Steel Bridge Design Handbook

CHAPTER 17

Bridge Deck
Design
February 2022
 © AISC 2022

by

American Institute of Steel Construction

All rights reserved. This book or any part thereof must not be
reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
The AISC and NSBA logos are registered trademarks of AISC.

The information presented in this publication has been prepared following recognized principles of design
and construction. While it is believed to be accurate, this information should not be used or relied upon
for any specific application without competent professional examination and verification of its accuracy,
suitability and applicability by a licensed engineer or architect. The publication of this information is not a
representation or warranty on the part of the American Institute of Steel Construction, its officers, agents,
employees or committee members, or of any other person named herein, that this information is suitable for
any general or particular use, or of freedom from infringement of any patent or patents. All representations
or warranties, express or implied, other than as stated above, are specifically disclaimed. Anyone making
use of the information presented in this publication assumes all liability arising from such use.

Caution must be exercised when relying upon standards and guidelines developed by other bodies and
incorporated by reference herein since such material may be modified or amended from time to time sub-
sequent to the printing of this edition. The American Institute of Steel Construction bears no responsibility
for such material other than to refer to it and incorporate it by reference at the time of the initial publication
of this edition.

Printed in the United States of America

Foreword
The Steel Bridge Design Handbook covers a full range of topics and design examples to provide bridge
engineers with the information needed to make knowledgeable decisions regarding the selection, design,
fabrication, and construction of steel bridges. The Handbook has a long history, dating back to the 1970s
in various forms and publications. The more recent editions of the Handbook were developed and
maintained by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Bridges and Structures as FHWA
Report No. FHWA-IF-12-052 published in November 2012, and FHWA Report No. FHWA-HIF-16-002
published in December 2015. The previous development and maintenance of the Handbook by the
FHWA, their consultants, and their technical reviewers is gratefully appreciated and acknowledged.
This current edition of the Handbook is maintained by the National Steel Bridge Alliance (NSBA), a
division of the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). This Handbook, published in 2021, has
been updated and revised to be consistent with the 9th edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications which was released in 2020. The updates and revisions to various chapters and design
examples have been performed, as noted, by HDR, M.A. Grubb & Associates, Don White, Ph.D., and
NSBA. Furthermore, the updates and revisions have been reviewed independently by Francesco Russo,
Ph.D., P.E., Brandon Chavel, Ph.D., P.E., and NSBA.
The Handbook consists of 19 chapters and 6 design examples. The chapters and design examples of the
Handbook are published separately for ease of use, and available for free download at the NSBA website,
www.aisc.org/nsba.
The users of the Steel Bridge Design Handbook are encouraged to submit ideas and suggestions for
enhancements that can be implemented in future editions to the NSBA and AISC at solutions@aisc.org.
 TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Title and Subtitle 2. Report Date

Steel Bridge Design Handbook February 2022
Chapter 17: Bridge Deck Design

3. Original Author(s) 4. Revision Author(s)

Brandon Chavel, Ph.D, PE (HDR) Brandon Chavel, Ph.D, PE (NSBA)

5. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 6. Revision Performing Organization Name

National Steel Bridge Alliance, a division of the and Address
American Institute of Steel Construction National Steel Bridge Alliance, a division of the
130 E. Randolph, Suite 2000 American Institute of Steel Construction
Chicago, IL 60601 130 E. Randolph, Suite 2000
Chicago, IL 60601

7. Supplementary Notes
The previous edition of this Handbook was published as FHWA-HIF-16-002 and was developed to be
current with the 7th edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. This edition of the
Handbook was updated to be current with the 9th edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications, released in 2020.

8. Abstract
The primary function of a bridge deck is to support the vehicular vertical loads and distribute these
loads to the steel superstructure. This chapter provides practical information regarding the decking
options and design considerations for steel bridges, presenting deck types such as concrete deck slabs,
metal grid decks, orthotropic steel decks, wood decks, and several others. The choice of a particular
deck type to use can depend on several factors, which may include the specific application, initial cost,
life cycle cost, durability, weight, or owner requirements. For the deck types discussed herein, a brief
description of the particular deck type is given, in addition to general design and detail considerations.

9. Keywords 10. AISC Publication No.

Steel Bridge, Deck Design, Concrete Deck, B917-22
Precast Concrete Deck, Wood Deck, Metal Grid
Deck, Orthotropic Deck
 Steel Bridge Design Handbook:
Bridge Deck Design

Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 CONCRETE DECK SLABS ................................................................................................. 2
2.1 General ............................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 Traditional Design Method (Equivalent Strip Method) ................................................... 2
2.3 Empirical Design Method ................................................................................................ 4
2.4 Other Methods of Analysis and Design ........................................................................... 4
2.5 Bridge Deck Overhang (Cantilever Slab) and Barriers (Railings) .................................. 5
2.6 Precast Deck Slabs ........................................................................................................... 5
2.6.1 Full-Depth Precast Concrete Deck Panels .............................................................. 6
2.6.2 Partial-Depth Precast Concrete Deck Panels .......................................................... 8
2.7 Post Tensioning of Cast-in-Place Deck Slabs ................................................................ 10
2.8 Edge Support .................................................................................................................. 10
2.9 Formwork ....................................................................................................................... 11
2.9.1 Stay-in-Place Formwork ....................................................................................... 11
2.9.2 Temporary Formwork ........................................................................................... 12
2.9.3 Deck Overhang Brackets ...................................................................................... 13
2.10 Serviceability ................................................................................................................. 14
2.11 Minimum Negative Flexure Concrete Deck Reinforcement ......................................... 14
2.12 Detailing Considerations ................................................................................................ 15
2.12.1 Skewed Bridges .................................................................................................... 15
2.12.2 Future Deck Replacement ..................................................................................... 16
2.12.3 Haunches ............................................................................................................... 16
2.12.4 Cast-in-Place Deck Placement Sequence.............................................................. 17
2.12.5 Concrete Deck Reinforcement .............................................................................. 17
3.0 METAL GRID DECKS ....................................................................................................... 19

i
 3.1 General ........................................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Open Metal Grid Deck ................................................................................................... 20
3.3 Filled and Partially Filled Metal Grid Deck .................................................................. 21
3.4 Unfilled Metal Grid Deck Composite with Reinforced Concrete Slab ......................... 22
3.5 Design and Detailing Considerations............................................................................. 23
3.5.1 Analysis and Determination of Force Effects ....................................................... 23
3.5.2 Typical Applications ............................................................................................. 24
3.5.3 Composite Action ................................................................................................. 24
3.5.4 Cast-in-Place and Precast Construction Methods ................................................. 24
3.5.5 Deck Overhang ..................................................................................................... 25
4.0 ORTHOTROPIC STEEL DECKS ...................................................................................... 26
4.1 Typical Deck Sections and Applications ....................................................................... 27
4.2 Design and Detailing Considerations............................................................................. 29
4.3 Wearing Surfaces ........................................................................................................... 29
5.0 WOOD DECKS ................................................................................................................... 31
5.1 Types of Wood Decks .................................................................................................... 31
5.1.1 Glued Laminated Deck ......................................................................................... 31
5.1.2 Stress Laminated Deck ......................................................................................... 31
5.1.3 Spike Laminated Deck .......................................................................................... 32
5.1.4 Plank Decks .......................................................................................................... 32
5.2 Wearing Surfaces ........................................................................................................... 32
6.0 OTHER DECK SYSTEMS ................................................................................................. 34
6.1 Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Bridge Decks ............................................................ 34
6.2 Aluminum Decks ........................................................................................................... 35
6.3 Sandwich Deck Panels ................................................................................................... 36
7.0 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 37
8.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 38

ii
 List of Figures

Figure 1 Bridge deck being constructed with full depth precast concrete deck panels (courtesy
Iowa DOT). ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2 Construction workers adjusting the elevation of the full depth precast concrete deck
panels by adjusting leveling bolts (courtesy Iowa DOT)................................................................ 7
Figure 3 Detail sketch of a female-to-female type shear key transverse joint. .............................. 8
Figure 4 Partial-depth precast concrete deck panel. ...................................................................... 9
Figure 5 Photo showing permanent steel stay-in-place deck formwork installed on a steel plate I-
girder bridge. ................................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 6 Photo showing temporary wood formwork installed on a steel plate I-girder bridge. .. 12
Figure 7 Photo showing deck overhang brackets supporting cantilever slab construction on a
steel plate I-girder bridge. ............................................................................................................. 13
Figure 8 Inadequate reinforcement provided in acute corner of concrete deck slab (8). ............. 15
Figure 9 Breakback detailing to eliminate skew effects associated with detailing acute corners at
ends of skewed deck slab (8). ....................................................................................................... 16
Figure 10 Open Steel Grid Deck (courtesy of BGFMA (11)). .................................................... 20
Figure 11 Filled Steel Grid Deck (courtesy of BGFMA (11))..................................................... 21
Figure 12 Partially Filled Steel Grid Deck (courtesy of BGFMA (11)). ..................................... 22
Figure 13 Unfilled Metal Grid Deck Composite with Reinforced Concrete Slab ....................... 23
Figure 14 Orthotropic Steel Deck Integral with Plate Girder (taken from AISC (16)). .............. 26
Figure 15 Common Rib Types for Orthotropic Steel Decks. ...................................................... 28
Figure 16 Cross section sketch of stress laminated wood deck (21). .......................................... 32
Figure 17 Photo showing the installation of an FRP deck panel for deck replacement project in
New York State (courtesy NYSDOT and FHWA). ...................................................................... 34
Figure 18 Typical aluminum rib extrusion cross section for use in an aluminum bridge deck
panel (23). ..................................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 19 Example of an aluminum deck panel created by welding rib extrusions together at the
top and bottom flanges of the extrusion (24). ............................................................................... 35
Figure 20 Example of sandwich deck panel (25)......................................................................... 36

iii
 List of Tables

Table 1 Typical components, span lengths, weight ranges, and total thickness for various metal
grid decks (11) .............................................................................................................................. 24

iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides practical information regarding the decking options and design
considerations for steel bridges, presenting deck types such as concrete deck slabs, metal grid
decks, orthotropic steel decks, wood decks, and several others. The choice of a particular deck
type to use can depend on several factors, which may include the specific application, initial cost,
life cycle cost, durability, weight, or owner requirements. For the deck types discussed herein, a
brief description of the particular deck type is given, in addition to general design and detail
considerations. Reference should be made to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,
9th Edition, (2020) (referred to herein as AASHTO LRFD BDS), Section 9: Decks and Deck
Systems (1), for specific design requirements associated with the various deck types.

The primary function of a bridge deck is to support the vehicular vertical loads and distribute
these loads to the steel superstructure. The deck is typically continuous along the length, and
across the width, of the span of the bridge. In most applications, the bridge deck is made
composite with the steel superstructure through positive attachment to the girders, such as using
shear connecters to attach the concrete deck slabs to steel girders. In such cases, the deck serves
as part of the top flange in the composite section and can be utilized for strength and stiffness.
The deck is subjected to local flexural bending of the slab spanning over the girders in the
transverse direction caused by the vehicle wheel loads. When the deck is made composite, it is
also subjected to longitudinal stresses caused by flexure along the span. The deck, when
positively attached to the girders, provides continuous bracing of the top flange in the finished
structure, and provides stability to the overall bridge system. The deck will also act as a
horizontal diaphragm that is capable of transferring lateral loads, such as wind or seismic loads,
to the supports.

1
2.0 CONCRETE DECK SLABS

Generally, reinforced concrete deck slabs are the most often used type of deck for steel bridges.
Concrete deck slabs can be constructed with cast-in-place or precast methods, and typically
include mild steel reinforcement in the longitudinal and transverse directions. Although not
common to typical steel bridges, concrete decks can utilize post-tensioning steel in addition to
the mild steel reinforcement in an effort to provide additional strength and durability.

2.1 General

Reinforced concrete deck slabs must not only be designed for dead and live loads at the service
and strength limit states, the AASHTO LRFD BDS requires that the deck also be designed for a
vehicular collision with the railing system at the extreme event limit state (Article 9.5.5). The
fatigue limit state does not need to be investigated for concrete deck slabs used in multi-girder
bridges.

The AASHTO LRFD BDS provides two methods for deck design: The Traditional Design
Method and the Empirical Design Method. The traditional design method can typically be
employed in any situation, while the empirical design method has limitations based on deck
geometry and bridge behavior. Additionally, a bridge owner may explicitly specify which
design method shall be used by the designer.

The AASHTO LRFD BDS requires that the minimum thickness of concrete deck, excluding any
provisions for grinding, grooving, or sacrificial wearing surface, should not be less than 7 inches.
Thinner decks may be acceptable, only if approved by the bridge owner. For concrete deck slabs
with a thickness less than 1/20 of the design span, consideration should be given to the use of
prestressing steel in the direction of that span in order to control cracking (see Article C9.7.1.1).

2.2 Traditional Design Method (Equivalent Strip Method)

The Traditional Design Method, typically referred to as the Equivalent Strip Method, is based on
flexure of the deck in the transverse direction. The equivalent strip method applies to concrete
deck slabs that are at least 7 inches thick, have sufficient concrete cover, and have four layers of
steel reinforcement, with longitudinal and transverse layers at both the top and bottom of the
deck slab. In a typical girder bridge the longitudinal direction of the deck is parallel to the main
supporting girder, and the transverse direction is perpendicular to the main supporting girder. If
the deck is only supported by the main supporting girders, then the deck is typically designed for
primary reinforcement in the transverse direction, and that primary reinforcement is
perpendicular to the direction of traffic.

The equivalent strip method assumes a transverse strip of deck supports the truck axle loads.
The transverse strip is to be treated as a continuous beam, or simply supported beam as
appropriate, assuming pinned supports at the centerline of each girder web. The deflection of the
beam is assumed to be zero for this design procedure. The width of the strip is determined in
accordance with AASHTO LRFD BDS Article 4.6.2.1. As shown in Table 4.6.2.1.3-1, a

2
different equivalent width is used for the overhang, and for positive and negative moment
regions of the deck.

To determine live load effects, the strip can be analyzed with classical beam theory, moving
truck axle wheel loads laterally, along the transverse strip, to produce moment envelopes.
Multiple presence factors and the dynamic load allowance (impact) should also be included.
Article 4.6.2.1.6 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS allows the axle wheel loads to be considered as
concentrated loads, or as patch loads whose length along the span is taken as the length of the
tire contact area plus the depth of the deck. The tire contact area should be computed in
accordance with AASHTO LRFD BDS Article 3.6.1.2.5.

The primary reinforcement, along the transverse strip is designed using conventional principles
of reinforced concrete design, similar to a one-way slab. The design location for maximum
positive moment is at the location of the maximum positive moment. However, for negative
moment design, the design location for a typical steel girder bridge can be taken at a point that is
located at one-quarter of the flange width, measured from the centerline of the support, in
accordance with Article 4.6.2.1.6. In bridges where the flange width varies, to be conservative,
designers will typically use the smallest flange width to determine the negative moment design
location.

In lieu of more precise calculations, unfactored design live load moments for many practical
concrete deck slab spans can be found in Table A4-1 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS. In this table,
the design live load moments are provided as a function of girder spacing (S). Multiple presence
factors and the dynamic load allowance (impact) are included in the tabulated values shown in
Table A4-1. Interpolation is permitted between the girder spacings and design sections provided
in the table. The tabulated values are not to be used for the design of the deck overhang.

The use of the equivalent strip method also requires that distribution reinforcement be placed in
the secondary direction in the bottom of the slab, per Article 9.7.3.2. The amount of distribution
reinforcement is based on a percentage of the primary reinforcement required to resist the
positive moment in the primary direction, along the transverse strip. For primary reinforcement
placed perpendicular to traffic, this secondary reinforcement in the bottom of the slab shall be
taken as a percentage of the primary reinforcement equal to 220/S0.5, but does not need to be
greater than 67%, where S is the effective span length and is equal to the effective length
specified in Article 9.7.2.3.

The amount of reinforcement in the secondary direction in the top of the deck slab depends on
whether the deck slab is in an area in which the main supporting girders are subjected to negative
or positive flexure. If the deck slab is in an area of positive flexure, nominal reinforcement such
as #4 bars spaced at 12 inches may be required. However, if the deck slab is in an area of
negative flexure, additional steel reinforcement is required per Article 6.10.1.7, as discussed later
within this section. This additional steel reinforcement may affect both the top and bottom
reinforcement in the secondary direction.

3
2.3 Empirical Design Method

The Empirical Design Method is based on experimental research of reinforced concrete deck
slabs, and employs the notion that the deck behaves more like a membrane as opposed to a series
of continuous beams (transverse strips). Experimental research indicates that the primary
structural action by which concrete slabs resist concentrated wheel loads is not flexure, but a
complex internal membrane stress state referred to as internal arching that distributes the live
loads from the deck to the supporting girders. This internal arching occurs due to the cracking of
the concrete in the bottom of the slab, in the positive moment region of the design slab, and the
resulting upward shift of the neutral axis in that section of the slab. Membrane compressive
stresses develop which transmit the vertical live load from the deck to the girders, relying on the
lateral confinement at the girder that occurs with the use of a composite design and ties between
girders, such as those provided by cross frames with top struts or top flange lateral bracing.

The internal arching can be thought of as an internal compressive dome. Failure will usually
only occur when there is overstraining around the perimeter of the wheel footprint, and will be in
the form of a punching shear. The internal arching action of the concrete alone cannot resist the
full wheel load, but a small amount of isotropic reinforcement is more than adequate to resist this
small flexural component. The isotropic reinforcement also creates a global confinement, which
is required to produce the internal arching effects.

Per Article 9.7.2.4 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS, the empirical design method can only be used if
several limitations related to the geometric configuration of the concrete deck slab are satisfied.
The empirical design method does not necessarily employ any design procedures, as the
minimum reinforcement required is specified. The minimum amount of reinforcement is 0.27
in.2/ft of steel for the bottom layer in each direction and 0.18 in.2/ft of steel for the top layer in
each direction. The steel reinforcement ratios correspond to a 7.5 in. thick deck slab, and may
need to be adjusted if a thicker deck slab is used. Also, spacing of the steel reinforcement cannot
exceed 18 inches, and the steel reinforcement must have a yield strength of 60 ksi or greater.
The empirical method cannot be applied to cantilever portions of the deck slab.

2.4 Other Methods of Analysis and Design

Article 9.6.1 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS allows for the use of refined methods of analysis for
deck slabs as specified in Article 4.6.3.2. Refined methods can include finite element analysis,
grillage analyses, or orthotropic plate theory. A finite element analysis may consist of a mesh of
shell or brick-type elements representing the concrete deck alone, and can be used to determine
the local transverse bending moments in the concrete slab. A grillage analysis using beam
elements to represent the deck can also be used to determine the transverse bending moments in
the concrete slab.

Local moments in the deck slab due to wheel loads can also be calculated through the use of
Pucher Influence Charts, a practice somewhat common in Europe. The Pucher charts are a series
of contour plots of influence surfaces for various plate and loading geometries, which can be
used for deck design.

4
2.5 Bridge Deck Overhang (Cantilever Slab) and Barriers (Railings)

The cantilever portion of the deck slab (deck overhang) must be designed for dead and live load
moments for the strength and service limit states, where the moments are based on traditional
beam theory. However, the deck overhang design must also consider a vehicular collision load
with the railing system at the extreme event limit state. Article A13.4 of the AASHTO LRFD
BDS provides the design procedures associated with the vehicular collision load. In accordance
with Article A13.4.1, bridge deck overhangs should be designed for the following three design
cases:
• Design Case 1: Transverse and longitudinal forces specified in Article A13.2 for the
Extreme Event Load Combination II limit state;
• Design Case 2: Vertical forces specified in Article A13.2 for the Extreme Event Load
Combination II limit state;
• Design Case 3: The loads specified in Article 3.6.1 that occupy the overhang for the
Load Combination Strength I limit state.

Although not explicitly stated in the above three design cases, the design of the bridge deck
overhang should also consider serviceability requirements with regard to crack control and
minimum steel reinforcement required for shrinkage and temperature effects.

Additionally, the bridge barriers (or railings) must be designed to withstand a predetermined
level of crashworthiness, typically specified by the bridge owner or governing agency. The
combination of the deck overhang and the bridge barrier must be capable of resisting a horizontal
vehicular collision force. Bridge barriers (or railings) used on the National Highway System
must be crash tested, and the crash test specimen should include the barrier and deck overhang.
In accordance with Article 13.7.3.1 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS, “a railing system and its
connection to the deck shall be approved only after they have been shown through crash testing
to be satisfactory for the desired test level.” Most States have typical barrier designs that have
been tested and meet the specified levels of crashworthiness.

To develop a preliminary design of a barrier and overhang the engineer should reference Section
13 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS, which provides design guidelines and specifications. Most
often, concrete barriers (railings) are employed, and Article A13.3.1 provides a methodology for
the design of the barrier based on an application of the yield line theory. For further information,
design examples demonstrating the application of the yield line theory, in accordance with
Article A13.3.1 have been previously published by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), see references (2) and (3).

2.6 Precast Deck Slabs

Precast concrete deck panels can be used as an alternative to cast-in-place concrete decks, as they
may reduce construction times associated with placing the deck in new bridge construction and
deck reconstruction. Precast concrete deck panels are typically fabricated offsite, at a precasting
plant that can provide optimal casting and curing conditions. As such, precast concrete deck
panels are often more durable and more uniformly constructed than their cast-in-place
counterparts because of the controlled fabrication environment and quality control offered at a

5
precasting plant. Also, precast concrete deck panels have little or no shrinkage cracking since
they are allowed to shrink and cure in an unrestrained condition. Precast concrete deck panels
can be either full-depth or partial depth.

The use of both reinforced and prestressed precast concrete slab panels is permitted by Article
9.7.5 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS. The depth of the slab, excluding any provisions for grinding,
grooving, and sacrificial surface shall not be less than 7.0 inches.

2.6.1 Full-Depth Precast Concrete Deck Panels

Full-depth precast concrete panels typically span the width of a bridge and are placed
longitudinally adjacent to one another. The transverse joints between adjacent panels are often
grouted, and post-tensioning may also be used to keep the transverse joint in compression. The
deck panels are made composite with the steel girders through the use of shear studs. Block-outs
in the panels are provided to allow for the placement of shear studs onto the top flange of the
steel girder. Composite action between the deck and the girders is provided by shear studs that
extend out of the girder and into the block-outs in the panels, once the block-outs are filled with
grout. Figure 1 shows a bridge deck being constructed with full depth precast concrete deck
panels, where the block-outs for the shear studs can be seen above the steel girders. Also shown
in Figure 1 are block-outs for connecting the post-tensioning strands. The block-outs for the
post-tensioning strands are at the panel joints, transversely across the width of the bridge.

Figure 1 Bridge deck being constructed with full depth precast concrete deck panels
(courtesy Iowa DOT).

After the precast deck panel is installed, it is set to the correct elevation with the use of leveling
bolts that bear on the girder top flange, as shown in Figure 2. The transverse joints are then
filled with grout. Once the grout reaches the required compressive strength the longitudinal
post-tensioning strands are tightened (if post-tensioning is used in the design of the deck system).
The shear studs are then welded to the girder top flange in the provided block-outs. The shear
stud block-out, the haunch between the girder top flange and deck panel, and the post-tensioning

6
ducts are filled with grout. A wearing surface or overlay is typically installed on top of the deck
panel after all installation is complete, providing the necessary riding surface.

Figure 2 Construction workers adjusting the elevation of the full depth precast concrete
deck panels by adjusting leveling bolts (courtesy Iowa DOT).

Two particular design issues require due consideration by the engineer specifying the use of full
depth precast concrete deck panels. One issue is related to the grout used in the shear stud block-
outs. Given that the block-outs are located in areas of negative moment in the transverse
direction of the deck, the grouted block-outs are susceptible to cracking. One method to reduce
the potential for cracking is to use block-outs with rounded corners to prevent stress
concentrations. Additionally, Article 9.7.5.3 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS states that upon
completion of the post-tensioning, the block-outs should be filled with grout having a minimum
compressive strength of 5.0 ksi at 24 hours. The designer should check to ensure that specified
grout is capable of resisting the tensile stress caused by negative moment in the transverse
direction of the deck.

The transverse joints between adjacent panels must be able to transfer wheel load shear forces
and deck axial forces from flexure of the bridge. The transverse joint must also prevent the flow
of water and corrosion causing materials through the deck. In practice, non-grouted and grouted
transverse joints have been used. Non-grouted joints are typically match-cast at a precast
concrete plant, and use a male-to-female shear key type joint with a thin neoprene sheet in
between, and sealed with a polyurethane sealant. In some cases it has been found that even
though the panels are match-cast, it is difficult to achieve a prefect fit in the field due to
construction tolerances and elevation adjustments of the panels (5). This detail is used in
conjunction with post-tensioning, in order to close the joint.

However, most joints used in practice are female-to-female shear key type joints that are filled
with grout prior to post-tensioning taking place. Unlike joints that have male-to-female shear
keys, the female-to-female joints allow for some adjustment related construction tolerances in
the field, as the joint is not interlocking. A sketch of a typical female-to-female joint is shown in

7
Figure 3. The full depth of the female-to-female joint should be filled with grout, as placing
grout only in the top portion of the joint can cause poor performance of the joint because of the
reduced bearing area (6). Grout used in the transverse joint should be of high quality and have a
high early strength, high bond capability, and low shrinkage. In fact, Article 9.7.5.3 of the
AASHTO LRFD BDS states that the transverse joints are to be filled with a nonshrink grout
having a minimum compressive strength of 5.0 ksi at 24 hours. Once the joint is grouted,
longitudinal post tensioning can be tightened. Per Article 9.7.5.3 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS,
the minimum average effective prestress from the post-tensioning should not be less than 250
psi. The effective prestress is typically interpreted as the net prestress under loading. The post-
tensioning places the joint in compression, which can help to prevent cracking due to applied
loads and shrinkage, help prevent leakage of corrosive materials through the joint, and helps to
keep the panels in compression under loading. In continuous span designs, the designer may
elect to increase the post-tensioning to achieve the 250 psi effective stress under all loading
conditions.

Figure 3 Detail sketch of a female-to-female type shear key transverse joint.

2.6.2 Partial-Depth Precast Concrete Deck Panels

Partial-depth precast concrete panels span between girders and act as stay-in-place forms for
cast-in-place concrete that is placed on top of the panels and act as the bottom reinforcing for the
deck, creating a composite full-depth deck. Since partial-depth panels span between the girders,
the overhangs must still be constructed with conventional cast-in-place concrete. The partial-
depth panels are typically prestressed with strands located at the mid-depth, oriented in the
bridge’s transverse direction, which is in the direction of the deck design span. The panels are
placed adjacent to each other along the length of the bridge, and the prestressing serves as the
bottom layer of reinforcing steel in the deck. The panels are not connected to one another at the
transverse joints above the girder, as shown in Figure 4. The top layer of steel in the completed
deck is placed after the panels are placed, and before the cast-in-place concrete is placed on top
of the panels. Shear studs are placed on the girder flanges, and composite action is obtained by
placing the cast-in-place concrete in this region, as shown in Figure 4. Typically, the precast
deck panels are 3.5 inches thick, and the cast-in-place concrete layer is 4.5 inches thick.

8
 Figure 4 Partial-depth precast concrete deck panel.

Partial-depth precast concrete deck panels are typically considered as concrete stay-in-place
formwork. Per Article 9.7.4.3 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS, the depth of the stay-in-place
concrete should neither exceed 55 percent of the depth of the finished deck slab nor be less than
3.5 inches. For the cast-in-place slab placed above the precast deck panel, Article 9.7.4.3.2
allows the bottom distribution reinforcement, when used, to be placed directly on top of the
precast panel. Splices in the top primary reinforcement in the cast-in-place portion of the deck
slab are not to be located at the panel joints. Furthermore, the concrete cover below the
prestressing strands should not be less than 0.75 inches.

The partial-depth precast concrete panels are typically fabricated in one of two ways. One long
continuous panel is fabricated, and then cut into shorter panels so that the ends of the
prestressing strands are flush with the edges of the panels. Alternatively, panels are fabricated
by creating one longer panel but with forms between adjacent deck panels, and once the
prestressing strands are cut, small lengths of prestressing strand extend beyond the edge of the
panel. The effectiveness of prestressing strand extensions and the performance of partial-depth
precast panels is an area that requires further research. Article 9.7.4.3.2 of the AASHTO LRFD
BDS states that prestressing strands and/or reinforcing bars in the precast panels need not extend
into the cast-in-place concrete above the beams. However, the commentary to this article notes
that the lack of extended reinforcement may affect the transverse load distribution because there
is a lack of continuity over the beams, which could result in cracking where the panels rest on the
girders.

The bearing of the partial-depth panels on the supporting girders is an issue that must be properly
addressed. A solid, uniform bearing between the partial-depth panels and the girders should be
provided. Using soft bearing materials, such as fiber board, has caused problems as the panel
lacks a uniform bearing area, causing cracks to develop in the cast-in-place concrete. Other
problems have also been noted: the bridge deck may behave like simple spans between the
girders instead of continuous spans over the girders; the ends of panels may delaminate from the
cast-in-place concrete near the joints, forcing the cast-in-place concrete to carry the entire live
load shear; and cracking may occur over the joints (7). In accordance with Article 9.7.4.3.4,
current designs typically require that the panels be firmly bedded in grout on the supporting

9
girder, such that the grout completely fills the voids between the panels and the girder flanges
and is allowed to reach the required strength before placement of the cast-in-place concrete.

In accordance with Article 9.7.4.3.3, the upper surface of the precast partial-depth panels is to be
intentionally roughened in such a manner to ensure composite action with the cast-in-place
concrete. The partial-depth panels and the cast-in-place concrete must be capable of developing
sufficient composite action, as the panel and the cast-in-place concrete act together to create the
total thickness of the slab, and the panel’s reinforcing steel resists the positive flexural moment
in the transverse direction of the deck.

2.7 Post Tensioning of Cast-in-Place Deck Slabs

In some cases, transverse post-tensioning can be used in cast-in-place concrete bridge decks. For
example, transverse post-tensioning may be specified when wider girder spacings are used, and
mild reinforcement will not provide sufficient flexural capacity. Depending on the particular
situation, a thicker deck may result with the use of post-tensioning and wider girder spacings,
and may offset any steel cost and weight savings realized from using fewer longitudinal girders.

Another consideration regarding the use of transverse post-tensioning is whether or not there is
sufficient access to the edges of the concrete deck slab. The anchorage for the post-tensioning
tendons will be located at the transverse edges of the deck. Sufficient access must be provided to
allow for stressing of the post-tensioning tendons with the necessary equipment and personnel.
Furthermore, since transversely post-tensioned concrete bridge decks are not all that common,
the skilled labor required to cast the deck and properly install the post-tensioning tendons may
not be readily available. The labor and construction time associated with transversely post-
tensioned cast-in-place decks may also prove to be more costly than the costs associated with a
conventional reinforced cast-in-place concrete bridge deck.

Cast-in-place deck slabs using transverse post-tensioning should be designed in accordance with
the applicable provisions of Section 5 and Section 9 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS.

2.8 Edge Support

The transverse free edges of the concrete deck slab may need to be strengthened or supported by
means of a beam or other component. This mainly occurs at abutments, where the transverse
free edge of the deck will interface with some type of expansion device, approach slab, or
abutment backwall. At these transverse edges, the deck is usually thickened for a certain width
so that it behaves like a concrete beam, or the deck is supported by the end diaphragm. If a cross
frame is used at this location, the top member of the cross frame will usually need to be a
channel or a W-shape than can provide support to the deck. If a beam used to support this free
edge is made composite with the concrete deck slab, Article 9.7.1.4 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS
allows the beam to be designed with an effective width as specified in Article 4.6.2.1.4.

10
2.9 Formwork

Permanent or temporary formwork can be used to construct cast-in-place concrete bridge deck
slabs. Permanent formwork, also referred to as stay-in-place formwork, can either be
constructed from steel or concrete components, while temporary formwork typically consists of
wood elements. States typically specify whether or not it is acceptable to use stay-in-place
formwork. The forming of the cantilever portion of the deck slab at the exterior of the bridge is
typically supplemented with deck overhang brackets.

2.9.1 Stay-in-Place Formwork

Stay-in-place formwork can consist of concrete or steel components. Partial-depth precast

concrete panels are structural components that also act as stay-in-place concrete formwork. The
partial-depth precast panels become an integral part of the full-depth deck slab. When concrete
formwork is specified by the bridge designer, the designer is typically responsible for the design
of the formwork as it is made composite with the bridge system. Article 9.7.4 of the AASHTO
LRFD BDS specifies the design requirements of partial-depth concrete deck panels. Partial-
depth precast concrete panels are discussed earlier in this Deck Design chapter, and are not
elaborated further herein.

Steel stay-in-place forms are not to be considered composite with the concrete slab, per Article
9.7.4.2. Figure 5 shows a photo of stay-in-place formwork installed on a steel I-girder bridge,
prior to the placement of the deck slab steel reinforcement. The bridge designer is typically not
responsible for the design of the steel stay-in-place formwork, which is instead the responsibility
of the contractor or steel stay-in-place formwork provider. However, the designer must consider
the additional weight caused by the use of steel stay-in-place formwork in the design of the
bridge. A customary allowance of 0.015 ksf is often used by designers, which accounts for the
weight of the steel formwork and the additional concrete in the “valleys” of the stay-in-place
forms. The weight of formwork is typically provided in the contract documents, and if the
allowance is exceeded by the contractor’s choice, the contractor is responsible for showing that
the effects on the bridge are acceptable, or providing additional strengthening as needed at no
cost to the Owner. Additionally, the steel stay-in-place formwork should not be welded to the
top flanges of the girders subject to tensile stresses. Welding is permissible in areas where the
top flange is always in compression. The stay-in-place steel deck forms are often attached to an
angle, which is attached to the girder top flange by welding or via mechanical attachment, such
as a hanger or strap over the top flange of the girder. In regions where the top flange is subject to
tension, welding the stay-in-place forms, or their supporting components, directly to the girder
can result in a fatigue detail not considered during the design of the steel superstructure.
Therefore, in order to facilitate installation of steel stay-in-place forms, the designer should
indicate the top flange tension and compression zones on the contract plans (this may be done by
showing the CVN testing limits as well.)

11
 Figure 5 Photo showing permanent steel stay-in-place deck formwork installed on a steel
plate I-girder bridge.

2.9.2 Temporary Formwork

Temporary formwork is often constructed from wood components, and is removed once the cast-
in-place concrete deck has hardened. Figure 6 shows a photo of temporary wood formwork
constructed in between the girder top flanges of a steel I-girder bridge. The use of temporary
formwork should be specified in the contract documents. However, the bridge designer should
consider an appropriate loading for the temporary formwork when investigating the girder
constructibility provisions associated with the deck placement sequence. The load allowance
considered by the bridge designer may also be placed in the contract documents. In most cases,
the contractor is responsible for the design of the temporary formwork. A benefit of using
temporary wood formwork is that the bottom of the concrete deck slab is visible, and any signs
of distress can be noted during routine bridge inspections. A disadvantage of using temporary
formwork is the fact that removing the forms will require additional construction time.

Figure 6 Photo showing temporary wood formwork installed on a steel plate I-girder
bridge.

12
2.9.3 Deck Overhang Brackets

Deck overhang brackets, such as those shown in Figure 7, are typically required to construct the
cantilever portion of the deck slab that extends beyond the exterior girders. The deck overhang
brackets always support the overhang formwork and wet concrete, and will typically support a
construction walkway and the concrete paving machine when the rails are installed above the
bracket. The deck overhang brackets are typically selected from manufacturer catalogues and
prefabricated components. The contractor is responsible for selecting the proper deck overhang
bracket and spacing, as well as the design of any addition formwork. In some states, the
contractor is required to submit computations sealed by a Professional Engineer, verifying the
selection and spacing of the deck overhang brackets to be used to construct the concrete deck
slab.

Figure 7 Photo showing deck overhang brackets supporting cantilever slab construction
on a steel plate I-girder bridge.

The bridge designer should consider the loads imparted on the exterior girders as part of the
girder constructibility checks, as the eccentricity of the deck weight and other loads acting on the
overhang brackets creates applied torsional moments on the exterior girder. The overhang
bracket also imparts a lateral load on the girder top flange and bottom flange or web, depending
on the bearing location of the bottom portion of the bracket. In most cases, deck overhang
brackets are typically spaced at 3.0 or 4.0 feet along the exterior girders. Article C6.10.3.4
provides equations that can be used, in lieu of a refined analysis, to estimate the maximum flange
lateral bending moments due to the eccentric loading caused by the deck overhang brackets.

Also where practical, the deck overhang brackets should be carried to the intersection of the
bottom flange and web. The brackets may bear on the girder webs if temporary bracing is
provided to ensure that the web is not damaged and that the associated deformations permit
proper placement of the concrete deck slab. Alternatively, the out-of-plane bending of the web
could be checked using refined analysis techniques in order to ensure that the lateral load
imparted by the deck overhang bracket does not cause damage to the web or interfere with
construction of the concrete deck slab. When required, notes should be included in the contract

13
plans or specifications stating the need for a contractor to submit computations, sealed by a
Professional Engineer, that verify the deck overhang bracket does not cause damage to the web.

2.10 Serviceability

The spacing of mild steel reinforcement in decks designed in accordance with the equivalent
strip method must also satisfy crack control criteria per Article 5.67 of the AASHTO LRFD
BDS. This crack control criteria does not apply to deck slabs designed in accordance with the
empirical design method. However, no matter which design method is used, the cantilever
portion of the deck slab must also satisfy the requirements of Article 5.67.

Also, reinforcement for shrinkage and temperature stresses should be provided near the surfaces
of concrete exposed to daily temperature changes. Therefore, the reinforcement at each surface,
in at least one direction of the deck, should meet the requirements of Article 5.10.6 of the
AASHTO LRFD BDS.

2.11 Minimum Negative Flexure Concrete Deck Reinforcement

In composite steel girder construction, minimum requirements associated with the longitudinal
reinforcement in the concrete deck slab in negative moment regions must be satisfied in
accordance with Article 6.10.1.7 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS. Wherever the longitudinal
tensile stress in the concrete deck slab due to either factored construction loads or the Service II
load combination exceeds 0.9fr, the total cross-sectional area of the longitudinal reinforcement
should not be less than 1% of the total cross-sectional area of the concrete deck slab. For normal-
weight concrete, the modulus of rupture, fr, is computed as: f r = 0.24 f 'c .

The reinforcement used to satisfy the requirements of Article 6.10.1.7 should not have a yield
strength less than 60 ksi, a bar diameter not exceeding 0.75 in. (No. 6 bar), nor a spacing
exceeding 12 in. The longitudinal reinforcement should be placed in two layers uniformly
distributed across the deck slab width, and two-thirds of the total longitudinal should be placed in
the top layer. It should be noted that if longitudinal post tensioning is used in the deck, in precast
deck panels for example, the longitudinal post-tensioning can be designed to provide the
minimum negative flexural reinforcement required by Article 6.10.1.7.

In previous specifications, the requirement for 1% was limited to regions of negative flexure,
which was typically interpreted by designers as the regions between points of dead load
contraflexure. In continuous composite steel bridges, the deck can be exposed to significant
tensile stresses beyond the points of dead load contraflexure due to moving live loads, especially
in long span bridges or when the supports are skewed. Placement of the concrete deck in stages
can also produce tensile stresses greater than the rupture strength of the concrete in regions
where the concrete deck was previously placed. Thermal and shrinkage strains may also cause
increased tensile stresses in the concrete deck slab. The 1% longitudinal steel requirement is
intended to address these tensile stress issues and provide sufficient crack control. The 1%
requirement of past specifications has proven to be reasonably satisfactory for crack control. In
the current specification, this requirement is simply extended to locations where the concrete
tensile stress exceeds 0.9fr in an effort to further limit cracking of the concrete deck slab.

14
2.12 Detailing Considerations

2.12.1 Skewed Bridges

Support skew can affect the detailing of the reinforcement in the concrete deck slab. For support
skew, it may be acceptable to orient the deck transverse reinforcement parallel to the skew.
However, the deck design calculations must account for a reduction in the effective steel area
due to the skewed reinforcement and thus a reduction in the concrete deck slabs flexural
resistance. Per Article 9.7.1.3 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS, the primary reinforcement may be
orientated along the skew for skew angles that do not exceed 25 degrees, where the skew angle is
measured from a line that is perpendicular to the centerline of the bridge to the centerline of the
support.

The acute corners of a skewed concrete deck slab are often difficult to adequately reinforce (8).
As the angle of skew increases, large portions of the deck can be unreinforced and therefore
subject to spalling and chipping, as shown in Figure 8. Because the orthogonal bars are too short
to develop, it is typically necessary to detail diagonal bars that extend into the deck over the
girders, to carry the deck overhang loads. Similarly, acute corners in concrete barriers are also
difficult to reinforce, and require special consideration.

Figure 8 Inadequate reinforcement provided in acute corner of concrete deck slab (8).

A possible technique to combat the skew effects related to the detailing of the reinforcement in
the concrete deck and barriers is a detailing method commonly referred to as breakback
detailing. Breakback detailing is where the ends of the skewed deck are turned so that the end is
normal to the longitudinal edge of the deck, as shown in Figure 9. This breakback detailing
effectively eliminates the acute and obtuse corners of the concrete deck and barriers. Various
owner agencies may include guidelines for breakback detailing in their design manuals, policy
memos, or standard drawing details (8). These guidelines typically address the degree of skew at
which breakback options should be considered.

15
 Figure 9 Breakback detailing to eliminate skew effects associated with detailing acute
corners at ends of skewed deck slab (8).

2.12.2 Future Deck Replacement

A complete replacement of a reinforced concrete deck slab may be required during the life span
of a composite steel bridge. Forethought during the initial design of the bridge could provide the
details and requirements necessary for a future deck replacement at the initial design and
construction stage, as opposed to costly modifications at the time of deck replacement. The
initial bridge layout and design may consider a specific future deck replacement sequence to be
shown on the contract plans, and analyzed as part of the bridge design. A section of deck
designed for positive moment between adjacent girders may become a cantilevered slab due to
the future deck slab removal and replacement sequence. A future deck replacement sequence
such as this could be facilitated by considering this cantilever condition during the initial bridge
and deck slab design. Additional mild reinforcement to compensate for the negative moment
resulting from the temporary cantilever condition could be added during initial design and
construction. Alternatively, a staged overhang may be supported with a temporary framing
bracket (knee-brace) installed at the time of deck replacement.

2.12.3 Haunches

The haunch in a steel girder bridge is typically referred to as the distance from the top of the steel
girder web to the bottom of the concrete deck slab. Alternatively, some agencies refer to this
area as the fillet, but where the fillet is the distance from the top of the top flange to the bottom
of the concrete deck slab. The main difference between the haunch and the fillet is that the
haunch will theoretically remain constant along the length of the girder, while the fillet
dimension will vary due to top flange thickness changes along the length of the girder. However,
both dimensions may need to be adjusted in the field due to girder fabrication and erection
tolerances. The detailing of this concrete haunch (or fillet) needs to be considered by the bridge
designer.

The haunch width is typically set as the same width as the top flange. The deck forming method
will affect the haunch width. For example, where steel stay-in-place deck forms are used, they
typically employ clip angles which are attached to the top flange, requiring the haunch to be the
same width as the flange.

16
The haunch depth is usually set to accommodate all variations in top flange thickness, along with
consideration of the deck cross slope and deck forming method. The thickness of splice plates
must also be considered. Typically, the thickness of concrete above the flange (the fillet), is
allowed to be no less than 0.75 inches at any point across the top flange width, and considering
the thickness of the top flange splice plates. The haunch depth at the centerline of the girder web
is typically shown on the contract plans, and depth must consider the cross slope and
superelevation of the deck slab.

Shear reinforcement in the concrete haunch is often required when the depth of concrete
measured from the top of the top flange to the bottom of the concrete deck exceeds a certain
thickness (agencies specify the minimum thickness anywhere from 3.0 to 6.0 inches). Shear
reinforcement is also typically required if the shear connectors (studs) do not penetrate a
minimum of 2.0 inches into the deck slab. In this case the haunch must be reinforced to contain
the shear stud connector and develop its load in the deck (Article 6.10.10.1.4).

2.12.4 Cast-in-Place Deck Placement Sequence

The cast-in-place deck placement sequence considered by the bridge designer must be provided
in the contract plans, and must be taken into account as part of the girder constructibility checks.
Common practice when placing the deck in continuous span bridges is to place the cast-in-place
deck slab in the positive moment regions first and then place the cast-in-place deck slab in the
negative moment regions over the supports. A strategy such as this is typically adopted in order
to minimize the potential for cracking at the top of the deck slab in regions that are subjected to
negative moment. It should be noted that when concrete is placed in a span adjacent to a span
that already has a hardened concrete deck, negative moments in the span with the hardened
concrete will often result. These negative moments will cause tensile stresses in the hardened
concrete that could result in transverse deck cracking. The concrete deck stresses during deck
placement should be checked in accordance with Article 6.10.3.2.4 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS.

2.12.5 Concrete Deck Reinforcement

Concrete bridge deck slabs, parapets, and sidewalks are often reinforced with mild steel
reinforcement bars. In most cases, the reinforcing bars in the concrete bridge deck should
conform to the requirements of ASTM A615 or ASTM A706, both with a yield strength of 60
ksi, and modulus of elasticity equal to 29,000 ksi. These deck reinforcement bars are often
protected from corrosive materials through the use of an epoxy coating applied to the bars.
Alternatively, some agencies require that the deck reinforcement bars be galvanized in an effort
to protect the bars from corrosion. Furthermore, some agencies allow the use of uncoated bars in
the bridge deck, but provide increased cover to the reinforcement. The choice of corrosion
protection is dependent on the environment in which the bridge is located, and the likelihood of
corrosive materials being applied to the bridge deck. The designer should refer to standard
specifications and design manuals for the particular deck reinforcement and corrosion protection
method required by bridge owner.

However, since corrosion of mild steel reinforcement is a main cause of deterioration of concrete
bridge decks, other viable reinforcement options have been investigated and used in practice.

17
The use of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement bars and stainless steel reinforcement
bars in concrete bridge decks has increased in recent years, and research using each is currently
on-going. Currently, the AASHTO LRFD BDS does not explicitly address either reinforcement
option.

In addition to superior corrosion resistance, FRP reinforcement bars offer a high strength and
light weight alternative to typical steel reinforcement in concrete bridge decks. In the absence of
AASHTO or bridge owner specifications, ACI 440.1 R-06 provides design guidance for the
design and construction of structural concrete reinforced with FRP bars (9). A study discussing
the use of a bridge deck reinforced with glass FRP bars built in Vermont offers another resource
for designers, as a field investigation is described along with design and construction procedures
(10). A higher cost is associated with the use of FRP or stainless steel reinforcement bars in
bridge decks, as compared to the use mild steel reinforcement. However, these higher initial
costs may be offset by the possible savings in maintenance and repairs over the life of the bridge.

Stainless steel reinforcement bars are manufactured according to ASTM A995, and have
enhanced corrosion resistance as compared to conventional reinforcement. The entire
reinforcement bar is comprised of a corrosion resistant combination of metals, with a large
percentage of chromium and nickel. Stainless steel has a high chloride threshold and a slower
corrosion rate than conventional reinforcement. Stainless steel reinforcement is available for
yield strengths of 40, 60, and 75 ksi, and in the same sizes as conventional steel reinforcement
bars. The use of stainless steel bars may be warranted in a highly corrosive environment, such as
a project site in an oceanic location. Like FRP reinforcement, stainless steel has higher initial
costs than conventional reinforcement which may be offset by future maintenance savings.

18
3.0 METAL GRID DECKS

A metal grid deck consists of primary (main) members that span between adjacent beams,
stringers, or cross beams and secondary members (often referred to as distribution bars or cross
bars) that interconnect and span between the primary members. The primary and secondary
members of the grid deck typically form a rectangular pattern, although diagonal patterns can
also be used. The primary and secondary members must be securely joined together. Metal grid
decks are typically comprised of steel members forming the grid, and can be open, filled and
partially filled with reinforced concrete, or unfilled and composite with a reinforced concrete
slab. These types of metal grid decks are further explained within this section.

3.1 General

Metal grid decks, both open and filled with reinforced concrete, have been used in bridge
construction since the 1930’s. These deck systems can be considered for both new construction
and bridge rehabilitation projects, where weight reduction and/or speed of construction are
important considerations. Metal grid decks, filled or unfilled, are typically lighter in weight than
a conventional reinforced concrete deck slab with similar flexural capacity. Weight savings can
be especially important in movable bridges as well has rehabilitated structures in which a lighter
weight deck may reduce the need to strengthen a structure for increased live load capacity. In
many cases, filled grid decks have proven to be quite durable. Filled grid decks on bridges such
as the South 10th Street Bridge in Pittsburgh, the Walt Whitman Bridge in Philadelphia, and the
Mackinac Bridge in Michigan have all provided a service life of 50 years or more.

Metal grid decks typically consist of several panels that are connected together as the system is
installed on the bridge. As such, filled grid decks are modular, and may be able to be installed
quicker than typical cast in place reinforced concrete deck slabs. In cast-in-place filled grid
decks, the grid panels serve as the formwork, leaving little forming to be done in the field. The
concrete in the grid deck can also be precast into the grid panels, and the deck set into place as a
precast unit, only requiring closure pours between the panels.

The initial installation and construction of a filled metal grid deck is typically more expensive
than conventional reinforced concrete deck slabs. However, a filled metal grid deck can prove to
be a viable option when life cycle costs are considered, as a filled metal grid deck may not need
to be replaced at the same intervals as those required by a conventional reinforced concrete deck
slab, or when dead load reduction or speed of construction are important drivers.

The Bridge Grid Flooring Manufacturers Association (BGFMA) is an industry group comprised
of companies who fabricate and supply metal grid deck systems for bridges (11). The BGFMA
focuses on the use and design of steel grid decks through data collection, research, development,
and education. Several technical documents concerning metal grid deck systems are available at
the BGFMA’s website (www.bgfma.org).

19
3.2 Open Metal Grid Deck

An open grid deck consists of the primary and secondary steel members only, as the system does
not include any reinforced concrete. Figure 10 shows a section of an open steel grid deck. In
this figure, the primary supporting bars are I-shaped, while the secondary members are simple
rectangular bars that are perpendicular but interlock with the primary members. Additional
simple rectangular members interlock with the secondary members, and run parallel to the
primary members. These members help to provide the ride surface of the open metal grid deck.
With open grid decks, serrations are typically provided on the top of the grid members to
enhance vehicle traction.

Per Article 9.8.2.2 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS, open metal grid decks must be connected to the
supporting components (girders, stringers, cross beams, etc.) by welds or mechanically fasteners
at each primary member of the grid deck system. Using shear studs and a narrow, full depth
concrete pour over the supports is another method of connecting open grids, if the minimal
additional weight is permitted. Furthermore, welding within the open grid decks should typically
be considered as a Category E detail.

Figure 10 Open Steel Grid Deck (courtesy of BGFMA (11)).

An advantage of the open steel grid deck is that it is lightweight compared to conventional
reinforced concrete deck slabs or filled metal grid decks. However, it also has several
disadvantages including a perceived unpleasant ride quality, additional noise, possible safety
issues when wet, and debris, road salts, and water passing through the deck and onto the features
below the bridge. Also, open metal grid decks are prone to fatigue issues, both internally and in
their connections to girders or stringers. Open grid decks are rarely specified on new
construction projects, and are typically only used for in-kind replacements. The use of open
metal grid decks is typically limited to situations in which weight savings is the main driver, so
as to increase the live load carrying capacity of the structure, or where these systems were
installed many years ago. Older truss bridges and movable bridges are examples of where one
may see these systems employed.

20
3.3 Filled and Partially Filled Metal Grid Deck

A filled metal grid deck is a deck in which the entire depth of the grid system is completely filled
with concrete, as shown in Figure 11. Filled grid systems were first introduced in the 1930’s as a
method to increase speed of construction on large scale bridge projects. Filled grid decks can
utilize precast or cast-in-place methods for the reinforced concrete. Mild reinforcement is
required to satisfy concrete serviceability and durability requirements, and is typically located
perpendicular to the main supporting bars. Thin gage sheet metal rests between the bottom
flanges to support the full depth concrete.

Figure 11 Filled Steel Grid Deck (courtesy of BGFMA (11)).

A partially filled metal grid deck is a deck in which only a portion of the depth of the grid system
is filled with concrete, as shown in Figure 12. Partially filled grid systems were first introduced
in the 1950’s as a method to further reduce weight by eliminating concrete from the bottom of
the deck which is in tension in simple span applications. Partially filled grid decks can utilize
precast or cast-in-place methods for the reinforced concrete. Mild reinforcement may be used to
satisfy concrete serviceability and durability requirements, and is typically located parallel to and
in between the main supporting bars. A rib, located near the mid depth of the primary I-beam in
the deck system is used to support thin gage sheet metal. The thin gage sheet metal supports the
wet concrete, creating a partially filled system.

21
 Figure 12 Partially Filled Steel Grid Deck (courtesy of BGFMA (11)).

Per Article 9.8.2.3.1 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS, a 1.75 inch thick structural overfill should be
provided when possible on filled and partially filled metal grid decks, although a 2 inch overfill
is more common. Overfill is taken as the concrete thickness above the metal portion of the grid
deck. The concrete overfill provides protection for the steel portion of the grid deck from
chloride ion attack. The steel grid deck should also be galvanized or painted to further protect
the deck system. The overfill and galvanizing (or painting) limits the corrosion in the grid deck
steel. Heavy corrosion of the grid deck can lead to a phenomenon often called “grid growth,”
which impacts the performance of the grid deck.

Filled and partially filled grid decks can be attached to the supporting components (girders,
stringers, cross beams, etc.) by welding, or more commonly by shear stud connectors, to transfer
the shear between the deck and the supporting component. If shear studs are employed on the
supporting components, a haunch should be provided so that the shear studs are completely
encased in concrete. The shear studs should extend into the grid deck similar to a conventional
reinforced concrete deck slab, but typically do not need to extend into the overfill.

3.4 Unfilled Metal Grid Deck Composite with Reinforced Concrete Slab

An unfilled metal grid deck composite with reinforced concrete slab consists of a reinforced
concrete slab that is cast on top of an unfilled grid deck, and is made to be composite with the
unfilled grid deck. An ExodermicTM deck, shown in Figure 13, is a specific manufactured type
of unfilled metal grid deck which is composite with a reinforced concrete slab. In this type of
deck, WT sections are used as the primary members, spanning from the supporting components
(girders, stringers, cross beams, etc.). Secondary members are perpendicular to and interlock
with the WT sections. The secondary members support thin gage sheet metal, which in turn
supports the wet concrete of the reinforced slab. Negative flexural capacity is provided by the
mild reinforcement located within the concrete deck slab.

22
 Figure 13 Unfilled Metal Grid Deck Composite with Reinforced Concrete Slab
(ExodermicTM Deck courtesy of BGFMA (11)).

Composite action between the unfilled grid deck and the concrete slab must be provided by shear
connectors or other means capable of resisting horizontal and vertical components of interface
shears. Article 9.8.2.4.2 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS states that acceptable methods of shear
connection include tertiary bars to which 0.5 inch diameter reinforcement or round studs have
been welded, or the punching of holes at least 0.75 inch in size in the top portion of the main bars
of the grid which are embedded in the reinforced concrete slab by a minimum of 1 inch. The
steel decking should also be galvanized or painted to protect the steel members from corrosion.

These types of decks are often attached to the main supporting components by shear stud
connectors. Shear studs are welded to the main supporting components and a haunch is provided
so that the shear studs are completely encased in concrete.

This type of grid deck can be used where the distance between supports is greater than 10 feet.
On rehabilitation projects, the use of this deck type may permit the removal of stringers between
floor beams.

3.5 Design and Detailing Considerations

3.5.1 Analysis and Determination of Force Effects

Per Article 9.8.2.1 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS, the force effects in open, filled, and partially
filled grid decks, and grid decks composite with a reinforced concrete slab can be determined
using one of the following methods:
• Approximate analysis methods specified in Article 4.6.2.1, as applicable;
• Orthotropic plate theory;
• Equivalent Grid;
• Design aids provided by the deck manufacturer, if the performance of the deck is
documented and supported by sufficient technical evidence.

Live load effects for open grid decks, per Article 4.6.2.1, can be determined using the equivalent
strip method, similar to conventional reinforced concrete deck slabs. Filled and partially filled
grid decks, and grid decks composite with a reinforced concrete slab must be designed for live

23
load force effects computed in accordance with Article 4.6.2.1.8, as the equivalent strip method
is not applicable. Additional information regarding the development of the equations provided in
Article 4.6.2.1.8 and the determination of live load effects can be found in references (12), (13),
and (14).

3.5.2 Typical Applications

Table 1 highlights the typical span length applications, components, weights, and total
thicknesses associated with filled and partially filled grid decks, and grid decks composite with a
reinforced concrete slab (11). The typical weight range and thickness consider a 2 inch overfill.

Table 1 Typical components, span lengths, weight ranges, and total thickness for various
metal grid decks (11)

* These are the most common sizes; however larger WT shapes can be used for large spans.

3.5.3 Composite Action

Filled and partially filled grid decks, and grid decks composite with a reinforced concrete slab
can be made composite with steel superstructures by welding shear studs to the supporting
structural components and embedding the shear studs in a haunch area with full depth concrete.
This haunch area is placed at the same time as the reinforced concrete is placed when the
concrete is cast-in-place, or separately when the reinforced concrete is precast. In order to
assume composite action between the supporting components and the metal grid deck, the shear
studs must be designed and placed in accordance with Article 6.10.10 of the AASHTO LRFD
BDS. If these deck types are considered to be composite with the main supporting components,
an effective width of slab can be assumed for the design of the main supporting components.
The slab effective width is to be computed in accordance with Article 4.6.2.6.1 of the AASHTO
LRFD BDS. For the design of the main supporting components, the section properties should be
computed omitting any effect of the concrete slab in tension.

3.5.4 Cast-in-Place and Precast Construction Methods

As mentioned previously, filled and partially filled grid decks, and grid decks composite with a
reinforced concrete slab can have the concrete slab portion installed with cast-in-place or precast
construction methods. With cast-in-place construction, the unfilled steel grid deck is placed on
the supporting components, such as the top flanges of the girders. Since the grid deck is divided

24
into multiple panels longitudinally and transversely, adjacent panels are typically spliced
together with mechanical fasteners, shear reinforcement (transverse only), or other methods. The
unfilled grid deck is set to the required elevation using leveling bolts that are built into the grid
deck panels. Shear stud connectors are placed through the grid deck and welded to the top flange
of the supporting component. Haunches are formed at the supporting components, usually with
galvanized thin gage steel sheets, structural angles, or timber. Mild steel reinforcement, if not
already incorporated into the grid deck, is then installed, and concrete is then placed in a
conventional fashion, filling the haunches full depth and the specified depth and overfill of the
grid deck.

Alternatively, the concrete for the grid deck panels can be precast off site, and the panels with
concrete installed delivered to the work site. When the concrete is precast, forms or block-outs
are used to prevent the placement of concrete in panel areas that will eventually be located over
supporting components in the final structural configuration, in deck panel connection areas, and
in areas where cast-in-place barriers will be placed. However, when precast methods are used,
the panels must be properly handled and stored to reduce the possibility of concrete cracking. In
general, the installation of the precast panels, shear stud connectors, and haunch formwork are
similar to cast-in-place construction. Once all components are installed, rapid setting concrete is
used to make the full depth closure pours in the haunch and deck panel connection areas. Rapid
setting concrete provides the high early strength that is typically required, while also limiting the
potential for shrinkage cracking.

In both methods of construction, a maximum coarse aggregate size of 0.375 in. is typically
specified, and pencil type vibrators are recommended as the concrete is placed. Also, after
concrete placement is complete, and any grinding or finishing has occurred, a sealant or overlay
is typically installed. Overlays are more commonly used with precast concrete decks. The
sealant or overlay should be compatible with conventional reinforced concrete deck slabs.

3.5.5 Deck Overhang

Similar to a conventional reinforced concrete deck slab, the design of a deck overhang of a grid
deck needs to consider a vehicular crash loading applied to the barrier. Although Section 13 of
the AASHTO LRFD BDS is developed for conventional reinforced concrete deck slabs, the
provisions are applicable to grid decks. The design of the overhang of a metal grid deck with
reinforced concrete must consider the three design cases provided in Article A13.4.1.
Furthermore, the connection of the barrier to the deck must be given special attention by the
designer, to ensure that the crashworthiness of the system is sufficient.

25
4.0 ORTHOTROPIC STEEL DECKS

Orthotropic steel decks have been employed worldwide, particularly in Europe, Asia, the Far
East, and South America. However the use of orthotropic steel decks in the United States has
been fairly limited, such that their use represents a very small percentage of the bridge inventory.
The modern orthotropic welded deck bridge construction was developed by German engineers in
the 1930’s, and the first such deck was constructed in 1936.

In general, an orthotropic steel deck consists of a flat, thin steel plate which is stiffened by a
series of closely spaced longitudinal ribs that run parallel to traffic, placed orthogonal to
transverse floor beams. The deck stiffness is considerably different in the longitudinal and
transverse direction, hence orthotropic steel decks are structurally anisotropic. According to
Troitsky (15), the name orthotropic comes from the fact that the ribs and floor beams are
orthogonal, and the elastic section properties are different, or anisotropic, in both directions; thus
the system became known as orthogonal-anisotropic, which shortens to orthotropic. Typically,
an orthotropic steel deck is made integral with the supporting superstructure component, such as
the top flanges of girders or floor beams. Figure 14 shows general sketches of an orthotropic
steel deck integral with a plate girder.

Figure 14 Orthotropic Steel Deck Integral with Plate Girder (taken from AISC (16)).

In an orthotropic steel deck system, live loads are transferred through the wearing surface and
top steel deck plate, to the longitudinal ribs, and then to the transverse floor beams. The load in
the floor beam is then transferred to the main load carrying system, such as a longitudinal plate
girder. Per Article 9.8.3.1 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS, the deck plate is to act as a common
flange of the ribs, the floor beams, and the main longitudinal components of the bridge. With
proper maintenance, experience has shown that a steel superstructure system that employs the
use of an orthotropic steel deck can have a long service life.

The use of orthotropic steel decks has been limited in the United States for a variety of reasons,
but mainly due to issues related to the complex design and fabrication associated with them, as

26
opposed to the use of a conventional reinforced concrete deck slab. Orthotropic steel decks also
require a different set of inspection and maintenance techniques. Orthotropic steel decks have
had problems related to fatigue cracking and performance of wearing surfaces in the past, which
have made bridge owners wary of specifying the use of these decks. Many of these problems are
related to limitations of design and analytical methods used in the past, as well as reliance on
trial and error with regard to detailing and fabrication.

The construction and fabrication techniques employed are very important to the successful use of
orthotropic steel bridge decks. Orthotropic steel decks typically require detailed construction
specifications and special quality control procedures during fabrication. Current designs
typically are not standardized, and thus repetition does not currently help to improve construction
and fabrication techniques.

Orthotropic steel decks can be constructed more rapidly and provide a significantly longer
service life than conventional concrete deck slabs. Construction tends to be more rapid, since
most of the components are assembled in the fabrication shop. Future deck replacement is
typically not required for orthotropic steel decks, but based on past experience, the wearing
surface typically requires replacement every 20 to 30 years.

Article 9.8.3 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS provides guidance on design and detailing for
orthotropic steel decks that should currently be followed by bridge designers. However, it
should be noted that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funded a project to develop a
new manual focused on the design, fabrication, and construction of orthotropic steel deck bridges
(17). The Manual for Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Orthotropic Steel Bridge Decks
(18) covers relevant issues related to orthotropic steel deck bridges, including analysis, design,
detailing, fabrication, testing, inspection, evaluation, and repair. Based on extensive recent
research efforts, this manual addresses the limited guidance currently provided with regard to
fatigue design. This manual also addresses issues related to the quality control of both
construction and fabrication, as well as establishes sound detailing concepts based on current
experience in order to help develop standardized details.

4.1 Typical Deck Sections and Applications

Orthotropic steel decks are typically classified as either open-rib or closed-rib systems. In either
case, the ribs are arranged in the longitudinal direction of the bridge and distribute wheel loads to
the intermediate floor beams, while also providing increased flexural stiffness to the primary
structural component. The ribs are rarely orientated in the transverse direction, as this
orientation can cause problems with the durability of the wearing surface (19). The longitudinal
ribs are typically made continuous through openings in the web plates of the floor beams.
Closed-ribs are typically used in orthotropic steel decks that are subjected to direct wheel loads.

As shown in Figure 15, open-ribs are usually made from flat bars, bulb shapes, inverted tee-
sections, or angles. Open-ribs are not necessarily ideal for use in decks subjected to wheel loads.
Open-ribs do not have the torsional stiffness to efficiently distribute transverse loads to adjacent
ribs, resulting in more ribs and closer floor beam spacing as compared to a closed-rib system.
Open-ribs are more often used to stiffen box girder webs and bottom flanges.

27
 Trapezoidal U-Shape V-Shape

Types of Closed Ribs

Flat Angle Bulb

Types of Open Ribs

Figure 15 Common Rib Types for Orthotropic Steel Decks.

Closed-ribs are typically made from trapezoidal, U-shaped, or V-shaped sections, as shown in
Figure 15. Trapezoidal rib sections are the most common specified in orthotropic steel decks.
Closed-ribs have a much higher torsional stiffness than open-ribs, and thus closed-ribs better
distribute transverse loads to adjacent ribs. The closed-rib system is complicated by the partial
penetration weld on the outside of the closed-rib where it attaches to the deck plate, and is a
fatigue sensitive detail that requires care to execute with consistent quality. Furthermore, due to
the torsional rigidity of the closed-rib, decks using closed ribs are subjected to secondary
deformations and stresses that must be addressed in design.

Advantages of orthotropic steel decks are realized in long span bridges because the deck is
lightweight (typically 60% of comparable concrete) and can be made composite with the main
longitudinal girders. As such, orthotropic bridge cross sections are good candidates for
suspended span bridges such as suspension, cable-stayed, and tied arch bridges, minimizing the
dead load on the entire bridge system. Cross sections have included plate girders with
orthotropic steel decks, as well as multi-cell box girders, single-cell box girders, and
combinations of stiffening trusses and floor beams.

Orthotropic steel decks are also effective in movable bridges because of their reduced weight as
compared to conventional reinforced concrete deck slabs. The reduced weight of the deck also
results in a reduction in the size of the counterweights required. Also, a movable bridge with an
orthotropic steel deck requires less power from moving devices, and reduces the internal forces
in the trunnions.

I-girder bridges in the short to medium span range can also utilize orthotropic steel decks,
because of their internal redundancy and possibly eliminating the potential for complete future
deck replacement. Orthotropic construction is often found in box girder sections, as slender plate

28
components requiring stiffening. Steel box girders utilizing an orthotropic deck result in a
lighter superstructure, which allows for modular construction techniques.

4.2 Design and Detailing Considerations

In accordance with Articles 9.8.3.4 and 9.8.3.5, refined methods or approximate methods of
analysis are acceptable to determine force effects in orthotropic steel decks. Approximate
methods of analysis for both open rib and closed rib decks may be based on the Pelikan-
Esslinger method, per Articles C9.8.3.4.1 and 9.8.3.4.3c of the AASHTO LRFD BDS.

Per Article 9.8.3.5.2, orthotropic steel decks are to be designed for the service, strength, and
fatigue limit states. Strength design should consider the design of the deck related to rib flexure
and shear, floor beam flexure and shear, and axial compression (panel buckling) of the deck.
Deflection limits should be satisfied for the Service I limit state, so as to prevent premature
deterioration of the wearing surface. The Service II limit state is required for the slip critical
design of any bolted connections. Fatigue in orthotropic steel decks requires careful
consideration as orthotropic steel decks experience numerous stress cycles.

Fatigue cracking has been observed in orthotropic steel decks, resulting from vintage weld
details and desire to minimize weight. Early analytical tools and procedures were limited in their
ability to quantify the stress states at these details and the early experimental fatigue database
was limited (17). Detailing and fabrication practices also relied on experience gained through
trial and error. The design of critical details in orthotropic steel decks is typically controlled by
cyclic live load and the fatigue limit state. Many of these details that have experienced cracking
are due to fatigue, and can be sensitive to the fabrication process. In particular, cracking has
been experienced at rib to deck welds, rib to floor beam welds, and at welded deck splice plates.
However, it should be noted that an orthotropic steel deck system is highly redundant, and
cracking related to fatigue most often does not represent a serious threat to the strength or
integrity of the structure as a whole (17). Furthermore, the FHWA manual, previously discussed,
provides further guidance regarding the analysis, design and physical testing related to fatigue in
orthotropic steel decks.

Detailing requirements are provided in Article 9.8.3.6 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS. The
minimum deck plate thickness shall not be less than 0.625 in. or four percent of the larger
spacing of the rib webs, while the thickness of closed ribs should not be less than 0.1875 in.
Furthermore, the interiors of closed ribs are to be sealed by welds in order to prevent the ingress
of moisture and air into the closed rib. In accordance with Article 9.8.3.6.2 of the AASHTO
LRFD BDS, the one-sided weld between the web of a closed rib and the deck plate shall have a
minimum penetration of 60 percent and no blow-through, and shall be placed with a tight fit of
less than a 0.02 inch gap prior to welding. Additional guidance regarding the deck and rib
details is provided in Article 9.8.3.6.4.

4.3 Wearing Surfaces

The wearing surface on an orthotropic steel deck plays an important role in improving skid
resistance, distributing wheel loads, and protecting the deck against corrosion. The wearing

29
surface should have sufficient ductility and strength to accommodate expansion, contraction, and
deformations without cracking or debonding. The wearing surface should also have sufficient
fatigue strength to withstand flexural stresses due to composite action of the wearing surface
with the deck plate, resulting from local flexure. Furthermore, the wearing surface should be
durable enough to resist rutting and wearing from traffic, impervious to water and vehicular
fluids, and resistant to deicing salts and deterioration due to solar radiation.

Problems related to the performance of the wearing surface have been experienced in past
applications, and have generally been attributed to inadequate construction control, degradation
of the materials, or flexible design of the steel decking. Recent research and design
improvements, such as the minimum deck plate thickness currently required by the AASHTO
LRFD BDS, have addressed many of these previous failures. Many current design concepts
utilized in modern orthotropic steel deck bridges have shown to be successful.

There are two main categories for surfacing materials that are typically used on orthotropic steel
decks. One is a bituminous surfacing system that can consist of mastic asphalts, latex-modified
asphalts, or reinforced asphalt systems. Bituminous systems are generally 2.0 inches or greater
in thickness. The other surfacing system is a polymer system, which includes epoxy resins,
methacrylates, or polyurethanes, all usually having a thickness of 0.75 in. or less. In most cases
climate dictates the chosen surfacing system, as bituminous surfaces are more sensitive to
thermal changes. However, when specified and installed correctly, and with regular
maintenance, both wearing surfaces have demonstrated service lives in excess of 30 years.

30
5.0 WOOD DECKS

Article 9.9 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS addresses design requirements of wood decks and wood
deck systems. The use of wood deck systems on steel girders is typically limited to structures in
special environments (forests, bike trails, etc.), or structures with severe weight restrictions. The
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, has developed Standard Plans for
Timber Bridge Superstructures (20) that design engineers can reference for the various types of
wood decks that can be used with steel girder bridges.

To determine the load distribution and force effects for structures with wood decks, Article
9.9.3.1 allows the bridge designer to use one of the following methods: Approximate methods
specified in Article 4.6.2.1, orthotropic plate theory, or equivalent grid modeling. The live load
flexural moment and shear for beams with transverse wood decks can be determined using the
approximate methods provided in Article 4.6.2.2.2a for interior beams, and Article 4.6.2.2.3b for
exterior beams. The distribution factors for interior beams are based on girder spacing and type
of wood deck, and the distribution factors for exterior beams are to be determined using the lever
rule.

If the girder spacing is less than 36 inches, or 6 times the nominal depth of the deck or the deck
system including the girders, the deck should be modeled as an orthotropic plate or equivalent
grillage. For wood decks with closely spaced supporting components, the assumption of
infinitely rigid supports upon which the approximate methods are based, is not valid. Therefore,
two dimensional methods such as orthotropic plate theory or equivalent grid models are
recommended to obtain force effects with reasonable accuracy.

5.1 Types of Wood Decks

5.1.1 Glued Laminated Deck

Glue laminated (Glulam) timber deck panels typically consist of a series of panels, prefabricated
with water-resistant adhesives that are tightly abutted along their edges. Glulam deck panels
typically span transversely across the full width of the bridge, spanning over the longitudinal
steel girders. The joints of adjacent panels are typically sealed with a bituminous sealer that
provides a watertight deck surface (21). In accordance with Article 9.9.4.2 of the AASHTO
LRFD BDS, the panels should be attached to steel girders with metal clips that extend over the
girder flange and are bolted through the wood deck.

5.1.2 Stress Laminated Deck

Stress laminated timber decks are typically constructed by compressing a series of wood
laminations, placed edgewise, with post-tensioning bars, normal to the direction of the
laminations. The post-tensioning bars are placed through holes in the laminations that must be
predrilled. The diameters of the holes in the laminations for the post-tensioning bars must not be
greater than 20 percent of the laminations depth, and the spacing of the holes shall not be less
than 15 times the hole diameter nor less than 2.5 times the depth of the laminations (Article
9.9.5.4). A sketch of a stress laminated deck cross section is shown in Figure 16.

31
 Figure 16 Cross section sketch of stress laminated wood deck (21).

The compression created by the post-tensioning develops friction and load distribution between
the laminations so that they act together as a large orthotropic plate (21). Per Article C9.9.5.6.3,
the post-tensioning force per bar is based on a uniform compressive stress of 0.1 ksi between the
laminations. Article 9.9.5.6.3 provides additional design requirements for stress laminated
decks.

Stress laminated decks must be tied down at every girder with bolts or lag-screws to ensure
proper contact of the deck with the top flanges of the girders. Stress laminated decks have a
tendency to develop curvature perpendicular to the laminates when transversely stressed by post-
tensioning. Furthermore, past research and field experience has shown that it is necessary to re-
stress a stress laminated deck system after initial stressing in order to offset long-term relaxation
effects.

5.1.3 Spike Laminated Deck

A spike laminated timber deck consists of a series of timber laminations that are placed edgewise
spanning transversely over the supports (longitudinal steel girders) and spiked together on their
wide face with deformed spikes of sufficient length to fully penetrate four laminations. Per
Article 9.9.6.1, the spikes are to be placed in pilot holes that are bored through pairs of
laminations at each end at intervals not greater than 12 inches in an alternating pattern near the
top and bottom of the laminations. The panels should be attached to steel girders with metal
clips that extend over the girder flange and are bolted through the wood deck.

5.1.4 Plank Decks

Wood plank decks consist of a series of timber planks placed flat-wise and transversely across
the width of the bridge, and over the supporting steel girders. Per Article 9.9.7.2, the planks are
to be bolted to the steel girders or nailed to wood nailing strips that are secured to the top flange
of the girder with a minimum of 0.625 inch diameter A307 bolts, spaced no more than 4 feet
apart and no more than 1.5 feet from the ends of the nail strip. Wood plank decks are fairly
uncommon, and should be limited to roads that carry few or no heavy vehicles, and where the
running surface is constantly monitored and appropriately maintained.

5.2 Wearing Surfaces

In accordance with Article 9.9.8 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS, wearing surfaces on wood decks
are to be of a continuous nature, and bituminous wearing surfaces are recommended. The

32
surface of the wood deck should be free of surface oils to encourage adhesion, and there should
be no bleeding of the preservative wood treatment. Excessive bleeding of the preservative
treatment can seriously reduce adhesion with the wearing surface. The contract plans and
specifications should clearly state that the deck material be treated using the empty cell process,
followed by an expansion bath or steaming.

Due to the smooth surface of individual lamination and glued laminated decks, it is beneficial to
provide a positive connection with the wearing surface, in order to ensure proper performance.
A tack coat should be applied to wood decks prior to the application of an asphalt wearing
surface, which typically improves the adhesion of the asphalt wearing surface to the deck. In
lieu of a tack coat, a geotextile fabric may be used, depending on manufacturer
recommendations. In any case, the asphalt surface should have a minimum compacted thickness
of 2.0 inches.

In practice, cracking of the wearing surfaces on glue laminated wood decks has been observed.
The cracks in the wearing surface often develop at joints between panels, and are typically
caused by insufficient load distribution between panels. Designers may be able to reduce the
potential for cracking by means of a steel channel bolted to the underside of the wood deck
panels.

33
6.0 OTHER DECK SYSTEMS

6.1 Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Bridge Decks

Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composite bridge decks are pre-engineered and prefabricated in
a manufacturer’s shop, and then assembled and installed at the bridge site. A wearing surface or
overlay is typically installed after all the FRP deck panels are installed. FRP deck panels are
engineered materials with their strength dependent on several factors, including fiber type,
volume percent of fibers, fiber orientation, resin type, manufacturing methods, and bonding
materials used in the final assembly. FRP bridge decks are typically fabricated with vinyl ester
or polyester resin reinforced with E-glass fibers (22).

FRP deck panels weigh much less than a comparable reinforced concrete bridge deck. A typical
FRP deck with a wearing surface or overlay may weigh between 25 to 70 pounds per square foot
of deck, as compared to a conventional 9.5 inch thick reinforced concrete deck that weighs 120
pounds per square foot of deck. Figure 17 shows the installation of an FRP deck panel using a
forklift type vehicle. FRP deck panels are also more resistant to deicing salts and other materials
that can result in degradation of a conventional reinforced concrete deck. FRP deck panels can
be installed faster than a conventional reinforced deck, making FRP deck panels advantageous in
rehabilitation projects where bridge closure time is of concern.

Figure 17 Photo showing the installation of an FRP deck panel for deck replacement
project in New York State (courtesy NYSDOT and FHWA).

However, FRP deck panels have a higher initial cost as compared to conventional reinforced
concrete decks. The design of FRP decks is also proprietary and there are currently no standard
manufacturing processes. FRP decks are also subject to degradation resulting from the
overexposure to ultraviolet radiation, and there is reluctance to use FRP bridge decks due to the
lack of long term performance data. Since FRP decks are prefabricated, they have little tolerance
for existing conditions when used in bridge rehabilitation projects, and cannot be adjusted as
easily as a conventional reinforced concrete deck.

34
For more information regarding FRP decks see the FHWA document, Composite Bridge
Decking: Final Project Report (22) as well as an FHWA website for Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(FRP) Composite Technology (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/composite/cpdi.cfm).

6.2 Aluminum Decks

Aluminum deck panels are briefly discussed in Article 9.8.4 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS, as
orthotropic aluminum deck panels. These deck panels consist of a deck plate stiffened and
supported by rib extrusions, where the ribs are either parallel or perpendicular to the direction of
traffic. An example of a rib extrusion is shown in Figure 18. The aluminum deck panel can be
fabricated by shop welding individual extrusions together at their top and bottom flanges, as
shown in Figure 19. A thin epoxy-type wearing surface is typically installed over the deck panel,
but is not to be considered part of the structural deck system. The chosen wearing surface must
be capable of providing sufficient skid resistance. The reader can refer to analytical and
experimental investigations of aluminum deck panels that have been reported on in the literature
(see references (23) and (24)).

Figure 18 Typical aluminum rib extrusion cross section for use in an aluminum bridge
deck panel (23).

Figure 19 Example of an aluminum deck panel created by welding rib extrusions together
at the top and bottom flanges of the extrusion (24).

Aluminum deck panels are to be designed to meet the requirements of Section 7 of the AASHTO
LRFD BDS which pertains to aluminum structures. All applicable limit states should be
considered in the design of the aluminum deck panels. Particular attention should be given to the
fatigue limit state, and details should satisfy the provisions of Article 7.6, as well as the
connection requirements associated with dissimilar materials if applicable. Furthermore, the

35
longitudinal ribs, including the effective width of deck plate should be investigated for stability
as individual beam-columns, assumed as simply supported at the transverse beams.

Similar to FRP deck panels, aluminum deck panels offer a lightweight alternative to
conventional reinforced concrete bridge decks, making them ideal candidates for consideration in
deck replacement projects where the live load capacity may be an issue. However, much like
FRP deck panels, the use of aluminum deck panels is limited due to high initial costs and
unfamiliarity with the deck system.

6.3 Sandwich Deck Panels

Sandwich deck panels are a relatively new bridge deck system that could be used for new bridge
construction and bridge rehabilitation projects. A sandwich deck panel typically consists of
upper and lower steel plates bonded to a core material that can consists of small I-shapes, pressed
corrugated plates, or another type of material. A special case is shown in Figure 20, where a
sandwich deck panel consists of steel plates bonded to a rigid polyurethane core.

Figure 20 Example of sandwich deck panel (25).

The sandwich deck panel is analogous to an I-beam subjected to flexure, where the steel plates
act as the flanges, and the core acts as the web (25). The entire deck is typically constructed
from a series of deck panels, spanning transversely across the width of the bridge. A sandwich
deck panel is similar to a conventional orthotropic plate deck, but without the required
intermediate stiffeners, as the core serves the same purpose as intermediate stiffeners by
providing sufficient support to the steel plates. If the core is continuous, the local buckling effect
resulting from discretely spaced stiffeners is eliminated (25). The lack of intermediate stiffeners
eliminates fatigue sensitive details that are inherent in orthotropic steel decks. Currently, the use
of sandwich deck panel systems is very limited, with few known applications in North America.
As such, there are no standards or guidelines available for the design of bridges using these deck
systems.

36
7.0 SUMMARY

This chapter on bridge decks has provided practical information regarding the decking options
and design considerations for steel bridges, presenting deck types such as concrete deck slabs,
metal grid decks, orthotropic steel decks, wood decks, and several others. The choice of a
particular deck type to use can depend on several factors, which may include the specific
application, initial cost, life cycle cost, durability, weight, or owner requirements. While most
bridge decks are constructed from concrete, there are other viable options available that could be
considered by bridge designers and bridge owners. Decking options other than concrete are
often lighter and may be less time consuming to install. These other options may be
advantageous and competitive for use in deck replacement and bridge rehabilitation projects,
where construction time and/or load rating capacity are a concern.

37
8.0 REFERENCES

1. AASHTO, (2020). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 9th Edition, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

2. Hartle, R., Wilson, K., Amrhein, W., Zang, S., Bouscher, J., and Volle, L, (2003). ”LRFD
Design Example for Steel Girder Bridge Superstructure Bridge with Commentary,” Report
No. FHWA-NHI-04-041, www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/lrfd/examples.htm.

3. Grubb, M., Wilson, K., White, C., and Nickas, W., (2015). “Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LRFD) for Highway Bridge Superstructures – Reference Manual),” Report No.
FHWA-NHI-15-047, www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/pubs/nhi15047.pdf.

4. Tadros, M.K. and Baishya, M.C., (1998). “Rapid Replacement of Bridge Decks,” National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP Report 407, Washington D.C.

5. Badie, S. S. and Tadros, M.K., (2008). “Full-Depth Precast Concrete Bridge Deck Panel
Systems,” National Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP Report 584,
Washington D.C.

6. Issa, M.A., Idriss, A., Kaspar, I.I., and Khayyat, S.Y., (1995). “Full Depth Precast and
Precast, Prestressed Concrete bridge Deck Panels,” PCI Journal, V. 40, No. 1, pp. 59-80.

7. Hieber, D., Wacker, J., Eberhard, M., and Stanton, J., (2005). “State-of-the-Art Report on
Precast Concrete Systems for Rapid Construction of Bridges – Final technical Report,”
Washington State Transportation Center, University of Washington, Seattle Washington.

8. Coletti, D., Chavel, B., and Gatti, W. (2009). “The Problems of Skew,” Proceedings, World
Steel Bridge Symposium, National Steel Bridge Alliance, San Antonio, Texas.

9. American Concrete Institute (ACI), (2015). ACI 440.1 R-15: Guide for the Design and
Construction of Structural Concrete with Reinforced Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars, ACI
Committee 440.

10. Benmokrane, B., El-Salakawy, E., El-Ragaby, A., and Lackey, T., (2006). “Designing and
Testing of Concrete Bridge Decks Reinforced with Glass FRP Bars,” Journal of Bridge
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 11, No. 2. pp. 217-229.

11. Bridge Grid Flooring Manufacturers Association (BGFMA), www.bgfma.org.

12. Higgins, C. (2003). “LRFD Orthotropic Plate Model for Determining Live Load Moments in
Concrete Filled Bridge Decks,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 20-
28.

13. Higgins, C. (2003). “Orthotropic Plate Model for Estimating Deflections Filled Bridge
Decks,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 599-605.

38
14. Higgins, C. and Turan, O. T., (2009). “Calibration of AASHTO-LRFD Section 4.6.2.1.8 with
Historical Performance of Filled, Partially Filled, Unfilled and Composite Grid Decks – Final
Report,” School of Civil and Construction Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis,
Oregon.

15. Troitsky, M.S. (1987). Orthotropic Bridges Theory and Design. 2nd Ed. The James F. Lincoln
Arc Welding Foundation. Cleveland, OH.

16. AISC (1963). Design Manual for Orthotropic Steel Plate Deck Bridges, American Institute
of Steel Construction. Chicago, IL.

17. Kozy, B., Connor, R., Paterson, D., Mertz, D. (2010). “Proposed Revisions to the AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications for Orthotropic Steel Deck Bridges,” Journal of Bridge
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 759-767.

18. Connor, R., Fisher, J. Gatti, W., Gopalaratnam, V., Kozy, B., Leshko, B., McQuaid, D.,
Medlock, R., Mertz, D., Murphy, T., Paterson, D., Sorenson, O., Yadlosky, J. (2012).
Manual for Design, Construction, Inspection, and Maintenance of Orthotropic Steel Deck
Bridges, Report No. FHWA-IF-12-027.

19. Sadleck, G., (1992). “Orthotropic Plate Deck Bridges,” Construction Steel Design – An
International Guide, Chapter 2.10, edited by Dowling, P., Harding, J. and Bjorhovde, R.,
Elsevier Science Publishers LTD, Essex, England.

20. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, (2001). “Standard Plans for Timber
Bridge Superstructures,” Gen. Tech Rep FPL-GTR-125, USDA, Forest Service, Forest
Product Laboratory.

21. Duwadi, S. and Ritter, M., (1997). “Timber Bridges in the United States,” Public Roads,
Vol. 60, No. 3, www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/97winter/p97wi32.cfm.

22. O’Connor, J.S., (2013) “Composite Bridge Decking: Final Project Report,” FHWA-HIF-13-
029, available at
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hfl/partnerships/composite_bridge/hif13029/hif13029.pdf.

23. Dobmeier, J., Barton, F., Gomez, J., Massarelli, P., and McKeel, W., (1999). “Analytical and
Experimental Evaluation of an Aluminum Bridge Deck Panel,” Report No. VTRC 00-R5,
Virginia Transportation Research Council.

24. Misch, P., Barton, F., Gomez, J., Massarelli, P., and McKeel, W., (1999). “Experimental and
Analytical Evaluation of an Aluminum Deck Bridge,” Report No. VTRC 00-R10, Virginia
Transportation Research Council.

25. Cousins, T., Murray, T., and Harris, D., (2009), “Use of a Sandwich Plate System in a
Virginia Bridge,” FHWA/VTRC 09-CR12, Virginia Transportation Research Council.

39
 Smarter. Stronger. Steel.
National Steel Bridge Alliance
312.670.2400 | aisc.org/nsba

B917-22