Simpli Fied Calculation of Effective Ange Width For Shear Walls With Ange

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS
Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2016; 25: 558–577

Published online 2 December 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tal). DOI: 10.1002/tal.1272
Simplified calculation of effective flange width for shear walls

with flange
Qing-Xuan Shi and Bin Wang*,†

School of Civil Engineering, Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi’an, China
SUMMARY
The shear lag effect of shear walls with flange is normally analyzed by introducing the concept of effective
flange width. Therefore, it is crucial to accurately evaluate the effective flange width for tall buildings
design. In this paper, based on the energy variational method, the normal stress distribution in the flange
of shear walls is deduced, and the analytical solution of effective flange width in elastic stage is obtained
according to the stress equivalent principle. For simplification, a parametric study on a serial T-shaped
cross-section shear walls was conducted using finite element method in order to clarify the characteristic
of effective flange width along with the loading history and the variations of shear lag effect with different
parameters accordingly. Based on the numerical results, simplified formulas of the effective flange width in
different loading stages are deduced for practical structure design. Moreover, the rationality of the values
derived from different design codes is evaluated by comparing with simplified formulas. Copyright ©
2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 07 May 2015; Revised 20 August 2015; Accepted 21 October 2015
KEY WORDS: T-shaped cross-section shear walls; shear lag effect; numerical simulation; effective flange width;
simplified calculation, energy variational method
1. INTRODUCTION
In tall building structural design, rectangular shear walls are often connected to form I-shape, C-shape,
T-shape and L-shape to minimize their effects on the floor and to maximize the open space (Li and Li,
2012, Zhang and Li, 2013). When these shear walls are subjected to lateral loading, according to the
Bernoulli-Euler’s assumption that plane sections remain plane after bending, the normal stress in the
flange should be uniform. However, this assumption is only validated when there is no shear force
existing, or the shear stiffness of the member is infinite. Actually, as the shear flow developed from
the web to flange panels is predominately affected by the shear deformation of the flange, the normal
stress in the parts of the flange remote from the web-flange junction would lag behind that at the junc-
tion, which eventually leads to the presence of shear lag phenomenon. Such shear lag phenomenon
would reduce the effective stiffness of the member and may significantly increase the normal stress
at the web-flange junction.
The influence of shear lag effect is normally considered by introducing the effective flange width in
different design codes. However, the effective flange widths derived from different design codes are
approximation and diversity, which may lead to weaker safety tolerance of structural design or conser-
vative design. It is thus necessary to develop a simplified calculation formula of effective flange width,
which enables to accurately estimate the effective flange width of T-shaped shear walls with less cal-
culation efforts. Meanwhile, this formula needs to rationally reflect the influence of involved design
parameters on the effective flange width.
*Correspondence to: Bin Wang, School of Civil Engineering, Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi’an
City, Shaanxi Province 710055, China
†
E-mail: shannxiwangbin@126.com
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

CALCULATION OF EFFECTIVE FLANGE WIDTH FOR FLANGED WALLS 559
There are four simplified methods of estimating the effective flange width, which can be classified
based on previous researches. The first is the ‘analytical method’, including Kaman’s theory, energy
variational method and folded-plated method (Karman, 1923; Reissner, 1946; Kristek, 1979). The an-
alytical solutions of effective flange width can be obtained through the analysis of stress or strain dis-
tribution based on certain assumptions. However, only elastic solution can be obtained, and the
formulas derived from these methods are usually too tedious to be applied in practical design. The sec-
ond is the ‘empirical method’ (Nie and Tian, 2005), the formulas of effective flange width controlled
by different parameters can be directly matched based on the results obtained from the experimental or
finite element (FE) study. Nevertheless, this method is born in a weaker foundation of theory, and
strongly depends on the selected parameters. The third method is usually referred as ‘improved
method’ (Nie and Tian, 2004), in order to correspond to the calculation of bearing capacity during sec-
tion design, the effective flange width at ultimate stage can be calculated by introducing a plastic
amplifying coefficient from the elastic effective flange width estimated from design codes. However,
the accuracy of the effective flange width could not be guaranteed because of the approximated evaluation
from different codes. The last one is the ‘semi-theoretical and semi-empirical method’ (Kwan, 1996), the
calculation formulas of the effective flange width can be obtained from the integration of section stress
influenced by shear lag. This method can secure the accuracy and simplicity of the formulas at the same
time, and the theoretical basis is clear as well. In this paper, the effective flange width in elastic stage was
solved by the ‘analytical method’, the simplified formulas to calculate the effective flange width in elastic-
plastic stage were deduced by the ‘semi-theoretical and semi-empirical method’ and the effective flange
width at ultimate limit state was derived by the ‘improved method’.
Researches on estimation of shear lag and calculation of effective flange width were first performed
on composite beams, box beams and framed tube structures (Moffatt and Dowling, 1975; Song and
Scordelis, 1990a, 1990b, Haji-Kazemi and Company, 2001). In recent years, several new approaches
were proposed for better calculation accuracy, which include improved numerical methods such as
Generalised Beam Theory (GBT)-based FE method (Henriques et al., 2015), 3-bar simulation-transfer
matrix method (Li et al., 2011), improved finite-segment method (Zhang, 2012) and improved analyt-
ical methods such as closed-form solutions and initial-value solutions on the shear lag based on the
energy variational principle (Wu et al., 2004, Chen et al., 2014). Regarding the core wall structures,
a parametric study of the shear-lag phenomenon was carried out by analyzing a number of core wall
models using finite-element method (Kwan, 1996). The axial stress distributions across the widths
of the web and flange panels can be described approximately by fifth and fourth order polynomials,
respectively, and the degree of shear lag was measured in terms of dimensionless shear-lag coefficients
by inverse-driven from the numerical results.
However, less research donated to the calculation of the effective flange width determined by shear
lag has been performed for the T-shaped shear walls, which are widely used in high-rise buildings. This
background stimulates the birth of this paper, a parametric analysis was carried out for a series of
T-shaped cross-section shear walls based on the FE method. The performance of effective flange width
along the loading history and the variations of shear lag effect with different parameters was analyzed.
In accordance with different design purposes, several simplified formulas of effective flange width were
eventually proposed following different approaches. Moreover, the recommendation to parameters de-
rived from different design codes was evaluated by comparing with the proposed simplified formulas.
2. ANALYTIC SOLUTION OF EFFECTIVE FLANGE WIDTH IN ELASTIC STAGE
2.1. Variational equation

Several analytical methods to calculate the effective flange width have been introduced above, the en-
ergy variational method is the most common way among them because of its accuracy and excellent
applicability. Using such method, the distribution of normal stress can be deduced from the principle
of minimum potential energy, and the calculation formula of effective flange width can be obtained
afterwards. While analyzing the deflection problem of shear walls with flange subjected to bending
load by the principle of minimum potential energy, two generalized displacements (lateral
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2016; 25: 558–577
DOI: 10.1002/tal
560 Q.-X. SHI AND B. WANG
displacement w(x) and longitudinal displacement u(x, y)) need to be introduced to describe the defor-
mation of shear walls because of the presence of shear deformation in flange section. Guo et al.
(1983) suggested a cubic parabolic curve to be assigned to the longitudinal displacement function
for shear lag warping, the expressions of w(x) and u(x, y) proposed by Guo et al. (1983) are expressed
as follows:
w ¼ wðxÞ; (1)

dw y3
uðx; yÞ ¼ ha þ 1 3 uðxÞ ; (2)
dx b
where b = flange width of one side; ha = distance between the center of the flange and the centroidal
axis of the T-shaped cross-section; and u(x) = maximum shear lag angle of the flange, whose defini-
tions are also depicted in Figure 1.
According to the principle of minimum potential energy, when the structure is in an equilibrium
state while it is subjected to an external force, the changing amount of total potential energy equal
to zero under any virtual displacement. The equilibrium equation can be expressed as follows:

∂∏ ¼ ∂ V W ¼ 0; (3)
where the external potential energy can be calculated as follows:
Z d2w
W ¼ M ðx Þ dx (4)
dx2
The Bernoulli-Euler assumption is still adopted for the web panel, and only bending strain energy is
considered, while the normal strain and shear strain of longitudinal fibers are taken into account for the
flange panel. The strain energy of the web is expressed as
2 2
1Z d w
Vw ¼ EI w dx (5)
2 dx2
Figure 1. Longitudinal displacement of flange.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
and the strain energy of the flange is expressed as
1ZZ 2
Vf ¼ t Eεx þ Gγ2 dxdy; (6)
2
where εx and γ are given by
∂uðx; yÞ
εx ¼ (7)
∂x
∂uðx; yÞ
γ¼ (8)
∂y
Substituting Equation (2) into Equation (7) and Equation (8) yields

y3
εx ¼ ha w″ þ 1 3 u′ðxÞ (9)
b
3y2
γ¼ ha uðxÞ (10)
b3
Then, the strain energy of the flange can be solved by substituting Equation (9) and Equation (10)
into Equation (6) as follows:

1 Z 2 3 9 2 9G 2
Vf ¼ If E ðw″Þ þ w″u′ðxÞ þ ½u′ðxÞ þ 2 ½uðxÞ dx; (11)
2 2 14 5b
where E and G = Young’s and shear modulus, respectively; t = thickness of the flange; Iw = moment of
inertia of the web and If = product of inertia of the flange, i.e. If = 2tbha2.
By integrating the above various parts of the potential energy, the total potential energy can be
obtained as follows:
Z 2 2
d2w 1Z d w 1 Z 2 3 9 2 9Gu2
∏ ¼ M ðxÞ 2 dx þ EI w dx þ I f E ðw″Þ þ w″u′ þ ðu′Þ þ dx (12)
dx 2 dx2 2 2 14 5b2
Then, substituting Equation (12) into Equation (3), the differential equation considering shear lag is
expressed as follows:
3
EIw″ þ M ðxÞ þ EI f u′ðxÞ ¼ 0 (13)
4

9 3 9GuðxÞ
EI u u″ðxÞ w‴ þ ¼0 (14)
14 4 5Eb2

9 3
EI u u′ þ w″ δu
x2
x1 ¼ 0 (15)
14 4
DOI: 10.1002/tal
From Equation (13) to Equation (15), the second-order ordinary differential equation of the maxi-
mum shear lag angle u(x) of the flange can be obtained as follows:
7nQðxÞ
u″ k 2 u ¼ (16)
6EI
In which
1
n¼ (17a)
1 7I8Iu
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 14Gn
k¼ (17b)
b 5E
The general solution of the differential equation is as follows:
7n
uðxÞ ¼ ðc1 sinhkx þ c2 coshkx þ u Þ; (18)
6EI
where c1 and c2 are determined by the boundary conditions; u * is the particular solution related with
shear distribution Q(x).
2.2. Solution of normal stress distribution and effective flange width

In the case of a cantilever shear wall subjected to a concentrated force at its top surface, considering the
boundary conditions that u(x) equal to zero at the fixed end and u ′ (x) equal to zero at the free end,
i.e. u|x = l = 0, u ′ |x = 0 = 0, the maximum shear lag angle can be solved by substituting the boundary
conditions into Equation (18) as follows:

7nP coshkx 1
uðxÞ ¼ (19)
6EI k 2 coshkl k 2
The normal stress distribution of the flange can be determined through
∂uðx; yÞ
σx ¼ E (20)
∂x
and then substituting Equation (2) and Equation (19) into Equation (20) yields

7nP y3 sinhkx
σ x ¼ Eha w″ þ 1 3 (21)
6kEI b coshkl
From Equation (13), we obtain

M ðxÞ 3I f
w″ ¼ þ u′ (22)
EI 4I
Finally, the expression of normal stress distribution of the flange can be obtained by substituting
Equation (22) into Equation (21) as follows:

ha 7nP y3 3I f sinh kx
σx ¼ M ðx Þ 1 3 (23)
I 6k b 4I cosh kl
DOI: 10.1002/tal
At the bottom of the shear walls (x = l) where the shear lag effect is most obvious, the normal stress
can be expressed as follows:

ha 7nP y3 3I f
σx ¼ Pl 1 3 tanh kl (24)
I 6k b 4I
From the stress distribution of the flange in Figure 1, it can be clearly seen that the normal stress
reaches the maximum σ max at the middle of the flange (y = b), that is

ha 7nP 3I f
σ max ¼ Pl þ tanh kl (25)
I 6k 4I
According to the stress equivalent principle, the effective flange width can be calculated as fol-
lows:
Z b

be ¼ σ x dy =σ max (26)
b
Substituting Equation (24) and Equation (25) into Equation (26), the analytical solution of the ef-
fective flange width of shear walls with flange in elastic stage can be derived as follows:
Z bh
a 7nP y3 3I f
Pl 1 3 tanh kl dy
0 I 6k b 4I
be ¼ 2 h i þt (27)
3I f
hIa Pl þ 7nP
6k 4I tanh kl
Simplifying the formula above by integrating yields

If
l 7n
8k 1 I tanhkl
be ¼ 2b 7nI f
þt (28)
lþ 8kI tanhkl
From the formula above, it can be clearly seen that the analytical solution takes into account the
impact of the height of shear wall, the flange width, the web height, the thickness of both flange and
web and the Young’s and shear modulus of material on the effective flange width. As all the factors
that affect the effective flange width have been involved in the proposed formula, it can be consid-
ered that the analytical solution is an accurate solution of the effective flange width in elastic stage.
However, its applicability may be limited because of the challenges arising from the presence of
unknown parameters. Therefore, further studies to find a simplified method to calculate the effective
flange width are necessary.
3. NUMERICAL CALCULATION METHOD OF EFFECTIVE FLANGE WIDTH IN ELASTIC

STAGE
3.1. Model verification

Among the numerical methods, the FE method has become an important means of structure analysis,
not only for its super effectiveness, but also due to the significant information that can be achieved
DOI: 10.1002/tal
accurately compared with other methods. However, only through the verification of experiment, the
FE model can serve for the research. Figure 2 shows the cross section of a tested reinforced concrete
shear walls (Thomsen and Wallace, 1995, 2004), which is used for the verification of the FE model by
the software ABAQUS. The walls were designed to be 3.66 m tall and 102 mm thick, with web and
flange lengths of 1.22 m. Typical material properties were selected for design, i.e. fc′
= 27.4 MPa and fy = 414 MPa. An axial load of approximately 0.10 Ag fc′ was applied at the
top of the wall.
The plastic damage rule is adopted to simulate the nonlinear behavior of concrete, it assumes that the
main two failure mechanisms are tensile cracking and compressive crushing of the concrete material.
The evolution of the yield (or failure) surface is controlled by tensile and compressive equivalent plas-
tic strains, which are linked to failure mechanisms under tension and compression loading, respec-
tively. By comparing several widely used concrete constitutive laws, the model proposed by Saenz
(1964 is adopted for compression, and the tensile constitutive relations use the model of Chinese de-
sign code (GB50010, 2010). The nonlinear behavior of rebar is simulated by using bilinear Kinematic
hardening rule, which can consider the influence of the Bauschinger effect.
The separate micro model is adopted for modeling. The incompatible mode eight-node brick ele-
ment is used to model concrete, and each node has three translational degree of freedom. Although
the eight-node brick element is first-order element, such element has an additional degree of freedom
that enhances the ability to model a displacement gradient through the element. In a sense, these ele-
ments act like quadratic elements but lead to the reduction of computational cost compared with qua-
dratic elements. The two-node linear truss element is used to model rebars, and each node also has
three translational degree of freedom. Two-node linear truss element can only support loading along
the axis or the centerline of the element. No moments or forces perpendicular to the centerline are sup-
ported. As our research puts the focus on the element stress and element strain of the flange, the flange
is divided into four elements along the thickness direction, while the element length takes 0.5 times the
length of the wall thickness along the height and length direction, as illustrated in Figure 3(a).
The whole constructed reinforcement cage is embedded into the concrete to make them deform
compatibly. As to the simulation of loading, a monotonic load was applied at the top of the wall using
displacement control approach. In order to prevent the convergence problem caused by the overlarge
local plastic deformation, a rigid block is used to simulate the actuator loading at the upper end of the
web. The bottom of the wall is also connected to a rigid plate, which is used to constraint all six de-
grees of freedom of the wall base, as shown in Figure 3(b). The rigid block used as actuator and the
rigid plate used as foundation are all tied to the wall.
Figure 2. Detail dimensions and reinforcement of the specimen.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 3. Finite element model.
Figure 4. Load-displacement curves of experiment and simulation.
The comparison between the experimental skeleton curve and the simulated monotonic load-
displacement curve are shown in Figure 4. It can be seen that the two curves are highly matched, which
illustrates the rationality of the parameters used for the model. Figure 5 compares the failure pattern of
Figure 5. Failure pattern of experiment and simulation.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
the test specimen with the stress and strain nephogram extracted from ABAQUS. From the normal
stress nephogram in Figure 5(b), it can be seen that the maximum tensile stress appears on the corner
of the wall, which is in accordance with the failure pattern of the test specimen. From the normal strain
nephogram in Figure 5(c), it can be seen that the maximum tensile strain appears along the horizontal
direction at the bottom of the wall, which is in accordance with the horizontal cracks developed during
the test. So, the simulated results can well reflect the stress state and failure pattern of the specimen.
Figure 6 compares the concrete compressive strain of the flange from the test measurements with
the results extracted from the FE calculation. In order to accurately simulate the concrete compressive
strain of the flanges and coincide to the test measurements, the concrete strain is calculated through the
difference between the node displacements in the outer surface of the flange. The test data and the sim-
ulation results show that the concrete compressive strain reaches the peak value at the web-flange junc-
tion. It can be concluded that the FE model used in this paper and the selection of parameters are
reasonable so that it can be used for further analysis.
3.2. Analysis and calculation of the shear lag

To study the shear lag phenomenon, the test model is simplified as homogeneous isotropic model, and
the material properties used are the same as the test. The model parameters studied are the flange
width/web width ratio, the height/web width ratio and the height/flange width ratio. The flange
width/web width ratios of the models range from 0.33 to 3.0, while the height/web width and
height/flange width ratios both range from 1.67 to 20.0, 15 models were constructed and analyzed,
the ratios and FE results are given in Table 1. Model 7 is plotted as an example among the models
to show the shear lag phenomenon, then, the normal stress nephogram and the normal stress vector
diagram of the concrete in plastic hinge zone are shown in Figures 7 and 8, respectively.
According to the non-uniform distribution of the normal stress in Figure 7 and 8, it is clearly that a
significant shear lag effect occurs in the flange. As the degree of shear lag varies among the models, in
order to deeply study the shear lag effect, the dimensionless shear lag coefficient β is introduced to
Figure 6. Concrete compressive strain distribution of the flange.
Table 1. Shear lag coefficient in the elastic stage.

Models a: b: H shear lag coefficient, β Models a: b: H shear lag coefficient, β
1 3:1:5 0.1785 9 1:1:20 0.0202
2 3:1:10 0.1043 10 1:2:5 0.2931
3 3:1:20 0.0379 11 1:2:10 0.1329
4 2:1:5 0.1452 12 1:2:20 0.0458
5 2:1:10 0.0745 13 1:3:5 0.442
6 2:1:20 0.0287 14 1:3:10 0.2188
7 1:1:5 0.1326 15 1:3:20 0.1242
8 1:1:10 0.0563
*: a is the web width; b is the flange width; H is the wall height.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 7. Normal stress nephogram of concrete.
Figure 8. Normal stress vector diagram of concrete.
Figure 9. Definition of shear lag coefficient.
measure shear lag, whose definition is depicted in Figure 9. The shear lag coefficient was first proposed
by Kwan (1994), which had been used to analyze shear lag in core walls. From the normal stress dis-
tribution of the flange in Figure 9, it can be seen that the normal stress reaches the maximum value in
the center of the flange and decreases gradually toward to both sides. The distribution of the normal
stress is almost uniform as the shear lag effect is weaker, while if the shear lag effect increases, the
normal stress near both sides of the flange lags behind that given by a uniform distribution, which leads
to a large reduction in stress at both sides of the flange, thus the larger the shear lag, the greater the
reduction. The shear lag coefficient β is just defined as the fractional reduction in the normal stress
at both sides of the flange compared with the maximum stress at the web-flange junction. The shear
lag coefficient is close to zero when the shear lag is small, while β would be close to unity when
the shear lag is large.
The FE analysis shows that the shear lag effect decays gradually along the wall height direction and
the value of β reaches the maximum value at the base of the wall, therefore, the normal stress of the
concrete element at the base of the flange is extracted. From the calculated shear lag coefficients of
the 15 models in Table 1, it can be seen that the shear lag coefficient β is mainly dependent on the
height/flange width ratio (H/b). With the decrease of H/b, the shear lag coefficient β increases
DOI: 10.1002/tal
accordingly. The reason for such phenomenon is that the smaller shear span ratio due to the decrease of
the wall height leads to the global deformation of the shear wall transforming from flexural to shear,
thus, the shear deformation becomes larger in the course of the transfer of the normal stress within
the flange section. The larger shear deformation moderates the shear transfer ability, which makes
the normal stress transferred through the flange edge much smaller than that at the web-flange junction
so that the shear lag effect aggravates, and the shear lag coefficient β increases. On the other hand, the
increased flange width makes the path of the shear flow becoming longer within the flange section,
which accumulates the reduction in the normal stress so that the shear lag effect aggravates and the
shear lag coefficient β increases as well. Hence, the shear lag coefficient β increases with the decrease
of the H/b.
The flange width/web width ratio (a/b) also has influence on the shear lag coefficient β, β reaches the
minimum value when a = b, while β increases when a/b > 1 or a/b < 1, the greater difference between a
and b, the larger the shear lag. This is because the smaller shear span ratio due to the increase of the
web width and the larger flange width all enhance the shear lag as explained above. So, only when
the flange width is equal to the web width, the shear lag coefficient β reaches the minimum value.
However, as the influence of the ratio a/b on β are generally minor compared with the ratio H/b, to
simplify the estimation of shear-lag coefficient, it is proposed to neglect the influence of the ratio a/b on
calculating the value of β and take the values of β that correspond to the average calculated with differ-
ent a/b to fit the curve between β and H/b in Figure 10. Considering the simplicity of the evaluation that
can be easily produced, formulas are derived by empirically matching the FE results with various forms
of equations. Perfect matching can be achieved with the power function in the following form:
β ¼ 0:74ðH=bÞ1:01 (29)
3.3. Simplified calculation of the effective flange width

The equation to describe the normal stress distribution across the width of the flange is the foundation
for calculating the effective flange width. The stress distribution in the flange was approximated as
fourth-order polynomial curve by Kwan (1996). According to the normal stress distribution derived
from the FE results combined with the constraint of the boundary conditions, it is found that the dis-
tribution of the normal stress across the width of the flange can be more accurately represented by fifth-
order polynomial as follows:
" #
b=2 x 5
σ ¼ σ max 1 β þ β (30)
b=2
From Equation (30), it can be seen that the normal stress reaches the maximum value (σ = σ max) at
the web-flange junction (x = 0), while the normal stress reaches the minimum value (σ = (1 β)σ max) at
Figure 10. Curve for shear lag coefficient versus height/flange width ratio in elastic stage.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
the flange end (x = b/2), which is in accordance with the definition of the shear lag coefficient β in
Figure 9.
As the distribution of the normal stress across the width of the flange is symmetrical on both sides,
the normal stress distribution on one side is plotted to verify the rationality of the equation. Due to the
limit of space, several representative models (model 1, model 3, model 13 and model 15) are selected
to compare the FE results with the corresponding curves from the equations of stress distribution, as
plotted in Figure 11. It can be seen that the equation could exactly describe the normal stress distribu-
tion across the width of the flange under different parameters, and thus can be used as the basis of sub-
sequent analysis.
According to the stress equivalent principle, the effective flange width can be calculated as follows:
Z b=2

be ¼ σ x dx =σ max (31)
b=2
As the distribution of the normal stress σ x is symmetrical on both sides, be is an even function with
respect to x, so Equation (31) can be simplified to the following:
Z b=2

be ¼ 2 σ x dx =σ max (32)
0
Substituting Equation (30) into Equation (32) yields
( " # )
Z b=2 b=2 x 5
be ¼ 2 σ max 1βþβ dx =σ max (33)
0 b=2
Figure 11. Comparison of stress distribution curve in the elastic stage.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Simplifying the formula above by integrating yields
be ¼ b 0:83bβ (34)
Then, substituting Equation (29) into Equation (34), the simplified calculation formula of the effec-
tive flange width in elastic stage can be derived as follows:
be0 ¼ b 0:62bðH=bÞ1:01 (35)
Therefore, during the design phase, the effective flange width of the shear walls with flange can be
quickly evaluated from Equation (35) as long as the wall height H and the flange width b are given.
The results from the simplified formula are more accurate and reliable than the methods of table
lookups from the design code, and the effective flange width can be obtained only through the hand
calculator so that the feasibility of the application is ensured for practical design.
3.4. Comparison of the effective flange width in elastic stage

In order to discuss the difference between the analytical method and the FE method, the effective
flange widths derived from the two methods are summarized in Table 2. It can be seen that the effec-
tive flange width calculated from the analytical method is similar to that from the FE method. The dif-
ference between them is all less than 10% except for Model 13 (13.68%), which also illustrates the
accuracy of the stress distribution obtained from the FE method. However, the analytical solutions
are significantly greater than the values of the FE method. That is mainly because the analytical
method assumes that the stress distribution is approximated as cubic parabola, which is different from
the stress distribution that is closer to a fifth-order polynomial calculated from the FE method, hence,
the analytical method underestimates the shear lag effect. In addition, the analytical method not only
obliterates the shear lag in the web but also ignores the influence of the horizontal and vertical strain
(εy, εz) and the out-of-plane shear deformation (γxz, γyz) of the flange on the calculation of strain energy,
which also result in the discrepancy between the analytical solutions and the FE results. Considering
the convenience for use and the accuracy in calculating, the proposed simplified formula is more suit-
able for the design purpose due to its advantages.
Table 2. Comparison of the analytical method and the finite element method.
Models a: b: H Analytical method (m) Finite element method (m) Discrepancy (%)
1 3:1:5 0.9234 0.8497 7.98
2 3:1:10 0.9612 0.9116 5.16
3 3:1:20 0.9804 0.9676 1.31
4 2:1:5 0.9213 0.8768 4.83
5 2:1:10 0.9599 0.9373 2.35
6 2:1:20 0.9798 0.9756 0.43
7 1:1:5 0.9224 0.8909 3.42
8 1:1:10 0.9605 0.9533 0.75
9 1:1:20 0.9801 0.9829 0.29
10 1:2:5 1.6483 1.5146 8.11
11 1:2:10 1.8158 1.7819 1.87
12 1:2:20 1.9057 1.9251 1.01
13 1:3:5 2.2187 1.9151 13.68
14 1:3:10 2.5820 2.4686 4.39
15 1:3:20 2.7834 2.6750 3.89
DOI: 10.1002/tal
4. NUMERICAL CALCULATION METHOD OF EFFECTIVE FLANGE WIDTH IN PLASTIC

STAGE
4.1. Variation of effective flange width along loading procedure

At present, the evaluation of the effective flange width in most design codes is based on the elastic anal-
ysis. However, the normal stress distributions of the flange are diverse in different loading stages. More-
over, different effective flange widths are needed for different design purposes. Therefore, the variation
of the effective flange width along with the loading process should be studied. In our previous work, the
development of the effective flange width was analyzed through the elastic-plastic analysis of a
T-shaped wall (Shi and Wang, 2014), the variation of the effective flange width is shown in Figure 12.
At the beginning of the loading process, when the wall stays in elastic stage (A-B), the effective
flange width remains constant approximately. After the wall cracking (B), the effective flange width
begins to decrease until the wall reaches the yield (C) when the effective flange width reaches to the
minimum. Then, with the further increase of the load, the stress redistribution occurs in the flange
due to the degradation of the concrete near the middle of the flange so that the effective flange width
increases. Until the wall reaches the peak load (D), the effective flange width reaches the maximum
value as well. Afterwards, the shear lag effect tends to be stable, while the effective flange width
decreases slightly.
From the entire loading procedure, it can be found that the effective flange width reaches the min-
imum when the wall reaches the yield, which is the worst case of the structure design. In order to keep
some safety tolerance for the key parts and weak section of the structure, it is necessary to develop the
method for calculating the effective flange width at yield. Furthermore, when calculating the bearing
capacity of the shear wall, it is supposed to use the effective flange width corresponding to the ultimate
limit state. Therefore, the following sections put the emphasis on the simplified calculating approaches
of the effective flange width, especially for the wall at yield and ultimate limit state.
4.2. Simplified calculation of the effective flange width at yield

Following the numerical method as the elastic calculation, nonlinear analysis was carried out for 15
models with different geometric parameters by the FE method. The modeling approach and the mate-
rial properties are the same as the test model, and the results calculated when the wall reaches the yield
are given in Table 3.
From the results in Table 3, it can be seen that the shear lag coefficient β varies obviously with
respect to the ratio H/b if the ratio a/b remains constant, while β varies very little with respect to the
ratio a/b as the ratio H/b keeps unchanged. So the shear lag coefficient β is mainly dominated by
the height/flange width ratio (H/b), the larger the height/flange width ratio, the smaller the shear lag
coefficient, which is the same as the results in elastic stage. Neglecting the influence of the ratio a/b
as well, the values of β that correspond to the average calculated with different a/b are used to fit
the curve between β and H/b in Figure 13. A well-matched result is found with the power function
in the following form:
Figure 12. Variation of effective flange width along loading procedure.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Table 3. Shear lag coefficient at yield.

Models a: b: H Shear lag coefficient, β Models a: b: H Shear lag coefficient, β
1 3:1:5 0.4204 9 1:1:20 0.2171
2 3:1:10 0.3252 10 1:2:5 0.5627
3 3:1:20 0.2200 11 1:2:10 0.3505
4 2:1:5 0.4002 12 1:2:20 0.2809
5 2:1:10 0.3211 13 1:3:5 0.6807
6 2:1:20 0.2190 14 1:3:10 0.519
7 1:1:5 0.3671 15 1:3:20 0.3562
8 1:1:10 0.2952
Figure 13. Curve for shear lag coefficient versus height/flange width ratio at yield.
β ¼ 0:85ðH=bÞ0:46 (36)
The normal stress distribution across the width of the flange at yield derived from the FE results can also
be represented by fifth-order polynomial as Equation (30). So, substituting Equation (36) into Equation
(34), the simplified calculation formula of the effective flange width at yield can be derived as follows:
bey ¼ b 0:71bðH=bÞ0:46 (37)
4.3. Simplified calculation of the effective flange width at ultimate limit state
From the whole loading history in section 4.1, it can be found that the stress redistribution could lead
the stress distribution to be no longer consistent with the typical distribution as shown in Figure 9, so
that the mentioned numerical method is no longer applicable at ultimate limit state. Moreover, forego-
ing analysis shows that the effective flange width at the ultimate limit state is larger than that in elastic
stage. Therefore, in this section, the amplification coefficient method, which is based on the effective
flange width in elastic stage, is used to calculate the effective flange width at the ultimate limit state.
All 15 models with different geometric parameters were analyzed to calculate the amplification coef-
ficients, which are derived from the ratios of the effective flange width at ultimate limit state, and that is
in elastic stage in Table 4.
From the results in Table 4, it can be seen that the amplification coefficient γ is also mainly depen-
dent on the height/flange width ratio (H/b), γ decreases with the increase of H/b. As the influence of the
ratio a/b on γ is generally minor relative to the ratio H/b, in the same way, the values of γ correspond-
ing to the average calculated with different a/b are used to fit the curve between γ and H/b in Figure 14.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Table 4. Amplification coefficient at ultimate limit state.

Models a: b: H Amplification coefficient, γ Models a: b :H Amplification coefficient, γ
1 3:1:5 1.0383 9 1:1:20 1.0107
2 3:1:10 1.0241 10 1:2:5 1.2017
3 3:1:20 1.0070 11 1:2:10 1.0492
4 2:1:5 1.0362 12 1:2:20 1.0290
5 2:1:10 1.0205 13 1:3:5 1.2368
6 2:1:20 1.0089 14 1:3:10 1.1331
7 1:1:5 1.0435 15 1:3:20 1.0270
8 1:1:10 1.0255
Figure 14. Curve for amplification coefficient versus height/flange width ratio at ultimate limit state.
Through comparing the fitting results derived from different forms of equations, a well-matched result
is achieved by adopting a piecewise linear function as follows:

1:34 0:059ðH=bÞ ðH=b ≤ 5Þ
γ¼ (38)
1:05 0:002ðH=bÞ ðH=b ≥ 5Þ
Then, the simplified calculation formula of the effective flange width at ultimate limit state can be
derived as follows:
beu ¼ γbe0 : (39)
4.4. Scope of application

Given the different design objectives and requirements, it is necessary to use the different forms of the
effective flange width obtained above. At normal service limit state when calculating the stiffness and
deformation of the shear wall, it is recommended to use the simplified calculation formula of the effec-
tive flange width in elastic stage (Equation (35)). At ultimate limit state when calculating the bearing
capacity of the shear wall, it is recommended to use the simplified calculation formula of the effective
flange width at ultimate limit state (Equation (39)). For some key parts or weak sections of the struc-
ture, such as the story that distribution is uneven in horizontal or vertical direction, it is recommended
to use the simplified calculation formula of the effective flange width at yield (Equation (37)) in order
to keep some safety tolerance.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
5. VERIFICATION OF THE RESULTS
In order to verify the accuracy of the proposed simplified calculation formulas, the effective flange
width evaluated by it are compared with those obtained from the FE analysis as listed in Table 5. It
can be seen that within the range of the parameters analyzed, the proposed formulas can predict the
effective flange width very well, which differ within 10% from those by FE analysis. Therefore, the
accuracy of the simplified formulas is verified sufficiently for practical applications.
6. EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT DESIGN CODES
The values of the effective flange width derived from different design codes are often different. As
defined in the American Concrete Institute Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI 318-08, 2008), unless a more detailed analysis is performed, effective flange widths of flanged
sections will extend from the face of the web a distance equal to the smaller of one-half the distance
to an adjacent wall web and 25% of the total wall height. While NEHRP guidelines for the seismic
rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA 273, 1997) recommends that, in components and elements
consisting of a web and flange that act integrally, the combined stiffness and strength for flexural
and axial loading shall be calculated considering a width of effective flange on each side of the web
equal to the smaller of (a) the provided flange width, (b) eight times the flange thickness, (c) half
the distance to the next web and (d) one-fifth of the span for beams or one-half the total height for
walls. The provisions in Chinese Code for design of concrete structures (GB 50010, 2010) state that,
in the analysis of bearing capacity, the effective flange width of the shear wall equal to the smaller of
(a) the distance to an adjacent wall web, (b) the widths of the flange between the door or window open-
ings, (c) the web thickness adding six times the flange thickness and (d) 10% of the total wall height.
Due to the large differences of the effective flange width from different design codes, it is neces-
sary to evaluate the values between them. As the accuracy of the simplified formulas has been verified
before, the reasonability on calculating the effective flange width from different design codes can be
evaluated by comparing with the values calculated by the proposed formulas in elastic stage. Figure 15
shows the discrepancies of the effective flange widths from different design codes and proposed
formulas.
The effective flange widths that are determined by different provisions in the design codes are used
to compare with the proposed formulas in different types of symbols as shown in Figure 15, and the
positive value of the discrepancy illustrates that the value calculated by the proposed formula is larger
Table 5. Comparison of the effective flange width.

Models In elastic stage At yield At ultimate limit state
Proposed Finite element Proposed Finite element Proposed Finite element
formulas (m) analysis (m) formulas (m) analysis (m) formulas (m) analysis (m)
1 0.8780 0.8497 0.6614 0.6216 0.9131 0.8822
2 0.9394 0.9116 0.7538 0.7332 0.9676 0.9336
3 0.9699 0.9676 0.8210 0.813 0.9796 0.9743
4 0.8780 0.8768 0.6614 0.6508 0.9131 0.9086
5 0.9394 0.9373 0.7538 0.7314 0.9676 0.9566
6 0.9699 0.9756 0.8210 0.8468 0.9796 0.9842
7 0.8780 0.8909 0.6614 0.6956 0.9131 0.9297
8 0.9394 0.9533 0.7538 0.7566 0.9676 0.9776
9 0.9699 0.9829 0.8210 0.8184 0.9796 0.9934
10 1.5085 1.5146 1.0684 1.0583 1.7989 1.8201
11 1.7560 1.7819 1.3228 1.2397 1.8262 1.8696
12 1.8788 1.9251 1.5076 1.5162 1.9352 1.9810
13 1.8897 1.9151 1.3161 1.3329 2.3464 2.3685
14 2.4487 2.4686 1.7758 1.6617 2.7996 2.7971
15 2.7262 2.6750 2.1100 2.0868 2.8262 2.7471
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 15. Comparison of the effective flange width from simplified formulas with design codes.
FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
than that from the design code. According to Figure 15(a, b), within the range of the parameters stud-
ied, it can be seen that when the flange width is selected as the controlling factor to determine the
effective flange width, the effective flange widths from GB 50010 and ACI 319-08 are close to or just
slightly larger than those calculated by the proposed formulas, and yet the effective flange widths
determined by the rest controlling factors are about 50% smaller than the values calculated by the pro-
posed formulas. It can be concluded that the effective flange widths from GB 50010 and ACI 319-08
are relatively conservative and underestimate the participation of the flange as long as the flange width
is not too small, which may lead to an unconservative design if the wall does not have sufficient shear
capacity to reach its flexural strength and instead of the occurrence of brittle failure. While from
Figure 15(c), the comparison reveals that there is very close agreement in the effective flange widths
between Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 273 and the proposed formulas. Unless
the flange width/web width ratio is greater than 2, the effective flange widths from FEMA 273 are
mainly larger than the values calculated by the proposed formula. It can be concluded that the effective
flange widths from FEMA 273 are relatively reasonable and somewhat overestimates the participation
of the flange, which may lead to an unconservative estimate of the flexural capacity of the wall and
potentially poor performance in a seismic event.
In summary, the effective flange widths obtained from different design codes differ a lot from the
values calculated by the proposed formulas, and the discrepancies of them may even reach to 50–60%.
Underestimating or overestimating the participation of the flange all can cause unsafe design. So for
practical structure design, it is necessary to use the simplified formulas proposed in this paper to esti-
mate the effective flange width, which may guarantee the accuracy and simplicity of the design at the
same time.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
7. CONCLUSIONS
This paper introduces a study on the effective flange width for shear walls with flange. Based on the
energy variational method, the normal stress distribution in the flange and the analytical solution of
effective flange width in elastic stage is first obtained for cantilever shear walls according to the stress
equivalent principle.
A parametric analysis was carried out for a series of T-shaped cross-section shear walls based on the
FE method. The change laws of effective flange width along with the loading process and the varia-
tions of shear lag effect with different parameters are discussed. The numerical results show that the
degree of shear lag, which is quantified by the dimensionless shear lag coefficient β, is mainly depen-
dent on the height/flange width ratio (H/b), and β increases with the decrease of H/b correspondingly,
while the influence of the flange width/web width ratio (a/b) on β is neglectable. Along with the load-
ing process, the effective flange width reaches the minimum when the wall reaches the yield, while the
effective flange width reaches the maximum until the wall reaches the peak load.
Based on the numerical results, the empirical formulas in elastic stage and at yield state for estimat-
ing the shear lag coefficients are derived by matching the FE results with different forms of empirical
equations. Considering the boundary conditions, the distribution of the normal stress across the width
of the flange can be represented by fifth-order polynomial. Then, the simplified formulas of the effec-
tive flange width in elastic stage and at yield state are deduced according to the stress equivalent prin-
ciple. Based on the effective flange width in elastic stage, the simplified formula of the effective flange
width at the ultimate limit state is also derived by the amplification coefficient method. Meanwhile, the
scope of application for different forms of the effective flange width is shown for different design
objectives. Through comparing with the FE results, the accuracy of the simplified formulas is verified
in certain of engineering requirements.
The evaluation about the effective flange width from different design codes shows that the effective
flange widths from GB 50010 and ACI 319-08 are relatively conservative and underestimate the par-
ticipation of the flange as long as the flange width is not too small, which may lead to an
unconservative design if the wall does not have sufficient shear capacity to reach its flexural strength
and instead of the occurrence of brittle failure. While the effective flange widths from FEMA 273 are
relatively reasonable and somewhat overestimates the participation of the flange, which may lead to an
unconservative estimate of the flexural capacity of the wall and potentially poor performance in a seis-
mic event. So for the structural design, it is necessary to use the proposed simplified formulas to esti-
mate the effective flange width, which can deliver a high-reliability solution with lightweight of
calculation efforts.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work presented in this paper was supported by the National Natural Sciences Foundation of China
(no. 51178380 and no. 51478382), as well as the Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program
of Higher Education of China (no. 20116120110004), which is greatly appreciated for their generous
financial support of the project.
REFERENCES
ACI 318-08. 2008. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 319-08) and Commentary. American Concrete In-
stitute: Farmington Hills, MI.
Chen J, Shen SL, Yin ZY, Horpibulsuk S. 2014. Closed-form solution for shear lag with derived flange deformation function.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 102(2014): 104–110.
FEMA 273. 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Building. Federal Emergency Management Agency:
Washington, DC.
GB 50010. 2010. Code for Design of Concrete Structures. Architecture Industry Press: Beijing, China.
Guo JQ, Fang ZZ, Luo XD. 1983. Analysis of shear lag in box beams. China Civil Engineering Journal 16(1): 1–13 (in Chinese).
Haji-Kazemi H, Company M. 2001. Exact method of analysis of shear lag in framed tube structures. The Structural Design of
Tall and Special Buildings 11: 375–388.
Henriques D, Gonçalves R, Camotim D. 2015. A physically non-linear GBT-based finite element for steel and steel-concrete
beams including shear lag effects. Thin-Walled Structures 90(2015): 202–215.
Karman TV. 1923. Festschrift August Fopples.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Kristek V. 1979. Folded plate approach to analysis of shear wall systems and frame structures. ICE Proceedings 67(2):
1065–1075.
Kwan AKH. 1994. Simple method for approximate analysis of framed tube structures. Journal of Structural Engineering 120(4):
1221–1239.
Kwan AKH. 1996. Shear lag in shear/core walls. Journal of Structural Engineering 122(9): 1097–1104.
Li W, Li QN. 2012. Seismic performance of L-shaped RC shear wall subjected to cyclic loading. The Structural Design of Tall
and Special Buildings 21: 855–866.
Li CX, Li B, Wei CL, Zhang J. 2011. 3-bar simulation-transfer matrix method for shear lag analysis. Procedia Engineering 12
(2011): 21–26.
Moffatt KR, Dowling PJ. 1975. Shear lag in steel box girder bridges. Structure Engineering 53(10): 439–448.
Nie JG, Tian CY. 2004. Plastic analysis of effective composite beam width. Journal of Railway Science and Engineering 1(1):
39–43(in Chinese).
Nie JG, Tian CY. 2005. Effective widths of simply supported composite beams with transverse end girders. China Civil Engi-
neering Journal 38(2): 8–12 (in Chinese).
Reissner E. 1946. Analysis of shear lag in box beam by the principle of minimum potential energy. Quarterly of Applied Math-
ematics 5(4): 268–278.
Saenz LP. 1964. Discussion of equation for the stress-stain curve of concrete by Desayi and Krisbnan. ACI Structure Journal 61
(9): 1229–1235.
Shi QX, Wang B. 2014. Shear lag effect analysis and effective flange width study of the T-shaped shear wall with flange. Build-
ing Structure 44(22): 67–71 (in Chinese).
Song Q, Scordelis AC. 1990a. Formulas for shear-lag effect of T-, 1- and box beams. Journal of Structure Engineering 116(5):
1306–1318.
Song Q, Scordelis AC. 1990b. Shear lag analysis of T-, 1- and box beams. Journal of Structure Engineering 116(5): 1290–1305.
Thomsen JH, IV, Wallace, JW. 1995. Displacement-Based Design of RC Structural Walls: experimental studies of walls with
rectangular and T-shaped cross sections. Report No. CU/CEE-95/06, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY.
Thomsen JH, IV, Wallace JW. 2004. Displacement-based design of slender reinforced concrete structural walls—experimental
verification. Journal of Structure Engineering 130: 618–630.
Wu YP, Lai YM, Zhang XF, Zhu YL. 2004. A finite beam element for analyzing shear lag and shear deformation effects in
composite-laminated box girders. Computers and Structures 82(2004): 763–771.
Zhang YH. 2012. Improved finite-segment method for analyzing shear lag effect in thin-walled box girders. Journal of Structure
Engineering 138: 1279–1284.
Zhang PL, Li QN. 2013. Cyclic loading test of T-shaped mid-rise shear wall. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings
22: 759–769.
AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES
Shi Qing-Xuan is a professor at the Department of Civil Engineering, Xi’an University of Architec-
ture and Technology. His research interests are on the seismic performance of concrete structure,
steel-concrete composite structure and tall buildings.
Wang Bin is a PhD student at the Department of Civil Engineering, Xi’an University of Architecture
and Technology. Research interests are on shear lag effect and biaxial coupling effect of shear walls
with flange.
DOI: 10.1002/tal

Simpli Fied Calculation of Effective Ange Width For Shear Walls With Ange

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

Simpli Fied Calculation of Effective Ange Width For Shear Walls With Ange

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2016; 25: 558–577

Simpliﬁed calculation of effective ﬂange width for shear walls

Qing-Xuan Shi and Bin Wang*,†

Received 07 May 2015; Revised 20 August 2015; Accepted 21 October 2015

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2. ANALYTIC SOLUTION OF EFFECTIVE FLANGE WIDTH IN ELASTIC STAGE

2.1. Variational equation

where the external potential energy can be calculated as follows:

Figure 1. Longitudinal displacement of ﬂange.

and the strain energy of the ﬂange is expressed as

where εx and γ are given by

The general solution of the differential equation is as follows:

2.2. Solution of normal stress distribution and effective ﬂange width

The normal stress distribution of the ﬂange can be determined through

From Equation (13), we obtain

Simplifying the formula above by integrating yields

3. NUMERICAL CALCULATION METHOD OF EFFECTIVE FLANGE WIDTH IN ELASTIC

3.1. Model veriﬁcation

Figure 2. Detail dimensions and reinforcement of the specimen.

Figure 3. Finite element model.

Figure 4. Load-displacement curves of experiment and simulation.

Figure 5. Failure pattern of experiment and simulation.

3.2. Analysis and calculation of the shear lag

Figure 6. Concrete compressive strain distribution of the ﬂange.

Table 1. Shear lag coefﬁcient in the elastic stage.

Figure 7. Normal stress nephogram of concrete.

Figure 8. Normal stress vector diagram of concrete.

Figure 9. Deﬁnition of shear lag coefﬁcient.

3.3. Simpliﬁed calculation of the effective ﬂange width

Substituting Equation (30) into Equation (32) yields

Figure 11. Comparison of stress distribution curve in the elastic stage.

Simplifying the formula above by integrating yields

be0 ¼ b 0:62bðH=bÞ1:01 (35)

3.4. Comparison of the effective ﬂange width in elastic stage

4. NUMERICAL CALCULATION METHOD OF EFFECTIVE FLANGE WIDTH IN PLASTIC

4.1. Variation of effective ﬂange width along loading procedure

4.2. Simpliﬁed calculation of the effective ﬂange width at yield

Figure 12. Variation of effective ﬂange width along loading procedure.

Table 3. Shear lag coefﬁcient at yield.

bey ¼ b 0:71bðH=bÞ0:46 (37)

Table 4. Ampliﬁcation coefﬁcient at ultimate limit state.

beu ¼ γbe0 : (39)

4.4. Scope of application

5. VERIFICATION OF THE RESULTS

6. EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT DESIGN CODES

Table 5. Comparison of the effective ﬂange width.

You might also like