SHCTION 6: Sree. StRUCTUKES 6-269 APPENDIX A6—FLEXURAL RESISTANCE OF STRAIGHT COMPOSITE I-SECTIONS IN NEGATIVE FLEXURE AND STRAIGHT NONCOMPOSITE I-SECTIONS WITH COMPACT OR NONCOMPACT WEBS AG.1—GENERAL, ‘These provisions shall apply only to sections in straight bridges whose supports are normal or skewed not more than 20 degrees from normal, and with intermediate diaphragms or cross-frames placed in contiguous lines parallel to the supports, that satisfy the following requirements: © the specified minimum yield strengths of the flanges and web do not exceed 70.0 ksi, ‘© the web satisfies the noncompact slendemess limit 2B. 700 ksi, the implications of designing such members in general using a nominal flexural resistance greater than M, have not been sufficiently studied to merit the use of Appendix A6.6270 AG6.1.1—Sections with Discretely Braced Compression Flanges At the strength limit state, the following requirement shall be satisfied Moo hys. 20, ace where ty = resistance ficior for flexure specified in Attcle 65.4.2 fe = flange Interal bending stess determined as ‘specified in Article 6.10.1.6 (ksi) Me vominal flexural resistance based on the compression flange determined es specified in Article A6.3 (kip-in.) My = bending moment about the majoras of the cross-section determined as. specified in Arile 6.1016 (kipsn) IM = yold moment with respect to the empression fange determined as specified in Arte DO2 (kip-in.) See = elastic section modulus about the major axis of the section to the compression flange taken as MydF ye) AASHTO LRED Baunce Desicy Specincarions Eq, A6.1-2 is specified to guard against extremely monosymmetric noncomposite I-sections, in which analytical studies indicate a significant lossin the influence of the St. Venant torsional rigidity GJ on the lateral- torsional buckling resistance due to cross-section distortion. The influence of web distortion on the lateral torsional buckling resistance is larger for such members. If the flanges ae of equal thickness, this limit is equivalent to 2 0.67 CAGAA Eq. AG. I+ aesss the effet of combined major axis ‘pending and compression flange lateral bending using an iteration equation approach, This equation expresses the flexural resistance in terms ofthe section major-axis bending moment, 4M, and the flange lateral bending stess, fy computed from an elastic analysis, applicable within the limits on fspecifed in Antole 6.10.6 (White and Grubb, 2005). For adequately braced sections with a compact web and compression flange, Eqs. A6.I.1-1 and A6.1.2-1 are generally a conservative represestation ofthe resistance obtained by procedures that address the effect of flange wind moments given in Amicle 6.1035.1 of AASHTO (2004), In the theoretical limit that the web area becomes negligible relative to the flange ates, these equations closcly approximate the results of an elastic-plastic section analysis in which a faction of the width from the tps of the flanges is deducted to accommodate the flange Jeteral bending. The conservatism ofthese equations relative to the theoretical solution increases with increasing Datulbete, fe andior |Dig Dz |The conservatism at the limit on fr specitied by Fa, 6.10.1.6-1 ranges from sbout three to ten percent for practical flexural L-sections ‘The multiplicationof by Sin Eq. A6.1.1-1 and by, in Eg, A6.1.2-1 stems from the derivation ofthese equations, and is explained further in White and Grubb (2005). These ‘equations may be expressed in a stress format by dividing both sides by the corresponding elastic section modulus, in which case, Eq, AG1.1-1 reduces effectively "10 gs. 6.103.2.1-2 and 6,108.1. 1-1 in the limit eat the web approaches its noncompact —slendemess __limit. Correspondingly, Eq.A6.12-1 reduces effectively 10 gs. 6.10.7.2.12 and 6.108 1.2-1 in this limit The elastic section moduli, Sin his Article and, in Article A6.1.2, are defined as MyiFye and M/F, respectively, where Mand Mare calculated as specified in Article D6.2. This definition is necessary so that for 8 composite section witha web proportioned precisely atthe noncompact limit given by Eq. A6.t-1, the flexural resistance predicted by Appendix AG is approximately the same as that predicted by Article 6.10.8. Differences between these prediotions are due to the simplifying assumptions of J=0 versus /0 in determining the clastic lateral torsional buckling resistance and the limitingSECTION 6: Steet, STRUCTURES A61.2—Sections with Diseretely Braced Tension Flanges ‘At the strength limit state, the following requirement shall be satisfied: moh ssy sta sin oe Me= nonina femal ralsmes bate 02 tenon vyielding determined as specified in Article A6.+ (kip-in) Mj = yield moment with respect to the tension flange determined as specified in Article D6.2 (kip-in.) ‘clastic section modulus about the major axis of the section to the tension flange taken as Me/Fy: Gin) 6211 unbraced length L, the use of k= 0.35 versus the use of ke from Eg, A6.3.2-6 in determining the limiting slenderness for « noncompact flange, and the use of slightly different definition for F,. The maximum potential flexural resistance, shown a Fag in Figure C6.10.8.2.1-1, is defined in terms ofthe flange stresses as Ry/iy fora section ‘with a web proportioned precisely at the noncompact web limit and designed according to the provisions of Article 6.10.8, where Ry is the hybrid factor defined in Article 6.10.1, 10,1. As discussed in Article 6.10.1.1.18, for ‘composite sections, the elastically computed flange stress to be compared to ths limit is to be taken as the sum of the stresses caused by the loads applied separately to the steel, short-term composite and long-term composite sections. ‘The resulting provisions of Article 6.10.8 are a reasonable strength predietion for slender-web sections in which the ‘web is proportioned precisely at the noncompact limit. By calculating S,. and S, inthe stated manner, elastic section. moduli are ‘obtained that, when multiplied by the corresponding flexural resistances predicted from ‘Article 6.10.8 for the case of 2 composite slender-web ‘ection proportioned precisely at the noncompact web limit, produce approximately the same flexural resistances as predicted in Appendix A6. For composite sections with web slendemess values that approach the compact web limit of Eq. A6.2.1-2, the effects of the loadings being applied to the different steel, short-term and long-term sections are nullified by the yielding within the section associated with the ‘development of the stated flexural resistance. Therefore, for compact web sections, these Specifications define the ‘maximum potential flexural resistance, shown &$ My in Figure C6.10.8.2.1-1, as the plastic moment Mj, which is independent of the effects ofthe different loadings. CAG Bq, AG.L.2-1 parallels Eq. AG.1.1-1 for discretely braced compression flanges, but applies to the case of discretely braced flanges in flexural tension due to the :major-axis bending moment. ‘When fs equal to zero and Mj. is less than or equal to My, the flexural resistance based on the tension flange does not control and Eq. A6.1.2-1 need not be checked, ‘The web plastfication factor for tension flange yielding, Ry, from Article A6.2 also need not be computed for this