ORTHOTROPIC BIOGRAPHY SUMMARY

DECK GIRDER Brian Kozy is a Structural Orthotropic steel decks have

BRIDGES FOR A Project Manager at Parsons been used for bridge
Brinckerhoff, experienced in construction primarily for box
RAPID AND LONG bridge and highway engineering girders and for redecking of
LASTING and serves as the Pittsburgh long-span bridges where the
office Transportation Business governing criterion was the
SOLUTION Manager. Dr. Kozy also serves minimization of dead load. For
as Adjunct Lecturer for the decks and as box girder flanges,
University of Pittsburgh Civil orthotropic construction has
Engineering Department on the proven successful both
subject of Steel Structures domestically and internationally
behavior and design. in thousands of applications.
Throughout his professional This paper explores the
career, he has developed potential use of a modular,
economical and innovative prefabricated orthotropic steel
solutions for numerous complex decked girder for the
steel, concrete, timber, and construction of small to medium
masonry structures for new span highway bridges in terms
construction, rehabilitation, and of engineering, fabrication, and
forensic investigations. economy.
BRIAN KOZY
Ronnie Medlock is responsible
for engineering and quality
control as Vice President,
Technical Services, at High
Steel in Lancaster, PA. He is a
structural engineer and
department manager with 20
years of experience in bridge
design, fabrication, and
construction. Ronnie received
his BSCE in 1987 and MSCE in
1998, both from the University
of Texas in Austin.
RONNIE MEDLOCK

Derek Mitch is a structural

engineering graduate student at
the University of Pittsburgh.

No Photo Available

DEREK MITCH
 ORTHOTROPIC DECK GIRDER BRIDGES FOR A RAPID
AND LONG LASTING SOLUTION
By Brian Kozy, Ronnie Medlock, Derek Mitch

Background on Orthotropic Steel Bridges

Many of the world’s longest span bridges use the orthotropic steel deck girder for its primary superstructure
system. The modern orthotropic steel deck bridge was originally developed by German engineers in the
1930's. The first such deck was constructed in 1936, with the objective of optimizing the use of construction
material during the prewar era. In the U.S., a similar system was built and referred to as a “battle deck.”
Generally, the orthotropic steel bridge system consists of a flat, thin steel plate, stiffened by a series of closely
spaced longitudinal welded ribs of various shapes at right angles, or orthogonal, to intermediate floor beams
(see Figure 1). The Germans created the word orthotropic, which is a combination of “ortho” from
“orthogonal” and “tropic” from “anisotropic”, and a patent for the system was registered in 1948 (1). The
orthotropic deck is typically made integral with the supporting bridge superstructure as a common top flange
to both the floorbeams and girders, which results in cost savings in the design of these other components. The
defining characteristic of the orthotropic steel bridge is that it results in a nearly all steel superstructure which
has the potential (with proper maintenance) to provide a very long service life.
The orthotropic bridge system has been used successfully for thousands of bridges worldwide, especially in
Europe, Asia, the Far East, and South America. The U.S. has not yet fully embraced this technology, with only
approximately 100 such bridges in its inventory. The orthotropic deck bridge has been most commonly used in
the U.S. for long span structures where the minimization of dead load is critical to design, such as the new
Tacoma Narrows Bridge in Washington, for box girders which contain slender compressive plate elements
requiring stiffening, such as the Alfred Zampa Memorial Bridge in California (see Figure 2), and for redecking
of major bridges on urban arterials, such as the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge in New York. However, orthotropic
construction also has potential for use in short to medium span “workhorse” girder bridges when located on a
high volume roadway where rapid construction is required or on rural roadways where a low maintenance
solution is preferred.
There is a recent trend in the U.S. towards using bridge systems that are more rapidly constructible to
minimize impacts to the traveling public, and to solutions that offer more long term durability and economy
with the goal of 100 years of service life (2). The orthotropic steel deck bridge provides an economical
solution to meet these criteria. The orthotropic bridge is able to be constructed quickly because most of the
components are prefabricated in the shop. Future redecking is rendered unnecessary, which is often an
important design criteria for a comparable concrete deck bridge, and this will minimize traffic impacts both
now and in the future. Also, the orthotropic deck provides a smooth continuous riding surface which is
durable against deicing salts and contains minimal joints to prevent leakage and protect the other bridge
components.

Past Problems
Orthotropic steel bridges have not been problem-free historically. They present unique challenges in terms of
design and construction as compared to conventional bridge construction techniques, and they require
experienced bridge fabricators. Fatigue cracking has been observed more frequently in these bridges due to the
high volume of welded details subjected to complex stresses. Contributing to this problem was the fact that
early analytical tools were limited in their ability to quantify the stress states at these details and that the
experimental fatigue database was limited initially. Also, the fatigue performance of many of these details can
be sensitive to the construction techniques. Detailing practices have relied heavily on experience gained
through trial and error. Unfortunately many trials by inexperienced fabricators were unsuccessful, which has

Page 1 of 16
often led to distrust by U.S. highway infrastructure owners. The potential for cracking exists at the rib to deck
weld, where the continuous, one sided partial penetration weld is now executed with minimum penetration of
80 percent, and with no melt through allowed. Welds executed in this manner have performed very well.
Cracking is also possible at the rib to floorbeam intersections, where complex stresses are generated by the in-
plane flexure of the floorbeam combined with the out-of-plane twisting from the rib rotations. These details
have been improved by including a stress relieving cutout in the floorbeam around the rib which has
performed well when the geometry is carefully designed and detailed (see Figure 3). One clear advantage to
the orthotropic steel deck is that it is a highly redundant system, and minor cracking will most often arrest
itself and pose no serious threat to the strength or integrity of the structure.
Wearing surfaces applied to the deck plate have also exhibited performance problems with cracking, rutting,
shoving, and/or delamination, which has often resulted in early maintenance and resurfacing. These problems
have generally been attributed to inadequate construction control, environmental related degradation of the
materials, or overly flexible design of the steel deck components. Recent research and development and
general design improvements such as minimum deck plate thickness of 14-16mm have addressed the causes of
many of these previous failures, and current design concepts have proven successful in many modern
orthotropic bridges in the U.S. and abroad. The San Mateo Hayward Bridge in California is an outstanding
example of a successful wearing surface, with the original surfacing lasting well over 30 years.
There are two broad categories of surfacing materials used: (a) bituminous surfacing systems including mastic
asphalts, latex modified asphalts and reinforced asphalt systems, and (b) polymer surfacing systems including
epoxy resins, methacrylates and polyurethanes. Although not mandatory, many bituminous surfacing materials
used on steel orthotropic deck bridges are 50 mm or greater in thickness while most polymer surfacing
materials are 20 mm or less in thickness. The climate generally dictates which type of surface is to be selected
since bituminous surfaces are more sensitive to changes in temperature, but both have demonstrated ability to
provide service life in excess of 30 years. No matter what type of wearing surface is utilized, regular
maintenance and occasional resurfacing will be required during the design life of the deck. But this is much
less costly than full replacement of a comparable concrete deck.
The corrosion resistance of orthotropic steel decks overall has been very good. The top side is protected by the
wearing surface, and the bottom side can be protected with a conventional paint system. Just like any steel
bridge structure, orthotropic decks may require regular maintenance in terms of repainting. However, the
coating on the underside of the deck can last very long if it is not subjected to direct salt water spray.
Orthotropic decks are typically made continuous, and without joints, for extended lengths, which has the effect
of minimizing potential locations for water penetration. Further increasing the corrosion resistance is the fact
that the individual ribs are typically sealed with end plates that prevent moisture from entering the interior of
the rib. Outside the U.S. a successful approach has been to use a fully closed box girder cross section and
employ an in-service dehumidification system on the interior to essentially eliminate the possibility of
corrosion, and thus eliminate need for a costly interior coating system. The Fremont Bridge in Portland OR has
exhibited superior resistance to corrosion, with the original paint system still intact after 35 years.

Potential Advantages
Orthotropic decks can be combined with girders in many different ways to form the bridge cross-section,
depending on the bridge width, span lengths, and requirements to facilitate fabrication and erection (see Figure
4). All can provide a very light superstructure and can be used to facilitate preassembly and rapid erection.
Closed girder sections can provide superior service life since less surface area is exposed to weather, although
many owners in the U.S. seem to prefer open girders sections to facilitate inspection by snooper or man lifts
and to eliminate any concerns with confined space entry. Below is a summary of potential advantages that
these orthotropic deck girder bridges can offer.
a. Improving the Safety Performance of Structures and Long-Term Safety
Improvement

Page 2 of 16
Orthotropic deck girders could improve the safety performance compared to conventional composite steel
bridge construction in many ways. First, these girders are all very stable during erection. In a recent accident
over I-70 outside of Denver, CO a conventional steel I-girder collapsed during construction, killing one
innocent driver on the active roadway below. The use of box girders or the decked I-girder essentially
eliminates the possibility of lateral torsional buckling of the girder after it is released. In addition, these girders
can be erected with the use of one crane and do not require multiple “holding” cranes to be used while
connections to adjacent girders are made. Since conventional cross-frames can be eliminated from these cross
sections, very little elevated assembly work is performed by ironworkers. Also, once the girders have been
erected, a safe working platform is established providing easy access for workers without the need to tie off
and for the staging of materials. Ironworkers are not required to move about on narrow girder top flanges as in
current steel erection practice. This essentially eliminates one source of construction worker fatality.
Orthotropic girder systems can also reduce long-term risks and increase safety. Since the need for future
redecking is eliminated, construction risks can be minimized in the future. Redecking of concrete bridge decks
can be risky in terms of dropping debris onto active roadways below during demolition and from the need for
workers to move about on bare steel framing. Bridge redecking can also be a risk for the traveling public.
There have been instances where motorists have traveled into bridge work zones and dropped through an open
deck area that had been removed during redecking. This risk can also be eliminated.
b. Reducing Congestion During Construction
Since orthotropic girder systems utilize a prefabricated modular unit, the construction can be executed more
quickly than a conventional bridge with cast in place concrete deck, which minimizes traffic congestion during
construction. The conventional cast in place concrete deck, which is one of the most time-consuming stages of
the construction due to curing requirements, is replaced with a simple wearing surface overlay on the steel top
flange/deck. The elimination of the CIP deck will reduce the overall construction duration. The ease of
construction for the orthotropic girders can also minimize traffic delays for steel erection. Very often, steel
erection requires lane closures for the positioning of cranes and for safety of the traveling public. These
requirements can be minimized due to the reduced amount of time required to assemble an orthotropic deck
bridge. Also, because future redecking is not necessary, there will be minimal impacts to traffic in the future.
c. Accelerating Construction
The orthotropic girder system can provide ability for accelerated construction. The girders can be erected
quickly and the deck can be paved without the need for any concrete formwork or rebar placement. There are
no overhang forms to be erected, which normally slows construction. Often the wearing surface can be shop
applied which can reduce duration to the minimum possible. Also, since the bridge section has a very low dead
weight, it is most practical to preassemble parts of the bridge and then roll or lift them into place.
d. Improving Quality
The orthotropic girder bridge can improve quality over that obtained with conventional composite steel girders
with concrete decks in many ways:
• Efficient Use of Material: Since this system provides a nearly all-steel superstructure, it is more efficient
than a comparable concrete deck structure. In this case, the steel deck provides full rigidity to the girder for
resistance of all dead load stresses. That is, no long term losses in stiffness occur for dead load as do with
the concrete alternative. Also, the deck is fully effective in resistance of negative bending which
maximizes structural efficiency in continuous bridges.
• Low Dead Weight: The weight of the orthotropic superstructure is typically near 50% of the comparable
composite steel bridge. This reduces the demands on the substructures, which is especially critical for
bridges located in seismic zones.

Page 3 of 16
• Shallow depth: Since the deck is integral with the primary girders, the girders will have a very shallow
depth when optimally designed. This may allow for lowering of the bridge profile and provide savings in
substructures and approach roadways.
• Prefabricated Elements: The high content of prefabricated elements made in the shop allow for better
quality control in general. Geometry can be verified and the dead load of the deck has very little
variability.
• All Steel Superstructure: The cast in place concrete deck has the highest level of variability in quality due
to the many variables such as mix, W/C ratio, temperature, placement, curing, etc., all of which are
eliminated with this system.
• Watertight deck: The steel deck system will not crack and leak water, which is a common problem in
typical CIP concrete decks. This will minimize risk of deterioration of the girders, bearings, and
substructure components.
• Extended Service Life: This system has the potential with proper maintenance to provide a service life in
excess of 100 years.

Economical Fabrication
For orthotropic deck bridges, many fabrication operations are similar to those used in fabrication for other
steel bridge types, but stiffened deck plate fabrication is unique. Generally, labor expense drives the cost of an
orthotropic deck, but for the proposed systems design features can readily be incorporated to improve
fabrication economy over traditional systems. Cost analyses of contractors’ bid prices on past projects shows
that the cost of material generally amounts to only 15% to 25% of the bid, while the cost of fabrication and
erection labor accounts for 75% to 85% of the total cost. The cost of fabrication (detailing, cutting, fitting,
welding) depends largely on the complexity and the number of the intersections between the longitudinal ribs
and the floorbeam webs.

Rib to Deck Welding

Ribs are joined to deck plates by partial joint penetration welds. AASHTO requires 80% penetration by
design; AASHTO has not published a tolerance for this penetration, but leading national academics have
expressed comfort with +/- 15%. Further, designers prefer to minimize the amount of melt-through and burn-
through associated with this joint, with project provisions typically calling for 0% allowable.
An essential consideration for achieving economy in this joint is to allow the fabricator to choose the joint
detail in preparation for this welding. While this is customary practice for most welds, some designs have
called for a large bevel on the rib. This combined with tight control on weld melt through / burn through has
created an untenable situation on some bridges. Mandating a large bevel results in a landing that is too small to
control melt-through and burn through. Fabricators can readily achieve 80+% penetration without this bevel.
However, this should be verified during the course of fabrication to ensure good results are achieved
throughout the project. Joints specified as shown in Figure 5 are not readily achievable. With the large bevel
and associated small landing (1/16”), it is not readily possible to avoid melt-through and burn through. Figure
6 shows a better way to specify joint requirements: specify the performance demand (penetration, lack of melt-
through and burn-through) and provide the fabricator the flexibility to best achieve it. Figure 7 shows an
example of a joint prepared without a bevel where 87% penetration was achieved. Actual depth of penetration
should be verified with UT testing (see Figure 8).

Rib to Floorbeam Welding

Designs often require costly rib to floorbeam connection details, such as mix partial pen / fillet welds attaching
the rib side walls to floorbeams and sophisticated cutouts and grinding at the weld terminus. In part, this is
driven by the need to keep the deck light by using members that are relatively thin. Light weight is essential on
longer span bridges, especially signature spans. However, weight is less of an issue in terms of cost for more
typical workhorse bridges.

Page 4 of 16
For moderate span applications, heavier plate sections can be used to improve local stiffness and reduce stress
ranges such that a special cut-out can be avoided and, rather, the rib can be fillet welded around its entire
exposed perimeter. Figure 9 shows three viable options for this connection. For the least cost fabrication,
thicker ribs can be used to reduce the stress range in the rib and allow it to be welded to the floor beam along
its entire exposed perimeter, as shown on the left, versus the more costly approach of using a sophisticated cut-
out with CJP welding, as shown on the right. A hybrid option can also be used where a cutout is provided,
while still using fillet welds

Mechanization
Orthotropic deck bridges are comprised of parts that repeat frequently and thereby readily lend themselves to
mechanized fabrication. Such mechanization is not prevalent in the United States because the market has not
existed to facilitate this. However, a larger market will drive such mechanization, resulting in considerably
lower costs.
Such mechanization is readily visible overseas. European fabricators commonly accomplish both ribs to deck
welds on three ribs at one time using six SAW machines mounted on a gantry that can traverse the full length
of an orthotropic deck sub-panel. Robotics offer another significant savings potential: welding robots are
ideally suited to the multiple position fillet welding associated with rib to floor beam welds (see Figure 10).

Field Welding
Field welding is an important construction process for orthotropic deck girder bridge construction. At the least,
field welding is the best way to join deck plates in the field to provide a monolithic driving surface. Further,
field welding may be readily used to join other elements as well. Though some engineers have a negative
perception of the process, field welding is a mature construction application. Not only is field welding a
common and necessary part of orthotropic deck bridge construction, but also many bridge owners have used
field welding to join other steel bridge parts, including plate girder flange and web splices. The keys are to
ensure the welder is qualified for the job and that a suitable welding specification, such as AASHTO/AWS
D1.5., is followed.

Design Example
To illustrate the application of orthotropic girder design and estimated cost, a superstructure design is
performed for a hypothetical medium span bridge and the material quantities and costs are compared to a
conventional composite steel design with concrete deck. The development of the composite design is not
shown in detail, but it is executed by typical design approach.
a. Description of Bridge
The bridge configuration utilized in this design example is a three-span continuous bridge with span lengths of
130’-180’-130’ with overall deck width = 40’ (see Figures 11 and 12). The girder spacing is selected as 14ft
since future redecking by staged (half-width) construction will not be necessary. The ribs are 12” deep and
spaced at 24”, and the deck and girders are made integral through floor beams spaced at 15’ intervals. The
deck plate thickness is 5/8” and the rib plate thickness is 3/8”. The web and bottom flanges of the girders are
designed and detailed as conventional plate girders. The wearing surface is assumed to be 2” bituminous
asphalt. Although a optimal design would require more girder flange transitions, for the sake of brevity, this
example examines the 3 areas of primary interest, the controlling location in spans 1 and 2 as well as the
sections immediately over support 2. All steel is assumed to be A709 Grade 50.
b. Analysis
A refined 3-D finite element analysis is performed using the program LARSA and the sizes of the bottom
flange plates are determined for each critical location to keep total factored stresses below Fy as per AASHTO
LRFD design specifications. Refined analysis is employed for this work to eliminate any conservatism that
would result by use of simplified distribution factors. The analysis focuses on global response; the local

Page 5 of 16
stresses in the ribs and floorbeams are assumed to be acceptable based on selection of orthotropic deck
geometry consistent with previous projects. There are three types of loading that are analyzed; the dead load of
the bridge itself, the dead load from the barriers and wearing surface, and the live load from traffic. In order to
determine the HL-93 live loading demands, influence surface-based analysis is utilized and the resulting
forces/stresses are added to the stress from the self weight, barriers, and wearing surfaces. The deck, ribs, and
webs of the girders are all modeled using shell elements, while the bracing, floor beams, and bottom flanges
are modeled using beam elements (see Figures 13, 14). The results are displayed in Table 1 and in Figure 15.
c. Cost Estimate
Now that the orthotropic deck girder bridge and concrete deck bridge are designed, the costs of each
superstructure are estimated and compared. For the purposes of this investigation, unit costs for the orthotropic
deck alternative are assumed as follows: 1) Structural Steel Girders = $1.25/lb 2) Orthotropic Steel Deck =
$2.75/lb and 3) Wearing Surface = $15/Square Foot. It is understood that these numbers will vary depending
on current material prices, local labor conditions, bid competition, and many other factors. These values are
based on consultation with fabricators and suppliers and are considered reasonable for the purposes of general
comparison. The concrete deck alternative prices are based on recent project costs in the Pennsylvania market.
Table 2 provides a summary of cost comparison for the orthotropic steel bridge and the conventional
composite steel with concrete deck.

Discussions and Conclusions

Based on the cost estimates of the two alternatives, a number of observations can be made. First, the total cost
of the orthotropic steel deck superstructure is approximately 107% (or $1.6M) more expensive. As expected,
this is primarily due to the high cost of the orthotropic steel deck ($2.4M), whereas the concrete deck only
costs $0.5M. In terms of the premium on the total cost of the entire bridge, this depends on the cost of the
substructure, but it will be much less than 100%. Thus, the orthotropic bridge would not compete with the
conventional concrete deck for most typical applications in the current market. However, if life cycle costs or
the user costs associated with the construction duration and/or detour are considered, the additional cost of
$1.9M for the orthotropic deck girder bridge can become justified. Also, if orthotropic decks were
standardized and fabricators were able to mechanize for higher volume and produce at a lower unit price, then
they may become more competitive with conventional concrete decks.
One final advantage of the orthotropic deck bridge that was not quantified is related to the reduction of dead
weight. The orthotropic alternative in this design example is only 60% of the mass of the concrete deck bridge.
This will reduce the costs of foundations, especially for bridges in seismic zones.

Page 6 of 16
References:
(1) Sadlacek, Gerhard (1992). “Orthotropic Plate Deck Bridges,” Constructional Steel Design – An
international Guide, chapter 2.10, ed. by Dowling P., Harding J., and Bjorhovde R. Elsevier
Science Publishers LTD. Essex, England.
(2) Mangus, A. and Mistry, V. (2006). “Get In, Get Out, Stay Out,” Public Roads Magazine Vol. 70
No. 3.
(3) AISC (1963). Design Manual for Orthotropic Steel Plate Deck Bridges, American Institute of
Steel Construction. Chicago, IL.

Page 7 of 16
Figures and Tables:

Figure 1. Orthotropic Steel Deck Bridge (from reference 3)

Figure 2. Erection of Orthotropic Box Girder Segment for the Alfred Zampa Memorial Bridge

Page 8 of 16
Figure 3. Orthotropic Deck Rib to Floorbeam Detail with Stress Relieving Cutout

Figure 4. Orthotropic Deck Girder Bridge Cross Sections

Page 9 of 16
Figure 5. Rib to Deck Weld Detail with Large Bevel

Figure 6. Rib to Deck Weld Detail without Bevel

Page 10 of 16
 Figure 7. Successful Rib to Deck Weld

Figure 8. UT Testing of Rib to Deck Weld

Page 11 of 16
 (a) Fillet Weld All-Around (b) Fillet Weld with Cutout, Non- (c) CJP Weld with Cutout
Ground Termination

Figure 9. Possible Rib to Floorbeam Weld Details

Figure 10. Mechanized Orthotropic Deck Fabrication (courtesy of igm Robotic Systems Inc.)

Page 12 of 16
 Figure 11. Orthotropic Steel Girder Bridge Cross-Section

5/8” Deck Plate 12” Rib

Field Splice (typ.)

Figure 12. Girder Elevation

Page 13 of 16
 Span 1
Span 2
Span 3

Figure 13. Orthotropic Bridge Model

Figure 14. Influence Surface and Loading for the Maximum Positive Moment at Mispan
in Middle Girder Span 2

Page 14 of 16
11,424 kft

8,929 kft

Plate
Transition

12,456 kft

Figure 15. Total Factored Moment Envelope

Page 15 of 16
 Table 1. Factored Maximum Moments

Factored Maximum Span 1 Pier 1 Span 2

Moment
Self Weight 1,009.6 kft 2,716.7 kft 1,690.7 kft
Barriers and W. S. 1,755.6 kft 2,792 kft 2,264.5 kft
HL-93 plus Impact 6,163.5 kft 6947 kft 7,469.1 kft
Total: 8928.7 kft 12455.7 kft 11,424.3 kft

Table 2. Cost Summary Table

Orthotropic Steel Composite Concrete

Quantity Unit Cost Cost ($) Quantity Unit Cost Cost ($)
Structural
351,700 (lb) 1.25 439,625 761,000 (lb) 1.25 951,000
Steel
Ortho Deck 875,800 (lb) 2.75 2,408,450 - - -
Studs - - - 4000 (EA) 3.50 14,000
Concrete - - - 564 (cy) 550 310,200
Rebar - - - 150,000 (lb) 1.50 225,000
Wearing
15840 (SF) 15 237,600 - - -
Surface
Total: - - 3,086,000 - - 1,500,000

Page 16 of 16