Alfd 2 91

~ ~~
AASHTO T I T L E ALFD-2 91 0637804 0 0 2 4 7 3 0 980
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
INTERIM SPECIFICATIONS-
BRIDGES4994
Containing Revisions To:

Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 1992
Guide Specifications for Design and Construction of

Segmental Concrete Bridges, 1989
Guide Specifications for Alternate Load Factor Design Procedures
for Steel Beam Bridges Using Braced Compact Sections, 1991
ANSIiAASHTOiAWS D I .5-88 Bridge Welding Code
Published by the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officiais
444 North Capitol Street, N.W. Suite 249
Washlngton, D.C. 2ooo1
(202) 624-5800
8 Copyright 1994 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, inc.
Ail Rights Resewed. Printed in the United States of America. This book, or parts thereof, may not
be reproduced in any form without permission of the publishers.
ISBN 1-56051-064-1
COPYRIGHT 2003; American Association Of State Highway and Transportation Office Document provided by IHS Licensee=Fluor Corp no FPPPV per administrator /use
new u/2110503106, User=, 11/18/2003 11:39:59 MST Questions or comments about
this message: please call the Document Policy Group at 1-800-451-1584.
AASHTO T I T L E ALFD-C! 91 = Ob39804 0024733 817 =
To recipients of the AASHTO Guide Specifications for Alternate Load Factor
Design Procedures for Steel Beam Bridges Using Braced Compact Sections,
1991:
Instructions
Revisions have been made to the AASHTO Guide Specifications for

Alternate Load Factor Design Procedures for Steel Beam Bridges Using
Braced Compact Sections. This package contains the revised pages. They
have been designed to replace the corresponding pages in the book and are
numbered accordingly. Please note, some previously published pages have
been expanded into point pages (e.g., page 14 is followed by point pages
14.1, 14.2, etc.) These pages are to be added to the Guide Specification in
sequential order.
Commentary pages contained in this package are to be inserted after

page 42.
Revisions, additions, and deletions are marked in the revised pages by the
use of vertical lines in the margins. One vertical line indicates revisions are
from the Interim Specifications - Bridges - 1994.
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
To keep your Standard correct and up-to-date, please replace the appropriate
pages in the book with the pages in this package.
AASHTO T I T L E ALFD-2 91 Ob39804 O024732 753
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
~ ~
~ ~~~
AASHTO T I T L E ALFD-2 91 0639804 0002413 478
._
7 .
..
GUIDE-SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
ALTERNATE LOAD FACTOR
DESIGN PROCEDURES FOR
STEEL BEAM BRIDGES
USING BRACED COMPACT SECTIONS
1991
. -
-r
- .
-
'.
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
A A S H T O T I T L E ALFD-2 93 = 0639804 0002434 304 9
GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
ALTERNATE LOAD FACTOR
DESIGN PROCEDURES FOR
STEEL BEAM BRIDGES
1991
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Published by the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Inc.

444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 225
Washington, D.C. 2000 1
6 Copyright, 1991 and 1986 by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Printed in the
United States of America. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced
in any form without permission of the publishers.
-- ~ -
AASHTO T I T L E ALFD-i? 91 H 0639804 OOOZ455 240 H
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY

AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS
ESEC'I~TIVECO!blblITTEE
1990
Rcgion I Susan C. Crampton. Vcrniont IYWI

Dana Conmin. hlainc 19%)
Region II Jiimrs Harrinpton. North Cardina 19XY
M i Wagoner. hiui\iana IWO(
Rrgirin III Eugrne McCwnich. Illinoi\ I 9 X Y
Bernard Hunt. Ohiit 1'1%)
Region IV Charlcs L. Millrr, Arimna I Y X Y
Garth Dull. Nevada 11Mf
i(iem:
Risl Prt*>\
Lcno hlenghini. Wyoming
Jrihn R. Tahti. Miisissippi
Samuel K.Skinner (ExOttiriii)

Srcrei(iry (!t~(iii~p(iri~iiiiJïi:
Ch(iirpr.wti.+r,S /fie Si(iri(1itigiÌmrniilre.x
Duane Berenthon. Washington. Stinding Conimiitrc un Adniinistration

Frederick E! Salvucci. Mawchuwtts. Standing Commìttw on l%nning
Jams E Pit& Michigan. Standing Commiiicc tin Highbay
Ronald R. Ficdlrr. Wisconsin. Standing Comniiitre tin Highway Traffic Iwfcty
Franklin E. Whitc. New b r k . Stancling Ccimrniticc rm W i r r Transpcirtatiim
Bcn G. Watts. Fltirida. Sfanding Ctmmittcr tin Aviation
Ray I). Pethid. Virginia. Standing Cmmitirir on Public Transportation
Hiiracc B. Edwards. Kansai. Standing Comniiitrr tin Rai!uy Ciinferencc
Robert N. ßothman. Orcpim. Standing Ctimmitiw tin Rcwrch
Arihur J. Rock, Jr.. Vermont. Spcial ,%Icci Ciimmittw Confercncc of Ciimmisiionrrs
and Diurds
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
..
Il
A A S H T O T I T L E ALFD-2 93 = Ob39804 0 0 0 2 4 3 6 387
HIGHWAY SUBCOMMITTEE ON BRIDGES AND STRCCTCRES 1990
CLELLON LOVEALL, TENNESSEE, Chairman

THEODORE H. KARASOPOULOS, MAINE, Vice Chairman
STANLEY GORDON, Federal Highway Administration, Secretary
ALABAMA, Fred Conway, C.H. PEKNSYLVANIA. Mahendra G. Patel

McPherson PUERTO RICO. Jorge L. Acevedo
ALASKA, Karl Mielke RHODE ISLAND. Richard Kalunian
ARIZONA, Dennis Grigg SOUTH CAROLINA, Ben Meetze. Jr..
ARKANSAS, Veral Pinkerton Charles L. Matthens
CALIFORNIA, James E. Roberts SOUTH DAKOTA, Clyde H. Jundt
COLORADO, A. J. Siccardi TENNESSEE. Clelion Loveall. Ed
CONNECTICUT, Clement Zawodniak. Wasserman
Daniel Coffey TEXAS. Luis Ybanez
DELAWARE, Chao Hu U.S. DOT. Stanley Gordon (FHK4). Nick E.
D.C., Gary Burch Mpras (CSCG)
FLORIDA, Antonio M. Garcia UTAH. Dave Christensen
GEORGIA, Paul Liles VERMONT. Warren B. Tripp
HAWAII, Donald C. Ornellas VIRGINIA. Fred G. Sutherland
IDAHO, Richard Jobes WASHINGTON. Allan H.Walle)
ILLINOIS, Ralph Anderson WEST VIRGINIA, James Sothen
INDIANA, Jack White WISCONSIN. Stanleq W. Woods
IOWA, William A. Lundquist WYOMING. David Pope
KANSAS. Kenneth E Hurst ALBERTA. R. W Kornelson
KENTUCKY, Glen Kelly, Arthur W. GUAM. Nonato C. Hallera
Duncan MANITOBA. W. Saltzberg
LOUISIANA, Norval Knapp MARIANA ISLANDS. Nick C. Sablan
MAINE. James Chandler. Theodore H. NEW BRCNSWICK. G. A. Rushton
Karasopoulos NEWFOUNDLAND. Peter Lester
MARYLAND, Earle S. Freedman, James NORTHWEST TERRITORIES. Jivko
K. Gatley Jivkov
MASSACHUSETTS. Paul J. Sullivan NOVA SCOTIA. R. Shaffelburg
MICHIGAN, (vacant) ONTARIO, R. A. Dorton
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
MINNESOTA, D.J. Flemming SASKATCHEWAS. L. J. Hamblin
MISSISSIPPI, Bennie D. Vereil MASS. METRO. DIST. COMM.. D a i d
MISSOURI, AI Laffoon Lenhardt
MONTANA, James C. Hill N.J. TCRNPIKE AUTHORITY. Paul M.
NEBRASKA. Lyman D. Freemon Weckesser
NEVADA, Rod Johnson PORT AETH. OF NY & NJ. Joseph Zitelli.
NEW HAMPSHIRE. James E Marshall + Joseph Kell]
NEW JERSEY, Kenneth Afferton, Robert NY STATE BRIDGE AUTHORITY.
Pege William Moreau
NEW MEXICO. Martin A. Gayurnick BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. Doug
NEW YORK, Arun Shirole, Michael Cuddy McCullough
NORTH CAROLINA. James D. Lee, John U.S. DEPARTMEXT OF
L. Smith AGRICULTURE-FOREST SERVICE.
NORTH DAKOTA, Forest Durow Clyde Weller
OHIO, B. David Hanhilammi MILITARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
OKLAHOMA, Veldo M. Goins COMMAND. Salim Nassif
OREGON. Tom Lulay
...
111
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ARTICLE
STRENGTH DESIGN METHOD

Page
10.42 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........1
10.43 Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.44 Design Theory ..
c 10.45 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.46 Design Yield Stress for Structural Steel . . .
10.47 MaximumDesignLoads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
10.48 Symmetrical Beams and Girders . . . . ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
10.50 Composite Beams and Girders ........
10.50A Mechanism Strength (Maximum Load) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.57 Permanent Deformations (Overload) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
APPENDIX A - COMMENTARIES
10.42 Scope . . . . . . . .......... ... 5
10.43 Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10.44 DesignTheory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................ 5
10.45 Assumptions ...... ... ......... 5
a 10.46 Design Yield Stress for Structural Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10.47 Maximum Design Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.48 Symmetrical Beams and Girders ..... ...... ....................
10.50 Composite Beams and Girders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
.5
.5
5
10.50A Mechanism Strength (Maximum Load) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

10.57 Permanent Deformations (Overload) ...... ........ ......6
APPENDIX B - DESIGN EXAMPLE

Two-Span Continuous Beam Highway Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
REFERENCES
1990Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
1991Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
AASHTO T I T L E A L F D - 2 91 0 6 3 9 8 0 4 O024733 6 î T
GUIDE SPECIFICATION FOR ALTERNATE LOAD

FACTOR DESIGN PROCEDURES FOR STEEL BEAM
BRIDGES USING BRACED COMPACT SECTIONS
PREFACE
The Fifteenth Edition of the AASHTO Standard Specificationsfor Highway Bridges published in 1992 includes provisions
for Load Factor Design (LFD) by the strength design method. Shear and moment envelopes are determined by elastic analysis
with limited redistribution for the effects of yielding. Thus, sections are generally dimensioned for strength equal to greater
than required by the envelopes. Past designs to meet these requirements often involved the addition of cover plates to rolled
beams and multiple splices in the flanges of welded beams. The resulting details often have low fatigue strength. The present
Guide Specification makes it possible to eliminate such details by using prismatic sections along the entire length of the bridge
or in between field splices. Common sense suggests that this would be the preferred method of design and construction.
Research during the past 10 years has shown that plastic design methods can be used to establish the strength of continuous
prismatic compact beams for Maximum Load calculations. In addition, autostress principles may be used to establish camber
requirements to offset the effects of local yielding near supports caused by Overloads. Details of the research are summarized
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
in the AIS1 Bulletin summarizing the results of Project 188.*

The followingrevised articles replace the corresponding articles of the Fifteenth Edition of the AASHTO Specifications to
provide compact section requirements and to give procedures for calculating the resistance of continuous beams by the mech-
anism method. The Overload provisions are modified to account for the effects of local yielding. Load requirements are iden-
tical to those used for LFD, but the use of prismatic members significantly improves overall structurai performance. Com-
mentaries on the provisions are given in Appendix A. The application of the Guide Specification is illustrated in a design
example of a two-span rolled beam bridge in Appendix B.
a- *G. Haaijer, P: S. Carskaddan, and M.A. Gmbb, “Suggested Autostress Procedures for Load Factor Design of Steel Beam Bridges,” Bulletin No. 29, American Iron and Steel
Institute, Washington, D.C., April 1987.
vii
AASHTO T I T L E ALFD-2 91 Ob39804 0 0 2 4 7 3 4 5 2 6 M
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
A A S H T O T I T L E ALFD-2 71 0639804 0024735 4b2
ALTERNATE LOAD FACTOR DESIGN OF BEAMS

WITH BRACED COMPACT SECTIONS
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
10.42 SCOPE load factors specified in Article 3.22 and adjusted for the
effects of plastic redistribution.
Load factor design is a method for design of simple and
continuous beam and girder structures of moderate length. 10.44.3 Service behavior shall be investigated as speci-
It is a method of proportioning structural members for fied in Articles 10.57 through 10.59.
multiples of the design loads. In the alternate load factor
design method, the strength of continuous members is de-
termined from a plastic analysis as described in Articles
10.45 ASSUMPTIONS
10.44 and 10.48.1.3. To ensure serviceability and durability
in the alternate load factor method, consideration is given 10.45.1 Strain in flexural members shall be assumed
to the control of permanent deformations under overloads, directly proportional to the distance from the neutral axis.
to the fatigue characteristics under service loadings, and to
the control of live load deflections under service loadings. 10.45.2 Stress in steel below the yield strength, F,, of the
grade of steel used shall be taken as 29,000,000 psi times
the steel strain. For strain greater than that corresponding
10.43 LOADS to the yield strength, F, , the stress shall be considered inde-
pendent of strain and equal to the yield strength, F, . This
10.43.1 Service live loads are vehicles which may operate assumption shall apply also to the longitudinal reinforce-
on a highway legally without special load permit. ment in the concrete floor slab in the region of negative
moment when shear connectors are provided to secure
10.43.2 For design purposes, the service loads are taken composite action in this region.
as the dead, live, and impact loadings described in
Section 3. 10.45.3 At maximum strength the compressive stress in
the concrete slab of a composite beam shall be assumed
10.43.3 Overloads are the live loads that can be allowed independent of strain and equal to O.85fc.
on a structure on infrequent occasions without causing per-
manent deformations that should be included in the cam- 10.45.4 Tensile strength of concrete shall be neglected in
ber. For design purposes the maximum overload is taken as flexural calculations.
5(L + 1)/3.
10.43.4 The maximum loads are the loadings specified in 10.46 DESIGN YIELD STRESS FOR STRUCTURAL
Article 10.47. STEEL
The design yield stress for structural steel shall be the

10.44 DESIGN THEORY specified minimum yield point or yield strength, F,, of the
steel used as set forth in Article 10.2.
10.44.1 The moments, shears and other forces shall be de-
termined by assuming that plastic redistrbution takes place
in continuous beams. Sections required to sustain plastic 10.47 MAXIMUM DESIGN LOADS
rotations shall qualify as braced compact sections according
to the requirements specified in Article 10.48.1.1. The maximum moments, shears or forces to be,sustained
by a stress-carrying member shall be computed for the load
10.44.2 The members shall be proportioned by the meth- combinations specifiedin Article 3.22. The resistance of the
ods specified in Articles 10.48 through 10.56 so that their total structure shall at least be equal to the group loads that
computed maximum strengths shall be at least equal to the are applicable and the maximum design required by the
total effects of design loads multiplied by their respective group loading combinations shall be used.
2 ALTERNATE LOAD FACTOR DESIGN
10.48 SYMMETRICAL BEAMS AND GIRDERS TABLE 10.48.1.2A Limitations for Compact Sections
Fy (psi) 36,000 50,000
10.48.1 Compact Sections
b‘/t 10.8 9.2
Symmetrical I-shaped beams and girders with high D/t, 101 86
resistance to local buckling and proper bracing to resist lat- Lb/ïy (MI/M, = O*) 100 72
eral torsional buckling qualify as compact sections. Com- Lb/ïy (MI/Mu = i*) 39 28
pact sections are able to form plastic hinges with an inelas-
*For values of MI/M, other than O and 1 use Eq. (10-95.)
tic rotation capacity of 3 times the elastic rotation
corresponding to the plastic moment.
Rolled or fabricated I-shaped beams and fabricated gird- (c) Lateral bracing
ers meeting the requirements of Article 10.48.1.1 below
shall be considered compact sections and the maximum
strength shall be computed as:
Mu = FyZ (10-91)
where
where
Lb is the distance between points of bracing of the
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
F, is the specified yield point of the steel being used, Z compression flange; ry is the radius of gyration of the
is the plastic section modulus.* steel section with respect to the Y-Y axis, Ml is the
smaller moment at the end of the unbraced length of
10.48.1.1 Beams and girders designed as compact sec- the member, and Mu is the applicable ultimate moment
tions shall meet the following requirements: (for certain fre- from equation (10-91) or (10-128a) at the other end of
quently used steels these requirements are listed in Table the unbraced length. (MI/Mu) is positive when
10.48.1.2A). moments cause single curvature between brace points.
(a) Projecting compression flange element (Ml/Mu)is negative when moments cause reverse cur-
vature between brace points.
b‘ I-
- 2055
10-92)
t e
The required lateral bracing shall be provided by braces
where capable of preventing lateral displacement and twisting of
the main members or by embedment of the top and sides of
b’ is the width of the projecting flange element tis the
the compression flange in concrete.
flange thickness.
(d) Maximum axial compression
(b) Web thickness
P 5 O. 15F,A (10-96)
D 19,230
- I- (10-93)
tw where
where A is the area of the cross section.
D is the clear distance between the flanges, tw is the Members with axial-loads in excess of O. 15FyA should
web thickness. be designed as beam-columns as specified in Article
10.54.2.
When both b’/t and D/t, exceed 75% of the above limits,
the following interaction equation shall apply 10.48.1.2 Article 10.48.1 is applicable to steels with
where
-
D
W
t
+ 9.35
(9’)
- 5 33’650 ~
* (10-94)
stress-strain diagrams that exhibit a yield plateau followed
by a strain hardening range. Steels such as AASHTO M270
Grade 36 (ASTM A709 Grade 36), AASHTO M270 Grade
50 (ASTM A709 Grade 50), and AASHTO M270 Grade
50W (ASTM A709 Grade 50W) meet these requirements.
FYfis the yield strength of the compression flange.
The limitations set forth in Article 10.48.1 are given in
Table 10.48.1.2A.
* Values for rolled sections are listed in the Manual of Steel Construction, Ninth Ed¡-
tion, 1989, American Institute of Steel Construction. Appendix D of the AASHTO
Standard Specflcarionsfor Highway Bridges shows the method of computing Z as pre- 10.48.1.3 In the design of a continuous beam the load-
sented in the Commentary of AIS1 Bulletin 15. carrying capacity may be determined from a plastic mecha-
STRENGTH DESIGN METHOD 3
nism analysis as described in Article 10.50A provided that For sections described under (3) that are required to
sections required to sustain plastic rotations qualify as undergo plastic rotations, the effective plastic moment to
braced compact sections according to the requirements be used at these sections in the mechanism analysis shall be
specified in Article 10.48.1.1. determined as follows to account for the effects of local web
or flange buckling.
10.50 COMPOSITE BEAMS AND GIRDERS Mp = RfMpf + RwMpw (10-128a)
where
10.50.2 Negative Moment Sections of Composite
Beams and Girders M, = effective plastic moment
Mpf = flange component of plastic moment, includ-
The maximum strength of beams and girders in the nega- ing composite rebars
tive moment regions shall be computed in accordance with M,, = web component of plastic moment
Articles 10.48 and 10.49 as applicable. It shall be assumed Rf = reduction factor for flange component
that the concrete slab does not carry tensile stresses. In R, = reduction factor for web component
cases where the slab reinforcement is continuous over inte-
The reduction factors Rf and R, shall be computed from
rior supports, the reinforcement may be considered to act
the effective yield strengths of the compression flange and
compositely with the steel section.
web, respectively. The effective yield strengths for I-shaped
beams and girders symmetrical about the vertical.axis but
10.50.2.1 Compact Sections
not necessarily symmetrical about the horizontal centroidal
Composite beams and girders in negative bending qual- axis, for composite sections in negative bending, and
ify as compact when their steel section meets the require- including hybrid sections are
ments of Article 10.48.1.1 and the stress-strain diagram of Fyfe = 0.0845 E(t/b’)’ 5 F,f (10-128b)
the steel exhibits a yield plateau followed by a strain-hard-
ening range. The maximum strength shall be computed as Fywe= 1.32 E(t,/Dcp)2( Fyf (10-128~)
the resultant moment of the fully plastic stress distribution where
acting on the section including any composite rebars. E Young’s Modulus
=
If the distance from the neutral axis to the compression b‘ width of projecting flange element
=
flange exceeds D/2, the compact section requirements given t = flange thickness
by Equations (10-93) and (10-94) must be modified by = depth of web in compression for plastic bend-
replacing D with the quantity 2D,,, where Dcp is the dis- D,,
ing (for symmetrical sections D,, equals one
tance to the compression flange from the neutral axis for half the clear unsupported distance between
plastic bending. the flanges)
t, = web thickness
10.50A MECHANISM STRENGTH (MAXIMUM Fyf = yield strength of compression flange
LOAD) FYfe = effective yield strength of compression flange
The resistance of continuous members may be deter- Fywe = effective yield strength of web.
mined by plastic analysis with the limitations and modifica- The reduction factors shall be computed as follows
tions described below.
(1) The procedure is limited to steels with yield points Rf = Fyfe/Fyf
not exceeding 50,000 psi.
R, = Fywe/Fyf
(2) Composite sections in positive bending shall not be
permitted to sustain additional plastic rotations after 10.57 PERMANENT DEFORMATIONS (OVER-
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
reaching the maximum strength specified in Article LOAD)

10.50.1.
(3) For sections in negative bending that are composite 10.57.1 Sections in Negative Bending
with the deck reinforcement and for non-composite
sections in positive and negative bending an effective The elastic moments caused by D + 5(L + 1)/3 may be
plastic moment shall be determined if plastic rota- redistributed to account for inelastic rotation of sections in
tions are required. Sections required to sustain plas- negative bending at supports. The procedure for determin-
tic rotations shall satisfy the requirements specified ing the inelastic rotations and the corresponding automo-
in Article 10.48.1.1. ments is given in Appendix A and illustrated in Appendix
(4) Bearing stiffeners shall be provided at support loca- B. The procedure is applicable to non-composite and com-
tions where plastic hinges occur. posite sections for which the moment rotation curve
AASHTO T I T L E ALFD-2 91 m Ob39804 0024738 171 m
1.o
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
O 2 4 6 8 10
mrads
1 rnrad = 1 milliradian = .O01 radians
Fig. 10.57A Inelastic Rotation of Composite and Noncomposite Sections
shown in Fig. 10.57A or any other appropriate curve may equal to 1.0 for non-hybrid sections, and Fflis the specified
be used. To control visual permanent deformations in the minimum yield stress of the flange. For such beams de-
steel section after the live load is removed, the computed signed for Group 1A loading, the maximum flange stress
inelastic rotations at Overload shall not extend into the caused by D + 2.2(L + I), including the stress due to the
unloading portion of the curve. The permanent deflec- automoment, shall not exceed 0.8RFfl. Also, for such
tions resulting from the automoments should be treated as beams designed for Group II and Group III loadings, the
additional dead load deflections in establishing camber maximum flange stress caused by [D + (L + I) + 0.3WI
requirements. and by (D + W), including the stress due to the automo-
At flange or section transition locations, the maximum ment, shall not exceed 0.8RFfl.
flange stress, including the stress due to the automoment,
10.57.2.2 Composite Beams
shall not exceed the applicable limiting stress specified in
Article 10.57.2.1 or Article 10.57.2.2. For composite beams, the maximum flange stress caused
To limit concrete cracking of composite sections in nega- by D + 5(L + 1)/3, including the stress due to the automo-
tive bending, the stress in the reinforcing bars caused by D ment, shall not exceed 0.9RFflwhere R is the hybrid girder
+ +
5(L I)/3 taking into account the effect of local yield- reduction factor specified in Article 10.53.1.2, equal to 1.0
ing elsewhere in the cross section shall be less than the yield for non-hybrid sections, and Ffl is the specified minimum
stress of the bar. Furthermore, the reinforcement shall be yield stress of the flange. For such beams designed for
distributed in accordance with Article 8.16.8.4. Group 1A loading, the maximum flange stress caused by
D + 2.2(L + I), including the stress due to the auto-
10.57.2 Sections in Positive Bending moment, shall not exceed 0.95RF9. Aìso, for such beams
designed for Group II and Group III loadings, the maxi-
10.57.2.1 Non-composite Beams mum flange stress caused by [D + (L + I) + 0.3WI and by
For non-composite beams, the maximum flange stress (D + W), including the stress due to the automoment, shall
caused by D + 5(L + 1)/3, including the stress due to the not exceed O.95RFfl. In computing dead load stresses the
automoment, shall not exceed 0.8RF,+where R is the hy- presence or absence of temporary supports during the
brid girder reduction factor specified in Article 10.53.1.2, construction shall be considered.
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
AASHTO T I T L E A L F D - 2 91 M Ob39804 0024739 008 M
APPENDIX A
COMMENTARIES ON THE
GUIDE SPECIFICATION FOR
ALTERNATE L . C ? ?FACTOR DESIGN PROCEDURES
FOR STEEL BEAM BRIDGES USING BRACED COMPACT SECTIONS
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
The Load Factor Design (LFD) specification of 10.48 SYMMETRICAL BEAMS AND GIRDERS
AASHTO currently achieves stated or implicit structural
performance requirements by imposing limit-state criteria Compact sections are defined as sections that can reach
based on elastic analyses with some allowances for plastic the plastic moment with limited rotation as a plastic hinge.
behavior. The present Guide Specification incorporates If significant plastic rotation is required an effective plastic
autostress procedures that extend the consideration of in- moment may be determined in accordance with Article
elastic behavior of steel beam bridges. The following com- 10.50A. Because AASHTO expresses stresses in psi rather
mentaries apply to the indicated sections. More detailed than ksi the flange and web slenderness ratios are restated
commentaries may be found in Reference 7. from those given in Reference 7 listed in Appendix B. The
flange slenderness requirement
10.42 SCOPE
The scope of the LFD Specification is expanded to indi-
cate that the strength and inelastic behavior of continuous
beams may be determined from plastic analysis and shake-
down if sections required to sustain plastic rotations qualify
* 65 2055
becomes -
*
as braced compact sections. This requirement can be stated in non-dimensional form as
10.43 LOADS 0.382

' I
Article 10.4.3.3 recognizes that Overloads may cause
permanent deformations, which should be included in the
camber. The web slenderness requirement
10.44 DESIGN THEORY

The design theory recognizes that plastic redistribution
takes place in continuous beams with sections required
*608
becomes ~
*
19,230
to sustain plastic rotations qualifying as braced compact or 3.570

sections.
10.45 ASSUMPTIONS The above flange and web slenderness requirements for
compact sections are adopted from the AISC Load and
The assumptions remain unchanged. Resistance Factor Design Specification.
The interaction equation (10-94) applies when both the
10.46 DESIGN YIELD S'ïRESS FOR STRUXURAL flange and web slenderness ratios exceed 75 percent of
STEEL these limits.
Lateral bracing requirements are also adopted from the
The term design stress is changed to design yield stress.
AISC Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification.
The lateral bracing requirements of Article 10.48.2.1(c) for
10.47 MAXIMUM DESIGN LOADS
non-compact sections need not be considered, because they
The resistance of the total structure shall at least be equal are limited to conditions of constant moment and St. Venant
to the group loads that are applicable. torsional resistance only.
A A S H T O T I T L E ALFD-2 91 9 Ob39804 0 0 2 4 7 4 0 8 2 T 9
10.50 COMPOSITE BEAMS AND GIRDERS 12,377

%
10.50.2.1 Compact Sections
then the corresponding effective yield strength will be less
The web slenderness requirements for a compact section than FYf(the yield strength of the compression flange), and
(Equations 10-93 and 10-94) apply to symmetrical sections. the effective plastic moment M, given by equation
At the interior-pier section of a composite continuous bridge (10-12Xa) will be less than M,. If both the compression-
where the section is subjected to negative bending, the rein- flange and web slenderness ratios at the rotating hinge are
forcing steel is often assumed to act compositely with the below these limits, then M, will equal M,. Sufficient in-
beam so the neutral axis shifts toward the slab. Yielding elastic rotation capacity (at least 63 mrads) is assured using
further shifts the neutral axis upward toward the slab. This the reduced M, in place of M, at rotating hinges in the
increased depth of the web in compression was determined mechanism analysis. The above limits are the AISC Part 2
to have an important effect on the rotation capacity of slenderness limits for ultracompact sections with the
unsymmetrical sections. Thus, for unsymmetrical sections, stresses expressed in AASHTO units of psi. The web
where the distance from the neutral axis to the compression requirement given above is based on the assumption that the
flange exceeds D/2, the web requirement given by Equa- web depth is 95 percent of the total depth of the section.
tions (10-93) and (10-94) must be modified by replacing the Fywe is limited to Fyf, and the web reduction factor
web depth D with the quantity 2D,, . D,, is defined as the R, -used to compute M,,-is normalized with respect to
distance to the compression flange from the neutral axis at F,f because plastic web buckling is governed by the flange
the plastic moment. Though not explicitly stated in the strain. FYfis also limited to 50,000 psi or below in the guide
guide specification, this requirement would also apply to specification because research on plastic design has been
unsymmetrical non-composite sections in negative bending limited to material not exceeding a yield strength of 50,000
where the distance from the neutral axis to the compression psi.
flange exceeds D/2. In conventional plastic design, sections required to sus-
tain plastic rotations are assumed to be of infinitesimal
length. However, yielding occurs over a finite length. Thus,
10.50A MECHANISM STRENGTH (MAXIMUM it is suggested that any section or flange transitions that are
LOAD) incorporated in the design be located a minimum of twice
the depth of the steel section from each side of the section
This new section describes the concept of an effective required to sustain plastic rotations to ensure that excess
plastic moment to be used for the strength analysis. The yielding will not occur at any transition locations in this
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
procedure is applicable when the plastic rotation require- region. Transition locations outside these regions shall be
ments exceed 3 times the elastic rotation corresponding to checked at Maximum Load according to the maximum
the plastic moment up to a value of approximately 60 strength requirements of Articles 10.48,10.49, or 10.50 and
millirads. at Overload according to the maximum stress requirements
The effective yield strengths of the compression flange specified in Article 10.57.
and web, F,f, and Fywe,were derived directly from the
plastic-design slenderness requirements given in Part 2 of
the Eighth Edition of the AISC Specification. Sections that 10.57 PERMANENT DEFORMATIONS (OVER-
meet these slenderness limits are termed ultracompact. LOAD)
Ultracompact sections have sufficient inelastic rotation
capacity at rotating hinges to allow a plastic mechanism In Alternate Load Factor Design, controlled local yield-
analysis using the plastic moment M, at the rotating hinges. ing and concomitant inelastic rotation is allowed at interior-
If the projecting compression-flange slenderness ratio b’/t pier sections at Overload that results in the formation of
for the section at a rotating hinge exceeds the following favorable residual stress patterns (autostresses) and positive
limit for an ultracompact compression flange: automoments that remain in the structure after the live load
is removed. The automoments and autostresses ensure that-
1565 the structure will shake down under repeated loadings not
v& exceeding the highest Overload.
The automoments cause elastic moment redistribution by
and/or the effective web slenderness ratio at the plastic effectively reducing the peak elastic negative moments at
moment for that section exceeds the following limit for an interior piers, and slightly increasing the elastic maximum
ultracornpact web: span moments. Because the bridge eventually shakes down
AASHTO T I T L E ALFD-2 91 0 6 3 9 8 0 4 0 0 2 4 7 4 3 766 m
APPENDIX A-COMMENTARIES Point Page 6.1
or behaves elastically, a stress limit is not imposed at inte- tion used in the development of the specification curve
rior-pier sections at Overload. However, a stress limit is because of concrete crack closure, which put the slab into
imposed in positive bending after formation of the compression and confounded the computational procedure
automoments to control permanent deformations. The per- (Reference 10). Examination of all moment-rotation tests
manent deformations due to the automoments are computed in negative bending to date has shown that the higher curve,
directly and should be added to the dead-load camber to previously labeled non-composite, is satisfactory for esti-
ensure a smooth riding surface after passage of the Over- mation of plastic rotations for all compact non-composite
load vehicles. Because the remainder of the beam is and composite pier sections (Reference 11).Thus, this sin-
assumed to be elastic except for the controlled inelastic gle curve is now provided. The ordinate of the curve is
rotation at pier sections, the automoment deflections can be normalized with respect to Mmax, the maximum moment
computed from elastic formulas. resistance of the section. In the absence of better informa-
It is intended that yielding required for moment redistri- tion, Mmax may be taken as the plastic moment, M,, of the
bution occur only at piers. Therefore, it is specified that the pier section.
maximum flange stress at Overload, including the stress For unshored construction, the plastic rotations and
due to the automoment, at any flange or section transition automoments should be computed separately for the non-
location in negative-bending regions be kept below the composite dead load using the properties of the steel sec-
specified minimum yield stress of the flange times various tion alone, and for the composite dead and live load using
applicable factors. The stress due to the automoment at the composite section properties. Separate cambers should
such locations usually subtracts from the applied elastic also be computed; these cambers should then be added
stress. together. The beam-line analysis, recommended to com-
The automoments and inelastic rotations can be pute the automoments and inelastic rotations at Overload,
graphically computed using the normalized experimental is applicable to both shored and unshored construction, the
moment-rotation curve given for non-composite and com- choice being left to the designer (Reference 11). Both
posite sections in Figure 10.57A of the Guide Specification methods are discussed below to aid the presentation of
or any other appropriate curve. The computation is dis- ideas.
cussed in detail below and illustrated in the design example Figure A . l shows the beam-line diagrams for shored and
that accompanies the guide specification (Appendix B). To unshored construction. All values in the example are ficti-
control visual permanent deformations in the steel section tious and were selected solely to illustrate behavior. Both
after the live load is removed, the computed inelastic rota- diagrams have two things in common: a single identical
tions at Overload shall not extend into the unloading por- moment-rotation curve and normalization of the ordinate
tion of the curve. Therefore, when using the curve in Figure by Mmax.
10.57A, it is suggested that the inelastic rotations at Over- Also shown in Figure A.l are two member elevations.
load not exceed 8.0 mrads (.O08 radians). It should be NC stands for non-composite, and the related bending mo-
remembered that the Autostress Method is not dependent ment of inertia is I. Similarly, C stands for composite and
on any particular moment vs ûP curve. In fact, a particular the negative- and postive-bending moments of inertia are
curve could be used for each particular design. However, I(-) and I(+); I(-) would be based on either the steel
since such data are not presently available-although re- beam alone or the steel beam plus rebars for a slab that is
search is in progress to attempt to predict these curves not pre- or post-tensioned, whereas I( +) would be based on
analytically-it is today computationally efficient to use a the streel beam plus slab.
standardized curve for many design situations. Shored Construction. The dead-load interior-support
The curve in Figure 10.57A was developed from experi- elastic negative moment, M(D), is considered applied first.
mental data, as discussed in Reference 7, and is applicable Since the member will not resist this load until the slab is
to both non-composite and composite sections. The curve effective, it is normalized by the maximum composite neg-
is independent of the geometric properties of the sections, ative-moment capacity, Mmax(C), and the point, PD(S), is
except as those proportions affect the maximum moment located, the D referring to dead load and the S referring to
capacity. shored. The slope of the beam line is C, which refers to the
In previous editions of the Guide Specification, two sep- stiffness diagram similarly titled (see the example in
arate curves were provided for non-composite and com- Appendix B for an illustration of how to compute the slope
posite sections. The lower curve, labeled composite, was of the beam line C). For this member, no inelastic rotation
developed from the results of the test of the negative- is computed for M(D).
moment region of a composite model bridge, as discussed When the live-load elastic moment, M(L), is similarly
in Reference 9. The specimen was shored during construc- applied after normalizing by Mmax(C), point PT(S) is lo-
tion. This resulted in an overestimation of the plastic rota- cated, the Treferring to the total of the dead and live loads.
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
AASHTO T I T L E A L F D - 2 91 Ob39804 0 0 2 4 7 4 2 bT2 M
Point Page 6.2 ALTERNATE LOAD FACTOR DESIGN
M
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
shored
( ~ ï moments
î are negative.)
FIGURE A.l Beam-Line Analysis (Overload)
AASHTO T I T L E A L F D - 2 71 m Ob37804 0024743 537 W
APPENDIX A-COMMENTARIES I
The beam line again has a slope of C, and an inelastic Again, the beam-line slope is C. The live-load results in an
rotation of BP(L) results, where the L indicates that the inelastic rotation of ûP(L). The live load causes more BP(L)
inelastic rotation occurs when the live load is applied. Cam- for the unshored than for the shored case.
ber for BP(L) would be computed with the C stiffness, In this procedure, two inelastic rotations generally result,
adusted for long-term concrete effects. Stress computations i.e. ûP(D) and BP(L). Although they are additive, the cam-
with the automoments would be handled in an analogous ber for each must be computed separately. They should be
fashion. applied to the NC and C stifînesses when computing cam-
As a short cut, both dead and live load could have been ber; these cambers are then additive. Stress computations
applied simultaneously since both are resisted by the com- with the automoments would be handled in an analogous
posite section; this is true even if the dead load had caused fashion.
inelastic rotation, as camber would still be computed with For composite members with nonprestressed slabs, the
the stiffness C. elastic moments and rotations used to determine the beam
Unshored Construction. The computation is parallel to line in the Overload automoment computation should be
that for shored construction. The non-composite dead-load computed by assuming that the concrete on the tension side
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
elastic moment, M(D), is applied, but in this case is normal- of the neutral axis is not fully effective. Theoretical consid-
ized by the maximum non-composite negative-moment erations indicate that the negative-bending stiffness used in
capacity, Mmax(NC), and locates point, PD(U), where the the computation of the beam line should correspond to the
U refers to unshored. Since Mmax(NC) < Mmax(C), point experimental shakedown stiffness as determined in the de-
PD(U) is higher on the ordinate than PD(S). velopment of the moment-rotation curve in the Guide
The beam-line slope is now NC, rather than C for the Specification.The measured experimental shakedown stiff-
shored dead-load case. Generally, the slopes NC and C are ness was closest to the theoretical stiffness of the steel beam
different because they are computed using different stiff- plus composite rebars (Reference 9).
ness properties for the beam. For this unshored case, the For more than two continuous spans, the automoment
non-composite dead load creates inelastic rotation, ûP(D), formed at one pier causes additional elastic moments at
where the D indicates that the rotation occurs when the other piers that affect the automoments at those piers (the
non-composite dead load is applied. (In this example, the beam line is shifted). An iterative computattional proce-
composite dead load is considered part of the live load). dure is required to account for this carry-over effect to
M(L)/Mmax(C) has the same value as in the shored case. determine the final automoment distribution in the beam.
However, since it is added to PD(U), which is higher than This iterative procedure is illustrated in Reference 12. I
PD(S), the resulting point PT(U) is also higher than PT(S).
~~~ ~
AASHTO T I T L E ALFD-2 71 = 0637804 0 0 2 4 7 4 4 475
APPENDIX B
DESIGN EXAMPLE
TWO-SPAN CONTINUOUS BEAM HIGHWAY BRIDGE
DESIGNED BY THE
GUIDE SPECIFICATION
FOR ALTERNATE LFD PROCEDURES FOR STEEL BEAM BRIDGES
INTRODUCTION The Maximum Design Load criteria ensure the struc-

ture’s capability of withstanding a few passages of excep-
The following example illustrates the design of a two- tionally heavy vehicles (simultaneously in more than one
span composite continuous-beam highway bridge (loor- lane) in times of extreme emergency, that may induce sig-
loOr).The example shows how a W36 rolled beam (without nificant permanent deformations.
cover plates) can be used on a 100-foot span. The rolled- The Overload criteria ensure control of permanent defor-
beam desing was completed using the AASHTO Guide mations of a member, caused by occasional overweight
Specificationfor Alternate Load Factor Design Procedures vehicles equal to 5/3 the design live and impact loads
for Steel Beam Bridges Using Braced Compact Sections. (simultaneously in more than one lane), that would be
The Load Factor method is a limit-states design method objectionable to the riding quality of the structure.
presently contained in the AASHTO Standard Specifica- The Service Load criteria ensure that the live load deflec-
tions for Highway Bridges (Reference 2). The autostress tion and fatigue life (for assumed fatigue loading) of a mem-
procedures included in the Guide Specification are ber are controlled within acceptable limits.
presently limited to rolled-beam bridges (composite and
non-composite), and similar welded-beam bridges of DESIGN LOADS
eqquivalent dimensions that are adequately braced. For
simplicity, a rolled-beam design is presented in the follow- The moments, shears or forces to be sustained by a
ing design example. However, in some instances, a compact stress-carrying steel member are computed from the follow-
welded-beam design may provide a more economical solu- ing formulas for the three loading levels.
tion. The compact welded-beam solution also ailows a
designer to use deeper sections to better control live-load Service Load: D + (L + I)
deflections. AASHTO M 270 Grade 50W (ASTM A 709
5
Grade 50W) is used for the steel beams. Overload: D + -(L
3
+ I)
GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Maximum Design Load: 1.30
In the Guide Specification, the same load levels are used where
as in the Load Factor method. Members designed by the
Load Factor method are proportioned for multiples of the D = deadload
design loads. They are required to meet certain criteria for L = live load
three theoretical load levels: 1) Maximum Design Load 2) I = impact load
Overload and 3) Service Load. The Maximum Design Load
and Overload requirements are based on multiples of the The factor 1.30 is included to compensate for uncertainties
service loads with certain other coefficients necessary to in strength, theory, loading, analysis and material proper-
ensure the required capabilities of the structure. Service ties and dimensions. The factor 5/3 is incorporated to allow
loads are defined as the same loads as used in working for overloads. Factors for other group loading combinations
stress design. are given in AASHTO Article 3.22.
8
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
AASHTO T I T L E ALFD-2 91 H Ob37804 0024745 301
APPENDIX B-I >ESEN EXAMPLE 9
In composite construction, shear connectors are provided 2 . Positive moments due to loads applied after the con-
between steel stringers and a concrete slab to make them crete slab has been placed and hardened are resisted by the
act as a unit. Three elements, therefore, must be considered composite section. Negative moments also are resisted by
in design: ( I ) the reinforced concrete slab, (2) steel string- the composite section that consists of the stringer plus the
ers, and (3) shear connectors. longitudinal reinforcing bars in the deck. Shear connectors
Shear connectors provide mechanical connections must be provided over the full length of the stringer.
between the slab and the steel stringers. (While there is a The design in this example is based on assumption #2
natural bond between the concrete slab and steel stringers, above.
this bond is considered unreliable for providing the horizon- A composite stringer bridge is designed as a series of
tal shearing resistance essential to composite action.) The T-beams. Each consists of one steel stringer and a portion of
connectors must be able to transfer horizontal shear the concrete slab. The concrete is transformed into an
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
between the concrete slab and the steel stringers so that the equivalent area of steel by dividing the area of the slab by
entire structure deforms as a unit for its full life. the modular ratio n (or 3n when creep is considered). The
Composite construction offers the following advantages properties of the transformed section, and stresses at the
over conventional steel-stringer-and-slabconstruc tion: top and bottom of the steel stringer and top of the concrete
1 . Greater economy. slab, are computed.
2 . Shallower construction. The assumed effective width of the slab as a T-beam
3 . Less deflection. flange must not exceed the following:
4. Greater factor of safety. One-fourth the span of the stringer.
5 . Better lateral bracing of the top flange. The spacing, center to center, of stringers.
Composite bridges may be built with or without tempo- Twelve times the least thickness of the slab.
rary shoring. This design example is prepared for unshored For stringers that have a flange on one side only, the
construction, since most highway bridges are built without effective flange width must not exceed one-twelfth the span
shores. of the stringer, six times the thickness of the slab, and one-
In unshored construction, the steel stringers must sup- half the distance, center to center, to the adjacent stringer.
port their own weight plus the weight of the concrete slab.
The composite section supports the weight of any addi-
tional dead load placed after the slab has hardened, plus all LATERAL DISTRIBUTION OF DEAD LOAD
live load and impact. In shored construction, the steel
stringers are temporarily supported during placing and Each interior stringer carries the weight of that portion of
hardening of the concrete slab and the composite section concrete slab extending a distance of one-half the stringer
supports all loads after removal of the supports. spacing on either side of the stringer. An outer stringer car-
Sustained loads, such as dead loads, on concrete cause it ries the weight of that portion of slab extending from the
to creep. In flexural members, creep reduces the intensity outer edge to a point midway between the outer stringer and
of the compressive stresses in the concrete. Thus, under the adjacent interior stringer.
sustained loads, the concrete deck is less effective than for The dead load of curbs, parapets, railings, and wearing
temporary loads. surface, if placed after the slab has cured, may be consid-
The effect of creep is accounted for in composite con- ered equally distributed to all stringers.
struction by increasing the modular ratio n by a factor of 3. If the overhang of the slab beyond the outer stringer is
Stresses due to long-time dead loads on the composite sec- maintained at one- half the stringer spacing, total dead load
tion are computed with section properties based on the on all stringers will be nearly equal.
increased modular ratio 3n. -
Concrete is assumed ineffective in resisting tension. LATERAL DISTRIBUTION OF LIVE LOADS
Thus, the slab is not considered part of the composite sec-
tion in the negative-moment region of continuous, compos- Live load bending moments for an interior stringer can
ite construction. Continuous designs are based upon one of be determined by applying to the stringer a fraction of the
the following assumptions: wheel loads, as prescribed in the AASHTO specifications.
1. Positive moments due to loads applied after the con- For a bridge consisting of a concrete slab on steel stringers
crete slab has been placed and hardened are resisted by the and designed for two or more traffic lanes, this fraction is:
composite section. Negative moments are resisted by the
stringer only. Shear connectors need be provided only inthe Live-load distribution factor
S
= - wheels
positive-moment regions. 5.5
A A S H T O T I T L E ALFD-2 91 Ob39804 0 0 2 4 7 4 6 2 4 8
where Interstate loading does not govern for this design

example.
S = average stringer spacing, ft., but not more
than 14 ft.
WEB SHEARING STRESS
Live-load bending moments for an outer stringer can be
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
determined by applying to the stringer the reactions due to Web shearing stress may be determined on the basis that
wheel loads on the concrete slab, which is assumed to act as the web of the steel stringer carries the total external shear.
a simply supported beam between stringers. The fraction of This assumption neglects shear taken by the steel flanges
wheel loads used, however, should not be less than: and concrete slab. The shear is assumed to be uniformly
distributed over the gross area of the web. Web shearing
S stress is seldom critical.
Live-load distribution factor = - wheels
5.5 According to AASHTO Article 10.48.8, the shear capac-
ity of beams with unstiffened webs is limited to the plastic
when S = 6 ft. or less, or or buckling shear force given by the following equation:
Live-load distribution factor = wheels vu = cv,

4 + 0.25s
V, is equal to the plastic shear force and is determined as
when S is more than 6 ft. but less than 14 ft. follows:
The live load applied to an outer stringer as determined V,, = 0.58 F,Dtw
by these formulas generally exceeds that obtained by
assuming the slab to act as a simple span between stringers. The constant C is equal to the buckling shear stress divided
Lateral distribution of live load can also be determined by the shear yield stress, and is determined as follows:
by rational analysis. The finite-element method has proven
to be a useful tool in determining live-load distribution
factors (Reference 3). Improved live-load distribution fac-
tors are also available in a separate AASHTO guide speci-
fication. These factors replace the factors discussed above,
and yield results closer to those obtained from finite-
for
D
-
W
t
c = 1.0
*
6000 fi
element analyses.
In the calculation of stringer reactions and end shears, 6000fi - D 7500lh
for <- 5
the live load of the wheel adjacent to the support should be
distributed by assuming the concrete slab to act as a simple
6 t,
beam between stringers. For loads in other positions on the 6000 fi

span, the same live-load distribution factors are used as for C =
moment. (Many designs are made assuming the live-load
distribution factor for moment applies for all shears and
reactions. The resulting errors in reactions and shears are
,7 5 O O f i
small).
ALTERNATE INTERSTATE LOADING

for
D
-
W
t *
4.5 x 107k
C=
Interstate loading, often called military loading, must be
considered in the design of bridges on the interstate system.
This loading governs moment in simple spans shorter than
(?YFy
38 ft. and governs end shear in simple spans shorter than The buckling coefficient k shall be taken as 5 for unstif-
30 ft. fened beams.
APPENDIX B-DESIGN EXAMPLE 11
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
DESIGN OF SHEAR CONNECTORS and area of concrete reinforcement in negative-

moment regions.
Many mechanical devices have been used to provide the
necessary resistance to horizontal shear at the junction of The allowable design range of load, pounds, on an indi-
concrete slabs and steel stringers. Steel studs automatically vidual shear connector is given for welded studs by
end-welded to the stringers, and channels fillet welded to
the stringers are the most common types used. Allowable Z, = old2
loads for stud and channel shear connectors are given in the
AASHTO specifications. Welded studs are used in this where
design example.
To ensure serviceability and durability of shear connect- a = constant that depends on number of design cycles
ors, AASHTO specifications recommend design criteria d = diameter of stud, in.
based on fatigue under service loading. The number of con-
nectors determined by these criteria are then checked to The required pitch of shear connectors is determined by
ensure that they can develop the ultimate strength of the dividing the resistance of all connectors at a stringer cross
section. section by S,, the horizontal range of shear per linear inch.
The shear connectors required to resist fatigue are deter- The maximum pitch should not exceed 24 in.
mined by an elastic analysis with the following formula: The number of shear connectors established by fatigue
considerations must be investigated for ultimate strength.
This is relatively easy to do and assures the capability of
Vr Q
s, = - developing the full plastic-stress distribution in the beam.
I
The procedure can be derived from an examination of the
where state of stress in a composite beam at ultimate moment.
For most practical cross sections the neutral axis is
S, = range of horizontal shear, pounds per linear inch, located within the concrete slab. The plastic-stress distribu-
at junction of slab and stringer at point under con- tion is as shown in (a) below. Occasionally, the neutral axis
sideration falls below the top of the stringer, with a resultant stress
V, = range of shear, pounds, due to live load plus distribution as in (b).
impact. At any section, the range of shear should In case (a), the maximum compressive force C in the con-
be taken as the difference between minimum and crete equals the plastic force in the entire steel area, F, A,,
maximum shear envelopes (excludingdead loads) where F, is the steel yield stress, psi, and A,, is the area of
I Q = statical moment, in.3, of transformed compres- steel section, sq. in. In case (b) the maximum compressive
sive concrete area, with modular ratio n, about force C in the concrete equals 0.85 f;bt, where fc is the
neutral axis of composite section; or statical 28-day strength of the concrete, psi, b is the effective width
moment of area of concrete reinforcement for of slab, in., and t is the slab thickness, in. The smaller of
negative moment the two values, F,A, and 0.85 f’,bt, is the maximum possi-
I = moment of inertia, in.4, of transformed composite ble compressive force that can occur in the concrete slab.
stringer, with modular ratio n in positive-moment When a composite beam is loaded to ultimate moment,
regions: moment of inertia provided by steel beam equilibrium with respect to the concrete slab must be satis-
b -
0.85fc 0.85fc
AASHTO T I T L E A L F D - 2 71 = O b 3 7 8 0 4 0 0 2 4 7 4 8 O10 D
fied over the length L, between the point of plastic moment 2. Depth-thickness ratio of the web:
M, and the point of zero moment.
Thus, the sum of the ultimate strengths of the shear con- -D
< -- 19,230
nectors over the length L are required to balance the com- tW
pressive slab force C . Tests have shown that the ultimate
strength Qu, in pounds, of a stud shear connector is propor- where
tional to the square root of the concrete strength:
D = clear distance between flanges
QU = 0 . 4 d 2 a tw = web thickness
where When both b'/t and D/t, exceed 75 percent of the above
limits, the following interaction equation shall apply:
d = diameter of stud, in.
E, = modulus of elasticity of the concrete, psi
The required shear resistance to develop the compressive

force C in the slab is furnished by N shear connectors
where
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
between the point of maximum moment and the ends of the

span or inflection points, as determined by the following
Fyf = specified minimum yield point or yield strength,
equation from the AASHTO specifications: psi, of the compression flange
N=- C If the distance from the neutral axis to the compression

$Qu flange exceeds D/2, the web compact section requirements
given by the above two formulas must be modified by
where replacing D with the quantity 2D,,, where D,, is the dis-
$ is a reduction factor equal to 0.85. tance to the compression flange from the neutral axis for
plastic bending.
COMPACT SECTIONS 3. The compression flange should be supported laterally

by adequate bracing at intervals not exceeding:
As defined in the autostress procedures, compact sec-
tions are able to form plastic hinges with an inelastic rota- [3.6 - 2.2(M1/M,)] x lo6 x ry
Lb =
tion capacity of three times the elastic rotation correspond- FY
ing to the plastic moment. where
A steel section is considered compact when its geometry
is such that the fully plastic bending-moment capacity can Lb is the distance between points of bracing of the
be reached without local buckling or lateral torsional buck- compression flange;
ling. Prevention of lateral buckling requires the presence of ry is the radius of gyration of the steel section with
adequate bracing of the compression flange at suitable inter- respect to the Y-Y axis, and
vals. The following criteria define compactness in the Ml and Mu are the moments at the two adjacent braced
autostress procedures: points (Ml is the smaller moment).
MI/M, is positive for a member bent in single curva-
1. Width-thickness ratio of compression flange projec- ture between brace points, and negative for a member
tion: bent in reverse curvature between brace points.
b' 5- 2055
- The required lateral bracing shall be provided by braces
t e capable of preventing lateral displacement and twisting of
where the main members or by embedment of the top and sides of
the compression flange in concrete.
b' = width of projecting compression flange element
t = flange thickness 4. Axial compression should not exceed
Fy = specified minimum yield point or yield strength,
psi, of the type of steel being used P = 0.15FyA
A A S H T O T I T L E ALFD-2 71 0639804 0 0 2 4 7 4 9 T57
where beams and girders symmetrical about the vertical axis but
e A = beam cross-sectional area.

not necessarily symmetrical about the horizontal centroidal
axis, for composite sections in negative bending, and
including hybrid sections are
DESIGN FOR MAXIMUM DESIGN LOADS
Fyfe = 0.0845 E(t/b’)* 5 Fyf
For a compact section, the maximum strength or maxi-
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
mum moment capacity is given by
where
Mu = F,Z
where E = Young’s Modulus
D,, depth of web in compression for plastic bend-
=
Z = plastic section modulus ing (for symmetrical sections D,, equals one
half the clear unsupported distance between
According to the autostress procedures, the maximum the flanges)
strength of continuous members may be determined from Fyf = yield strength of compression flange
a plastic mechanism analysis with the limitations and mod- FYfe = effective yield strength of compression flange
ifications described below: Fywe= effective yield strength of web
(1) The procedure is limited to steel with yield points not
exceeding 50,000 psi. The reduction factors shall be computed as follows
(2) Composite sections in positive bending shall not be Rf = FyfeEyf
permitted to sustain additional plastic rotations after Rw = FyweIFyî
reaching the maximum strength specified in Article
10.50.1. The web reduction factor is also normalized with respect
(3) For sections in negative bending that are composite to the flange yield strength because plastic web bucking is
with the deck reinforcement and for non-composite governed by the flange strain. The effective plastic moment
sections in positive and negative bending, an effec- concept is described more fully in Reference 6.
tive plastic moment shall be determined if plastic Maximum strength in the positive-moment regions of a
rotations are required. Sections required to sustain compact section with a concrete slab on the top is computed
plastic rotations shall satisfy the requirements speci- for a fully plastic stress distribution on the section. This
fied in Article 10.48.1.1. moment capacity equals the sum of the moments about the
(4) Bearing stiffeners shall be provided at support loca- neutral axis of all compressive and tensile forces acting on
tions where plastic hinges occur. the section.
For sections described under (3) that are required to
rF, Top Flange
undergo plastic rotations, an effective plastic moment to be Conc
used at these sections in the mechanism analysis shall be Slab
determined as follows to account for the effects of local web t
or flange buckling.
where
M, = effective plastic moment
MPf = flange component of plastic moment, includ- Section
la’ Fy Bottom Flange
Stress Distribution
ing composite rebars
M,, = web component of plastic moment The compressive force in the concrete slab is the smallest
Rf = reduction factor for flange component of the values of C computed from the following formula.
R, = reduction factor for web component
1. Capacity of slab and its longitudinal steel rein-
The reduction factors Rf and R, shall be computed from forcement in the compression zone:
the effective yield strengths of the compression flange and
web, respectively. The effective yield strengths for I-shaped C = 0.85f:bts + (AF,),
AASHTO T I T L E ALFD-2 91 H O b 3 9 8 0 4 0 0 2 4 7 5 0 7 7 9
where y = t,f + " - (AFY)tf D whenC' 1 (AFy),f

ff = specified 28-day compressive strength of con- (AF, )w
crete, psi
b effective width of slab
=
where
t, = slab thickness
tuf = thickness of steel top flange
(AF,), = product of area and yield point of that part
of slab reinforcement parallel to the beam D = clear distance between flanges of steel section.
and lying in compression zone
The total tensile force acting on the section must equal
2. Capacity of the steel section: the total compressive force for a beam subject only to bend-
ing and shear.
where DESIGN FOR OVERLOAD
(AF,)bf = product of area and yield point of bottom To guard against objectionable deformation under occa-
flange of steel section, sional overloads, the autostress procedures require that the
(AF,),f = product of area and yield point of top elastic moments caused by D + 5(L + I)/3 be redistributed
flange of steel section, to account for inelastic rotation of sections in negative bend-
(AF,), = product of area and yield point of web of ing at supports. The procedure for determining the inelastic
steel section rotations and the corresponding automoments is given in
Appendix A and illustrated in Appendix B. The procedure
3. Capacity of shear connectors: is applicable to non-composite and composite sections. The
moment rotation curve shown on page 15may be used. The
C = ZQu permanent deflections resulting from the automoments
should be treated as additional dead load deflections in
where establishing camber requirements.
Flange stresses in composite sections in positive bending
QU = sum of ultimate strengths of shear connect- must satisfy the relationship:
ors located between section under considera-
5
tion and nearest section of zero moment 0.95RFF 2 D + 3(L + I)
The depth of the assumed rectangular stress block (uni- after redistribution of the moments. R is the hybrid-girder
form stress distribution) for the slab is determined from the reduction factor specified in Article 10.53.1.2, equal to 1.0
compressive force in the slab: for non-hybrid sections, and Fytis the specified minimum
yield stress of the flange. Stresses in these sections due to
the automoment should be computed with the section mod-
ulus of the composite section, with an increased modular
ratio of 3n. For more than two continuous spans, the auto-
When the compressive force in the slab is less than C moment formed at one pier causes additional elastic mo-
computed for the capacity of the steel section, there will be ments at other piers that affect the automoments at those
a compressive force in the top portion of the steel section. piers. An iterative procedure is required to account for this
This force is given by carry-over effect to determine the final automoments. This
iterative procedure is illustrated in Reference 12.
C' = 2(AF,) - C It is intended that yielding required for moment redistri-
2 bution occur only at piers. Therefore, it is specified that the
maximum flange stress of Overload, including the stress
The distance y of the neutral axis below the top of the due to the automoment, at any flange or section transition
steel section can be computed from one of the following location in negative-bending regions be kept below the
formulas: specified minimum yield stress of the flange times various
applicable factors. The stress due to the automoment at
such locations usually subtracts from the applied elastic
stress.
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
APPENDIX B-DESIGN EXAMPLE Point Page 14.1
To limit concrete cracking of composite sections in nega- DESIGN FOR SERVICE LOADS
tive bending, the stress in the reinforcing bars caused by D
Fatigue is investigated in the same manner as in working
+ +
5(L I)/3 taking into account the effect of local yield-
stress design, using service loads and the provisions of
ing elsewhere in the cross section shall be less than the yield
AASHTO Article 10.3. If the longitudinal reinforcing steel
stress of the bar. Furthermore, the reinforcement shall be
in tension over the negative moment region is considered in
distributed in accordance with Article 8.16.8.4.
computing section properties, the stress range in the rein-
forcing st& is limitedto 20,000 psi.
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
A A S H T O T I T L E ALFD-2 91 H Ob39804 0 0 2 4 7 5 2 5 4 1 =
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
A A S H T O TITLE ALFD-EI 93 Ob39804 0 0 2 4 7 5 3 488
1.o
0.8
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
0.6
0.4
0.2
O 2 4 6 8 10
OP, mrads
DEAD-LOAD DEFLECTIONS jected to both composite and non-composite dead loads.

Hence, dead-load deflections must be computed in two
The final elevations of the bridge deck under dead load steps. Because the weight of the concrete slab, stringer and
should be in accordance with the finished elevations estab- framing details act on the steel section alone, deflections
lished in the plans. It is therefore necessary to establish the due to these loads are calculated with the moment of inertia
dead-load deflections of the beam to set the forms for the of the steel section alone. Because the weight of curbs,
concrete slab and the screed guides for finishing the con- parapets, railing and wearing surface act on the composite
crete slab at their proper elevations. section, deflections due to these loads are calculated with
If esthetics are important for straight roadways, stringers the moment of inertia of the composite section, with an
may he cambered so that they will be straight under full increased modular ratio of 3n to allow for creep. Automo-
dead load and after overload. For roadways on vertical ment deflections are also calculated with an increased mod-
curves, stringers may be cambered an amount equal to sum ular ratio of 3n.
of the dead-load deflection and the automoment deflection
plus or minus sufficient additional camber so that the
stringers will be a constant distance below the roadway sur- LIVE-LOAD DEFLECTIONS
face under full dead load. The beams may be cambered for
a percentage of the automoment deflections based on judge- It is suggested in AASHTO Article 10.6 that the maxi-
ment of the likelihood of the passage of an Overload vehi- mum deflection due to live load plus impact should not
cle. For rolled-beam spans shorter than about 50 ft., how- exceed 1/800 of the span. For bridges in urban areas used in
ever, dead-load deflections are small and cambering of the part by pedestrians, the ratio preferably is 1/1000.
beam may be of little value. Live-load deflections are computed with the moment of
Rolled beams may have a slight mill camber when inertia of the composite section with a modular ratio n.
received from the rolling mill. This mill camber should be Deflections seldom control the design of composite string-
turned upward when no other cambering is required. ers, because of the large moment of inertia of the composite
For unshored construction, a composite stringer is sub- section.
A A S H T O T I T L E ALFD-2 91 = Ob39804 0024754 314
DESIGN FOR WIND LOADS Loading: HS20-44

Structural Steel: AASHTO M270 Grade 50W
According to AASHTO Articles 3.15 and 10.21.2, a hor-
(ASTM A709 Grade 50W),
izontal wind force of 50 lbs/ft2 shall be applied to the area
withFy = 50,OOOpsi
of the superstructure exposed in elevation. Half of this force f', = 4,000 psi, modular
Concrete:
is applied in the plane of each flange. The force shall not be
ration = 8
less than 300 lb/foot. Stresses and moments due to wind
Slab Reinforcing
load are computed in accordance with Article 10.20.2.1.
Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60 with
These stresses and moments are factored according to
F, = 60,OOOpsi
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Article 3.22.
In the Alternate Load Factor Design method, the Loading Conditions:
strength of the bridge under Group II and Group III load- Case 1 - Weight of girder and slab (DL,) supported
ings (Maximum Load) is determined from a plastic mecha- by the steel girder alone.
nism analysis. Case 2 - Superimposed dead load (DL2) (curbs and
In addition, according to the Guide Specification, the railings) supported by the composite section with the
total stress on composite sections in positive bending for increased modular ratio 3n = 3 X 8 = 24.
beams designed for Group II and Group III loadings, Case 3 - Live load plus impact (L+I) supported by
shall be less than 0.95RFfl under [D (L + I) + 0.3WI + the composite section with the modular ratio n = 8.
+
and [D W] to control permanent deformations. The total
Loading
stress should include the stress due to the automoment.
Combinations: Combination A =
The above load combinations are similar to an Overload
condition.
Case 1 2 3 + +
Stress Cycles
DESIGN EXAMPLE-TWO SPAN CONTINUOUS for Fatigue: 500,000 cycles of
BEAM (100-100 FT) COMPOSITE FOR POSITIVE truck loading.
AND NEGATIVE MOMENT 100,000 cycles of lane loading.
To illustrate the autostress procedures, an interior beam
a
LOADS, SHEARS AND MOMENTS
of a two-span continuous bridge will be designed. The sec-
tion in the positive-moment region consists of the steel Analysis is based on the assumption of constant moment
beam acting compositely with the concrete slab. In the neg- of inertia throughout the length of the girder.
ative-moment region, the section consists of the steel beam The initial dead load DL, consists of an estimated weight
and the longitudinal slab reinforcing steel. The following of 0.230 kips per ft. for beam and framing details, plus the
data apply to this design: weight of the 7-in.-thick concrete deck slab (structural slab
thickness assumed the same as the nominal slab thickness).
33'-4" The dead load DL2 carried by the composite section is
ic c
28' - O" Roadway made up of the weight of the curbs and railings. The live
+ b
7-8" 14-0- 14-0'' 2-8" load is AASHTO HS20-44 truck loading with impact for a
-4 bœ-m
100-ft. span.
I
Dead Load Carried by Steel
Slab = 7/12 X 8.33 X 0.150 = 0.730
Steel girder, details and conc. haunch = 0.230
-
DL, per girder = 0.960 Wft.
Dead Load Carried by Composite Sections*
Curbs and railings, DL2 = 0.660 Wft.
TYPICAL SECTION DL2 per girder = 0.660/4 =
O. 165 Wft.
Specifications:
1) 1992 AASHTO Standard Specificationsfor High-
way Bridges. Fifteenth Edition. (Reference 2)
2) Guide Specification for Alternate Load Factor * No future wearing surface is anticipated for this bridge. If a future wearing surface
Design Procedures for Steel Beam Bridges Using will be required-its weight must be included in the dead load carried by ;he com-
Braced Compact Sections, 1991 (Reference 1) posite section and distributed equally to all stringers.
A A S H T O T I T L E ALFD-2 91 W 0637804 0 0 2 4 7 5 5 2 5 0 M
Live-load The reinforcing steel is placed 3.3 inches above the bot-
distribution 8'33 -
= -= - 1.51 wheels = 0.755 axles tom of the slab.
5.5 5.5 The shift in the neutral axis for plastic bending due to the
in
JU reinforcing steel is computed considering the equilibrium of
Impact = = 0.222 c0.30
100 + 125 forces in a fully yielded cross section. Assume the steel
beam has reached its yield strength, Fy = 50,000 psi and
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
For these loads, the maximum moment and shear envelopes the reinforcing steel has reached its yield strength, Fy =
may be computed by any convenient method (References 4
and 5j. Envelopes computed assuming the beam has a con-
stant moment of inertia are given on page 18. -0 A, = 6.16 in.*
DESIGN OF STRINGER SECTION

A W36 x 170 beam is considered as the basic section. In
positive moment regions, the top flange is in compression. a - 0.68"
Since the concrete slab provides local and lateral buckling
restraint, only criterion 2 of the previously stated compact ì- A
section criteria on page 12 is applicable. The web easily
satisfies this criterion. In negative-moment regions, the
a - - - - - - - *Bëäm=50 .o in2
n
bottom flange is in compression and without continuous O"
buckling restraint and the section must be able to sustain
plastic rotations. Therefore all compact section criteria
'I
must be investigated.
CHECK IF SECTION COMPACT:
The actual width-thickness ratio of the projecting com-
Y a k
12.03"
t
47
pression-flange element (bottom flange in the negative- Negative Moment Section
moment regions) is:
Tensile Force in Rebars
-_
b' - (12.03 - 0.68)/2 = 5,16 = 6.16(60,000)
t 1.10 = 369,6001bs.
The allowable width-thickness ratio is: Tensile Force in Steel Section
= [50.0/2 - (Dcp- 33.97/2)0.68]50,000
(9 =
2055
v36ööo
= 9.2 > 5.16 ok = 1,827,500 - 34,000 D,, lbs.
Compressive Force
Because the longitudinal reinforcing steel in tension over = +
[50/2 (Dcp- 33.97/2)0.68]50,000
the negative moment region is considered in computing sec- = 672,500 + 34,000Dc,1bs.
tion properties, the distance from the neutral axis to the
Equating the tensile and compressive forces:
compression flange exceeds D/2 in this region. Thus, the
369,600 + 1,827,500 - 34,000 D,, = 672,500 + 34,000 D,,
web compact section requirements must be modified by
D,, = 22.42 inches
replacing D with the quantity, 2D,,, where D,, is the dis-
tance to the compression flange from the neutral axis for Alternatively, D,, may be computed from the following
plastic bending. formula:
The slab contains 14 No. 6 longitudinal bars (A, = 6.16
in.2) at 6-in. spacing. According to AASHTO Article
10.38.4.3, in the negative moment regions of continuous
spans, the minimum longitudinal reinforcement must equal
or exceed 1 percent of the cross-sectional area of the slab where:
(within the effective slab width). D = webdepth
A,, A,, A,, A, = area of the tension flange, compres-
The effective width of the slab = 12(7.0j = 84.0 inches sion flange, web, and longitudinal reinforcement
(other criteria do not govern) included in the section, respectively.
a Min.A, = 0.01(84.0)(7.0) = 5.88in.2<6.16in.2 ok

Fyt, F,,, Fyw,F, = specified minimum yield stress of
the tension flange, compression flange, web, and longi-
AASHTO T I T L E A L F D - I I 91 Ob39804 0024756 197 9
The curves shown for maximum moment and maximum shear may be calculated by any convenient
method.
$ End Bearing
Interior
Bearing
Lane Loading
Controls for
Neg. Mom.
-1,400
Total Max. Neg. Mom.
-1,600 (DL1 + D L 2 + L + I )
- 1,800
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
- 2,000
-2,200
- 2,400 - -2,462
* Span 1 100’-O”
MAXIMUM-MOMENT CURVES-CONSTANT I
End Bearing
Bearing
MAXIMUM-SHEAR CURVES -CONSTANT I
AASHTO T I T L E A L F D - 2 91 0637804 0024757 023
tudinal reinforcement included in the section, respec- bottom flange is in compression.
a tively.
-2DCp
- - 2(22'42) = 65.9
The required bracing distance adjacent to the pier section
will be determined in subsequent calculations. The layout
of the remaining cross frames will also be determined later.
tw 0.68 Therefore, the section in negative bending qualifies as a
braced compact composite section.
The allowable depth-thickness ratio is:
(F) 197230 = 86.0 > 65.9

=
aV3jmõ
ok
COMPUTE SECTION PROPERTIES:
MAXIMUM NEGATIVE MOMENT SECTION
Determine if interaction check required:
dreinf = 19.84in.
- 65'9 - 0.77 < 0.75 dtop of steel = 15.64 in.

(2D,,/tw), 86.0
I Since only one slenderness ratio exceeds 75 percent of the

allowable limit, there is no need to check the interaction
sreinf
. = 137223*6
19.84
= 666.5 in.3
equation. - = 845.5 in.3

Stop of steel -
137223'6
Cross frames must be placed at the supports and interme- 15.64

diate cross frames must be provided in all bays spaced at
dbottom = 20.53 in.
intervals not to exceed 25 feet (AASHTO Article 10.20.1.). Of
For positive moment, the concrete slab braces the compres- 137223.6 = 644.1 in.3
sion flange. In the negative moment region, however, the Sbottom of steel =
20.53
1 2 x 7 = 84" ii
4 b m
Use 14 #6 Bars@ 6 '
--n-
,1
- - - Elastic Neutral Axis for Beam Plus Reinf.
il , ,It"";'"
Elastic Neutral Axis For Beam
Y - 1.10'
Elastic Properties:
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Steel Section with Reinforcing Steel at Interior Support

Material A Y AY d Ad2 I, I
W36 X 170 50.0 18.085 904.25 2.445 298.9 10,500 10,798.9
Reinf.
a 14-#6
6.16
56.16
40.37 248.68
1152.93
19.84 2424. I
INA =
2,424.7
13,223.6 in.4
AASHTO T I T L E A L F D - 2 91 = Ob39804 O024758 TbT M
Plastic Properties: (Assume section is fully yielded) Web component of plastic moment:
-
Plastic forces
6.16(60) = 369.6 k M
, = [392.7(5.775) + 762.3(11.21)]/12
- 12.03(1.1)(50)= 661.65 k
= - 901.1 kip-ft
PlasticN.A. - -
- 11.55(0.68)(50) = 392.7 k
Total tension = 1.423.95 k Total plastic moment Mp = - 2,452.7 + - 901.1
for steel = - 3,353.8 kip-ft
section plus
reinforcement 3 c 22.42(0.68)(50)= 762.3 k
The rolled-beam fillets were conservatively neglected in
+ 12.03(1.1)(50)-661.65k
this computation.
Total compression = 1.423.95 k
MAXIMUM POSITIVE MOMENT SECTION

Flange component of plastic moment (including rebars):
Steel section W36 x 170
Mpf = [369.6(16.85) + 661.65(12.1) + I, = 10,500 in.4 SBot = 580 in.3 = STOP A = 50.0 in.2
66 1.65(22.97)]/12
= - 2,452.7 kip-ft M, = FyZ= 2783.3 k-ft.
12 X 7 = 84”
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
A
- - - .-. - - - - -Elastic Neutral Axis for Composite, n = 8
+ - 0.68”
A
- - - --- Elastic Neutral Axis for Composite, n = 24
- I - .
k i-
-
?
m
II
03
2e4
2m Elastic Neutral Axis for Beam
s
>
II
a
z
>-
-w36 X 170
-
Y
Elastic Properties:
Composite section, 3n = 24, 40 ft. from End Bearing
Material A Y AY d Ad2 1, I
W36 x 170 50.0 18.085 904.25 7.395 2734.3 10,500 13,234.3
Concrete
84 X 7/24 24.5 40.57 993.97 15.09 5578.8 100 5,678.8
74.5 1898.22 INA = 18,913.1 in.4
AASHTO T I T L E A L F D - 2 91 W Ob39804 0024757 7 T b
Elastic Properties:
Composite section, n = 8,40 ft. from End Bearing
Material A Y AY d Ad2 Io I
W36 X 170 50.0 18.085 904.25 13.385 8957.9 10,500 19,457.9
Concrete
84 X 718 73.5 40.57 2981.9 9.10 6086.5 300 6,386.5
123.5 3886.15 INA = 25,844.4 in.4
Calculation of the section properties Plastic Properties

where n = 24:
It has previously been established that the W36 x 170
beam and slab is a compact, composite section, since the
compression flange is adequately braced by the slab.
Consequently, the maximum strength of the composite
dto, of slab = 18.59in. section is determined by the fully plastic moment capacity
of the section. This is found by determining the compress-
dtop of steel = 10.69 in. ive force in the slab, locating the neutral axis and calculat-
ing the total moment about the neutral axis of all forces act-
ing on the section. The compressive force in the slab, if
adequate shear connectors are provided, is the smaller
value of either the fully plastic force developable by the
steel section or the compressive strength of the slab. In this
case, the plastic capacity of the slab governs, as indicated
below.
dtmitom of steel = 25.48"
The capacity of the concrete slab, with concrete strength
fc = 4 ksi and reinforcing steel with F, = 60 ksi, is
Cl = 0.85f:bb + (AF,), = 0.85(4)(84)(7) + 6.16(60)

Calculation of the section properties
wheren = 8: = 2368.8 kips (controls)
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
The plastic force developable by the W36 is
C2 = 50.0 x 50.0 = 2500 kips

dtop of slab = 12.60 in.
dtop of steel = 4.70in. The neutral axis lies within the steel section. The top por-
tion of the steel section will be subjected to the following
compressive force:
Z(AF,) -C 2500 - 2368.8

2 2
= 65.6 kips
dbottom
of steel = 3 1.47 in.
= 661.65 kips > C'
AASHTO T I T L E ALFD-2 9L m Ob39804 0 0 2 4 ï b O bL8 D
Therefore, moment at which a section can be considered to have ade-

quate rotation capacity.
For the pier section:
= O.109 inches from top of steel section

where
- 1 <il
7 I> '
0.68" .yf NA
L
t -
Compute the effective yield strength of the compression
flange:
F,fe = 0.0845E(t/bf)' IF,f

= 0.0845(29,0OO,OOO)(1, 10/5.675)2
= 92,068psi > 50,000psi
Fyfe = 50,000psi
Compute the effective yield strength of the web:

Compute the plastic moment, M, ,by taking moments of all
forces about the computed neutral axis (all forces and Fywe= 1.32E(t,/D,,)2 5 FYf
moment arms are taken as positive quantities): = 1.32(29,OOO, OOO)(O. 68/22.42)2
= 35,214psi < 50,000psi
M, = [0.85(4)(84)(7)(4.509) + 6.16(60)(4.309) +
12.03(50)(.109)2/2+ (12.03)(50)(1.1 - .109)2/2 F, = 35,214psi
+ 33.97(0.68)(50)(17.976)
+ 12.03(1.1)(50)(35.511)]/12 Rf = 50,000/50,000= 1.0
R, = 35,214/50,000= 0.704
Mp 4597.0k-ft.
The web and flange components of the plastic moment
The rolled-beam fillets were conservatively neglected in were calculated previously (page 20) as M,, = -901.1
this computation. k-ft. and MPf = - 2,452.7k-ft.
The effective plastic moment is

DESIGN FOR MAXIMUM DESIGN LOADS:
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
M, 0.704(-901.1) + 1.0( -2,452.7)=
=
Using the autostress procedures, the maximum strength -3,087.1k-ft.
of continuous beams may be determined from a plastic M, is 92 percent of the full plastic moment, M,
mechanism analysis if the yield strength of the steel is
50,000 psi or below. For the plastic mechanism analysis, assume the section is
For sections in negative bending that are composite with elastic-perfectly-plasticfor M, at the interior pier, and elas-
the slab reinforcement, an effective plastic moment is deter- tic up to Mp at the maximum positive moment section (pos-
mined if plastic rotations are required. If a composite sec- sible hinge locations). Estimate where the first hinge may
tion reaches the plastic moment in positive bending, no fur- form under the Maximum Design Load by looking at the
ther rotation is permitted. elastic moment envelopes.
The effective plastic moment, Mpe, accounts for the
effects of local web or flange buckling as a section under- At the pier:
goes plastic rotations. In a plastic mechanism analysis, the
section at the first hinge to form must have adequate inelas- M = 1.3[-1200 + (-206) +
tic rotation capacity (at a given moment), as the load redis-
tributes. The effective plastic moment is a reduced plastic = -4115.8 k-ft.
AASHTO T I T L E A L F D - 2 71 Ob37804 00247bL 5 5 4
At the maximum positive moment section (0.4 L'): It is also assumed here for simplicity that the critical pos-
itive moment is directly under the middle wheel of the
M =
=
1.3[672 + 116 +
3485.7 k-ft.
6)
- (1136)l
truck. Above M, , the beam acts as if it were fully elastic,
M, being like an applied constant moment. Therefore, the
moment under the middle wheel due to the truck, DL, and
M, is computed as:
Because the elastic moment at the pier is greater than 1.463~
M, ,and the maximum elastic positive moment is less than M, = -(-3087.1)
1O0
X
+- 2
-
x) +
M, , a hinge forms first at the pier. If the hinge were to form
first at the maximum positive section > M,; Mpier< (X - 14)(100 - X) 16.0~(100-
Mp), no further rotation would be permitted and the limit [4.0
1O0
+
1O0
X)
+
state would be reached.
Since the hinge forms first at the pier, plastic rotation
may be required (the load will distribute to the positive 16.0 (86 - X F
moment section). Therefore, it must be ensured that the 100
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
maximum positive moment does not exceed the plastic

moment. +
M, = - 2 . 1 7 2 ~ ~ 1 7 9 . 6 ~- 224
To check for a mechanism, it will be assumed that a
hinge forms at the pier which rotates at the constant Find the location of the middle wheel of the truck for the
moment, M, . The critical positive moment under the Max- maximum M,
imum Design Load will then be computed for a simple
beam with an end moment at the pier equal to M,. It will dMx - - 4 . 3 4 4 ~
-
dx
+ 179.6 = O
be assumed that the rest of the structure remains elastic in
this computation. The critical positive moment will then be
compared to M, . If the moment exceeds M, , the design is x = 41.34 ft. from the abutment
unsatisfactory.
First, investigate for a mechanism under dead load plus Substituting to find the maximum M, :
AASHTO HS20 truck loading. The location of the truck for
the critical positive moment must be determined. Because M, = -2.172(41.34)* + 179.6(41.34) - 224
the simple beam is statically determinate, the location can = 3488.7 kip-ft.
be determined from statics. Elastic influence lines are used

as a guide for the proper direction of the truck. It is Since M, is less than M, = 4597.0 k-ft., a mechanism
assumed here for simplicity that the minimum rear-axle will not form under Maximum Design Load (considering
spacing (14 feet) governs the moment. truck load).
It was originally assumed that a hinge formed at the pier.
DL = 1.3 (0.960 0.165) = 1.463 Wft. + Therefore, a check should be made to determine if a hinge
F = (Load Factor) (Distribution factor) (Impact) actually does form at the pier with the truck in the position
= (1.3 x 5/3)(1.51)(1.222) = 4.0 determined above. Use the beam influence line to deter-
mine the elastic live-load moment at the pier. Any conve-
nient method can be used to determine the influence line.
(16 x F)
-
-
MPe
,087.1 k-ft
DESIGN FOR MAXIMUM DESIGN LOADS

(DEAD LOAD PLUS TRUCK)
A A S H T O TITLE ALFD-2 91 m Ob39804 O024762 490 m
MDL = 1.3(-1200.0 + -206.0) = -1827.8k-ft. Since M, is less than M, = 4597.0 k-ft., a mechanism
will not form under Maximum Design Load (considering
M ~ +L1) = (4.0 X F)(-6.29) + (16 X F)(-8.53) lane load).
+ (16 X F)(-9.50) Check if the hinge actually forms at the pier with the con-
= - 1254.6 k-ft. centrated load in the position determined above. (Note: it is
assumed that the uniform live load is also in the adjacent
MDL + M(LL+I) = - 1827.8 + - 1254.6 span, and that a second concentrated load is in the adjacent
= -3082.4 k-ft. < M, span placed at the position for the critical pier moment).
Since the elastic Maximum Design Load moment (with MDL = -1827.8 k-ft.
the truck in position for the critical positive moment) does M(LL + 1) = 2(9 X F)(-8.507)
not exceed M,, a hinge did not form as assumed. There- + 2(0.32 X F)(-625.0)
= -2212.5 k-ft
fore, the structure remains elastic for this loading case. It
was previously shown on page 23 that the elastic Maximum MDL + M(LL+ 1) = - 1827.8 + (-2212.5)
= -4040.3 k-ft. > M,
Design Load moment at 0.4f for this loading case (3485.7
k-ft) does not exceed M,; therefore the limit state is satis-
fied. Since the elastic Maximum Design Load moment at the
Now, investigate for a mechanism under dead load plus pier (with the concentrated load in position for the critical
HS20 lane load. The location of the concentrated load por- positive moment) is greater than M,, a hinge forms as
tion of the lane load will be determined in the same manner assumed, and the preceding calculation is valid. Because
as for truck load. the margin over M, is greater than for truck loading, lane
Assume the critical positive moment is directly under the loading governs the hinge rotation at Maximum Design
concentrated load. Use superposition as before. Load. Because it was shown earlier that a hinge does not
form in positive bending, the design is satisfactory for the
+ (1.463 + 20.32 X F)
X
Maximum Design lane load.
M, = -(-3087.1) The rolled beam satisfies the strength limit state at Maxi-
100
mum Design Load. The maximum positive moment at
Maximum Design Load for truck loading is only 76 percent
x(100 - x) + (9 X F)x(100
100
- X)
of the plastic moment and for lane loading 64 percent. The
bridge therefore has significant excess strength. Permanent
deformation limitations at Overload govern the design.
M, +
= - 1 . 7 3 1 5 ~ ~142.28~
An alternative approach to the mechanism analysis illus-
trated above, that is more conducive to automation, is to
Find the location of the concentrated load for the maxi-
march the concentrated load portion of the lane load or the
mum M,
truck load or the alternate military load along the span. At
each load position, a check is made to determine if a hinge
dM, = - 3 . 4 6 3 ~ + 142.28 = O forms anywhere along the span. If a hinge forms first at an
dx interior pier for a given load position, a check for a mech-
x = 41.1 ft. from the abutment anism is made with the load in that position. If a hinge forms
first anywhere in a positive-bending region in a composite
Substituting to find the maximum M,: section, the limit state is reached for that load position. If
a hinge does not form anywhere along the span, the beam
M, = - 1.7315(41.1)* + 142.28(41.1) = 2922.8 k-ft. is assumed to remain elastic for that load position.
G
X
GI Pier
4 9.0X F
DL + 0.32 X F
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
AASHTO T I T L E A L F D - 2 91 0639804 0024763 327
APPENDIX B-DESIGN EXAMPLE Point Page 24.1
e First, the maximum shear at Maximum Design Load is

CHECKSHEAR:
computed. The maximum shear occurs at the interior pier.
It is assumed that lane loading governs the shear at the inte-
concentrated load equal to 13.0 kips shall be used with the
uniform lane loading when computing shear. It is assumed
that a hinge forms at the interior pier under the lane loading
shown on page 25. The hinge is assumed to rotate at a con-
rior pier. According to AASHTO Article 3.7.1.3, a heavier stant moment equal to M,.
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
A A S H T O T I T L E A L F D - 2 91 0639804 0024764 263
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
AASHTO T I T L E A L F D - 2 91 W Ob39804 0024765 L T T =
G Ç
O Abut
+ 0.32 x (13.0x Fi) pier
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
100 ft.
DL F
d, ~ ~ ~k-ft 7 . 1
CHECK SHEAR AT PIER

From page 23, DL = 1.463 Wft; F = 4.0
FI = (Load Factor) (Distribution Factor for Reactions) (Impact)
According to AASHTO Article 3.23.1, the distribution The plastic shear force, V, , is equal to:
factor for a wheel load directly over a support is computed
assuming the flooring to act as a simple span between V, = 0.58FyDt, = 0.58(50)(33.97)(0.68)
stringers when computing reactions:
= 669.9 kips
- 4.33
D-Ereactions -
+ 8.33 + 2.33 = 1.80 wheels
8.33 The constant C is equal to the buckling shear stress
divided by the shear yield stress, and depends on the web
FI = (1.3 X 5/3)(1.80)(1.222) = 4.77 slenderness and the shear buckling coefficient k. k is taken
as 5.0 for unstiffened beams.
From statics, Ra is computed as follows:
-3087.1 - 100Ra + (1.463 + 0.32 x F)(100)(50) = O

Ra = 106.3 kips
The maximum shear at the interior pier is then computed

as:
Therefore, C = 1.O and Vu = V, = 669.9 kips > 230.0
V = 106.3 - (1.463 + 0.32 X F)(100) - (13.0 X FI) kips. Shear is ok.
V = -230.0 kips CHECK UPLIFT:
Check if a hinge does form as assumed at the interior pier According to AASHTO Article 3.17, the beam must be
for the loading shown above: investigated for uplift under a loading equal to [D + 2(L +
I)]. Since a truck in one span is the worst case for uplift,
MD, = -1827.8 k-ft. position two times the Maximum Design Load truck in the
M(LL+I)= 2(0.32 X F)(-625.0) = -1600 k-ft. left span at the position for the worst negative moment at the
pier. Check if a hinge forms by loading the influence line:
MD, + M(LL + 1) = -3427.8 k-ft. > M,
MDL = - 1406 k-ft.
Since the elastic Maximum Design Load moment at the
pier for the above loading is greater than M,, a hinge M(LL + 1) = X F)(-8.235) + (32 X F)(-9.600)
(8
forms as assumed and the preceding calculation is valid. A + (32 X F)(-8.985) = -2642 k-ft.
similar computation for truck loading showed that it does MDL + M(LL+ = - 1406 + ( - 2642)
1)
not govern the shear at the interior pier. = -4048 k-ft.>M,

According to AASHTO Article 10.48.8, the shear capac-
ity of an unstiffened beam is equal to: Therefore, a hinge forms at the pier under this loading.
This is the worst case for uplift.
vu = cv, Investigate the right span with the truck in the left span
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
AASHTO T I T L E A L F D - 2 91 = Ob39804 0024766 03b =
(i (Abut
i
Pier DL = (0.960 + 0.165) = 1.125 k/ft.
100 ft.
1.25Mpe =
- 3,859 k-ft R
CHECK UPLIFT
only and a hinge at the ier rotating at 1.25 M,. The factor at the brace point will be computed for a simple beam under
of 1.25 is to account for the fact that the section capacity will lane load with an end moment equal to M,. Because the
actually exceed M, during hinge rotation, which increases structure is statically determinate and assumed to be elastic
the potential for uplift. Conservatively determine if the (except right at the pier), M can be computed from statics.
unfactored dead load prevents uplift at the abutment. First, the reaction RA at the abutment is determined by
Because the beam is now statically determinate and taking moments about the pier section:
assumed to be elastic except right at the pier, the reaction R
is determined from statics. 3087.1 +
100RA - (1.463 0.32 + X F)(100)(50)
- (9 X F)(100 - 41.1) = O
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Z Mpier = O
RA = 127.5 kips
1.125(100)2
100R + 3,859 -
2
= o
R = 17.7 kips t A trial and error procedure is now required to determine
Lb. After several trials, assume Lb = 11.5 ft. The moment,
M, at Lb = 11.5 ft. from the pier is determined from statics
Therefore, no tiedown is required at the abutments to pre- as
vent uplift.
(100 - 11.5)(127.5) -
(1.463 + 0.32 X F)(lOO - 11.5)*
M=
CHECK LATERAL BRACING: 2
- (9 X F)[(100 - 11.5) - 41.11
The required bracing distance of the compression flange
adjacent to the piers is given by the formula
M = - 1164.6 k-ft. = MI
[3.6 - 2.2 (M,/M,,)] X lo6
Lb = Y‘ For the W36 x 170 rolled beam, ry = 2.53 in. Therefore,
FY since Mu = Mpe at the brace location at the pier
Earlier it was shown that lane loading governed the hinge
[3.6 - 2.2(- 1164.6/-3087.1)] X lo6
formation at Maximum Load and that a hinge formed at the Lb =
50,000(12)
pier with the concentrated-load portion of the lane load in
the position for the critical positive moment. Therefore, M X 2.53 = 11.7 ft.
* b
DL + 0.32 x F r Brace
AASHTO T I T L E A L F D - 2 91 = Ob39804 0002445 T 8 8
37
APPENDIX B-DESIGN EXXhIPLE _ I
Pier
25 ft. 25 fi. 23 fi.
*Abut
>(
\I \I ,
/\ I\ \ / \
100 fi. x = Cross Frame

+ b
Since the computed L b is slightly larger than the through which they receive their reaction or attached to the
assumed Lb, the assumed value is conservative. Therefore. flange by full-penetration groove welds.
the first brace is located 11 ft. 6 in., from the pier. Though Only the portion of the stiffeners outside the flange-to-
not shdwn here, a similar check should also be made for web or fillets should be considered effective in bearing.
truck loading. Thickness of the stiffener plates should be at least
Cross frames must also be placed at the supports and
intermediate cross frames must be provided in all bays
spaced at intervals not to exceed 25 feet. Therefore. use the
cross-frame spacing shown above. Bent-plate channel dia-
phragms with a depth equal to at least half the web depth
are recommended. Diaphragms adjacent to the interior pier AASHTO Article 10.54 contains load factor-design pro-
should be placed lower on the web near the compression visions for compression members. Presumably. these would
flange. apply to design of bearing stiffeners as columns. ahereas
The distance to the next brace (15.5 ft) in the negative the bearing pressure would be limited by the allonable
moment region exceeds the bracing requirement given stress in bearing. The total end reaction transmitted to the
above. Lb in this region may be checked according to the bearings and caused b! the Maximum Design Loads. there-
provisions in Article 10.48.4.1 of the Standard Specifica- fore. should not exceed the maximum strength of the bear-
tions (not illustrated here). ing stiffeners as a column. By AASHTO Article 10.54.1.
the maximum strength may be computed from
Pu = 0.85A,F,,
BEARING STIFFENERS
In the autostress procedures, a bearing stiffener is where

required at the location of a rotating plastic hinge (the pier A, = gross effective areas of the column cross section
section). F,, = critical stress. determined from whichever of the fol-
In the section of the AASHTO Specifications dealing lowing formulas is appropriate
with load factor design, there are no provisions for bearing
stiffeners, though intermediate transverse stiffeners and F,.=Fy[l-t(~)]
F, '
477-E
KL,
longitudinal stiffeners are covered. Bearing stiffeners pref-
-
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
erably should be made of plates and should satisfy the fol-

lowing requirements: for KL,
0 They should extend as nearly as practicable to the outer r
edges of the flange. or.
The plates should be placed on both sides of the web.
The stiffeners should be designed as columns. For stiff- lÏiE
F,, =
eners composed of a pair of plates, the column section (KL, if)'
should be assumed to comprise those plates plus a centrally
located strip of web with width not exceeding 18 times the
web thickness.
The connection of the stiffeners to the web should be
capable of transmitting the entire reaction to the bearings. K = effective length factor, which may be taken as unity
The stiffeners should be ground to fit against the flange for bearing stiffeners
AASHTO T I T L E ALFD-2 92 Ob39004 0002446 91i4
28 ALTERNATL:L0,AD FACTOR I)).:SIGN

~~ ~~
L, = length of member between points of support = D

for bearing stiffeners
r = radius of gyration of the column section in the plane
of buckling
INTERIOR REACTION
Earlier, the maximum shear at the interior pier under the

Maximum Design Load lane loading (using a 13.0 kip con-
centrated load) was computed to k 230.0 kips. The same
loading is also critical for the interior pier reaction. There-
fore, the reaction at the interior pier is computed as: Equivalent Column
Check bearing stress. Allow l/.?-inch to clear web-to-flange

fillet. The service load reaction at the interior pier is com-
Try two 5-1/4-inch plates. The minimum thickness required puted to be 232.4 kips.
is
The bearing stress =
232.4
= 39.1 ksi C 40 ksi
(5.25 - 0.5)[.625)(2)
(allowable) ok
Use 5/8 x 5-1/4 in. stiffeners at pier
The equivalent column consists of two stiffener plates EMD REACTION
and a length of web equal to L, = 18tw = lû(Q.68) =
12.24 in. At the abutments, bearing stiffeners are not required for
rolled beams if the elastic web shearing stress does not
A,,] = 2(5.25)(0.625) 12.24(0.68) = 14.9 in.' + exceed 75 percent of the allowable shearing stress
LO1 = 1/12(0.625)(5.25 0.68 -i-5.251~= 72.Sin' + (AASHTB Article 10.33.2). At the abutments, the elastic
reactions are
END REACTION
DLi BL2 L+I TOTAL
R, kips 35.9 6.2 58.7 100.8
E = 107.0 3 15.4 f, = 100m8

36.17(0.68)
= 4.1 ksi
Therefore,
F, = 17.0 x 0.75 = 12.75 ksi > 4.0 ksi
No st@eners are required at thé abutments.
r 1
For compact welded beams. bearing stiffeners generally
(15.4121 = 49.5 ksi are required at the abutments. The reactions at the abut-
50
= 5 o L i - 4n2(29,000)
ments are computed assuming a hinge forms at the pier
rotating at with the live loading in the position for the
The capacity of the equivalent column consequently is
maximum abutment reaction [at least one concentrated load
directly over the abutment). The distribution factor for
Pu = 0.85&,1F,, = 0.85(14.9)(49.5)
reactions-computed assuming the flooring to act as a
= 626.9 kips > 398.0 kips ak simple span between stringers-is applied to the concen-
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
A A S H T O TITLE ALFD-2 91 m ob3qw1 OO~KJM TX m
trated load directly over the abutment. A check should The elastic moment at the pier due to DLi is M(D) =
again be made to determine if a hinge does form at the pier -1200 k-ft. Determine the ratio of this moment to the
with the live load in this position to validate the computa- maximum moment capacity of the steel beam alone,
tion. Mmax(NC), which in the absence of better information is
In addition, because of the yielding that occurs at the assumed to be equal to the plastic moment capacity of the
interior pier under the Maximum Design Load, positive steel beam, M, = FyZ.
residual automoments are formed that remain in the beam
M(D) - M(D) - M(D) - -1200(12) = 0.43
after the live load is removed. These moments result in self- Mmax(NC) M, F,Z -50(668)
equilibrating residual reaction forces that increase the end
reactions at the abutments. These additional residual end This point is plotted as point PD(U)on the graph. The
reactïons are a result of the plastic rotation that occurs at the inelastic-rotation curve shown below indicates that no in-
interior pier. These residual reactions coÜld be accounted elastic rotation, 0P, occurs for M/Mmax less than 0.6. Thus,
for when computing the final end reactions. DLi causes no automoment on the non-composite section.
If M(D)/Mmax(NC) had exceeded 0.6, the slope of the
DESIGN FOR OVERLOADS: beam line would have been computed using the stiffness of
the steel beam alone. The resulting inelastic rotation,
It is required in the autostress procedures that the elastic 0P(D), and automoment would then be applied to the steel
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Overload moments be redistributed to account for inelastic beam to compute the desired camber and the positive-
rotation at pier sections. The permanent deflections result- bending stresses. The computed camber would be additive
ing from the automoments that are formed are treated as to the camber computed for any inelastic rotation and auto-
additional dead load deflections in establishing the required moment occurring in the composite section, as determined
camber. These deformations stabilize after a few passages below.
of the Overload vehicle. In the Alternate Load Factor De- Next, determine the inelastic rotation and automoment
sign method, a beam-line analysis is currently used to com- in the composite section. The elastic moment at the pier,
pute the inelastic rotations and resulting automoments. M(L), due to the composite dead load (DL) and Overload
Because the bridge is built using unshored construction, live load plus impact, (L + I), is equal to:
determine if the non-composite dead load = DLi = 0.960
Wft. causes any inelastic rotation and resulting automo-
M(L) = -206 + 5/3(-1056) = -1966 k-ft
ments in the non-composite section. The ratio of this moment to the maximum moment
DESIGN FOR OVERLOADS: BEAM-LINE COMPUTATION
~~
A A S H T O T I T L E ALFD-2 91 Ob39804 00247bô 909 H
30 ALTERNATE i B A D FACTOR DESIGN
L = looft. I
t 1 L - looft.
Computation of Point B
capacity of the composite section, Mmax(C), which in the The slope of the beam line is computed as:
absence of better information is assumed to be equal to M/Mmax(C)
the plastic moment of the steel beam plus composite Slope =
ep
reinforcing bars is:
- 10000/3353.8(12)
10.7
= .0232/mrad
This ratio is added to the ratio of M(D)/Mmax(NC). The
sum, equal to 1.02, is plotted as point PT(U) on the graph. To plot the beam line, determine the intersection of the
Next, determine the slope of the beam line. The abscissa beam line with the rightmost abscissa value on the graph at
of the beam line on the graph is equal to the total rotation eP = 10.0 mrads:
at the pier due to the elastic Overload moment assuming
1.02 - 10.0(.0232) = 0.79
there is a free hinge at the pier, and the rest of the structure
is elastic. To compute this point, the slope of the beam line This value is plotted on the graph and the beam line is drawn
will be computed by inserting a hinge at the interior pier and between this point and point PT(U).The automoment is
then loading the beam with an arbitrary positive moment of equal to the elastic moment (represented by point F'T(U))
10,ûûû k-in on either side of the hinge. For consistency, the minus the moment at the intersection of the beam line and
stiffness properties of the beam used in the analysis to the inelastic-rotation curve. From the graph,
compute the composite moments in the beam should be
MautoMnax(C) = 0.09
used since the beam is composite when the majority of the
yielding takes place. In regions where the concrete slab is Thus, the automoment at the pier is equal to:
assumed to be effective, the n-concrete stiffness (I =
Mauto= 0.09Mm,(C) = 0.09(3353.8)
25844.4 in') should be used. In this example, for simplicity,
the beam was assumed to be prismatic in the analysis for = +301.8 k-ft
moments and shears. As discussed in the Commentary (Ap-
Also from the graph, the plastic rotation at the pier on
pendix A), a more accurate analysis assuming the concrete
the composite section at Overload, ûP(L) is approximately
on the tension side of the neutral axis is not fully effective
3.5 mrads. The deflections due to this rotation will be
should be used to compute the slope of the beam line.
included in the dead-load camber. The actual negative
The rotation, 8, at the end of a prismatic simple beam
Overload moment at the pier is:
subjected to an end moment is equal to:
-3166 + 301.8 = -2864.2 k-ft
H- = M
- L
3EI The automoment diagram is linear as follows:
The total rotation at the pier, ûP, is equal to twice the end
rotation because of equal contributions from both spans:
+301.8 k-ft.
2ML
op=-=
2(10000)(100)(12)
3EI 3(29OOO)(25844.4)
0.4L
= 10.7 x lop3radians = 10.7 mrads
Abut
G
Pier Abut
(1 mrad is a slope of approximately 1/8-inch in 10 feet) AUTOMOMENT DIAGRAM
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
A A S H T O T I T L E ALFD-2 91 Ob39804 0024769 8 4 5
Thus, the automoment results in an increase in the maxi- be less because of the automoment, but the stress in the
mum positive moment (at 0.4P) equal to reinforcing bars may be higher because of the yielding that
occurs in the bottom flange. Therefore, the higher elastic
0.4(+301.8) = +120.7 k-Et. moment will be used to try and account for the effects of
I This moment will be applied to the transformed (3n =
local yielding.
The elastic Overload moment at the pier due to composite
24) composite section in computing the stress in positive dead load (DL2) and live load is M = -206 +
bending, since the automoment is considered to be long 5/3( - 1056) = - 1966 k-ft. The stress in the reinforcing
term. bars is therefore
The maximum stress in positive bending (at 0.4C) at
Overload is equal to f, = 1966(12) = 35.4 ksi < 60.0 ksi ok
666.5
672.0(12) + 116.0(12) + 120.7(12)
A more refined analysis can be made to show that yielding
580.0 742.3
of the compression flanges does not cause an increase in the
5/3(1136)(12) rebar stress above its yield point.
= 45.4 ksi = 0.91F* < 0.95Ffl ok
Furthermore, it is suggested in the autostress procedures
821.2
that the reinforcement be distributed in accordance with
Therefore, the rolled beam satisfies the Alternate Load Fac- AASHTO Article 8.16.8.4. According to Article 8.16.8.4,
tor design limit states at Overload. the bar sizes and spacing at maximum positive and negative
moment sections shall be chosen so that the calculated
stress in the reinforcement at service load, f,, in ksi does
CHECK CONCRETE CRACKING not exceed the value computed by:
To limit concrete cracking, it is suggested in the auto-
stress procedures that the stress in the reinforcing bars in
negative bending at Overload, be limited to the yield stress
of the reinforcing bar. The effects of local yielding elsewhere
where in the cross section (bottom flange) should be taken
into account. A = effective tension area, in square inches, of concrete
For this computation, the elastic Overload moment at the surrounding the flexural tension reinforcement and
pier will be used to compute the stress in the reinforcing having the same centroid as that reinforcement,
bars. The actual negative Overload moment at the pier will divided by the number of bars or wires. When the
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
A A S H T O T I T L E ALFD-2 91 = Ob39804 0024770 567 =
flexural reinforcement consists of several bar or ensure lateral distribution of the loads). An approximate
wire sizes, the number of bars or wires shall be com- formula (Reference 8) will be used to compute the maxi-
puted as the total area of reinforcement divided by mum live-load deflection at the 0.4 point of each span due
the area of the largest bar or wire used. to HS truck loading. The composite (n = 8) moment of
& = thickness of concrete cover measured from extreme inertia is used and is assumed to be constant throughout the
tension fiber to center of the closest bar or wire in span.
inches.
The quantity Z shall not exceed 170 kips per inch for
members in moderate exposure conditions and 130 kips per
inch for members in severe exposure conditions. where
The above formula may be rewritten as:
PT weight of front truck wheel X distribution factor,
=
Z = f,(d,A)”3 plus impact, kips
I = moment of inertia of midspan section, i n 4
The Service Load stress in the reinforcement over the L = span length, ft.
pier due to composite dead load and live load is as follows: MR = bending moment due to live load plus impact at the
interior support, kip-ft.
M = -206 + -1056 = -1262 k-ft.
Assume that two lanes of live load (four wheels abreast)
plus 22 percent impact are equally distributed over four
f, = 1262(12) = 22.7 ksi < 0.6fy = 36 ksi ok stringers.
666.5
d, = 3.70 inches PT = 4 X 4 X 1.222 = 19.55 kips

I = 4 X 25844.4 = 103,378i11.~
The effective tension area of the concrete surrounding
the flexural tension reinforcement within the effective The moment MR at the interior support is computed from
width is conservatively taken as: influence coefficients, which can be determined in several
different ways:
2(3.70)(84.0) = 621.6 in.2
Therefore, A within the effective width is
40 ft
100 ft
14
LIVE-LOAD DEFLECTION COMPUTATION
Z is fomputed as:
MR = 19.55 ( - 6.015) + 78.2 ( - 8.40) + 78.2 ( - 9.465)
Z = (22.7) [(3.7)(44.4)]”3 = 124.3 kipdin.
= - 1514.6 k-ft.
Since the computed Z value does not exceed the value of

The maximum live-load deflection therefore is
130 kipshnch for severe exposure conditions, or 170 kips/
inch for moderate exposure conditions, the distribution of
reinforcement in negative bending is satisfactory for crack A = 300
29000(103,378)
[19.55 + 3.89(100)2
control.
-680(100) + 59101 - 0.32(1514.6)(100)2]
DESIGN FOR SERVICE LOADS
A = 1.43 inches
Deflection due to live load plus impact
The ratio of live-load deflection to span is:
According to AASHTO Article 10.6, live load for deflec-
a
tion consists of truck loading distributed equally to the four 1.43 - - 1 <- 1
-
stringers (when the cross bracing is sufficient in strength to 100 x 12 839 800
Ok
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
AASHTO T I T L E A L F D - 2 7% m 0637804 0 0 2 4 7 7 3 4 T 3 m
CHECK FATIGUE STRESSES Diaphragm connection plate welds

Reinforcing steel (stress range limited to 20 ksi). At the pier, The diaphragm connection plates must be rigidly con-
nected to the top and bottom flanges. The diaphragm
nearest the point of maximum stress is located at O X .
Using the section modulus of the n-concrete composite
section at the tension flange to compute the positive-
Fatigue at stud welds moment stress and the section modulus of the steel beam
at the tension flange to compute the negative-moment
Fatigue must be investigated for base metal adjacent to stress, the stress range at the base of the diaphragm con-
stud shear connectors on the tension flange. Tensile stress nection plate is computed to be:
in the top flange adjacent to the stud shear connector falls
into AASHTO fatigue stress category C. For 500,000 Lane loading:
cycles, the allowable stress range is 21.0 ksi. For 100,000
cycles, the allowable stres srange is 35.5 ksi.
At the pier section,
Truck loading:
Truck loading:
(613 - O) X 12
fsr = = 8.7 ksi < 21.0 ksi ok
845.5
The stress range for truck loading slightly exceeds the
Lane loading: allowable stress range for a welded detail (Category C).
Therefore, the diaphragm connection plates shall be bolted
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
(1056 - O) X 12 to the tension flange (Category B detail) at this location.

f, = = 15.0 ksi < 35.5 ksi ok
845.5 The diaphragm at 11.5 ft. from the pier shall be placed near
the compression flange. The diaphragms will be bent-plate
At 0.74, conservatively using the section modulus of the channels with a depth equal to at least half the web depth.
steel beam plus rebars to compute the stress range in the top All other connection plate welds are satisfactory by
flange adjacent to the stud shear connector: inspection.
The rolled beam then satisfies the live-load deflection
Truck loading: and fatigue limit states at Service Load.
ok
Check flange stability prior to concrete deck placement
Lane loading:
According to AASHTO Article 10.50(c), the ratio of the
ok projecting top-compression flange width to thickness shall
not exceed
Bearing stiffener welds _b' _- 2200

t m
The welds at the top and bottom of the bearing stiffeners
Where fDLIis the top-flange compressive stress due to
also fall into AASHTO fatigue category C. The allowable
noncomposite dead load. At the section of maximum posi-
stresses are the same as for the stud shear connectors.
For the bearing stiffeners at the pier, the stress range at tive moment:
the top of the stiffener is computed to be: 672.0(12)
fDLI = = 13.9 ksi
580.0
Truck loading:
= 16.4 > 5.16 ok
fsr =
(613.0 - O) X 12
= 8.1 ksi < 21.0 ksi ok
vl .3(2200
13900)
909.5
DEAD-LOAD CAMBER
Lane loading:
- O) The dead-load camber will now be calculated and will
fsr = l2 = 13.9 ksi < 35.5 ksi ok include deflections due to the automoments. The moment of
909.5
AASHTO T I T L E ALFD-EI 91 Ob39804 0 0 2 4 7 7 2 33T
inertia at midspan will be assumed constant throughout the Composite dead load, DL2 (I = 18,913.1 in.4; w = O. 165
span in these calculations. Wft.)
For DL1 and DL2,
Deflections, in.
A o
+ + i + i 1i + I + I + + i
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
1 0.2c 0.4P 0.6C 0.79

(X = 20 ft.) (x = 40 ft.) (x = 60 ft.) (x = 75 ft.)
O. 194 0.281 0.229 O. 127
wx 0.9P
A =-
48EI
(c3 - 3 ~ x 2 2x3)+ (x = 90 ft.)
0.027
For the automoments
Automoment (I = 18913.1 in.4;M = 301.8 k-ft.)Use long
term 3n moment of inertia.
0.2e 0.4e 0.6e o . 7 ~

(x = 80 ft.) (x = 60 ft.) (x = 40 ft.) (x = 25 ft.)
0.304 0.532 0.609 0.520
A =- MX (2C2 - 3cx + x2) o.9e

6cEI (x = 10 ft.)
0.271
where M is the automoment at the pier.
Total camber
The camber will be opposite the computed deflections.
Camber, in.
Non-composite dead load, DL1 (I = 10,500 in.4; w =
0.960 Wft.) 0.4t 0.64 0.m
0.2e
- - - -
2.528 3.753 3.238 1.977
Deflections, in.
o.9e
-
0.2c 0.4C 0.6C 0.7%’
0.588
(x = 20 ft.) (x = 40 ft.) (x = 60 ft.) (X = 75 ft.)
2.03 2.94 2.40 1.33 CHECK FOR WIND LOADS:
0.9C According to AASHTO Articles 3.15 and 1O. 2 1.2, a hor-

(x = 90 ft.) izontal wind force of 50 lbs/ft.2 shall be applied to the area
0.29 of the superstructure exposed in elevation. Half of this force
Abut
7-
CAMBER DIAGRAM
AASHTO T I T L E ALFD-2 91 D Ob39804 0024773 27b m
is applied in the plane of each flange. The total force shall The wind load applied to the bottom flange is equal to
not be less than 300 lb/foot. Stresses and moments due to 0.315/2 = 0.158 Wft. The wind-load moment is deter-
the wind load are computed in accordance with Article mined according to formulas in AASHTO Article
10.20.2.1 and the stresses and moments are factored 10.20.2.1, assuming there is no bottom lateral bracing.
according to Article 3.22.
The strength of the beam under the Group II and Group R = [0.2272L - 111 Sd-2’3
III loading combinations given below
For a diaphragm spacing, SD = 11.5 ft, adjacent to the
1.3 [D + W] interior pier:
1.3 [D + (L+I) + 0.3WI R = [ 0.2272( 100) - 1i](11.5)-2’3 = 2.30
will be determined from a plastic mechanism analysis. In Mcb = 0.08 Wsd2

addition, the total stress (including the stress due to the Mcb = 0.08(0.158)( 11.5)2 = 1.67 k-ft.
automoment) on the composite section in positive bending
will be checked against the limit state of 0.95Fy for the fol- The wind-load moment, M, , is equal to:
lowing load combinations:
M, = RMcb = (2.30)(1.67) = 3.84 k-ft
[D + WI
1.3MW= 1.3(3.84) = 4.99 k-ft
[D + (L+I) + 0.3W]
The area of the bottom flange required to resist the factored
In both instances, the wind acting on the live load will be wind-load moment is determined assuming the flange has
neglected since that portion of the wind is assumed to be fully yielded.
carried by the slab, and not the bottom flange.
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
GROUP II LOADING I
+ XI-
-12.03 in.
MECHANISM STRENGTH (MAXIMUM LOAD)
To check the strength under 1.3 [D W], it is first +

determined if a hinge forms anywhere in the beam under Bottom Flange
1.3D assuming the section is elastically-perfectly-plastic
for M,, at the interior pier, and elastic up to M, at the maxi- FYx(1.10)(12.03 - X) = 4.99(12)
mum positive moment section (possible hinge locations).
The factored wind-load moment, 1.3W, is assumed to be Substituting the yield strength Fy equal to 50 ksi gives
resisted laterally by the bottom flange. This effectively
reduces the amount of bottom-flange area that is available 661.65~- 55x2 = 59.9
to resist 1.3D. Therefore, M, is reduced at the interior pier x = 0.091 in.
and M, is reduced at the maximum positive moment sec-
tion. To compute the reduced M, and M, , the area of the Alternatively, x may be computed from the following for-
bottom flange required to resist the factored wind-load mula:
moment will be determined conservatively assuming the
bottom flange has fully yielded.
First, the wind-load moment is computed at the interior
pier. Assuming the parapets are 32 inches high, the exposed
fascia of the bridge is computed as: where:
bf = bottom-flange width
(1.10 + 33.97 + 2.0 + 7.0 + 32.0)/12 = 6.3 ft tf = bottom-flange thickness
FYb = specified minimum yield stress of the bottom
Therefore, the total wind load is computed to be, flange
w = - 50 x 6.3 = 0.315 Wft > 0.3 k/ft ok Thus, 2(0.091)(1.10) = 0.2 in2 of the bottom flange of the
1o00 composite interior-pier rolled section is required to resist
AASHTO TITLE ALFD-2 91 Ob39804 0 0 2 4 7 7 4 L O 2
the factored wind-load moment. The remaining bottom- check will be made by looking at the elastic factored dead-
flange area, equal to (12.03 - 0.091 - 0.091) x (1.10) load moments.
= 13.03 in’, is available to resist the pier moment due to At the interior pier:
1.3D. Using the procedure demonstrated previously on
pages 17, 20, and 22, the reduced effective plastic moment, 1.3[-1200 + -2061 = -1827.8 k-ft < (M,)rd
(M,),dr of the composite interior-pier section with an
11.848” x 1 . 1 0 bottom flange is computed to be At the maximum positive moment section (0.40:
(M,)red = -3004.4 k-ft 1.3[672 + 1161 = 1024.4 k-ft < (Mp)red

(MP)=d is 97.3 percent of M, . Therefore, a hinge does not form anywhere in the beam
under 1.3D. The beam is satisfactory for strength under
At the maximum positive moment section, S d = 25.0 ft 1.3[D W]. +
R = [0.2272(100) - 11](25)-u3 = 1.37 PERMANENT DEFORMATIONS (OVERLOAD)
Mcb = 0.08 (0.158)(25)2 = 7.9 k-ft. The total stress on the maximum positive moment section
The wind-load moment, M, , is computed to be
+
under [D W], including the stress due to the automo-
ment at that section, will also be checked against the limit
state of 0.95F,+ The total dead-load stress in the bottom
M, = RM,b = (1.37)(7.9) = 10.8 k-ft flange (including the stress due to the automoment) at this
1.3MW= 1.3(10.8) = 14.04 k-ft section is equal to
672(12) + 116(12) + 0.4(301.8)(12)

The area of the bottom flange required to resist the factored Fa=- = 17.7 ksi
580.0 742.3
wind-load moment is again determined assuming the
flange has full yielded.
The wind-load stress in the bottom flange at this section is
FYx(1.10)(12.03 - X) = 14.04(12) computed as follows:
Substituting the yield strength Fy equal to 50 ksi gives
6 6 1 . 6 5 ~- 5 5 ~ ’= 168.5
- 72(7‘9) = 3.57 ksi
x = 0.260in. ( 1.10)( 12.03)’
Thus, 2(0.260)(1.10) = 0.572 in2 of the bottom flange of F, =RFcb = (1.37)(3.57) = 4.89 ksi
the composite rolled section is required to resist the fac-
tored wind-load moment. The remaining bottom-flange Checking the combined flange-tip stresses
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
area, equal to (12.03 - 0.260 - 0.260) X (1.10) = 12.66
in’, is available to resist the maximum positive moment due (Fa + F,) = 17.7 + 4.89
to 1.3D. Using the procedure demonstrated previously on = 22.6 ksi < 0.95(50) = 47.5 Isi ok
pages 21 and 22, the reduced plastic moment, (Mp)redrof
the composite rolled section with an 11.5 1” x 1.10’’bottom Therefore, bottom lateral bracing is not required for dead
flange is computed to be plus wind loading.
(Mp)rd = 4512.3 k-ft GROUP III LOADING
(Mp)=d is 98.2 percent of M, in positive bending. MECHANISM STRENGTH (MAXIMUM LOAD)
Now, it is determined if a hinge forms anywhere in the Next, strength will be checked under 1.3[D + (L + I)
beam under 1.3D assuming the section is elastically- + 0.3WI. Lane loading will be considered first. It is deter-
perfectly-plastic for (M,)Ed at the interior pier, and elastic mined if a hinge forms anywhere in the beam under 1.3[D
up to (Mp)redat the maximum positive moment section. The + +
(L I)] considering lane loading assuming the section
A A S H T O T I T L E A L F D - 2 91 Ob39804 0024775 O49 M
is elastically-perfectly-plastic for M, at the interior pier tored wind-load moment. The remaining bottom-flange
and elastic up to M, at the maximum positive moment sec- area, equal to (12.03 - 0.077 - 0.077) X (1.10) = 13.06
tion (possible hinge locations). in2, is available to resist the pier moment due to 1.3[D +
The methodology used is the same as for 1.3[D W]. + +
L I)]. Using the procedure demonstrated previously on
The factored wind-load moment, 1.3(0.3W), is again pages 21 and 22, the reduced plastic moment, (Mp)red,of
assumed to be resisted laterally by the bottom flange, the composite rolled section with an 11.876” x 1 . 1 0 bot-
which effectively reduces the bottom-flange area available tom flange is computed to be
to resist 1.3[D + (L + I)]. Therefore, (M,)red and (Mp)red
must be computed. The factored wind-load moment in the (Mp)red = 457 1.9 k-ft
bottom flange at the interior pier is computed to be:
(Mp)redis 99.5 percent of M, in positive bending.
1.3(0.3Mw) = 1.3(0.3)(3.84) =z 1.50 k-ft Next, it is determined if a hinge forms anywhere in the
+ +
beam under 1.3[D (L I)] assuming the section is elas-
Assuming the flange has fully yielded, tically-perfectly-plasticfor (M,)red at the interior pier, and
elastic up to (Mp)redat the maximum positive moment sec-
tion. The check will be made by looking at the elastic
moments considering lane loading.
Substituting the yield strength F, equal to 50 ksi gives At the interior pier:
6 6 1 . 6 5 ~- 5.5~’ = 18.0 1.3[-1200 + -206+ -10561 = -3200.6k-ft>

x = 0.0273 in. (Mp )red
At the maximum positive moment section (0.44:

Thus, 2(0.0273)(1.10) = 0.06 in2 of the bottom flange of
the composite interior-pier rolled section is required to
1.3[672 + 116 + 9041 = 2199.6 k-ft < (Mp)re,j
resist the factored wind-load moment. The remaining bot-
tom-flange area, equal to (12.03 -0.0273 -0.0273) x
a (1.10) = 13.173 in.2, is available to resist the pier moment

due to 1.3[D + (L + I)]. Using the procedure demon-
strated previously on pages 17, 20, and 22, the reduced
Because the elastic moment at the pier is greater than
and the maximum elastic positive moment is less
than (Mp)red,a hinge forms first at the pier. If the hinge
were to form first at the maximum positive moment section
effective plastic moment, (M,)red, of the composite inte-
MO,^^ > (M,),d; Mpier < (M,),d], no further rotation
rior-pier section with an 11.975” X 1.10’’bottom flange is
would be permitted and the limit state would be reached.
computed to be
Since the hinge forms first at the pier, plastic rotation
may be required as the load distributes to the positive
(M,)Id = -3078.6 k-ft
moment section. It is assumed that the interior-pier section
rotates inelastically at the constant moment, (M,)red. The
(M,)red is 99.7 percent of Mpe.
The factored wind-load moment in the bottom flange at
positive moment under 1.3[D +
(L+I)] will therefore be
computed for a simple beam with an end moment equal to
the maximum positive moment section is computed to be
(M,)red. It is assumed that the rest of the structure remains
elastic. If the computed positive moment is less than
1.3(0.3Mw) = 1.3(0.3)(10.8) = 4.2 k-ft
(Mp)red,then a mechanism will not form under the com-
bined loading and the beam is satisfactory for strength
Assuming the flange has fully yielded,
without bottom lateral bracing.
F, x ( 1.10)(12.03-X)= 4.2( 12)
DL = 1.3(0.960 + 0.165) = 1.463 k/ft
Substituting the yield strength F, equal to 50 ksi gives F = (Load factor)(Distribution factor)(Impact)
6 6 1 . 6 5 ~- 55x2 = 50.4 = 1.3(1.51)(1.222) = 2.40
x = 0.077 in. It is assumed that the critical positive moment is directly

--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
under the concentrated load. Above (M,)Ied, the beam acts
a Thus, 2(0.077)(1.10) = O. 169 in2 of the bottom flange of

the composite rolled section is required to resist the fac-
as if it were fully elastic, (M,)Ied being like an applied con-
stant moment. Therefore, the moment under the concen-
AASHTO T I T L E A L F D - 2 91 Ob39804 0024776 T85 D
G
I
DL + 0.32 x F I Pier
~ ~ + + 1 I ~ + 1 ~ + + ~ ~ 1 1~ + + 1 + 1
100 ft. (Mpe)red =
*I - 3078.6 k-ft
MECHANISM STRENGTH (Maximum Load)
GROUP 111 LOADING
trated load due to DL, the lane loading, and (MF)& is greater than (MF)Ed, a hinge forms as assumed under 1.3
computed as +
[D (L + I)] and the preceding computation is valid. The
beam is satisfactory for strength under 1.3 [D + (L I) + +
M,
X
-(-3078.6) + (1.463 + 0.32 X F ) X 0.3WI considering lane loading.
=
1O0 2 Strength will now be checked under 1.3[D (L+I) + +
0.3WI considering truck loading. Separate calculations
x(100 - x) + (9 X F)x(100 - X)
100
similar to those illustrated above [using (M,)red and
(Mp),d] show that a hinge does not form anywhere in the
M, = - 1.3315~' + 102.36~ beam under 1.3[D +
(L+I)] considering truck loading.
Therefore, the beam is satisfactory for strength under 1.3[D
Find the location of the concentrated load for the maximum + +
+ (L I) 0.3WI considering truck loading.
M x
PERMANENT DEFORMATIONS (OVERLOAD)
dMx
- - - -2.663~ + 102.36 = O
dx Finally, the total stress on the maximum positive moment
x = 38.4 ft. from the abutment section under [D + (L + I) + 0.3W], including the stress
due to the automoment at that section, will be checked
Substituting to find the maximum M, : against the limit state of O.95Ffl. The total dead-load stress
in the bottom flange (including the stress due to the auto-
M, = - 1.3315(38.4)' + 102.36(38.4) moment) was earlier computed to be:
= 1967.2 k-ft < (Mp)=d Fa = 17.7 ksi

It was originally assumed that a hinge formed at the pier.
The live-load stress in the bottom flange at this section is
Therefore, a check should be made to determine if a hinge
computed to be (truck loading governs):
actually does form at the pier with the concentrated load in
the position determined above. Use the beam influence line
to determine the elastic live-load moment at the pier. Any
convenient method can be used to determine the influence
line. (Note: it is assumed that the uniform live load is also in
the adjacent span, and that a second concentrated load is in The wind-load stress in the bottom flange at this section
the adjacent span placed at the position for the critical pier was earlier computed to be:
moment).
F, = 4.89 ksi
M a = 1.3[-1200 + -2061 = -1827.8 k-ft
Checking the combined flange-tip stresses
M u + I = 2(9.0XF)(-8.15)
+ 2(0.32XF)(-625.0) = -1312.1 k-ft (F, + FLL+ O.3Fw)= 17.7 + 16.6 + 0.3(4.89))
& + M u + I = -3139.9 k-ft > (Mpc)red = 35.8 ksi
0.95(50) = 47.5 ksi
Since the elastic moment at the pier (with the concen-
trated load in position for the critical positive moment) is 35.8 ksi < 47.5 ksi ok
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
A A S H T O T I T L E ALFD-2 91 Ob39804 0 0 2 4 7 7 7 911
100'.0' CIC Bearings
Camber Diagram
Shear Com.Spacing
Maphragm SP-
100'-o' -
Eiwatin 01 Girder
Total Wt Approx. = 33.800ibs.
5/8"x 5 114"
Stiffener PCs
N.S. & ES.
Detail 1 Detail of
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Bearing Stiffener Shear Connectors
3' 3'
COPYRIGHT 2003; American Association Of State Highway and Transportation Office Detail 2 Document provided by IHS Licensee=Fluor Corp no FPPPV per administrator /use
Bolted Field Splice this message: please call the Document Policy Group at 1-800-451-1584.
AASHTO T I T L E ALFD-2 91 0639804 0 0 2 4 7 7 8 858
Therefore, bottom lateral bracing is not required for dead Braced Compact Sections. Washington, D.C. : Ameri-
plus live plus wind loading. can Association of State Highway and Transportation
Though not illustrated here, a separate check for wind Officials, 1991.
load in combination with the noncomposite dead load (DL1) 2. AASHTO. Standard Specifications for Highway
alone during the construction phase prior to hardening of Bridges, Fifteenth Edition. Washington, D.C.: Ameri-
the concrete slab may indicate a need for temporary bracing can Association of State Highway and Transportation
of the top flange. Officials, 1992.
3. “Finite-Element Modeling Technique for Analysis of
OTHER DESIGN CALCULATIONS Live-Load Distribution in a Stringer Bridge,” U.S.
Steel Research Bulletin, April 2, 1982.
The design of shear connectors and splices is identical to 4. AISC. “Moments, Shears, and Reactions for Continu-
current procedures for Load Factor Design and is not ous Highway Bridges.” New York: American Institute
presented herein. Examples are given in Reference 8. of Steel Construction, Inc., June, 1986.
Though not illustrated here, the beam should also be 5. G. Anger. “Ten-Division Influence Lines for Con-
checked for stability during sequential deck casting accord- struction Beams.” New York: Frederick Ungar.
ing to the provisions specified in AASHTO Articles 6. P.S. Carskaddan, G. Haaijer and M.A. Grubb, “Com-
10.50(c) through 10.50(g). puting the Effective Plastic Moment.” AZSC Engineer-
ing Journal, First Quarter, 1982.
EXTERIOR STRINGER 7. AISI. “Suggested Autostress Procedures for Load Fac-
tor Design of Steel Beam Bridges.” Bulletin No. 29.
Generally, when using the specified AASHTO live-load American Iron and Steel Institute, April 1987.
lateral distribution factors, the live load applied to an outer 8. “Highway Structures Design Handbook,” Volume II,
stringer of a bridge designed for two or more lanes of traffic Chapter 3. AISC Marketing, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA.
will be slightly less than that for an interior stringer. If 9. P.S. Carskaddan, “Autostress Design of Highway
stringers are positioned under the roadway to give equal Bridges, Phase 3: Interior-Support Model Test,”
dead loads to interior and outer stringers, often only the American Iron and Streel Institute, Washington, D.C.,
interior stringer need be designed and the same beam sec- February 11, 1980.
tion may be used for the outer stringer (unless the wind 10. P.S. Carskaddan. “Concrete Cracking in the Auto-
loading combinations should govern the design of the exte- stress Method,” AISC Marketing, Inc. Memorandum
rior stringer combinations). (Appendix B to Reference 9), October 2, 1991.
11. P.S. Carskaddan and M.A. Grubb. “Improved Auto-
REFERENCES stress Procedure,” AISC Marketing, Inc. Memoran-
dum (Appendix C to Reference 9), October 18, 1991.
1. AASHTO. Guide Specificationfor Alternate Load Fac- 12. “Highway Structures Design Handbook,” Volume II,
tor Design Procedures for Steel Beam Bridges Using Chapter 4B, AISC Marketing, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA.
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
__-- ~
AASHTO T I T L E A L F D - 2 91 Ob39804 0002459 5 7 2
1990 COMMENTARY
Several changes to the AASHTO Guide Specification for load check for Group I loading, [D + 5(L+I)/3], in Alter-
Alternate Load Factor Design Procedures for Steel Beam nate Load Factor Design where stresses after formation of
Bridges Using Braced Compact Sections are proposed. Revi- the automoments are limited to control permanent deforma-
sions are also proposed to Appendix A (Commentary) and tions in positive bending. A similar stress check is proposed
Appendix B (Design Example) of the guide specification. It here to control permanent deformations under the load com-
is noted that a substantial number of the proposed revisions binations suggested in the revised Article 10.57 (similar to
are editorial that resulted from errors introduced in the first an Overload condition).
printing of the specification. However, other changes have
been introduced that are highlighted in more detail below. Mechanism Strength (Maximum Load)
SPECIFICATION To be consistent with the inelastic-design philosophy pro-

moted in Alternate Load Factor Design, it is assumed that
Articles 10.48 and 10.50 the strength of the beam under the Group II and Group III
loadings (the above load combinations multiplied by a load
The changes to Articles 10.48 and 10.50 of the guide factor of 1.3) will be determined from a plastic mechanism
specification are made to be consistent with revisions to the analysis as suggested in Article 10.48.1.3 of the guide
compact-section requirements in the Load Factor Design specification. Thus, design checks for wind loading in com-
specification. The shear-force requirement in Article bination with other loads will be totally consistent with the
10.48.1.1(e) is eliminated because shear is covered in a new autostress-design philosophy used to check a beam for dead
Article 10.48.8 in Load Factor Design. It is more rational to plus live loads. This will in most cases prevent a designer
treat shear and moment criteria separately. Article 10.48.8 from having to unnecessarily add bottom lateral bracing to
in Load Factor Design also applies to Alternate Load Factor the structure because elastic stresses at factored loads
Design. (including wind load) exceed the yield stress, which in all
The revision to Article 10.50 is also made to be consis- probability will happen at interior-pier sections of beams
tent with the revision to Article 10.50 in Load Factor designed using autostress procedures. Again, advantage is
Design. This revision will allow for easier incorporation of taken of the inherent ability of continuous steel structures
non-compact sections when Alternate Load Factor Design to redistribute the total load at higher load levels.
is eventually extended to more slender sections.
It should also be noted that Article 10.50.3 has been
renamed Article 10.50A so that the section on mechanism APPENDIX A (Commentary)
strength is separate from the section on composite beams
and girders. The changes proposed to Appendix A (Commentary) of
the guide specification are mainly editorial. The commen-
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Article 10.57 tary has also been expanded somewhat to provide a more
detailed discussion on certain key theoretical topics.
The revisions proposed in Article 10.57 relate to check-
ing a beam designed for Group II and Group III loadings by APPENDIX B (Design Example)
the guide specification provisions. These group loadings
refer to wind load in combination with dead load and dead Many of the proposed revisions to Appendix B (Design
plus live load. Example) of the guide specification are editorial. However,
the following proposed changes are highlighted:
Permanent Deformations (Overload)
1. On page 8, the possible economies and advantages of
The proposed revision suggests that for sections in posi- using compact welded beams instead of rolled beams
tive bending, the total stresses caused by [D W] and [D + when designing by Alternate Load Factor procedures
+ (L+I) +
0.3WI shall not exceed 0.8Fy for noncompo- are briefly discussed.
site sections and 0.95Fy for composite sections. This 2. On page 10, the shear rules introduced in Article
includes the stresses due to the automoments. This change 10.48.8 in Load Factor Design are discussed.
is made to be consistent with the philosophy of the Over- 3. On page 14, the need to account for the carry-over of
41
AASHTO T I T L E ALFD-E' q& M Ob39ôOY OOOE'YbO 2 î Y W
42 ALTERNATE W.4D FACTOR DESIGN
automoments in bridges with more than two continu- Finally, there is a brief discussion of additional resid-
ous spans is mentioned. ual end reactions that occur because of plastic rotations
4. On page 16, the design procedure for wind loads at interior piers at Maximum Load.
described above is discussed. 8. On pages 34 through 39, a comprehensive example is
5. On page 20, the computation of the flange and web introduced on how to check a beam for Group II and
components of the plastic moment at the interior pier Group III loadings (wind load in combination with
has been revised. dead load and dead plus live load). The example com-
6. On pages 24 and 25, a check of the maximum shear pletely illustrates the plaitic mechanism strength check
force is illustrated using the shear rules introduced in for the factored Group II and Group III loadings, and
Article 10.48.8 of Load Factor &sign. This check cor- the stress check to control permanent deformations for
rectly assumes that a hinge forma at the interior pier the load combinations introduced in the revised Article 1
under the loading for the worse pier shear. The previous 10.57 of the guide specification (similar to an Over-
shear analysis in the design example used elastic pier load condition). The example illustrates that the beam
shear forces, and therefore, was incorrect. has significant reserve strength to resist the wind load
7. On pages 28 and 29, the bearing stiffener calculation at in combination with the vertical loads, and that bottom
the interior pier is revised to use the pier reaction deter- lateral bracing is not necessary for strength. or to con-
mined assuming a hinge formed at the pier under the trol permanent deformations.
worst loading for the pier reaction. The previous calcu-
lation used the elastic interior-pier reactions and was
incorrect. Also, the cornputation of end reactions is The 1990 Commentary WS prepared by Michael A. Grubb.
discussed for compact welded beams where bearing Assisrunt Munager. Bridge Engineering, AISC Marketing,
stiffeners are generally required at end supports. Inc., Pitrsburgh. PA.
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
1991 COMMENTARY
The indicated revisions bring the guide specification in
line with similar proposed revisions to Article 19.48.1 of
the AAaHTO Srundurri Specifi<*atìonsfor Highwy Brìùges
(Fourteenth Edition).
AASHTO T I T L E ALFD-2 91 m Ob39804 0024779 794 m
1994 COMMENTARY
MOMENT VS. BP CURVE curves overlap. Initial loading proceeds with the virgin,
i.e. uncracked concrete, stiffness KVIR. Indeed, con-
Recent theoretical considerations (1) have led to the crete cracking becomes evident at a load predicted from
conclusion that concrete cracking does not contribute to the concrete tensile strength, when the stiffness begins
the inelastic rotation in the negative-moment region to fall below KVIR. This reduction can be seen by the
of a continuous member. This conclusion profoundly reduced stiffness in the unloading curves as the peak
affects the Alternate Load Factor Design method. The load increases.
fact that inelastic rotation is contributed to by steel Four of the unloaded points used to compute the
yielding only has required a reevaluation of the Alter- UCAC are circle on Figure 3, namely #16,28, 36, and
nate Load Factor procedures. A more precise definition 50. The behavior is the same for all four, and that for
of the moment vs. inelastic rotation curve can now be load #50 will be described since it is more easily seen and
made, and more accurate automoment calculations can was reached after a significant amount of concrete crack-
now be formulated. These conclusions are substantiated ing had occurred. One difference between these four
by experimental data, as discussed below. unloadings is the unloading slope KSHD, which de-
creases with increasing load as the amount of concrete
U.S. Steel Tests cracking increases. This behavior supports the conclu-
sion that concrete cracking does not contribute to BP-it
A 1980 test of the negative-moment region of a com- only reduces KSHD. This is particularly apparent at
posite model bridge (2) was used to formulate a Univer- loads #7 and #8, where the curves can be extrapolated
sal Composite Automoment Curve (UCAC) as shown in toward the origin because little steel yielding has oc-
Figure 1. In addition, a similar curve based on a steel- curred.
only member (3), Specimen 188-3-2, was used to derive Briefly, the computational procedure to get a point on
a curve for non-composite members, also shown in Fig- the moment vs. ûP curve (1) was to load to a moment
ure 1.The ordinate is normalized by the plastic moment at load #49, unload to a load representing no load at
in negative bending, MPN. The substantial apparent load #50, and compute the difference in end rotations
difference between the composite and non-composite between that at load #50 and that before load was
behaviors led to the suggestion that separate curves be applied. The procedure is correct, but contained an
used for dead and live load in design. experimental error component for the data in Figure 3.
Figure 2, also from Reference 2, shows a comparison Specimen 188-3-4, whose results are plotted in Figure
of the composite and non-composite members when 3, represented shored construction. Thus, when the load
normalized by the maximum experimental moment, was removed the concrete cracks were about closed.
Mmax. The composite specimen was composed of two When unloading from load #49, the slope KSHD was
members, and the non-composite specimen was propor- about the same as that theoretically computed from the
tioned to simulate the rebars by an increased tension- steel beam plus rebars, neglecting the concrete. How-
flange area. Figure 2 suggested that for large inelastic ever, when the load approached zero, the stiffness began
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
rotations, there is essentially no difference between the to increase toward a value of KVIR, as shown. This is
behavior of the two; this led to the conclusion that large attributed to the concrete cracks closing before reaching
ûP data could be collected from non-composite speci- zero load and thereby putting the slab into compression.
mens and be applied to composite members as well. (Rotation and deflection curves behave similarly.)
Thus, the only inelastic difference between composite The linear unloading curve from load #49 is extrapo-
and non-composite members was believed to occur at lated by a dashed line along a slope of KSHD. This
low loads when the concrete slab is cracking. This is now dashed line is the unloading curve that would result if the
felt to be in error, being on the conservative side since concrete cracks had not closed. The result is that the
it predicts more inelastic rotation in a composite mem- rotation at load #50 was overestimated; the correct
ber than actually occurs. value is obtained by using the extrapolated curve in-
A closer examination of the composite test data that stead. The additional apparent ûP is not inelastic
led to the development of the UCAC, shown in Figure rotation, it is elastic slab loading.
3 (2), is revealing. Figure 3 is an autographic recording, Thus, the values used to compute the UCAC are too
and the chart pen was periodically shifted rightward for large. In effect-the UCAC should be shifted to the left
readability to avoid having the unloading-reloading towards the non-composite curve. The test data in Fig-
43
A A S H T O T I T L E ALFD-2 71 Ob37804 0 0 2 4 7 8 0 40b
.-7
FIGURE 1
Ure 3 is valid, but is was not interpreted as accurately as between KVIR and KSHD. Since absence of shoring
possible. was simulated by a preload, the specimen was not fully
unloaded. This avoided putting the slab into compres-
sion, and thus avoided allowing the unloading curve to
University of Texas Test change to a stiffness approaching KVIR as described
above.
An unshored composite test was recently completed Figure 5 shows that the unloading stiffness agrees with
(4). Figure 4 shows the load-deflection curve similar to that for a theoretically cracked section; this agrees with
that described above. The same relationship is seen the U.S. Steel test.
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
AASHTO T I T L E A L F D - 2 71 0637804 0 0 2 4 7 8 1 342
1994 COMMENTARY 45
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
I
FIGURE 2 Moment-Rotation Comparison of Specimens 188-3-2and 188-3-4
improved Movement YS. 9P Curve tests reach their maximum load at an inelastic rotation
of about 10 mrads. Furthermore, the all steel U.S. Steel
Figure 6 shows moment rotation curves for the Uni- test and the University of Texas test have no 9P below
versity of Texas test described above. (The differencein about 55% of the plastic moment; the composite U.S.
analysis methods is not relevant here.) The ordinate is Steel test was shown above to have inflated 9P values and
normalized by the plastic moment. thus is ignored for this comparison.
Comparing Figure 1 and 6, trends emerge, All three Thus, it is concluded that these tests could be com-
AASHTO T I T L E A L F D - 2 91 W 0639804 0024782 289 W
i-
RrceAoro V m r r c ~ dDrFrr<rJoN
FIGURE 3 Composite Specimen 188-3-4
200
150
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
1O0
50 *. .'.
O I I I I
O 1 2 3 4 5
Centerline Deflection (in.)

FIGURE 4 University of Texas at Austin 1991
A A S H T O T I T L E ALFD-2 91 H Ob39804 0024783 115
1994 COMMENTARY 47
Unloading Curves
(Composite Test)
40.
i . . . . . . . . . .
I
.’,*
:
e
:
.
:_.
,-.e
,*:.
30. ! ,...
**, .
20.
10,
O
O
- Ist Unloading
.1 .2 .3 .4
Centerline Deflection (in.)
0.90
.................................. .......-.........
0.80
0.60
-
+- Uncracked Analysis
Cracked Analvsis
0.50
O 5 10 15 20 25
Permanent Rotation (millirads)
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
AASHTO T I T L E ALFD-2 71 0637804 0 0 2 4 7 8 4 O51
bined into a single curve if the values were normalized sections required to sustain plastic rotations need qualify
by Mmax rather than the plastic moment. This has the as braced compact sections. Articles 10.57.2.1 and
computationally pleasing result that a single curve can 10.57.2.2 have been re-written to indicate that stresses
be used for composite and non-composite members (including stresses due to the automoments) rather than
alike. Since Specimen 188-3-2 just reached MPN (3), moments should be checked at positive-bending sections
Mmax = MPN for it-the curve for it in Figure 1can be at Overload. This is generally more convenient, partic-
directly used in place of the overconservativeUCAC for ularly for composite sections. Language has also been
composite and non-composite members. This is what is added to Article 10.57.1 regarding the checking of
being proposed. stresses at any flange or section transitions in negative-
It should be remembered that the Alternate Load bending regions. Remaining revisions are primarily
Factor method is not dependent on any particular mo- editorial and correct errors or omissions that were dis-
ment vs. ûP curve. In fact, a particular curve could be covered in the 1991 printing of the Guide Specification.
used for each particular design. However, since such
data are not presently available-although research is in
progress to attempt to predict these curves analyti- References
cally-it is today computationally efficient to use a stan-
dardized curve for many design situations. 1. P.S. Carskaddan. “Concrete Cracking in the Auto-
Improved Autostress Procedure stress Method.” AISC Marketing, Inc. memoran-
dum (Appendix B to Reference 2), October 2,1991.
The two refinements described above, i.e. using a 2. P.S. Carskaddan. “Autostress Design of Highway
single inelastic rotation curve for non-composite and Bridges, Phase 3: Interior-Support-Model Test.” Re-
composite members, and normalizing that curve by search Laboratory Technical Report, United States
Mmax, require a reevaluation of the procedure used to Steel Corporation, available from the American Iron
compute automoments and inelastic rotations at Over- and Steel Institute, February 11, 1980.
load. This improved procedure is demonstrated for a 3. M.A. Grubb and P.S. Carskaddan. “Autostress De-
shored and an unshored example in the revised com- sign of Highway Bridges, Phase 3: Initial Moment-
mentary proposed for Appendix A of the Guide Speci- Rotation Tests.” Research Laboratory Technical
fication. The procedure for unshored construction is Report, United States Steel Corporation, available
demonstrated numerically in the revised design example from the American Iron and Steel Institute, April 18,
in Appendix B. 1979.
OTHER REVISIONS 4. T.C. Tansil. “Behavior of a Composite Plate Girder
in Negative Bending.’’ MS Thesis. University of
Other proposed revisions are primarily for clarifica- Texas at Austin, December 1991.
tion. Language has been revised to clarify that only
--``,`,,``,,,,,`,,,``,``,,``,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Alfd 2 91

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Alfd 2 91

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alfd 2 91

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

~ ~~

AASHTO T I T L E ALFD-2 91 0637804 0 0 2 4 7 3 0 980

Containing Revisions To:

Guide Specifications for Design and Construction of

Revisions have been made to the AASHTO Guide Specifications for

Commentary pages contained in this package are to be inserted after

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

AASHTO T I T L E ALFD-2 91 0639804 0002413 478

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Inc.

AASHTO T I T L E ALFD-i? 91 H 0639804 OOOZ455 240 H

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY

Rcgion I Susan C. Crampton. Vcrniont IYWI

Samuel K.Skinner (ExOttiriii)

Ch(iirpr.wti.+r,S /fie Si(iri(1itigiÌmrniilre.x

Duane Berenthon. Washington. Stinding Conimiitrc un Adniinistration

HIGHWAY SUBCOMMITTEE ON BRIDGES AND STRCCTCRES 1990

CLELLON LOVEALL, TENNESSEE, Chairman

ALABAMA, Fred Conway, C.H. PEKNSYLVANIA. Mahendra G. Patel

STRENGTH DESIGN METHOD

a 10.46 Design Yield Stress for Structural Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10.50A Mechanism Strength (Maximum Load) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

APPENDIX B - DESIGN EXAMPLE

GUIDE SPECIFICATION FOR ALTERNATE LOAD

in the AIS1 Bulletin summarizing the results of Project 188.*

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

A A S H T O T I T L E ALFD-2 71 0639804 0024735 4b2

ALTERNATE LOAD FACTOR DESIGN OF BEAMS

The design yield stress for structural steel shall be the

reaching the maximum strength specified in Article LOAD)

4 ALTERNATE LOAD FACTOR DESIGN

10.43 LOADS 0.382

10.44 DESIGN THEORY

to sustain plastic rotations qualifying as braced compact or 3.570

6 ALTERNATE LOAD FACTOR DESIGN

10.50 COMPOSITE BEAMS AND GIRDERS 12,377

APPENDIX A-COMMENTARIES Point Page 6.1

Point Page 6.2 ALTERNATE LOAD FACTOR DESIGN

FIGURE A.l Beam-Line Analysis (Overload)

AASHTO T I T L E ALFD-2 71 = 0637804 0 0 2 4 7 4 4 475

INTRODUCTION The Maximum Design Load criteria ensure the struc-

APPENDIX B-I >ESEN EXAMPLE 9

10 ALTERNATE LOAD FACTOR DESIGN

where Interstate loading does not govern for this design

Live-load distribution factor = wheels vu = cv,

beam between stringers. For loads in other positions on the 6000 fi

ALTERNATE INTERSTATE LOADING

DESIGN OF SHEAR CONNECTORS and area of concrete reinforcement in negative-

12 ALTERNATE LOAD FACTOR DESIGN

The required shear resistance to develop the compressive

between the point of maximum moment and the ends of the

N=- C If the distance from the neutral axis to the compression

COMPACT SECTIONS 3. The compression flange should be supported laterally

APPENDIX B-DESIGN EXAMPLE 13

e A = beam cross-sectional area.

14 ALTERNATE LOAD FACTOR DESIGN

where y = t,f + " - (AFY)tf D whenC' 1 (AFy),f

where DESIGN FOR OVERLOAD

DEAD-LOAD DEFLECTIONS jected to both composite and non-composite dead loads.