Predicting the stiffness of shear diaphragm panels composed of bridge metal deck forms

Abstract

The behavior of building industry metal sheeting under shear forces has been extensively studied and equations have been developed to predict its shear stiffness. Building design engineers can make use of these equations to design a metal deck form bracing system. Bridge metal deck forms differ from building industry forms by both shape and connection detail. These two factors have implications for using these equations to predict the shear stiffness of deck form systems used in the bridge industry. The conventional eccentric connection of bridge metal deck forms reduces their shear stiffness dramatically. However, recent studies have shown that a simple modification to the connection detail can significantly increase the shear stiffness of bridge metal deck form panels. To the best of the author's knowledge currently there is not a design aid that can be used by bridge engineers to estimate the stiffness of bridge metal deck forms. Therefore, bridge engineers rely on previous test results to predict the stiffness of bridge metal deck forms in bracing applications. In an effort to provide a design aid for bridge design engineers to rely on bridge metal deck forms as a bracing source during construction, cantilever shear frame test results of bridge metal deck forms with and without edge stiffened panels have been compared with the SDI Diaphragm Design Manual and ECCS Diaphragm Stressed Skin Design Manual stiffness expressions used for building industry deck forms. The bridge metal deck form systems utilized in the tests consisted of sheets with thicknesses of 0.75 mm to 1.90 mm, heights of 50 mm to 75 mm and lengths of up to 2.7 m; which are representative of bridge metal deck forms frequently employed in steel bridge constructions. The results indicate that expressions provided in these manuals to predict the shear stiffness of building metal deck form panels can be used to estimate the shear stiffness of bridge metal deck form bracing systems with certain limitations. The SDI Diaphragm Design Manual expressions result in reasonable estimates for sheet thicknesses of 0.75 mm, 0.91 mm, and 1.21 mm and underestimate the shear stiffness of 1.52 and 1.90 mm thick bridge metal deck forms. Whereas, the ECCS Diaphragm Stressed Skin Design Manual expressions significantly underestimate the shear stiffness of bridge metal deck form systems for above mentioned deck thicknesses.