Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 18431851

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Eective ange width provisions for composite steel bridges

Il-Sang Ahn, Methee Chiewanichakorn, Stuart S. Chen
, Amjad J. Aref
Department of Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering, University at Bualo, 212 Ketter Hall, Bualo, NY 14260, USA

Received 17 November 2003; received in revised form 1 March 2004; accepted 19 July 2004

Abstract

In the analysis and design of steelconcrete composite girders of a bridge, deections, stresses, and strengths are typically
obtained from elementary beam bending theory by utilizing the eective ange width concept. Shear lag eects are accounted for
indirectly, by replacing the actual slab width by an appropriate reduced eective width. Besides the exact numerical values that
can be given by numerical analysis of a bridge, it is necessary that code provisions should provide simplied practical method of
evaluation of eective ange width without signicant loss of accuracy. So each code implements dierent ideas and approaches
for specifying eective ange width. Comparing them highlights distinct philosophies underlying the various eective width code
formulations, which is the main objective of this paper. In this paper, the eective ange width provisions in the US, Britain,
Canada, Japan, and European Committee are presented and compared. Characteristics of each provision are briey described
and summarized. Numerical comparisons for simply-supported spans and negative moment regions of continuous spans follow.
The paper concludes with a summary outlining the commonalities and main dierences among all these provisions.
# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Bridges; Composite; Eective ange width; Specications

1. Introduction 1920s and 1930s. At the beginning of the composite

In the design and analysis of steelconcrete com-
posite girders of bridges, real three-dimensional beam
plate combined action under loads is simplied for
design by considering an equivalent beam exural
action instead. This simplication, so-called line girder
analysis, provides an easier way using conventional
beam theory to evaluate maximum deection, stress,
and strength of composite girders. In particular,
AASHTO LRFD bridge design specications [1] and
the Canadian highway bridge design code [2] use line
girder analysis as a primary method for design of typi-
cal composite girders. Other specications also adopt
the concept of an equivalent beam exural action
instead of complicated beamplate interaction in three-
dimensions. The history of applying line girder analysis
to steelconcrete composite structures goes back to the
time when composite structures were introduced in the


Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-716-645-2114x2428; fax: +1-716-
645-3733.
E-mail address: ciechen@bualo.edu (S.S. Chen).
0141-0296/$ - see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.07.009
structures era, most of the design concepts were adap-
ted from concrete T-beam design methods [3]. Thus,
when the rst specications for composite girders were
presented, there was little dierence between concrete
T-beams and steelconcrete composite girders in their
design methods.
The eective ange width was the width of concrete
T-beam which can be assumed to function as a com-
pression ange under exural action. Substituting steel
beams for concrete stems, the design concept for con-
crete T-beams could be used for steelconcrete com-
posite girders, including the eective ange width
concept. Estimation of eective ange width had been
a challenging research topic, because it requires solu-
tions of partial dierential equations governing plate
in-plane and bending behaviors. Before numerical solu-
tions using computers became available, these equa-
tions were solved analytically based on simplications
of loading pattern and geometries [412]. Based on
various studies and engineering practice, the nal
report of the special committee on concrete and rein-
forced concrete [13] introduced the notion of eective
1844 I.-S. Ahn et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 18431851

width of concrete T-beams as the minimum of one-

fourth of the span length of the beam and 12 times the
thickness of the slab, which can be considered as the
basis of eective ange width provisions for composite
girders that are currently used in AASHTO specica-
tions. The standard specications for highway
bridges [14] used this denition of eective ange
width in their rst provisions for composite girders.
The same denition remains there to this day [1,15].
In other countries at that time and up to the 1960s,
similar specications were used with minor modica-
tions of parameter values [16]. It is only after the devel-
opment of numerical solutions of beamplate action
that eective width provisions began to change.
Following the results of nite element analyses of steel
box-girder bridges by Moatt and Dowling [17], the
British code specied tables of eective ange breadth
(width) that distinguish among simply-supported
beams, cantilever beams, and internal spans of continu-
ous beams [18]. Adopting the previous Ontario high-
way bridge design code, the current Canadian highway
bridge design code [2] uses the formulae developed by
Cheung and Chan [19] based on the nite strip analyses
of simply-supported composite bridges. Current
AASHTO LRFD bridge design specications [1] and
standard specications for highway bridges [15] are
based on the specications rst introduced in 1944. In
Japan, the Code of Practice for Design of Composite
Girder Highway Bridges was established in 1959 [20].
The current provisions of Eurocode 4: Part 2 (ENV
1994-2) rely on a descriptive format rather than a table
format as in the British or a simple formula as in the
Canadian provisions.
This study compares eective ange width provisions
of the US, Britain, Canada, Japan, and EC (European
Committee). After dening eective ange width in the
following section, provisions for simply-supported
spans are described. For continuous spans, the eective
ange widths in negative moment regions (internal sup-
port regions) are also compared.
2. Shear lag and eective ange width
In elementary beam bending theory, it is assumed
that the stresses are constant through the width of the
beam. This assumption is appropriate for the thin web
of a steel beam. However, for the wide concrete ange
of composite girders, the stresses are not uniform. This
variation of stresses is due to the action of in-plane
shear strain in the plate, which is termed shear-lag.
By replacing the actually acting ange width by an
appropriate reduced uniformly stressed eective
ange width, shear lag eects can be accounted for,
and elementary beam bending theory can be used.
Graphically, the three-dimensionally changing normal
Fig. 1. Concept of eective ange width. (a) Actual stress distri-
bution; (b) uniform stress distribution within eective ange width.
stress at a distance x, rx rx y;z, is represented by its
maximum value, shown as rx,max in Fig. 1. The force
eects on the ange are enforced to be the same for
both cases as shown in Fig. 1. This relationship is
expressed as Eq. (1). The real force in the one-side of
the ange is calculated by double integration of the
real stress distribution. By dividing this force by the
thickness of the deck and the maximum stress in
the corresponding region, the eective ange width is
evaluated. The one-side eective ange width con-
cept is convenient in that it can be used for both
interior girders and exterior girders without modifying
the form of the equation.
t=2 b
rx y;z dy dz
t=2 0
be 1
t  rx;max y;z
where be is the one-side eective ange width, 2b is the
girder spacing, and rx is the normal stress in x direc-
tion.
As illustrated in Eq. (1), the eective ange width
is dened at a given distance x in the span, which
means that the be is a function of x. Also, the stress
distribution changes with loading conditions. Under
vehicular loadings, especially, eective ange width
depends on the location of the vehicle on the deck. The
changes of eective ange width in the span due to
vehicular loadings are more signicant. Such do not
need to be considered for composite beams in building
structures. Because only uniformly distributed loads
are used for building structures, the eective ange
widths do not change much in the span.
Understanding variations of eective ange width
due to changes in geometry (girder spacing, thickness
of the deck, and span length), loading conditions
(amount and locations), and the point of interest in the
span, specications seek to incorporate simple rules
that can deliver appropriate values of eective ange
width. Relying on analytical or numerical solutions of
beamplate behavior, each specication applies a dierent
 I.-S. Ahn et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 18431851
philosophy of simplication and, thus, a dierent
compromise between accuracy and simplicity. Gener-
ally, provisions in these specications consist of a
basic formulation for simply-supported spans. For
continuous spans, provisions subdivide the whole
span into several sub-spans, i.e., exterior span,
interior span, and internal support span. The basic
formulation is applied to each sub-span. Therefore,
a single set of provisions can be used for all com-
posite bridge girders simply-by modifying span
length. In the following section, the basic formu-
lation of each specication is compared.
3. Basic formulation code provisions
In this section, terms and symbols in corresponding
provisions are retained if they do not introduce con-
fusion for comparison. For simplicity and convenience,
AASHTO, BS 5400, Canadian, Japanese, Eurocode 4
refer to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Speci-
cation [1] in the US, British Standard 5400-Steel,
Concrete and Composite Bridges [18] in the UK,
Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code [2,21],
Design Specications for Highway Bridges [22] in
Japan, and design of composite steel and concrete
structures, part 2 [23] in European Committee,
respectively.
3.1. AASHTO
AASHTO [1] contains two sets of provisions for
eective ange widthnamely, for interior and for
exterior girders. Applying the one-side eective
ange width concept, it is possible to reduce them into
one set of provisions. For interior beams, the eective
ange width may be taken as the least of: (1) one-quar-
ter of the eective span length, (2) 12.0 times the aver-
age thickness of the slab, plus the greater of web
thickness or one-half the width of the top ange of the
girder, or (3) the average spacing of adjacent beams
[AASHTO 4.6.2.6]. AASHTO species that eective
ange width rules are used for determining resistance
for all limit states. Referring to the AASHTO Standard
Specications, which describes ...eective width of the
slab as a T-beam ange... [15], it can be understood
that exural behavior is the main concern of the pro-
visions.
3.2. BS 5400
In Part 5 of BS 5400 [18,24], the eective ange
width ratios are dened in three tables, which cover
simply-supported, cantilever, and internal (interior)
spans of continuous beams [BSIPart 5: 5.2.3]. For
each case, eective ange width ratios for mid span,
1845
quarter span, and support are specied for various
values of girder spacing to span length, i.e., b/l. For
the end (exterior) spans of continuous beams, the ratios
from the simply-supported case with reduced span
length, 0.9l, may be used [BSIPart 5: 5.2.3.5]. The
eective ange width ratio at an internal support is
obtained as the mean value of ratios obtained for each
span adjacent to that support. For a cracked concrete
ange, the ratio may be modied [BSIPart 5: 5.2.3.7].
Dierent ratios are specied for uniformly distributed
and point loads in the tables, emphasizing dierence of
eective ange widths for point loads and uniformly
distributed loads [19,25]. For eective ange width
ratios to be used in stress calculations on structural ele-
ments subjected to standard highway or railway load-
ing, it is specied that ratios from uniformly
distributed cases should be used [BSIPart 5: 5.2.3.2].
For overhang of exterior girders, 85% of overhang
length should be used to look up the table.
3.3. Canadian specication
In Canadian specication [2,21], a reduced cross-sec-
tion dened by eective width formulation shall be
used for calculations of bending resistances and bend-
ing stresses in slab-on-girder bridges and box-girder
bridges having a concrete slab, and with steel or con-
crete girders [CSA 5.8.2.1]. The same reduced section is
used for both the service limit state and the ultimate
limit state. The eective ange width consists of the
sum of a central part and overhang (side) parts. The
central part corresponds to the ange of a steel beam,
and the side part is determined as follows:
 
Be L 3 L
1 1 for  15
B 15B B 2
Be L
1 for > 15
B B
where L is the span length for simply-supported spans,
or length of positive or negative region under dead
load moment, Be is the eective width (overhang or
one-side), and B is the left-hand, right-hand overhang.
The major advantage of the Canadian specications
is in its simplicity. Only one simple formula is used to
calculate the eective ange width for slab-on-I girders
and box girders made of steel or concrete.
3.4. Japanese specication
In Japanese specication [22], one-side eective ange
width, k is used to evaluate the eective ange width of
beams and/or stringers in calculating stresses and dis-
placements. Japanese provisions are based on analyti-
cal solutions, which date back to the 1950s. Examining
these provisions, Eq. (3) is developed based on moment
1846 I.-S. Ahn et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 18431851

distribution under a uniformly distributed load: cross-section is based on its plastic or nonlinear resist-
b ance. For serviceability limit states, elastic analysis
kb for  0:05 should be used with appropriate corrections for non-
   l
b b linear eects such as cracking of concrete. When elastic
k 1:1  2 b for 0:05 < < 0:3 3 analysis is used, a constant eective width may be
l l
b assumed over the whole length of each span. Similar to
k 0:15l for 0:3  the Canadian specication, Eurocode 4 also divides the
l
eective ange width into a central part and side parts.
where k is the one-side eective ange width (cm), b is However, Eurocode 4 uses the distance between out-
either one-half the center-to-center girder spacing (cm), side shear connectors as the central part of the eective
or length of the overhang (cm), and l is the equivalent ange width, which requires the design detail of shear
span length (cm). connectors. The one-side eective ange width is
Eq. (4) is based on moment distribution under a determined as the least of (1) 1/8 of span length, or (2)
concentrated load on a simply-supported span: the distance from the outstand shear connector to a
b point mid-way between adjacent webs. Eurocode 4 also
kb  0:02 for considers the reduction of eective width at the end of
"    2 # l
b b b the span. Thus, a modication factor, Eq. (5), is
k 1:06  3:2 4:5  b for 0:02 < < 0:3 applied to the one-side eective width at the end sup-
l l l
ports.
b
k 0:15l for 0:3   
l Le
4 bi 0:55 0:025  1:0 5
bi
These two loading cases make two dierent k values,
each of which varies with b/l. When the b/l ratio is less where bi is the distance from the outstand shear con-
than 0.3, the value in between these two dierent k nector to a point mid-way between adjacent webs, and
values is used as eective ange width. For larger b/l, Le is the equivalent span length of the end span (same
the point loading case, a value from Eq. (4), is used. In as the span length for simply-supported spans).
particular, Eq. (4) is used at internal supports of con-
tinuous spans. The moment variation in this region 3.6. Comparison of provisions
under uniformly distributed load is similar to a tri-
angular shape, which can be obtained from the Based on the descriptions in the previous section,
moment diagram of a simply-supported beam under a characteristics of each provision are summarized and
concentrated load. compared in Table 1. Numerically, Fig. 2 shows one-
side eective ange width ratio, be/b, of each pro-
3.5. Eurocode 4 vision as a function of L/b. In preparing this gure, it
is assumed that one-side ange width, b, is 1.0 and
In Eurocode 4 [23,26], action eects may be calcu- 1.5 m and the span length, L, changes from 10 to 40 m.
lated by elastic analysis, even where the resistance of a In the gure, BS 5400 (interior) develops the largest

Table 1
Comparison of provisions

be Provisions AASHTO BS 5400 Canadian Japanese Eurocode 4

a b
Distinguish UDL vs. point load N Y N Y N
Distinguish exterior vs. interior girder Y Y N N N
Expressed as one-sided N Y Yc Y Yc
Distinguish M(+) region from M() region N Y N Y N
Distinguish I girder from box girder Yd N N NA NA
Distinguish strength (ultimate) vs. service N Ye N N Yf
Value modied at supports N Y N N Y
Value modied for concrete cracking N Y N N Y
Y, considered; N, not considered; NA, not applicable.0
a
Use uniformly distributed load (UDL) case for highway bridges.
b
Use PL case especially for internal supports of continuous girders.
c
Eective ange width is divided into central part and side parts.
d
Use dierent provisions for concrete segmental box-girder bridges.
e
Use eective ange width for service limit state, use full width for ultimate limit state.
f
Use eective ange width for service limit state.
 I.-S. Ahn et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 18431851
Fig. 2. Eective ange width of simply-supported spans.
eective ange width for 2 L=b 7. For 7 L=b 15,
Eurocode 4 delivers the largest eective ange width.
The full width is considered eective after L/b reaches
8 for Eurocode 4, 15 for the Canadian, and 20 for the
Japanese specication. Because of the thickness limi-
tation in AASHTO, the eective ange widths take on
dierent values for dierent deck thickness. Eurocode 4
uses almost the same denition as in AASHTO except
for the latters thickness limitation. Therefore, the
values from Eurocode 4 are expected to be the same as
the results of AASHTO specications without the
thickness limitation.
Because the stress distribution in the deck changes
with the amount of load, the eective ange width at
the service limit state is dierent from that at the
strength (ultimate) limit state. For example, BS 5400
distinguishes between the two limit states, and the
reduced (eective) width is used only for the service
limit state. AASHTO specications, however, use the
same eective ange width for both the service and
strength limit state. The Canadian provisions also use
the same eective width for stress and capacity calcu-
lation [2]. The eective ange width for the strength
limit state is in fact larger than that for the service limit
state. It has been thought that underestimation of eec-
tive ange width is conservative for the resistance of a
beam, so simplicity with some loss of accuracy may be
acceptable [27].
4. Continuous spans
4.1. Eective span length
Historically, provisions for continuous composite
girders are developed based on knowledge of simply-
1847
supported composite girders. Following early studies
such as Siess and Viest [28] and Daniels and Fisher
[29,30], the idea of utilizing stresses in rebars within the
eective ange width of negative moment regions of
continuous girders was accepted.
Generally, positive moment regions and negative
moment regions are considered independently. The
entire length is divided into exterior spans, interior
spans, and internal support spans. It is assumed that
an exterior span or an interior span can be treated as a
separate simply-supported span. To determine the
length of each span, eective span length concept is
applied. AASHTO uses a moment diagram under a
uniformly distributed load. Distance between moment
inection points is used to determine each eective
span length. Other provisions rather use xed span
ratios to calculate eective span length. The accuracy
of this approach is generally acceptable, since moment
inection points under live loads typically do not
change much. Fig. 3 shows denitions of eective
span length in Canadian, Japanese and Eurocode 4
provisions. BS 5400 uses a dierent table for continu-
ous spans without specifying eective span length.
For the exterior spans, Canadian, Japanese, and
Eurocode 4 use 80% of the span length as eective
span length. For interior spans, Eurocode 4 uses 70%
of the span length, and the other two provisions use
60% of the span length. For internal supports, Japa-
nese use 20% of the sum of two adjacent span lengths,
whereas Canadian and Eurocode 4 use 25% of it. The
total sum of the eective span lengths is equal to the
total bridge length for Japanese provisions. For the
other two provisions, the sum of eective span lengths
is larger than the total bridge length. Because of using
the distance between inection points under a uni-
formly distributed loads, AASHTOs eective span
length changes with the span lengths. For example,
the ratio, Le/L, can vary from 0.45 to 0.8 for the
exterior spans, and from 0.45 to 0.67 for interior spans
in three-span continuous bridges having the same
exterior spans.
Fig. 3. Eective span length ratios.
1848 I.-S. Ahn et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 18431851
4.2. Numerical comparison of provisions at internal
supports
The eective ange widths of continuous spans are
calculated based on the eective span length and
basic formulation as discussed. In this section, the
numerical values of eective ange width are com-
pared. Specically, eective ange widths are calculated
at the internal support regions of three-span continu-
ous bridges that have the same exterior spans. The
exterior span lengths, L1, vary from 10 to 40 m. The
interior span length, L2, is assumed to be 1.2 times
exterior span length. The girder spacing varies up to 6
m. Two dierent deck thickness, 175 and 250 mm, are
used for AASHTO provisions.
The resulting eective ange width is depicted in
Fig. 4 as contour lines of the one-side eective ange
width ratio, be/b, for given girder spacing and span
length of exterior spans. Contours from AASHTO pro-
visions are the same as Eurocode 4 when span length
and girder spacing are small. When span length, L1,
and girder spacing, b, increase, AASHTO takes the
uniform ratio. For BS 5400 provisions, there is no
1.0 contour line, and each contour line is distributed
widely in the graph, which indicates relatively small
eective ange width compared to the others. Compar-
ing the 1.0 contour line among provisions, Eurocode
4 has the largest area. Roughly speaking, the full width
will be eective in more Eurocode 4-designed applica-
tions than the others. From the shape and distribution
of contour lines, Japanese and Canadian provisions
can be characterized as moderate. In Japanese pro-
visions, the 1.0 contour line is located in an imprac-
tically small region. Therefore, it is a rare case to use
the full width as eective. In Canadian provisions, the
1.0 contour line is relatively apart from the other
lines; this also makes the region under the 1.0 con-
tour line smaller. The 0.8 contour line from Cana-
dian and Eurocode 4 are located similarly.
In Fig. 5(a), the 1.0 contour lines of each pro-
vision are compared. Qualitatively, provisions have the
order of Eurocode 4, AASHTO, Canadian, Japanese,
and BS 5400 from the largest to the smallest eective
ange width. However, this order changes to Cana-
dian, Eurocode 4, AASHTO, Japanese, and BS 5400
for the 0.7 contour line as seen in Fig. 5(b).
Unlike simply-supported spans where moments at
the section are independent of sectional property,
moments at the section change with sectional proper-
ties in continuous spans. For example, the developed
negative moment at internal support regions will
increase or decrease if the moment of inertia (which
depends on be) is changed. The heavier section attracts
larger moment. Therefore, if smaller eective ange
width is used at the internal support region, then the
steel girder at that section will need to be sized heavier
for the same rebar layout of a concrete deck. If larger
eective ange width is used at the internal support
region, then the nalized steel section will be relatively
lighter and the concrete deck will experience more ten-
sile stress. Higher tensile stress at the concrete deck
may require more rebar to control cracks.
It might be required to separate provisions for con-
tinuous spans from those for simply-supported spans
because of indeterminate characteristics of continuous
spans. Current code practice, however, is ecient using
unied provisions for simply-supported and continuous
spans. Under the current provisions, it is possible to
expect for some provisions to have smaller or larger
eective ange width than others from the diversity of
numerical results as shown in Fig. 5. Therefore, some
provisions lead to smaller eective ange width, which
will require heavier steel section at the internal support
region. Some provisions, on the other hand, lead to
larger eective ange width, which will require more
comprehensive concrete crack control. It is hard to
conclude the right approach between these two direc-
tions.
5. Summary
In this study, eective ange width provisions of
several countries, the US, Britain, Canada, Japan, and
EC, are compared qualitatively and quantitatively.
Each specication shares common organization in
describing the eective ange width: basic formu-
lation plus eective span length. In the basic
formulation part, eective ange width of a simply-
supported span is specied. For continuous girders, the
length of independent spans to which basic formu-
lation would be applied, are specied in the eective
span length part.
The way to describe the basic formulation diers
from one provision to the other following the underly-
ing philosophy that drove the development of each
specication. AASHTO and Eurocode 4 provisions use
a list of descriptions. However, Canadian and Japanese
provisions use equations; and BS 5400 uses a table for-
mat. Through a numerical example of simply-sup-
ported spans, it is observed that BS 5400 (interior)
develops the largest eective ange width for
2 L=b 7. For 7 L=b 15, Eurocode 4 delivers the
largest eective ange width. The full width is con-
sidered eective after L/b reaches 8 for Eurocode 4, 15
for the Canadian, and 20 for the Japanese speci-
cation. Because of the thickness limitation, eective
ange widths from AASHTO vary considerably com-
pared with the others. Without the thickness limitation,
AASHTO provisions are similar to the values from
Eurocode 4.
 I.-S. Ahn et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 18431851 1849

Fig. 4. Contours of eective ange width ratios (be/b) in internal support regions. (a) AASHTO (deck 175 mm); (b) AASHTO
(deck 250 mm); (c) BS 5400; (d) Eurocode 4; (e) Japanese; (f) Canadian.

The eective span length from each specication is
compared for continuous spans, which reveals the com-
mon use of xed ratios to specify regions of positive
moments and negative moments in Canadian, Japa-
nese, and Eurocode 4. The contour lines of the eec-
tive ange width ratio, be/b, at internal support
regions are compared numerically. From the 1.0 and
the 0.7 contour lines, it is seen that Eurocode 4 deli-
vers the largest eective ange width for used range of
span length (1040 m) and girder spacing (~6 m). BS
5400 provisions specify the smallest eective width at
the internal support regions. Eective ange widths
1850 I.-S. Ahn et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 18431851
Fig. 5. Comparison of contours of eective ange width ratios (be/b). (a) be =b 1:0 contour lines (internal support, L2=L1 1:2); (b) be =b 0:7
contour lines (internal support, L2=L1 1:2).
from Canadian provisions are moderate in the 1.0 III. Proceedings of an Engineering Foundation Conference,
contour line and the largest in the 0.7 contour line. Irsee, Germany, June 1996. ASCE; 1997.
[4]
Finally, it is emphasized that the inter-relation
between eective ange width, loading eects on the lications; 1924 (vol. II; 19141932).
bridges, and design of concrete deck (especially crack [5]
control) should be consistent.
[6]
Acknowledgements [7]
This work was sponsored by the American Associ- [8]
ation of State Highway and Transportation Ocials, in
cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration,
[9]
and was conducted in the National Cooperative High-
way Research Program, which is administered by the [10]
Transportation Research Board of the National
Research Council. The opinions and conclusions
[11]
expressed or implied in this paper are those of the
authors. They are not necessarily those of the Trans- [12]
portation Research Board, the National Research
Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the [13]
American Association of State Highway and Transpor-
[14]
tation Ocials, or the individual states participating in
the National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
The authors thank Dr. Yasuo Kitane for translating [15]
part of the Japanese Code.
[16]
References
[17]
[1] AASHTO. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specications.
Washington (DC): American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Ocials; 1998 (2nd edition with annual updated [18]
Interims through 2003).
[2] CSA. Canadian highway bridge design code (CAN/CSA-S6-00).
CSA International; 2000. [19]
[3] Viest IM. Studies of composite construction at Illinois and
Lehigh; 19401978. Composite construction in steel and concrete
von Karman T. Die Mittragende Breite. Collected Works of
Theodore Von Karman. London: Butterworths Scientic Pub-
von Metzer W. Die mittragende Breite. Luftfahrtforschung
1929;4(1):121 (in German).
Chwalla E. Die Formeln zur Berechnung der voll mittragenden
Breite dunner Gurt- und Rippenplatten. Der Stahlbau 1936;2(10)
(in German).
von Marguerre K. Uber die Beanspruchung von Plattentragem.
Der Stahlbau 1952;8 (in German).
Allen D.N. de G, Severn RT. Composite action between beams
and slabs under transverse load. The Structural Engineer
1961;39(5):14954.
Lee JAN. Eective widths of tee-beams. The Structural Engineer
1962;40(1):217.
Brendel G. Strength of the compression slab of T-beams subject
to simple bending. ACI JournalProceedings 1964;61
(January):5776.
Adekola AO. Eective widths of composite beams of steel and
concrete. The Structural Engineer 1968;46(9):2859.
Timoshenko SP, Goodier JN. Theory of elasticity. McGraw-
Hill; 1970 (International edition).
ASCE. Final report of the special committee on concrete and
reinforced concrete. ASCE Proceedings 1916;42:1657708.
AASHO. Standard specications for highway bridges, 4th ed.
Washington (DC): American Association of State Highway O-
cials; 1944.
AASHTO. Standard specications for highway bridges, 17th ed.
Washington (DC): American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Ocials; 2002.
Heins CP, Fan HM. Eective composite beam width at ultimate
load. Journal of the Structural DivisionASCE
1976;102(ST11):216379.
Moatt KR, Dowling PJ. British shear lag rules for composite
girders. Journal of the Structural DivisionASCE
1978;104(ST7):112330.
BSI. Part 5: Code of practice for design of composite bridges.
BS 5400 steel, concrete and composite bridges. London: British
Standards Institution; 1979.
Cheung MS, Chan MYT. Finite strip evaluation of eective
ange width of bridge girders. Canadian Journal of Civil Engin-
eering 1978;5:17485.
 I.-S. Ahn et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 18431851
[20] Maeda Y. Research and development of steelconcrete com-
posite construction in Japan from 1950 to 1986. Composite con-
struction in steel and concrete III. Proceedings of an Engineering
Foundation Conference, Irsee, Germany, June 1996. ASCE;
1997.
[21] CSA. Commentary on CAN/CSA-S6-00. Canadian highway
bridge design code. CSA International; 2001.
[22] JRA. Design specications for highway bridges (part Iin gen-
eral and part IIIsteel bridges). Japan Road Association; 1996
(in Japanese).
[23] Eurocode 4. Design of composite steel and concrete structures,
part 2: composite bridges (ENV 1994-2: 1997). European
Committee for Standardisation; 1997.
[24] BSI. Part 3: Code of practice for design of steel bridges. BS
5400 steel, concrete and composite bridges. London: British
Standards Institution; 2000.
1851
[25] Hambly EC. Bridge deck behavior, 2nd ed. E&FN SPON; 1991.
[26] Eurocode 4. Design of composite steel and concrete structures, part
1.1: general rules and rules for buildings (ENV 1994-1-1: 1992).
European Committee for Standardisation; 1992.
[27] Johnson RP, Anderson D. Designers handbook to Eurocode 4
(part 1.1: design of composite steel and concrete structures).
London: Thomas Telford; 1993.
[28] Siess CP, Viest IM. Studies of slab and beam highway bridges:
part V. tests of continuous right I-beam bridges. Bulletin no.
416, University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station; 1953.
[29] Daniels JH, Fisher JW. Fatigue behavior of continuous com-
posite beams. Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report No. 324.1,
Department of Civil Engineering, Lehigh University; 1966.
[30] Daniels JH, Fisher JW. Static behavior of continuous composite
beams. Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report No. 324.2, Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering, Lehigh University; 1967.