buildings

Article
A Comparison of Load Distribution Methods at the Node
and Internal Force Analysis of the Lattice Beam Based
on the Winkler Foundation Model
Junwei Fan 1,2 , Shijiao Yang 1 , Bo Deng 2, *, Bing Sun 2 and Taoying Liu 3

1 School of Resource Environment and Safety Engineering, University of South China,

Hengyang 421001, China; 2011000055@usc.edu.cn (J.F.); 1990000543@usc.edu.cn (S.Y.)
2 School of Civil Engineering, University of South China, Hengyang 421001, China; sunbingnh@126.com
3 School of Resources and Safety Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410012, China;
taoying@csu.edu.cn
* Correspondence: parl_d@126.com

Abstract: As a new type of retaining structure, lattice beams with tie-back anchor cables have been
increasingly used in slope reinforcement and have achieved improved prevention effects. However,
the simplified load distribution method (SLDM) at the node, which is the theoretical basis of internal
force analysis for lattice beams, is not perfect at present. An alternative new load distribution method
(NLDM) at the node based on the force method for the lattice beam was therefore introduced in
this paper. Taking into account the loads acting on other nodes of the beams in both directions and
according to the static equilibrium condition and deformation compatibility condition at the nodes,
NLDM assigns the loads acting on the nodes to the cross beams and vertical beams, respectively,
by constructing and solving a system of linear equations. In order to verify the superiority of
NLDM, a case of slope reinforced by a lattice beam was introduced in this paper, and the load
distribution of the nodes under the design condition was carried out based on both methods. Then,
the deflections at the nodes of the lattice beam resting on the Winkler foundation, loaded with the
known loads, were analyzed by the superposition method. The results of the deformation analysis
Citation: Fan, J.; Yang, S.; Deng, B.; showed that the deflections at the same nodes of the beams in both directions based on NLDM were
Sun, B.; Liu, T. A Comparison of almost equal, thus demonstrating the superiority of NLDM in terms of deformation compatibility.
Load Distribution Methods at the In addition, a comparative analysis of the theoretical bending moments of the lattice beam under
Node and Internal Force Analysis of
the design and the actual working conditions based on both methods was also carried out. The
the Lattice Beam Based on the
results of the bending moment analysis showed that the bending moments of the cross beam differed
Winkler Foundation Model. Buildings
significantly in the middle third of the beam length, while the bending moments of the vertical beams
2023, 13, 1731. https://doi.org/
differed significantly at the beam sections where the maximum bending moments are located, and the
10.3390/buildings13071731
theoretical bending moments under the actual working condition were in relatively good agreement
Academic Editor: André Rafael with the measured values. Consequently, NLDM for the lattice beam was self-consistent in terms
Dias Martins
of the deformation compatibility at the node, and therefore the introduction of this new method
Received: 17 May 2023 provides an important theoretical basis for the accurate internal force analysis of lattice beams.
Revised: 30 June 2023
Accepted: 5 July 2023 Keywords: slope engineering; lattice beam; load distribution method; Winkler foundation model
Published: 7 July 2023

1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
The lattice beam (also called frame beam or concrete grillage) with anchor cables is
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
a new type of in-situ retaining structure that has been proposed with the development
distributed under the terms and
of retaining structures in the past four decades in China [1–7]. It is a flexible retaining
conditions of the Creative Commons structure comprising a reinforced concrete lattice beam placed on the slope surface, cables
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// anchored in the stable stratum, and the slope soil behind the wall (see Figure 1). The three
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ components of the lattice beam slope anchoring system can form a self-balancing system
4.0/). that maintains long-term slope stability. After the construction of the lattice beam, sprayed

Buildings 2023, 13, 1731. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071731 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 18

Buildings 2023, 13, 1731 components of the lattice beam slope anchoring system can form a self-balancing 2 of system
21
that maintains long-term slope stability. After the construction of the lattice beam, sprayed
concrete, dry stone, or grass [8,9] is placed on the slope surface between the frame beams
concrete, dry
to mitigate stone,
slope or grass
surface [8,9] isand
erosion placed on thelocal
provide slopeslope
surfacestability.
between Inthethis
frame beams
way, a lattice
to mitigate slope surface erosion and provide local slope stability. In this
beam is also a kind of environment-friendly and versatile retaining structure that takes way, a lattice
beam
into is alsoboth
account a kind of environment-friendly
the and versatile
overall and local stability of theretaining
slope. Instructure
China,that
thetakes intobeam
lattice
account both the overall and local stability of the slope. In China, the lattice beam placed
placed on the slope surface is a reinforced concrete frame beam structure, which is mainly
on the slope surface is a reinforced concrete frame beam structure, which is mainly made
made of concrete with a compressive strength of not less than 25 MPa (C25), the cross-
of concrete with a compressive strength of not less than 25 MPa (C25), the cross-sectional
sectional area
area of the of the
beams beams
is not is not
less than b ×less
h = than b ××h 300
250 mm = 250
mm,mm and×the
300 mm, and
distance the distance
between the
between the adjacent beams in both directions should be
adjacent beams in both directions should be less than 4.0 m [10]. less than 4.0 m [10].

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 1. Several
Figure 1. Severalapplications
applicationsof oflattice
lattice beams withtied-back
beams with tied-backanchor
anchor cables.
cables. (a) (a) Lattice
Lattice beams
beams and and
molded
moldedconcrete
concretepanel.
panel.(b)(b)
Lattice
Latticebeam
beamandandcast-in-place
cast-in-place concrete panel. (c)
concrete panel. (c) Lattice
Lattice beam
beamandand
shotcrete panel.
shotcrete panel.(d)
(d)Lattice
Latticebeam
beam and plantprotection.
and plant protection.

Since
Since thethesuccessful
successful application
application of
oflattice
latticebeams
beams in in
highway
highwayslopes in the
slopes in 1980s in
the 1980s in
China, the lattice beam slope anchorage system has been widely used for
China, the lattice beam slope anchorage system has been widely used for the reinforce- the reinforcement
of various high and steep man-made slopes [11–13] or landslides [14,15] due to its light
ment of various high and steep man-made slopes [11–13] or landslides [14,15] due to its
weight, flexibility, and good seismic performance [16–20]. Similar to the design of the
light weight, flexibility, and good seismic performance [16–20]. Similar to the design of
traditional slope retaining structure, in addition to obtaining the parameters such as dis-
theplacement,
traditional slope
stress, retaining
strain, structure,
and FOS in addition
of the slope by numericalto obtaining the parameters
analysis [21–23], the design such
of as
displacement, stress, strain, and FOS of the slope by numerical analysis [21–23],
the lattice beam slope anchorage system requires accurate calculation of the internal forces the design
of the
suchlattice beammoment
as bending slope anchorage system
and shear force requires
of the accurate
lattice beam. Onlycalculation
on this basis,ofthe
thesteel
internal
forces such as bending
bar configuration moment
in the and shear
beams running forcedirections
in both of the lattice beam.
can be Only on
reasonably this basis, the
determined
in advance
steel of the slopeinconstruction.
bar configuration Althoughinit both
the beams running is widely used incan
directions slope
betreatment,
reasonably thedeter-
analysis of lattice beams, especially the analysis theory for the internal
mined in advance of the slope construction. Although it is widely used in slope treatment, force of lattice
beams, is still imperfect at present, so the theoretical analysis of this technique lags behind
the analysis of lattice beams, especially the analysis theory for the internal force of lattice
beams, is still imperfect at present, so the theoretical analysis of this technique lags behind
engineering practice, leading to several cases of structural damage of lattice beam (see
Figure 2).
 Buildings 2023, 13, 1731 3 of 21

Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 18

engineering practice, leading to several cases of structural damage of lattice beam (see
Figure 2).

Figure 2. A case of structural damage of lattice beam.

In terms of the slope reinforcement mechanism (see Figure 3), the prestressing forces
Figure 2. A case of structural damage of lattice beam.
acting on the nodes are transferred to the slope body by means of the lattice beam placed
on the slope surface to change the stress states of the slope and increase the resisting
In terms
force on theof the slope
potential reinforcement
sliding surface of the mechanism
slope, thus (see Figure 3),
achieving thethe prestressing
goal of long-termforces
acting
slopeonstability.
the nodes are transferred
In terms of the internalto the
forceslope bodyfor
analysis bythe
means ofbeam
lattice the lattice beam3),
(see Figure placed
on as
thea slope
facing structure on the slope surface, the lattice beam can be considered as a spatial force
surface to change the stress states of the slope and increase the resisting
on frame beam resting
the potential on ansurface
sliding elastic foundation
of the slope, andthus
subjected to anchoring
achieving the goalforces
of at the nodes.slope
long-term
Therefore,
stability. in the conventional
In terms of the internal internal
forceforce analysis
analysis for ofthea lattice
lattice beam,
beam the(seeprestressing
Figure 3), as a
forcestructure
facing acting onon thethe
node of the
slope lattice the
surface, beam is considered
lattice beam can a transverse
be consideredconcentrated load,frame
as a spatial
which can be assigned to the cross beam and vertical beam, respectively, according to the
beam resting on an elastic foundation and subjected to anchoring forces at the nodes.
static equilibrium condition and deformation compatibility condition at the node. Once
Therefore, in the conventional internal force analysis of a lattice beam, the prestressing
the unknown forces assigned to the vertical beams and cross beams of the lattice beam
force acting
system areon the node
obtained, theoflattice
the lattice
beam,beam is considered
as a spatially a transverse
load-bearing facing concentrated
structure, can load,
which
be decomposed into a series of one-dimensional beams resting on an elastic according
can be assigned to the cross beam and vertical beam, respectively, foundation.to the
static
Theequilibrium
internal forces condition and deformation
of these one-dimensional compatibility
beams loaded withcondition
the knownatloads the node.
can be Once
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
theeasily
unknown forcesBefore
calculated. assigned to thethe
analyzing vertical
internalbeams
forces and crossone-dimensional
for these 4beams
beams of the lattice of 18 beam
disassembled
system from the
are obtained, thewhole lattice
lattice beam,beamas system, the first
a spatially and foremost
load-bearing problem
facing is how to
structure, can be
obtain the loads assigned to the nodes of the beams in both directions,
decomposed into a series of one-dimensional beams resting on an elastic foundation. in other words, how The
to rationally assign the concentrated loads acting on the nodes of lattice beam to the cross
internal forces of these one-dimensional beams loaded with the known loads can be easily
beams and vertical beams, respectively.
calculated. Before analyzing the internal forces for these one-dimensional beams disas-
sembled from the whole lattice beam system, the first and foremost problem is how to
obtain the loads assigned to the nodes of the beams in both directions, in other words,
how to rationally assign the concentrated loads acting on the nodes of lattice beam to the
cross beams and vertical beams, respectively.

Mechanicalmodel
Figure3.3.Mechanical
Figure modelofoflattice
latticebeam
beamwith
withtied
tiedback
backanchor
anchorcables.
cables.

At present, SLDM is widely used in China for the load distribution at the node of
At present, SLDM is widely used in China for the load distribution at the node of the
the lattice beam [24,25], and this philosophy is also recommended for use in the Chinese
lattice beam [24,25], and this philosophy is also recommended for use in the Chinese
standard [26]. It ignores the torque effects of the beams running in one direction caused
by the bending moments of the beams running in the other direction and does not con-
sider the deformation at a node caused by loads acting on other nodes of the beams in
both directions, SLDM assumes that the beams passing through the nodes are infinite long
Buildings 2023, 13, 1731 4 of 21

standard [26]. It ignores the torque effects of the beams running in one direction caused by
the bending moments of the beams running in the other direction and does not consider
the deformation at a node caused by loads acting on other nodes of the beams in both
directions, SLDM assumes that the beams passing through the nodes are infinite long
beams or semi-infinite long beams supported by Winkler foundation, and then, according
to the static equilibrium condition and the deformation compatibility condition at the
nodes, the loads acting on the nodes are assigned to the cross beams and vertical beams
passing through the nodes, respectively. In fact, SLDM for lattice beams mainly has the
following two main shortcomings: (1) the subjective assumption that the cross beam and
vertical beam passing through a node are infinite long beams or semi-infinite long beams is
inconsistent with the fact that most of the beams in both directions are finite long beams
resting on Winkler foundation; (2) it is impossible to consider the influence of the loads
acting on other nodes of the cross beam and vertical beam on the deformation at the node
to be load-distributed, which may lead to deformation incompatibility at the nodes.
In order to overcome some disadvantages of SLDM based on the above assumptions,
an NLDM based on the force method was introduced in this paper. This new method does
not make any subjective assumptions about the types of the cross beams and vertical beams
resting on the Winkler foundation, Instead, it can take into account the influence of the
loads acting on other nodes of the beams running in both directions, and can distinguish the
difference in stiffness of the beams in both directions relative to the ground. According to
the static equilibrium condition and the deformation compatibility condition at the nodes,
by constructing and solving a system of linear equations, NLDM can rationally distribute
the loads acting on the nodes to the cross beams and vertical beams, respectively.
The structure of this paper is as follows: First, based on Winkler foundation theory,
SLDM, and NLDM were introduced in detail in this paper; then, a case of slope reinforced
by a lattice beam with three cross beams and three vertical beams was introduced, and
both load distribution methods were used to assign the design loads acting on the nodes of
the lattice beam to the cross beams and vertical beams, respectively, and the superiority of
NLDM was verified by the deformation compatibility condition at the same nodes; Finally,
the theoretical bending moments of the cross beams and vertical beams supported by
Winkler foundation and loaded by the known loads obtained by both load distribution
methods were analyzed in comparison, and, furthermore, a comparative analysis was also
performed between the theoretical bending moments and the measured values under the
accrual working condition.

2. Load Distribution Methods at the Node for Lattice Beam

2.1. Simplified Load Distribution Method
The SLDM at the node for the lattice beam is derived from the load distribution
method for the interconnected beam in the foundation engineering textbook [27]. In this
method [28,29], the nodes are first divided into three basic types: the corner nodes, edge
nodes, and internodes according to their positions in the plane of the lattice beam; then, the
cross beams and vertical beams through the nodes are considered as infinite long beams or
semi-infinite long beams on Winkler foundation, and the prestressing of the anchor cable
acting on each node is assigned to the cross beam and vertical beam, respectively, according
to the static equilibrium condition and deformation compatibility condition of the node
(see Figure 4); finally, the whole lattice beam is decomposed into several one-dimensional
beams on Winkler foundation for the internal force analysis.
 the cross beams and vertical beams through the nodes are considered as infinite long
beams or semi-infinite long beams on Winkler foundation, and the prestressing of the an-
chor cable acting on each node is assigned to the cross beam and vertical beam, respec-
tively, according to the static equilibrium condition and deformation compatibility condi-
Buildings 2023, 13, 1731 tion of the node (see Figure 4); finally, the whole lattice beam is decomposed into several
5 of 21
one-dimensional beams on Winkler foundation for the internal force analysis.

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure4.4.Mechanical
Mechanicalmodel
modelofofSLDM:
SLDM:(a)(a)lattice
latticebeam
beamsubjected
subjectedtotoconcentrated
concentratedloads
loadsatatthe
thenodes;
nodes;
(b)
(b)the
thedeformation
deformationanalysis
analysisatataanode.
node.

2.1.1.Load
2.1.1. LoadDistribution
DistributionAssumptions
Assumptions
Whenevaluating
When evaluating the distribution
distributionofofa concentrated
a concentrated load at each
load nodenode
at each basedbased
on SLDM,
on
the following two conditions below must first be satisfied:
SLDM, the following two conditions below must first be satisfied:
(a) The
(a) Thestatic
staticequilibrium
equilibriumcondition:
condition:the
thesum
sumofofthe
theloads
loadsassigned
assignedtotothe
thecross
crossbeam
beamand
and
the vertical beam at a node should be equal to the total load acting on
the vertical beam at a node should be equal to the total load acting on the node; the node;
(b) The deformation compatibility condition: the deflection of the cross beam at a node
should be equal to that of the vertical beam at the same node.
Based on the above basic conditions, as shown in Figure 4b, there is a concentrated
load Fi acting on an arbitrary node i of the lattice beam, and the Fi acting on the node i is
assigned to the cross beam in the x-direction and the vertical beam in the y-direction as Fix
and Fiy at the node i, respectively, according to the static equilibrium condition:

Fi = Fix + Fiy (1)

For the deformation compatibility condition, the deflection wix induced only by Fix at
the node i of the cross beam in the x direction and the deflection wiy induced only by Fiy at
the node i of the vertical beam in y direction are required to be equal:

wix = wiy (2)

To simplify the load distribution model, the cross beams and the vertical beams are
assumed to be hinged at the nodes. In this way, the bending moment in one beam is
 the node i of the vertical beam in y direction are required to be equal:

wix = wiy (2)

To simplify the load distribution model, the cross beams and the vertical beams are
Buildings 2023, 13, 1731 assumed to be hinged at the nodes. In this way, the bending moment in one beam is 6sup-
of 21
ported by the beam itself, and the bending moments of the beams in one direction do not
induce deformation at the nodes of the beams running in the other direction.
supported by the beam itself, and the bending moments of the beams in one direction do
2.1.2. Theoretical
not induce Basis ofatSLDM
deformation the nodes of the beams running in the other direction.
In the node deformation analysis, SLDM usually assumes that the cross beam and
2.1.2.
the Theoretical
vertical beam Basis of SLDM
passing through a node are infinite long beams or semi-infinite long
beamsInsupported
the node deformation
by the Winkler analysis, SLDM usually
foundation. assumes
This section that the
focuses on cross beam and the
the superposition
vertical beam passing through a node are infinite long
method for deflection analysis of a semi-infinite long beam supported by the beams or semi-infinite long beams
Winkler
supported by
foundation the Winkler foundation. This section focuses on the superposition method for
[30].
deflection
As shown analysis of a semi-infinite
in Figure 5, there is along beam supported
concentrated force F0by the Winkler
acting foundation
on the section O of [30].
the
As shown
semi-infinite longin beam
Figure(beam
5, there is a concentrated
I) with a left extension force F0 acting
length of x (xon where O
the section
< π/λ, ofthe
λ is the
semi-infinite
flexibility long beam
eigenvalue (beam
of the beam) I) with
fromasection
left extension
O and an length of x (xof<infinite
extension π/λ, wherelengthλinis
theright
the flexibility eigenvalue
direction. of the beam)
The deflection of sectionfromOsection
could be Ocalculated
and an extension
accordingof to
infinite length
the method
in the right direction. The deflection of section O could be
of superposition of the infinite long beam (beam Ⅱ). The given semi-infinite long beamcalculated according to the
is
extended infinitely in the left direction so that the given beam (beam I) becomes part oflong
method of superposition of the infinite long beam (beam II). The given semi-infinite an
beam is extended
infinitely long beam infinitely
(beam Ⅱ). in the left direction
In order to use theso superposition
that the given method beam (beam I) becomes
to calculate the
part of an infinitely long beam (beam II). In order to use the
deflection at section O of an infinitely long beam supported by the Winkler foundation, superposition method to
calculate the deflection at section O of an infinitely long
an unknown vertical concentrated force FA and an unknown concentrated moment MA beam supported by the Winkler
foundation,
should an unknown
be applied to sectionvertical
A of theconcentrated
infinitely long force FA and
beam. Thean unknown
purpose concentrated
of applying end-
moment M should be applied to section A of the infinitely
conditioningA forces FA and MA on section A of the infinite long beam is to compensatelong beam. The purposethe of
applying end-conditioning forces
shear force and bending moment generated F A and Mby on section A of the infinite long
A the given load F0 acting on the infinite longbeam is to
compensate the shear force and bending moment generated
beam, so that the total shear force and the total bending moment at section A of theby the given load F acting
0 infinite on
the infinite long beam, so that the total shear force and the
long beam become zero, which can reflect the actual boundary conditions of the total bending moment at section
semi-
A of the infinite long beam become zero, which can reflect the actual boundary conditions
finite long beam.
of the semi-finite long beam.

Figure 5. Mechanical model for the deflection of a semi-infinite beam with a concentrated load near
Figure
its end.5. Mechanical model for the deflection of a semi-infinite beam with a concentrated load near
its end.
According to the force boundary conditions at section A of the infinite long beam,
there are ( F S
A MA F0
4 + 2 + 2 Cx = 0
(3)
− F2A − M A F0
2S + 2 Dx = 0
where, √
S = 1/λ = 4 4EI/kb
Cx = e−λx (cos λx − sin λx )
Dx = e−λx cos λx
λ—Flexibility eigenvalue of the beam (m−1 );
S—Characteristic length (m);
E—Young’s modulus of the beam (kPa);
I—Moment of inertia of the beam section (m4 );
k—Modulus of subgrade reaction (kN/m3 );
b—Width of the beam (m).
The end-conditioning forces FA and MA can be obtained by solving Equation (3):

FA = F0 (Cx + 2Dx )
(4)
M A = − F0 S(Cx + Dx )
Buildings 2023, 13, 1731 7 of 21

Under the combined action of the given load F0 and the end-conditioning forces FA
and MA , the deflection at the section O of the semi-infinite long beam (beam I) can be
obtained by the method of superposition of the infinite long beam (beam II) supported by
the Winkler foundation:
F0 FA MA
ωo = 2kbS + 2kbS A x + kbS2 Bx
F0
= 2kbS [1 + (Cx + 2Dx ) A x − 2(Cx + Dx ) Bx ] (5)
F0  −2λx (1 + 2 cos2 λx − 2 cos λx sin λx )

= 2kbS 1 + e
F0
= 2kbS Zx

where,
A x = e−λx (cos λx + sin λx )
Bx = e−λx sin λx
Zx = 1 + e−2λx (1 + 2 cos2 λx − 2 cos λx sin λx ).
From Equation (5), when the left extension length of x = 0 (a semi-infinite end-loaded
beam), then Zx = 4, and thus the deflection at section O of the semi-infinite long beam
wo = 2F0 /kbS. On the other hand, if the left extension length of x = ∞ (an infinitely
long beam), then Zx = 1, and thus the deflection at section O of the infinite long beam
wo = F0 /2kbS.

2.1.3. Node Classification and Load Distribution Equations

When the distances between the other nodes and the concerned node are more than
1.8/λ, it’s believed that the deflection of the concerned node is only related to the load acting
on the concerned node itself and the loads acting on other nodes have little influence on the
deflection of the node to be load distributed. Therefore, based on the above assumption, the
deflections wix and wiy of the beams passing through the node i can be greatly simplified by
ignoring the effect of the loads acting on other nodes of the beams. As a result, depending
on the distances between the nodes and the beam ends, the beams passing through a node
belong to different types (the finite long beam, the semi-infinite long beam) based on SLDM.
To further improve the practicability of SLDM, according to the positions of the nodes
in the whole lattice beam system, the nodes of the lattice beam can be divided into three
categories: (a) the corner node, (b) the edge node, and (c) the inner node. Based on the
type of the nodes, the beams in both directions passing through a node are assumed to
be infinite long beams or semi-infinite long beams supported by the Winkler foundation.
Then, the load distribution formulas for the lattice beam are derived based on the types of
the nodes.

The Corner Node

A typical corner node (see Figure 6) of a lattice beam consists of two beams running
in x and y directions, and the lengths of both beams extending outward from the node i
are x and y, respectively. The two beams running in x and y directions can be considered
as semi-infinite long beams supported by a Winkler foundation, so the deflections of both
beams at node i can be obtained according to Equation (5):

 ωix = 2kb Fix Zx
x Sx
Fiy Zy (6)
 ωiy =
2kby Sy

where, Fix and Fi y are the loads assigned to the beams in the x and y directions by the
total concentrated load Fi acting on the corner node i, respectively, wix induced only by
Fix and wiy induced only by Fi y are the deflections at the nodes i of the beams in both
directions, respectively.
 ω = iy y
 iy 2kby S y

where, Fix and Fiy are the loads assigned to the beams in the x and y directions by the total
concentrated load Fi acting on the corner node i, respectively, wix induced only by Fix and
Buildings 2023, 13, 1731 8 of 21
wiy induced only by Fiy are the deflections at the nodes i of the beams in both directions,
respectively.

Mechanicalmodel
Figure6.6.Mechanical
Figure modelofofthe
thecorner
cornernode.
node.

According to the static equilibrium condition and the deformation compatibility

According to the static equilibrium condition and the deformation compatibility 8con-
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 18
conditionat node i, the concentrated load distribution equations at the corner node based
dition at node i, the concentrated load distribution equations at the corner node based on
on SLDM can be easily obtained:
SLDM can be easily obtained:

Zy bx Sx
The Edge Node  Fix = Zy bZx Syxb+xZSxxby Sy Fi
=
FixFnode Z x by S y Fi (7)
Figure 7 shows a typical edge
 Z
iy = b
Z
y yx x x x+
ofbSaSlattice
+ ZZ b bS S
beam
F
x x y yy yi and the beam in the x-direction
extends outward from node i with  a length of x. The beam in the x-direction is assumed (7)
to be
The semi-infinitely
Edge Node long, while Fthe= beam Zinx bthe y S y y-direction is assumed to be infinitely
Fi
long.Figure
From 7Equation  and
(5), Zy =edge
1, iy
Z b
thereforeS + Z
the b S
deflections of beam
both beams at the edge
node i can be
shows a typical
obtained
 to Equation (5):
according
node of
y xa lattice
x x beam
y y and the in the x-direction
extends outward from node i with a length of x. The beam in the x-direction is assumed to
be semi-infinitely long, while the beam in the y-direction is assumed to be infinitely long.
 Fix Z x
ωthe =
 ix 2kb S
From Equation (5), Zy = 1, and therefore deflections of both beams at the edge node i

can be obtained according to Equation (5): x x
 F
(8)
(  Fix Zxiy
ωω == x Sx
 ixiy 2kb
2Fkb S (8)
ωiy = 2kbiyy Syy y

Figure7.7.Mechanical
Figure Mechanicalmodel
modelof
ofthe
theedge
edgenode.
node.

According
Accordingtotothe
thestatic
staticequilibrium
equilibrium condition
condition and deformation
and compatibility
deformation condition
compatibility condi-
at theatedge
tion the edge i, thei,concentrated
nodenode the concentratedloadloaddistribution
distributionequations at the
equations at edge node
the edge can can
node be
easily obtained:
be easily obtained: 
 Fix = bx Sx
bx Sx + Zx by Sy Fi
 ZxbbyxSSy x (9)
F
 Fixiy == bx Sx +Zx by Sy Fi Fi
bx S x + Z x by S y

 (9)
F = Z x by S y
Fi
 iy
b S + Z b S
 x x x y y

The Inner Node

Figure 8 shows a typical inner node of a lattice beam and both beams running in the
Buildings 2023, 13, 1731 9 of 21

The Inner Node

Figure 8 shows a typical inner node of a lattice beam and both beams running in
the x and y directions can be regarded as infinite long beams supported by the Winkler
foundation, then Zx = Zy = 1, so the deflections for both beams at the inner node i can be
obtained according to Equation (5):
( Fix
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW ωix = 2kbx Sx 9 of 18
Fiy (10)
ωiy = 2kby Sy

8. Mechanical model of the inner

Figure 8. inner node.
node.

According
According to to the
thestatic
staticequilibrium
equilibrium condition
condition andandthe the deformation
deformation compatibility
compatibility con-
condition at the
dition at the inner
inner node
node i, the
i, the concentratedload
concentrated loaddistribution
distributionequations
equationsat
at the
the inner
inner node
node
can
can be
be easily
easily obtained:
obtained: 
 Fix = bx Sx Fi
b x S x + by S y
 F bbSS (11)
Fixiy =
= bx Sxy+x byy xSy Fi Fi
 bx S x + by S y

 (11)
2.1.4. Evaluation of the SLDM
F = by S y
Fby
 slope
In engineering practice, when the iy
bisSreinforced
+ b S
i a lattice beam with prestressing
 x x y y
anchor cables, the distances from the nodes to the beam ends are generally less than π/λ, as
a result, most of the cross beams and vertical beams are finite long beams. As Hetenyi [31]
stated that when of
2.1.4. Evaluation thethebeam
SLDM length l > π/λ (group III: long beam), the load applied at one
end will have a negligible effect on the other end, which is assumed to be infinitely far away,
In engineering practice, when the slope is reinforced by a lattice beam with prestress-
and this assumption can greatly simplify the calculation. Based on the above assumptions,
ing anchor cables, the distances from the nodes to the beam ends are generally less than
for the classification of the beams on the Winkler foundation, it is important to consider
π/λ, as a result, most of the cross beams and vertical beams are finite long beams. As Het-
not only the relative stiffness of the beam to the foundation but also whether the location
enyi [31] stated that when the beam length l > π/λ (group III: long beam), the load applied
of the load will have a non-negligible effect on the beam ends. Therefore, SLDM at the
at oneofend
node thewill have
lattice a negligible
beam assumes effectthat theon beams
the other end, which
passing through is assumed
a node are tosemi-infinite
be infinitely
far away, and this assumption can greatly simplify the calculation.
long beams (see Figures 6 and 7) or infinite long beams (see Figures 7 and 8), which Based on the above
is not
assumptions, for the classification of the beams on the Winkler
consistent with the actual situation. In addition, when assigning the load acting on a node foundation, it is important
to the
to consider not only
cross beam andthetherelative
verticalstiffness
beam, the of assumption
the beam to is the foundation
made that thebut also whether
deflection at the
the location of the load will have a non-negligible effect on
node i of the cross beam caused only by Fix is equal to that of the vertical beam caused the beam ends. Therefore,
only
SLDM
by Fiy isattaken
the node of the lattice
into account, whichbeam assumes
is also that the
inconsistent beams
with the passing
fact that through
the loadsaacting
node are on
the nodes other than the node i of the beams will also induce deflections at the node i. 8),
semi-infinite long beams (see Figures 6 and 7) or infinite long beams (see Figures 7 and In
which
fact, is not
there is noconsistent
infinitelywithlong the
beam actual
in thesituation.
real sense, In and
addition,
the loads when assigning
acting on other thenodes
load
acting
of on a node
the beam to the cross
will inevitably beam
affect theand the vertical
deformation at beam,
the node theto assumption
be concerned.is made
Eventhat the
if both
deflection at the node i of the cross beam caused only by F
the cross beam and the vertical beam passing through an inter-node are all assumed to be
ix is equal to that of the vertical
beam caused
infinite only by
long beams Fiy ison
based taken
SLDM,intotheaccount,
loads which
assigned is also
to the inconsistent
cross beamwith and the
thefact that
vertical
the loads
beam at the acting on the cannot
inter-node nodes other thandue
be equal the tonode
the idifference
of the beams will alsoofinduce
in stiffness the beamsdeflec-in
tionsdirections
both at the node i. In fact,
relative there
to the is no infinitely long beam in the real sense, and the loads
ground.
actingInon other nodes
summary, SLDM of the
cannotbeam will inevitably
distinguish affect theindeformation
the difference at the node
stiffness between to be
the beams
concerned. Even if both the cross beam and the vertical beam
running in both directions relative to the ground and neglects the contributions of the loads passing through an inter-
node are all assumed to be infinite long beams based on SLDM, the loads assigned to the
cross beam and the vertical beam at the inter-node cannot be equal due to the difference
in stiffness of the beams in both directions relative to the ground.
In summary, SLDM cannot distinguish the difference in stiffness between the beams
 Buildings 2023, 13, 1731 10 of 21

acting on other nodes of the beams running in both directions to the deformation of the
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18
concerned node, which can lead to large errors in assigning loads acting on a node to beams
in different directions.

2.2. Introduction
2.2.1. The New Load to the NLDM
Distribution Model Based on the Force Method
2.2.1.
In order to address some of Model
The New Load Distribution Based on of
the drawbacks theSLDM,
Force Method
an NLDM, which is also
adapted In order
from theto address some of the
load distribution atdrawbacks
the node for of the
SLDM, an NLDM, which
interconnected beam in is also adapted
foundation
from the load
engineering distribution
textbooks at the
[32,33], wasnode for the interconnected
introduced in this paper forbeam the loadin foundation
distribution engineer-
at the
ing textbooks
node of lattice beam.[32,33], was introduced in this paper for the load distribution at the node of
lattice beam.
As shown in Figure 9, a lattice beam resting on an elastic foundation is subjected to
As shown
concentrated loadsin Figure 9, a lattice
at the nodes. beam resting
A concentrated on an
load elasticon
Fi acting foundation
any nodeisi is subjected
assignedto
toconcentrated
the cross beam loadsandat the
thenodes.
verticalA beam
concentrated
with Fixload andFFi iyacting on any node
, respectively. i is assigned
Obviously, if theto
the cross
lattice beam beam
wantsandtothe
workvertical
safelybeam
and with
reliablyFix and Fiy , i,
at node respectively.
just like SLDM,Obviously, if the lattice
it is necessary to
beam wants to work safely and reliably at node i, just like
make node i satisfy the static equilibrium condition and the deformation compatibility SLDM, it is necessary to make
node i satisfy
condition. the staticthe
Specifically, equilibrium
deflection condition
wix at the andnodethe deformation
i of the crosscompatibility
beam causedcondition.by the
Specifically, the deflection w at the node i of the cross
loads Fhx, Fix, and Fjx assignedixto the cross beam by Fh, Fi, and Fj should beam caused by the loads F
be equal , Fix ,
tohxthe
and F assigned to the cross beam by
jx wiy at the node i of the verticalhbeam
deflection F , F i , and F
caused j should be equal to the deflection
by the loads Fly, Fiy and Ffy assigned w iy at
the node i of the vertical beam
to the vertical beam by Fl, Fi, and Ff. caused by the loads F ,
ly iyF and F fy assigned to the vertical
beam by Fl , Fi , and Ff .

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure9.9.Mechanical
Mechanicalmodel
modelofofNLDM:
NLDM:(a)(a)lattice beam
lattice subjected
beam toto
subjected concentrated loads
concentrated atat
loads the nodes;
the nodes;
(b)
(b)the
thedeformation
deformationanalysis
analysisatatnode
nodei.i.

2.2.2.Analysis
2.2.2. Analysisofofthe
theDeflection
Deflectionatatthe
theNodes
Nodesand
andFormation
Formationofofa aSystem
SystemofofLinear
Linear Equations
Equations
There is a cross beam (see Figure 9b) running in the x-direction disassembled from the
There is a cross beam (see Figure 9b) running in the x-direction disassembled from
lattice beam supported by the Winkler foundation, and this cross beam is subjected to the
the lattice beam supported by the Winkler foundation, and this cross beam is subjected to
the unknown loads Fhx, Fix, and Fjx. Assuming that only a unit load Fix = 1 kN acts on the
node i of the cross beam, the deflection of this cross beam at the node i is δxii (m) while
assuming that only a unit load Fjx = 1 kN acts on the node j of this cross beam, the deflection
Buildings 2023, 13, 1731 11 of 21

unknown loads Fhx , Fix , and Fjx . Assuming that only a unit load Fix = 1 kN acts on the node
i of the cross beam, the deflection of this cross beam at the node i is δx ii (m) while assuming
that only a unit load Fjx = 1 kN acts on the node j of this cross beam, the deflection of the
cross beam at the node i is δx ij (m). Therefore, the total deflection at the node i of the cross
beam under the combined action of all the unknown loads Fhx , Fix , and Fjx acting on the
nodes h, i, and j of this cross beam is:
x
wix = Fhx δih + Fix δiix + Fjx δijx (12)

Similarly, for the vertical beam (see Figure 9b) disassembled from the lattice beam
passing through node i, the total deflection at node i due to the unknown loads Fly , Fiy , and
Ffy is given by
y y y
wiy = Fly δil + Fiy δii + Ff y δi f (13)

Similar to SLDM, according to the static equilibrium condition (Fix + Fiy = Fi ) and
deformation compatibility condition (wix = wiy ) at the nodes, NLDM based on the force
method requires the construction of a system of linear equations with 2n (n is the to-
tal number of nodes of a lattice beam) unknowns, and the 2n unknown loads assigned
to the nodes of the beams in both directions can be obtained by solving the system of
linear equations.
Unlike the node-by-node load distribution model based on SLDM, considering the
interaction between the loads acting on the beams in both directions, by constructing
and solving a system of linear equations, NLDM can distribute the loads acting on the
nodes of a lattice beam to the cross beams and vertical beams at the same time. By
using NLDM, the lattice beam system should first be decoupled and disassembled into
a series of one-dimensional beams resting on the Winkler foundation beforehand, then
the deflections at the nodes of each beam under the unit loads can be found one by one
by using the superposition method, and, finally, a system of linear equations with 2n
unknown loads based on the force method can be constructed according to the coupling
of the static equilibrium condition and the deformation compatibility condition at the
nodes. By solving the system of linear equations, all the loads assigned to the nodes of the
cross beams and vertical beams can be obtained, and each beam supported by the Winkler
foundation and loaded with the known loads at the nodes can be analyzed separately by the
superposition method.
In the slope reinforcement, the lattice beam is usually a symmetrical structure in both
x and y directions, and the loads acting on the nodes of the lattice beam are usually equal,
so the number of unknown loads can be greatly reduced, which provides convenience for
the load distribution at the nodes by using NLDM.

3. A Case Study
In this paper, a slope reinforced by a lattice beam from the literature [34] was presented,
and segment AB of the slope was taken for comparative analysis based on both methods.
The upper slope of segment AB was reinforced by a lattice beam with nine prestressed
anchor cables acting on the nodes. Each lattice beam consists of three cross beams (denoted
as H1, H2, and H3 from bottom to top) and three vertical beams (denoted as S1, S2, and S3
from left to right) with rectangular beam sections, 300 mm in width and 300 mm in height.
The plane dimensions of the lattice beam to be studied are shown in Figure 10. Under the
design condition, the anchoring force acting on each node of the lattice beam is 230 kN.
 cross beam under the combined action of all the unknown loads Fhx, Fix, and Fjx acting on
the nodes h, i, and j of this cross beam is:

wix = Fhxδ ihx + Fixδ iix + F jxδ ijx (12)

Buildings 2023, 13, 1731 12 of 21
in Figure 10. Under the design condition, the anchoring force acting on each node of
the lattice beam is 230 kN.

10. Plane dimensions of the lattice beam (mm).

Figure 10.

The physical and mechanical

mechanical parameters of the lattice beam and the slope soil are
used to distribute
distribute the
the loads
loads acting
acting on
on the
the nodes
nodes of
of the
the lattice
lattice beam,
beam, as
as shown
shown in
in Table
Table 1.
1.

Table 1. Parameters
Table 1. Parameters required
required for
for load
load distribution
distribution at
at the
the node.
node.

Parameter Elastic Modulus of Elastic

Reinforced Concrete
Modulus Coefficient
of Reinforced of Subgrade
Coefficient Reaction
of Subgrade
TypeParameter Type E (kPa) Concrete Reaction
k (kN/m 3)
E (kPa) k (kN/m3 )
Values 2.8 × 107 12,000
Values 2.8 × 107 12,000

4. Results and Discussion

4. Results
4.1. Resultsand Discussion
under the Design Condition
4.1. Results under the Design Condition
4.1.1. Load Distributions under the Design Condition
4.1.1. Load Distributions under the Design Condition
To obtain the internal forces of the cross beams and vertical beams, it is necessary to
To obtain the internal forces of the cross beams and vertical beams, it is necessary to
allocate the total concentrated forces acting on the nodes to the cross beams and the verti-
allocate the total concentrated forces acting on the nodes to the cross beams and the vertical
cal beams, respectively. Based on the load distribution methods mentioned above, the
beams, respectively. Based on the load distribution methods mentioned above, the static
static equilibrium condition at each node under the design condition can be expressed as
equilibrium condition at each node under the design condition can be expressed as follows:
follows:
Fi = Pi cos(90◦ − α − θ ) = Fix + Fiy = 229.52kN (14)
Fi = Pi cos(90° − α − θ ) = Fix + Fiy = 229.52kN (14)
where, Pi = 230 kN and Fi = 229.52 kN are the total anchoring force of the anchor cable
acting on the node i of the lattice beam under the design condition and the component of
the total anchoring force perpendicular to the slope surface, respectively; α = 41.3◦ and
θ = 45◦ are the angle of the design slope and the inclination of the anchor cable to the
horizontal plane, respectively; Fix and Fiy are the loads assigned by Fi to the cross beams
and the vertical beams, respectively.
Buildings 2023, 13, 1731 13 of 21

According to the static equilibrium condition and the deformation compatibility

condition at the nodes of the lattice beam system under the design condition, NLDM makes
it possible to write the following system of 9 × 2 linear equations as follows:

 F1x + F1y = F1

 F2x + F2y = F2



···





 F +F = F
9x 9y 9
x + F δ x + F δ x = F δy + F δy + F δy (15)
 F1x δ11 2x 12 3x 13 1y 11 4y 14 7y 17
y y y

 F1x δ21

 x + F δx + F δx = F δ + F δ + F δ

 2x 22 3x 23 2y 22 5y 25 2y 28


 · · ·
x + F δ x + F δ x = F δy + F δy + F δy

F7x δ97

8x 98 9x 99 3y 93 6y 96 9y 99

There are 18 linear equations and 18 unknown loads in this system, and the unknown
loads can be easily obtained by solving the system of the linear Equation (15). In fact,
the calculation of the coefficients of the last nine equations of the system is so tedious
and time-consuming that they can be obtained using the symbolic computing system
Mathematica [35].
Based on both load distribution methods, the load distributions at the nodes of the
lattice beam were performed, and the results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Results of the load distribution under the design condition.

Based on SLDM Based on NLDM

Node Type
Fix (kN) Fiy (kN) Fix (kN) Fiy (kN)
The corner nodes (1, 3, 7, 9) 104.38 125.14 99.14 130.38
The edge nodes (2, 8) 119.02 110.50 94.44 135.08
The edge nodes (4, 6) 100.17 129.35 98.46 131.06
The inner node (5) 114.76 114.76 93.76 135.76

It can be seen from Table 2 that the results obtained based on both load distribution
methods are quite different. Compared with SLDM, NLDM assigns the total loads acting
on the nodes of the lattice beam to the cross beam with smaller values but to the vertical
beam with larger values due to the different spans of the cross beams and vertical beams
in both directions, and NLDM distributes the total loads at the nodes more evenly to the
cross beams and vertical beams. Taking node 5 as an example to illustrate the reasons,
intuitively, the cross beam (H2) and the vertical beam (S2) passing through node 5 have
different lengths in both directions, so the total load acting on node 5 should be assigned
to different values to the cross beams and vertical beams, respectively. However, SLDM
assumes that both the cross beam (H2) and the vertical beam (S2) passing through node
5 are all infinite long beams and ignores the influence of the loads acting on other nodes
(nodes 4 and 6 of the H2 and the nodes 2 and 8 of the S2, respectively) of the beams
in both the x and y directions. Thus, according to the static equilibrium condition and
the deformation compatibility condition at node 5, the load acting on node 5 is equally
distributed to the cross beam and the vertical beam, respectively, based on SLDM. On the
other hand, NLDM does not make any subjective assumptions about the types of beams
passing through node 5 and takes into account the effects of the loads acting on node 5 as
well as the loads on nodes other than node 5, then the superposition method of is adopted
to satisfy the condition of “real deformation compatibility” at the node 5, thus the load
acting on the node 5 is assigned to different values to the cross beam (H2) and the vertical
beam (S2) at the node 5, receptively. In fact, the distances between node 5 and the adjacent
nodes (node 2 and node 8) of the vertical beam S2 are larger than those between node 5 and
the adjacent nodes (node 4 and node 6) of the cross beam H2, that is, the contributions of
the loads assigned to the node 2 and the node 8 of the vertical beam S2 to the deformation
of the node 5 are smaller than those of the loads assigned to the node 4 and the node 6 of
Buildings 2023, 13, 1731 14 of 21

the cross beam H2. Therefore, a larger load should be assigned to node 5 of the vertical
beam S2, but a smaller load should be assigned to node 5 of the cross beam H2 so that the
beams can satisfy the deformation compatibility condition at node 5 in both directions. In
summary, SLDM overestimates the loads assigned to the cross beams, but underestimates
the loads assigned to the vertical beams due to the different spans (distance between adjacent
nodes of a beam) of the beams running in both directions, resulting in large errors in the
magnitude of the loads assigned to the cross beams and the vertical beams.

4.1.2. Verification of NLDM

In order to verify the superiority of NLDM over SLDM in terms of the deformation
compatibility condition at the nodes, the whole lattice beam system was disassembled into
six beams, then each beam loaded with the known loads based on both load distribution
methods was analyzed separately and the deflections at the nodes of the beams supported
by the Winkler foundation in the x- and y-directions were calculated by the superposition
method. Based on both load distribution methods at the nodes, the deflections at different
nodes of the beams in the x- and y-directions are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Comparison of deflections at the nodes under the design condition.

Based on SLDM Based on NLDM

Node Type
wix (m) wiy (m) wix (m) wiy (m)
The corner nodes (1, 3, 7, 9) 0.0100085 0.00886305 0.00922644 0.00922611
The edge nodes (2, 8) 0.0114290 0.00782735 0.00955923 0.00955864
The edge nodes (4, 6) 0.0104004 0.00902771 0.00916267 0.00916265
The inner node (5) 0.0113063 0.00800715 0.00949142 0.00949134

As can be seen from Table 3, based on SLDM, the deflections at the same nodes of the
cross beams and the vertical beams are not equal, while based on NLDM, the deflections at
the same nodes of the cross beams and vertical beams are almost equal. Based on SLDM,
the deflections of the beams in the y-direction at the same node are slightly smaller than
those of the beams in the x-direction, proving once again that SLDM underestimates the
loads assigned to the beams in the y-direction and overestimates the loads assigned to the
beams in the x-direction.
In contrast to SLDM, NLDM is a self-consistent method with respect to the deforma-
tion compatibility condition, which results from the fact that NLDM does not make any
subjective assumptions about the types of the cross beams and vertical beams and considers
the effect of the loads acting on other nodes of the beams running in both directions. Thus,
the superiority of NLDM at the nodes of the lattice beam is demonstrated by the different
behavior of the deflections at the same nodes of the beams running in both directions.

4.1.3. Bending Moment under the Design Condition

According to the known loads after the load distribution in Table 2 based on both load
distribution methods, the lattice beam system was disassembled into six one-dimensional
beams resting on the Winkler foundation, and the theoretical bending moments of the cross
beams and vertical beams were calculated by the superposition method.
The theoretical bending moments of the cross beams H1 and H2 and the vertical
beams S1 and S2 from the first lattice beam were calculated and the curves of the theoretical
bending moments along the beam length were obtained.
The theoretical bending moments (Figure 11) based on both load distribution methods
are in good agreement in the range of (0~3.0) m and (6.0~9.0) m of the cross beams H1 and
H2, while the theoretical bending moments based on both load distribution methods are in
poor agreement with each other in the range of (3.0~6.0) m. The differences of the maximum
positive bending moments are as high as 12.15 kN·m and 11.20 kN·m at x = 4.5 m section of
the cross beams H1 and H2, respectively. The above results can be interpreted as that the
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 18

Buildings 2023, 13, 1731 15 of 21

cross beams and the vertical beams on the theoretical bending moment are mainly due
to the difference in both load distribution assumptions. Compared with SLDM, NLDM as-
signs
loadsthe loads acting
assigned on theto
by SLDM nodes to the cross
the middle beam
nodes with2,smaller
(node node 5)and more
of the uniform
vertical values,
beams are
but to the
larger vertical
than those beam withtolarger
assigned and more
the nodes (nodesuniform
1 and 3values due tobeam
of the cross the different
H1, nodesspans of6
4 and
the
of beams running
the cross in different
beam H2) directions.
of the cross beams, while the opposite is true for NLDM.

Distance from the left end of the beam (m)

-10
S1 S2 S3
Bending moment (kNm)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

20

30

40 Based on SLDM Based on NLDM

(a)
-15
Distance from the left end of the beam (m)
-10
S1 S2 S3
-5
Bending moment (kNm)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40 Based on SLDM Based on NLDM
(b)
Figure
Figure11.
11.The
Thetheoretical
theoreticalbending
bendingmoments
momentsofofthethecross
crossbeam
beamunder
underthe
thedesign
designcondition
condition(a)
(a)the
the
theoretical bending moment of H1; (b) the theoretical bending moment of
theoretical bending moment of H1; (b) the theoretical bending moment of H2. H2.

The theoretical bending moments (Figure 12a) of the vertical beam S1 based on both
load distribution methods are well matched with each other along the beam length because
the loads assigned to the vertical beam S1 based on both methods are almost the same.
While the theoretical bending moments (Figure 12b) of the vertical beam S2 based on
both load distribution methods are poorly matched with each other at the beam sections
where the maximum bending moments (the maximum positive moment and the maximum
negative moment) are located due to the larger and more uniform loads assigned to the
vertical beams based on the NLDM, but the theoretical bending moments gradually match
with each other far away from the beam sections where the maximum bending moments
are located. The difference of the maximum positive bending moments is as high as
11.24 kN·m at the section of x = 2.25 m of the cross beam S2.
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 18

Buildings 2023, 13, 1731 16 of 21

-40
-30 Distance from the bottom end of the beam (m)
-20 H1 H2 H3

Bending moment (kNm)

-10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Based on SLDM Based on NLDM
(a)
-40
-30 Distance from the bottom end of beam (m)
-20
H1 H2 H3
-10
bending moment (kNm)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Based on SLDM Based on NLDM
(b)
Figure
Figure12.
12.The
Thetheoretical
theoreticalbending
bendingmoments
momentsof ofthe
thevertical
verticalbeams
beamsunder
under the
the design
design condition
condition (a) the
the theoretical bending moment of S1; (b) the theoretical bending moment
theoretical bending moment of S1; (b) the theoretical bending moment of S2. of S2.

4.2. Results under thedistribution

The different Actual Working Condition of the cross beams and the vertical beams on
characteristics
the theoretical bending moment are
4.2.1. Load Distributions under the Actual mainly due to the
Working difference in both load distribution
Condition
assumptions. Compared with SLDM, NLDM assigns the loads acting on the nodes to the
Influenced by the anchor slack and construction factors, after the anchor cable is ten-
cross beam with smaller and more uniform values, but to the vertical beam with larger and
sioned and locked, the anchoring forces first decrease sharply, and then with the stress
more uniform values due to the different spans of the beams running in different directions.
adjustment in soils after the slope reinforcement, the lattice beam anchoring system finally
tends to be the
4.2. Results actual
under the working condition.
Actual Working Under the actual working condition, the average
Condition
anchoring force of the anchor cables measured
4.2.1. Load Distributions under the Actual Working by theCondition
axial force sensor is 174 kN, and the
component of the average anchoring force perpendicular to the slope surface is 173.64 kN.
Influenced by the anchor slack and construction factors, after the anchor cable is
Based on both load distribution methods, the component of the average anchoring force
tensioned and locked, the anchoring forces first decrease sharply, and then with the stress
perpendicular to the slope surface was assigned to the cross beams and the vertical beams,
adjustment in soils after the slope reinforcement, the lattice beam anchoring system finally
respectively, and the results are shown in Table 4.
tends to be the actual working condition. Under the actual working condition, the average
anchoring force of the anchor cables measured by the axial force sensor is 174 kN, and the
Table 4. Comparison results of load distribution under the actual working condition.
component of the average anchoring force perpendicular to the slope surface is 173.64 kN.
Based on both load distribution methods, the component
Based on SLDM of the average
Based anchoring
on NLDM force
Node Type
perpendicular to the slope surface was assigned Fix (kN) to theFcross
iy (kN)beamsFand the vertical
ix (kN) beams,
Fiy (kN)
respectively, andnodes
The corner the results
(1, 3, 7,are
9) shown in Table
78.97 4. 94.67 75.00 98.64
The edge nodes (2, 8) 90.04 83.60 71.44 102.20
The edge nodes (4, 6) 75.78 97.86 74.49 99.15
The inner node (5) 86.82 86.82 70.93 102.71
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 18

Buildings 2023, 13, 1731 17 of 21

4.2.2. Bending Moment under the Actual Working Condition

TableAccording to the
4. Comparison known
results loads
of load after load
distribution distribution
under the actualin Table 4condition.
working based on both load
distribution methods, the theoretical bending moments of the beams resting on the Win-
kler foundation under the actual working Based on SLDM
condition were calculated. Based
The on NLDM
comparisons of
Node Type
the results between the theoretical bending Fix (kN) moments and
Fiy (kN) the measured
Fix (kN) values under
Fiy (kN)the
actual working condition are
The corner nodes (1, 3, 7, 9)
shown in Figures
78.97
13 and 14.
94.67 75.00 98.64
AsThe
canedge
be seen
nodesfrom
(2, 8)Figures 13 90.04and 14, the characteristics
83.60 of 71.44
the theoretical102.20
bending
moments Theunder the actual
edge nodes (4, 6) working condition
75.78 are similar
97.86 to those 74.49
of the theoretical bend-
99.15
ing moments under
The inner the(5)design condition.
node 86.82 The theoretical
86.82 bending moments
70.93 based on both
102.71
load distribution methods under the actual working condition are in relatively good
agreement withMoment
4.2.2. Bending the measured
under values
the Actualat the key beam
Working sections. Due to the inaccuracy of
Condition
the modulus of subgrade reaction k and some
According to the known loads after load distribution errors in the testing
in Tableprocess,
4 basedalthough the
on both load
measured values have a similar trend with the theoretical bending moments
distribution methods, the theoretical bending moments of the beams resting on the Winkler based on
both load distribution methods, it is regrettable that the measured values
foundation under the actual working condition were calculated. The comparisons of the of bending mo-
ments
resultsunder the the
between actual workingbending
theoretical condition cannotand
moments sufficiently provevalues
the measured the superiority
under theof the
actual
new load condition
working distribution aremethod.
shown in Figures 13 and 14.

Distance from the left end of the beam (m)

-10
S1 S2 S3
Bending moment (kNm)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

20

30
Based on SLDM Based on NLDM
40 Measured values
(a)
-30
Distance from the bottom of the beam (m)
-20
H1 H2 H3
-10
Bending moment (kNm)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
10
20
30
40
50 Based on SLDM Based on NLDM
Measured values
(b)
Figure
Figure13.13.Comparison
Comparison of of
thethe
measured values
measured andand
values the the
theoretical bending
theoretical moment
bending of the
moment offirst
the lat-
first
tice
lattice beam under the actual working condition (a) the theoretical bending moment of H1;(b)
beam under the actual working condition (a) the theoretical bending moment of H1; (b)the
the
theoretical
theoreticalbending
bendingmoment
momentof ofS2.
S2.
 Buildings2023,
Buildings 13,x1731
2023,13, FOR PEER REVIEW 1518
ofof1821

-20
Distance from the left end of the beam (m)

-10 S1 S2 S3

Bending moment (kNm)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10

20

30
Based on SLDM Based on NLDM
40
Measured values
(a)
-30
Distance from the bottom of beam (m)
-20
H1 H2 H3
Bending moment (kNm)

-10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
10
20
30
40
50 Based on SLDM Based on NLDM
Measured values
(b)
Figure
Figure14.
14.Comparison
Comparisonofofthe
themeasured
measuredvalues
valuesand
andthe
thetheoretical
theoreticalbending
bendingmoment
momentofofthe
thesecond
second
lattice
latticebeam
beamunder
underthe
theactual
actualworking
workingcondition
condition(a)
(a)the
thetheoretical
theoreticalbending
bendingmoment
momentofofH2;
H2;(b)
(b)the
the
theoretical bending moment of S2.
theoretical bending moment of S2.

5. Conclusion
As can beand seen Recommendations
from Figures 13 and 14, the characteristics of the theoretical bending
moments
Althoughunderit the
has actual
various working condition
shortcomings, are similar
SLDM to those
is widely usedofinthe theoretical
China bending
to analyze the
moments under the design condition. The theoretical bending moments
internal force of lattice beams. In order to overcome the disadvantages of SLDM, an based on both load
distribution
NLDM basedmethods
on the forceundermethod
the actualwasworking condition
introduced in thisarepaper.
in relatively
In ordergood agreement
to verify the
with the measured values at the key beam sections. Due to
superiority of NLDM, both of the load distribution methods were used to performthe inaccuracy of the modulus
the
of subgrade
load distribution at theknodes
reaction and some errorsbeam
for a lattice in theunder
testingtheprocess, although
design and the measured
actual working con-
values and
ditions, havethen,
a similar trend with
the theoretical the theoretical
bending momentsbending moments
of the lattice beam based
based onon both
bothload
load
distribution methods, it is regrettable that the measured values
distribution methods were compared with each other and compared with the measured of bending moments under
the actual
values. The working
followingcondition
conclusions cannot
weresufficiently
drawn. prove the superiority of the new load
distribution method.
(1) According to the static equilibrium condition and the deformation compatibility con-
dition at the
5. Conclusion andnodes of the lattice beam, the load distribution results under the design
Recommendations
condition show that NLDM can distinguish the differences in stiffness of the beams
Although it has various shortcomings, SLDM is widely used in China to analyze the
in both directions relative to the ground, and evenly distribute the larger loads to the
internal force of lattice beams. In order to overcome the disadvantages of SLDM, an NLDM
vertical
based on thebeams with the
force method waslarger spans, in
introduced but evenly
this paper.distribute
In order tothe smaller
verify loads to theof
the superiority
cross beams with the smaller spans;
NLDM, both of the load distribution methods were used to perform the load distribution at
(2) The deflections
the nodes for a latticeatbeam
the nodesunderofthethedesign
latticeand
beam loaded
actual with conditions,
working the known and loadsthen,
underthe
the design condition are estimated separately, and the results
theoretical bending moments of the lattice beam based on both load distribution methods of the deformation
wereanalysis
comparedshow withthat
eachtheother
deflections of the cross
and compared withbeams and vertical
the measured beams
values. Theare almost
following
the samewere
conclusions at the same nodes according to NLDM, thus demonstrating the superiority
drawn.
Buildings 2023, 13, 1731 19 of 21

(1) According to the static equilibrium condition and the deformation compatibility
condition at the nodes of the lattice beam, the load distribution results under the
design condition show that NLDM can distinguish the differences in stiffness of the
beams in both directions relative to the ground, and evenly distribute the larger loads
to the vertical beams with the larger spans, but evenly distribute the smaller loads to
the cross beams with the smaller spans;
(2) The deflections at the nodes of the lattice beam loaded with the known loads under the
design condition are estimated separately, and the results of the deformation analysis
show that the deflections of the cross beams and vertical beams are almost the same
at the same nodes according to NLDM, thus demonstrating the superiority of the
NLDM compared to the SLDM in terms of the deformation compatibility condition;
(3) The results of the theoretical bending moment analysis based on the two load distri-
bution methods show that the bending moments of the cross beam differ significantly
in the middle third of the beam length, while the bending moments of the vertical
beams differ significantly at the beam sections where the maximum bending moments
are located;
(4) Under the actual condition, the theoretical bending moments of the lattice beam
based on both load distribution methods agree well with the measured values,
but the measured values cannot sufficiently prove the superiority of NLDM due
to the inaccuracy of the modulus of subgrade reaction k and the errors during the
testing process;
(5) Considering the fact that the deflections at the nodes are sensitive to the modulus
of subgrade reaction k, based on NLDM, it is necessary to estimate the modulus
of subgrade reaction k reasonably in order to obtain accurate results of the load
distribution at the nodes and further accurate internal forces of the lattice beam.

Author Contributions: Methodology, J.F.; Formal analysis, J.F.; Investigation, S.Y.; Resources, B.S.;
Data curation, B.S.; Writing—original draft, J.F.; Writing—review & editing, S.Y., B.D. and T.L.;
Visualization, T.L.; Supervision, B.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by the General project of the Hunan Provincial Education
Department (Grant Numbers: 20C1608 and 21C0269), Research Foundation of the Department of
Natural Resources of Hunan Province (Grant Number: 2023-44), Science Foundation for Youths
of Hunan Province of China (Grant Number: 2021JJ40460), Hengyang Science and Technology
Innovation Plan Project (Grant Number: 202250045321), which are gratefully acknowledged.
Data Availability Statement: The data used to support the findings of this study are available from
the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to report regarding
the present study.

Abbreviations
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Ax the first function of influence
Bx the second function of influence
bx the bottom width of the beam in the x direction
by the bottom width of the beam in the y direction
Cx the third function of influence
Dx the forth function of influence
E elastic modulus of the reinforced concrete
Fi the component of the total anchoring force perpendicular to the slope surface
Fix the load assigned by Fi acting on the node i to the beam running in x direction
Fi y he load assigned by Fi acting on the node i to the beam running in y direction
Buildings 2023, 13, 1731 20 of 21

I moment of inertia of the beam section

k modulus of subgrade reaction
Pi the total anchoring force of the anchor cable acting on the node i of the lattice beam
S characteristic length of the beam on Winkler
Sx characteristic length of the beam in x direction
Sy characteristic length of the beam in y direction
wix the deflection of the beam in x direction at the node i
wiy the deflection of the beam in y direction at the node i
Z comprehensive function of influence of the beam
Zx comprehensive function of influence of the beam in x direction
Zy comprehensive function of influence of the beam in y direction
α the angle of the design slope
δij deflection at the node i caused by unit load at the node j of the beam on Winkler foundaton
θ the dip of the anchor cable to the horizontal plane

References
1. Zhang, H.; Lu, Y.; Cheng, Q. Numerical simulation of reinforcement for rock slope with rock bolt (anchor cable) Frame Beam.
J. Highw. Transp. Res. Dev. 2008, 3, 65–71. [CrossRef]
2. Choi, K.; Cheung, R. Landslide disaster prevention and mitigation through works in Hong Kong. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 2013,
5, 354–365. [CrossRef]
3. Chen, Z.; Wang, Z.; Xi, H.; Yang, Z.; Zou, L.; Zhou, Z.; Zhou, C. Recent advances in high slope reinforcement in China: Case
studies. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 2016, 8, 775–788. [CrossRef]
4. Deng, D.; Zhao, L.; Li, L. Limit-Equilibrium Analysis on Stability of a Reinforced Slope with a Grid Beam Anchored by Cables.
Int. J. Geomech. 2017, 17, 06017013. [CrossRef]
5. Shi, K.; Wu, X.; Liu, Z.; Dai, S. Coupled calculation model for anchoring force loss in a slope reinforced by a frame beam and
anchor cables. Eng. Geol. 2019, 260, 105245. [CrossRef]
6. Ye, S.; Fang, G.; Ma, X. Reliability Analysis of Grillage Flexible Slope Supporting Structure with Anchors Considering Fuzzy
Transitional Interval and Fuzzy Randomness of Soil Parameters. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2019, 44, 8849–8857. [CrossRef]
7. Zhang, J.J.; Niu, J.Y.; Fu, X.; Cao, L.C.; Yan, S.J. Failure modes of slope stabilized by frame beam with prestressed anchors. Eur. J.
Environ. Civ. Eng. 2022, 26, 2120–2142. [CrossRef]
8. Bao, X.; Liao, W.; Dong, Z.; Wang, S.; Tang, W. Development of Vegetation-Pervious Concrete in Grid Beam System for Soil Slope
Protection. Materials 2017, 10, 96. [CrossRef]
9. Zhu, X.; Chen, Z.; Ren, Y. The Application of Ecological Treatment Technology of Bolt and Lattice Beam in Highway Mountain
Slope Support. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2019, 37, 1891–1896. [CrossRef]
10. Fan, J.; Yang, S.; Deng, B.; Sun, B.; Liu, T. A New Technique of Lattice Beam Construction with Pre-Anchoring for Strengthening
Cut Slope: A Numerical Analysis of Temporary Stability during Excavation. Buildings 2022, 12, 1930. [CrossRef]
11. Lin, Y.; Lu, L.; Yang, G. Seismic behavior of a single-form lattice anchoring structure and a combined retaining structure
supporting soil slope: A comparison. Environ. Earth Sci. 2020, 79, 78. [CrossRef]
12. Ai, X.; Sheng, M.; Su, X.; Ai, S.; Jiang, X.; Yang, S.; Huang, Z.; Ai, Y. Effects of frame beam on structural characteristics of artificial
soil on railway cut-slopes in southwestern China. Land Degrad. Dev. 2021, 32, 482–493. [CrossRef]
13. Huang, A.; Zhu, Y.; Wang, L.; Ye, S.; Fang, G. Three-Dimensional Stability of Unsaturated Soil Slopes Reinforced by Frame Beam
Anchor Plates. Int. J. Geomech. 2023, 23, 04023068. [CrossRef]
14. Luo, G.; Zhong, Y.; Yang, Y. Failure Mechanism and Mitigation Measures of the G1002 Electricity Pylon Landslide at the Jinping I
Hydropower Station. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2020, 2020, 8820315. [CrossRef]
15. Tao, H.-C.; Zhang, Y.; Dong, J.-X.; Zhou, Z.-Q.; Gong, X.-Y.; Zhang, S.-W. Study on Deformation Mechanism and Control Measures
of Tanziyan Landslide. Geofluids 2022, 2022, 8237954. [CrossRef]
16. Du, C.; Chen, J.; Chen, S.; Peng, M.; Shi, Z. Numerical analysis of a slope stabilized with piles and anchor cable frame beams.
Environ. Earth Sci. 2023, 82, 100. [CrossRef]
17. Lin, Y.-L.; Yang, G.-L.; Yang, X.; Zhao, L.-H.; Shen, Q.; Qiu, M.-M. Response of gravity retaining wall with anchoring frame beam
supporting a steep rock slope subjected to earthquake loading. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 92, 633–649. [CrossRef]
18. Lin, Y.-L.; Li, Y.-X.; Yang, G.-L.; Li, Y. Experimental and numerical study on the seismic behavior of anchoring frame beam
supporting soil slope on rock mass. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 98, 12–23. [CrossRef]
19. Lei, X.; Wang, B.; Li, N.; Hao, J. Study on Dynamic Response of Pressure Type Anchor and Lattice Beam System Under Seismic
Loadings. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2020, 38, 6057–6067. [CrossRef]
20. Li, N.; Wang, B.; Yuan, L.; Men, Y.; Li, J.; Liu, X. Seismic response of soil slope reinforced by compression anchor and frame beam
based on shaking table test. Arab. J. Geosci. 2020, 13, 261. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2023, 13, 1731 21 of 21

21. Maleki, M.; Nabizadeh, A. Seismic performance of deep excavation restrained by guardian truss structures system using
quasi-static approach. Sn Appl. Sci. 2021, 3, 417. [CrossRef]
22. Maleki, M.; Mohammad, H. Assessment of the Pseudo-static seismic behavior in the soil nail walls using numerical analysis.
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2022, 7, 262. [CrossRef]
23. Maleki, M.; Khezri, A.; Nosrati, M.; Hosseini, S.M.M.M. Seismic amplification factor and dynamic response of soil-nailed walls.
Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2023, 9, 1181–1198. [CrossRef]
24. Tang, H.; Xu, Y.; Cheng, X. Research on design theory of lattice frame anchor structure in landslide control engineering. Rock Soil
Mech. 2014, 25, 1683–1687. (In Chinese) [CrossRef]
25. Zhu, D.P.; Xu, Y.Z.; Yan, E.C.; Xiao, W. In-situ test and study of the internal force features of prestress anchor lattice beam. In
Boundaries of Rock Mechanics; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2008; pp. 609–614.
26. GB/T 38509-2020; Code for the Design of Landslide Stabilization. China Geological Environmental Monitoring Institute, China
Standard Press: Beijing, China, 2020. (In Chinese)
27. Wu, X. Building Foundation; South China University of Technology Press: Guangzhou, China, 1997. (In Chinese)
28. Li, Q.; Zhang, G.; Tang, H.; Wang, L. Analysis on internal force of lattice beam and optimization design. Coal Geol. Explor. 2006,
34, 50–53. (In Chinese)
29. Chen, G.; Wang, J.; Lin, Z. Simplified calculation method of slope frame beam on winkler assumption and its engineering
application. J. Geomech. 2016, 24, 822–827. (In Chinese) [CrossRef]
30. Arthur, A.; Richard, J. Advanced Mechanics of Materials, 6th ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2002.
31. Hetenyi, M. Beams on Elastic Foundation; University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1946.
32. Shen, J. Design Manual of Foundation; Shanghai Science and Technology Press: Shanghai, China, 1988. (In Chinese)
33. Lin, T. Foundation Design; Huazhong University of Science and Technology: Wuhan, China, 1996. (In Chinese)
34. Li, J.; Zhu, Y.; Ye, S.; Ma, X. Internal force analysis and field test of lattice beam based on Winkler theory for elastic foundation
beam. Math. Probl. Eng. 2019, 2019, 5130654. [CrossRef]
35. Dinev, D. Analytical solution of beam on elastic foundation by singularity functions. Eng. Mech. 2012, 19, 381–392. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.