Composite Structures 223 (2019) 110967

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Experimental and numerical study on the bending performances of glass FRP T

molded gratings: Influence of restraining conditions and cover plates
⁎
Natalino Gattescoa, Michele Dilenab, Ingrid Boemc,
a
Department of Engineering and Architecture, University of Trieste, Piazzale Europa 1, 34127 Trieste, Italy
b
Polytechnic Department of Engineering and Architecture, University of Udine, via Cotonificio 114, 33100 Udine, Italy
c
Department of Engineering and Architecture, University of Trieste, Piazzale Europa 1, 34127 Trieste, Italy

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The results of experimental bending tests on full-scale, molded FRP (Fiber Reinforced Plastics) gratings are
Composite structures reported and discussed in the paper. In particular, different boundary conditions (perimeter support, two edges
FRP grating support and point support at corners) and the influence of FRP cover applied at one or both sides are investigated
Molded fiberglass and the performances are compared in terms of stiffness and resistance. The collaboration of the ribs in the two
Experimental tests
directions to the load-carrying capacity clearly emerged in open gratings, which typically collapsed for the
Numerical modelling
tensile failure of the ribs at the mid span. The shear sliding of perimeter ribs was also observed in some cases.
The presence of the covers increases both the stiffness and the resistance performances of the samples, however
premature failure due to punching shear and cover delamination with buckling occurred.
A finite element numerical model was developed to investigate on the stress and strain state of the gratings at
both service level and failure: it was validated by comparison with the experimental tests and it is useful for
future investigations on more complex configurations.

1. Introduction
The utilization of Fiber-Reinforced Plastic (FRP) composites mate-
rials in the civil construction field and in architectural applications is
gradually wide-spreading [1,2], due to the favorable mechanical and
chemical properties and to the progressive reduction of the costs of raw
materials and production. FRP are usually made of inorganic or syn-
thetic fibers embedded in a organic matrix, made of thermosetting re-
sins (polyester, vinylester, epoxy…) [3,4].
FRPs elements are becoming, for many applications, a valid and
competitive alternative to steel, due to the higher durability in corro-
sive and chemically aggressive environments (cutting down the main-
tenance costs), the exceptional strength-to-weight ratio (facilitating
transport and installation), the electrical non-conductivity and the low
thermal conductivity (dimensional stability). FRP composites can also
be engineered to provide appropriate UV-ray and fire resistance, com-
plying also self-extinguishing requirements [5–7].
Among the different FRP products available on the market (in-
cluding profiles, laminates, meshes…), the paper focuses on FRP grat-
ings, typically composed of bidirectional ribs, arranged with a regular
pitch. The fiber reinforcement, for the most based on continuous glass
fibers, is arranged in multiple layers oriented in the longitudinal
direction of the ribs. The gratings may also be covered at one or both
sides with FRP plates, with a bi- or multi-directional arrangement of the
fibers.
The production of the FRP gratings is normally achieved by a
molding process [8]. Actually, FRP gratings are already widely used in
the industrial sector as flooring for walkways, ramps, platforms, steps,
gully covers etc. [9]: it concerns spaces with limited and controlled
accessibility, mostly aimed at the maintenance and protection of the
industrial machinery. The structural design of these elements is nor-
mally governed by the compliance with deflection limits (e.g. in FRP
gratings for walkaways, a maximum deflection of 6 mm for walkways
for a uniform distributed live load of 2.87 kN/m2 [10]), due to the high
deformability of the composite, which leads, generally, to a consistent
over-resistance. The manufacturers usually provide technical sheets
reporting the admissible loads in service and the limits of applicability,
based on standard laboratory test results concerning grating specimens
supported at two opposite edges and subjected to uniformly distributed
loading or line loading at the mid-span.
But the use of these elements is rapidly extending also to the civil
sector (pedestrian bridges, docks, terraces, manhole covers…), where
the load and constraint conditions vary appreciably from the standard
ones, the magnitude of the loads can be significantly higher (e.g.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: gattesco@units.it (N. Gattesco), michele.dilena@uniud.it (M. Dilena), boem@dicar.units.it (I. Boem).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.110967
Received 29 January 2019; Received in revised form 24 April 2019; Accepted 7 May 2019
Available online 08 May 2019
0263-8223/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N. Gattesco, et al.
presence of crowd, vehicle passage) and the grating shape and layout
may also need to be modified for the architectural requirements of the
customer. There is, thus, the need to investigate deeply, by means of
experimental tests and numerical simulations, on the actual behavior of
these elements, to properly comprehend the resisting mechanisms and
also the possible failure modes. It will then be possible to develop, in
the future, a simple and robust analytical tool capable of predicting the
behavior of the FRP gratings at the varying of the specific configuration,
in order to achieve a valid and optimized design strategy for these
elements.
At present, only a limited number of experimental studies on FRP
gratings are available in the literature [11–14]. In particular, to the
authors' knowledge, the most in-depth experimental study was per-
formed by Manalo et al. [14], which investigated on full-scale molded
gratings without cover. The samples were supported at two opposite
edges and subjected to line or concentrated loads. The results of line
loaded samples evidenced the failure for tensile cracking at mid-span,
followed by the shear sliding. The samples with concentrated loading
failed for compression in the through-thickness direction of the grat-
ings; however, the transverse ribs effectively redistributed the load to
the entire grating and provided additional resistance against the de-
flection.
The resistant mechanisms seem thus clearly identified, with appar-
ently no need of further investigations. However, several customization
requests expressed by the clients to the gratings manufacturers en-
couraged the authors to carry out new bending tests on full-scale
molded gratings to extend the experimental studies currently available
in the literature also to boundary conditions different form the typical
one (two supported edges). In particular, four supported edges and
point supports at the four corners were investigated, evaluating also the
influence of one or both sides cover on the grating behavior.
In the first part of the paper, the original experimental tests results
are presented, with the analysis and comparison among the perfor-
mances of the different configurations at both service level and at
failure.
Then, in the second part of the paper, the main features and results
of a numerical study were discussed. Actually, some authors already
approached to the numerical simulation of gratings bending behavior:
in particular, both Shokrieh & Heidari-Rarani [15] and Nicol [16]
adopted a close mesh of solid elements with orthotropic material to
investigate, through linear static analysis, on the deformability of open
gratings subjected to concentrated loads, line loads or uniform loads.
However, these models result unsuitable to predict the gratings per-
formances close to failure, due to the progressive stiffness degradation.
The experimental tests of full-scale samples, coupled with an accurate
mechanical characterization of the considered FRP composites mate-
rials, permit to the authors to calibrate and validate a finite element
numerical model, based on equivalent, solid elements of nonlinear,
isotropic material. It allows to analyze the stress and strain state of the
gratings at both service level and failure.
The study is thus useful to provide a robust experimental and nu-
merical background for future investigations on more articulated con-
figurations and to develop and validate a simplified analytical model
with a greater general validity.
2. Technological aspects and material characterization
The considered gratings (Fig. 1) are composed of rovings of glass
fibers, type “E”, embedded in a orthophthalic polyester resin (with
addition of aluminum trihydrate mineral fillers ATH), arranged in a
grid of bidirectional ribs. The gratings are manufactured according to
Resin Transfer Molding (RTM) technology: layers of fiberglass re-
inforcement are arranged into the die, which is then closed and her-
metically sealed through a hydraulic system; the low-viscosity, ther-
mosetting resin is then pumped into the heated mold, displacing the air
through vents, until the mold is filled and the fibers are completely
2
Composite Structures 223 (2019) 110967
Fig. 1. Detail of molded gratings.
saturated; then, the curing cycle starts and the resin polymerizes to
become rigid plastic; the grating is extracted from the mold and fin-
ished through polishing and painting processes.
Cover plates, composed of polyester resin with bidirectional fabrics
and mat layers of “E” glass fibers embedded, can be applied at one or
both faces of the grating: the assemblage takes place during the con-
struction of the cover, when the grating is pressed on the plate before
the resin hardening.
The experimental research focused on gratings molded in dies
having a 38 × 38 mm2 grid pitch (currently the most widespread on the
market) and a thickness of 38 mm; the fiber volume percentage was
vf = 22.7% in “X” direction (in each rib, 9 layers composed of 6 rovings
of 2400 Tex) and vf = 20.2% in the “Y” direction (in each rib, 8 layers
composed of 6 rovings of 2400 Tex). The upper and lower nominal
mold width for the single rib were 7 mm and 5 mm, respectively.
The upper face of the open gratings was ground so to remove the
meniscus which formed in each rib during the molding process, due to
the surface stress in the resin: the open gratings thickness thus resulted
of about 35 mm.
For the cover gratings, plates having a thickness of about 3.8 mm,
with a volume percentage of bidirectional fiber of 17.1% (8.57% in
each direction), were considered. The global thickness resulted of about
40.2 mm for gratings covered on one side and 44 mm for both sides
cover gratings. Experimental tensile characterization tests on cover
samples provided an elastic brittle behavior with mean Young’s mod-
ulus of 7815 MPa (CoV. 9%) and a tensile strength of 148 MPa (CoV.
12%). It was also possible to characterize the compressive behavior,
evidencing, for samples having a 38 mm length and a 3.8 × 12 mm2
cross section, a gradual stiffness degradation and premature failure at
67 MPa (CoV. 7%), induced by the combined action of buckling of the
fibers and second order effects of the coupon.
The bending performances of the single rib and the contribution of
the fiberglass reinforcement to the rib bending stiffness and resistance
were investigated by means of three point bending tests, carried out on
single ribs, without transversals, made of both fiber-reinforced com-
posite and resin only. To contrast possible buckling during the tests, due
to the slenderness of the ribs, the specimens were formed placing side
by side three identical ribs held together by cable ties. The three ribs
forming the sample were cut from the same grating, by removing the
orthogonal ribs portions.
The span between the supports was set about 16 times the rib height
(608 mm); the loading area and the supports allowed free rotation and
horizontal displacements. The load was applied monotonically (speed
rate about 0.1 kN/s), through a hydraulic jack (250 kN capacity), and
was monitored with a loading cell (50 kN). The vertical displacements
N. Gattesco, et al.
at the middle of the span and at supports were surveyed though po-
tentiometer transducers. All the instrumentation was connected to an
electronic acquisition unit interfaced with a computer, allowing the
real-time monitoring of the loading history, the displacements mea-
sured by the transducers and the load-displacement diagrams.
From the load-deflection curve (P − u) it is possible to derive the
material Young’s modulus, E, through the Eq. (1):
PL3
E=
48 Ju
with L the rib span and J the second moment of area of the rib. Typi-
cally, it is evaluated considering the deflection ranging between zero
and 1/100 of the span.
Moreover, the flexural strength, σmax, achieved at the tensed side of
the mid-span cross section, can be evaluated from the peak load, Pmax,
by means of Eq. (2):
Pmax L
σmax =
4W
being W the section modulus.
Three tests for each configuration were carried out, to check the
repeatability of the results; the tests on fiber-reinforced samples were
performed on ribs cut in the “X” direction of the grating (vf = 22.7%).
The samples were identified though a label indicating the presence of
resin only or of the fiberglass composite (R or F, respectively); letters
“a”, “b” and “c” distinguish specimens with identical characteristics.
The results are plotted in Fig. 2, in P − u graphs, and are sum-
marized in Table 1. The P − u curves evidenced, in general, a linear-
elastic behavior, with a gradual decrease of stiffness only when ap-
proaching the peak force value.
Samples with resin only (R) showed an average Young’s modulus
E = 2965 MPa (CoV. 14.5%) and a mean flexural strength
σmax = 29.2 MPa (CoV. 10.8%). The collapse was attained for the resin
tensile failure in correspondence of the bottom edge of the cross section
located approximately in the middle of the span (Fig. 3a). From the
samples with the fiberglass reinforcement (F), it resulted
E = 22077 MPa (CoV. 1.4%): obviously, the presence of the reinforce-
ment determined a significant stiffness increase, in respect to samples
with the resin only (Fig. 3b).
To investigate on the influence of the transversal ribs and of the
cover applied at one or both sides, another set of three point bending
tests was performed on samples formed by cutting gratings portions
including three longitudinal ribs (sample nominal width
3 × 38 = 114 mm). Generally, the ribs arranged in the span direction
were those in the “X” direction of the grating; for open gratings only,
also the case of longitudinal ribs taken from the “Y” direction was
considered.
The tests were performed according to the procedure previously
Fig. 2. Three point bending tests: load–deflection curves of ribs (a) with the resin only and (b) with the fiberglass reinforcement.
Composite Structures 223 (2019) 110967
described; the P − u graphs are drawn in Fig. 4 and the main results are
reported in Table 2: the samples labels distinguish the rib type (GX or
GY) and the presence of an open grating (O) or grating with one side (C)
or both-sides (D) cover; identical specimens are differentiated through a
final letter (a–c).
A linear-elastic trend was in general observed in the most part of the
P − u curves, but a gradual stiffness decrease, related to the local
buckling of the fibers in compression and second order effects, was
noted in approaching the peak load, characterized by an abrupt drop of
(1)
resistance.
Samples GX-O, without cover, provided average values of
E = 21831 MPa (CoV. 3.3%) and σmax = 395.4 MPa (CoV. 2.3%). The
Young’s modulus resulted comparable to that obtained from tests on
longitudinal ribs (F), evidencing that the transversal ribs affected very
limitedly the stiffness. It can be concluded that the Young modulus of
the single rib in the transversal direction with respect to that of the fiber
is negligible and may be considered equal to that of the resin alone.
However, transversal ribs effectively opposed the buckling of the
(2) longitudinal ribs, which collapsed for the tensile failure at the bottom
edge of the mid-span (Fig. 5a). Lower values in both E (18405 MPa,
CoV. 10.5%) and σmax (382.4 MPa, CoV. 9.0%) resulted for GY-O, ac-
cording to the lower fiberglass reinforcement amount in “Y” direction.
Samples GX-C, provided with the upper cover, showed an equiva-
lent Young’s modulus E = 15494 MPa (CoV. 2.9%) and an average
flexural strength σmax = 300.9 MPa (CoV. 4.2%). The collapse was
governed by the tensile failure, at the mid-span, accompanied with the
local plasticization of the upper cover (Fig. 5b).
For samples GX-D, with cover on both sides, was obtained an
equivalent Young modulus E = 12039 MPa (CoV. 5.1%) and a max-
imum tensile stress σmax = 143.9 MPa (CoV. 7.3%). In this case, the
failure was governed by the shear sliding of the longitudinal ribs
(Fig. 5c). Moreover, in one case (GX-D-b), the premature delamination
of the lower cover was observed, resulting in a behavior similar to that
of samples GX-C; this was probably due to a defect at the ribs-cover
interface level.
It is observed that the “equivalent” Young modulus evaluated for
samples CX-C and CX-D refers to an idealized, homogenized material, so
to allow the designers a simple evaluation of the deflection by solving
by “u” Eq. (1). Reasonably, this equivalent Young modulus results lower
in respect to the rib one, due to the higher deformability of the cover
(lower fiber content).
3. Experimental tests on grating panels
In this section are summarized the characteristics, the setup and the
results of experimental tests carried out on full-scale grating panels so
to assess the bending performances at the varying of the configuration
(presence of covers) and of the restraining conditions.
3
N. Gattesco, et al. Composite Structures 223 (2019) 110967

Table 1
Three point bending tests on ribs (L is the sample span, bsup and binf the upper and lower sample thickness, h the height, W the section modulus, J the second moment
of area, Pmax the peak load, E the Young’s modulus and σmax the flexural strength).
Sample ID bsup binf h W J Pmax E Mean CoV. σmax Mean CoV.
[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm3] [mm4] [kN] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa]

R-a 18.9 16.5 34.8 3488 62,067 0.614 2468 2965 14.5% 26.8 29.2 10.8%
R-b 18.3 14.5 34.9 3191 57,835 0.686 3185 32.7
R-c 17.3 14.7 34.9 3155 56,553 0.583 3242 28.1

F-a 19.0 16.3 34.9 3487 62,401 4.19* 22,243 22,077 1.4% – – –
F-b 19.2 16.0 34.8 3438 61,641 4.56* 22,257 –
F-c 19.2 15.9 34.9 3444 61,986 4.13* 21,731 –

*Premature failure occurred, due to buckling.

3.1. Specimens characteristics and test setup

Out-of-plane bending tests were carried out on square panels

995x995 mm2, composed of open gratings (O) or gratings covered at
one (C) or both sides (D) – Fig. 6. Three different restraining conditions
were considered: linear supports at the four edges (S1) or at two op-
posite edges (S2) and point supports in correspondence of the four
corners (S3). The span between the supports was 950 mm, reproducing
the typical distance among supports adopted in practice. The supports
allowed free rotation and horizontal displacements; moreover, for S1
and S2, the uplift at corners was permitted. Two tests were performed
for each configuration. The specimens were identified through a label
indicating the grating type (G), the restraining condition (S1, S2, S3)
and the presence of a cover (O, C, D); letters “a” and “b” distinguish
samples with identical characteristics. It has to be observed that, in
samples G-S2, the ribs in “X” direction were arranged along the span.
The vertical load was applied monotonically (speed rate about 0.5 Fig. 4. Three point bending tests: load – deflection curves of gratings coupons
kN/s), through a hydraulic actuator placed at the center of the panel, without/with one side or both sides covers.
interposing a 20 × 200 × 200 mm2 steel plate between the jack and the
grating. The load was surveyed by means of a loading cell, 250 kN
and on the expected performances (e.g. compatibility with adjacent
capacity. Nine potentiometer transducers monitored the vertical dis-
systems and equipment, customer's needs, …). Typically, the admissible
placement at the center of the sample, at the four corners and at the
deflection in service ranges from 1/200 to 1/50 of the span.
middle of each edge. The instrumentation was connected to an elec-
The main results are summarized in Table 3: the load values cor-
tronic acquisition unit interfaced with a computer, allowing the real-
responding to a deflection u = 1/200, 1/100 and 1/50 of the span
time monitoring of the loading history, the displacement measured by
(P100, P200 and P50, respectively) and the peak loads (Pmax) are reported.
the transducers and the load-displacement diagrams.
It is also reported the type of collapse of the specimen. All the curves
evidenced, at first, an approximately linear-elastic trend, with a gradual
3.2. Results and discussion stiffness reduction starting from a load value of about 55–60% of the
maximum. However, in correspondence of a vertical displacement
The curves representing the trend of the load P against the vertical equal to 1/50 of the span, the gratings still performed in the elastic
displacement u monitored at the center of the grating, by the transducer branch. Brittle failure modes were generally surveyed, with a rapid
R1, are plotted in Fig. 7; vertical lines corresponding to a deflection u drop of the resistance beyond the peak load. Small differences can be
equal to 1/200, 1/100 and 1/50 of the span were plotted, to allow noted between the peak load of identical samples (about 4%), exception
comparisons. Actually, the deflection limit is not a single value, but only for G-S1-D, in which differences of about than 10% are observed.
depends on the requirements of the adopted design code or guideline

Fig. 3. FRP samples subjected to three point bending tests: specimens made (a) with resin only and (b) with the fiberglass reinforcement.

4
N. Gattesco, et al. Composite Structures 223 (2019) 110967

Table 2
Three point bending tests on gratings coupons (L is the sample span, bsup, binf and h the upper and lower thickness and the height of the longitudinal ribs, s the total
thickness cover, W the section modulus, J the second moment of area, Pmax the peak load, E the equivalent Young’s modulus and σmax the flexural strength).
ID bsup binf h S W J Pmax E Em CoV. σmax σmax,m CoV.
[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm3] [mm4] [kN] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa]

GX-O-a 21.1 16.0 35.0 – 3599 65,860 9.14 22,663 21,831 3.3% 385.9 395.4 2.2%
GX-O-b 20.7 16.4 35.0 – 3630 65,981 9.48 21,531 396.9
GX-O-c 20.5 17.2 34.9 – 3709 66,603 9.84 21,300 403.4

GX-C-a 18.6 14.3 36.7 3.7 5946 161,317 11.21 15,000 15,494 2.9% 286.6 300.9 4.2%
GX-C-b 18.5 14.7 36.5 3.4 5857 157,149 11.79 15,613 306.0
GX-C-c 18.9 14.9 36.0 4.4 6201 170,644 12.66 15,869 310.3

GX-D-a 20.2 16.4 36.6 7.8 19,598 440,407 19.51 12,661 12,039 5.1% 151.3 143.9 7.3%
GX-D-b 21.4 16.4 36.4 7.6 18,659 384,542 13.94 12,032 113.6*
GX-D-c 20.5 16.4 36.2 7.8 19,356 431,395 17.37 11,424 136.4

GY-O-a 20.1 15.3 35.5 – 3535 65,585 9.30 17,720 18,405 10.5% 399.8 382.4 9.0%
GY-O-b 20.4 15.7 35.2 – 3552 65,232 8.01 16,911 342.8
GY-O-c 20.4 15.6 35.5 – 3598 66,711 9.58 20,585 404.6

*Value not considered for the average (premature delamination of lower cover, for a pre-existing defect in the specimen).

Fig. 5. Typical failure modes of gratings samples subjected to three point bending tests: specimens (a) GX-O without cover, (b) GX-C with cover at one side and (c)
GX-D with cover on both sides.

Higher stiffness and resistance emerged from configurations with the
restraining condition S1, in respect to S2, and from S2, in respect to S3.
Similarly, considering samples with the same restraining conditions, a
higher stiffness and resistance was in general obtained in one side
covered gratings, in respect to open ones, and in both sides covered
gratings, in respect to single side covered ones. Exception for samples
G-S1-C and G-S1-D, which provided quite comparable results in terms
of Pmax. But the results of the samples G-S1-C resulted anomalous,
evidencing a progressive stiffness increase (Fig. 7a); actually, in these
tests, the onset of a parasitic horizontal restraint, which progressively
opposed to the free horizontal displacement at the mid length of the
supported edges, was found during the tests.
Different collapse modes were, in general, observed at the varying
of the configuration: in open gratings G-S1-O, the tensile failure of the
composite, at the bottom edge, occurred; the fiber tensile failure was
localized in the sample central area and affected the ribs of both di-
rections (Fig. 8a). In samples G-S1-C, besides this tensile failure, the
local plasticization and the punching shear of the cover, in correspon-
dence of the loading area, was also observed (Fig. 8b). In gratings G-S1-
D (Fig. 8c), the failure was induced by the punching shear of the upper
cover and its local delamination, due to buckling; some damage was
also observed in the bottom cover, in the central area.
In gratings G-S2-O and G-S2-C, the tensile failure of the fiberglass
composite, at the bottom edge, focused on the mid-span section of the
longitudinal ribs (arranged orthogonally to the support), rapidly af-
fecting the whole sample width (Fig. 9a). Moreover, in samples G-S2-C,
the buckling and consequent delamination of the cover was also ob-
served (Fig. 9b). Differently, in specimens G-S2-D, the failure was

5
N. Gattesco, et al.
Fig. 6. Out-of-plane bending tests performed on glass-fiber grating panels: (a)
global view and (b) and main samples and setup characteristics.
induced by the shear sliding of the longitudinal ribs, accompanied with
the tensile failure of the bottom cover and the local plasticization of the
upper cover (Fig. 9c).
The shear sliding of the ribs along the sample perimeter was in
general observed in samples with the S3 restraining condition (Fig. 10).
Moreover, in samples G-S3-C (Fig. 10b) and G-S3-D (Fig. 10c), the local
plasticization of the upper cover occurred. The tensile failure of the
lower cover, in the central area, also occurred in gratings G-S3-C.
In samples supported along the whole perimeter (S1), modest rises
were surveyed by the transducers placed in correspondence of the
6
Composite Structures 223 (2019) 110967
sample corners: R2, R4, R7 and R9 (at most 2 mm at the reaching of
Pmax, for G-S1-O, and 1 mm for G-S1-C and G-S1-D).
In the specimens with supports at two opposite edges (S2), the de-
flection monitored by the transducers R3 and R8 resulted smaller than
the central displacement, R1 (about 0.6–0.7 times), evidencing the bi-
dimensional bending behavior of the grating (Fig. 11a). This effect was
mostly evident in samples supported at the corners only (S3); actually,
some differences were observed by comparing the deflection monitored
by the transducers R3 and R8 with those of the transducers R5 and R6,
when open or single cover configurations were examined (Fig. 11b):
this was due to the different distribution of fibers in the ribs of the two
directions.
4. Numerical simulations
A finite element numerical model has been implemented in the
software MIDAS/FEA and calibrated, so to simulate the out-of-plane
bending tests carried out on the grating panels (Section 3). A great
attention was devoted to the reconstruction of the geometry, to the
definition of the actual restraining conditions and to the load applica-
tion. The developed numerical model was aimed at reproducing the
behavior of the gratings at both service level and ultimate state, thus,
considering the experimental results, it was necessary to assume a
nonlinear behavior for the composites materials; moreover, solid ele-
ments were adopted, so to evaluate with adequate accuracy the shear
stresses across the elements thickness.
4.1. Model characteristics
Both the ribs and the covers were modelled using 20-nodes solid
elements; in order to accurately reproduce the geometry of the gratings,
but trying to reduce the computational effort, a rather refined mesh was
used, with a mesh dimension of about 9 mm in the rib height and
longitudinal direction and of 3 mm along the rib thickness. Moreover,
taking into account the symmetry of the structure and of the applied
load, a quarter of the sample was modelled and symmetry restraints
were applied (Fig. 12).
Compression only springs with very high stiffness (K = 1015 kN/m)
were introduced in correspondence of the supported edges and of the
loading area.
Though the actual behavior of the ribs is typically orthotropic,
considering the unidirectional arrangement of the fibers layers (Fig. 1),
for shake of simplicity the materials were assumed isotropic, with a
non-linear behavior in both tension and compression, so to estimate
realistically the performances close to collapse, when a progressive
stiffness degradation is typically observed (e.g. Fig. 15). In particular,
an elastic-brittle behavior was considered in tension, while in com-
pression a gradual stiffness reduction when approaching to failure ac-
counted for the typical, progressive local buckling. The mechanical
properties, illustrated in Fig. 13 and resumed in Table 4, were obtained
from the experimental characterization tests (Section 2) and from the
literature [4]. In particular, the ribs constitutive laws were derived by
calibrating the numerical model with the results obtained from the
characterization experimental tests GX-O and GY-O on open gratings
coupons including three longitudinal ribs (Fig. 4). But from these tests
emerged that the elastic modulus of the single rib in the transversal
direction with respect to that of the fiber is negligible. Having assumed,
for simplicity, an isotropic material, the contribution of the transversal
ribs to the longitudinal stiffness of the sample would be overestimated.
Thus, it was calibrated an equivalent Young’s modulus for the numer-
ical model, lower than that deduced analytically from these experi-
mental tests (Table 2).
For the covers, the stress-strain curve was deduced from the results
of the experimental characterization tension and compression tests.
In general, for both the ribs and the covers, it has to be noted that
the stiffness degradation in compression, related to the local buckling,
N. Gattesco, et al. Composite Structures 223 (2019) 110967

Fig. 7. Load vs. mid-span displacement curves of grating panels (a) G-S1, (b) G-S2 and (c) G-S3.

Table 3 analyses were performed incrementing the vertical displacement as-

Main results of out-of-plane bending tests performed on gratings: loads corre- signed at the top of the springs of the loading area; the Newton-Rapshon
sponding to deflection values u = 1/200, 1/100, 1/50 of the span (P200, P100, iterative method was considered (energy convergence criteria with a
and P50 respectively) and peak load (Pmax). The type of collapse is also reported tolerance of 0.001).
(T = tensile failure at the intrados, P = plasticization at the extrados, S = shear The comparison of the numerical results with the experimental load-
sliding).
deflection curves of the grating coupons GX-O, GY-O, GX-C and GX-D is
Boundary Sample Load corresponding to [kN] Type of shown in Fig. 14: the adopted material parameters allowed to re-
condition collapse produce with very good accuracy the experimental performances. In
P200 P100 P50 Pmax
particular, the open gratings models correctly collapsed for the
G-S1 O-a 3.55 7.17 14.31 49.78 T reaching of the tensile strength of the ribs, while in the cover grating
O-b 3.78 7.2 13.75 50.22 model these tensile failures resulted accompanied with the local plas-
C-a 7.45 15.25 31.51 115.18 T, P ticization of the plate at the mid span.
C-b 7.53 15.64 32.38 105.36
The numerical curve of the both sides cover configuration was in-
D-a 15.02 30.47 59.73 99.01 T, P
D-b 15.4 32.3 62.82 125.85 terrupted in correspondence of the average experimental peak load
obtained from GX-D-a and GX-D-b, which collapsed for shear sliding
G-S2 O-a 2.36 4.86 9.5 45.68 T
O-b 2.36 5.07 9.96 43.99 (Fmax = 18.44 kN). The corresponding value of maximum shear stress
C-a 6.37 12.84 24.44 76.87 T, P (τmax = 18.9 MPa, approximately at the mid height of the longitudinal
C-b 6.41 11.94 23.56 67.17 ribs) is thus assumed as the composite shear strength.
D-a 11.95 23.31 45.39 100.09 T, P, S
D-b 10.33 21.09 42.72 101.3
4.2. Validation
G-S3 O-a 1.45 2.91 5.79 30.78 S
O-b 1.47 2.84 6.61 31.27
C-a 3.3 6.27 12.38 56.84 P, S The P-u numerical curves are plotted in Fig. 15, in comparison with
C-b 3.26 5.74 11.32 52.02 the experimental ones, to assess the reliability of the model; moreover,
D-a 6.6 12.52 24.22 68.48 T, P, S
the main results are summarized in Table 5: the numerical displace-
D-b 6.5 12.86 24.96 72.21
ments at the center of the panel, uFE, related to the load values P200, P100
and P50 corresponding to the experimental displacements uexp equal to
depends also on the element slenderness and has thus to be checked if 1/200, 1/100 and 1/50 of the span are reported for each configuration;
the grid pitch changes. moreover, the experimental and numerical peak loads, Pmax, as well as
A “total strain crack” criteria was considered [17]; non-linear static the numerical failure modes are reported.
In general, the agreement between the experimental data and the

7
N. Gattesco, et al. Composite Structures 223 (2019) 110967

Fig. 8. Out-of-plane bending tests performed on G-S1 samples: (a) open grating and grating covered at (b) one or (c) both sides.

Fig. 9. Out-of-plane bending tests performed on G-S2 samples: (a) open grating and grating covered at (b) one or (c) both sides.

8
N. Gattesco, et al. Composite Structures 223 (2019) 110967

Fig. 10. Out-of-plane bending tests performed on G-S3 samples: (a) open grating and grating covered at (b) one or (c) both sides.

Fig. 11. Load vs. mid-span and mid-free edges displacement curves of grating panels (a) G-S2, (b) G-S3.

numerical estimations in terms of deflection at service levels is good,
with values of Δerr ranging between ± 10%. Slightly higher deviations
were observed for uexp = 4.75 mm in some cases, due to the rather low
signal/noise ratio of the load cell and some settling of the experimental
sample at the beginning of the test.
The numerical simulations allowed also good estimations of the
samples behavior at collapse, both in terms of resistance Pmax
(Δerr < ± 10%, in exception of G-S1-C), ultimate deflection and type
of collapse. Actually, the progressive stiffness increase occurred during
the test of samples G-S1-C can be reproduced numerically by introdu-
cing a partial horizontal restraint at the grating edges (compression
only rigid spring, with an initial gap of 1 mm), according to the
experimental evidences: the corresponding capacity curve is shown in
Fig. 15a in a dotted line and the main results are reported in brackets in
Table 5.
The FE model permitted to investigate on the normal and shear
stresses: as an example, the results obtained for open gratings config-
urations, at the achievement of the peak load are displayed in Fig. 16.
In particular, it is observed that, in the case of four supported edges
(Fig. 16a), the highest tensile stresses at the intrados involve the central
ribs in both directions and are very close to the composite tensile
strength (σmax = 395.4 MPa and 382.4 MPa, for the ribs oriented in the
X and Y direction, respectively). In the case of two supported edges
(Fig. 16b), the maximum tensile stresses are localized at the mid-span of

9
N. Gattesco, et al. Composite Structures 223 (2019) 110967

Fig. 12. Numerical model developed for the simulation of out-of-plane bending tests on FRP grating panels.

Fig. 13. Constitutive laws of the ribs and the covers adopted in numerical si-
mulations.
Fig. 14. Comparison between numerical and experimental P-u curves of grat-
ings coupons including three longitudinal ribs.
Table 4
Mechanical properties of the ribs and the covers adopted in numerical simu-
lations. load, when the shear stresses in the ribs along the perimeter attained to
the shear resistance (τmax = 18.9 MPa – Fig. 16d); this is in accordance
Ribs dir. X Ribs dir. Y Cover
υ = 0.286 υ = 0.282 υ = 0.400 with the collapse mode for shear sliding observed in the experimental
tests. The tangential stresses vary along the rib width due to torsion,
ε [%] σ [MPa] ε [%] σ [MPa] ε [%] σ [MPa] which aggravates the shear stress state. Since the shear collapse in the
composite material is a fragile failure mechanism, once the shear
−3.5 −360 −4.0 −350 −3.0 −40
−2.6 −360 −3.5 −350 −1.35 −67.2
strength is attained at the grating corners, the damage suddenly de-
−1.7 −270 −2.3 −260 −1.1 −65 veloped along the ribs.
−0.97 −175.1 −1.3 −170.2 −0.75 −50
−0.425 −78.17 −0.435 −67.46 −0.349 −25
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5. Conclusions
2.149 395.0 2.468 382.5 1.894 148.0
2.15 0.10 2.47 0.10 1.90 0.10
Experimental bending tests on full-scale, FRP gratings
(38 × 38 mm2 grid pitch, molded in dies 38 mm height) were carried
the ribs parallel to the free edges. out to assess the actual performances at the varying of the restraining
Differently, in the case of the four corner point supports, the tensile condition and the influence of cover plates (3.8 mm thick) applied at
stresses resulted lower than σmax (Fig. 16c) at the reaching of the peak one or both sides.
For the characterization of the fiberglass composite, three point

10
N. Gattesco, et al. Composite Structures 223 (2019) 110967

Fig. 15. Comparison between numerical and experimental P-u curves of gratings samples: boundary condition (a) S1, (b) S2 and (c) S3.

bending tests were carried out, which evidenced a progressive stiffness
degradation, due to local buckling phenomena in compression, with a
failure occurred for the rupture of fibers in tension or, in case of double-
covered samples, for shear sliding in the ribs; the local plasticization of
the upper cover was also observed. These tests also evidenced that the
transversal ribs do not influence appreciably the deformability of
longitudinal ribs.
Full scale bending tests on squared gratings samples
(995 × 995 mm2) were then carried out by applying a monotonic out-
of-plane load at the center of the panel; open gratings and gratings
covered at one or both sides were tested, providing supports at the four
edges, at two opposite edges or at the four corners. The load against
mid-span displacement curves showed an initial linear-elastic trend,
with a gradual stiffness reduction when approaching to the peak load,
due to the local buckling in compression; then, an abrupt drop of re-
sistance occurred because of the failure of fibers in tension. More re-
strained configurations, as well as the presence of covers, resulted in
higher stiffness and resistance performances.
As stated, the samples collapsed for the tensile failure of the ribs at
the intrados (or of the bottom cover), in the central area, accompanied
with the local failure of the upper cover, if present (delamination and/
or punching shear); however, in samples restrained at the four corners,
the failure was anticipated by the shear sliding of the perimeter ribs.
A numerical FE tridimensional model was developed: both the ribs

Table 5
Numerical displacements at the center of the panel (uFE) at different levels of applied load (P200, P100 and P50) and peak loads, (Pmax,FE). The percentage errors in
respect to the experimental values “exp”, calculated as Δerr = (XFE − Xexp)/Xexp, are reported. The numerical failure mode is also indicated (T = tensile failure at the
intrados, P = plasticization at the extrados, S = shear sliding).
Open grating (O) One side cover (C) Both sides cover (D)

G-S1 G-S2 G-S3 G-S1 G-S2 G-S3 G-S1 G-S2 G-S3

uFE(P200) [mm] 4.56 4.98 5.07 3.84 5.28 5.34 4.05 4.31 4.40
Δerr [%] −4.0 4.8 6.7 −19.1 11.1 12.4 −14.7 −9.3 −7.4
uFE(P100) [mm] 8.94 10.37 10.17 9.18 10.23 9.83 8.58 8.98 9.28
Δerr [%] −5.9 9.2 7.0 7.2 7.7 3.4 −9.6 −5.5 −2.3
uFE(P50) [mm] 19.18 20.32 20.33 20.22 19.89 19.48 17.50 18.08 18.9
Δerr [%] 1.0 6.9 7.0 6.4 4.7 2.5 −7.4 −4.8 0.5
Pmax,FE [kN] 48.97 42.76 33.12 93.20 (105.85) 68.17 53.54 101.24 99.81 74.95
Δerr [%] −2.1 −4.6 6.8 −15.5 (−4.0) −5.3 −1.7 −10.0 −0.9 6.5
Failure mode T T S T, P T, P P, S T, P T, P, S T, P, S

11
N. Gattesco, et al.
Fig. 16. Normal stresses at the bottom of open gratings, in correspondence of the peak load: (a) four supported edges; (b) two supported edges, (c) four corner points.
The tangential stresses in the vicinity of the supported corner, at the mid height of the grating, are reported in (d).
and the plates were modelled through solid elements of nonlinear
material so to consider correctly the effect of local buckling in com-
pression and to reach the ultimate resistance. The actual material
characteristics to be used in the numerical model were derived from the
characterization tests on three rib samples. The model resulted able to
reproduce with good accuracy the behavior of all the full-scale grid
specimens tested experimentally, both in terms of displacement and
resistance performances (error Δerr < ± 10%). The numerical simu-
lations allowed also to better comprehend the failure mechanisms that
activate in experimental tests. In specimens supported on the four
corners, the combined longitudinal shear and torsion on perimetric ribs
near the supports leaded to a premature failure due to shear sliding
when the shear stress reached the shear resistance (τmax = 18.9 MPa).
The proceed of the study will include numerical investigations on
more articulated configurations in terms of loading configuration, re-
straining conditions and shape of gratings and the development of a
simplified analytical method for the estimation of the gratings perfor-
mances very useful for design purposes.
12
Composite Structures 223 (2019) 110967
Acknowledgments
This paper is based on part of a research project financed by M.M.
srl (Udine, Italy). The authors wish also to thank Dr. Manuela Buttazzi
for the useful help provided during the tests.
References
[1] Hollaway LC. A review of the present and future utilisation of FRP composites in the
civil infrastructure with reference to their important in-service properties. Constr
Build Mater 2010;24:2419–45.
[2] Stewart R. Composites in construction advance in new directions. Reinf Plast
2011;55(5):49–54.
[3] Bank LC. Composites for construction: structural design with FRP materials. US:
John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 2006.
[4] Barbero EJ. Introduction to composite materials design. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, US:
CRC press, Taylor & Francis Group ed.; 2011.
[5] Berardi U, Dembsey N. Thermal and fire characteristics of FRP composites for ar-
chitectural applications. Polymers 2015;7:2276–89.
[6] Correia JR, Bai Y, Keller T. A review of the fire behavior of pultruded GFRP
structural profiles for civil engineering applications. Compos Struct
2015;127:267–87.
[7] Gibson AG, Humphrey JK, Di Modica P, Christke S, Kotsikos G, Holliday R. Post-fire
integrity of composite gratings for offshore platforms. J Reinf Plast Compos
2014;33(6):543–55.
N. Gattesco, et al.
[8] Devender B, Purushotham A, Vasudeva Reddy O. Experimental test on Gfrp gratings
for mechanical properties and chemical resistance. J Mech Civil Eng
2013;8(6):34–9.
[9] Cheremisinoff NP. Handbook of polymer science and technology – Volume 4:
Composites and Speciality Applications. New York Basel: Marcel Dekker Inc.; 1989.
[10] American Composites Manufacturers Association. FRP Composites Grating Manual
for Pultruded and Molded Grating and Stair Treads (1st edition). US: Arlington;
2014.
[11] Mangire R, Srinivasan MN. Mechanical behaviour of glass fiber reinforced polymer
pultruded composite gratings. Modern Mech Eng 2013;3:142–6.
[12] Shravya P, Siva Sambi Reddy B, Purushotham A. Manufacturing and analysis of
Gfrpgratings. J Mech Civil Eng 2016;13(6):57–63.
13
Composite Structures 223 (2019) 110967
[13] Biddah A. Structural reinforcement of bridge decks using pultruded GFRP grating.
Compos Struct 2006;74:80–8.
[14] Manalo AC, Nicol LK, Maranan G, Jackson M. An experimental investigation on the
behaviour of molded FRP gratings. In: Proc. of the 12th International Symposium
on Fiber Reinforced Polymers for Reinforced Concrete Structures, FRPRCS-12, 14-
16 December 2015, Nanjing, China.
[15] Shokrieh MM, Heidari-Rarani M. Analysis of fibreglass reinforced plastic molded
grating. Iran Polym J 2007;6(8):511–20.
[16] Nicol LK. Behaviour of fibre composite walkways and grating. Faculty of
Engineering and Surveying: University of Southern Queensland, Australia; 2014.
[17] TNO Building and Construction Research. DIANA e finite element analysis user's
manual. Release 10.2. September 2017.