Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: effective flange width for concrete box girder

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Eric, Caltrans has published several bridge design manuals, one of them
Bridge Design Practices clearly indicate the effective areas for box girder
sections are the same as for tee sections, and that main tension steel shall
be distributed within the effective tension flange area. (BDP page 2-22).

Dan Novak 

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Lindquist [mailto:ESL(--nospam--at)eqe.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 2:49 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: effective flange width for concrete box girder




Can anyone help me with the following?

I am seeking information regarding the allowable "effective" width of a
flange
for a concrete box girder under seismic loading.  "Effective" flange width
for
concrete tee beams is outlined in Section 8.10 of ACI 318.  I am reviewing a
case where the flange on the box girder is about twice as wide as the ACI
318
effective width.  The designer argues that the girder only needs to figure
using
the ACI effective width for static load combinations and that under seismic
loading the entire width of the flange can be used in compression and the
rebar
in the entire flange width can be used in tension.  I have questioned
whether or
not the girder can perform in accordance with this assumption.  (I am
concerned
about buckling of the compression flange and the ability of a rebar to be
developed in tension a long distance from the web.)  The response from the
designer has been that the effective flange width is only a crack control
provision and that that the entire flanges will be effective in both tension
and
compression under seismic loading.

Any input will be greatly appreciated.

Eric Lindquist