Professional Documents
Culture Documents
W. A. MILEK, JR.
T H E STRUCTURAL system with which we are concerned is Diagrammed in Fig. 1 is a section of a typical steel
orthogonal anisotropic plate (popularly termed " o r t h o - deck bridge. It consists of a wearing surface (not shown)
tropic")- This means orthogonalat right anglesand supported by a deck plate welded to stiffening ribs,
anisotropicdifferent properties. Thus, we are talking floor beams and main girders. T h e deck plate performs
a b o u t a steel plate that has different physical properties multiple functions. While distributing the wheel load
in mutually perpendicular directions. Can this be right? laterally to the stiffeners it acts as the top flange of the
For all practical purposes, steel has the same modulus of stiffeners. It also acts as the top flange of the floor beams
elasticity, the same elastic limit, the same Poisson's ratio, and girders. It is the deck plate that ties all elements to-
the same ductility, and the same ultimate strength in gether ; thus a complicated system of shear, bending and
all directions. Considering these facts, there cannot be axial stresses which vary continuously from point to
such a thing as orthogonal anisotropic steel plate. T h e r e point throughout the deck is involved.
cannot be because steel is an isotropic material. At this stage it may appear that this concept is too
O n the other hand, an assemblage of isotropic steel complex for everyday practice. Considering the infinite
elements consisting of a steel plate stiffened and sup- number of combinations of bending, shear and axial
ported on a system of ribs, beams and girders may be forces that would exist in the expanse of a major bridge
thought of as having anisotropic properties. In other deck, too much design time would be required. This
words, anisotropy is due not to different elastic properties would be true if an analytical approach from scratch was
of the material but to the physical dimensions and ar- required in the solution of a practical design. As with
rangement of the components of the assemblage. W h e n many problems which a designer handles more frequently,
we use the term "orthotropic steel deck" we are talking it is not now necessary to start from scratch. M u c h of
about bridges whose steel decks are idealized as ortho- the theoretical workassembled from European studies
tropic platesall parts working together as a unit rather and experiencehas been applied to the specific case of
than individual pieces designed separately on the basis bridge decks under A A S H O loading. It has been digested,
of their individual functions. organized and presented in a useable manner. T h e A I S C
orthotropic manual 1 contains not only the theoretical
background, but also design procedure recommendations
and charts which eliminate much of the numerical work
required and greatly simplify the remainder. Taken to-
gether, the theoretical developments give the designer an
understanding of the proper use of charts and conversely,
the charts give the designer a feel for the theory.
T h e primary value of the manual lies in the charts
a n d the ease with which a steel deck can be proportioned
through their use. A designer need not concern himself
deeply with the theoretical development. T h e significance
of several of the charts may not be apparent until after
some study. Also the similarity of several charts may give
Figure 1 rise to a feeling of uncertainty and a reticence to proceed.
40
AISC ENGINEERING JOURNAL
where box girders are employed or where more than
two main girders are involved, this would not be true.
T h e important thing to notice in Fig. 3 is t h a t when a
load is applied to the deck, the floor beams also deflect,
as is to be expected. T h e floor beams nearest the point
of application of the load deflect most, but those remote
from the point of application are also affected. It might
be said that the floor beam tends to " r u n a w a y " from the
reaction of the directly loaded rib. I n so doing, the floor
b e a m causes the positive moment at the center of the rib
span to be increased and the negative moment in the deck
over the floor beam to be decreased. Further, since the
"running-away-from-the-deck" reaction causes a reduc-
tion of the reaction that would exist in an infinitely rigid
Figure 2 system, the moment at the center of the floor beam is also
reduced. T h e deflections throughout the length of the
floor beam cause deflections throughout the width of
the deck itself; thus a concentrated load at a single
point of the deck calls upon a broad expanse of the deck
for its support.
Figure 3
41
APRIL / 1964
GENERAL APPROACH TO A SOLUTION
T h e curves in Fig. 4 indicate the general approach
to a solution of the problem. Moments may be calcu-
lated for the deck due to a concentrated load, assuming
rigid support. Next the effect of flexibility of the support
m a y be calculated and added to the rigid support mo-
ments. T h e summation of the effects of the critical com-
bination of loads will be the information required for the
design.
Influence lines for the moment at mid-span, at the
support and the reaction at the support are shown in Figure 6
Fig. 5. y is a function of the relative stiffness of the
deck to the support beams. T h u s for the case of a stiff on closed ribs deforms under the action of a concen-
deck on flexible floor beams (large values of y) the trated load. As a directly loaded rib deflects, it not only
increase in moment will be large. T h e reverse conditions works as a beam longitudinallyas shown in the pre-
would be represented by small values of y. T h e p a r a m e - vious figuresbut also through shear and torsion there
ter 7 is important to the use of the charts and will be is a lateral distribution of the load. T h u s the redundance
discussed later. of the complete system is of a high order.
O n e more general diagram may be helpful before T h e problem is not as complicated as it may seem.
the use of charts in the solution of a problem is demon- Only a few areas of the deck need be investigated, such
strated. Fig. 6 shows the manner in which a deck plate as the locations where the effects of local loading, action
of the deck as the top flange of the floor beams, and ac-
tion of the deck as the top flange of the main girders com-
bine to produce m a x i m u m stress. These may be readily
identified by inspection.
As a case in point, consider the hypothetical struc-
ture shown in Fig. 7. Point A at the mid-point of a rib
span near the mid-point of a floor beam span would be
critical and typical of numerous points on the bridge.
VT) N . rigid supports
Local bending stresses due to the directly applied load
fa) Influence lines IJS and ;;s for the bending moment at support 0 (point S) would be maximum since point A is at the mid-span
between two floor beams. Since the point is near mid-
span of the floor beam, the floor beam deflections would
have their maximum effect in increasing the mid-span
moments of the deck. Also since the point is near the
mid-span of the floor beam, the stresses in the deck plate
acting as the top flange of the floor beam would be
maximum. Point B over a floor beam and at a point
where stress in the main girders would be m a x i m u m
would also be critical. If the maximum combined stresses
are provided for at several such critical locations, the
(b) Influence lines //, and T), for the bending moment at midspan (point O remainder of the deck will be conservatively stressed.
Proceeding with this same hypothetical structure,
the use of the charts will be demonstrated. T h e typical
cross section is as shown in Fig. 8. Note that the deck is
stiffened with closed ribs. Floor beams are spaced 15 ft on
center and span 50 ft between main girders. T h e main
girders are single web girders; thus they would provide
no end restraint to the floor beams. However, part of a
traffic lane and a sidewalk are cantilevered beyond the
main girders; therefore some dead load end restraint
can be counted upon. Notice finally that the floor beam
(c) Influence lines {fQ and f>0 for the reaction at support 0
is divided horizontally. T h e bottom half, which is of an
I-shape, would be erected in advance of the top half and
Fig. 5. Typical influence lines for continuous beams on elastic and
on rigid supports would serve as the erection support for the deck panels.
42
AISC ENGINEERING JOURNAL
I
<t bearings 4 bearings <t span
'oint B
Elevation
-* Symm. about t
.Deck plating
panels
Welded floor
beams
43
APRIL / 1964
DETERMINATION OF SECTION PROPERTIES with the plotted curve, the ratios of the effective width of
A schematic diagram, showing the steps required for plate to span length may be read. T h e chart may be
the determination of section properties in a steel plate used for determining the effective width of plate with
deck, is shown below. either the ribs or the floor beams. T h e dotted line on the
As in conventional structures, start with the general left is applicable to the deck plate between the ribs.
layout. Choose a rib spacing based upon personal experi- T h e dotted line in the middle is applicable to the plate
ence, or the experience of others. M a n y examples of spanning between the two sides of the rib, and the dotted
bridges constructed in Europe are described in the first line on the right is applicable to the plate as the top
chapter of the orthotropic manual. A review of these ex- flange of the floor beams. Charts 2, 3, and 4 in the man-
amples will help the designer to make an initial selection ual provide information which is useful for handling
of rib spacing. special conditions of this same problem.
Next, the plate thickness is determined. Due to the T h e effective width of deck plate acting as the top
extremely redundant nature of the deck plate action in flange of the main girders is not treated in any charts or
supporting local loads, stress calculations are largely formulas. For design purposes, it may be assumed that
meaningless at this stage. Tests have indicated that the the entire cross-sectional area of the plate acts as the top
ultimate strength of an orthotropic plate supporting con- flange of the girders, provided the girder spacing is
centrated loads is fifteen to twenty times that indicated smaller than one-third the girder span.
by a theoretical stress analysis. However, the deflections With the thickness of the plate known the section
of the deck plate are meaningful and important. T h e y properties are determined by the conventional formulas
provide a simple means for deciding upon the thickness for the geometric properties of cross sections.
of the deck. Considering only A A S H O loads and ac- T h e next step is to determine several special proper-
cepting a deflection of 1/300 of the plate span, a simple ties and ratios which can be applied to this type construc-
expression for plate thickness will result (tp = tion. Considering first the deck plate and the ribs, deter-
0.007 a^/p ). In this expression a is the plate span, p is mine the torsional rigidity, H, by the formula H
unit pressure of the wheel (59 psi for 12 kip wheel). fxGK/[2(a + e)]. In this expression, \x is a reduction coef-
It is recommended that the 16 kip wheel load specified in ficient depending upon the flexibility of the deck plate
the A A S H O Specification to provide for occasional over- and the span of the ribs. It depends upon the geometry
loads not be used in view of the inherent high reserve and span of the ribs and deck; thus it may be calculated
capacity of the deck plate. by substituting appropriate numbers in formulas which
Entering the chart in Fig. 9 (Chart 1) with a given are presented in Chapter 4 of the manual. T h e formulas
ratio of the actual width of plate to span length (plotted contain many terms, but are not difficult since only
as abscissa), and reading the ordinates at the intercept arithmetical operations are involved. Also, in the formula
ol*
=r~I#
DETERMINATION OF REQUIRED SECTION PROPERTIES |CC
U
' (a+e)
Rigidity of Deck
to Floorbeam
. 1% (Open)
as^X
1 1
I] 1
3 i
ii
H=0 (Open)
1% (Closed)
t) 02 04 06 08 1.
(a+eisWlf} c2 * e* :
5*
- c>r I
Determine ~s
Rigidity Ratio Si
H
Chart 1. Effective width of deck acting with one rib or floor beam
/D,
Figure 9
44
AISC ENGINEERING JOURNAL
for H, the factor K is a section property expressing tor- mined by the usual formulas for moments in a uniformly
sional resistance and is equal to 4A2/(utT + a/tp). For open loaded beam on rigid supports: M at supports equals
ribs, H = 0. T h e flexural rigidity of the reinforced deck wl2/\ 2 and M at mid-span equals wl2/24.
plate in the longitudinal direction is calculated by Dy = Live load moments due to wheel loads as specified
EIR/(a + e). Once determined, these two properties are by A A S H O Specifications are not as simple to determine
combined as the deck plate rigidity ratio, H/Dy, to be for the closed rib sections. This is due partly to lateral
used later. distribution of the load to adjacent ribs and partly to
T h e relative rigidity coefficient of the stiffened deck the varying effect of placement and spacing of the loads
plate to the floor beams, 7, must also be determined for in adjacent spans. T h e expression used for live load
future use. For closed ribs, 7 = l4IR/(a + e)s*T4IF. T h e moments for a unit width of plate is:
relative rigidity of deck plate to rigidity of floor beam is
the controlling factor in the amount of moment increase M = QosY, ^ ^ Eq. (4.35)51
or relief when floor beam flexibility is taken into account. n = \ Q0 S
It was pointed out earlier that the approximate T h e moment for a single rib including deck plate is
method upon which the charts of the manual are based
contemplates calculating first the moments in the ribs MR = M {a + e)
and floor beams on the assumption of rigid floor beams. Solutions to the equations for m o m e n t in a unit width
T h e resulting moments are then modified to take ac- of deck plate for various loadings are presented directly
count of the effect of floor beam flexibility. Continuing in Charts 9 through 13 of the manual. For example, using
with the outline of the procedure, consider the moments the rib span 15 ft and H/Dy = 0.51 calculated as pre-
in the deck plate on rigid supports. viously outlined, the moments in a unit width of plate
may be read directly for loading condition a from
MOMENTS IN RIBS ON RIGID SUPPORTS
Fig. 10 (Chart 9), as 13 k-in./in. For loading condition
Dead load moments in a rib (including the effec- ai the moment will be 13.5 k-in./in. from Fig. 11
tive width of deck plate calculated earlier) may be deter- (Chart 11). For loading condition e the moment over
the support will be 18.6 k-in./in., Fig. 12 (Chart 13).
p-1411-14--30--|
i l l . JJ
,Point C
1 r
t 1 u
_^Rib
s' Uy
ifJ G /
/
/ 0.005
/ s/
/ ys 0.01
/ //
\f /
, / sy
/ t/ 0.02
// y s \s
r^
// / l
0.04
/ '// y ^
r,//
0.06
-y t ^ 0.08
*<E"^ s V-
* -A& * ^ 0.10
V,'T 0.15
V
!-
\-k /, fc^ 0.30
^^
0.40
0.50
* Vy> ^ 0.60
k k.
I A.A.S.H.O. loading
3 d
Chart 9. Maximum moment at midspan of the deck with closed ribs on rigid Chart 11. Maximum moment at midspan of the deck with closed ribs o n rigid
supports, loading a and b supports, loading ai
Figure 70 Figure 77
45
APRIL / 1964
EFFECT OF FLOOR BEAM FLEXIBILITY ON
RIB MOMENTS
T h e moments thus determined multiplied by the width
of one rib give the live load moments per rib for the
stiffened deck on rigid supports.
T h e effect of floor beam flexibility may next be cal-
culated by means of the equation
Chart 13. Maximum moment at support of the deck with closed ribs o n rigid
supports '' Equation number as given in Reference 7.
Figure 12
V 5c
ZJP S
Note: Loads are in the same
position as used lor ~
-
6. 9 and 11.
0.20
/
0.18
0.16
/a
(V->>\,
/y A
/ //~
0.12 /
/
/ /
/ w'
/ / 'it m
0.10 // / ?&
L7.0-
I
i
/ &*~
0.08 I l>' 0^-6.5-
i' // Ss
/
1 U>
0.06 -& /
yJ
w -{ )
0.04
0.02
n 7.5*
1-7.0-
i B-
r
Chart 28. Computation of additional moment in ribs d u e to floor b e a m flexi- Chart 20. Computation of additional moment at midspan of ribs d u e to floor
bility. Values of QixQo at critical rib, lane over critical rib loaded b e a m flexibility. Values of \Z(F/P)(rjc/s), loading a a n d ai
Figure 73 Figure 74
46
47
APRIL / 1964
Chart 16. Maximum live load moment in a rigid floor beam Chart 32. Computation of moment relief in a floor beam due to floor beam
flexibility. Values of QixQo at critical point of a floor beam
Figure 77 Figure 79
^-2P'#O
P _ 2P" 5 1.00
^r
s
/' - ^: 0.90
/
= axle of
y y
^-
/ y^
\f 0.80 <(?/
s
^r -^
) ~V / 0
-z r Ao i 2
,7 / /y Y /' ^
fi 0.70
1
/ y
A/ // //
S
r,^^
Load.ngcase A
r'l^'i, | J/ // , y- /
*fj *j *t t
i y
A 0.60
' s s
/ 1/ 1// \ V ' / ^1 V ^ -^
5^Y A V I
.S*
|2- |1" + I1 I2 //, /,> ^\
/ / / ,K s
XJ_JU_X 0.50
'/
// A /
/ ' \ A\
// / / \\V ^
1*
^ 1 1 /I 0.40
(f '//
7 s <\
k
' \\ s
A1 / \\, ^
// //
t
v, ^\
0.30
/ t
/ 1/ * ) s* \V
I/
/ t
^y / 0.20
y ' \^ N
/ U.
f 1
I
0.10
// ' (K ) 1
Chart 15. Maximum load, Fo, on a rigid floor beam due to one AASHO vehicle Chart 31. Computation of moment relief in a floor beam due to floor beam
flexibility. Values of (F0/P) - 2(F/P)tf0 for s = 12' to 25'
Figure 78 Figure 20
48
AISC ENGINEERING JOURNAL
1.25 for the problem considered. P equals the axle load, /50V
32 kips, times the impact factor, 1.286. Dimension / equals A MF = 9.5 ( J (0.315)(0.21) =
the span length of floor beam, in feet. T h e product of the - 1 5 9 k-ft (3 lanes loaded)
several factors for the floor being considered is as follows:
In the case of charts for floor beam moments with
MF = 0.360(1.25)(41.4)(50) = 925 k-ft (2 lanes loaded) more than two lanes loaded the reductions allowed
MF = 0.378(1.25)(41.4)(50) = 973 k-ft (3 lanes loaded) under A A S H O Specifications have been taken into ac-
count. Therefore, no further reduction is warranted.
T h e effect of floor beam flexibility which results in a T h e algebraic sum of the separate moments deter-
reduction of the reactions of the deck upon the floor mined as above are the moments which should be used
beam and thus a reduction in floor beam moments may in calculating stresses in the floor beams and deck plate
be calculated by the following formula: acting as the top flange.
I Finally, combining the deck plate stresses at the
Qi_x
A MF = Q0 Eq. (5.14)" critical points will provide a close approximation of the
Qo P~ ^~P
m a x i m u m stresses in the deck plate.
T h e first two terms may be calculated as before. T h e
Qix/Qo term may be read from Fig. 19 (Chart 32) as CONCLUSION
0.298 for 2 lanes loaded, and 0.315 for three lanes loaded. Design of steel plate deck bridges, based upon the
T h e final term in the brackets may be determined by the methods presented in the AISC orthotropic plate design
use of Fig. 20 (Chart 31) as 0.31. T h e product of these manual, provide solutions that check within 5 percent
terms then will be of the stresses observed in actual tests. Design by these
50V methods is vastly more simple than design by purely
A MF = 9.5 ( (0.298)(0.21) theoretical methods. It is hoped that through experi-
ence in the United States, greater knowledge of the art
-151 k-ft (2 lanes loaded)
will develop, and that subsequent editions of the m a n u a l
will reflect further advances in knowledge of the design
:
Equation number as given in Reference 7. and application of the orthotropic plate principles.
49
APRIL / 1964