| The objective of this study is to evaluate and improve the approach for the computation of the effective flange width (be) of concrete slabs of composite steel structures. The effective flange width is important since it simplifies the computation of stress distribution across the slab width, which is then used to calculate various values such as moment of inertia, section modulus, distribution of forces and stresses in the structure. Therefore the accuracy of be has a direct effect on the design criteria of structures such as ultimate moment capacity and serviceability limit states.; The study consists of an experimental program and analytical modeling of simply supported composite beams as well as bridges. In the experimental program, laboratory and field tests were performed. Beam specimens were cast and tested in the laboratory using a two-point loading system up to failure. Laboratory tests were complimented by field-testing of the Doremus Avenue Bridge, located in Newark, New Jersey. The analytical modeling involved the development of a comprehensive finite element models (FEM) using ABAQUS, a non-linear analytical computer package. The results from the FE model were verified using the laboratory testing and available test data by others. Moreover, field measurements of strain and deflection of the Doremus Avenue Bridge, using various truck loading cases, were also compared to those obtained from the 3-D finite element models developed.; A parametric study was performed to determine the sensitive parameters affecting the effective flange width for buildings as well as bridges. Based on the experimental and analytical work carried out, a robust simple equation was proposed to compute the effective flange width, and the results of the equation was compared to a number of national and international codes. Results show that the equation was more accurate and less conservative for buildings as compared to the AISC-LRFD and the Canadian Codes'. Moreover, the equation's results were more accurate for bridges as compared to the AASHTO-LRFD Code values. |
