Thin-Walled Structures 40 (2002) 537–553

www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Inelastic behavior of orthotropic steel deck

stiffened by U-shaped stiffeners
Sheng-Jin Chen ∗Kuo-Chen Yang
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Department of Construction Engineering, PO
Box 90-130, Taipei, Taiwan

Received 29 June 2001; accepted 15 January 2002

Abstract

Owing to its high strength and stiffness, the orthotropic steel deck system has been widely
used in the construction of long-span steel bridges. However, due to esthetic and economic
considerations, slender types of orthotropic bridge have become very popular in recent years.
Consequently, the stability of the orthotropic steel deck system under traffic load becomes
more critical. Although the instability problem of the orthotropic steel deck system due to
flexural compressive stress has been recognized for years, current bridge design specifications
do not clearly specify the criteria to prevent local buckling of the orthotropic deck system.
Most previous studies on orthotropic steel deck systems were focused on the out-of-plane
behavior of the steel deck, and limited study has been carried out on the in-plane compressive
behavior of the orthotropic steel deck system. There is a lack of knowledge on the inelastic
behavior of the orthotropic steel deck system under flexural compressive stress. In this study,
the inelastic behavior of 30 full-scale orthotropic steel deck specimens was examined. Accord-
ing to this study, it is found that the current design practice may lead to local buckling of the
deck system. Based on this study, criteria are proposed for the requirement of compact and
non-compact sections. Design guidelines for the inelastic ultimate strength of the steel deck
system are also suggested.  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Orthotropic steel deck bridge; Deck plate; U-shaped stiffener; Inelastic buckling

∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +886-2-2911-1632; fax. +886-2-2737-6606.
E-mail addresses: sjchen@tcri.org.tw (S.-J. Chen); ceasy@ms1.hinet.net (K.-C. Yang).

0263-8231/02/$ - see front matter  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 6 3 - 8 2 3 1 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 0 5 - 8
538 S.-J. Chen, K.-C. Yang / Thin-Walled Structures 40 (2002) 537–553

1. Introduction

Orthotropic steel deck systems, especially the deck plate stiffened by longitudinal
stiffeners of closed section, have been widely used in designing modern long-span
bridges to reduce the weight and depth of the girders. In the design of an orthotropic
steel deck bridge, the deck plate that is stiffened by welded longitudinal stiffeners
is assumed to act as a flexural member under wheel loads. However, the deck plates
in the positive moment areas of cable-stayed bridges and girder-type bridge are prim-
arily subjected to flexural compressive stress under the traffic load. Under compress-
ive force, the effectiveness of the deck system is significantly affected by the com-
pactness of its elements. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a rational method to
examine the instability behavior under traffic load and to prevent the premature fail-
ure of the deck system in the design of orthotropic steel bridges.
Although the local buckling problem of the orthotropic steel deck system has
been recognized for years, current bridge design specifications do not specify proper
requirements on the width-to-thickness ratio either for the deck plate or its stiffeners.
Table 1 lists the requirement of width-to-thickness ratio of orthotropic deck systems
of major design specifications. It is found in Table 1 that the requirement for width-
to-thickness ratio of the orthotropic deck system varies greatly between these speci-
fications. For example, the design manual for orthotropic steel deck bridges of the
American Institute for Steel Construction (AISC) specifies the minimum thickness
of the deck plate based on the consideration of out-of-plane deformation under traffic
load instead of the in-plane compressive behavior [1]. The ASD Specification of the
American Association of State Highway And Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
specifies the width-to-thickness ratio for conventional I-shaped girder bridges [2].
Besides the criteria that are stated in the AASHTO-ASD Specification, the
AASHTO-LRFD Specification specifies 14 mm as the minimum thickness of the
deck plate based on consideration the of distortion-induced fatigue problem [3]. It
is found that the in-plane stability behavior of orthotropic steel deck systems has
not been properly considered in current bridge design specifications.
In recent years, the in-plane instability behavior of the orthotropic steel deck sys-
tem has attracted many researchers’ attention. Kitada et al. studied the global
behavior of stiffened plates subjected to biaxial in-plane forces and proposed an
interaction curve to predict the ultimate strength of the stiffened steel plates [4–7].
Mikami and Niwa proposed several design equations after studying the ultimate
strength of stiffened deck plates under in-plane compression [8,9]. Chen studied the
ultimate capacity of the steel deck system stiffened by a U-shaped longitudinal stiff-
ener, which was designed according to current design specification, under compress-
ive force and found that local buckling of the element led to the premature failure
of the specimen (Fig. 1) [10]. To prevent the premature failure of the deck system,
it was suggested that the local buckling of the element should be prevented in the
design of the orthotropic steel deck system.
In this study, 30 specimens of an orthotropic deck system stiffened by U-shaped
stiffeners were tested to study the in-plane strength of the stiffened steel deck system.
Since the residual stress induced from cold forming as well as the welding process
 S.-J. Chen, K.-C. Yang / Thin-Walled Structures 40 (2002) 537–553 539

Table 1
Comparison of design specifications on the thickness of the deck system

Specification Design criteria Example (ASTM A572 Gr. 50 steel)

冪 16 冉E冊
AISC [1] 3
125 p Deck plate:tⱖ8 mm
a
Deck plate: tⱖa
Stiffened element: plate theory b
Stiffened element: ⱕ54
t
AASHTO-ASD [2] For I-shaped girders:
b Projected compression flange element:
Projected compression flange element: ⱕ b
t
ⱕ9.2
17 t
冑F y
D 300 D
Web thickness: ⱕ Web thickness: ⱕ86
tw 冑Fy tw
AASHTO-LRFD [3] tra3 Deck plate: tmin ⫽ 14
Deck plate: tmin ⫽ 14b, ⱕ400b
td,eff3h
b
冪
b E Stiffened element: ⱕ36
Stiffened element: ⱕ1.49 t
t fy
DIN 18800 [12,13] b b
Deck plate: tmin ⫽ 12, ⬍ 25 Deck plate: tmin ⫽ 12, ⬍ 25
t t
b
冪f
b 4E Stiffened element: ⱕ31
Stiffened element: ⱕ0.64 t
t y
Japan Road Deck plate: tmin ⫽ 12 Deck plate: tmin ⫽ 12
Association [14]
Stiffened element: tmin ⫽ 8, b
Stiffened element: tmin ⫽ 8, ⱕ34
t
b
1900 kg/cm2, ⱕ34f,
t

2,200,000 冉冊
tf 2
b
b
, 34f ⬍ ⱕ80f
t
Honshu-Shikoku Deck plate: tmin ⫽ 12, 280ⱕaⱕ340 Deck plate: tmin ⫽ 12
Road Association
[15]
Stiffened element: 6ⱕtⱕ8 Stiffened element: 6ⱕtⱕ8

a
Based on out-of-plane deformation under traffic load.
b
Based on distortion-induced fatigue.

is one of the major concerns that affects the load-carrying behavior of compression
members, the distribution of the residual stress in these orthotropic deck systems
was also examined.

2. Residual stress of deck plate stiffened by U-shaped longitudinal stiffeners

The distribution of residual stress in the orthotropic steel deck systems was exam-
ined to study its effect on the inelastic behavior. The sectioning method was adopted
540 S.-J. Chen, K.-C. Yang / Thin-Walled Structures 40 (2002) 537–553

Fig. 1. Premature failure of U-shaped stiffener [10].

to measure the distribution and magnitude of the residual stress in the steel deck
system. The U-shaped stiffener was cold formed from a gas cutting plate and then
welded to the deck plate. The residual stress due to cold forming of the U-shaped
stiffener was studied first, and then the residual stress of the steel deck weld with
the U-shaped stiffener was examined. Since thin plates are adopted in this study,
the variation of residual stress through the thickness of the plates was ignored. Fig.
2 shows the distribution of residual stress in the U-shaped longitudinal stiffener
before and after it is welded to the deck plate. It is shown in Fig. 2 that, after
welding, the magnitude and pattern of residual stress change dramatically in the cold
forming region, i.e. 100 mm to 285 mm and ⫺100 mm to ⫺285mm. The residual
stress pattern of the deck plate is shown in Fig. 3. From this study, it is found that
the average compressive residual stress is about 0.05 and 0.25 of the nominal yielding
stress for the U-shaped stiffener and deck plate, respectively.

3. Experimental study of orthotropic steel deck system under compressive

force

In designing the conventional girder-type bridge, the deck plate with longitudinal
stiffeners is subject to compressive force in the positive moment area (Fig. 4). For
cable-stayed bridges, or bridges with deep sections, the flexural compressive stresses
on the longitudinal stiffeners are distributed almost uniformly (Fig. 5). In order to
study the inelastic behavior of the deck plate system under the most severe condition,
S.-J. Chen, K.-C. Yang / Thin-Walled Structures 40 (2002) 537–553 541

Fig. 2. Residual stress in U-shaped longitudinal stiffener.

Fig. 3. Residual stress in deck plate (PL 14×900).

542 S.-J. Chen, K.-C. Yang / Thin-Walled Structures 40 (2002) 537–553

Fig. 4. Stress distribution in positive moment area of girder-type bridge.

30 specimens were tested under the uniform compressive force. These 30 specimens
can be classified into two series, i.e. U-shaped stiffener specimens and deck plate
specimens. Specimen nos. 1-1 to 9-2 were designed to examine the instability
behavior of the U-shaped stiffeners with varying width-to-thickness ratios on their
two legs, while the width-to-thickness ratio of the deck plate was designed to avoid
instability occurring on the deck plate before the U-shaped stiffener failed. Specimen
nos. 10-1 to 17-2 were designed with varying width-to-thickness ratios of the deck
plate while the U-shaped stiffeners were designed to avoid the instability problem.
All specimens were designed to avoid the failure mode of elastic buckling, in order
to establish the proper design criteria in the inelastic range.
All specimens were fabricated from ASTM A572 Gr.50 steel and tested following
the SSRC testing procedure [11]. The material properties of the steel plates used in
this study are listed in Table 2. The dimensions of the specimens are listed in Tables
3 and 4, and also shown in Fig. 6. Two identical specimens were tested for the same
width-to-thickness ratio. All specimens were milled at both ends to ensure flatness
of the loading surface.
Strain gages were installed to monitor the magnitude and distribution of stresses.
Dial gages were instrumented to monitor the onset of local buckling. As the local
buckling occurred, the deformation in the out-of-plane direction increased dramati-
cally. Fig. 7 shows a typical example in monitoring the onset of local buckling. The
tests were stopped if the specimens failed due to excessive deformation from local
buckling or yielding.
 S.-J. Chen, K.-C. Yang / Thin-Walled Structures 40 (2002) 537–553 543

Fig. 5. Stress condition of cable-stayed bridges.

Table 2
Material properties of steel plate

Plate thickness Yield stress (sy) sy/snomial Ultimate stress (MPa) Elongation (%)
(mm) (MPa)

8 429.1 1.20 522.0 24.3

10 418.0 1.17 524.7 24.7
14 420.5 1.18 557.7 23.9

4. Discussion of experimental results

4.1. Experimental results of U-shaped stiffener specimens

Table 5 lists the calculated ultimate strengths based on the nominal yield stress
and the average yield stress from the tension coupon, respectively, as well as those
from experimental results. It is found from Table 5 that the average ultimate strength
from experiments is about 15% higher than the nominal ultimate strength. This is
because the actual yielding strengths of the steel plates are higher than the nominal
544 S.-J. Chen, K.-C. Yang / Thin-Walled Structures 40 (2002) 537–553

Table 3
Dimension of specimens (U-shaped stiffener specimens)

Specimen no. bd (mm) bd/td b1 (mm) h (mm) bs (mm) ts (mm) bs/ts L (mm) A (mm2)

1-1 & 1-2 273 19.5 100 210 219 10 21.9 650 12,500
2-1 & 2-2 284 20.3 100 230 240 10 24.0 650 13,070
3-1 & 3-2 296 21.1 40 250 260 10 26.0 650 11,970
4-1 & 4-2 308 22.0 40 270 281 10 28.1 650 12,560
5-1 & 5-2 319 22.8 40 290 302 10 30.2 650 13,130
6-1 & 6-2 290 20.7 100 240 250 8 31.3 650 12,060
7-1 & 7-2 302 21.6 100 260 271 8 33.9 650 12,560
8-1 & 8-2 313 22.4 100 280 292 8 36.5 650 13,050
9-1 & 9-2 325 23.2 100 300 313 8 39.1 650 13,550

Table 4
Dimension of specimens (deck plate specimens)

Specimen no. bd (mm) td (mm) bd/td bs (mm) ts (mm) bs/ts L (mm) A (mm2)

10-1 & 10-2 310 14 22.1 246.1 10 24.6 650 11,322

11-1 & 11-2 340 14 24.3 246.1 10 24.6 750 11,742
12-1 370 14 26.4 246.1 10 24.6 750 12,162
13-1 & 13-2 400 14 28.6 246.1 10 24.6 850 12,582
14-1 & 14-2 430 14 30.7 246.1 10 24.6 900 13,002
15-1 & 15-2 460 14 32.9 246.1 10 24.6 950 13,422
16-1 & 16-2 490 14 35.0 246.1 10 24.6 1000 13,842
17-1 & 17-2 520 14 37.1 246.1 10 24.6 1100 14,262

values (Table 2). It is also found from Table 5 and Fig. 8 that specimens with width-
to-thickness ratio less than 24 can reach their plastic yielding strength. The rest of
the specimens failed before reaching their yielding strength, due to local buckling
of the stiffeners. Table 6 lists the strength at the onset of local buckling of the
stiffeners. It is found that local buckling of the stiffener occurs at a strength 30%
lower than the ultimate strength. The specimen reached its ultimate strength when
the deck plate buckled finally. This indicates that the strength of the deck plate
governs the ultimate strength of the specimen. However, the secondary effect induced
by local buckling of the stiffeners decreases the ultimate capacity of the specimen
as well.
The relationship between the strength and width-to-thickness ratio for the 15 U-
shaped stiffener specimens is shown in Fig. 9. As shown in Fig. 9, the ultimate
strength decreases with the increase of the width-to-thickness ratio. Only when the
width-to-thickness ratio is less than 24 are the experimental strengths of the speci-
mens larger than the yielding strength. With width-to-thickness ratios greater than
24, the specimens are not able to reach the plastic yielding strength. After normaliz-
ing with respect to the nominal yield stress, it is suggested to set the width-to-thick-
 S.-J. Chen, K.-C. Yang / Thin-Walled Structures 40 (2002) 537–553 545

Fig. 6. Design of specimens: (a) U-shaped stiffener specimen; (b) deck plate specimen.

ness ratio to 440 / 冑Fy as the criterion for the compact section to prevent the local
buckling of the U-shaped stiffeners before reaching its yielding strength.

4.2. Experimental results of deck plate specimens

A total of 15 specimens with varying width-to-thickness ratios were tested to

investigate the inelastic behavior of the deck plate. Table 7 lists the calculated ulti-
mate strengths based on the nominal yield stress and the yield stress of the tension
coupon, respectively, as well as the ultimate strengths obtained from the experiments
on deck plate specimens. It is shown in Table 7 that the specimen reaches its yielding
strength without local buckling or premature failure as long as the width-to-thickness
ratio of deck plate is less than 22. For width-to-thickness ratios greater than 22,
the strength decreases dramatically before reaching the yielding strength and the
deformation capacity is also limited due to the local buckling of the deck plate (Fig.
10). Fig. 11 shows the relationship between strength and width-to-thickness ratio for
the deck plate specimens. In Fig. 11, it is found that the ratio of Pexp./Py decreases
with the increase of width-to-thickness ratio. Only when the width-to-thickness ratio
is less than 22 is the deck system able to reach its yielding strength. This indicates
that width-to-thickness ratio less than 22 is the requirement for the compact section
of the deck plate. After normalizing the width-to-thickness ratio with respect to the
546 S.-J. Chen, K.-C. Yang / Thin-Walled Structures 40 (2002) 537–553

Fig. 7. Typical inelastic buckling behavior (specimen no. 9-1): (a) load–strain curve; (b) load vs. out-
of-plane deformation.

nominal yield stress, the width-to-thickness ratio to be qualified as a compact section

of deck plate is 440 / 冑Fy.
During the test, it was also observed that the specimens reach their ultimate
strength at the same time as local buckling occurs at the deck plate. Obviously, the
deck plate governs the ultimate strength of the specimens. Since the deck plate con-
tributed a higher percentage of ultimate strength, it is suggested to set a more severe
criterion for the deck plate compared with its stiffener elements. Based on these
experimental studies, 400 / 冑Fy and 440 / 冑Fyare recommended as the width-to-thick-
ness ratios for the requirement of a compact section of deck plate and a U-shaped
stiffener, respectively.
 S.-J. Chen, K.-C. Yang / Thin-Walled Structures 40 (2002) 537–553 547

Table 5
Comparisons of ultimate strength (U-shaped stiffener specimens)

Specimen no. b/t Py,n (kN) Py,m (kN) Pu,exp (kN) Pu,exp/Py,n Pu,exp/Py,m

1-1 21.9 4287.0 5224.3 5389.6a 1.26 1.03

1-2 21.9 4287.0 5224.3 5376.7a 1.25 1.03
2-1 24.0 4482.0 5462.1 5379.6a 1.20 0.99
2-2 24.0 4482.0 5462.1 5403.7a 1.21 0.99
3-2 26.0 4106.7 5004.6 4812.8 1.17 0.96
4-1 28.1 4307.5 5249.4 4957.4 1.15 0.94
4-2 28.1 4307.5 5249.4 5000.9 1.16 0.95
5-1 30.2 4502.6 5487.2 5023.3 1.12 0.92
5-2 30.2 4502.6 5487.2 5056.8 1.12 0.92
6-1 31.3 4136.6 5173.7 4949.8 1.197 0.96
6-2 31.3 4136.6 5173.7 4976.8 1.203 0.96
7-1 33.9 4308.8 5389.1 5059.2 1.174 0.94
8-1 36.5 4475.4 5597.6 5152.1 1.151 0.92
8-2 36.5 4475.4 5597.6 5127.9 1.146 0.92
9-1 39.1 4647.7 5813.0 5239.7 1.127 0.90

Py,n—calculated yielding strength based on nominal yield stress.Py,m—calculated yielding strength based
on yield stress of tension coupon.Pu,exp —ultimate strength from experimental study.
a
Test stopped due to limitation of the actuator’s capacity.

Fig. 8. Load–displacement curve (U-shaped stiffener specimens).

548 S.-J. Chen, K.-C. Yang / Thin-Walled Structures 40 (2002) 537–553

Table 6
Buckling strength of the stiffener to the ultimate strength of the specimen

Specimen no. Pstiffener/Pu,exp Specimen no. Pstiffener/Pu,exp

3-2 0.59 6-2 0.69

4-1 0.60 7-1 0.75
4-2 0.68 8-1 0.80
5-1 0.83 8-2 0.70
5-2 0.78 9-1 0.77
6-1 0.75 – –

Pstiffener—calculated yielding strength of stiffeners based on tension coupon.Pu,exp—ultimate strength from

experimental study.

Fig. 9. Relationship between strength and width-to-thickness ratio (U-shaped stiffener specimens). Note:
䊊indicates test stopped due to limitation of the actuator’s capacity.

4.3. Design recommendations for orthotropic deck system

In the current AASHTO-LRFD design specification [3], the compact section cri-
terion for the ASTM 572 Gr. 50 stiffened steel plate is 36. However, from the test
results, local buckling occurs at the U-shaped stiffener with width-to-thickness ratio
greater than 440 / 冑Fy (=24 for ASTM A572 Gr. 50 steel) (Table 5). And this results
in the premature failure of the deck system. The current design specifications are
not able to prevent local buckling of the deck system. Therefore, there is a need to
specify a proper width-to-thickness ratio for the deck system to prevent premature
failure due to the inelastic local buckling. Based on this reported research, it is
tentatively suggested to limit the width-to-thickness ratio of the deck plates and its
stiffeners to be less than 400 / 冑Fy and 440 / 冑Fy, respectively, to avoid the instability
problem of the steel deck system.
 S.-J. Chen, K.-C. Yang / Thin-Walled Structures 40 (2002) 537–553 549

Table 7
Comparisons of ultimate strength (deck plate specimens)

Specimen no. b/t Py,n (kN) Py,m (kN) Pu,exp (kN) Pu,exp/Py,n Pu,exp/Py,m

10-1 22.1 3883.3 4744.7 4678.1 1.21 0.99

10-2 22.1 3883.3 4744.7 4706.9 1.21 0.99
11-1 24.3 4027.4 4921.3 4751.6 1.18 0.97
11-2 24.3 4027.4 4921.3 4839.2 1.20 0.98
12-1 26.4 4171.4 5097.9 4971.5 1.19 0.98
13-1 28.6 4315.5 5274.5 5028.0 1.17 0.95
13-2 28.6 4315.5 5274.5 5140.9 1.19 0.98
14-1 30.7 4459.6 5451.1 4988.0 1.12 0.92
14-2 30.7 4459.6 5451.1 5093.3 1.14 0.93
15-1 32.9 4603.6 5627.7 4979.2 1.08 0.89
15-2 32.9 4603.6 5627.7 5177.3 1.13 0.92
16-1 35.0 4747.7 5804.4 5169.1 1.09 0.89
16-2 35.0 4747.7 5804.4 5023.3 1.06 0.87
17-1 37.1 4891.7 5981.0 4971.5 1.02 0.83
17-2 37.1 4891.7 5981.0 4865.7 1.00 0.81

Py,n—calculated yielding strength based on nominal yield stress.Py,m—calculated yielding strength based
on yield stress of tension coupon.Pu,exp—ultimate strength from experimental study.

Fig. 10. Load–displacement curve (deck plate specimens).

550 S.-J. Chen, K.-C. Yang / Thin-Walled Structures 40 (2002) 537–553

Fig. 11. Relationship between strength and width-to-thickness ratio (deck plate specimens). Note: 䊊ind-
icates test stopped due to limitation of the actuator’s capacity.

In the design of orthotropic deck systems, it is suggested to exclude the failure

mode of elastic buckling. Although a compact system is preferred so that the ortho-
tropic system is able to reach its ultimate plastic strength, inelastic buckling is also
allowed for economical considerations. The inelastic buckling strength of the deck
system needs to be properly designed.
In current design practice, the AISC design manual is usually adopted. In this
design manual, the general plate buckling formula is adopted for design of the elastic
buckling strength of a plate element [Eq. (1)], while the tangent modulus concept
is applied in the inelastic range to account for the effect of residual stress [Eq. (2)]:

fcr,elastic ⫽
4p2E t
12(1⫺n2) b 冉冊 2
(1)

and

fcr,inelastic ⫽ 4.0
p2E冑t t
12(1⫺n ) b 2 冉冊 2
⫽ fcr,elastic冑t, (2)

where
(fy⫺fcr,inelastic)fcr,inelastic
t ⫽ Et / E ⫽ ,
fr / (fy⫺fr)
fr is the residual stress, E is Young’s modulus, t is the plate thickness, b is the plate
width, Et is the tangent modulus and n is Poisson’s ratio.
From the experimental study it is found that, for specimens of deck plate and U-
shaped stiffener having non-compact section, the values of yielding strength from
experimental results are about 25% lower than those of the nominal yielding strength
 S.-J. Chen, K.-C. Yang / Thin-Walled Structures 40 (2002) 537–553 551

(Table 8). The reduction of yield strength is primarily resulting from the residual
stress. This is in concordance with the measured results of residual stress in this
study (Fig. 3). In addition, the AISC design manual also suggests 0.25sy as the
average residual stress. Therefore, in this study, the value of 0.25 times nominal
yield stress is adopted as the residual stress of the orthotropic deck plate stiffened
by the U-shaped stiffener. In other words, the stress of 0.75sy,n is the maximum
elastic stress for the deck system. Substituting fcr,elastic ⫽ 0.75sy,n into Eq. (1), the
width-to-thickness ratio that distinguish the elastic and inelastic buckling is 53. After
normalizing with respect to yield stress, the width-to-thickness ratio of 970 / 冑Fy is
suggested as the requirement for a non-compact section for the orthotropic deck sys-
tem.
For deck system of non-compact section, inelastic buckling may occur. Based on
the experimental results of this study, two design equations [Eqs. (3) and (4)] are
proposed for calculation of the inelastic strength of the U-shaped stiffeners and deck
plate, respectively:
U ⫺ shaped stiffeners:scr / sy ⫽ 0.97 ⫹ 0.22l⫺0.35l2 (3)
where

冪s 冪
sy b 12(1⫺n2)sy
l⫽ ⫽ .
cr t 4p2E

Deck plate:scr / sy ⫽ 0.79 冉冊 1

l
0.3
. (4)

Fig. 12 shows the comparison between the experimental results and the calculated
strength based on the proposed equations as well as the results from the AISC design
manual. It is found that the calculated strength based on the AISC manual is overesti-
mated by about 10% and 15% for the stiffeners and the deck plate, respectively.
Compared with experimental results, the proposed design method is able to predict

Table 8
Residual stresses from experimental study

Specimen Py,exp/Py,m Specimen Py,exp/Py,m Specimen Py,exp/Py,m Specimen Py,exp/Py,m

no. no. no. no.

1-1 0.771 5-2 0.763 10-2 0.770 15-1 0.775

1-2 0.771 6-1 0.792 11-1 0.760 15-2 0.754
2-1 0.775 6-2 0.760 11-2 0.773 16-1 0.767
2-2 0.777 7-1 0.762 12-1 0.774 16-2 0.771
3-2 0.706 8-1 0.763 13-1 0.732 17-1 0.723
4-1 0.768 8-2 0.706 13-2 0.769 17-2 0.767
4-2 0.768 9-1 0.752 14-1 0.744 – –
5-1 0.777 10-1 0.774 14-2 0.763 – –

Py,m—calculated yielding strength based on yield stress of tension coupon.Py,exp—yielding strength from
experimental study.
552 S.-J. Chen, K.-C. Yang / Thin-Walled Structures 40 (2002) 537–553

Fig. 12. Comparison between the experimental results and design method.

the ultimate strength of the orthotropic steel deck system in the inelastic range, and
is suggested for the design of non-compact orthotropic steel deck stiffened by U-
shaped stiffeners.

5. Summary and conclusion

It is found that premature failure may occur on the orthotropic steel deck system
due to local buckling that occurs in either the deck plate or the stiffeners of the deck
plate. It is suggested to specify a limitation for the width-to-thickness ratio of the
deck plate, as well as that for the U-shaped stiffeners, in the design of the orthotropic
deck system so as to prevent the occurrence of premature failure. Based on this
study, it is tentatively suggested to limit the width-to-thickness ratio of the deck
plate to be less than 400 / 冑Fy and its U-shaped stiffener to be less than 440 / 冑Fy in
order to ensure that the orthotropic steel deck system is of compact section and able
to achieve its plastic yielding strength. For an orthotropic steel deck system with
non-compact sections, the ultimate strength can be calculated following Eqs. (3) and
(4) in order to reflect the effect of inelastic buckling. Considering the economical
effect and the limited ability for stress redistribution in bridge structure, it is sug-
gested that the failure mode of elastic local buckling under flexural compressive
force should be avoided in the design of orthotropic steel deck systems and the
width-to-thickness ratio of the deck system should be less than 970 / 冑Fy.

References

[1] American Institute of Steel Construction. In: Design manual for orthotropic steel plate deck bridges.
New York: American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC); 1963. p. 97–8.
 S.-J. Chen, K.-C. Yang / Thin-Walled Structures 40 (2002) 537–553 553

[2] AASHTO ASD bridge design specification. Washington (DC): American Association of State High-
way And Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1996.
[3] AASHTO LRFD bridge design specification. Washington (DC): American Association of State
Highway And Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1998.
[4] Kitada T, Furatu T, Naka H. Ultimate strength and interaction curve of stiffened plates subjected
to biaxial in-plane forces. Struct. Eng./Earthquake Eng., JSCE 1991;8(3):19–28.
[5] Kitada T, Furuta T, Naka H. Experimental study on ultimate strength of stiffened plates subjected
to longitudinal tension and transverse compression. In: International Colloquium Stability of Steel
Structures, Budapest, Hungary, Structural Stability Research Council, Pa. USA, 1990. p. 61–8.
[6] Furuta T, Kitada T, Naka H. A study on ultimate strength of stiffened plates in steel bridges subjected
to biaxial in-plane forces. In: SSRC 1993 Technical Session, Milwaukee, WI, Structural Stability
Research Council, Pa. USA, 1993. p. 381–92.
[7] Furuta T. A study on ultimate strength of stiffened plates in steel bridges subjected to biaxial in-
plane forces. Ph.D. dissertation, Osaka, Japan, October 1992.
[8] Mikami I. Orthotropic plates under varying compression. J. Struct. Eng., ASCE
1983;109(ST1):257–61.
[9] Mikami I, Niwa K. Ultimate compressive strength of orthogonally stiffened steel plates. J. Struct.
Eng., ASCE 1996;122(ST6):1837–49.
[10] Chen G-H. Behavior of orthotropic deck plate subjected to compressive load. Master thesis, National
Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Department of Construction Engineering, July 1998.
[11] Galambos TV. In: Guide to stability design criteria for metal structures. 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons;
1988. p. 708–17.
[12] Deutsche Industrie Normen: DIN 18809. Berlin: Norm-Vorlage, 1987.
[13] Deutsche Industrie Normen: DIN 18800 part 2, part 3. Berlin: Norm-Vorlage, 1990.
[14] Japanese specification for highway bridges, Part II steel bridge. Tokyo: Japan Road Association,
1996.
[15] Design guideline of orthotropic deck plate bridges. Japan: Honshu-Shikoku Road Association, 1989.