Professional Documents
Culture Documents
q~~ = g=OMMV =
Technical guide
m=~=
Use on bridges, viaducts and similar structures
The Technical Department for Transport, Roads and Bridges Engineering and Road Safety (Service d'tudes techniques
des routes et autoroutes - Stra) is a technical department within the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure. Its field of
activities is the road, the transportation and the engineering structures.
guarantee the coherence of the road network and state of the art;
put forward the public interests, in particular within the framework of European standardization;
takes into account the needs of project owners and prime contractors, managers and operators;
Technical guide
m=~=
Use on bridges, viaducts and similar structures=
Contents
Chapter 1 - Intr oduc tion ............................................................................................. 4
1.1 General remarks. Purpose and content of the present guide ................................................................... 4
1.3 - Application of standard NF EN 1337-5 to the French national context ..................................................... 5
Chapte r 2 - Make-up of a pot bearing ........................................................................... 7
2.1 General principles ..................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 The constituent parts................................................................................................................................. 7
2.3 - Advantages and disadvantages of this type of bearing ........................................................................... 11
2.4 Key geometrical dimensions ................................................................................................................... 11
Ch ap te r 3 Re marks on s tand ard NF EN 1337 - par ts 2 & 5 Ke y poin ts co ncern in g des ign . 1 3
3.1 - Presentation............................................................................................................................................. 13
3.2 - Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 13
3.3 Pot bearings ............................................................................................................................................ 13
Chapte r 4 Pr inc iples governing c alc ulations for s truc tures c omprising pot bearings ..... 19
4.1 Regulatory context .................................................................................................................................. 19
4.2 Extreme vertical forces............................................................................................................................ 21
4.3 Longitudinal horizontal forces for sliding pot bearings............................................................................ 22
4.4 Longitudinal horizontal forces for restraint pot bearings ......................................................................... 26
4.5 Other recommendations.......................................................................................................................... 30
4.6 Examples of calculations ........................................................................................................................ 33
C h a p te r 5 V e r i f i c a t ion of pot bearings ..................................................................... 45
5.1 Definition documents............................................................................................................................... 45
Remarks on verification during service ............................................................................................................ 47
App en dix 1 - Hel p i n dr af t i ng Par ticular Technical Clauses (CCTP) ............................... 49
A1 -
`~=N=J=Introduction
1.1 General remarks. Purpose and content of the present guide
Elastomeric pot bearings were first developed in around 1960, based on a system devised, notably, by Andra, Beyer and
Wintergerst. In France, they were first used in 1967, and received brief coverage in the 1974 edition of BT41, which outlined
their key characteristics at that time and sought to define a possible scope for their use.
Since then, applications have been developed without any real technical basements other than the information found in
manufacturers documentations or provided to designers by manufacturers. Competition between manufacturers has led to a
danger of exaggeration as regards potential performance.
The T 47-816 standard was drawn up with clarification in mind, and parts 1 (general principles), 2 and 5 of standard NF EN
1337 2, which deal specifically with these products, have since been released and are available.
It was felt that, in addition to these normative documents, there was a need for a guide focusing on the use of pot bearings with
bridges, and examining interactions between pot bearings at different supports.
The guide published in September 2000 was based on draft European standards, which were difficult to obtain directly from
AFNOR, hence a degree of ambiguity in the document. This ambiguity was compounded by reference to non-finalised
structural-design documents in addition to the French standards governing the verification of bearing characteristics.
The situation has now been clarified by the publication of standard NF EN 1337 in its entirety (with the exception of part 8 Guide bearings and restrain bearings) and of the design standards (of the Eurocodes used in the present guide, at any rate).
Moreover, the partial publication of standard NF EN 1337 was followed by the withdrawal, on 31 December 2006, of other
French standards covering the same topic, after a period of coexistence.
The present guide is intended to be complementary, and to provide explanations concerning current normative texts at the time
of drafting. It sheds light on the texts, notably by providing certain key specifications concerning use with bridges.
The document comprises the following:
A brief description of the product category and related equipment;
The key regulations;
The design criteria specified in the CEN standards;
A calculation methodology, not for the product itself, but for its use in a bridge project, with a concrete example based on an
a real situation;
The NF EN standards make provision for a certification procedure using CE marking, for which the application procedures
are being put in place; in this new context, we will try to provide explanations concerning the choice of products and the
points to be checked during the on-site acceptance process;
A programme has been developed for the verification of this type of bearing. There is a corresponding presentation.
This publication (Bulletin technique no. 4), which served as a guide to laminated elastomeric bearings , is no longer available.
Laminated elastomeric bearings are ideally suited for reactions of up to 12 MN (calculated at ULS). This value corresponds to
dimensions in plan of some 700 mm x 700 mm. Above 20 MN, it is preferable to use pot bearings so as to keep size within
acceptable limits. Between these two values, laminated elastomeric bearings may still be used, provided that the dimensions
are increased to 900 mm x 900 mm in the case of a large structure or that two smaller bearings are positioned side by side.
Bearing bulk issues mean that the latter approach is easy to implement only with box-section or concrete-slab bridges. It is
difficult to use in the case of girder bridges (composite or made of prestressed concrete).
Where there is considerable rotation, however, laminated elastomeric bearings may be suitable, although it is often necessary
to increase the elastomer thickness, which can result in other problems. In such an event, the use of spherical bearings may be
technically appropriate (see NF EN 1337-7). Having said that, the sliding systems on pot bearings provide better performance,
and therefore greater durability, as regards horizontal displacement. The displacement parameter will consequently be a major
influence on the choice.
In all events, manufacturing constraints (and notably press sizes) mean that French-made laminated elastomeric bearings are
currently limited in size to some 1,000 mm x 1,000 mm x 300 mm, while certain manufacturers elsewhere can produce items
as large as 1,200 mm x 1,200 mm x 300 mm).
While laminated elastomeric bearings cost less than pot bearings, it should be borne in mind that the cost of the bearings
represents only a small percentage of the total cost of the structure.
In seismic zones, laminated elastomeric bearings are preferable, even where vertical loading is considerable. The absence of a
fixed point and the flexibility offered by such bearings makes for better overall performance in the event of moderate tremors.
Although strong tremors could cause the laminated elastomeric bearings to tear, they are less costly to replace than pot
bearings.
For the scope of use defined in 1, the standard specifies a single pad.
Support plate
Guidance system
Sliding part, with type of lateral
guidance
Slide plane
PTFE sheet
Elastomeric pad
Internal seal
Pot
Lower plate
2.3.2 - Disadvantages
The main disadvantage is the limited rotation capacity, which is, nevertheless, adequate for most structures.
Their implementation calls for greater precision and rigour than is usually required in bridge construction.
Their manufacture requires considerable industrial resources, including the use of robots for machining of pots and pistons.
Manufacturing tolerances are extremely low, and extremely rigorous quality control is required.
These factors account for the high cost of this type of bearing compared with laminated elastomeric bearings, for example.
They constitute an attractive solution in technical and economic terms where displacement and vertical loading exceed certain
levels, provided that appropriate sliding systems are used.
For further details, see booklet 13 on bearings. References can be found in the bibliography.
NN
`~=P=
3.2 - Introduction
The main purpose of the standards is to define and state the design specifications for the product. Many of these documents,
therefore, are not of interest to the designer.
This chapter intentionally lists only the most important points, as well as commenting on certain parts of the documents. It also
points out a number of technical choices that must be made by the contract manager.
There is no CE marking on the sliding parts. Only bearings (pot or otherwise) comprising sliding parts have such markings.
Since the publication of part 5, these references have changed. Standard NF EN 10113 has been replaced by Standard NF EN 10025 of March 2005, which
makes provision for other steel designations.
NP
NR
3.3.7 - Settlement
(NF EN 1337-5: Appendix B)
It should be remembered that the differential settlement between pot bearings can typically exceed 1 mm, and that this should
be taken into account during structural calculations.
3.4.5 - Installation
(NF EN 1337-2: 9 and NF EN 1337-11)
It is advisable to refer to the standard T 47.816-3 for pot bearing installation.
Nevertheless, the plate horizontality tolerances and guidance-system alignment tolerances must be taken into account where
guided pot bearings are concerned. The guidance tolerance defined in 9 of standard NF EN 1337-2 is 0.3% (see technical
memo no. 27).
Pot bearings - Use on bridges, viaducts and similar structures Technical guide
NT
NU=================Pot bearings - Use on bridges, viaducts and similar structures Technical guide
This chapter looks at calculations relating to elastomeric pot bearings, their justification and their environment (influence of
pot bearings on support calculations, etc.).
The main innovations of standard NF EN 1337-5 are as follows:
the forces applied to bearings are calculated at ULS;
the differences between how flexible and rigid supports are taken into account are more pronounced;
the friction coefficients for the bearings are deducted from ULS internal forces end moments;
for the spread of horizontal forces with favourable and unfavourable forces, horizontal precision is not taken into account
when friction coefficients are being calculated;
the rule concerning resistance to a horizontal force equal to 5% of the maximal vertical force is discarded;
friction forces on guidance systems must be taken into account for calculations.
Over and above questions concerning the numerical values (maximal stresses, maximal rotations, friction coefficients, etc.),
two key points appear to be particularly problematic for designers:
which vertical loads should be taken into account when calculating the maximal horizontal force for a sliding pot bearing?
How should horizontal forces be calculated for pot bearings on restraint supports?
In standards NF EN 1337-2 and 1337-5, bearing calculations are done at ULS only. Basic combinations are therefore used,
taking account of permanent actions and of actions due to road loading, temperature (uniform and gradient) and wind.
In addition to these verifications, additional elements are also required:
accidental combinations where piers are liable to be hit by boats or goods vehicles, and seismic combinations where
applicable;
in certain special cases, for example where a beam rests on permanent bearings during construction.
For the calculations below, the combinations provided by the following texts have been used:
Appendix A of standard NF EN 1993-2: this appendix provides the calculation rules for the bearings on steel structures. It
can, nevertheless, be applied to all types of bridge, since it is to be transferred to standard NF EN 1990. This appendix
specifies, notably, how to take account of uncertainty regarding bearing installation temperatures and how to integrate it into
the calculation temperature variation Td:
NF EN 1991-1-5 and its national annex: this standard specifies the values to be used for uniform temperature actions TN
and temperature gradient TM. It also explains how these two actions should be combined so as to take account of their
simultaneous nature and obtain the characteristic overall effect Tk;
Appendix A2 of standard NF EN 1990 defines the combinations to be used in calculations concerning supports and
bearings in particular.
NV
No.
+ 1,35 {UDLk +TSk + q fk,comb} + 1,5 min{FW* ; 0,6 FWk}
+ 1,35 gr1b
3
(1)
+ 1,35 gr2
+ 1,35 gr5
+ 1,5 FWk
The braking force varies between 340 kN and 400 kN, approximately, for small structures measuring 10 m to 50 m in length,
and can reach a maximal value of 900 kN for structures 305 m in length between expansion joints. This value is considerably
greater than that generally used in older regulations (300 kN for braking by truck Bc, for example). Where structures are
equipped with laminated elastomeric bearings, braking forces are spread across all of the decks bearings, which should not
pose any problems in respect of pier reinforcement. On the other hand, for major structures with restraint supports subjected to
the near-totality of the horizontal forces, pier design can be difficult with such high braking values. Where piers are high and
flexible, it is advisable to use several restraint supports. In other cases, the restraint support should be located on a short pier or
on an abutment, which can give rise to difficulties as regards the design of the expansion joint (and sliding plates) on the
abutment at the other extremity of the structure.
This maximal braking force will most likely be reduced in the national annex, since standard NF EN 1991-2 allows this. The
level could well be reduced to 500 kN, except where the structure is to bear military loads in accordance with the STANAG
standardisation agreement (Char Mc 120).
- thermal effects:
Te, min
Te, max
Deck material
Concrete
Composite
Steel
-10 C
-10 C
-20 C
-15 C
-15 C
-25 C
East - Alps
-20 C
-20 C
-30 C
Concrete
Composite
Steel
40 C
45 C
55 C
Table 4.2
The effects of temperature are defined in section 4 of the EN 1991-1-5. The temperature differences Te, max and Te, min in
characteristic values are to be calculated on the basis of the deck material and of the region where the structure is to be located.
These temperatures are to be determined using the maps provided in the national annex to NF EN 1991-1-5. Until these
become available, the values in table 4.2 may be used.
Temperature variations resulting from these maximal and minimal temperatures are to be calculated on the basis of a
temperature T0 equal to 10C in the absence of dedicated project specifications.
For calculations concerning the securing of bearings or their sliding plates during installation, standard NF EN 1991-1-5
specifies an additional value to be added to the temperature variations. This value equals 20C, or 10C if the installation
temperature is specified. These values may be modified by the national annex.
The expansion coefficients provided in the Eurocode are 1 x 10-5/C for concrete decks, and 1.2 x 10-5/C for steel decks (NF
EN 1991-1-5 Appendix C). For decks on composite structures, paragraph 5.4.2.5 (3) of standard NF EN 1994-2 specifies
that this coefficient must be taken as 1.2 x 10-5/C for expansion calculations, and as 1 x 10-5/C for temperature-gradient
calculations.
It should also be noted that, even where the Eurocodes do not specify this explicitly, the spread of forces in the supports and
therefore in the piers must be calculated using the instantaneous concrete modulus.
90
= 64,3 MPa at ULS. The stress on the
1,40
PTFE is to be calculated for a limited surface Ar to take account of the eccentricity of the load. Appendix A of standard NF EN
1337-2 provides details of how to calculate Ar.
Standard NF EN 1337-2 ( 6.6 and 6.8.3) limits the pressure on the PTFE to
On the other hand, the value of the limited pressure must be reduced by 2% for each degree over 30C, if the latter temperature
is liable to be exceeded near the bearing.
ON
For simplicity, at altitudes of less than 1,000 m, the pressure f PTFE will be limited to 0,85
fk
fk
= 0,85
90
55 MPa for
1,40
90
51 MPa for steel structures (this distinction is made
1,40
m
because all materials do not have the same degree of sensitivity to temperature changes).
= 0,80
f e ,d
fu
fu
60
46 MPa at ULS.
1,30
at ULS
The horizontal force H that can be reached by a sliding pot bearing just before sliding occurs is obtained from the associated
vertical force V:
H = (max + PP + PL) x V
where:
max is the maximal friction coefficient of the pot bearing for the vertical load V (paragraph 4.3.3 defines the vertical load V
required for the maximal value of H to be obtained);
PP is the standardised pot-bearing installation precision, which corresponds to a possible deviation from the horizontal of
0.003 rd (positive PP in the formula above);
Where applicable, PL includes the slope designed into the slide plane (e.g. where there is a sloping abutment and the
difference in level between the expansionjoint extremities is limited) and that resulting from the load under consideration
(value generally negligible except where structure is very flexible or where construction kinematics is complex where the
transfer to permanent bearings is concerned), as well as installation errors greater than 0.003 rd (prefabricated structures,
poor securing, etc.).
1,2 k
10 + p
where:
k = 1 for stainless steel;
k = 1.5 for aluminium;
p: contact pressure on the PTFE.
Table 4.3 below may also be used:
Contact pressure p (MPa)
10
20
30
0,08
0,06
0,04
0,03
OP
4.3.3 Loads to be taken into account when calculating horizontal forces at ULS
Vertical operating loads to be taken into account when calculating the maximal horizontal force that can be reached by a
sliding pot bearing depend strictly on the supposed operation of the pot bearing in its context (see 4.3.1) and therefore on the
structures studied. In the more usual cases, the sliding thresholds can generally be reached, and the permanent loads represent
a very large percentage of the vertical loads.
Calculating the maximal horizontal forces on the basis of extreme vertical loads enhances security, but generally leads only to
a slight increase in actions.
For simplicity, one can therefore determine the extreme horizontal forces on the basis of the maximal vertical loads,
thereby also enhancing security.
Depending on the specific characteristics of the structures under consideration (e.g. flexible piers), the Particular Technical
Clauses (CCTP) can require other vertical loads to be taken into account when the maximal horizontal forces are being
determined.
Remarks:
1 For a very rigid support such as an abutment or very rigid pier, where any deck displacement (due to by a variation
in deck length) can cause the pot bearing to slide, the vertical load to be taken into account is the maximal load.
2 For a moderately-rigid support, sliding occurs only after a certain amount of variation in deck length has occurred.
Given:
The time needed for the temperature to change sufficiently so that the requisite variation in deck length can occur;
The presumably very short time during which operating loads (and their characteristic maximal values) are
applied;
the calculation of the horizontal forces on the basis of maximal vertical loads would not appear desirable.
Let us consider a support that is on the point of sliding freely (sliding threshold, H). If this support is also subjected
to operating loads with their characteristic maximal values, the new horizontal force H1 required before sliding can
occur (proportional to the vertical load) will be greater than H. The time during which operating loads (and their
characteristic values) are applied is generally too short for sufficient variation in deck temperature to occur such that
this new force H1 can come about. Sliding will therefore be more likely to occur when operating loads are reduced.
Moreover, to take account only of the permanent loads would be too favourable (imagine the structure being
subjected to a traffic jam on a sunny afternoon).
In this case, the vertical loads to be taken into account are therefore between the permanent and maximal loads, and
the calculation can be performed using combination no. 8 of table 4.1 in the present guide.
3 For a very flexible support for which the sliding threshold would never be reached, the theoretical maximal
horizontal forces do not depend solely on the vertical loads, and calculations must take account of support rigidity
(see 4.6.2). In such cases, sliding pot bearings can be replaced by restraint pot bearings.
OR
The friction coefficients of the materials vary from one pot bearing to another;
The horizontal forces do not necessarily come completely into play for all of the pot bearings;
The pot-bearing installation precision (horizontal precision), which can have a favourable or unfavourable effect.
Sliding bearings can function in a variety of ways:
With a very rigid support such as an abutment, deck displacement can cause horizontal force to reach the threshold value, H,
instantly;
With a flexible support, a variation in length causes the horizontal force to increase gradually until it reaches the sliding
threshold. Once this value, H, has been reached, sliding occurs. A new state of equilibrium is brought about, with horizontal
force once again lower than H;
Lastly, with a very flexible support, it is possible that the sliding threshold will not be reached, in which case the bearing
would function like a restraint bearing.
where:
maximal friction coefficient for a sliding bearing taken as isolated (see previous paragraph);
friction coefficient where the friction is unfavourable vis--vis the effect being considered;
friction coefficient where the friction is favourable vis--vis the effect being considered;
rate of decrease depending on the number, n, of sliding bearings contributing to the longitudinal stability of the
structure, in accordance with the table below:
n
4 < n < 10
(16-n)/12
10
0,5
Table 4.4
Here, the installation precision, PP, is ignored, since it has already been taken into account in the weighting of the friction
coefficients a and r. In accordance with the previous paragraph, therefore:
H = ( + PL) V
where = a or r
Example: a four-span bridge with two restraint bearings on the central pier and sliding bearings on the other supports:
n=8
hence = 2/3
a = 0.5 max 5/3 = 5/6 max
OT
variations in deck length (see 4.4.1), taking account of the maximal permanent vertical loads (1.35 Gmax) on the sliding
pot bearings;
braking (see 4.4.2) or wind.
The Particular Technical Clauses (CCTP) can require non-simplified calculation, with the horizontal forces calculated for
other loads, associated or otherwise.
Ac c id en ta l c omb ina tion s
The internal forces and moments are provided in article 6.4.3.3 of standard NF EN 1990.
Pot-bearing guidance and attachment systems are not usually designed to resist accidental actions. Supports must, however, be
equipped with independent stops that prevent excessive movement of the deck relative to the pier or abutment. These stops are
mandatory in seismic zones, and strongly recommended where there is a risk of strong impact involving boats. Moreover, it is
also often possible to check whether the bearing would survive being hit by a vehicle and whether the deck would remain
stable if part of the support were to be destroyed.
In addition to any accidental combinations, it is also possible to propose accidental-combination verification with simulation
of a bearing failure (bearings sensitive to the effects of horizontal forces), centred on an anomaly relating to the value of the
friction coefficient (e.g. max = 10% or 15% for one, and only one, of the bearings).
The failure could, for example, occur as a result of premature wear of the PTFE, clogging or painting of the sliding parts.
4.4.5 Verification of the maximal horizontal force taken up by a restraint pot bearing
For restraint pot bearings (or unidirectional pot bearings blocked in the direction of displacement), the allowable horizontal force
guaranteed by the supplier must be at least equal to the horizontal internal forces used in calculations. In this calculation, the
horizontal force for the bearing will be increased to take account of the non-uniform spread between supports on a given line.
As specified in paragraph 4.4.3.1 of the guide, it is necessary, in complex cases, to perform a spatial calculation taking account
of the various types of play and rigidity so that the forces on each pot bearing blocked in a given direction can be evaluated.
For restraint bearings, in addition to the horizontal forces listed, it is also necessary to add the transversal forces resulting from
the effect of temperature on the other bearings of the restraint support.
Important:
If a pier serving as an restraint support is equipped with an restraint bearing and with one or more unidirectional
bearings blocking longitudinal movements, the longitudinal horizontal force from the deck will be concentrated almost
exclusively on one of the bearings.
This is because the play (between the pot and piston and/or between the sliding components) resulting from manufacturing
tolerances does not allow simultaneous contact on all of the bearings of the support concerned.
In ideal circumstances, a single restraint bearing would therefore suffice. However, two restraint bearings can be used in
certain cases (e.g. flexible pier subjected to torque) and, more generally, to optimise the distribution of horizontal forces
on the restraint support.
Moreover, where there are two restraint bearings on the same pier, the spread of forces between them should be considered
unequal, even if the pier is very flexible.
OV
4.5.2 - Rotations
Standard NF EN 1337-5 limits rotations to 0.03 rd at ULS. It should be remembered that a thickness of conventional
elastomeric pad equal to 1/15th the diameter of the pot allows absorption of maximal rotations of 0.02 rd, which correspond to
the values generally attained on bridges. Beyond 0.02 rd, pad thickness should be increased in accordance with article 6.2.1.2
of standard NF EN 1337-5.
where
r r r
( i , j , k ) unit vectors of axes xyz linked to a section of curved abscissa
Take a curved structure in the normal plane k . Say that at section 0 of curved abscissa S0 there is an infinitely rigid
r r
support, restraint in translation ( 0 = 0 ) and in rotation around the vertical axis directed by k ( 0 k = 0 ).
Let us calculate the displacements passing through a support situated at section 1 of curved abscissa S1.
Effect of temperature changes and shrinkage:
The translation of the section 1 equals
The rotation around a vertical axis of the section equals
Effect of prestressing (instantaneous and creep-induced deformations):
Translation
The point 1 is a support, and vertical displacement is therefore blocked. From now on, we will look only at the
components of the displacement of 1 in the normal plane k (plane of the structure). The terms in k , in i G1 and in
r
j G1 will therefore not be considered;
Here, we will consider only the rotation of the vertical axis k , hence
Simplification hypotheses
In addition, we base our approach on the following simplification hypotheses:
N/ES = constant =
S1
1 = . i . d
S0
i.e.
Point fixe
P1
Conclusion
Assuming that the simplification hypotheses are valid
(infinitely rigid restraint support, centred prestressed,
with prestressing constant along the central fibre and slight
bending), it follows that the slide axes of the unidirectional
sliding pot bearings should fan out from the restraint
support on the basis of the deck deformations.
P2
P3
C0
VUE EN PLAN
C4
Figure 4.1
b) regarding equipment
PN
4.5.6.3 - Recommendations
Various parameters must therefore be taken into account to determine slide-axis orientation.
Regarding deck deformations, it is preferable to orient the slide axes in relation to the fixed point. Failing this, the expansion
of the structure is hampered, and considerable transversal forces can appear in the guidance systems if the supports are rigid.
This additional friction must be taken into account when the longitudinal horizontal forces are being determined.
Regarding the equipment expansion systems, on the other hand, it is strongly recommended that the slide axes of the abutment
pot bearings be oriented along the length of the structure.
Other parameters can also influence the choice of slide-axis orientation (transversal temperature gradient depending on the
orientation of the structure, differential creep between two boxes linked by the slab, etc.)10.
It is not possible to provide general recommendations for all curved structures, since each structure requires specific analysis
encompassing the various parameters mentioned earlier and based on structural calculation taking account of support rigidity
and the pot-bearing slide axes.
In the final analysis, the choice of orientation involves a compromise between various often-contradictory considerations.
Starting at the general structural calculations, therefore, it is important to ensure that the ramifications for the equipment of
the slide-axis orientation at the level of the abutments are neither forgotten nor underestimated.
Some general principles to be approached with care:
guidance along axis of structure at the level of the abutments;
to avoid hard spots, unidirectional sliding pot bearings and restraint pot bearings should not be installed on very rigid piers
(where possible, use multidirectional sliding pot bearings or laminated elastomeric bearings).
10
For railway bridges, the slide axes are obviously oriented in the same direction as the tracks at the level of the abutments.
11
C0
P1
P2
Appui
multidirectionnel
P3
P4
P5
C6
Appui en lastomre
frett
Elevation
Transversal section
12
In the example, we have followed the French practice of using the letters H and V, respectively, to indicate the horizontal and vertical forces. Part 3 of the
standard (some other parts differ) uses F and N, respectively.
PP
C0
P1
multi
P2
multi
P3
mono
C4
multi
mono
fixe
mono
mono
Fig. 4.4: main characteristics of the structure used in the numerical application in 4.6.1
Table 4.5
a) Vertical deck loads for a pair of pot bearings
Vertical loads (MN)
for a pair of pot bearings
C0
P1
P2
P3
C4
2,87
14,79
15,17
14,79
2,87
3,87
19,96
20,48
19,96
3,87
2,30
16,90
17,36
16,90
2,30
3,76
19,75
20,27
19,75
3,76
2,33
14,24
14,75
14,24
2,33
6,11
28,84
29,62
28,84
6,11
C0
P1
P2
P3
C4
1,45
7,50
7,74
7,50
1,45
1,96
10,12
10,45
10,12
1,96
1,12
7,03
7,11
7,03
1,12
3,13
17,78
15,29
17,78
3,13
C0
P1
P2
P3
C4
0,0009
0,0010
0,0011
0,0010
0,0009
c) Rotations
Rotations in rd
Basic-combination ULS
The increase and weighting coefficients used for operating loads and weather loads are as defined in paragraph 4.1.1 of the
present guide.
Designers attention is drawn to the fact that the maximal reaction for a bearing cannot generally be obtained simply by
dividing the total maximal reaction for a given pier or abutment by the number of bearings. It is necessary to take account of
the transversal rigidity of the structure and of the eccentricity of the loads in relation to the bearings.
For the UDL load, for example, it is the position of the lane bearing the greatest load (lane 1) that determines the maximal and
minimal reactions for a give bearing.
Given the previous tables, the structure being symmetrical, the vertical forces to be taken into account at ULS for a bearing can
be evaluated:
Force (MN)
C0 and C4
P1 and P3
P2
1.35 G max
1,96
10,12
10,43
Maximal force
3,13
17,78
15,29
Minimal force
1,1
8,36
8,52
Table 4.6
Accidental combinations are not the most important consideration here (their value would be: M Acc = 1.00). The following
verifications or design decisions will be carried out in accordance with paragraphs 4.2 to 4.5 of the present guide.
C0 and C4
P1 and P3
P2
0,07825
0,4445
0,38225
Table 4.7
Pressure in the elastomer
The average pressure fe,d in the pad is limited to f u / M for basic combinations, i.e. with:
f e, d
f u = 60.00 MPa
f e,d = 46.15 MPa
and
fu
M Fond = 1.30
The maximal stress fe,d provides the surface Sc of the pad for the various supports:
Support
C0 and C4
P1 and P3
P2
0,06782
0,38523
0,33128
Table 4.8
Preliminary calculation:
We applied a force H = (max + PP) V at the top of each pier, and verified that the resultant pier-top displacement is less
than that caused by foreseeable variations in deck length (temperature, creep and shrinkage). The piers are therefore
sufficiently rigid to allow the sliding thresholds to be reached.
As proposed in the guide, the vertical loads corresponding to the extreme ULS combinations are taken into account.
Max ima l hor izon ta l forc e to b e take n in to cons id e ra tion fo r a s lid ing b ear ing:
C0 and C4 : H = 3.5% V = 3.5% 3.13
= 0.110 MN
P1 and P3 :
= 0.622 MN
PR
Max ima l hor izon ta l forc e to b e take n in to cons id e ra tion fo r th e p ier s (o r the abutm en ts) a nd
fo unda tion s:
C0 and C4 : H = 3.5% V = 3.5% 6.11
= 0.214 MN
P1 and P3 :
H = 3.5% V = 3.5% 28.84
= 1.009 MN
= 5/6 max
= 2.67%
= 1/6 max
= 0.53%
4.6.1.5 - Rotations
The rotations calculated at ULS are less than 0.01 rd.
C4 side
X
Force torsor
calculation point
Pier
foundation
Vmini=
"
Vmax =
"
Vmini=
"
Vmax =
Vmini=
"
P1 and P3:
P2:
Friction coefficient:
3.5
PT
Elevation
9,75 m
Transversal section
Figs. 4.6
Pot bearing
Type
Empty
vertical reaction (MN)
Rigidity
C0
Sliding
5,238
300,00
P1
Sliding
20,817
7,00
P2
Sliding
20,857
5,00
P3
restraint
20,763
3,25
P4
Sliding
20,587
5,00
P5
Sliding
21,168
6,50
P6
Sliding
19,750
8,00
C7
Sliding
4,117
300,00
MN/m
Table 4.8: main characteristics of the structure used in the numerical application of 4.6.2
N.N.: the rigidity Ri of each support must be calculated taking account of the flexibility of the foundations, the pier (or
abutment) and the bearings:
Ri =
1
S iF
S iP
with:
+
S iA
S iF = foundation flexibility,
S iP
A
= pier flexibility,
S i = bearing flexibility.
PV
first calculation:
horizontal force
(MN)
3,50
3,50
P2
Pot
bearing
(MN)
C0
P1
0,183
75,990
0,183
Sliding
0,729
1,380
0,729
Sliding
3,50
0,730
0,610
0,610
restraint
P3
restraint
0,153
0,153
restraint
P4
3,50
0,721
-0,140
-0,140
restraint
P5
3,50
0,741
-0,670
-0,670
restraint
P6
3,50
0,691
-1,424
-0,691
Sliding
C7
3,50
0,144
-75,900
-0,144
Sliding
0.030 MN =>
X = 337.70 m
sliding threshold
horizontal force
(MN)
(MN)
3,50
0,183
75,532
0,183
Sliding
P1
3,50
0,729
1,369
0,729
Sliding
P2
3,50
0,730
0,602
0,602
restraint
P3
restraint
0,148
0,148
restraint
P4
3,50
0,721
-0,148
-0,148
restraint
P5
3,50
0,741
-0,679
-0,679
restraint
P6
3,50
0,691
-1,436
-0,691
Sliding
C7
3,50
0,144
-76,358
-0,144
Sliding
Pot
bearing
C0
0.030 MN =>
X = 335,67 m
sliding threshold
horizontal force
(MN)
(MN)
2,625
0,137
75,532
0,137
Sliding
2,625
0,546
1,369
0,546
Sliding
P2
2,625
0,548
0,602
0,548
Sliding
P3
restraint
0,148
0,148
restraint
P4
0,875
0,180
-0,148
-0,148
restraint
P5
0,875
0,185
-0,679
-0,185
Sliding
P6
0,875
0,173
-1,436
-0,173
Sliding
C7
0,875
0,036
-76,358
-0,036
Sliding
Pot
bearing
C0
P1
X = 335,67 m
X = 335,67 m
P3 and P4 ;
C0, P1, P2, P5, P6 and C7.
sliding threshold
horizontal force
(MN)
(MN)
2,625
0,137
45,067
0,137
Sliding
P1
2,625
0,546
0,658
0,546
Sliding
P2
2,625
0,548
0,095
0,095
restraint
P3
restraint
-0,182
-0,182
restraint
P4
0,875
0,180
-0,655
-0,180
Sliding
P5
0,875
0,185
-1,340
-0,185
Sliding
P6
0,875
0,173
-2,248
-0,173
Sliding
C7
0,875
0,036
-106,823
-0,036
Sliding
Pot
bearing
C0
0,022 MN =>
horizontal force
(MN)
2,625
P1
P2
C0
Xg = 200,28 m
P3 et P4 ;
C0, P1, P2, P5, P6 and C7
sliding threshold
Pot
bearing
(MN)
0,137
44,255
0,137
Sliding
2,625
0,546
0,639
0,546
Sliding
2,625
0,548
0,081
0,081
restraint
P3
restraint
-0,191
-0,191
restraint
P4
0,875
0,180
-0,669
-0,180
Sliding
P5
0,875
0,185
-1,357
-0,185
Sliding
P6
0,875
0,173
-2,270
-0,173
Sliding
C7
0,875
0,036
-107,636
-0,036
Sliding
0,0 MN =>
Xg = 196,67 m
QN
C0
0,875
P1
P2
sliding
threshold
horizontal force
(MN)
0,046
44,255
0,046
Sliding
0,875
0,182
0,639
0,182
Sliding
0,875
0,183
0,081
0,081
restraint
P3
restraint
-0,191
-0,191
restraint
P4
2,625
0,540
-0,669
-0,540
Sliding
P5
2,625
0,556
-1,357
-0,556
Sliding
P6
2,625
0,518
-2,270
-0,518
Sliding
C7
2,625
0,108
-107,636
-0,108
Sliding
(MN)
Pot
bearing
C0
0,875
P1
P2
1,604 MN =>
X = 196,67 m
P3, P4 and P5 ;
C0, P1, P2, P6 and C7.
horizontal force
(MN)
0,046
102,594
0,046
Sliding
0,875
0,182
2,001
0,182
Sliding
0,875
0,183
1,053
0,183
Sliding
P3
restraint
0,441
0,441
restraint
P4
2,625
0,540
0,303
0,303
restraint
P5
2,625
0,556
-0,093
-0,093
restraint
(MN)
P6
2,625
0,518
-0,714
-0,518
Sliding
C7
2,625
0,108
-49,296
-0,108
Sliding
0.436 MN =>
X = 455.93 m
P3, P4 and P5 ;
C0, P1, P2, P6 and C7.
sliding threshold
horizontal force
(MN)
(MN)
0,875
0,046
93,736
0,046
Sliding
0,875
0,182
1,794
0,182
Sliding
P2
0,875
0,183
0,906
0,183
Sliding
P3
restraint
0,345
0,345
restraint
P4
2,625
0,540
0,156
0,156
restraint
P5
2,625
0,556
-0,285
-0,285
restraint
P6
2,625
0,518
-0,951
-0,518
Sliding
C7
2,625
0,108
-58,154
-0,108
Sliding
Pot
bearing
C0
P1
0 MN =>
X = 416,56 m
The fixed point can therefore be located between the abscissas Xg = 196 m and Xd = 417 m, i.e. in a range of some 220 metres
for a structure measuring 640 metres in length.
4.6.2.6 Most unfavourable fixed-point position as regards the horizontal force on the
restraint support
The situation is as in 4.6.2.5. Friction coefficient r is allocated to the C0, P1, P2 and P4 pot bearings, for which the
horizontal force has the same sign as that of the immobile support P3. Friction coefficient is allocated to the P5, P6 and C7
pot bearings, for which the horizontal force has the opposite sign.
first calculation:
sliding
threshold
horizontal force
(MN)
0,046
93,736
0,046
Sliding
0,875
0,182
1,794
0,182
Sliding
0,875
0,183
0,906
0,183
Sliding
P3
restraint
0,345
0,345
restraint
P4
0,875
0,180
0,156
0,156
restraint
P5
2,625
0,556
-0,285
-0,285
restraint
Pot
bearing
C0
0,875
P1
P2
(MN)
P6
2,625
0,518
-0,951
-0,518
Sliding
C7
2,625
0,108
-58,154
-0,108
Sliding
- 0 MN =>
X = 416,56 m
The most unfavourable fixed-point position is the rightmost position. Here, although the sliding threshold of support P4 is
lower than in the previous calculation (the friction coefficient has changed from a to r), it still exceeds the internal force.
Nevertheless, this verification can prove useful in certain configurations.
QP
Fo
En
MO
QR
Fo
En
certificate of compliance;
packing;
general condition, surface protection and permanent protection;
temporary blocking systems;
geometrical characteristics: height, alignment (rotation) and presetting;
marking;
storage.
The bearing is deemed to be at service start date when the structures support reaction is transferred onto
it (after the concrete has been checked to ensure that it has attained the requisite degree of resistance):
elimination of temporary wedges;
removal of temporary attachment systems (in accordance with procedure);
environmental cleanliness;
values of heights, rotations and displacements;
values of support reactions, both theoretical and measured (bearings equipped with measurement
units);
integrity of bossages and wedges;
recording of temperatures;
monitoring document.
MO
QT
Clauses (CCTP)
This appendix provides examples of clauses for use in the drafting of Particular Technical Clauses (CCTP), the aim being
to achieve a more homogeneous style and optimal integration of the advice contained in the present guide.
While the articles proposed in this appendix concern technical matters, their application will need to take account of the
rules set out in the procurement contract code.
Example of clause
Remarks
Elastomeric pot bearings comply with standard NF EN 1337, (*) to be added in the case of bearings with a slide plane
parts 1 and 5 (and part 2*) and with the National Application
Text (see Stras Technical memo no. 27).
This compliance is confirmed by level-1 CE marking.
2.2.1 et
3.3.1
2.2.4
2.2.4
To ensure protection of the slide plane, the use of a wiper This protection is required by standard NF EN 1337-2, 7.3, but no
particular solution is specified.
seal or similar system is recommended.
The space between the stainless-steel plate and the part of This arrangement for pot bearings with slide planes is not required by
the unit to which it is attached should be sealed.
the standard.
2.2.5
Option 1: All metal parts are protected from corrosion in Option 1 corresponds to CE marking
accordance with standard NF EN 1337-9
Option 2: All metal parts are given corrosion protected
compliant with Booklet 56 of the general technical
specifications (CCTG) and based on one of the ACQPAcertified systems.
Where metals of different electrolytic potentials are used, it is
advisable to ensure appropriate insulation Where metals of
different electrolytic potentials are used, insulation compliant
with standard NF EN 1337-9, art 4.2. is provided, in order to
avoid galvanic corrosion
Pot bearings - Use on bridges, viaducts and similar structures Technical guide
QV
Article
concerned
in the
guide
3.3.2
Example of clause
Remarks
The rotation value and pot-piston contact conditions are Reminder: the flat contact surface type is allowed for a contact height
input into the data form provided for in Appendix B of w, which is to be calculated and must be less than 15 mm (see NF EN
standard NF EN 1337-1.
1337-5 6.2.3.1 and 6.2.3.2). This concerns multidirectional pot
bearings only.
The curved contact surface type is to be used with a radius R that is
compliant with standard NF EN 1337-5 ( 6.2.3.3) such that R [D/2,
100 mm]. Since the standard makes no mention of the conditions for the
diffusion of Hertz stress in the edge of the piston in maximal rotation
position, we recommend complying with the diffusion principle shown in
fig. 3.1c. The height, w, obtained is generally greater than that
recommended in 6.2.4 of the standard.
3.3.3
3.4.2 et
4.5.4
3.4.3
Friction coefficient
Account will not be taken of the correction factor of 2/3.
Instead of the 0.8 or 1 specified by the standard. This is valid only for
the cases mentioned in 3.3.3.
Example of clause
Remarks
4.3.2.4
4.3.4.2
See article for possible suggestion of other values based on the specific
characteristics of the structure.
4.4.4.2
RM=================Pot bearings - Use on bridges, viaducts and similar structures Technical guide
Example of clause
Remarks
3.4.5
5.4.2
Starting point:
- acceptance of bearing bossages;
- acceptance on delivery of bearings;
- acceptance of bearing installation (settings and
positioning).
Pot bearings - Use on bridges, viaducts and similar structures Technical guide
RN
RP
RR
RT
_~
General documents
Appareils dappui en lastomre frett. Guide technique. Stra. Juillet 2007. Rfrence 0716.
Laminated elastomeric bearings. Technical Guide. Stra. July 2007. Reference 0716
Instruction technique pour la surveillance et lentretien des ouvrages dart. Seconde partie : fascicule 13 "Appareils
dappui". Stra/LCPC. 2002. Rfrence Stra : 0230, Rfrence LCPC : FASC 13
Technical instructions for the surveillance and maintenance of structures. Second part: booklet 13 "Bearings".
Stra/LCPC. 2002. Stra reference: 0230, LCPC reference: FASC 13
MMOAR (Mmento pour la mise en uvre sur ouvrages d'art). CD Rom. Stra. Octobre 2007. Rfrence 0757CD.
Accessible depuis le site I2 13 du Stra.
Voir plus particulirement les fiches suivantes : VIII-2 - Appareils d'appui pot ; VIII-3 - Bossages des appareils
d'appui ; VIII-4 - Vrinage/Calage.
MMOAR (Memorandum for the implementation of structures). CD-ROM. Stra. October 2007. Reference 0757CD.
Accessible via the Stra site I2 14.
Note, in particular, the following sheets: VIII-2 Pot bearings; VIII-3 bearing bossages; VIII-4 Jacking/Securing.
Note technique sur lapplication nationale de la norme NF EN 1337 (appareils dappui structuraux). Note dinformation
srie Ouvrages dart n 27. Stra. Dcembre 2006. En tlchargement sur les sites Internet 15 ou I2 du Stra.
Technical note on the national application of standard NF EN 1337 (structural bearings). Information note from
Structures series no. 27. Stra. December 2006. Downloadable from the Stra website16 or I2 site.
XVIIIme congrs mondial de la route. Bruxelles 1987. Comit technique n 11 des ponts routiers. AIPCR. Paris. 1987.
pp. 47-61.
XVIIIth world road conference. Brussels 1987. Technical committee no. 11 for road bridges. PIARC. Paris. 1987. pp. 4761.
Notices techniques des fabricants.
Manufacturers technical documentation.
Standards
Appareils dappui structuraux. Partie 1 : Indications gnrales
Structural bearings. Part 1: General indications
: lments de glissement
Sliding components
: Appareils dappui pot.
Pot bearings.
Appareils dappui structuraux. Partie 11 : Transport, entreposage intermdiaire et montage.
Structural bearings. Part 11: Transport, intermediate storage and assembly.
: Appareils dappui structuraux. Partie 9 : Protection.
Structural bearings. Part 9: Protection.
Eurocode 1 : Actions sur les structures - Partie 2 : Actions sur les ponts, dues au trafic ; et son annexe nationale (
paratre).
Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 2: Actions on bridges, due to traffic; national annex to be published.
Calcul des structures en bton - Partie 1-1 : rgles gnrales et rgles pour les btiments ; et son annexe nationale.
Calculations for concrete structures - Part 1-1: general rules and rules for buildings; national annex.
13
I2 (intranet): http://intra.setra.i2
14
I2 (intranet): http://intra.setra.i2
15
Internet: http://www.setra.equipement.gouv.fr
16
Internet: http://www.setra.equipement.gouv.fr
RV
Reference: 0926A
This document may not be reproduced even partially without Stra's prior consent.
2009 Stra ISRN No.: EQ-SETRA--09-ED10--FR+ANG