Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113875

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Fatigue performance evaluation of steel-UHPC composite orthotropic deck

in a long-span cable-stayed bridge under in-service traffic
Shiqiang Qin a, b, Jiabin Zhang a, b, Chunlei Huang a, b, Liqiang Gao b, c, Yi Bao d, *
a
School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430070, Hubei China
b
State Key Laboratory for Health and Safety of Bridge Structures, Wuhan 430034, Hubei, China
c
China Railway Major Bridge Engineering Group Co., Ltd., Wuhan 430034 Hubei, China
d
Department of Civil, Environmental and Ocean Engineering, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ 07030, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) emerges as an advanced material that is promising to improve the
Fatigue assessment fatigue performance of bridge decks. This study evaluates the fatigue performance of steel-UHPC composite deck
In-service traffic load in the Junshan Yangtze River Bridge, which is a long-span cable-stayed bridge, under in-service traffic loads. The
Orthotropic bridge deck
bridge was instrumented with strain gauges that provided in-situ strain data at fatigue-prone details. The strain
Steel-UHPC composite deck
Stress monitoring
data of fatigue-prone details were used to evaluate the maximum and effective stress ranges and fatigue life of
steel-UHPC deck. A finite element model was established to analyze stress distributions and validated by the in-
situ strain monitoring data. The results showed that the UHPC layer significantly reduced the maximum stress
ranges and the effective stress ranges of fatigue-prone details and increased fatigue life. Attention should be paid
to rib splice joints in bridge inspection and maintenance because its maximum stress range exceeded the
constant-amplitude fatigue limit by 40%.

1. Introduction
Orthotropic steel deck (OSD) is widely used in medium- and long-
span bridges owing to its light weight, high load-bearing capacity, and
strong spanning capacity [1,2]. An OSD is mainly composed of steel
deck, rib, and floor beam, which are welded to bear loads together [3].
The deck thickness of OSD in early bridges was thin (about 10 ~ 12
mm), and the welding quality was limited [4,5], making the welded
joints of OSD susceptible to fatigue cracks. For example, shortly after
construction, different degrees of cracking occurred on the OSD of the
Haseltal Bridge and the Sinntal Bridge in Germany, the Severn Bridge in
the United Kingdom [6], the Throgs Neck Bridge in the United States
[7], the Tianjin Haihe Bridge in China [8], and the Jiangyin Yangtze
River Bridge in China [9]. Fatigue life is a major concern of the dura­
bility of OSD in bridge applications.
Many measures have been proposed to improve the fatigue resistance
of OSD in bridges. Representative methods include drilling holes to ar­
rest cracks [10], adding steel plates [11], and using fiber reinforcement
[12,13]. However, the effects of those measures are limited [14]. The
limited effects are attributed to three main reasons: (1) The stiffness of
OSD is limited, resulting in high stresses [15]. (2) The bond strength of
the interface between steel deck and pavement is limited [8]. (3) The
pavement is prone to cracking. Once cracked, the contribution of
pavement to the stiffness of bridge deck is highly reduced, and, thus, the
stress ranges at fatigue-prone details are increased, compromising the
fatigue performance [16]. To increase the stiffness of deck system,
steel–concrete composite decks were proposed. Compared with con­
ventional OSD, a reinforced concrete layer was cast on top of the steel
deck plate, and steel headed studs welded on the steel deck plate were
used to integrate the OSD and reinforced concrete layer [17]. However,
the crack resistance and tensile strength of conventional concrete are
low [18]. Once concrete cracks, steel bars are exposed to the environ­
ment and have accelerated corrosion, thus reducing the durability.
There are many factors that can cause concrete cracking such as
shrinkage, overloading, and temperature changes [19]. It is essential to
enhance the crack resistance and tensile strengths of concrete because
they are important to achieve and maintain the stiffness of bridge decks.
In recent years, various high-performance fiber-reinforced cementitious
composites have been developed to deliver high crack resistance, tensile
strength, and long-term durability. Representative materials include
strain-hardening cementitious composite (SHCC) and ultra-high-
performance concrete (UHPC) [20,21]. Based on micromechanics,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yi.bao@stevens.edu (Y. Bao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.113875
Received 29 June 2021; Received in revised form 16 December 2021; Accepted 9 January 2022
Available online 19 January 2022
0141-0296/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Qin et al. Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113875

SHCC was developed by mechanistically tuning cementitious matrix,
fibers, and fiber–matrix interface, and features exceptional ductility.
Based on particle packing theory, UHPC was designed by maximizing
the particle packing density. Compared with conventional high-
performance fiber-reinforced concrete, UHPC features self-
consolidation and high mechanical strengths. Typically, UHPC has a
water-to-binder ratio lower than 0.25 and a compressive strength at 28
days higher than 120 MPa under standard curing conditions [22]. Due to
the outstanding mechanical properties and durability, both SHCC and
UHPC have been used to replace conventional concrete in steel–concrete
composite decks [23] and develop innovative orthotropic bridge decks
to significantly enhance the fatigue performance [24].
Fatigue tests have been performed to investigate the effects of UHPC
on fatigue performance of OSD for girder bridges and suspension
bridges. Abdelbaset et al. conducted full-scale fatigue tests of OSD
specimens with and without UHPC layer and found that the hot spot
stresses of fatigue-prone details were decreased by up to 83% because
the UHPC layer increased the stiffness and reduced the stress ranges of
the bridge deck [25]. Unterweger et al. investigated the fatigue life of
steel-UHPC composite deck, considering overload and precipitation ef­
fects, and found that use of an 80-mm-thick UHPC layer could increase
the service life of the OSD by at least 50 years [26]. Yuan et al. used
UHPC to strengthen a cracked OSD of a suspension bridge through a full-
scale model test [18]. In addition to fatigue tests, finite element models
have been developed to predict fatigue performance of OSD with UHPC.
Zhu et al. proposed a finite element model to investigate the stresses of
the fatigue-prone details of OSD in a girder bridge, and found that the
stress range on the deck side of the rib-to-deck weld was reduced by 71%
when a 45-mm-thick UHPC layer was used [27]. Jiang et al. performed a
finite element analysis for fatigue-prone details of a steel-UHPC com­
posite bridge deck of a suspension bridge and reported that the fatigue
resistance could be highly enhanced by the UHPC layer [28]. Zhang
et al. developed a finite element model for a steel-UHPC composite
bridge deck of a suspension bridge and found that the use of UHPC could
reduce the stress ranges of fatigue-prone details by up to 87% [29]. The
above fatigue tests and finite element studies have been verified by field
tests on the residual fatigue life of bridges [30]. Cao et al. reported that
use of UHPC in OSD of a bridge reduced the peak tensile stresses of the
deck side and rib wall side of rib-to-deck welds by 92% and 80%,
respectively [31]. Su et al. claimed that the use of steel-UHPC composite
bridge deck reduced the deflections by 23% for ribs and 27% for deck
[32]. Pei et al. indicated that steel-UHPC composite deck could reduce
the stress ranges of fatigue-prone details of suspension bridges [33]. Cui
et al. studied the fatigue life of OSD under in-service traffic and welded
residual stress, and found that the fatigue life was dependent on the
traffic [34]. Deng et al. evaluated the fatigue life of OSD considering the
road surface condition, and concluded that the fatigue life was over­
estimated by up to 110% without considering road surface condition
[35].
Representative previous research on the fatigue behaviors of OSD
enhanced by UHPC is summarized in Table 1. Most previous research
focused on the deck of suspension bridges and performed through finite
element analysis or laboratory tests. The bridge test reported in refer­
ence [32] was subjected to static loading of the bridge. The bridge test
reported in reference [33] was subjected to low-speed vehicle. To date,
there is lack of research on the fatigue performance of steel-UHPC
composite decks of realistic cable-stayed bridges under in-service
traffic loads. Another observation from the previous research is that
improvement of the fatigue resistance of the deck systems was different.
The discrepancy in improvement was likely associated with the different
geometry and load conditions of the deck systems. For example, when
the thicknesses of the steel deck and UHPC layer were respectively 12
mm and 50 mm, different results of the stress reduction at the fatigue-
prone details were reported in references [16,29,36]. However, when
the same geometry was applied to the deck systems [16,36], inconsistent
results were still observed. In a nutshell, it is still unclear how UHPC
affects the fatigue life of bridge decks under realistic traffic loads
[35,38].
To fill the above gaps, this research investigates the fatigue perfor­
mance of a steel-UHPC composite deck of a long-span cable-stayed
bridge using in-situ strain monitoring data for the fatigue-prone zones of
the steel-UHPC composite deck under in-service traffic loads. Strain
sensors were deployed on the steel-UHPC composite decks of the Jun­
shan Yangtze River Bridge, a cable-stayed bridges with a main span of
460 m. The strain distributions at fatigue-prone details were monitored
and used to calculate the maximum and effective stress ranges that were
in turn utilized to evaluate the fatigue life of fatigue-prone details. An
interesting feature of the Junshan Yangtze River Bridge is that the bridge
uses a conventional OSD on the upstream side and a steel-UHPC com­
posite deck on the downstream side. In other words, the bridge provides
a unique case for comparative research on the fatigue behaviors of the
conventional OSD and steel-UHPC deck in the same bridge. This
research is expected to provide new insights into the enhancement of the
fatigue resistance of different fatigue-prone details of long-span cable-
stayed highway bridges under in-service traffic loads by utilizing in-situ
bridge monitoring data.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 in­
troduces the main structure and instrumentation of the Junshan Yangtze
River Bridge. Section 3 compares the strains/stresses measured from
fatigue-prone details of the conventional OSD and steel-UHPC compos­
ite deck. Section 4 calculates the effective stress range and the residual
fatigue life for each fatigue-prone detail. Section 5 presents the finite
element analysis for the maximum stress range in the UHPC layer of the
steel-UHPC composite deck under design loads, and identifies the
fatigue-prone zones that need special attention in bridge inspection and
maintenance. Section 6 summarizes the conclusions and
recommendations.

Table 1
Comparison of representative research on the effect of UHPC on fatigue of OSD.
Ref. Year Bridge type Steel deck UHPC layer Research method Stress reduction of fatigue-prone details by UHPC

Detail 1 Detail 2 Detail 3 Detail 4 Detail 5 Detail 6

[37] 2015 Suspension 12 mm 45 mm FEA 82% 51% 27% 22% 21% 28%
[29] 2016 Suspension 12 mm 50 mm FEA 86% 87% 49% 70% 50% 34%
[36] 2017 Suspension 12 mm 50 mm FEA 86% 52% 30% 38% 24% 23%
[28] 2017 Suspension 12 mm 45 mm FEA 83% NA 48% 66% 25% NA
[33] 2018 Suspension 14 mm 50 mm Bridge test 75% NA 35% 66% 18% 66%
[16] 2018 Cable-stayed 12 mm 50 mm FEA 87% 51% 27% 37% 13% 36%
[27] 2019 Continuous 16 mm 45 mm FEA 71% 26% 21% 34% 21% 25%
[18] 2019 Suspension 12 mm 60 mm Lab test 91% 74% NA NA NA 43%
[32] 2020 Continuous 16 mm 50 mm Bridge test 75% 42% NA 26% 4% NA
[39] 2021 Continuous 16 mm 50 mm FEA 63% 42% 51% 50% NA NA

Note: “Steel deck” refers to the thickness of the original steel deck of the OSD. “UHPC layer” is the thickness of the added UHPC. “FEA” stands for finite element
analysis. The fatigue-prone details 1 to 6 refer to deck side of rib-to-deck weld, rib side of rib-to-deck weld, floor beam side of rib-to-floor beam weld, rib beam side of
rib-to-floor beam weld, floor beam cutout, and rib splice, respectively.

2
S. Qin et al.
2. Field bridge monitoring
2.1. Bridge description
Fig. 1 shows the structure and main dimensions of the Junshan
Yangtze River Bridge, which is an important highway bridge located in
Hubei Province, China. The main bridge is a semi-floating cable-stayed
bridge with two towers and two planes of stay cables, as shown in Fig. 1
(a). The span layout of the bridge is 48 + 204 + 460 + 204 + 48 m, with
the main span measuring 460 m in length, as shown in Fig. 1(b). There
are a total of 36 pairs of cables on one tower. The cable spacing on the
steel box girder is 17 m. A typical cross section of the bridge is shown in
Fig. 1(c). The width of the bridge deck is 38.8 m, with six traffic lanes
including three lanes for the downstream and three lanes for the up­
stream. The thickness of deck plate ranges from 12 mm to 16 mm. The U-
ribs have a thickness of 6 mm and a depth of 260 mm. The spacing
between adjacent ribs is 300 mm. The floor beam where stay cables are
anchored are 20 mm in thickness, other floor beams are 10 mm, and the
spacing between two floors is 3 m.
The Junshan Yangtze River Bridge represents a pioneer project of
utilizing UHPC in OSD, as shown in Fig. 1(c) and Fig. 1(d). The bridge
uses a conventional OSD with a 75-mm-thick asphalt concrete layer (See
Fig. 1(d)) on the upstream side and a steel-UHPC composite deck (See
Fig. 1(d)) on the downstream side, which provides a unique deck system
that can be used to compare the performance of conventional OSD and
steel-UHPC composite deck.
2.2. Fatigue damages in conventional OSD
The Junshan Yangtze River Bridge was opened to traffic in 2001. In
regular bridge inspection, fatigue cracks were observed from the rib-to-
deck welded joints, rib-to-floor-beam welded joints, floor beam cutout,
and rib splice welded joints. Fig. 2 depicts five representative types of
cracks, designated as Crack 1 to Crack 5. Crack 1 was located in the rib-
to-deck welded joint, with four sub-types of cracks designated as Crack
1–1 to Crack 1–4 [34]. Crack 2 and Crack 3 were located in the rib-to-
floor beam welded joint, where the cracks initiate from the toe and/or
root of the welded joint at its lower end and propagates continuously in
the floor beam and rib wall. Crack 4 and Crack 5 were located in the
floor beam cutout and the rib splice weld. Many cracks penetrated
through the plate thickness and were found from the top flange, as
shown in Fig. 3.
Once generated, the fatigue cracks can grow and cause many issues,
such as the degradation of deck stiffness, pavement cracking, and
corrosion of girders, which can threaten bridge safety [38]. The main
defects of deck pavements are shown in Fig. 4.
2.3. Steel-UHPC composite deck
To improve the fatigue performance, the OSD deck was retrofitted by
applying a UHPC layer on top of the steel deck to form a steel-UHPC
composite section, as shown in Fig. 5. Through-the-thickness cracks
were found from the top flange of the OSD. The cracks would cause
reflective cracks in the UHPC if the UHPC was in direct contact with the
cracked flange. To avoid reflective cracks, steel strips measuring 80 mm
in width and 8 mm in thickness were used to isolate the UHPC layer from
the steel deck. The effect of the steel plates was investigated and re­
ported in reference [40]. The yielding strength of the steel plate was 345
MPa. Shear studs were welded on the steel deck plate, which were
spaced at 200 mm along the bridge (longitudinal direction) and 150 mm
along the bridge width (transverse direction). Each stud measured 35
mm in length and 13 mm in diameter, except the studs welded on the
steel strips, which measured 27 mm in length so that the top surfaces of
all the studs were flushed. The thickness of the UHPC layer was 55 mm,
which was reinforced using a mesh of steel bars made using HRB400
steel with a nominal yielding strength of 400 MPa [41]. Asphalt concrete
3
Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113875
measuring 30 mm in thickness was placed on top of the UHPC. The
adopted UHPC was consistent with the UHPC mixture in reference [42].
In conventional steel–concrete composite sections, the thickness of
concrete layer was usually thicker than 150 mm, and the length of
headed shear studs was longer than 100 mm. For example, the concrete
thickness was 150 mm, and the length of the headed studs was 105 mm
in reference [43]. Due to the higher compressive strength of UHPC than
conventional concrete, the thickness of UHPC was greatly reduced in the
steel-UHPC composite sections. In this project, the thickness of UHPC
was 55 mm, as shown in Fig. 5. Due to the thin thickness of UHPC, short
headed studs were used, and the length was 35 mm, respectively. At the
position where there was a steel plate, the length of the headed studs was
27 mm to achieve flush studs over the deck.
The performance of the short headed studs was evaluated through
experiments, as elaborated in reference [40]. The steel-UHPC composite
section was applied to a deck specimen, and the deck specimen was
tested under mechanical loads until failure. When the specimen failed,
the failure mode and damages were examined. The examination results
indicated that there was no interface slippage between the concrete and
steel, suggesting that the short headed studs enabled the deck specimen
to achieve adequate shear transfer at the steel-UHPC interface. The shear
performance was related to the high mechanical strengths of the UHPC
and studs. The fatigue resistance of the specimen was also investigated
in reference [40]. After the specimen was loaded under fatigue loads for
10 million cycles, the steel-UHPC interface did not show any slippage.
2.4. Field tests
To evaluate the performance of steel-UHPC bridge deck, the strains
at fatigue-prone details were measured using strain gauges under
random traffic flow. The deployment of strain gauges was determined
through a preliminary finite element analysis of the stress andstrain
distributions at the fatigue-prone zones of bridge decks. The finite
element model is introduced in Section 5. The strain gauges were
deployed at the thinnest section I-I (Fig. 1(b)). From the two wind
fairing (Fig. 1(c), red dashed box) sides to the center along the bridge
width (i.e., transverse direction), the ribs are continuously designated as
rib 1 to rib 19, as shown in Fig. 1(c). The strain gauges were installed on
ribs 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 marked by red dashed circles in
Fig. 1(c). These ribs were under the heavy lanes. Fig. 6 shows the layout
and designation of the strain gauges. T-01 ~ T08 were installed on the
top plate to measure the strains of rib-to-deck welded joint at the deck
side. U-09 ~ U-16 were installed on the U-ribs wall side to measure the
strains of the rib-to-deck welded joint at the rib wall side. U21 ~ U24
were installed on the U-ribs to measure the strains of the rib-to-floor
beam weld at the wall side. F-25 ~ F-32 were installed on the floor
beam to measure the strains of the rib-to-floor beam weld and floor
beam cutout at the floor beam side. The strain gauges were 6 mm away
from the toe or free edge to avoid stress concentration effects [3].
For comparison, the upstream half of the bridge, where the con­
ventional OSD was kept, was instrumented with the same strain gauges
with an identical layout. The designation of the strain gauges was the
same as that on the steel-UHPC composite deck. Fig. 7 shows the
representative deployment of the strain gauges for different fatigue-
prone details. The adopted strain gauges were based on electrical
resistance, which had a manufacturer-specified measurement accuracy
of 1 µε. The strains of the fatigue-prone details were continuously
monitored using a data acquisition system with a sampling frequency of
60 Hz for a duration of 7 days.
2.5. Traffic flow information
The investigated bridge was instrumented with a weigh-in-motion
(WIM) system to monitor the number and weight of vehicles, as
shown in Fig. 1(b). During the field test, the axle loads of trucks were
measured by the WIM system. Fig. 8 shows the statistical results of the
S. Qin et al. Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113875

(a)

48 204 460 204 48

Cable 1~18 Cable 1~18

ᴵ

163.5
WIM

29+17×12+19=252 19+17×12+14+17×12+19=460
ᴵ 29+17×12+19=252

Note: WIM (Weigh-in-motion system)

(b)

Upstream Conventional OSD Steel-UHPC composite deck Downstream

1750 3250 3750 3750 3750 3500 3750 3750 3750 3250 1750
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 3' Lane 2' Lane 1'

2640
3000

Wind fairing
4270 30260 4270
38800

(c)

Asphalt concrete layer

UHPC layer
Asphalt concrete 300 Steel plate
layer
75

55
12~16

12~16

Steel panel Rib Steel panel Rib

260

180
Floor beam Floor beam

600 600
Conventional OSD Steel-UHPC composite deck
(d)
Fig. 1. Depiction of the Junshan Yangtze River Bridge: (a) a photo, (b) an elevation view (unit: m), (c) a cross section (unit: mm), and (d) the conventional OSD and
steel-UHPC composite deck (unit: mm). In (c), Lane 1 and Lane 1′ are heavy lanes, Lane 2 and Lane 2′ are normal lanes. Lane 3 and Lane 3′ are passing lanes.

4
S. Qin et al. Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113875

results of stresses at the rib-to-deck welded joints of the OSD and steel-
UHPC deck.
Crack1
The deck side and the rib wall side of the rib-to-deck welded joints
1-1 1-2 are subjected to alternating tensile and compressive stresses, depending
Crack2 on the transverse location of the wheel loads [3]. Tensile stresses
Crack3
Crack5 Crack4 dominate the deck side of the rib-to-deck welded joints, while
1-4 1-3 compressive stresses dominate the rib wall side. The compressive and
tensile stresses of steel-UHPC composite deck are significantly lower
than those of the OSD. At the deck side of the rib-to-deck welded joints,
the maximum compressive stress is reduced by 73% (from 16.1 MPa to
Fig. 2. Depiction of the five main categories of fatigue cracks at fatigue-prone 4.4 MPa), and the maximum tensile stress is reduced by 29% (from 16.1
details of the OSD. MPa to 11.4 MPa). At the rib wall side of the rib-to-deck welded joints,
the maximum tensile stress is reduced by 33% (from 15.9 MPa to 10.8
MPa), and the maximum compressive stress is reduced by 46% (from
31.7 MPa to 17.0 MPa). The reduction of stresses can be attributed to the
Crack 1 enhancement of the stiffness of the bridge deck due to the use of UHPC.

3.2. Rib-to-floor-beam welded joints

Crack 2 Crack 3 Crack 4
Crack 5 Crack 6
Fig. 3. Penetrating cracks on steel panel.
traffic flow on the upstream and downstream, respectively. Compared
with the conventional OSD, the deck system with the steel-UHPC com­
posite section was subjected to heavier traffic in terms of the number
and weight of vehicles.
3. Results and analysis of stress monitoring
The fatigue performance of OSD is mainly reflected by the maximum
stress range and the effective stress range of each fatigue-prone detail.
The stress ranges and the number of stress cycles were determined based
on the measurement results from the deployed strain gauges. This sec­
tion presents the stress monitoring results for rib-to-deck welded joints,
rib-to-floor-beam welded joints, floor beam cutout, and rib splice wel­
ded joints.
Due to the different stiffness of the rib and floor beam, the de­
formations of the ribs and floor beam under vehicle loads are different
[44]. Typically, the ribs can rotate regarding to the floor beam and
produce a large stress at rib-to-floor-beam welded joints. Usually, the
fatigue cracks initiate from the lower end of a welded joint and propa­
gate upwards along the welded joint. Fig. 10 plots the stresses measured
from the OSD and the steel-UHPC composite deck. At the floor beam
side, the tensile stresses dominate under the random traffic loads. At the
rib wall side, the welded joints are subjected to alternating tensile and
compressive stresses, and, overall, the maximum tensile stresses are
slightly larger than the maximum compressive stresses. The stresses in
the steel-UHPC composite deck are lower than the stresses in the OSD
without UHPC. At the floor beam side, the maximum tensile stress is
reduced by 77% (from 34.0 MPa to 7.7 MPa). At the rib wall side, the
maximum tensile stress is reduced by 43% (from 27.7 MPa to 15.8 MPa),
and the maximum compressive stress is reduced by 66% (from 13.3 MPa
to 4.6 MPa). According to reference [45], the reduction of the stresses
indicates that the U-ribs of the steel-UHPC composite deck have less
torsional deformation with respect to the floor beam, and, thus, the
steel-UHPC composite deck is expected to have a longer fatigue life at
the rib-to-floor-beam welded joints. Again, the reduction of stresses can
be attributed to the enhancement of the stiffness of the bridge deck due
to the use of UHPC.
3.3. Floor beam cutout

3.1. Rib-to-deck welded joints
The rib-to-deck welded joints are subjected to gaps and weld residual
stress generated in welding. When vehicle loads are applied to the bridge
deck, stresses will be produced at the welded joints, which tend to cause
fatigue cracks from the weld toe or weld root, and the crack can prop­
agate to the deck and the rib wall [44]. Fig. 9 shows representative
The curved cutout in the floor beam can generally reduce the
constraint of the floor beam for the U-ribs and the stress caused by the
out-of-plane deformation of the floor beam [3]. However, the cutout can
also reduce the stiffness of the floor beam, thus increasing the stresses
around the cutout. Under in-service vehicle loads, fatigue cracks tend to
occur at the edge of cutout. Fig. 11 shows the stresses measured from the
floor beam cutout details of the OSD and steel-UHPC composite deck.

Fig. 4. Pavement damages on the conventional OSD: (a) reticular crack, and (b) upheaval.

5
S. Qin et al. Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113875

Transverse
150 Longitudinal
Asphalt concrete layer
80 UHPC layer
Longitudinal Transvers
100 30 steel bar Ф12
120 55 Longitudinal
100 steel bar Ф10
Steel plate
Shear connector Shear connector
50 Steel panel
Ф13×27 Ф13×35

37.5

Before welding After welding

22

Shear connector
35 27 32
Ф13×35

13
22 Rib

Shear connector 27
19 24
Ф13×27

13
Fig. 5. Illustration of the main components of the steel-UHPC composite deck (unit: mm).

Rib T-01 Rib T-02 Rib T-03 Rib T-04 Rib

U-10 U-11 U-12
#7 U-09 #8 F-26 #9 #11 #12
U-21 U-22
F-25 F-27 U-17 F-28 U-18
(a) (b)

T-05 T-06 T-07 Rib T-08 Rib

U-13 Rib U-14 Rib U-16
F-30 U-15
#14 #15 U-24 #18 #19
U-23
F-29 F-31 U-19 F-32 U-20
(c) (d)

Fig. 6. Layout and designation of strain gauges in section I-I: (a) ribs 7 to 9, (b) ribs 11 and 12, (c) ribs 14 and 15, and (d) ribs 18 and 19.

The floor beam cutout is mainly subjected to compressive stresses. The
stresses in the steel-UHPC composite deck are lower than those in the
OSD. The maximum compressive stress is reduced by 13% (from 73.4
MPa to 61.8 MPa), indicating that the steel-UHPC composite deck can
reduce the stress range at the floor beam cutout.
deck are lower than those in the OSD. The maximum tensile stress is
reduced by 29% (from 46.4 MPa to 33.0 MPa), and the maximum
compressive stress is reduced by 19% (from 14.9 MPa to 12.1 MPa).
4. Evaluation of fatigue life

Based on the stress monitoring data, the effective stress range and the
3.4. Rib splice welded joints
residual fatigue life of each fatigue-prone detail are analyzed to evaluate
the fatigue performance of the steel-UHPC composite deck in this
Under in-service vehicle loads, the U-ribs are subjected to positive
section.
moment, meaning that the bottom of the U-ribs are subjected to tension
[3]. Therefore, fatigue cracks can be generated at the rib splice welded
joints. Fig. 12 shows the stresses measured from at the rib splice welded 4.1. Effective stress range
joints of the OSD and steel-UHPC composite deck. The rib splice welded
joints are subjected to alternating tensile and compressive stresses, and Based on the results of stresses measured from the fatigue-prone
the tensile stress dominates. The stresses in the steel-UHPC composite details, the rainflow counting method can be used to determine the

6
S. Qin et al. Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113875

Fig. 7. Deployment of strain gauges at fatigue-prone details: (a) floor beam cutout, (b) rib-to-deck weld, and (c) rib splice weld.

Summary: 8512 vehicles Summary: 9945 vehicles

Axle weight
less than 2 tons

es
Axle weight

cl
hi
less than 2 tons

ve
%
96
3102 vehicles

24
23
2897 vehicles 36% 5686 vehicles
34% 57%
1863 vehicles
Axle weight Axle weight 19%
greater than 4 tons 2513 vehicles greater than 4 tons
Axle weight
30%
2~4tons

Axle weight
2~4tons

(a) (b)

Axle weight
Axle weight Axle weight Axle weight
less than 2 tons
less than 2 tons greater than 4 tons
es
greater than 4 tons
cl
hi

1338 vehicles
ve
%
86

25%
19
13

2448 vehicles 3387 vehicles

45% 48%
1653 vehicles 2341 vehicles
30% 33%
Axle weight
Axle weight 2~4tons
2~4tons
Summary: 5439 vehicles Summary: 6426 vehicles

(c) (d)
Fig. 8. Statistical results of the traffic flow on the bridge: (a) the normal lane on the OSD, (b) the normal lane on the steel-UHPC composite deck, (c) the heavy lane
on the OSD, and (d) the heavy lane on the steel-UHPC composite deck.

stress spectrum [46]. Then, the Miner’s linear cumulative damage rule
[47] is applied to calculate the effective stress range:
∑ m m1
ni s
Sr,eff = ( ∑ i )
ni
where Sr,eff is the effective stress range; ni is the number of loading
cycles at the stress range of Si, and m is the inverse of the slope of S-N
curve (m = 3, according to AASHTO LRFD [47]).
Fig. 13 shows the results of the effective stress range of each fatigue-
prone detail of the steel-UHPC composite deck. With the steel-UHPC
composite deck, the effective stress range in each fatigue-prone detail
is significantly reduced. For example, the effective stress range at floor
beam side of the rib-to-floor beam welded joints is reduced by 66%
(1) (from 13.3 MPa to 4.5 MPa). Again, the reduction of effective stress
range can be attributed to the enhancement of bending stiffness of the
bridge deck due to the addition of the UHPC layer. The deflection of the
deck and the rotation of U-ribs regarding to floor beam are reduced.
Therefore, the effective stress ranges of the fatigue-prone details of the
steel-UHPC composite deck are lower than those of the OSD.

7
S. Qin et al. Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113875

20 20
D-02 D-02
#8 #8

10 10

Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)
0 0

-10 -10

-20 -20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
t (min) t (min)
(a) (b)
20 20
10 10
Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)
0 0
-10 -10
-20 -20
U-10 U-10
-30 #8 -30 #8

-40 -40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
t (min) t (min)
(c) (d)
Fig. 9. Results of stresses measured from the rib-to-deck welded joints: (a) deck side of the OSD, (b) deck side of the steel-UHPC composite deck, (c) rib wall side of
the OSD, and (d) rib wall side of the steel-UHPC composite deck.

4.2. Residual fatigue life Fig. 15(a) shows a part of the global model. In the global model, the
boundary conditions of the model were consistent with the real bridge.
According to AASHTO LRFD, the residual fatigue life can be calcu­ The box bridge girder was modelled using plate elements Shell63, which
lated: has both bending and membrane capabilities and permits both in-plane
and normal loads. Each node of Shell63 element has six degrees of
A
Y= m
∑ (2) freedom. The UHPC deck was modelled using solid elements Solid45,
Sr,eff ⋅365⋅ ni
which has eight nodes, and each node has three degrees of freedom.
∑ Each element has six faces, and each face has four lines. Stress stiffening
where Y is the residual fatigue life in years; ni is the measured average
and large deflection can be considered in both Shell63 and Solid45 el­
number of daily stress cycles; and A is a constant depending on the detail
ements. The real bridge has asphalt concrete pavement, which is ignored
category specified by AASHTO LRFD [47]. The fatigue life of the fatigue-
in the global model, because the temperature of pavement is high due to
prone detail is “infinite”, when the maximum stress range is lower than
the black color and the direct exposure to sunlight, and the high tem­
the constant-amplitude fatigue limit (CAFL) [48].
perature can highly reduce the stiffness of pavement. This is consistent
Fig. 14 compares the maximum stress range with the CAFL for each
with references [49,50]. With the global model, the internal forces and
fatigue-prone detail of the steel-UHPC composite deck. Except the rib
moments of the steel-UHPC composite deck can be determined and used
splice welded joint, the other investigated fatigue-prone details have
as the boundary conditions of the sub-model. The position of the sub-
“infinite” fatigue life because their maximum stress ranges are lower
model is marked in the global model, which is a region around rib 12
than the corresponding CAFL values. According to Eq. (2), the fatigue
in the wheel path of the heavy lane. This research focuses on the stress
life of rib splice welded joint is calculated as 100 years.
distributions in the sub-model, so solid elements Solid185 and refined
mesh sizes are adopted. Compared with Solid45 elements, Solid185 el­
5. Finite element analysis
ements have different element formulations to avoid volumetric locking.
A mesh size convergence analysis was performed to determine the
5.1. Finite element model
appropriate mesh size. In the sub-model, the mesh size of the fatigue-
prone details was 2 mm, as shown in Fig. 15(b).
To analyze the detailed stress distributions around the fatigue-prone
Since no delamination was observed from the bridge at the interfaces
details of bridge decks, a global model of the bridge and a local model of
of the steel-UHPC deck system, the adjacent layers of the steel deck,
steel-UHPC composite deck were established using software ANSYS
UHPC, and pavement were bonded by coupling the nodes. In the finite
[27], as shown in Fig. 15. The local model is part of the global model, so
element model, it was assumed that all materials had linear elastic
it can be designated as sub-model. The global model is used to determine
properties [33,40]. Inelastic material properties were not considered
the boundary conditions for the sub-model, and the sub-model is used to
since the bridge was not damaged under the normal operation loads. The
analyze the detailed stress distributions because the weld details can be
adopted material properties were consistent with the real bridge. The
simulated with refined mesh sizes.
density, modulus of elasticity, and Poisson’s ratio of the steel were 7850

8
S. Qin et al. Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113875

40 40
#14 #14
H-30 H-30
30 30

Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)
20 20

10 10

0 0

-10 -10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
t (min) t (min)
(a) (b)
40 40
#9 #9
30 U-22 30 U-22
Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)
20 20
10 10
0 0
-10 -10
-20 -20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
t (min) t (min)
(c) (d)
Fig. 10. Results of stresses measured from the rib-to-floor-beam welded joints: (a) the floor beam side of OSD, (b) the floor beam side of steel-UHPC composite deck,
(c) the rib wall side of OSD, and (d) the rib wall side of steel-UHPC composite deck.

60 60
40 #14 40 #14
H-31 H-31
20 20
Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)

0 0
-20 -20
-40 -40
-60 -60
-80 -80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
t (min) t (min)

(a) (b)
Fig. 11. Results of stresses measured from the floor beam cutout: (a) OSD, and (b) steel-UHPC composite deck.

kg/m3, 206 GPa, and 0.3, respectively. The density, modulus of elas­
ticity, and Poisson’s ratio the UHPC were 2400 kg/m3, 42.6 GPa, and
0.2, respectively. The density, modulus of elasticity, and Poisson’s ratio
of the asphalt concrete were 2350 kg/m3, 3 GPa, and 0.2, respectively.
5.2. Loading cases
Because the longitudinal influence line of OSD is short, biaxial loads
is utilized in this study. The truck load is shown in Fig. 16. The front and
rear axles are loaded with two wheels, and the wheel load action area is
600 mm × 200 mm. The axle weight was 140 kN. The wheel axle spacing
is 1.4 m in the longitudinal direction and 1.85 m in the transverse
direction.
According to BS5400 [51], vehicles do not exactly follow the design
lanes during travelling, and the error can be 30 cm at the left and right
sides of the design lanes. To reasonably consider the transverse distri­
bution of vehicle wheel loads, five loading cases were considered, as
shown in Fig. 17 (a). In the five loading cases, except one loading case
that corresponds to loading at the center line of the traffic lane (Case 3),
the other four loading cases have errors: Case 1 (30 cm, left), Case 2 (15
cm, left), Case 3 (0 cm), Case 4 (15 cm, right), and Case 5 (30 cm, right).
Movement of wheel loads on the deck is simulated by the step by step
loading cases in the longitudinal direction of the bridge. The center of
front and rear axle start at right above floor beam 2 and move in the
right above floor beam 4. There are a total of 155 loading cases
considered for each transverse loading case, along with the space in­
terval of 0.2 m.

9
S. Qin et al. Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113875

60 60
50 #9 50 #9
40 U-17 40 U-17

Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
-10 -10
-20 -20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
t (min) t (min)
(a) (b)
Fig. 12. Results of stresses measured from the rib splice welded joints: (a) OSD, and (b) steel-UHPC composite deck.

23% higher than the measurement results, because the stiffness and load
28 distribution effect of pavement were not considered in the finite element
OSD
model, as stated in section 5.1. The errors of the other fatigue details
24 Steel-UHPC
were less than 15%, indicating that the finite element model provided
19% reasonable predictions of stresses. The other main error sources included
20
23% the simplification of the support conditions and idealization of materials
Stress (MPa)

16 in the finite element model.

50% 66% Similar to the finite element analysis of the steel-UHPC composite
12 37% 19% deck, a finite element model was established using the same method for
the original OSD. The load distribution effect of the asphalt pavement
8
was considered because the load distribution effect played an important
4 role for OSDs, as indicated in references [8,38]. The presence of an
asphalt layer distributed the loads from vehicle wheels [8,38], in the
0 determination of the stresses at fatigue-prone details such as the welded
Deck Rib Floor beam Rib Cutout Rib splice
joints of OSD.
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 13. Results of the effective stress ranges at: (a) the rib-to-deck welded
joints, (b) rib-to-floor-beam welded joints, and (c) cutout and rib splice wel­
ded joints.
5.3. Validation of the finite element model
The finite element analysis results of stresses were compared with
the measurement results to validate the finite element model. The
measurement results were reported in reference [52]. The finite element
analysis was performed using the same loading cases as those of the
measurement. Table 2 shows the finite element analysis results and the
measurement results. Overall, the errors were in a reasonable range. The
predicted stress ranges at the deck side of rib-to-deck welded joints were
5.4. Simulation results and discussions
5.4.1. Deflections of bridge decks
Deflection is an important index that reflects the flexural stiffness of
bridge decks. Fig. 18 shows the maximum deflections of OSD and steel-
UHPC composite deck under the same design vehicle loads in the
different loading cases. Compared with the OSD, the maximum deflec­
tion of the steel-UHPC composite deck is reduced from 1.3 mm to 0.9
mm (by 31%). The reduction of the deflection can be attributed to the
increase of the flexural stiffness due to the use of UHPC in the steel-
UHPC composite deck.

180 Steel-UHPC Sr,eff= 6.6 MPa

CAFL Fatigue life ∞
164.1
160 68.4 68.4 68.4 68.4 Sr,eff= 7.0 MPa
61.8 Fatigue life ∞
60 55.6
Stress (MPa)

47.8 43.8 Sr,eff= 8.8 MPa

40 Fatigue life ∞
26.9
20 18.0
Sr,eff= 8.8 MPa
10.9
Fatigue life ∞ Sr,eff= 16.5 MPa
0 Fatigue life ∞
Cutout Rib splice Deck Rib Floor beam Rib Sr,eff= 13.5 MPa
Fatigue life 100 years
(Rib-to-deck) (Rib-to-floor beam)
(a) (b)
Fig. 14. Results of residual fatigue life of the fatigue-prone details of the steel-UHPC deck: (a) comparison of the maximum stress range and CAFL, and (b) dis­
tribution of residual fatigue life.

10
S. Qin et al. Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113875

of stress extraction points have been shown in Fig. 15(b) and Fig. 17(a).
The maximum stress ranges of the six different fatigue-prone details of
rib 12 can be extracted for both the conventional OSD and the steel-
Y
UHPC composite deck, as shown in Fig. 20. The dash lines are used to
Sub-model area group the different fatigue-prone details according to their positions in
Z X
the decks.
Rib #12 Floor beam 5 Due to the use of the UHPC deck, the maximum stress ranges of the
fatigue-prone details are reduced. The reduction percentage of the stress
Floor beam 3
(a) range of the rib 12 is 39% for the deck side of the rib-to-deck welded
Floor beam 1 joints and 54% for the rib wall side of the rib-to-deck welded joints. The
stress range reduction of the rib 12 is 46% for the floor beam side of the
rib-to-floor beam welded joints and 39% for the rib wall side of the rib-
Floor beam
to-floor beam welded joints. The stress range reduction of the rib 12 is
Rib 12% for the floor beam cutout and 31% for the rib splice welded joints.
The results are consistent with the results of the effective stress range in
6mm
Fig. 13, except for the rib-to-floor beam welded joints. The crack is close
Rib
to the strain gauges on UHPC side, which may result in higher stresses at
this location. Therefore, the stress range reductions of finite element
model are larger than the measured results at this location. It should be
pointed out that the steel-UHPC composite deck has a limited
6mm
improvement for the fatigue performance of the floor beam cutout. The
6mm
stress range reduction of floor beam cutout is less than 20%.

5.4.4. Influence of overload

6mm

Overloaded vehicles were identified from the information collected

Rib
by the weight-in-motion system. To consider the influence of overload,
(b)
the stress ranges of the fatigue-prone details at steel-UHPC composite
Fig. 15. Depiction of the established finite element models: (a) the global deck are analyzed, under 1.5 times the design load, as shown in Fig. 21.
model, and (b) the meshed sub-model. Under 1.5 times the design load, the maximum stress range of rib splice
welded joints is 66.6 MPa. The value exceeded their corresponding CAFL
value by 42%. However, the stress ranges of the other fatigue-prone
140kN 140kN details are less than the corresponding CAFL values, thus satisfying
1400 the requirement of “infinite” life. In summary, the stress range in the rib
splice weld is greater than CAFL under 1.5 times the design load, which
do not meet the design requirements. Under the action of cyclic over­
600

loaded trucks, there is a risk of fatigue cracking in this area. During

future bridge maintenance, special attention should be paid to the rib
200
1850

splice welded joints.

6. Conclusions

5800 1400 X
Z traffic loads. Strain distributions around fatigue-prone details were
Fig. 16. Layout and magnitude of the truck load adopted in the finite element
model (unit: mm).
5.4.2. Stress distributions in UHPC
Fig. 19 shows the maximum tensile stresses of the UHPC layer of the
steel-UHPC composite deck under the design vehicle loads in the
different loading cases. The maximum tensile stress of the transverse
direction is lower than that of the longitudinal direction under the
investigated loading cases. Along the longitudinal direction of the
bridge, the maximum tensile stress is 7.3 MPa in Case 1, which is lower
than the nominal tensile stress tolerance value (25.4 MPa) [53], indi­
cating that the crack resistance of the steel-UHPC composite bridge deck
satisfies the service requirements, under the design load.
5.4.3. Stress distributions in steel plates
The stress ranges in the fatigue-prone details are investigated using
the finite element model. The analysis focuses on the right-hand wheel
load action area, which is the left of rib 12. The location and the number
This paper investigates the fatigue performance of a steel-UHPC
composite deck of a long-span cable-stayed bridge under in-service
measured in the field and used to evaluate the residual fatigue life. A
finite element model was established to analyze the stress distributions
of the steel-UHPC composite deck. Based on the above investigations,
the following conclusions are drawn:
(1). Compared with the OSD, the steel-UHPC composite deck reduced
the maximum stress ranges and the effective stress ranges for the
fatigue-prone details of bridge deck, thus increasing the fatigue
life. According to the evaluation of the residual fatigue life using
field monitoring data of stresses, the residual fatigue life of the rib
splice welded joint is 100 years, and the other fatigue-prone de­
tails satisfy the requirements of infinite life. Special attention
should be paid to the rib splice welded joints in the bridge in­
spection and maintenance.
(2). Due to the use of the UHPC, the maximum deflection of the steel
panel under the design load was reduced by 31% (from 1.3 mm to
0.9 mm). The reduction of the deflection indicated enhancement
of section stiffness. The stiffness enhancement was attributed to

11
S. Qin et al. Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113875

Right-hand
wheel load
Case5

Case4 12-1
12-2 Rib #12
Case3
12-3 12-5
Case2 12-4
12-6
Location of stress extraction point
Case1

7 8 9 10 11 12

11 12 11 12 11 12 11 12 11 12
Case1 Case2 Case3 Case4 Case5

(a)

140kN 140kN 140kN 140kN

Moving direction

Sub-model area

Floor beam 1 Floor beam 3 Floor beam 5

(b)
Fig. 17. Illustration of loading cases: (a) transverse loading cases considering inaccurate wheel loading positions, and (b) longitudinal loading cases.

Table 2 2.0
Comparison of stress ranges from the finite element model and in-situ sensors.
OSD
Fatigue-prone details Stress range (MPa) Error
1.6 Steel-UHPC
Finite element Measurement
Deflection (mm)

analysis 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

1.2
Deck side of rib-to-deck weld 11.2 8.6 23% 1.2
Rib side of rib-to-deck weld 16.2 16.2 0%
Floor beam side of rib-to-floor 24.3 25.2 4% 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
beam weld 0.8
Rib side of rib-to-floor beam weld 26.1 26.7 2%
Floor beam cutout 67.9 59.5 12%
Rib splice 16.4 18.8 13%
0.4

the presence of the UHPC that was integrated with the OSD and
0.0
formed a steel-UHPC composite section. Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
(3). Under the design load, the maximum tensile stress of the UHPC
layer is 7.3 MPa, which is less than its nominal flexural-tensile Loading case
stress tolerance (25.4 MPa), satisfying the service requirement
Fig. 18. The maximum deflections of the OSD and steel-UHPC composite deck
of crack resistance. Under 1.5 times the design load considering in different cases.
overloads, the maximum stresses of the rib splice welded joints
exceed its CAFL values, thus failing to satisfy the requirement of
infinite life. composite deck is less than 20%. The reduction of stresses by the
(4). The steel-UHPC composite deck has a limited improvement for use of UHPC layer for the deck side of rib-to-deck welded joints is
the fatigue performance of the floor beam cutout. Compared with lower than 40%, which is lower than the results (70%-90%) re­
the original OSD, the reduction of the effective stress range ported in previous research.
reduction of the floor beam cutout due to the steel-UHPC

12
S. Qin et al. Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113875

10.0 CRediT authorship contribution statement

Case1
Case2 Shiqiang Qin: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology,

7.3
7.5 Case3 Writing – original draft. Jiabin Zhang: Investigation, Visualization,
Writing – review & editing. Chunlei Huang: Investigation, Writing –
Stress (MPa)

Case4
review & editing. Liqiang Gao: Investigation, Writing – review &

5.2
5.0
Case5

4.8
4.8
5.0 editing. Yi Bao: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review &

3.7
editing.

3.3
2.9
2.7
2.4
2.5
Declaration of Competing Interest

0.0 The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
Longitudinal Transverse interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
Direction of tensile stress the work reported in this paper.
Fig. 19. Simulation results of the maximum tensile stresses of the UHPC layer
in different cases. Acknowledgements

This research was financially supported by the Natural Science

90 Foundation of China (grant No. 51608408), and the Open Projects
OSD 12% Foundation of State Key Laboratory for Health and Safety of Bridge
75 Steel-UHPC Structures of China (grant No. BHSKL20-08-GF).
31%
Stress range (MPa)

60 References
39%
45 46% [1] Qian ZH, Abruzzese D. Fatigue failure of welded connections at orthotropic
bridges. Frattura ed integrità strutturale 2009;3(9):105–12.
54% [2] Xiao Z, Yamada K, Ya S, Zhao X. Stress analyses and fatigue evaluation of rib-to-
30 39% deck joints in steel orthotropic decks. Int J Fatigue 2008;30(8):1387–97.
[3] Connor, R.J., 2012. Manual for design, construction, and maintenance of
15 orthotropic steel deck bridges (No. FHWA-IF-12-027). United States. Federal
Highway Administration.
[4] Zhang Q, Liu Y, Bao Yi, Jia D, Bu Y, Li Q. Fatigue performance of orthotropic steel-
0 concrete composite deck with large-size longitudinal U-shaped ribs. Eng Struct
Deck Rib Floor beam Rib Cutout Rib splice 2017;150:864–74.
(a) (b) (c) [5] Liu Y, Zhang Q, Meng W, Bao Yi, Bu Y. Transverse fatigue behaviour of steel-UHPC
composite deck with large-size U-ribs. Eng Struct 2019;180:388–99.
Fig. 20. Simulation results of the maximum stress range of rib 12: (a) the rib- [6] Wolchuk R. Lessons from weld cracks in orthotropic decks on three European
bridges. J Struct Eng 1990;116(1):75–84.
to-deck welded joints, (b) rib-to-floor-beam welded joints, and (c) cutout and
[7] Haight R, Chang S, Kushmock R. In: Orthotropic deck rehabilitation at the Throgs
rib splice welded joints. Neck Bridge. Metropolis and Beyond; 2005. p. 1–10.
[8] Wang L, Su X, Ma Y, Deng M, Zhang J, Cai CS. Strengthening of steel decks for
180 Steel-UHPC cable-stayed bridge using ultra-high performance concrete: A case study. Adv
Struct Eng 2020;23(16):3373–84.
164.1 CAFL [9] Cao B-y, Ding Y-L, Song Y-S, Zhong W. Fatigue life evaluation for deck-rib welding
details of orthotropic steel deck integrating mean stress effects. J Bridge Eng 2019;
160 104.5 24(2):04018114. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001344.
Stress range (MPa)

[10] Hassel, H.L., Hartman, A.S., Bennett, C.R., Matamoros, A.B. and Rolfe, S.T., 2010.
Distortion-induced fatigue in steel bridges: Causes, parameters, and fixes. In
80 68.4 68.4 68.4 68.4 Structures Congress 2010 (pp. 471-483).
66.6 [11] Chen Z, Li C, Ke L, Guo L, Song G. Fatigue cracks cutting repair and optimization of
60 cope holes in orthotropic steel decks. China J Highway Transport 2020:1–14 [In
47.8 46.1 Chinese].
40 35.0 [12] Ke L, Li C, He J, Lu Y, Liu Y. Fatigue evaluation and CFRP strengthening of
diaphragm cutouts in orthotropic steel decks. Steel Compos Struct 2021;39(4):
22.2 24.8 453–69.
20 [13] Liu J, Guo T, Feng D, Liu Z. Fatigue performance of rib-to-deck joints strengthened
with FRP angles. J Bridge Eng 2018;23(9):04018060. https://doi.org/10.1061/
0 (ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001286.
Cutout Rib splice Deck Rib Floor beam Rib [14] Guo T, Liu J, Deng Y, Zhang Z. Fatigue performance of orthotropic steel decks with
FRP angles: field measurement and numerical analysis. J Perform Constr Facil
(Rib-to-deck) (Rib-to-floor beam) 2019;33(4):04019042. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001308.
[15] Yao Bo, Cheng G, Wang X, Cheng C. Characterization of the stiffness of asphalt
Fig. 21. Simulation results of the maximum stress range of the fatigue-prone surfacing materials on orthotropic steel bridge decks using dynamic modulus test
details under 1.5 times the design load. The numbers on the columns repre­ and flexural beam test. Constr Build Mater 2013;44:200–6.
sent the stress ranges (unit: MPa). [16] Shao X, Qu W, Cao J, Yao Y. Static and fatigue properties of the steel-UHPC
lightweight composite bridge deck with large U ribs. J Constr Steel Res 2018;148:
491–507.
Based on this research, future research opportunities are identified. [17] Walter R, Olesen JF, Stang H, Vejrum T. Analysis of an orthotropic deck stiffened
with a cement-based overlay. J Bridge Eng 2007;12(3):350–63.
This research showed that the fatigue behaviors of steel-UHPC com­
[18] Yuan Y, Wu C, Jiang Xu. Experimental study on the fatigue behavior of the
posite decks under in-service traffic loads were different from the be­ orthotropic steel deck rehabilitated by UHPC overlay. J Constr Steel Res 2019;157:
haviors under static loads in previous finite element analysis and 1–9.
[19] Liu Y, Zhang Q, Bao Yi, Bu Y. Fatigue behavior of orthotropic composite deck
laboratory tests. Further research is needed to establish a holistic un­
integrating steel and engineered cementitious composite. Eng Struct 2020;220:
derstanding of the effects of UHPC layer on the fatigue resistance of OSD 111017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111017.
of bridges. It is important to investigate the life-cycle cost of steel-UHPC [20] Guo P, Meng W, Xu M, Li VC, Bao Y. Predicting mechanical properties of high-
composite decks for bridges. performance fiber-reinforced cementitious composites by integrating
micromechanics and machine learning. Materials 2021;14(12):3143.

13
S. Qin et al.
[21] Meng W, Khayat KH. Mechanical properties of ultra-high-performance concrete
enhanced with graphite nanoplatelets and carbon nanofibers. Compos B Eng 2016;
107:113–22.
[22] Du J, Meng W, Khayat KH, Bao Yi, Guo P, Lyu Z, et al. New development of ultra-
high-performance concrete (UHPC). Compos B Eng 2021;224:109220. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compositesb:2021.109220.
[23] Liu Y, Zhang Q, Bao Yi, Bu Y. Static and fatigue push-out tests of short headed shear
studs embedded in Engineered Cementitious Composites (ECC). Eng Struct 2019;
182:29–38.
[24] Qi J, Cheng Z, Zhou K, Zhu Y, Wang J, Bao Yi. Experimental and theoretical
investigations of UHPC-NC composite slabs subjected to punching shear-flexural
failure. J Build Eng 2021;44:102662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2021.102662.
[25] Abdelbaset H, Cheng B, Tian L, Li H-T, Zhang Q-H. Reduce hot spot stresses in
welded connections of orthotropic steel bridge decks by using UHPC layer:
Experimental and numerical investigation. Eng Struct 2020;220:110988. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110988.
[26] Unterweger H, Novak F. Strengthening of orthotropic steel decks using UHPC-
concrete instead of asphalt layer for additional at least 50 years in service. In
Eurosteel 2017: 8th European Conference on Steel and Composite Structures. 2017.
[27] Zhu Z, Xiang Ze, Zhou YE. Fatigue behavior of orthotropic steel bridge stiffened
with ultra-high performance concrete layer. J Constr Steel Res 2019;157:132–42.
[28] Jiang Xu, Yuan Y, Wu C, Luo C. Fatigue Life Assessment of Orthotropic Steel Deck
with UHPC Pavement. J Eng 2017;2017:1–10.
[29] Zhang S, Shao X, Cao J, Cui J, Hu J, Deng Lu. Fatigue performance of a lightweight
composite bridge deck with open ribs. J Bridge Eng 2016;21(7):04016039. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000905.
[30] Connor RJ, Fisher JW. Report on Field Measurements and Assessment of the I-64
Kanawha River Bridge at Dunbar. West; 2001.
[31] Cao J, Shao X, Zhang Z, Zhao H. Retrofit of an orthotropic steel deck with compact
reinforced reactive powder concrete. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2016;12(3):411–29.
[32] Su L, Wang S, Gao Y, Liu J, Shao X. In Situ experimental study on the behavior of
UHPC composite orthotropic steel bridge deck. Materials 2020;13(1):253.
[33] Pei B, Li L, Shao X, Wang L, Zeng Y. Field measurement and practical design of a
lightweight composite bridge deck. J Constr Steel Res 2018;147:564–74.
[34] Cui C, Bu Y, Bao Yi, Zhang Q, Ye Z. Strain energy-based fatigue life evaluation of
deck-to-rib welded joints in OSD considering combined effects of stochastic traffic
load and welded residual stress. J Bridge Eng 2018;23(2):04017127. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001181.
[35] Deng Lu, Zou S, Wang W, Kong X. Fatigue performance evaluation for composite
OSD using UHPC under dynamic vehicle loading. Eng Struct 2021;232:111831.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111831.
[36] Peng B, Shao X. Study on fatigue performance of lightweight composite bridge
deck with closed ribs. China Civil Eng J 2017;50(4):89–96 [In Chinese].
14
Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113875
[37] Ding N, Shao X. Study on fatigue performance of light-weighted composite bridge
deck. China Civil Eng J 2015;48(1):74–81 [In Chinese].
[38] Zhu Z, Yuan T, Xiang Ze, Huang Y, Zhou YE, Shao X. Behavior and fatigue
performance of details in an orthotropic steel bridge with UHPC-deck plate
composite system under in-service traffic flows. J Bridge Eng 2018;23(3):
04017142. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001167.
[39] Feng Z, Li C, He J, Ke Lu, Lei Z, Vasdravellis G. Static and fatigue test on
lightweight UHPC-OSD composite bridge deck system subjected to hogging
moment. Eng Struct 2021;241:112459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2021.112459.
[40] Wang Y, Shao X, Chen J, Cao J, Deng S. UHPC-based strengthening technique for
orthotropic steel decks with significant fatigue cracking issues. J Constr Steel Res
2021;176:106393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.106393.
[41] GB/T 1499.2-2018. Steel for the Reinforcement of Concrete—Part 2:Hot Rolled Ribbed
Bars . 2018, Standardization Administration, China. [In Chinese].
[42] Meng W, Valipour M, Khayat KH. Optimization and performance of cost-effective
ultra-high performance concrete. Mater Struct 2017;50(1):1–16.
[43] Jung F, Mansperger T. The ortho-composite-slab of the Elbebridge Wittenberge. In:
In: IABSE symposium report. International Association for Bridge and Structural
Engineering; 2014. p. 1186–91.
[44] Sim H-B, Uang C-M. Stress analyses and parametric study on full-scale fatigue tests
of rib-to-deck welded joints in steel orthotropic decks. J Bridge Eng 2012;17(5):
765–73.
[45] Wolchuk R. Steel orthotropic decks: developments in the 1990s. Transp Res Rec
1999;1688(1):30–7.
[46] Downing S, Socie D. Simple rainflow counting algorithms. Int J Fatigue 1982;4(1):
31–40.
[47] Miner MA. Cumulative Damage in Fatigue. ASME. J Appl Mech 1945;12(3):
A159–64.
[48] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO
LRFD bridge design specifications. 2017, Washington, D.C., United States.
[49] Battista RC, Pfeil MS, Carvalho EML. Fatigue life estimates for a slender orthotropic
steel deck. J Constr Steel Res 2008;64(1):134–43.
[50] Cui C, Zhang Q, Hao H, Li J, Bu Y. Influence of asphalt pavement conditions on
fatigue damage of orthotropic steel decks: parametric analysis. J Bridge Eng 2018;
23(12):04018093. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001313.
[51] BS5400. British Standard Institute, Steel, Concrete and Composite Bridges in Part 10:
Code of Practice for Fatigue, 2005. London (UK).
[52] Ling L, Tang L, Shua J, Wang Y, Li Y, Wang Y. Experimental study of steel-UHPC
composite deck on moving vehicle loading. Highway 2020;66(1):100–7 [In
Chinese].
[53] GDJTG/T A01-2015. Technical Specification for Ultra-high Performance Light-
weighted Composite deck structure. 2015, Department of Transportation of
Guangdong, China. [In Chinese].