&(5,,751

Laboratory testing of the structural behaviour of precast concrete lattice girder slabs
at construction stage
Gerard O’Kelly-Lynch1, Shane Newell2, Jamie Goggins1,3
1
Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland
2
Department of Building and Civil Engineering, Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology, Galway, Ireland
3
MaREI Centre, Ryan Institute, National University of Ireland of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland

email: g.okelly-lynch1@nuigalway.ie; s.newell2@nuigalway.ie; jamie.goggins@nuigalway.ie

ABSTRACT: Over the last decade, the implementation of offsite construction methods have become increasingly popular in the
construction industry. Offsite construction offers many advantages in terms of efficiencies, quality control, time saving and health
and safety. One such method is the use of precast concrete lattice girder slabs, or filigree slabs, as an alternative to insitu flat slab
construction. The lattice girder slab consists of a thin precast concrete plank, a steel lattice girder and bottom reinforcement.
During the construction stage, the precast plank must support its own self-weight, imposed construction loads and the self-weight
of insitu concrete topping. This paper focuses on the structural capacities of the slab at construction stage prior to the pouring of
insitu concrete with particular emphasis on deflection and stress capacities.
This paper describes a series of analyses used to investigate the structural behaviour of a number of precast planks. The analyses
include an analytical analysis (using Microsoft Excel software), a numerical analysis (using AutoDesk Robot software) and a
physical testing analysis. Two separate techniques were implemented for the analytical study, one based on the beam bending
method and the other based on the axial deformation method. All three analyses were compared against one another with the aim
of obtaining consistent results across all studies.
Results of the investigation indicate that any one analytical method cannot readily describe the structural behaviours of the system
across the range of slabs investigated, with overall girder height predominantly dictating which method is more accurate. Results
also show how the slab system is considerably more likely to fail by buckling in the top or diagonal bars.

KEY WORDS: filigree slab; lattice girder; construction stage; deflection; stress; strain; buckling

1 INTRODUCTION
Understanding the structural behaviour of concrete has always
been of significant importance to the engineering design
industry. In recent times, the incorporation of in-built sensory
equipment is becoming increasingly popular as a means of
obtaining real-time data from structures, with initiatives such
as the EU Built2Spec guidelines encouraging the use of
embedded sensory equipment within structural elements [1].
Concrete research and testing has always been a primary
area of study for civil engineering at NUI Galway. Construction
of the new engineering building at NUI Galway was completed
in 2010 and was recently renamed as the ‘Alice Perry
Engineering Building’. An interesting point to note is the
ongoing use of the building as a ‘living laboratory’. The term
‘living laboratory’ is used as the building creates an ongoing
interactive learning environment for students through the use
of sensory equipment [2]. The purpose of this study is to further
develop the findings of these previous projects and to develop
models which can more accurately predict the true physical
behaviour of the slabs in question.
The slab, in the case of this study, is known as a filigree slab
and comprises a precast concrete base with bottom
reinforcement and a number of steel lattice girders protruding
from the top face. When in position, in-situ concrete is poured
directly on the slab covering the protruding girders. This
investigation examines the structural use of a number of filigree
slabs at construction stage prior to the pouring of in-situ
concrete by incorporating a series of in-built interactive sensors
located at specific regions on the various slab components.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
The study of lattice girder systems within concrete structures is
a relatively new concept. Historically, lattice girders or truss
systems were confined to the steel and timber industry and
could be commonly seen in roof and bridge design. However,
as concrete designers continue to develop methods of reducing
material quantity and costs, the use of lattice girder techniques
in concrete design has become a key subject area for further
research.
Two particular studies, carried out by Löfgren (2003) [3]
and Furche and Bauermeister (2011) [4], examined the
structural behaviours and limits of composite lattice girder
elements during the construction phases of projects. In both
cases, the element consisted of a concrete base with lattice
girders protruding from the top surface of the concrete.
The investigation conducted by Löfgren (2003) [3] was
carried out in Sweden and studied the use of lattice girder
elements as a means of obtaining performance enhancements
in concrete construction methods. As discussed in the study, the
investigation focused on the use of composite precast lattice
girder elements during the construction phase of a project. In
other words, the study examined the structural properties of the
lattice girder element prior to the pouring of in-situ concrete
onto the system.
Löfgren concluded that, although the simulations appear to
predict a slightly stiffer behaviour than what was recorded in
reality, the models succesfully predict, in general terms, the
structural behaviour of the system. It was also concluded that a


 &(5,,751

larger top bar diameter and an increase in modulus of elasticity

for a given layout can result in greater stiffness and peak load
capacity for the system.
The study carried out by Furche and Bauermeister [4] was
conducted in Germany and examined the use of lattice girder
reinforced precast concrete slabs during the construction
process. Strength tests were performed on a total of 78 full scale
concrete floor slabs reinforced with lattice girders. Two
different loading scenarios were implemented, one examining
bending resistance and the other examining shear resistance.
Furche and Bauermeister concluded that failure in bending
generally occurred between nodal points as a result of upper
chord buckling in the girder system. Girders of larger truss
height also experienced buckling across longer lengths of the
upper chord, causing the entire girder cross-section to tilt. It
was further concluded that the correct instalment of lattice Figure 2 Typical slab cross-section.
girder elements in conjunction with a concrete slab could
greatly increase the span of the section. This was also
concluded as part of a separate study conducted by Betram et Table 1 Lattice girder details in each slab.
al. [5].
Diagonal Bottom
Truss Top bar
3 MATERIAL AND METHODS Slab bar bar
height diameter
reference diameter diameter
Three separate analyses were carried out as part of this study. (mm) (mm)
(mm) (mm)
These included an analytical analysis (carried out with
S290-14/7/6 290 14 7 6
Microsoft Excel), a numerical analysis (carried out by
S220-14/7/6 220 14 7 6
AutoDesk Robot), and a physical testing analysis which
W225-8/5/5 225 8 5 5
involved the laboratory testing of the full-scale slabs at the
S100-14/7/6 100 14 7 6
Structures Laboratory in NUI Galway. The primary aim of the
W100-6/6/10 100 6 6 10
study is to obtain consistent results across all three techniques.
Slab details The experimental layout used in all analyses is shown in
As part of the study, five different filigree slabs were analysed. Figure 1. A symmetrical loading system incorporating the 4-
The concrete portion of the slab was consistent across all point bending testing method was implemented, as
samples, with a thickness of 65 mm, width of 550 mm and recommended in Annex J of the Irish Standard EN 14747 [6].
length of 3600 mm being implemented. The reinforcement in In general terms, two identical point loads are applied to the test
all cases was also identical, whereby 6 H12 steel bars were used specimen at distances of one third from either end of the span.
longitudinally at 100 mm spacings within the slab. Each slab However, applying the loads at these locations in the case of
also incorporated two identical steel lattice girders, with the this slab would result in the loads being applied halfway
dimensional properties of these girders differing from slab to between two nodes of the truss. This would induce a bending
slab. The lower portion of the girders were encased in concrete moment within the members of the truss. To overcome this
with the upper portion protruding out of the top face of the problem, the loadings in this project are located at 1300 mm
concrete base. A typical cross-section of the set-up is shown in from the support at each end, ensuring the forces being applied
Figure 2 and the corresponding geometric details of the steel through the truss are purely axial before being transferred into
girder elements are presented in Table 1. the concrete portion of the slab. For the purpose of the models,
the loading was taken as two 5 kN point loads acting at these
locations.

Figure 1 Experimental layout implemented in all analyses.



The assumed material properties for both the steel and
concrete components, taken from Eurocode 2 [7] and Eurocode
3 [8], are shown in Table 2. The concrete used in the slab is
C40/50 concrete, where a characteristic compressive cube
strength of 50 MPa was implemented.
Table 2 Material properties of section
Material property Material value
Modulus of elasticity, steel (MPa) 210,000
Modulus of elasticity, concrete (MPa) 25,600
Grade of steel (MPa) 500
Strength of concrete (MPa) 50
Unit weight of steel (kN/m3) 77
Unit weight of concrete (kN/m3) 25
Analytical and numerical studies
As mentioned earlier, the Microsoft Excel computer software
was utilised to perform the analytical study of the filigree slab.
As the slab in this study is a composite section consisting of
both reinforced concrete design and truss design, two separate
analytical methods were performed and compared against one
another. The first method involved performing calculations
derived from the beam bending theory of structures, commonly
used in reinforced concrete slab design, while the second
method involved the use of virtual work methods to obtain the
range of axial deformations experienced by the system, as
frequently seen in truss design.
Initially, simplified versions of the slab were investigated in
both cases, and subsequently compared to the corresponding
setup in a Robot generated model, in order to validate the
methods. Following this, the methods were applied to the full
slab system, where results were once more compared to the
equivalent Robot model and conclusions drawn on the
effectiveness of both methods. Not only does this validate the
analytical methods, but is also acts as a means to verify if the
Robot analysis is modelling the system correctly. An isometric
view of the model generated with Robot is shown in Figure 3.
In all cases, the Robot models were defined as shell structures
under an elastic analysis.
Figure 3 Robot generated model for slab S290-14/7/6.
Physical testing analysis
Once the computer generated models were completed, the
physical testing of the slabs was carried out (Fig 4). Electrical
resistance (ER) stain gauges were installed at numerous
locations throughout the slab in order for strains to be recorded
as the slab begins to deform under the applied load. As the slab
is intended to be utilised in the construction industry as a
precast unit, it was important to ensure that the slab was
constructed in a quality controlled precast factory setting. In
&(5,,751
this case, the positioning of the girders and the pouring of the
slab was carried out at Oran Precast’s manufacturing facility in
Galway. Bonding of the gauges onto the reinforcement bars and
bottom truss steel members was also carried out at this venue
prior to concrete pouring, as it would otherwise not be possible
to measure the strain of these components individually once
surrounded in concrete. Once fully constructed, the slabs were
transported to NUI Galway where the remainder of the gauge
attachment and testing took place. A series of linear variable
differential transducers (LVDTs) were also employed to
continuously measure the deflected shape of the slab while
loading occurred. The applied load was measured directly with
a local cell attached to the hydraulic actuator that applied the
load. A photograph of the laboratory set-up prior to loading is
shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4 Slab prior to physical testing.
The first phase of the loading process was to impose a total
load of 1 kN onto the slab. This was to ensure the equipment
and restraints within the testing system were all operating
correctly. Following this, the planks were loaded to destruction,
with load, strain and deflection readings being continuously
recorded throughout the loading process. Results of the
physical testing were subsequently compared against the
corresponding analytical and numerical models discussed in
Section 3.2.
4 RESULTS
This section is divided into two main parts. The first part
compares the analytical and numerical based analyses. Results
for deflection and top bar stress are discussed in detail.
Following this, the physical testing results are discussed, where
only laboratory results for slab S290-14/7/6 are included.
Comparisons are also made against a similar test from 2015,
where a slab identical to S290-14/7/6 was tested.
Analytical and numerical results
Deflection results of the analytical and numerical analyses
across all slabs are shown in Table 3. By inspection, the
deflection in the two tallest systems, namely the S290-14/7/6
and S220-14/7/6 slabs, are considerably better represented by
the axial deformations method, when compared against the

 &(5,,751

Robot generated value. In contrast to this, the two shallowest

trusses, namely the S100-14/7/6 and W100-6/6/10 trusses, are
more accurately represented by the beam bending method. The
remaining W225-8/5/5 slab is less distinct with both methods
failing to reflect the deflection with respect to the Robot
generated figure. Based on this evidence, it appears that axial
effects dominate the deflection behaviour within taller slab
systems and, as a result, are accurately depicted by the axial
deformations method. In shallower slabs, on the other hand,
bending action predominates, so these are best modelled by the
beam bending method.

Table 3 Deflection results for all slabs (units in mm).

Figure 5 Deflection against truss height results for slab with
Bending Axial 14 mm top bars, 7 mm diagonal bars and 6 mm bottom bars.
Robot
method* method*
S290-14/7/6 1.56 (-42.8 %) 3.02 (10.6 %) 2.73 Other than the exceedance of the 10 mm deflection limit,
S220-14/7/6 2.73 (-29.1 %) 4.47 (16.1 %) 3.85 results of both the analytical and numerical analyses indicate
W225-8/5/5 5.88 (-32.8 %) 11.86 (35.4 %) 8.76 that failure of the slab systems occur in the outermost diagonal
S100-14/7/6 10.62 (-9.1 %) 18.66 (59.6 %) 11.69 bars or the centre member of the top chord. In both cases, the
W100-6/6/10 20.84 (-15.5 %) 93.65 (279.8 %) 24.66 members fail by buckling. A break-down of the initial failure
* Figures in brackets represent percentage difference with corresponding mode in each slab is shown in Table 5.
Robot generated value. It must be noted, however, that these results are based on
the stresses experienced at the centroidal axis of each
Similar trends in relation to the accuracy of the method were component. Cracking of the concrete on the bottom face of the
encountered in terms of stress. The maximum stress results slab may occur prior to these buckling failures.
modelled in the top bar are shown in Table 4. Again, the results
imply that the axial deformations method generate more
Table 5 Initial component failure in each slab.
accurate figures for tall trusses, indicating the behaviours
within the system are dominated by axial characteristics. Slab Failure mode
Similar to the deflection results, the stress results from the S290-14/7/6 Diagonal bar buckling
shallower trusses are better represented by the beam bending S220-14/7/6 Diagonal bar buckling
method, implying that the stress characteristics within the W225-8/5/5 Diagonal bar buckling
system are predominantly governed by bending behaviours. S100-14/7/6 Top bar buckling
The trend in deflection as a function of truss height for both W100-6/6/10 Top bar buckling
analytical methods, as well as the corresponding Robot trend,
are shown in Figure 5, where top, diagonal and bottom bar
diameters remain constant at 14 mm, 7 mm and 6 mm, Physical testing results
respectively. As stated earlier, laboratory testing results for slab S290-14/7/6
Table 4 Maximum top bar stress results (units in MPa). only are included in this paper. The deflection of the slab at
mid-span and strain measured in the top bar of the truss are
Bending Axial plotted against the applied load for slab S290-14/7/6 in Figure
Robot
method* method* 6 and Figure 7, respectively, where TC represents top chord, A
S290-14/7/6 64.3 (-24.4 %) 91.2 (7.3 %) 85.0 and B represent the two different trusses within the slab and I
S220-14/7/6 85.9 (-20.3 %) 120.1 (11.4 %) 107.8 and E represent the internal and external sides of the bar.
W225-8/5/5 199.4 (-25.7 %) 357.2 (33.2 %) 268.2 The jump experienced in deflection at approximately 12 kN
S100-14/7/6 153.6 (-11.7 %) 263.6 (51.5 %) 174.0 occurred as a result of the concrete cracking on the bottom
W100-6/6/10 317.7 (-16.9 %) 1432.6 (274.4 %) 382.6 surface of the slab (Fig 6). Following this, the top bars in the
* Figures in brackets represent percentage difference with corresponding slab system are the first to fail, where buckling occurs at
Robot generated value. approximately 15 kN. This was in contrast to the results of the
analytical and numerical models, where diagonal bars were the
The suggested ranges for when each method may be first components to fail in the slab system. It also contradicts
implemented are also shown in Figure 5. The beam bending the results obtained from the identical laboratory testing in
method accurately depicts the deflection below 100 mm, while 2015, where, as expected, the diagonal bars failed first.
the axial deformations method accurately models deflections
above 250 mm (within 10 % of the corresponding Robot
generated value in each case). Truss heights between 100 and
250 mm are influenced by a combination of bending and axial
behaviours.


 &(5,,751

-35 4 3.63
-30
3.5 3.26
-25 3.02
Load (kN)

-20 3 2.73

Deflection (mm)
-15 2.5
-10
2
-5 1.56
0 1.5
0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50
Displacement (mm) 1

Figure 6 Applied load-deflection plot from physical testing of 0.5

slab S290-14/7/6.
0
Bending Axial Robot Physical Physical
method method model testing testing
2018 2015

Figure 8 Deflection of slab S290-14/7/6 at 10 kN total applied

load obtained for all analyses.

100 91.23
85.04 Top bar
90
Diagonal bar
Compressive Stress (MPa)

80
69.063
70 64.31
57.89
60 52.46
Figure 7 Total applied load to the slab versus strain measured
50 46.22 44.04
in the top bar during testing of slab S290-14/7/6.
40
Comparisons between computer models and physical 28.81 29.40
laboratory results 30

Deflection results for all modes of analysis for slab S290-14/7/6 20

at two 5 kN loads are shown in Figure 8. Considering the slab
in this instance contains a tall girder, it is not surprising that the
deflection is more accurately represented by the axial
deformations method than the beam bending method. However,
the physical testing results on both occasions deflected more
than the predicted deflection using the axial deformations
method. It was expected that the actual deflection of the system
would be closer to the Robot model value of 2.73 mm.
The maximum stresses in the top and diagonal bars are
shown in Figure 9. By inspection the results are not consistent
across all methods. The main area of concern lies with the
discrepancies between the two sets of physical testing results,
as all aspects of the slab geometry and loading conditions were
identical in both cases. Similarly to the deflection results, it was
anticipated that the stress results from the physical testing
would tend to correlate with those predicted by the Robot
model.
10
0
Bending Axial Robot Physical Physical
method method model testing… testing…
Figure 9 Maximum stresses in the top and diagonal bars of
slab S290-14/7/6 obtained for all analyses at 10 kN total
applied load.
The maximum stresses in the bottom and reinforcement
bars are presented in Figure 10. As shown, the results of the
physical testing in both cases do not coincide with the modelled
results. As both bottom and reinforcement bars are below the
centroidal axis of the entire slab system, it was anticipated that
the bars would be in tension. In actual fact, results of both
physical tests indicate the opposite is occurring with the strain
gauges picking up compressive stress behaviours within the
bars. The reason for this stress response is unclear, although it
is likely related to the diagonal bar arrangement in the truss
system. The forces within the truss portion of the slab are being
transmitted axially through the top and diagonal bars. As the
diagonal bars intersect the top surface of the concrete, the axial
forces begin to interact with the concrete resulting in bending
behaviours which generated moments within the slab.
Modelling this interaction is difficult to accomplish and may
explain the reason for compressive stresses being exerted on


 &(5,,751

the bottom and reinforcement bars. It was also expected, as ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

shown in the analytical and numerical results, that the strain The authors would like to thank Colm Walsh for his assistance
would be the same in both bottom and reinforcement bars, since with the laboratory testing. This project has received funding
the centroids of these elements all lie in the same plane with from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and
respect to the neutral axis of the entire slab. This was not the innovation programme under grant agreement No. 637221
case in the physical results, where the stress in the bottom bar Built2Spec Project. The sole responsibility for the content of
is almost twice that of the reinforcement bar for both tests. this publication lies with the authors. It does not necessarily
reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EACI
8 nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that
6.7 6.7
Bottom bar may be made of the information contained therein. The last
5.8 5.8
6 5.5 5.5 author would also like to acknowledge the funding received
Reinforcement bar
from the Science Foundation Ireland through the Career
4 Development Award programme (Grant No. 13/CDA/2200).
Stress (MPa)

2 REFERENCES
[1] Hajdukiewicz M, Goggins J, De La Torre O, Holleran D, Keane MM
0 (2018), An automated standard-based life cycle quality inspection
methodology for smart precast concrete solutions in buildings,
-0.6 Automation in Construction (under review).
-2 -1.1
[2] Goggins, J., Byrne, D., & Cannon, E. (2012). The creation of a “ living
-2.4 laboratory ” for structural engineering at the National University of
-4 Ireland , Galway. The Structural Engineer, 90(4), 1–21
[3] Löfgren, I. (2003). Lattice Girder Elements - Investigation of Structural
-6 -4.8 Behaviour and Performance Enhancements. In Nordic Concrete
Bending Axial Robot Physical Physical Research (pp. 85–104).
[4] Furche, J., & Bauermeister, U. (2011). Load Tests - Long erection spans
method method model testing testing with strengthened lattice girder
2018 2015 [5] Bertram, G., Furche, J., Hegger, J., & Bauermeister, U. (2011). Zulässige
Montagestützweiten von Elementdecken mit verstärkten Gitterträgern.
Figure 10 Maximum stresses in bottom and reinforcement Beton- Und Stahlbetonbau, 106(8), 540–550.
bars of slab S290-14/7/6 obtained for all analyses at 10 kN https://doi.org/10.1002/best.201100031
total applied load. [6] NSAI. (2010). EN 13747: Precast concrete products - Floor plates for
floor systems. National Standards Authority of Ireland.
[7] NSAI. (2003). IS EN 1992-1-1 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures
5 CONCLUSIONS - Part 1-1 : General rules and rules for buildings. Dublin: National
From the results obtained, it is clear that the modelling of a Standards Authority of Ireland.
[8] NSAI. (2005). IS EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures -
lattice girder concrete slab system is difficult to achieve. Two Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. Dublin: National
separate analytical methods were developed in order to model Standards Authority of Ireland
the deflection and stress levels within a filigree slab when
loaded with the 4-point bending technique. These methods
were, namely, the beam bending method and the axial
deformations method. The models were initially compared with
corresponding numerical models generated with the AutoDesk
Robot software package.
It was found that the bar arrangement within the girder had
a significant bearing on which method was more suitable at
describing the structural behaviours within the slab. Tall girder
systems were well represented by the axial deformations
method and, therefore, exhibit signs of a system dominated by
axial behaviours. Shallower trusses, on the other hand, were
more accurately described with the beam bending method,
where structural behaviours within the slab are governed by
bending behaviours.
Following this, the models were compared against two sets
of physical testing data where one particular slab was analysed,
namely slab S290-14/7/6. Although the deflection results
displayed a certain level of correlation with the computer-
generated models, overall the consistency across results was
poor, with stress and strain values displaying very poor
correlation with the corresponding analytical and numerical
models.