he ter bo bear. Se properies of Construction le box shoul calculated and proportioned in the Speties BED standard box tears Sale boy Should te clelted and proportioned nth Eleven prestressed diaphragms at 2-438 m spacing Eleven transverse beams, each replacing a diaphragm, Boos tie ta pone saan se shew DOOoDOoOOOoDoooOo ‘GROSS SeETON 230m 4 TONGTUDINAL SECTION ‘ORILLAGE GtOMETRY SECTIONS USED FOR CALCULATING pagpeRTiES Figure 23: Details of example 6.sahitliites 7: Con Continuous over six spans Each span: 25 m width: 17m Construction As for Example 1 ee vaduces (Senteton uous I beams with in situ concrete top slab (Figure 18) Equivalent grillage Its unnecessary to simulate all the spans of the deck as «a grillage (Figure 24); only the spans considered as loaded need be simulated fully. The adjacent spans may bbe considered with a reduced number of beams and the effect of further spans taken into secount by the application of moment resrains, ie. 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 2 reduced number of transverse beams; at 4, } end span will sufice. At the ‘Outer end of these adjacent spins, the longitudinal beams will be restrained by moment springs. The spring resistance, M, is the moment required to produce @ rotation of one radian. For a beam, M = 3EI/l, where = the length of the span. ‘The preceding approach will anly produce the forces due {0 loads on the spans idealized; additional forces frora loads on spans ignored or replaced by elastic restraint« ‘may be calculated by assuming concentrated loads "~ kknife-edge loads across the full width of the deck anu using continuous-beamn 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, “ted [ACTUAL STRUCTURE wi IGrotaton ag a aduens ‘Seateaion | Weaicaion GRILLAGE SIMULATION Figure 24: Simplification of mesh fora continuous deck.EXAMPLE 8: Inverted T beams with bottom transverse steel placed par and in situ concrete forming a voided structure (Figure 25) ‘Skew angle: 35° Skew span: 25 m Width: 17m Construction Seventeen precast M beams at 1 m spacing. ‘Transverse steel placed paralel to the abutments. dn situ concrete cover to transverse steel Jn situ reinforced conerete top slab. Reinforced concrete abutment diapbragins. uivalentgrillage Fi elles otf ehovn a Figu 25. An ahurathe (0 this would be a grid with addtional nodes on the abutient beams at the pesitons of the physical’ bacings; this would give & more accurate assessment of the bearing reactor, but would mate litle ference to momen ‘The transverse bencing stiffress is calculated as described on pages § and 6 and the transverse torsion stiffness by Method 4 in Appendix J. In both cases, the Width of the grilage beam is considered to be half the square distance between the members on either of the beams in question The value of the longitudinal inertia is proportioned between the longitudinal and transverse directions as detail on page 6. a] ‘Firure 25: Example 8: Equislentgrillge (M), 23cARWIPLE 9: 2 Inverted 7 beams with bottom Uansverse steei piaced ortnogonsily to the longitudinal beams and in situ concrete forming a voided structure (Figure 26) Skew angle: 35¢ ‘Equivalent grilage e ‘The grillage beam layout is shown in Figure 26. In the Skew span: 23m abutment region, the ansverse members connect with Width: «17m alternate longitudinal members ac the supports; if the Construction skew angle is greater than 35°, members connecting with every longitudinal beam are used. The member SSem ia eat apc. See ht sey ahaa ‘Transverse steel placed orthogonally to the longitudinal made by using the ‘width’ of transverse beam from the ‘beams. central ates of the deck. The torsional sifness of the insta conse costo tse el ice anaemia Insta elf core to a reli ore bn : ino psle ih M ba opie te ware ‘Reinforced conereie abutment diaphragms. steel exactly at right-angles to the longitudinal beams for angles other than 31° and SO". However, by a suitable choice, it is always possible to be within 10° which, for the analysis, can be considered orthogonal. In this ‘particu case, the stcel wil be at 4” to the orthogonal, it should also be noted that e considerable reduction in transverse steel will result from placing it in this direction, and in most cases ¢ reduction jn maximum Tongitudinal moment will also occur. a pn Bd | Pay ie | a | | | | | 4 | 2 Figure 26: Example 9: Equivalent srilage (M1).