Chris Hendy 27/1/06

Modelling bracing systems in grillage analysis of steel-concrete composite bridges

Modelling bracing systems in grillage analysis of steel-concrete

composite bridges

1. Introduction

For multi-beam decks, beams are often braced in pairs such that the bracing is not
continuous transversely across the deck. The presence of bracing locally significantly
stiffens the bridge transversely. Moments and shears in the deck slab are attracted out
of the concrete slab and into the bracing as shown in Figure 1 via the transverse
stiffeners. This effect is not modelled in a conventional grillage analysis unless the
increased stiffness in the location of bracings is included using a shear flexible
member with inertia and shear area chosen to match the deflections obtained from a
plane frame analysis of the bracing system. Three-dimensional space-frame or finite-
element representations of the bridge can be used to model these local effects more
directly.

The transfer of moment causes tension in the shear connectors on one side of the
flange and induces compression between concrete and flange on the other. Welds at
tops of stiffeners must also be designed for this moment, which usually leads to throat
sizes much greater than a ‘nominal’ 6 mm that might be appropriate for shear
stiffeners without bracing. In extreme circumstances, it has led to the provision of
butt welds between top flange and stiffener or even additional gusset stiffeners such as
that on the left-hand girder in Figure 1. Clearly it is necessary to model these effects
in some way so the forces induced in stiffeners, studs and bracings can be provided
for in the design.

Figure 1 – Typical transfer of moment from slab to bracing system

2. Modelling of bracing

One option for designing the bracings is to ignore their presence in the grillage and
extract slab rotations and deflections at the bracing locations. These deformations are
then “forced” on to a plane frame model as shown in Figure 2. This approach is used
in SCI publication P290 (ref). It often produces excessive forces and moments within
the stiffeners and bracing system because it ignores the reduction of deflections and
rotations that would occur if the bracing system was included. Ignoring the presence

1 of 5
Chris Hendy 27/1/06
Modelling bracing systems in grillage analysis of steel-concrete composite bridges

of the bracing system in the grillage also ignores its benefit in improving distribution
in the global analysis. One way of including the bracing in global analysis (without
using a 3D spaceframe or shell finite element model which gives a superior
representation) is to represent it as a shear flexible member in a grillage model. The
transverse member representing the bracing system and slab above is given a flexural
stiffness, EI, and a shear stiffness, GA. Both are determined from plane frame
idealisations of the bracing system and an associated with of slab. The torsional
stiffness of the transverse member is based on that of the slab alone.
φa φb

Δa Δb

Figure 2 – Deflections and rotations applied to bracing system to determine

bracing forces and moments

Figure 3 shows a typical plane frame representation of the bracing system and slab.
The bracing members in the plane frame have the area and bending stiffness of the
bracings themselves. The stiffener members have the area and bending stiffness of a
“Tee” section comprising the stiffener and an attached portion of web plate of width
32t where t is the web plate thickness. The choice of width of slab to use is more
complicated. The actual width chosen will usually have relatively little effect on the
values of EI and GA for the idealised shear flexible member, and thus the distribution
in the global analysis, but it will make a significant difference to the distribution of
moment between deck slab and bracing system.

The acting width of slab depends on the geometry of the local moment introduction
by the stiffener and studs and the ability of the slab above the beam to distribute load
in torsion (which can be enhanced by a local haunch). The effective widths for
transverse members in BS5400 Part 3 clause 9.15.2, based on shear lag
considerations, are therefore not directly applicable here but can be used as a guide.
The smaller the width of slab chosen, the greater the proportion of moment which will
pass into the bracing system rather than the slab. A smaller width of slab is therefore
conservative for the design of the bracing system, stiffeners and shear studs. One
option is to assume that moment spreads out into the slab from the stiffener location at
45 degrees. This gives an acting width of B midway between the main beam webs
and an average width of B/2. The rules in BS5400 Part 3 clause 9.15.2 lead to a width
of B/4, but not greater than available width. Since a smaller width is conservative, it
is recommended here to use the latter, although this could be refined if the forces
produced in the bracing system are found to be unacceptably high.

2 of 5
 Chris Hendy 27/1/06
Modelling bracing systems in grillage analysis of steel-concrete composite bridges

EI is determined from the model in Figure 3. A moment M1 is applied and the

deflection Δ1 obtained. For a simple beam element supported and loaded in the same
way:
M 1B 2
1 
2 EI
Thus
M B2
EI  1 (1)
2 1
GA is determined from the model in Figure 4. A moment M2 and force F2 are applied
and the deflection Δ2 obtained. For a simple beam element supported and loaded in
the same way, using standard deflection formulae:
M B 2 F2 B  B2 2  2M 2
2  2   M 2    where F2 
6 EI GA  6 EI GA  B
Thus
12 EIM 2
GA  (2)
6 EI 2  M 2 B 2

M1 M1 Δ1

Figure 3 – Determination of EI for shear flexible grillage member

M2

F2=2M2 / B M2 F2=2M2 / B Δ2

Figure 4 – Determination of GA for shear flexible grillage member

3 of 5
Chris Hendy 27/1/06
Modelling bracing systems in grillage analysis of steel-concrete composite bridges

3. Determination of moments and forces in bracing system

The shear flexible member derived above is included in the grillage model and the
analysis performed. The results from the grillage member are then extracted and split
into symmetric and anti-symmetric cases corresponding to those in Figures 3 and 4 as
shown in Figure 5. Figure 5 assumes that load is applied to only the nodes in the
grillage. This is preferable as load applied between nodes will in reality act on a
member with the stiffness of the slab only, rather than the fictitious member derived
above. The distribution of moments between deck slab and bracing system from this
case will not then be correctly predicted. The moments and shears from the two cases
produced are re-applied to the plane frame models Figures 3 and 4 as appropriate and
the effects in the bracing members, stiffeners and slab determined. (Since the plane
frame model is the same for the two cases, there is actually no need to subdivide the
load cases as described above). The local effects from loads applied between beams
can be examined with the plane frame model in Figure 6.

The welds between stiffener and flange need careful attention. The moment
transferred between slab and stiffener may also result in uplift on the studs. Another
difficulty is determining the number of studs involved in transmitting the moment
between slab and stiffener. This depends on the studs locations with respect to the
stiffener and the out-of-plane bending stiffness (and strength) of the flange. Detailed
guidance on the effective length of flange to consider, and thus the number of studs on
this length, can be found in EN 1993-1-8 clause 6.2.6.4.

4. Checking welds at tops of stiffeners and shear studs

As noted above, the analysis is likely to predict uplift on the studs. Strictly, the studs
should be checked for this effect in addition to the longitudinal shear resulting from
composite action. In reality, only a few studs in the vicinity of the stiffener will be
affected. This will represent a small proportion of the overall longitudinal shear
resistance provided, so even if these studs are fully utilised in tension, any effect on
reducing the effectiveness of composite action in the main beam will be small;
redistribution of longitudinal shear can occur along the beam.

The fatigue check of the weld is usually the critical one. Experience on square or
lightly skewed multi-girder bridges indicates that 12 mm fillet welds usually suffice
between tops of single-sided stiffeners and top flange, unless the stiffener outstand is
unusually small. For skewed bridges, the predicted weld size can be greater. If the
weld size becomes unmanageable, it may be possible to provide a gusset as in
Figure 1 (but not on the outer face of external girders for aesthetic reasons). Butt
welds between stiffener and top flange should generally be avoided because of the
risk of flange distortion.

5. Things to bear in mind / Limitations of the method

 Moment is transferred from slab to bracing system by bearing on the stiffener

and uplift on the shear studs. Tension acting on the shear studs does not give a
completely rigid response due to both slip and bending of the flange plate.
This means that the stiffness is likely to be an upper bound – conservative for

4 of 5
Chris Hendy 27/1/06
Modelling bracing systems in grillage analysis of steel-concrete composite bridges

bracing design but slightly un-conservative for global distribution and hence
main beam design.
 The greater the width of slab used in this model, the less the moments that are
attracted to the bracing system.

F F
Ma Mb

0.5(Ma+Mb) 0.5(Ma+Mb)

+
0.5(Ma-Mb)
F F
0.5(Ma-Mb)

Figure 5 – Separation of grillage results into cases to re-apply to models in

Figures 3 and 4

Figure 6 – Separate plane frame to examine local effects of wheel load between
stiffeners

Prepared: Chris Hendy

Checked: Chris Murphy
Date: 31/3/06

5 of 5