AD 331 - Open Top Box Girders For Bridges

Open-top box girder bridges have increased in use for spans over 50 meters, with a pair of trapezoidal sections and a common deck slab. During construction, cross-bracing is used to stabilize the narrow top flanges, but the warping stiffness of the inclined bottom flange is low, allowing for lateral torsional buckling of the whole structure before local buckling. Designers must consider this buckling mode and ensure the structure has sufficient stiffness, for example by using a wider section or adding plan bracing at the top flange level, though this complicates construction. Plan bracing does not need to extend the full length if supported at midspans as well.

Uploaded by

symon ellimac

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

140 views2 pages

AD 331 - Open Top Box Girders For Bridges

Uploaded by

symon ellimac

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 2

AD 330: Open top box girders for bridges

newsteelconstruction.com/wp/ad-330-open-top-box-girders-for-bridges/

Recently there has been an increase in the use of ‘open-top’ boxes for the creation of composite box girder
bridges. Typically, they are employed where the span is in excess of about 50 m and a pair of trapezoidal
sections are used with a common deck slab, as shown in Figure 1. The open boxes are erected first and the slab
is then cast in situ.

To stabilise the narrow top flanges during construction,

cross bracing is provided at moderate spacing (4 to 7 m
spacing). The guidance given in SCI publication P140
suggested that such bracing provided effective lateral
restraint to the top flanges and that the effective length Figure 1 Typical cross section of an open-top composite box girder
of the top flange (for lateral buckling) could be taken as bridge
0.85 times the spacing of the bracing (considering the
flange as a chord to a truss). However, this presumption relied on there being sufficient warping stiffness of the
channel-like section to prevent an overall lateral torsional buckling developing before local buckling between
bracings.

With the use of inclined flanges, the bottom flange of such box sections can be quite narrow and this means that
the warping stiffness is quite low. Overall lateral torsional buckling, with a half wavelength equal to the span, can
then occur, in the form shown in Figure 2. This can occur at relatively low loads (i.e. with only a small factor
between the elastic critical load and the load at the wet concrete stage) and at a much lower load than would
cause buckling of the top flanges between bracing positions. Even when there is sufficient factor between design
load and elastic critical load, the low warping stiffness could permit significant twist, sufficient to allow
unacceptable rotation at midspan
(the slab surface would have an unacceptable transverse slope).

Designers should therefore consider this mode of

buckling during construction and determine its elastic
critical buckling load. If the open top section is too
sensitive to that mode
of buckling, either a wider section should be used
(although it may be impractical to choose a suitable
geometry) or plan bracing should be provided at top
flange level.

Plan bracing at or near top flange level creates a

‘pseudo-box’ and thus develops a torsional stiffness
comparable to the St Venant torsional stiffness of a
closed box. This torsional stiffness is much greater than
the warping stiffness of the open section. However,
Figure 2 Buckling mode for an open top box during construction
plan bracing at top flange level is very inconvenient for
slab construction (its presence conflicts with permanent
formwork and the slab reinforcement). Bracing can be provided just below top flange level (and connected at
cross bracing positions) but the designer must them consider its influence in the permanent condition. Such
bracing will be stressed by overall bending of the composite box and, since the members are slender, they may
tend to buckle in midspan regions, although such buckling is not critical (the contribution to bending resistance is
not needed) and the load they carry will simply be shed. Perhaps more significantly, the fatigue effects at the
connection of the bracing need to be considered. Alternatively, the plan bracing could be removed but this would
require access inside the box and is very undesirable for health and safety reasons. Plan bracing need not be
provided along the whole length of a span. It may be sufficient to provide plan bracing at support regions and at
midspan regions but in such cases further modes of buckling will need to be considered – a 3D elastic buckling
1/2
analysis would be essential.

Contact: D C Iles
Tel: 01344 636525
Email: advisory@steel-sci.com

2/2