Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Design Rules For Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints PDF
Design Rules For Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints PDF
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968,
no part may be reproduced by any process without the prior written permission of Austroads.
ISBN 978-1-921991-26-4
Project Manager
Dr Ross Pritchard, DTMR Qld
Prepared by
Dr Hanson Ngo, Ian Steele and Dr Neal Lake
ARRB Group
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept
responsibility for any consequences arising from the use of information herein. Readers should
rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Sydney 2012
About Austroads
Austroads’ purpose is to:
promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes
provide expert technical input to national policy development on road and road transport
issues
promote improved practice and capability by road agencies.
promote consistency in road and road agency operations.
Austroads membership comprises the six state and two territory road transport and traffic
authorities, the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport, the Australian Local
Government Association, and NZ Transport Agency. Austroads is governed by a Board consisting
of the chief executive officer (or an alternative senior executive officer) of each of its eleven
member organisations:
Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales
Roads Corporation Victoria
Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland
Main Roads Western Australia
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure South Australia
Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources Tasmania
Department of Lands and Planning Northern Territory
Department of Territory and Municipal Services Australian Capital Territory
Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport
Australian Local Government Association
New Zealand Transport Agency.
The success of Austroads is derived from the collaboration of member organisations and others in
the road industry. It aims to be the Australasian leader in providing high quality information, advice
and fostering research in the road transport sector.
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Aims ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Scope .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.4 Outline ................................................................................................................................... 1
PART I – BRIDGE BEARINGS....................................................................................................... 2
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ON BRIDGE BEARINGS................................................................. 4
2.1 General .................................................................................................................................. 4
2.1.1 Historical Development ............................................................................................ 4
2.1.2 Functions of Bridge Bearings ................................................................................... 5
2.1.3 General Design Considerations................................................................................ 5
2.2 Common Types of Bridge Bearings ....................................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Elastomeric Bearings ............................................................................................... 6
2.2.2 Pot Bearings ............................................................................................................ 9
2.2.3 Mechanical Bearings .............................................................................................. 13
2.2.4 Disc and Spherical Bearings .................................................................................. 16
2.2.5 General Causes of Bearing Failure ........................................................................ 18
2.3 Design Codes/Specifications ............................................................................................... 18
2.3.1 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification .......................................................... 18
2.3.2 European EN 1337................................................................................................. 23
2.3.3 Comparison of AS 5100 with AASHTO LRFD and EN 1337 ................................... 27
3 AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURERS OF BRIDGE BEARINGS ............................................ 28
3.1 Granor Rubber and Engineering Pty. Ltd ............................................................................. 28
3.1.1 Types of Bearings Manufactured ............................................................................ 28
3.1.2 Manufacturer Recommendations ........................................................................... 30
3.2 Ludowici............................................................................................................................... 32
3.2.1 Types of Bearings Manufactured ............................................................................ 32
3.2.2 Manufacturer Recommendations ........................................................................... 33
3.3 Trelleborg ............................................................................................................................ 34
3.3.1 Types of Bearings Manufactured ............................................................................ 34
3.3.2 Manufacturer Recommendations ........................................................................... 36
4 STATE ROAD AUTHORITY EXPERIENCES WITH BRIDGE BEARINGS ......................... 37
4.1 Popular Types of Bridge Bearings Used Nationwide ............................................................ 37
4.1.1 Elastomeric Bearings ............................................................................................. 37
4.1.2 Pot Bearings .......................................................................................................... 39
4.1.3 Mechanical Bearings .............................................................................................. 40
4.1.4 Mortar Pads ........................................................................................................... 42
4.2 Roads and Maritime Services, New South Wales (RMS) ..................................................... 43
4.2.1 Specifications ......................................................................................................... 43
4.2.2 Design and Construction ........................................................................................ 44
4.2.3 Testing ................................................................................................................... 45
4.2.4 Failures .................................................................................................................. 45
4.2.5 Repair and Maintenance ........................................................................................ 48
Austroads 2012
— i—
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— ii —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— iii —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— iv —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— v—
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— vi —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
TABLES
Note: Part I runs from pages 2 to 77. Part II runs from pages 78 to 160.
Austroads 2012
— vii —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
FIGURES
Note: Part I runs from pages 2 to 77. Part II runs from pages 78 to 160.
Austroads 2012
— viii —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Figure 4.27: General view of bearing WBEAN1 showing poor mortar pads and
vertical curve on bearing base................................................................................ 62
Figure 4.28: Bearing WBEAN1 showing poor mortar, bearing recessed into abutment
top and vertical curve of bearing base ................................................................... 63
Figure 4.29: Bearing WBEAN1 showing minor damage to pads, loss of contact
between bearing and top pad and edge of bearing being in the same
plane as top and bottom mortar pads ..................................................................... 63
Figure 2.1: Steel sliding plates ................................................................................................. 82
Figure 2.2: Asphaltic plug joint ................................................................................................. 83
Figure 2.3: Pourable sealant joint ............................................................................................. 84
Figure 2.4: Compression seal joint ........................................................................................... 85
Figure 2.5: Strip seal joint ........................................................................................................ 86
Figure 2.6: An example of moulded rubber joint ....................................................................... 87
Figure 2.7: Bonded metal/elastomer joint ................................................................................. 88
Figure 2.8: Finger type expansion joint..................................................................................... 89
Figure 2.9: Example of a modular expansion joint .................................................................... 90
Figure 3.1: Wabo modular joint system .................................................................................... 95
Figure 3.2: ETIC finger joint ..................................................................................................... 96
Figure 3.3: Granor Ausflex strip joint ........................................................................................ 97
Figure 3.4: Components of Granor Ausflex strip joint ............................................................... 97
Figure 3.5: Wabo compression seals ....................................................................................... 98
Figure 3.6: Granor Ausflex compression seal ........................................................................... 99
Figure 3.7: Granor Wizflex expansion joint ............................................................................... 99
Figure 3.8: Two series of Waboflex joints ............................................................................... 100
Figure 3.9: Granor XJS expansion joint .................................................................................. 100
Figure 3.10: Prismo-Thormajoint .............................................................................................. 101
Figure 3.11: Miska bolted-in bridge expansion joint .................................................................. 104
Figure 3.12: Miska cast-in bridge expansion joint ..................................................................... 105
Figure 3.13: Miska compression joint ....................................................................................... 105
Figure 3.14: Miska ZealCrete™ elastomeric concrete .............................................................. 106
Figure 3.15: Maurer Sohne modular joint ................................................................................. 106
Figure 3.16: Maurer swivel-joist expansion joint ....................................................................... 107
Figure 3.17: Two-way obliquely arranged swivel support bars and joist boxes ......................... 107
Figure 3.18: TESA PHS System .............................................................................................. 108
Figure 3.19: TESA strip seal joints ........................................................................................... 108
Figure 3.20: Transflex expansion joints .................................................................................... 109
Figure 4.1: Some types of fixed joints used in Queensland .................................................... 112
Figure 4.2: Sliding steel plate joint.......................................................................................... 113
Figure 4.3: Asphaltic plug joint ............................................................................................... 113
Figure 4.4: Pourable sealant joint used in Queensland .......................................................... 114
Figure 4.5: Sealant joints used in NSW .................................................................................. 114
Figure 4.6: Compression seal joint using steel angles ............................................................ 114
Figure 4.7: A compression seal joint used in NSW ................................................................. 115
Figure 4.8: A strip seal joint used in NSW .............................................................................. 115
Figure 4.9: A bonded metal/elastomer joint used in Western Australia ................................... 116
Figure 4.10: A fingerplate joint used in NSW ............................................................................ 116
Figure 4.11: Maurer Sohne modular expansion joint ................................................................ 117
Figure 4.12: Loss of seal adhesion........................................................................................... 122
Figure 4.13: Spall and debris blocking the joint ........................................................................ 122
Figure 4.14: Loss of adhesion on sides of the compression seal .............................................. 123
Figure 4.15: Spall and loose nut of a compression joint ........................................................... 123
Figure 4.16: Broken anchor bolts and assembly breaking loose............................................... 124
Austroads 2012
— ix —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Figure 4.17: Joint blocked with debris and spalls appearing at joint edges ............................... 124
Figure 4.18: Typical deck joint showing minimum transverse reinforcement ............................ 126
Figure 4.19: Wabo joint filled with debris .................................................................................. 130
Figure 4.20: Damaged section of steel angle in a compression seal joint ................................. 131
Figure 4.21: Damaged seal in deck joint .................................................................................. 131
Figure 4.22: Missing seal in deck joint ...................................................................................... 131
Figure 4.23: Failures of a metal fingers-bonded to elastomer joint in Shelley bridge
No. 931 in WA ...................................................................................................... 132
Figure 4.24: Failures of fingerplate type joints in Mt Henry bridge, WA .................................... 133
Figure 4.25: A strip seal on Craig Gilbert bridge, bolts were loosened ..................................... 135
Figure 4.26: A Granor XJS joint with silicone seal failure ......................................................... 136
Figure 4.27: A Felspan joint with debonded rubber .................................................................. 136
Figure 4.28: Damaged asphaltic plug joint in Bridge 1056, cracks along the edges ................. 139
Figure 4.29: A compression seal joint with concrete nosing in Bridge 1147,
deteriorated seal and damaged nosings ............................................................... 139
Figure 4.30: A compression seal joint with steel angles in Bridge 1249, protrusion of
and minor damage/wear to compression seals..................................................... 140
Figure 4.31: An XJS joint in Bridge 2097, cracked nosings ...................................................... 140
Figure 4.32: A Felspan joint in Bridge 2097, damaged joint and missing sections .................... 140
Figure 4.33: A mechanical finger joint in Bridge 2113, a male finger joint segment
broken out ............................................................................................................ 141
Figure 4.34: A deteriorated Transflex joint in Bridge 4087 ........................................................ 141
Austroads 2012
— x—
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
SUMMARY
In modern bridge structures, bridge bearings and expansion joints are commonly the source of
most maintenance and performance issues. In some situations their performance can lead to the
closure/failure of major structures and their maintenance can be extremely difficult and costly to
implement. Most of these problems can be overcome if robust design and installation rules are
implemented to ensure their design and construction deliver highly durable and reliable
components, and that the lessons learnt from practice are fully addressed in the future design and
maintenance of these components, thus leading to improved performance.
The fact that each State Road Authority has developed and/or used its own technical guidelines
and specifications has brought in a level of inconsistency in the current practice throughout the
country. The report also provides recommendations on future directions to overcome this issue.
Austroads 2012
— xi —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In modern bridge structures, bridge bearings and expansion joints are commonly the source of
most maintenance and performance issues. In some situations their performance can lead to the
closure/failure of major structures, and their maintenance can be extremely difficult and costly to
implement. Most of these problems can be overcome if robust design rules are implemented to
ensure their design and construction delivers highly durable and reliable bridge components, and
that designers make due allowance for their future maintenance so that it can be undertaken in an
acceptable and affordable manner.
The project was conceived to develop such guidelines for the design and construction of both
bridge bearings and bridge expansion joints to overcome performance issues experienced in
Australian bridges. The primary objective is to obtain failure modes of bearings and joints
experienced throughout Australia and develop design, construction and/or maintenance solutions
to overcome these issues.
1.2 Aims
The aims of the overall research project are to:
Review existing Australian and International literature on bridge bearings and expansion
joints.
Collect and report State Road Authority (SRA) experiences with the design, construction
inspection, maintenance, repair and failures of all types of bridge bearings and expansion
joints.
Develop Austroads guidelines addressing critical issues in the maintenance of existing types
of bridge bearings and expansion joints and investigate the introduction of new types of
bridge bearings.
Identify specific research and development investigations that will deliver the data relevant to
understanding the performance of these structures in the Australian environment.
1.3 Scope
Bridge bearings and expansion joints specifically designed for seismic requirements or used for
special bridge structures are out of scope of this project.
1.4 Outline
This report includes two parts: Part I – Bridge Bearings and Part II – Bridge Expansion Joints. The
structure of the two parts is identical.
Austroads 2012
— 1—
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— 2—
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
1 INTRODUCTION
The contents of Part I – Bridge Bearings are briefly summarised below.
Section 2 presents a literature review that summarises the features, usage and performance of
bridge bearings throughout the world. Thus, the common failures of the common type of bearings
are identified.
Section 3 describes the current practice in manufacture and supply of bridge bearings of some
popular Australian providers.
Section 4 describes SRAs’ experience in design, installation and maintenance of bridge bearings.
Common failure modes of various types of bearing are derived from SRAs’ information, based on
which the key issues in design, manufacture, construction and maintenance of bridge bearings are
identified.
Section 5 presents an investigation into failures of some common bridge bearing types that have
been used in the past and will be continued in new bridge designs, and proposes changes to the
current version of the Australian Bridge Design Standard AS 5100 part 4. Proposed changes for
other bearing types are also addressed in this section.
Section 6 proposes a generic specification for new types of bridge bearing to be introduced in
Australia practice – spherical and disc bearings.
Austroads 2012
— 3—
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
The concept of bearings was introduced in the 19th century when cast iron and steel materials were
used in bridge construction. Longer span bridges made use of flexible supports to accommodate
the contraction and expansion movements at support points due to temperature changes. The first
types of bearing were metal plates sliding on one another, or roller bearings. These bearings were
popular for a century in steel bridges.
In the 20th century, with the booming construction and development of infrastructure and the
development of advanced technologies, more slender bridge structures were built, including large
span prestressed concrete bridges. These structures require bearing devices that can
accommodate larger rotational and translational movements. As a result, new materials for
bearings were introduced, including rubber and a combination of rubber and steel laminates.
In 1932 French railways were the first to make use of rubber pads on a railway bridge at La Plaine
St Denis in Paris by placing them underneath steel bearings to absorb vibration.
It was Eugene Freyssinet who first combined rubber and steel into a single product to strengthen
the bearing capacity of rubber. In 1952, the first rubber-steel bearings were manufactured by
Freyssinet that consisted of a stack of elastomer layers and sheets of tinned metal grillage. The
metal grillage was replaced by steel plates in 1956 when the first laminated elastomeric bearings
were manufactured (Raina 1994).
In Australia, bridge works are carried out under the authority of independently operated State Road
Authorities in the eight states and territories. The previous Austroads Bridge Design Code
(Austroads 1992) sets out the requirements for design, manufacture, testing and installation of the
most common types of bearings, including mechanical bearings, elastomeric bearings and pot
bearings. AS 5100, which was in effect in 2004, added some provisions regarding design criteria
for pot bearings and sliding contact surfaces at the ultimate limit states (ULS) as well as testing of
elastomer and laminated elastomeric bearings. However, no provisions have been made towards
the implementation of spherical and disc bearings.
Austroads 2012
— 4—
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Durability
Corrosion of metal bearing components is one of the most common causes of bearing failures.
Thus provisions should be made to avoid corrosion, particularly in aggressive conditions, such as
use of stainless steel, use of materials having similar electrode potentials and detailing the bearing
in such a way that it does not trap moisture or dirt.
Earthquake design
The capacity of bearings to resist horizontal loads such as earthquake loads should be considered
in the design. Restraint can be provided by means of separate dowels or special keys.
Other considerations
A variety of other factors such as spreader plates, uplift, and limit states should be considered in
the bearing design, as follows:
Spreader plates: the spreader plates of bearings should be so proportioned so that
concentrated loads are sufficiently distributed to ensure that the permissible pressures on the
adjacent bridge structure are not exceeded (Raina 1994).
Uplift: if the bearings will be subjected to uplift, they and their fixings must be designed to
limit separation of the parts. In particular, rubber should not be allowed to go into tension and
sliding surfaces should not be allowed to separate. This would allow dust, grit and other
abrasive or corrosive materials to enter and affect the sliding surface (Lee 1994).
Limit states: the bearings should not suffer damage that would affect their proper functioning
or incur excessive maintenance during their working life to meet the serviceability limit state
(SLS). To meet the ULS, the strength and stability of the bearings should be adequate to
withstand the ultimate design loads and movements of the structure (Lee 1994).
Austroads 2012
— 5—
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
These types of bearings can meet a number of requirements such as capability of translational
movement in both longitudinal and transverse directions, rotational movement and vibration
isolation for the superstructure. In addition, they have a number of advantages including low cost,
ease of installation, long service life, low maintenance, and corrosion protection. Due to high
resistance to rotation, they are, however, unsuitable under high rotation or excessive longitudinal
movement with low compressive load.
Combined with an effective method of anchoring via friction or dowels through the bearing,
elastomeric bearings provide a system that can be used in a wide range of applications. There
exist two common bearing forms:
Fixed bearings – when the horizontal movement is restrained by the use of steel dowels that
extend from the superstructure, through holes in the bearing to the substructure.
Alternatively, the superstructure can be fixed to the substructure by separate fixtures to
provide restraint.
Expansion bearings – the horizontal movement in an elastomeric bearing occurs by the
shearing of the rubber such that the top of the bearing moves relative to the bottom of the
bearing. Internal or external restraints should be provided to ensure the bearings do not ‘walk
out’.
Elastomeric bearings include three types, being plain pads, plain strips and laminated elastomeric
bearings (LEB) and are used as follows:
Continuous strip bearings of plain elastomer up to 125 x 25 mm in cross-section, which are
used to support slabs and pre-stressed concrete planks.
Plain elastomeric bearing pads, having varying thicknesses up to 25 mm, are used to support
pre-stressed concrete planks and short span girders where individual bearing supports are
required. They are usually rectangular but can also be specified or used as circular. The
advantage of circular bearings is that they have uniform characteristics in all directions. This
is particularly useful on skew bridges to accommodate the pier movements not along the
bridge. These bearings have limited vertical load capacity, shear movement and rotational
capacities compared to the thicker laminated bearings described below.
LEB pads are either rectangular up to 600 mm x 600 mm x 293 mm thick or circular up to
880 mm diameter x 309 mm thick (Figure 2.1) and are used to support pre-stressed concrete
girders, troughs and steel girders up to 40 m spans. The bearings consist of elastomer
reinforced by a number of embedded steel plates. The number of plates and the height of the
bearing increase as the bearing capacity and/or movement range increases.
Austroads 2012
— 6—
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
The capacity of the above three types of elastomeric bearings is listed in Table 2.1.
Design basis
The design of elastomeric bearings is based on a limit on the combined effects of compressive
strain, shear strain and rotational strain (Figure 2.2).
Austroads 2012
— 7—
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
successive shearing movement. It is for this reason that the use of neat epoxy resin on the bearing
support is not permitted.
Materials
For elastomer manufacture, natural rubber is specified in AASHTO LRFD, BS 5400 and AS 5100.
Synthetic rubbers such as neoprene and chlorobutyl are also used. Although the material is
cheaper, it has some disadvantages compared to natural rubber such as poor ratio of elastic
modulus to shear modulus, poorer performance and brittleness at low temperatures (neoprene).
Chlorobutyl, however, has good abrasion resistance.
Selection of natural or synthetic rubber depends on the site conditions. The selected rubber should
have good resistance to the actions of oils, weather, atmospheric ozone, and extreme
temperatures. For example, when the lowest temperature is -10 °C then natural rubber is selected,
when the highest likely temperature is 60 °C or when oil or grease may be present, chloroprene is
a suitable choice (Lee 1994).
Beside steel reinforced bearings, cotton fabric reinforced (cotton duck) bearings and fibre
reinforced bearings have been introduced (Gase & Kaczinski, 2006). The former are stiff against
shear and rotation and can accommodate high compressive loads, thus are commonly used with a
PTFE sliding surface, while the latter have not proven to offer an economical advantage over the
steel reinforced bearings.
Common faults/defects
The following failure modes have been reported in the literature (Fyfe et al. 2006):
cracking of elastomer
excessive bulging or splitting under vertical loads
slippage and irregular contact of the bearing surfaces
migration of bearings from their original as placed seat
changes in rubber properties with aging
ozone cracking.
Recommendations
The following summary of the performance aspects of elastomeric bearings was presented in
Austroads (2001):
Although elastomeric bearings have performed well, provisions for jacking and re-positioning
should be made due to the long-term creep and shrinkage shortening.
Elastomeric bearings are the first choice of bearings for most small to medium span bridges.
These bearings are not recommended when small loads are coupled with considerable
longitudinal movements, for instance, for end spans of continuous bridges.
Austroads 2012
— 8—
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Construction issues
In the installation of elastomeric bearings the following issues need to be addressed:
The mortar pad must be planar to ensure uniform bearing and the plan dimensions of the
mortar pad must exceed the plan dimension of the bearing to ensure a clearance of at least
25 mm. This is to ensure friction is developed to prevent curling of the edges of the bearing
that may lead to tearing of the elastomer.
The safety and stability of tall bearings. The use of tall LEBs to support individual girders
presents a stability issue and therefore a safety issue during construction as they may be
unstable in terms of rotation and shearing until the in situ deck is constructed. To address
this issue, temporary restraints must be provided to prevent the girders sliding off the
bearings or rotating and falling. The temporary supports must be fixed before the girder is
released from the lifting mechanism.
Effect of crossfall
If girders are placed normal to the deck crossfall the deflection of the girder will have a vertical and
a horizontal component. The horizontal displacement may cause the centre of gravity to shift to the
point where the girder becomes unstable. The design of the temporary bracing should take this into
account, if applicable.
Thermal effects
The stability of bearings and girders can also be affected by thermal effects. Solar heating of one
side of a girder may cause the member to bow with the possibility of the centre of gravity shifting
horizontally to the point where the girder becomes unstable. To address this issue, temporary
restraints must be provided to prevent the girders sliding off the bearings or rotating and falling.
The temporary supports must be fixed before the girder is released from the lifting mechanism.
When the member is placed on the bearing a close inspection should be carried out to ensure
uniform seating. Rotation of the member under the subsequent dead load of the deck concrete will
correct the situation to some degree. However, if a significant gap exists between the bearing and
the member, remedial measures will need to be taken. This may involve correcting the levels on
the mortar pad.
Laminated bearings under load result in a minor rippling of the vertical surface. Excessive rippling
on one side of a bearing compared to the other indicates unequal loading and may lead to splitting
of the protruding rubber. Remedial action may be required to address the issue.
Uneven loading of elastomeric bearings results in differential compressive strains and may require
remedial action.
Austroads 2012
— 9—
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
When rubber is confined in this way under pressure it acts as a fluid and as a result the top plate of
the bearing can rock on the pad in any direction. The rubber pad has a number of circumferential
bronze sealing rings that are vulcanised or recessed into the top of the rubber (Figure 2.3).
The purpose of the rings is to prevent the extrusion of the rubber from the pot. Instances have
occurred where the rubber pad has extruded out of the pot as a result of either excessive
clearance between the rings and the internal diameter of the pot or an insufficient number of
sealing rings (Figure 2.4).
Figure 2.4: Extrusion of rubber from pot bearing due to broken seal
When load is applied to the bearing, the rubber pad expands and the sealing rings bear against the
vertical face of the pot creating the seal. The maximum permitted clearance between the pot and
the piston is 1 mm. Pot bearings are much thinner in height compared to bearings used in the past
and are ideal as replacement bearings on older bridges.
Austroads 2012
— 10 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Pot bearings are able to support large compressive loads, but the elastomer may leak and the
sealing rings may suffer wear or damage (Roeder et al. 1995).
The range of sliding movement of a bearing is only limited by the length of the top sliding plate.
Similar to fixed bearings, the bottom plate of expansion bearings is fixed to the superstructure by
bolting the pot section to a plate cast into the member. The bottom plate is fixed to the headstock
by bolting the piston section to a plate cast into the member. In each case the clearance between
the cast-in plates must be sufficient to allow the bolts to be removed to facilitate any future
replacement of the bearing (Figure 2.6).
Expansion pot bearings are available in two forms – the free sliding/free floating bearing
(Figure 2.6) or the glided sliding bearing (Figure 2.7).
Austroads 2012
— 11 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
The free sliding bearing is used where the designer wants the bridge to be able to slide in all
directions. The guided sliding bearing is used where lateral restraint of the superstructure is
required and also to ‘guide’ the direction of movement.
The guides are bolted to the sliding plate. In instances where future lateral movement of piers is
anticipated e.g. mining subsidence, provision can be made for the replacement of the guides with
wider or narrower guide plates to suit the situation.
A combination of a free sliding bearing and a guided sliding bearing is often specified on curved
bridges to ensure the bridge is provided with free movement.
Austroads 2012
— 12 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Usage
Pot bearings are used to sustain vertical forces in the range of 1200 kN to 10 000 kN and can
accommodate rotations of up to 0.02 rad (Chen & Duan 2003), thus they can be used for a wide
range of modern bridges. Low load eccentricity under rotation is one of their strong features.
However, they have limited ability to accept rotation at low vertical load.
Common faults/defects
The following faults of pot bearings have been reported (Majumdar & Datta 2006, Fyfe et al. 2006):
leakage of elastomer due to broken seals
abrasion or wear of the elastomeric pad
breakdown of protective system: corrosion of metal components.
Some possible causes of the failures were reported in Majumdar and Datta (2006) and Shiau et al.
(2008):
Poor design of components, which leaves little spaces for ease of installation, inspection and
maintenance.
Use of inappropriate materials for bearing accessories, such as indicator, scale meter, and
sealing rings.
Poor quality corrosive protection layer in fabricated steel bearings.
Excessive rotation, rotation cycles or lateral load.
Inadequate lubrication of the elastomer pad.
Materials
Materials used for pot bearing components include:
Metal components can be made of fabricated steel or stainless steel. For instance,
AASHTO LRFD specifies that steel used for pot bearings be structural steel ASTM A 709M,
grade 250, 345 or 345W or stainless steel ASTM A 240M.
Sliding surfaces (in glided and free floating pot bearings) usually comprise a PTFE disc and a
stainless steel surface. The PTFE is lubricated.
Elastomer pads: according to AASHTO LRFD, elastomeric disc shall be made from a
compound based on virgin natural rubber or virgin neoprene with nominal hardness of the
range 50-60 on the Shore A scale.
Construction issues
Pot bearings are dispatched with transit bolts to ensure the bearing remains intact in transit. The
bolts must be removed once the bearing is in place.
Austroads 2012
— 13 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Rocker bearings comprise a curved surface in contact with a flat or another curved surface
and constrained to prevent relative horizontal movement. The curve surface may be
cylindrical or spherical. The rotation is allowed by rolling of one part on another
(Figure 2.8 b, c).
Roller bearings consist of one or more steel cylinders between parallel upper and lower steel
plates. Single roller bearings can accommodate rotational movements about the roller’s axis
and translational movements in the perpendicular direction with the axis. Multiple roller
bearings can only provide translational movement, but can also permit rotation by adding
another element such as a rocker or knuckle bearing. These bearings can be seen in large
span steel truss bridges (Figure 2.8 d, e, f).
Knuckle bearings are another type of rocker bearing. They include two or more members
with mating curved surfaces, which may be spherical or cylindrical. Another form is the pin
type, where the upper and the lower plates have a concave cylindrical surface mating with a
core pin. Knuckle bearings permit rotation by rolling on the contact surface
(Figure 2.8 g, h, i).
Leaf bearings consist of a pin passing through a number of interleaved plates fixed
alternatively to the upper and lower outer bearing plates. Pin bearings permit only rotational
movement, but can be used in combination with roller bearings to provide rotation and
translation. Uplift can be accommodated by this type of bearing (Figure 2.8 i).
Common faults/defects
A number of failure modes have been reported in the literature (Austroads 2001, Fyfe et al. 2006);
they include:
The main problem has been corrosion of the steel, particularly at the sliding interfaces
leading to a frozen bearing. Roller or rocker bearings fabricated with stainless steel
components including bolts are generally free of corrosion.
Cracking and spalling of mortar or concrete under the bearing plate.
Frozen bearings (rocker, roller, sliding plates).
There was a catastrophic failure of rocker bearings in the USA where a domino collapse of
four spans occurred due to the rockers becoming unstable at fairly mild angles of tilt. It is
recommended that this type of bearing not be used on modern bridges (Fyfe et al. 2006).
Mechanical cylindrical, rocker and roller bearings can only perform satisfactorily if the ‘door
hinge’ analogy is followed, that is, if all hinges are in line. Thus those bearings should not be
used for skew bridges (Fyfe et al. 2006).
The metal-to-metal contacts in metal bearings easily trap dirt and moisture, thus causing
corrosion and leading to freezing of bearing components, which is one of the most common
failures of this type of bearing. Lubricants have been used and found to trap debris and
moisture and also cause corrosion to develop. Mechanical bearings should not be used for
new bridge designs (Gase & Kaczinski 2006). Where practical, metal bearings should only
be considered for fixed bearing types (AASHTO & NSBA 2005).
Austroads 2012
— 14 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
a – Sliding plates
Austroads 2012
— 15 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Spherical bearings
Spherical bearings essentially consist of a spherical sliding surface, a lower and an upper bearing
plate. The spherical sliding surface features a concave bearing plate mating with a convex to allow
rotations. Translational movements can be accommodated by a top sliding plate. Similarly to disc
bearings, this type of bearing is also a high load, multi-rotational compact bearing that can be used
to accommodate thermal, seismic and mechanical expansion and contraction.
Watson’s RJW spherical bearings consist of a concave bearing plate, a convex mating plate, an
upper sole plate and a lower masonry plate. Sliding surfaces comprise bonded PTFE mated to
highly polished stainless steel. They come in three types, being fixed, guided expansion and
non-guided expansion bearings (Figure 2.10).
Austroads 2012
— 16 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Maurer MSM sliding bearings are another type of spherical bearing. They consist of a disc with a
convex lower surface and flat top surface – both are made of proprietary MSM sliding material, a
base plate with a mating concave sliding surface and a top plate. The top plate can be equipped
with appropriate restraints to provide fixed or guided features. Otherwise, it is a multi-translational
bearing (Figure 2.11).
c – Guided bearings
Disc and spherical bearings have good ability to accept high rotation at constant eccentricity under
rotation and provide a low friction interface, however, they have limited ability to sustain horizontal
force at low vertical load and require regular maintenance.
Roeder et al. (1995) pointed out that disc bearings are susceptible to uplift during rotation, limiting
the use of this bearing type in bearings with PTFE sliding surfaces. Spherical bearings, on other
hand, can sustain large rotations but require proper clearances, and very smooth and accurate
machining.
It is recommended in AASHTO and NSBA (2005) that the actual design and detailing of the
bearings be left to the manufacturer, since each manufacturer has the resources to achieve the
Austroads 2012
— 17 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
greatest economy in bearing construction. The engineer just specifies the loads and geometric
requirements for the bearing.
Common faults/defects
The following modes of failure of spherical bearings have been reported (Austroads 2001):
breakdown of protective system
missing bolts
indentation and deformation of metal plates
sliding interface problems.
Disc bearings were first used in Canada in 1970 and in the USA in 1972. Since then early
installations have proven to perform well without any distress reported (Fyfe et al. 2006).
Austroads 2012
— 18 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
The AASHTO LRFD specifications states that the design of bearings to act as fuses or sustain
irreparable damage at the extreme event limit state may be allowed by the bridge owner provided
that the span is prevented from loss.
Gase and Kaczinski (2006) present the findings of collaborative research work between AASHTO
and NSBA (American National Steel Bridge Alliance) carried out in 2005 on the AASHTO LRFD
specifications in an effort to provide standardisation of the design and detailing of bridge bearings.
They are briefly summarised below.
Bearing types
AASHTO LRFD specifies three bearing categories, being elastomeric bearings, steel bearings and
high-load multi-rotational bearings (HLMR).
Elastomeric bearings include plain pads, steel reinforced and cotton duck bearings, as follows:
Plain pads rely upon friction at contact surface to resist bulging. Local slip resulting from
friction loss leads to increased strain, which limits load carrying capacity. Allowable stress is
a function of shape factor. The pads should be thin to carry maximum compressive load and
accommodate only small horizontal translations and rotations.
Austroads 2012
— 19 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Steel reinforced bearings usually include uniformly spaced elastomeric layers. The
translational and rotational movements are allowed by deformation of the elastomer. Steel
shims bonded to elastomer offer stiffness to resist lateral expansion of elastomer and
increase the compressive load capacity.
— Shape factor of the bearings correlates to compressive and rotational stiffness, which
in turn controls stress in steel plates and elastomer strain.
— Steel reinforced bearings provide larger rotations and translations than other types of
elastomeric bearings. If shear force is greater than 1/5 of minimum permanent dead
load, the bearing will be susceptible to slip and should be secured against horizontal
movement; this relates to the design coefficient of friction.
Cotton duck bearings are fabricated by vulcanising very thin layers of elastomer with cotton
fabric weave. These bearings can accommodate high compressive loads and resist
translation and are therefore commonly used with PTFE sliding surface.
Steel bearings
Steel bearings also include typical types such as plate bearings, roller and rocker bearings, which
distribute both vertical and horizontal forces through metal-to-metal contact. The rotation can
usually be allowed by a pin or knuckle but the movement is restricted. Metal-to-metal contact
causes corrosion and eventual ‘freezing’ of components. Lubricants trap debris which holds
moisture and promotes corrosion. Metal bearings should not be used for new bridge designs
except for special cases.
Austroads 2012
— 20 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Design requirements
Elastomeric bearings are designed by either AASHTO method A or B. Method B allows a
maximum compressive stress of 11 MPa for bearings subjected to shear deformations and 12 MPa
for fixed bearings. Method A allows 6.9 MPa compressive stresses regardless of style. All other
elastomeric bearings are designed under method A. The following requirements are specified:
Shear modulus (G) is the most important material property for design of elastomeric
bearings. Designers should use minimum and maximum values of G for various hardnesses.
Designers should account for the initial offset due to varying temperatures at the time of
installation by multiplying the design translation by a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 or
ensure that the contractor resets the bearing.
AASHTO requires the design rotation to be the sum of the rotations due to unfactored loads
and an allowance for uncertainties taken as 0.005 radians.
If the directions of movement and a live load rotation are along the same axis, rectangular
shapes are suitable. Circular bearings easily accommodate translation and rotation in any
direction.
Friction is greatest at low temperatures and low compressive stresses, thus the allowable
shear deformation of the bearing must be greater than the translation expected from the
frictional forces generated at the coldest expected temperature and the minimum design load
condition.
Austroads 2012
— 21 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
For disc bearings, due to the fact that they are less likely to experience metal-metal contact,
the total required allowance for rotation is less than that of other HLMR bearings. The shear
restriction mechanism should be designed to withstand the design horizontal forces without
exceeding the allowable shear, bending and bearing stresses excluding the shear resistance
of the disc.
Shear resistance from a urethane disc is reduced as the vertical compressive stress upon it
decreases, therefore it cannot resist horizontal forces.
Austroads 2012
— 22 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Masonry plates and anchor rods should be applied if horizontal force exceeds 1/5 of the
permanent vertical load for elastomeric bearings. This requirement will be met if the bearing
is specified to be shop vulcanise bonded to a masonry plate and then anchored to the
substructure. Anchor rods for HLMR bearings should generally be located beyond the imprint
of sole plate to avoid interference with other bearing components.
For lateral restraint, the external restraint systems for expansion of elastomeric bearings
should include a stainless steel or low coefficient of friction material (PTFE) sliding surface. A
pin, which is internal to the elastomeric bearing, can provide restraint in the horizontal
direction.
Longitudinally guided expansion bearings on structures with horizontally curved alignment
and non-parallel girders should be guided in the same direction as the centreline of the
substructure where the line of bearings is installed, since guiding at different directions will
cause the bearings to bind.
For uplift restraint, the uplift due to service loads should be avoided with strategic placement
of the dead load. The uplift restraint system for elastomeric bearings should be external to
the bearing (e.g. tie down anchor rods). HLMR can be designed to withstand low uplift forces
(from construction or seismic events).
A load plate should be considered for the elastomeric bearing if the hardness of the
elastomer is less than 90 durometers.
Protective coatings should be applied to metal bearing in the shop, prior to field installation.
Welding of exterior plates is prohibited unless there is a 38.1 mm steel thickness between
the elastomer and the weld and the temperature of the steel adjacent to the elastomer does
not exceed 93.3 °C (as elastomer is molded at 115.6 °C).
To control creep, the woven PTFE can be attached to the metallic substrate via mechanical
interlocking.
When HLMR bearings are designed to accommodate translation, the bearing manufacturer
must assume that the girder has been stiffened sufficiently to resist bending and local
buckling.
In 2006 a pooled fund study conducted in the USA Baker et al. (2006) developed the design
standards for pot bearings and provided recommendations for changes to the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications 1998 (Section 14.7.4). The recommendations mainly focused on the
replacement of a strength limit state (ULS) design by a service state limit (SLS) design, including:
Considering revising equations to SLS rotations for ease and consistency of design.
Revising the tolerance rotation back to 0.01 radians.
Strength limit state based formula in AASHTO LRFD 2004 for pot wall and base thickness
was considered to go back to Service limit state as per AASHTO LRFD 1998.
Height from top of piston rim to underside of piston to go back to Service limit state formula.
Depth of elastomeric disc, pot cavity depth, piston-pot wall vertical clearance, and piston rim
to wall clearance, all go back to respective Service limit state formula.
Austroads 2012
— 23 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
is based on limit state design principles. The adequacy of the bearings is verified through a
conformity evaluation. This typically includes type tests performed before starting production and
routine tests performed during the manufacture. The key aspects of the standard are summarised
below.
If combined with sliding elements, the bearings are suitable to allow permanent displacements
exceeding the allowed shear strain. The displacement capacity will be limited only by the
dimensions of the sliding plate.
The PTFE surface may be vulcanised to the elastomer but then the sliding elements shall be
considered only for irreversible movements such as creep, shrinkage, elastic deformation due to
post-tensioning and movements occurring during the construction phase.
Austroads 2012
— 24 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
It is specified that the resistance to wear of the internal seal be determined through a long-term
rotation test in which the bearing is subjected to a cyclic rotation until the internal seal is broken.
The accumulated sliding path of the seal against the wall of the pot is measured. This value shall
be multiplied by a factor of five to account for the severe test conditions, and then compared with
that calculated by the bridge designer due to variable loads. For the above-mentioned types of
seal, the accumulated slide paths are 1000 m, 2000 m, 2000 m, and 500 m, for brass, POM,
carbon filled PTFE, and stainless steel seals, respectively.
Spherical PTFE bearings consist of a backing plate with a convex spherical surface (rotational
element) and a backing plate with a concave spherical surface between which a PTFE sheet and
the mating material form a curved sliding surface. For fixed spherical bearings, the horizontal
forces can be transferred through the curved surface. The bearing will consist of two plates with
one interposed sliding surface. Alternatively, the horizontal forces can be transferred through a
restraining ring, and the bearing will consist of three plates with two sliding surfaces (one curved
and one flat).
Spherical bearings are used in combination with flat sliding elements to form free sliding bearings
or with a flat sling element and a guide to form sliding guided bearings. The guide can be internal
or external. For the former case, the horizontal force is transferred through the spherical surface
and is limited by the stress distribution on the PTFE surface. For higher horizontal forces, two
external guides can be used.
Austroads 2012
— 25 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Part 9 – Protection
The implementation of corrosion protection suitable to survive for at least 10 years before the first
maintenance in aggressive environmental conditions is required.
In addition to regular inspection, principal inspections shall be carried out at less frequent intervals.
This inspection should cover all the points in the regular inspection but in more detail. The first
principal inspection should be carried out within one year of the structure being put into service.
Part 11 specifies provisions regarding the transport, storage and installation of bearings.
This specification has been used in part by the RMS for assessment and design of pot and
spherical type bearings.
Austroads 2012
— 26 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Table 2.4: Pot bearing: comparison of AS 5100 to EN1337 and AASHTO LRFD (2007)
Pot bearings AS 5100.4 EN1337 AASHTO 2007
Materials
Elastomeric pad Natural rubber, IRHD 53 Neoprene or natural rubber Neoprene or natural rubber,
Shore A Durometer hardness
50±10 points
Metal components Fabricated steel or stainless steel Fabricated steel or stainless steel
Design loading ULS ULS Factored service loads
Maximum average rubber 50 MPa (ULS) 50 MPa (ULS) 25 MPa SLS (equivalent to
pressures 37.5 MPa at Strength Limit State)
Tests Physical properties of Wear tests on the elastomer Physical properties of
elastomer seal elastomer
Load tests: in compression, in Rotational stiffness tests Proof load
shear combined with Long-term friction tests Coefficient of friction
compression load, and in Physical properties of PTFE
rotation sheet
Physical properties of
polyether urethane structural
element
Compression set of polyether
urethane structural element
Uplift capability Yes No Not mentioned
Sliding surfaces
Maximum value of peak pressure 60 MPa (ULS) 60 MPa (ULS) 40 MPa (ULS)
on recessed PTFE
Mean pressure limit on recessed 50 MPa (ULS) Not mentioned 40 MPa (ULS)
PTFE
No provisions for disc and spherical bearings have been included in AS 5100.4.
According to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications (2004), spherical bearings shall
be fabricated, tested and installed as specified in the contract documents.
Austroads 2012
— 27 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Plain pad/strip
Granor plain pad/strip is manufactured in standard maximum length of 1830 mm. The thickness
varies from 3 to 25 mm, and the width of the cross-section ranges from 50 to 300 mm. This bearing
type can sustain working load range of 250 to 1300 kN/m and can accommodate shear
deformations of 1.5 to 13 mm with rotation capacity of 0.003 to 0.06 radians. Complying with
RMS-NSW Specification B280 (RTA 2006a) and Austroads Bridge Design Code (Austroads 1992),
these bearings also meet all requirements of AS 5100.4.
Pot bearings
Granor provides three types of pot bearings: fixed, free float and guide/slide bearings with
respective brand names of potstay, potfloat and potglide (Figure 3.1).
Designed for AS 5100.4, the bearings are classified by rated vertical load at the SLS, type of
bearing, ratio of horizontal and vertical loads, design transverse movement and design transverse
longitudinal movement. In particular, the bearings can be suitable for rated vertical loads at SLS in
the range of 300 to 10 000 kN, and horizontal loads at SLS in the range of 45 to 1500 kN for fixed
bearings and 30 to 1000 kN for guide/slide and free float bearings.
Austroads 2012
— 28 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
The bearings can accommodate rotations of 0.015 or 0.02 rads, transverse movements of 15 mm
for free float bearings, and longitudinal movements of 50 mm for guide/slide and free float
bearings.
Disktron bearing
Granor also manufactures RJ Watson’s disc bearings under license. They come in three types,
being fixed, uni-directional, and multi-directional bearings (Figure 3.3).
This type of bearing has a very compact design and can accommodate design loads up to
44 500 kN. High rotation capacity exceeding 0.08 rads, uplift, flexible guided and sliding isolation
capacities for bearings in seismic areas are additional features. In addition, this bearing type can
be used for all ratios of live to dead load, and the minimum horizontal load capacity is 10% of the
vertical load (Granor website).
Austroads 2012
— 29 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Plain strip/pads
A support area greater than the nominal plan size of the bearing is recommended as the
unreinforced plain pad/strip will spread or squirm when loaded. Usually a minimum value of
25 mm will be spared on all edges of the pad/strips.
If a mortar pad is used then a minimum thickness of 10 mm shall be used together with 45o
chamfer on the mortar pad sides. If the thickness of the mortar pad is greater than 25 mm
then reinforcement may be recommended.
Surfaces should be flat, free of cavities or projections and rough in texture. Use of adhesive
is not recommended.
Sheathing the bearing with a suitable fire resistant material or insulating material is
recommended if fire resistance is required. Alternatively, minimisation of any settlement if the
bearing was destroyed by fire should be taken into consideration.
In an email from Oscar Velo (Granor) on 13 December 2010, further comments on current practice
and future directions from a local manufacturer’s point of view were provided as set out below.
Austroads 2012
— 30 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Bearing failures
Plain elastomeric bearing pads and strips
These bearings have minimum application problems. Manufacture faults are very uncommon and
would only manifest if improper compounds were used resulting in inferior ozone resistance, and
early age hardening. ‘Walk out’ failure may occur because the pads design load bearing capacity is
incorrectly calculated or when the slippage criterion of the pads is incorrectly addressed.
Insufficient allowance for construction rotation arising from beam hog and camber issues may
cause ‘lift off’ from the bearing at one or more corners.
Recent trends in engaging in overseas manufacture of these bearings have led to some
documented suspect and faulty bearing supplies arising from production issues relating to poor
internal alignment of steel plate layers which manifests as visually poor non-uniform bulges and
ribs of rubber surface around the perimeter of the bearings.
Premature wearing of the PTFE at the PTFE and stainless steel slide interface can also be a
common failure or in-service maintenance problem.
Poor installation techniques have also contributed significantly to in-service failures and reduced
longevity of the component. However, installation rules and methodology advice is lacking in
current AS 5100 and SRA specifications.
Austroads 2012
— 31 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
3.2 Ludowici
3.2.1 Types of Bearings Manufactured
Ludowici’s website indicates that it manufactures the two most popular bearing types in Australia,
being laminated elastomeric and pot bearings.
Technical notes by Davison et al. (2004) issued after the release of AS 5100.4 addressed changes
in AS 5100.4 compared to the obsolete Austroads Bridge Design Code (1992) and AS 1523
(Elastomeric Bearings for Use in Structures).
Pot bearings
This bearing type is available in three categories with the brand names Fixed SD Series, Guided
SD Series & Multi-Directional SD Series. Series A and Series B denotes bearing types with high
and medium shear capacities, respectively. This bearing is designed for ULS loadings and meets
the latest Australian and international standards (AS 5100.4 and EN 1337).
Austroads 2012
— 32 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— 33 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
In an email on 16 February 2011, Graham Davidson recommended that the current Australian
bridge design standard (AS 5100) should provide additional requirements for the design of pot
bearings as follows:
Pressure at the bearing and mortar interface should be specified, (and clarified to be at that
interface) based on a 60 degree distribution circle from the edge of the potpad, or the PTFE
as applicable. This determines the thickness of plates within the bearing and any attachment
or distribution plates which distribute the load – which otherwise can be ’designed down to a
price’.
PTFE should be etched and bonded into recesses. This is a significant cost, but is justified,
because PTFE that becomes displaced from its recess is crushed and starts to extrude.
Stainless steel should not only be 316/2B, but should be machine polished to a mirror finish
(#8 polish). This does not affect the initial friction significantly, but there is research which
found that it gives better long-term wear and less long-term friction.
3.3 Trelleborg
3.3.1 Types of Bearings Manufactured
Elastomeric bearing pad/strip
Trelleborg elastomeric bearing pads and strips (Figure 3.5) are designed and manufactured in
accordance with AS 5100.4 and RMS NSW B280 specifications.
The available thickness varies from 5 to 25 mm, and the width of the cross-section ranges from 50
to 250 mm. Other sizes are supplied upon request. This bearing type can sustain a working load
range of 200 to 1000 kN/m and can accommodate shear deformations of 2 to 13 mm with rotation
capacity of 0.002 to 0.058 radians.
Pot bearings
Trelleborg pot bearings (Figure 3.6) are available in three types, being fixed (TF), guided (TGe)
and free (TGa). They can be designed and manufactured in accordance to AS 5100.4,
AASHTO LRFD or BS 5400 (Trelleborg website).
This type of bearing can sustain large vertical load up to 40 000 kN. Information on rotational and
movement capacity is not available on the website.
Austroads 2012
— 34 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Spherical bearings
Trelleborg also acts as an agent for Maurer Sohne spherical bearings (Figure 3.8). MSM slide and
spherical bearings provide large loading capacity (up to 45 000 kN).
Trelleborg also has a base isolation bearing-seismic bearing available. The base isolation bearing-
seismic bearing provides self-centering devices that allow displacement between a structure it
supports, allowing dissipation of energy to reduce structural damage due to earthquake movement.
Austroads 2012
— 35 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— 36 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Plain pads and strips (Figure 4.1) are used in small span bridges (7.5-15 m span). Pads are used
in girder bridges while strips are used in prestressed concrete planks. The dimensions vary from
50-250 mm in width and 5-25 mm in thickness. The length can be selected based on actual needs.
These bearings may accommodate maximum vertical force to 1000 kN/m, translation to 15 mm
and rotation to 0.05 rad. Dowels are often used to make fixed bearings.
Laminated elastomeric bearings (Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3) are used for larger span (7.5-40 m)
prestressed concrete planks, concrete I girder, super T or steel girder bridges. Designers may
select a suitable bearing from a list of standard bearings in Appendix A of AS 5100.4. There are
rectangular and circular shapes. For rectangular bearings, the plan dimensions vary in width
(230-600 mm), length (170-600 mm), and thickness (35-293 mm). For circular bearings, the
Austroads 2012
— 37 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
diameter varies in the range of 240-880 mm and the thickness 35-309 mm. The rectangular
bearings may sustain a vertical load ranging from 145 kN to 5046 kN and may accommodate a
translation in the range 10-114 mm. The relative values for circular bearings are 196-8713 kN and
10-124.5 mm, respectively. If required, movement may be restrained by external devices
(Figure 4.4).
Circular bearings are often used in large bridges and skewed or curved bridges where the direction
of thermal movements may not be well defined. Rectangular bearings are used for straight bridges
where the direction of thermal movements can be transverse or along the beam axis. In these
cases, rectangular bearings are used to reduce the bearing size while still ensuring the required
shear capacity.
Austroads 2012
— 38 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— 39 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Plate bearings have been used for girder bridges with a span less than 15 m. They may be in a
form of fixed bearings (Figure 4.7) or sliding bearings (Figure 4.8 and Figure 4.9).
Austroads 2012
— 40 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
For spans larger than 15 m, rocker bearings have been used (Figure 4.10 to Figure 4.12).
Austroads 2012
— 41 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Simple mortar pads (Figure 4.13) have been used for small bridges (span less than 7.5 m).
Austroads 2012
— 42 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
B280 and B281 set out the requirements for the supply of unreinforced elastomeric bearing pads
and strips, and laminated elastomeric bearings, respectively. Generally they conform to AS 5100.4,
except specifying some requirements in more detail. For elastomeric pads and strips, the main
differences between B280 and AS 5100.4 are outlined in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Differences between RMS specification for elastomeric pads and strips and AS 5100.4
For laminated elastomeric bearings, RMS specification B281 requires that all bearings shall be
tested in compression and shear, and one per 20 identical bearings shall be tested in rotation. In
addition, the tolerance in compressive stiffness is required to be 15% of the mean value of all
bearings in a batch.
Austroads 2012
— 43 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
B282 specifies the requirements for the design, fabrication, testing, protective treatment, supply
and installation of structural steel pot bearings and associated attachment plates. The main
differences compared to AS 5100.4 are summarised below:
Materials used for sliding surfaces and guide bars shall conform to ASTM 240M while they
shall conform to AS 1449 type 316 2B in AS 5100.4.
The gap between piston and cylinder shall be no less than 0.5 mm while in AS 5100.4, it
requires this gap to be no greater than 1.0 mm.
A provision for lubricant used in a pot bearing was added in which B282 specified that a
silicone compound conforms with the test method ASTM D217 or ASTM D972.
For an elastomeric disc, the maximum gap between pot and disc in the unloaded condition
shall be 0.2% of the diameter of the disc or 0.5 mm while it is not specified in AS 5100.4.
B283 is similar to B282 except it is used for stainless steel and the provisions relating to steel parts
and protective treatment are modified.
B284 sets out the requirements for the installation of bridge bearings. It addresses provisions for
installation materials such as grout and mortar, the installation tolerances and the installation
procedure.
In addition to the above mentioned specifications, RMS often uses parts of European Standard EN
1337 for assessment and design of pot or spherical type bearings (email from Mohamed Anzar on
1 April 2010).
RMS internal instruction CBE 97/5 (RTA 1997a) requires the consideration of using more durable
materials such as pot type bearings made of stainless steels, where possible, within 1 km of the
coast or under an equivalent environment (manufacture cost will be 4-5 times higher than normal
steels). This arose from the fact that one of the most common failure modes in mechanic bearings
in NSW is corrosion of metal parts. Furthermore, in a recent internal report on the performance
assessment of bridge components (Austroads 2001), it was recommended that the manufacture of
metal bearings could be improved by increasing the resistance to corrosion by using cast iron or
stainless steel and improving the paint protection system.
RMS internal instruction CBE 98/8 (RTA 1997b) enforces the use of replaceable bearings in RMS
funded bridges except where unreinforced elastomeric strip bearings are used in conjunction with
prestressed concrete plank bridges.
Austroads 2012
— 44 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Regarding possible construction faults that may cause bearings not to function properly, RMS
bridge policy circulars BCP 2005/03 (RTA 2005b) and BCP 2005/04 (RTA 2005c) require the use
of attachment plates in pot type bearings and the epoxy mortar pad in elastomeric bearings for pre-
tensioned concrete girders, respectively, in order to adjust for the lack of parallelism between the
contact interfaces due to longitudinal grade, cross-fall and hog or camber of the superstructure.
In terms of quality RMS also sets out a series of hold points and witness points for quality control.
4.2.3 Testing
Table 4.3 shows the failure criteria used by RMS when testing the new bearings for quality control
purposes. The predominant failure modes that have been observed in service are also used as the
criteria for acceptance or rejection of the bearings.
For pot bearings, the tests required for each type of bearing are shown in Table 4.4.
4.2.4 Failures
According to Austroads (2001), the failure modes outlined in Table 4.5 were observed during
inspections in the period from 1995/96 to 1998.
Austroads 2012
— 45 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
In addition, the modes of failure of common types of bearing in NSW listed in Table 4.6 were
extracted from RMS’s Bridge Inspection Procedure Manual (RTA 2007b).
Austroads 2012
— 46 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— 47 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— 48 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
4.3.1 Specifications
There are standard specification sections (materials, testing and installation) regarding supply and
installation of bridge bearings which include:
Standard section 652 – Supply of Elastomeric Bearings (VicRoads 2004a).
Standard section 653 – Pot Type Confined Elastomeric Bearings (VicRoads 2004b).
Standard section 656 – Installation of Elastomeric Bearings and Pads (VicRoads 2004c).
No additional specifications are available for plain pads, strips and mechanical bearings.
The design and construction process for bridge bearings is controlled by a checklist (VicRoads
2005b) with a hold point that sets out the criteria to be met upon the acceptance to proceed.
However, there is only one hold point for pot bearings.
New products that comply with the design and specification requirements may be considered for
use. VicRoads does not maintain lists of approved joints or bearings nor does it currently have an
evaluation or approval process. Proposals in relation to products of this type are normally
submitted by contractors to the Superintendent who may, in-turn, seek advice about their use from
the Structures Section. For wholly new items, this process may include an appraisal of information
from the supplier. Once a product has been accepted on this basis, subsequent use on other
projects is a simpler process. There is a possibility that an approval process may be implemented
in the near future but no specific details of this are available.
Similar to RMS, recommendations are also made regarding the construction faults that might
cause poorly functioning bearings. Typically, the use of bi-axial tapered attachment plates, levelling
screws or epoxy mortar in pot bearings and elastomeric bearings is encouraged for pre-tensioned
concrete girders. These assist by adjusting for the lack of parallelism between the contact
interfaces due to longitudinal grade, cross-fall and hog or camber of the superstructure.
Austroads 2012
— 49 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
4.3.3 Testing
VicRoads (2005b) provides a checklist for the review of testing carried out on pot bearings in
accordance with VicRoads standard section 653 (VicRoads 2004b). This checklist summarises all
key criteria in the specification in a tabular form. In general it conforms to AS 5100.4; however,
there are some differences as listed below:
The minimum thickness of the elastomeric disc is 1/20 the disc diameter instead of 1/15 or
10 mm as specified in AS 5100.4.
The average compression stress on pure PTFE is required to be no greater than 30 MPa
under minimum vertical serviceability load and 45 MPa under maximum vertical ultimate
load, while AS 5100.4 specifies that the maximum mean compression stress is 50 MPa.
Similarly, the peak compression stress on pure PTFE is required to be no greater than
35 MPa under minimum vertical serviceability load and 55 MPa under maximum vertical
ultimate load, while AS 5100.4 specifies that the maximum peak compression stress is 60
MPa.
For the vertical load test, while AS 5100.4 requires testing with maximum ultimate
compressive load, VicRoads standard requires that the load test be 1.5 times the vertical
ULS load.
For the shear load test, AS 5100.4 requires testing with two combinations (maximum ultimate
lateral load plus minimum ultimate vertical load, and maximum ultimate lateral load plus
maximum ultimate vertical load), while the VicRoads standard requires that the load test be
1.5 times the vertical ULS load plus the minimum vertical ULS load.
For the rotation test, AS 5100.4 requires testing under the design rotation at 0.7 time the
maximum ultimate vertical load, VicRoads requires that the rotation test be carried out at a
design rotation with maximum vertical ULS load and if applicable lateral SLS load.
In addition to the standard tests specified in AS 5100.4 which are revised in VicRoads
specifications, the following criteria shall be used to reject the faulty bearings:
extrusion of the elastomer from the pot
tearing, cracking or permanent deformation of the PTFE sliding surface
cracking or permanent deformation of the sealing ring or other part of the bearing
abrasive marks indicating abnormal contact between the metal surfaces of the bearing plates
or piston, and the pot.
4.3.4 Failures
The following possible failures (Table 4.7) are extracted from VicRoads Bridge Inspection Manual
(VicRoads 2007) and the database provided by VicRoads’ Network and Asset Planning (email from
Mahes T Maheswaran on 21 February 2011).
Austroads 2012
— 50 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
These specifications and standards are very much similar to RMS’s equivalent specifications
except for some minor modifications.
For elastomeric pads and strips, the followings are specified differently from AS 5100.4:
Tolerance on plan dimensions is ±3 mm, while it is +4/-2 mm in AS 5100.4.
Tolerance in thickness is ±2 mm, while it is ±0.2 mm plus 10% the design thickness in
AS 5100.4.
Parallelism of top and bottom surfaces is 1 mm, while it is 1.5 mm or 0.3% diameter in
AS 5100.4.
Number of test representatives is 1 per 10 bearings in a batch, while AS 5100.4 does not
specify.
Test load is 3 times the working load while it is 1.5 times the rated SLS load in AS 5100.4.
For laminated elastomeric bearings, it is similar to AS 5100.4 except the number of test
representative is 1 per 5 bearings and the tolerance on compressive stiffness is ±25% of the
design value.
There are also criteria for acceptance of elastomeric bearings based on visual checks during
testing.
For pot bearings, most of the provisions in MRTS 81 and MRTS81a are similar to those of RMS’s
B282 and B283, respectively, except the introduction of ASTM D4745 and ASTM D3294 for
material and testing of sliding surfaces.
Austroads 2012
— 51 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
4.4.3 Testing
The testing criteria used in TMR are the same as those of RMS (see Table 4.3 and Table 4.4 in
Section 4.2.3).
4.4.4 Failures
Based on available inspection reports by ARRB (local bridges) and TMR’s Bridge Inspection
Manual (QMR 2004), the failures in Table 4.9 have been observed.
For pot bearings, the TMR’s Advice note No. 63 – Pot Bearings – Configuration and typical defects
(QMR 2006) lists the detailed typical defects of fixed and sliding pot bearings. The fixed pot
bearings have the following typical defects:
Excessive rotation, indicated by significant variation in the 'gap' dimensions taken about the
bearing.
Austroads 2012
— 52 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Uplift/separation of the piston and cylinder, indicated by an increase in the gap dimension
and/or exposure of the elastomer/rubber material.
Heavily spalled or crushed concrete at the bearing support.
Cracking of the steel cylinder, with subsequent extrusion of the elastomer/rubber through the
cracks.
Internal deterioration of the elastomer/rubber, with subsequent discharge of the disc material
through the gap between the piston and the cylinder.
Similarly, the following typical defects may occur in sliding pot bearings:
Excessive rotation, indicated by significant variations in the gap dimensions taken between
the cylinder and piston.
Excessive displacement of stainless steel-faced sliding plate. Where side stops are not
installed, this displacement should be measured in both the longitudinal and transverse
directions.
Uplift/separation of the PTFE sheet and stainless steel sliding surface, indicated by an
increase in the upper gap dimension. Inspectors should confirm that this is the case by
inserting a thin strip of material (i.e. a folded piece of paper) into the gap to determine the
degree of separation. If the material is making contact at a uniform distance (normally
40-60 mm) around the bearing, then the sliding surface is seated on the PTFE. If there is no
contact, then assume the sliding surface has lifted off the PTFE sheet.
Squashing/delamination/deformation of the PTFE sheet, normally indicated by part or all of
the sheet being pushed or extruded out of the gap.
Heavily spalled or crushed concrete at the bearing support.
Cracking of the steel cylinder, with subsequent extrusion of the elastomer/rubber through the
cracks.
Austroads 2012
— 53 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
MRWA extended the design requirements specified in AS 5100.4 for one more case where it
allows an overstress allowance of 25% under ULS when sustaining high load platform (HLP) or
special vehicle loads as the failure can result in large transverse displacements (MRWA 2008).
4.5.3 Testing
MRWA has always required fairly high levels of testing including tests in addition to those in AS
5100.4 for acceptance of elastomeric bearings and this has contributed to their successful use. In
addition to standard tests specified in AS 5100.4, the following additional tests are required:
Stability test: 50% of bearings tested to check the lateral deflection. The bearing shall be
rejected if the lateral deflection under test load is greater than 5% of the vertical height of the
bearing.
Proof loading: one pair of bearings per each type shall be tested in three test load
combination: (i) The rated load at zero rotation and maximum shear plus 1.5 times the
maximum rated shear deflection; (ii) 1.5 times the rated load at zero rotation and maximum
shear plus the maximum rated shear deflection; and (iii) 1.5 times the maximum rated shear
deflection plus 0.5 times the rated load at zero rotation and maximum shear.
Determination of bearing stiffness: all bearings shall be tested for compressive stiffness and
the tolerance in compressive stiffness is 15% of the mean value; 50% of the bearings of each
type, with a minimum of two bearings, shall be tested for shear and the tolerance in shear
stiffness is 20% of the value given in AS 5100.4.
4.5.4 Failures
Elastomeric bearings have generally been found to perform well although they are very dependent
on the manufacturer. There was a period some years ago where there was a quality issue with a
supplier and some bearings from that era have failed. This was evident in northern areas with high
ambient temperatures and some thin bearings yielded (collapsed). Figure 4.19 shows an example
of slight bulging of an elastomeric bearing.
Austroads 2012
— 54 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Pot bearings have also performed well. Main issues that can be observed are failures of the dust
and rotational seals. The elastomeric pad can also fail if overloaded. There have been issues due
to poor construction or installation and poor maintenance.
Austroads 2012
— 55 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
providing a tapered recess in the bottom of the beam for the bearing.
In addition, step or halving joints in girders are not allowed (unless for exceptional circumstances)
because of difficulty of accessing bearings.
4.6.3 Testing
All standard tests required in AS 5100.4 are followed, such as testing of elastomeric bearings for
compression, compression stiffness and shear stiffness. In addition, elastomeric bearings which
are required to resist horizontal forces shall be further tested to 1.5 times the rated serviceability
lateral capacity for the bearings specified on the drawings while loaded in compression to the
concurrent serviceability vertical load specified on the drawings. The load shall be maintained for
3 minutes.
Similarly to MRWA, DPTI also requires testing for the coefficient of friction of sliding surfaces. The
value of the coefficient of friction shall be taken as the average result of 5 tests and shall be
determined for both minimum and maximum vertical serviceability loads but the bearings may be
given 2 preliminary sliding runs under load prior to taking the test readings. The friction coefficient
of the sliding surfaces shall not exceed the values given in Table 4.11 for the relevant stresses on
the PTFE surface.
These values are the same as those required by MRWA, which are twice as high as those required
by RMS. It should be noted that AS 5100.4 requires that maximum and minimum coefficients of
friction for stainless steel sliding on permanently lubricated pure PTFE at the ULS are 0.03 and
zero, respectively. The maximum coefficient of friction for pure unlubricated PTFE sliding on
stainless steel is 0.06.
A list of failure criteria similar to those of TMR is also specified for use during testing, namely:
Splitting or permanent deformation of the elastomer.
For elastomeric bearings, signs of misplaced steel plates, bond failure or surface defects,
such as tears or splits.
Tearing, cracking or permanent deformation of the PTFE sliding surface.
For pot bearings, cracking or permanent deformation of the sealing ring or other part of the
bearing.
For pot bearings, abrasive marks indicating abnormal contact between the metal surfaces of
the bearing plates or piston, and the pot.
For pot bearings, any other form of distress, warping, scoring, rubber extrusion or other effect
which could affect the durability of the bearing.
4.6.4 Failures
No statistics on common failure modes of bearings are available in South Australia; however, the
same problems have been observed on different types of bearings. According to an email from
Grant Wilksch on 24 November 2010, the following have been reported:
There are no problems with elastomeric bearings.
Austroads 2012
— 56 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
For pot bearings, corrosion of steel components due to environmental attacks and extrusion
of elastomer due to overloading. Deteriorations of the pot seals and extrusion or deterioration
of PTFE sliding surfaces have been observed in few pot bearings.
For roller bearings, corrosion or debris occurs in nest of rollers restricting movement with
some roller nests being ejected.
Sheet lead bearings are commonly used in short span bridge. Sheet lead extruded from
bearings and spalling of concrete under bearings due to limited rotational capacity has been
observed.
Figure 4.21 to Figure 4.24 represent some typical bearing failures (provided in an email from Peter
Wilson, DPTI, 7 December 2009).
Figure 4.21: Crack in steel roller bearing in Old Mt Barker Overpass bridge
Figure 4.22: Anchor bolt of a plate bearing of Stirling I/C bridge broken down due to fatigue
Austroads 2012
— 57 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— 58 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
4.7.3 Testing
DIER follows all standard tests required in AS 5100.4; however, there are some additional
requirements in testing of elastomeric and pot bearings.
Tolerances on compressive stiffness of laminated bearings are specified differently from other
states (Table 4.12).
A list of failure criteria is also used to visually check the bearings during testing including:
splitting or permanent deformation of the elastomer
tearing, cracking or permanent deformation of the PTFE sliding surface
significantly irregular or unsymmetrical surface bulging
cracking or permanent deformation of the sealing ring or other part of the bearing
abrasive damage indicating abnormal contact between the metal surfaces of the bearing
plates or piston, and the pot.
For pot bearings, tests for coefficient of friction are also included for sliding surfaces, which limit the
maximum coefficient of friction as shown in Table 4.13.
Austroads 2012
— 59 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
4.7.4 Failures
According to the information provided by Graeme Nichols (DIER) on 15 November 2010, the
following general comments on failures of bridge bearings are noted:
Elastomeric bearings including plain pads/strips, laminated elastomeric bearings and pot
bearings generally have no problems.
Mortar pad bearings, which were used extensively in the past, have poor performance.
Steel bearings have poor performance. Steel rollers often seize up and steel rockers may run
out of travel.
4.8.3 Testing
DPI follows TMR specifications and standards.
4.8.4 Failures
Early small span bridges were all supported on mortar pads that generally performed well. A
common maintenance issue was tearing the face off narrow headstocks because of the combined
force from cast-in hold-down bolts and high edge loading due to insufficient edge distance from the
mortar pad to the edge of the headstock.
Rubber pads and laminated elastomeric pads have all performed exceptionally well with no
observed failures.
One curved box girder on sliding pots has a problem because creep and shrinkage are higher than
allowed for and the sliding end has run out of travel.
Steel bearings have been simple slide or rocker flats, rockers, rollers, or hinges. No failures have
been observed but accumulation of dirt through leaking deck joints is often of concern. Several are
corroded, but not bad enough to cause seizing or failure. The climate is generally benign other
than for estuary bridges.
Austroads 2012
— 60 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
4.9.3 Testing
There are no additional requirements to AS 5100.4.
4.9.4 Failures
There exist some reports on bridge inspection and repair works. The same failure modes of
different types of bearings as in other states have also been observed.
Possible faults in metal bearings can be seen in the report by Lyons (2009) on Bridge 2097 over
the Molonglo River (Figure 4.25 and Figure 4.26). They include:
corrosion of metal plates and anchor bolts
cracks and spalls of supporting concrete pedestals led to reduction of bearing area under the
bottom bearing plate.
Figure 4.25: Failure modes of metal bearings in Bridge 2097 in ACT (1)
Austroads 2012
— 61 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Figure 4.26: Failure modes of metal bearings in Bridge 2097 in ACT (2)
For elastomeric bearings, typical failure modes can be observed from the bearings in Westbound
Bridge, Lake Ginninderra (Littlefair 2008):
loss of contact between the bearings and adjacent surfaces
distortion of the bearings due to shear movements
‘walking’ of the bearings under loaded conditions
bearings “overhanging” the adjacent mortar pads or plinths
beterioration of portions of the rubber of the bearings
base of bearing has a vertical curve caused by poor mortar pad installation
large amount of debris on bearing shelf.
Figure 4.27: General view of bearing WBEAN1 showing poor mortar pads and vertical curve on bearing base
Austroads 2012
— 62 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Figure 4.28: Bearing WBEAN1 showing poor mortar, bearing recessed into abutment top
and vertical curve of bearing base
Figure 4.29: Bearing WBEAN1 showing minor damage to pads, loss of contact between bearing and top pad and edge of
bearing being in the same plane as top and bottom mortar pads
Austroads 2012
— 63 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
4.10.3 Testing
No additional requirements to AS 5100.4.
4.10.4 Failures
The following comments were provided by John Reynolds on 3 November 2010:
Mortar pad bearings were traditionally used under short span steel beams. Many of these
have failed due to gradual deterioration from horizontal shear action or unsustainable
horizontal forces.
Plain rubber pads were used in the past under steel beams. The problem observed is that
they tend to squeeze out. They are probably surpassed by elastomeric bearings and are not
likely to be used in new designs.
Rubber strips and laminated bearings performed well although there are some minor defects.
They are used for spans of up to 30 m. These types of bearings are the most popular types
used in NZ. These types of bearings will continue to be used by NZTA.
Pot bearings (structural steel) were used in few long span bridges. They have excellent
performance and no failure has been observed. This bearing type will continue to be used as
demanded.
Metal bearings have not been used for many years. These bearings tend to corrode and
seize, often causing the cementitious bedding to subsequently fail due to horizontal loading
effects.
There is no comment on disc or spherical bearings as none of them has been used by NZTA.
Austroads 2012
— 64 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Since only RMS has recently introduced the use of disc bearings in New South Wales, there has
not been any reported failure.
The above summary indicates that the common failure modes of bridge bearings identified in
Australia are very similar to those reported in the literature (see Section 2).
4.11.3 Recommendations
Based on the information collected from the SRA’s the following investigations are proposed:
Identify the bearing types to be investigated. The bearing types that have been used
extensively in the past and will continue to be used in new bridges and have issues are
elastomeric bearings and pot type bearings. Investigation will focus on root causes of the
issues, maintenance to rectify the issues, upgrade and modification, and changes for future
use.
Propose revised provisions and/or new provisions in AS 5100.4 for those bearings in order to
improve their performance.
Propose specifications for the high load, multi-rotational spherical bearings to be included in
AS 5100.4. These bearings are suitable for modern large bridges that may combine various
complex factors such as very wide cross-section, multi-span or skewed or curve geometry.
Propose AS 5100.4 clauses for other types of bearings.
Austroads 2012
— 65 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
The outcome of the investigation is a set of design rules to overcome the performance issues for
the most common bearing types.
Design
inadequate access
movements due to temperature gradients, post-tensioning, etc. not accurately addressed
bridge geometry related failures: misalignment or improper orientation of the bearing with
respect to the direction of movement.
Manufacture
fabrication tolerance errors
lack of tests
materials.
Austroads 2012
— 66 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Construction/installation
inadequate or improper installation of bearings
disintegration of poorly prepared bearing seatings, bedding anchorage, setting/releasing of
transit bolts where applicable
cleaning of epoxy mortar splashes or other deleterious materials.
Maintenance
accumulation of detritus and water
failure of the expansion joint system that leads to water leaking to underneath the bearings.
Other sources
uneven loading on bearings of skew bridges
attack by chemicals, fire, corrosion and unforeseen events (impacts)
excessive non-thermal induced movements of piers and abutments
bedding mortar: cracking of mortar and gaps between the mortar and bearing.
In addition, as mentioned in Section 3.1.2, the following causes have also been observed:
Insufficient allowance for construction rotation, arising from beam hogs and camber issues,
may cause ‘lift off’ from the bearing at one or more corners.
In-service failure is uncommon and usually relates to incorrect compound formulation, and
poor manufacture controls on metal to rubber vulcanisation, causing delaminating and
separation of the internal rubber from the internal steel plates.
Poor internal alignment of steel plate layers which manifests as visually poor non-uniform
bulges and ribs of rubber surface around the perimeter of the bearings.
As pointed out in Section 3.1.2, recent trends in engaging overseas manufacture of this bearing
have led to some quality issues. The manufacture and testing are not under direct control of the
SRAs, thus a qualified inspection control needs to be maintained.
Austroads 2012
— 67 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Tolerances on compressive Not specified ±15% the mean value of all ±25% the design value
stiffness bearings in the lot
Tolerances on shear stiffness ±20% the design value Conforms to AS 5100.4 Conforms to AS 5100.4
As reported in Section 2.2.2, the root causes of pot bearing failures include:
Poor design of components, which leaves little spaces for ease of installation, inspection and
maintenance.
Use of inappropriate materials for bearing accessories, such as indicator, scale meter, and
sealing rings.
Poor quality corrosive protection layer in fabricated steel bearings.
Excessive rotation, rotation cycles or lateral load.
Inadequate lubrication of the elastomer pad.
Austroads 2012
— 68 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Table 5.2: Comparison of SRAs specifications and AS 5100.4 for pot bearing materials
TMR MRTS81 and
Item AS 5100.4 RMS B282 and B283 VicRoads
MRTS81a
Sliding stainless steel Polished stainless steel Stainless steel complying Stainless steel shall be Conforms to AS 5100.4
surface complying with AS 1449 with ASTM A240M Grade mirror polished complying
type 316 2B or BA, 316L with 2B-mill surface with ASTM A240M or
roughness max. 0.4µm finish; Sheet must ASTM A 480M; roughness
CLA in both directions, completely cover the max. 0.4µm CLA in both
Brinell hardness min. 125; PTFE pad and extend 25 directions, Brinell
min. thickness = 1.5 mm mm + specified limits of hardness min. 125
translation; min. thickness
= 1.5 mm
PTFE Permanently lubricated Conforms to AS 5100.4. Conforms to AS 5100.4 Conforms to AS 5100.4,
PTFE made of 100% Min. thickness = 4 mm; PTFE made of 100%
virgin material ISO 13000- min. flatness 0.002 x pad virgin material with a
1 Grade 1; reservoirs diameter; no gap between relative density between
cover 10-30% total plan the inner face of the 2.13 and 2.23 and
area of PTFE; volume=3- recess and the PTFE; durometer hardness of 50
20% PTFE; max. depth permanently lubricated to 65; complying with the
=1/2 thickness of PTFE; requirements of AS 1196
min. thickness 4 mm and AS 1195 Grade A
Compressive stress on Mean 50 MPa, peak 60 Same as AS 5100.4 Same as AS 5100.4 Max. average =30 (45)
PTFE MPa MPa at min. ver. SLS load
(max. ver. SLS load); peak
under combined min
vertical SLS load (max
ver. SLS load) and side
loads and concurrent
rotation = 35 (55) MPa
Pot and piston Gap shall not be greater Min. gap between piston Same as RMS
than 1 mm and cylinder 0.5 mm; gap
shall be sealed by a
compression seal to avoid
moisture and dust
Guide bars Max. gap between a guide Same as RMS
and sliding surface is 3
mm
Austroads 2012
— 69 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Table 5.3: Comparison of SRAs specifications and AS 5100.4 for pot bearing testing requirements
TMR MRTS81 and
Item AS 5100.4 RMS B282 and B283 VicRoads
MRTS81a
Number of bearings to be Based on existing test, 1, 2, 3 per < 10, < 25 and Test 1 per 5 identical 3 samples
load tested service data and design > 50, respectively bearings
load requirements
Geometrical testing Tested for flatness,
surface roughness and
clearances
Vertical load test Max. ultimate compressive Max. ULS vertical load; Same as RMS 1.5x vertical SLS load in 3
load maintained 1 minute, minutes
released, reapplied and
maintained for 3 minutes;
visually inspected
Combined vertical and (i) Max. ultimate lateral same as AS 5100.4 Same as RMS 1.5 max. lateral SLS load
lateral load test shear load + concurrent + min. vertical SLS load
min. ultimate vertical load;
and (ii) max. ultimate
lateral shear load +
concurrent max. ultimate
vertical load
Coefficient of friction test No friction test Bearing pressure = 5, 15, Same as RMS Same as RMS
20, >30 MPa,
corresponding coefficient
of friction = 0.04, 0.025,
0.02, 0.015, respectively
Rotation test Max. ultimate rotation at Design rotation at 0.7x Same as RMS One bearing of each type:
0.7x max. ultimate vertical max. ultimate vertical load design rotation at max.
load vertical SLS load
Austroads 2012
— 70 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— 71 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Tolerances on compressive Not specified ±20% the mean value of test Not specified
stiffness samples
Tolerances on shear stiffness ±20% the design value ±20% the values given in table Not specified
B280.2 for 2 pad sizes and 4 strip
sizes
Non-acceptance criteria Not specified Splitting, permanent deformation, No surface split, indentations,
significantly irregular or evidence of incomplete
unsymmetrical surface bulging vulcanising of the rubber
compound
Austroads 2012
— 72 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Overseas specifications such as AASHTO LRFD and EN 1337 have provisions specifying the
requirements for design of spherical and disc bearings while AS 5100.4 does not yet do so. A need
has been identified for a generic specification for the design of these bearing types to be
developed for use in Australia.
Local manufacturers have introduced spherical bearings and prepared for future bridge
applications (Section 3.3.1).
The generic specification proposed in this section is based on the AASHTO LRFD specifications
(AASHTO 2010).
The minimum thermal movements shall be determined from the extreme temperature specified in
Clause 17, AS 5100.2 and the estimated setting temperatures. Design loads shall be based on the
load combinations and load factors specified in Clause 22, AS 5100.2.
The maximum ULS rotation due to the total load for spherical bearings which may potentially
experience hard contact between metal components shall be taken as the sum of:
the rotations from applicable ultimate load combinations
the maximum rotation caused by fabrication and installation tolerances, which shall be taken
as 0.005 rad, unless an approved quality control plan justifies a smaller value
an allowance for uncertainties, which shall be taken as 0.005 rad, unless an approved quality
control plan justifies a smaller value.
The maximum ULS rotation due to the total load for disc bearings which are less likely to
experience hard contact between metal components shall be taken as the sum of:
the rotations from applicable ultimate load combinations
an allowance for uncertainties, which shall be taken as 0.005 rad, unless an approved quality
control plan justifies a smaller value.
Sliding surface
Sliding surfaces consist of flat sliding surfaces which accommodate translational movements, and
curved sliding surfaces which accommodate translational and limited rotation.
Austroads 2012
— 73 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
The sliding surface material shall be PTFE, bronze or copper alloy or an approved proprietary
material.
PTFE sliding surfaces shall meet the requirements specified in Clause 14, AS 5100.4.
Bronze sliding surfaces shall conform to AASHTO M 107 (ASTM B22) and shall be made of alloy
C90500, C91100, or C86300, unless otherwise specified. Bronze or copper alloy sliding expansion
bearings shall be evaluated for shear capacity and stability under lateral loads.
Mating surface
The PTFE or an approved proprietary sliding material shall be used in conjunction with a mating
surface. Flat mating surfaces shall be stainless steel, and curved mating surfaces shall be
stainless steel or anodised aluminium. Flat surfaces shall be stainless steel, Type 304, conforming
to either ASTM A167 or A264, and shall be provided with a surface finish of 8.0 pin. RMS or better.
Finishes on curved metallic surfaces shall not exceed 16.0 pin. RMS. The mating surface shall be
large enough to cover the PTFE at all times.
For bronze sliding surfaces, the mating surface shall be structural steel, and be machined to match
the geometry of the bronze surfaces so as to provide uniform bearing and contact. The mating
surface shall have a Brinell hardness value at least 100 points greater than that of the bronze.
Contact pressure
The contact stress between the PTFE and the mating surface shall be determined at the ULS
using the nominal area.
The average contact stress shall be computed by dividing the load by the projection of the contact
area on a plane perpendicular to the direction of the load. The contact stress at the edge shall be
determined by taking into account the maximum moment transferred by the bearing assuming a
linear distribution of stress across the PTFE. Stresses shall not exceed the values given in
Table 6.1.
Austroads 2012
— 74 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
For bronze or copper alloy sliding surface, the nominal bearing stress due to the combined dead
and live load at the ULS shall not exceed the values given in Table 6.2.
Coefficient of friction
For a bronze or copper alloy sliding surface, the coefficient of friction may be determined by
testing. In lieu of such test data, the design coefficient of friction may be taken as 0.1 for self-
lubricating bronze components and 0.4 for other types.
The coefficient of friction for a PTFE sliding surface shall meet the requirements specified in
Clause 11, AS 5100.4.
The two surfaces of a sliding interface shall have equal nominal radii.
Bearing resistance
The radius of the curved surface shall be large enough to ensure that the total compressive load at
the ULS on the horizontal projected area of the bearing is less than or equal to the average
allowable load as computed from the service stress specified in Section 6.2.1.
The disc bearing shall be designed for the maximum ULS design rotation.
For the purpose of establishing the forces and deformations imposed on a disc bearing, the axis of
rotation may be taken as lying in the horizontal plane at mid-height of the disc. The urethane disc
shall be held in place by a positive location device.
Austroads 2012
— 75 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Limiting rings may be used to partially confine the elastomer against lateral expansion. They may
consist of steel rings welded to the upper and lower plates or a circular recess in each of those
plates.
If a limiting ring is used, the depth of the ring should be at least 0.03 Dd, where Dd is the diameter
of the disc element.
Material
The elastomeric disc shall be made from a compound based on polyether urethane, using only
virgin materials. The hardness shall be between 45 and 65 on the Shore D scale.
The metal components of the bearing shall be made from structural steel conforming to AS/NZS
3678 and/or AS/NZS 3679.1 or from stainless steel conforming to ASTM A240/A240M Grade
316L.
Elastomeric disc
The elastomeric disc shall be held in location by a positive locator device.
If a PTFE slider is used, the stresses on the PTFE slider shall not exceed the values for average
and edge stresses given in Table 6.1 for the ULS. The effect of moment induced by the urethane
disc shall be included in the stress analysis.
Steel plates
The thickness of each of the upper and lower steel plates shall not be less than 0.045 Dd, where Dd
is the diameter of the disc element, if it is in direct contact with a steel girder or distribution plate, or
0.06 D, if it bears directly on grout or concrete.
Austroads 2012
— 76 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— 77 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— 78 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
1 INTRODUCTION
The contents of Part 2 – Bridge Expansion Joints are briefly summarised below.
Section 2 presents a literature review that summarises the features, usage and performance of
bridge expansion joints throughout the world. Thus, the common failures of the common types of
expansion joint are identified.
Section 3 describes the current practice in manufacture and supply of bridge expansion joints of
some popular Australian providers.
Section 4 describes SRAs’ experience in design, installation and maintenance of bridge expansion
joints. Common failure modes of various types of expansion joints are derived from SRAs’
information, based on which the key issues in design, manufacture, construction and maintenance
of bridge expansion joints are identified.
Section 5 presents an investigation into failures of some common bridge expansion joint types that
have been used in the past and will be continued in new bridge designs, and proposes changes to
the current version of the Australian Bridge Design Standard AS 5100 part 4. Proposed changes
for other expansion joint types are also addressed in this section.
Section 6 presents a generic specification for bridge expansion joints in which specific provisions
for several popular expansion joint types are provided.
Austroads 2012
— 79 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
The first use of sealers for expansion joints in bridges was either to leave them open or to pour
some mixture of tar or asphalt in them. The tar-like material did not work at all in the relatively
narrow contraction joints, while in the case of the much wider expansion joints, it usually ran out of
the bottom of the joint (Watson 2006).
Rubber asphalt materials were used later with some types of seal stop at the joint to prevent the
sealer from falling to the bottom. However, the constantly moving joint interfaces shortened their
useful life. Rubber asphalts were then improved with butyls, polysulfides, urethanes, silicones, and
variations were tried with most of them having shortcomings.
Poured-in-place sealants were introduced some 50 years ago. The current forms of these
materials include bitumen, polyurethanes, two-part pack polyester polyurethanes, rubberised
bitumen, megaprene and polymer modified bitumens (QMR 2004).
Preformed compression joint seals were first used in 1960 which consisted of a compartmented
vulcanisate of a compound primarily of polychloroprene, plasticisers, carbon black, antiozodents
and conventional synthetic rubber requirements. With various types of seal configurations, current
practice shows that this joint type is one of the most favourable expansion joints for small to
medium movements.
Strip seal joints were developed in 1970 by Waldermar Koster, they originated from compression
seal joints by adapting the top portion only and arranging a claw to accept the sides of the rubber
strip. Combined with different types of metal runners from many manufacturers, this type of joint
has been used widely for medium to large joint movements.
Felspan is a moulded rubber joint type, which was first produced by the Felt Products Company in
1978 in the USA. It is no longer used in new bridge construction due to its shortcomings.
The first bonded metal/elastomer joints were used in 1970 with the brand name of Transflex
(General Tire & Rubber Company, US) with neoprene surface. This joint type dominated the
expansion joint market in the US from 1975 to 1985. Leakage and wear of the rubber under heavy
truck traffic, however, were some of its shortcomings. The Waboflex expansion joint, which was
introduced in 1972, is a variant of this joint in which a high strength ribbed, anti-skid aluminium was
placed on the top surface instead of the neoprene surface (Watson 2006). These two expansion
joint types continue to be used in new bridge constructions for medium to large joint movements.
Austroads 2012
— 80 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Finger type joints and modular expansion joints have been introduced since the 1960s for very
large movements. The performance of these joint types has been improved significantly since, in
order to keep up with the increasingly complex requirements of modern bridge structures.
This type of joint does not provide a complete seal against water or debris reaching the underneath
substructure.
Austroads 2012
— 81 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Reported failures
The following failures have been reported:
corrosion of the steel plate and debris collection obstructing the free movement of the
superstructure
loose and broken anchorages due to repeated impact and weathering actions.
This joint is not recommended for new bridge construction. Existing steel sliding plate joints can be
replaced by poured sealants or elastomeric strip seals (Chen & Duan 2000).
This joint can accommodate movements of less than 50 mm (Barnard & Cunninghame 1997).
Advantages of asphaltic plug joints include low initial cost, short installation time and ease of
replacement. In addition, they can accommodate some variations in surfacing depth or deck
geometry and also can be replaced in separate sections which assist with minimising traffic delays.
In some cases, however, the joint material has been found to be too flexible under extreme
weather, i.e. softened under hot days and hardened and cracked in cold days (Chen & Duan
2000). The performance and service life also varies, depending on various factors such as thermal
and traffic induced movements, installation conditions and stability of surfacing.
Austroads 2012
— 82 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Reported failures
The most common failure of this type of joint is cracking along the joint edges, which leads to water
leakage, debonding or depression over the joint. Flexibility of the binder may also cause it to flow
over an adjacent road surface. Potholing and loss of aggregate have been reported (Barnard &
Cunninghame 1997).
It has been reported that the service life of the joint is 2-5 years in the UK and in general, the
performance of the joint is not appropriate for movements between 30 mm to 50 mm
(Austroads 2001).
RMS has banned this joint type and only allows it for special site conditions where excessive noise
cannot be treated by another joint type (RTA 2008b).
The sealants of this type may include: silicon (-50%, +100%), polysulphide (±12.5%) or
polyurethane (±25%) based sealants. The advantages of this joint type include good chemical
resistance, excellent movement recovery and self-levelling or non-sag.
This type of joint has been used in the USA for movements of less than 12 mm (Austroads 2001).
Advantages include material savings, elimination of field working time, shop drawing and
engineered steel fabrications (Baker & Adams 1996).
In Australia, it is used widely by RMS for short bridges with a movement range of up to about
20 mm (RTA 2008b).
Austroads 2012
— 83 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
This joint can be used for movements of less than 100 mm. Together with the relative ease of
installation, cost-effectiveness, a large variety of choices in movement ranges and watertightness,
this joint type has been used widely for small and medium span bridges.
Reported failures
Common failures of this joint type include dislodgement of the seal, damage or deterioration of seal
material, and cracked or broken nosings (Issa et al. 1996, Chang & Lee 2002).
The performance of the joint depends on the quality of the installation and the correct choice of the
seal size and seal material – that requires skillful workmanship and careful design consideration. In
addition, waterproofing is not continuous hence a complete water drainage system needs to be
provided. Compression seals may be ozone sensitive (Austroads 2001).
Austroads 2012
— 84 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— 85 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Reported failures
Common failures of this joint type include (Dahir & Mellott 1987, Barnard & Cunninghame 1997,
and Austroads 2001):
elastomeric seal punctures or breaks up
failure to the anchorage of metal runners
transition strip or surfacing breaks up next to nosing
fatigue of metal components.
Field splicing of the seal is not permitted as the quality of the splice is not good. Instead, the splice
is vulcanised in factory using a hot or cold process. The extrusion and plate assemblies with
anchors are shop fabricated and installed in one continuous length. The reported life of the joint is
10-20 years (Austroads 2001).
Austroads 2012
— 86 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
This joint has some ability to accommodate directional changes and skews in joint configuration
often without any need for a splice in the seal.
Reported failures
The following failures have been reported (RTA 2008b):
failure of anchorage systems due to repetitive live load impacts
splitting of the seals and loosening of the retainers.
This joint was identified as having inadequate anchorages and exhibiting excessive wear of the
elastomeric moulding around the retainers. In addition, the failure develops relatively rapidly after
initiation. The RMS does not recommend this type of joint for new bridges (RTA 2008b).
Strip seal, bonded metal elastomer or fingerplate joints can be used to replace the damaged
moulded rubber joint (RTA 2008b).
Main disadvantages of this joint include leakage at joints between segments, loose anchorages,
and excessive noise. In addition, the bolt positions may clash with reinforcement and it is difficult to
Austroads 2012
— 87 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
repair. It also has minimal shear and transverse movement capacity. Shallow depth and high
stiffness may cause high horizontal forces on adjacent decks or on the abutments.
Reported failures
Common failures of this type of joint include (Watson 2006, Barnard & Cunninghame 1997):
leakage
bolt failures causing joint to lift
bolt corrosion, missing cover pads
wear of rubber ribs on top surface
breaking up of transition strips
delamination of elastomer/metal plate interface.
The performance record has not been as satisfactory as compression or strip joints (Austroads
2001).
Austroads 2012
— 88 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
The finger joint is one of the most silent joint types as there is no sliding surface. As it is an open
type joint, there is no thrust on the deck or abutments. Being able to accommodate movements of
100-600 mm which covers a large portion of modern bridges, finger joints are one of the most
favorable joints for current and future bridges.
Some drawbacks include high initial cost, possible accumulation of debris and limited lateral
movement (Austroads 2001).
Reported failures
Various failure modes have been reported in the literature (Dahir & Mellott 1987, Lee 1994,
Barnard & Cunninghame 1997, Watson 2006) including:
fatigue failure of fingers, bolts and their anchorage due to their working cantilevered under
repetitive loading
corrosion of metals in the vicinity of the joint area
transition strip breaks up
comb fills up with debris
low skid resistance on metal comb
failure of concrete anchorage.
For all-purpose roads, provisions need to be made for cyclists, pedestrians and animals due to the
large gap between fingers. A separate trough system must be installed to collect water and debris.
Loose fingerplates may be hazardous to traffic. Fingers and their troughs need to be cleaned
periodically.
Austroads 2012
— 89 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
of MBJS are popular, being the single and multiple support bar system, including the swivel joist
system.
Having a number of advantages that are suitable for complex features in modern bridges such as
large movements of up to 1000 mm, non-parallel horizontal movements, different settlement,
rotation, and high shearing movements, this joint type is favoured for many situations in modern
design. The design life of the joint is reportedly 10-20 years (Barnard & Cunninghame 1997).
Reported failures
Various failure modes have been reported in the literature (Kaczinski et al. 1996, Ancich &
Chirgwin 2006, Fleuriot et al. 2006). They include:
noise under live load impact
water leakage at seal splice
debris accumulation in seals
reflective cracks in the concrete deck directly above the support boxes
fatigue cracks
corrosion of metal components.
The multiple support bar system is usually the preferred choice as it has more redundancy
compared to the single support bar system, that is, failure of a single support bar bearing will not
affect the whole system (Fleuriot et al. 2006). For large movement joints however, the single
support bar system should be considered because if the multiple support bar system is chosen, a
large number of support boxes are used, thus the adjacent boxes may touch each other.
Close cooperation between the designer, contractor and joint manufacturer is required to ensure
good detail design, and to reduce placement problems during joint installation (AASHTO 2004).
Austroads 2012
— 90 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
For bridge deck joints, AS 5100.4 is very generic, i.e. no detailed design requirement of a specific
joint type is specified.
Austroads 2012
— 91 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Materials
Elastomers for joint seals and troughs shall have a service life of no less than 25 years while other
materials shall provide a minimum 75 years of service life.
Joint selection
The number of movable deck joints should be minimised. Continuous deck systems and
superstructures are preferred. Intermediate deck joints should be considered for multiple span
bridges where differential settlement would cause significant overstresses.
Design requirements
The roadway surface gap shall not be greater 100 mm for a single gap or 75 mm for multiple
modular gaps.
For fingerplate joints, the maximum allowable opening between adjacent fingers shall be 50 mm for
longitudinal gaps greater than 200 mm or 75 mm for longitudinal gaps less than or equal 200 mm.
The finger overlap should be 40 mm minimum.
Austroads 2012
— 92 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Joint seals: the joint seals shall be a preformed or prefabricated type, made from vulcanised
virgin neoprene or natural rubber and reinforced with steel or fabric laminates. They shall be
mechanically anchored, placed in one continuous piece and replaceable. In addition, they
shall not be in direct contact with the vehicle load.
Poured seals: the joint width for poured seals should be at least 6 times the anticipated
factored joint movement.
Compression and cellular seals: the width of the compression seals for bearing joints shall
not be less than 65 mm nor more than 150 mm when uncompressed and shall be in 12.5 mm
increments.
Sheet and strip seals: consideration should be given to:
— joint designs for which the glands with anchorages are not exposed to vehicular
loadings
— joint designs that allow complete closure without detrimental effects to the glands
— joint designs where the elastomeric glands extend straight to the deck edges rather
than being bent up at kerbs or barriers.
Plank seals: should be limited to structures on secondary roads with light truck traffic, and
that have straight or slightly skewed joints.
MBJS
The specifications set out the requirements for the two common types of MBJS, single and multiple
support bar systems, including swivel joist systems, as follows:
Performance requirements: In addition to the maximum movement and rotation capability
requirements of seals in the MBJS, the required minimum movement range capabilities for
the six degrees of freedom shall be added so that the seals can be able to eject the debris
collected (Table 2.1).
Testing and calculation requirements: The following tests are required for testing of MBJS
— The opening movement and vibration (OMV) test is used for bearings, springs and
other elastomeric components.
— The seal push-out (SPO) test is used to address the particular problem of seal
detachment from centre beams.
— The fatigue test establishes the appropriate fatigue detail categories for the connection
between centre beam and support bar, splices and other critical details. The category
is then considered applicable to the full range of configurations with different
Austroads 2012
— 93 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
cross-section sizes, different number of centre beams, different centre beams and
support bar spans and different skew angles.
Loads and load factors: each configuration of MBJS shall be designed for the strength and
fatigue, and fracture limit states for the simultaneous application of vertical and horizontal
axle loads. Load factors shall be as specified in appropriate limit states.
Distribution of wheel loads: each edge beam shall be designed for 50% of the vertical and
horizontal wheel loads. For centre beams, the wheel load distribution factor is determined
from Table 2.2 based on the beam’s top flange width.
Austroads 2012
— 94 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— 95 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
rigid connections between separation beams and support bars help reduce fatigue
resilient support structure including bearings and springs acts to dampen the dynamic
loading, thus allows the joint system to accommodate thermal movements as well as
rotations and deflections of the bridge
equidistance control system helps to distribute movements among strip seals to maintain
equal spacing between separation beams and prevent excessive expansion of any single
seal.
Finger joint
Granor supplies the ETIC finger joint. Three types are available, including the EJ 80, EJ 110 and
EJ 160, which are designed for movements less than 80 mm, 110 mm and 160 mm, respectively.
This joint consists of metallic elements and an elastomeric profile. The metallic element is usually
made of one metre long moulded aluminium pieces with a saw tooth profile and is anchored to the
concrete deck by prestressed tie-bolts on each side of the joint. The elastomeric profile is of a
compression seal type inserted between two extruded aluminium elements to prevent water or
debris, etc. from penetrating to the sub-structure components.
The prestressed tie-bolts create a permanent compression stress between the joint and the
structure, thus providing good resistance against vibrations and fatigue effects.
This joint possesses advantages such as low noise and no horizontal forces on the adjacent deck
or abutment. In addition, it has good resistance to corrosion and the possibility of absorbing vertical
and seismic movements.
Austroads 2012
— 96 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
This is one of the favoured joint types for maximum movements in the range of 65 to 138 mm. It
features a number of advantages including ease of installation, watertightness and high corrosion
resistance. In addition, the gland can accommodate skew and vertical misalignment, and can also
be used to treat footpath, kerb or parapet upturn profiles.
Austroads 2012
— 97 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
It is recommended that the type D gland not be used for pedestrian areas as the gap may be large
under expansion. In such areas, type F is used instead.
Compression seals
Granor supplies two types of compression seal, including Wabo compression seals and Ausflex
compression seals.
Wabo compression seals use two seal configurations, the WA series and WJ series, which can
accommodate movements of 12 to 79 mm and are installed into the joint gap between armoured
nosing plates (Figure 3.5).
WA Series WJ Series
There are three seal configurations in Ausflex compression seals, being EF, GC and WG series
(Figure 3.6). The selection of a seal series is based on the movement range, i.e. EF is used for
movements from 14 to 25 mm, GC 32 to 46 mm, and EF 35 to 60 mm. The seal is installed into
either a concrete recess or steel angle armoured nosings. These joints are near watertight.
In addition, Granor supplies a special type, the Wizflex expansion joint system. This joint is
designed based on a combination of compression joint and epoxy-bonded rubber seal
technologies. It includes an extruded elastomeric profile, a high-strength epoxy adhesive and a
compression seal profile design. The seal is bonded into the gap walls, which may be steel,
concrete, polymer modified concrete or aluminium members, thus providing waterproof capability.
(Figure 3.7).
Austroads 2012
— 98 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— 99 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— 100 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
become too stiff in a very warm condition. The aggregate BJ Stone is of the basalt, gritstone,
gabbro or granite groups. If the gap is larger than 30 mm, an aluminium flashing strip is used to
span the gap to prevent materials entering the gap during installation or service.
Sealants
The current definition of sealant does not adequately clarify if it is intended as a sealant or
expansion joint filler. The most common sealant failure is the bond line failure due to poor
preparation of the gap rebate surfaces.
AS 5100.4 limits the capacity of a sealant to only ± 25% of the installed gap width as the sealant’s
movement design range. New generation sealant products such as silicone and urethane-based
sealants, however, can claim up to +100 / -50% of the installed gap movement range.
Compression seals
This expansion joint type is now considered as ‘old technology’ but for many years was seen as
the expansion joint for small movements. Long-term problems include stiffening, loss of
compression set, falling through the gap, or protruding above the trafficked surface.
The seal may lose its ability to spring back or widen when the gap opens up in the winter season
after the seal has been compressed during the summer season.
Vibration of the structure will frequently push the seal above the road surface. Also, as movement
capacity is rather limited, with time total shrinkage or movement of the support can cause the seal
to fall through the gap.
Austroads 2012
— 101 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
‘Hybrid’ compression joints are now available, which have a keyed shaped ribbed side profile and
which are bonded in the gap with an epoxy adhesive to ensure a good bonding to allow the seal to
go into slight tension at the extremity of its opening capacity. However, neither the current AS
5100.4 nor any of the SRA specifications address the hybrid variants of such seals.
Strip seals
The main cause for failure of strip seal joint systems usually relates to poor installation. The most
common faults relate to poor or non-facilitated torquing of the fixings or to poor concrete vibration
resulting in voids under the joint metallic side retainers.
Breakage of the aluminium retainers and fixings is another failure mode, which is due to poor
bedding epoxy under the joints.
Lack of edge clearance between the ferrule and end of the concrete slab is seen as a point of
potential failure.
There have been numerous failures of slab type joints most of which relate to inadequate
bolt-down tension due to inadequate design considerations, inadequate/incorrect installation,
impact onto exposed edges of the joint, leakage between slabs, noise and lack of quality in
manufacture.
Some of these proprietary joint systems also failed due to production faults relating to rubber–
to-steel debonding. This cannot be easily identified in post-manufacture testing.
As these systems are segmental (in either 4 foot or 6 foot, i.e. 1.2 m or 1.8 m) modules, (now 2 m
when manufactured in Asia) they are prone to localised individual segment failures thereby causing
potential vehicle damage when they dislodge completely.
Finger joints
Finger joints include ‘sliding finger’ type and ‘cantilever finger’ type. The sliding finger joints were
poor in their ability to accommodate any vertical movements at the joint line. The predominant
failure mode of these joints relates to the failure of the male elements steel fingerplate and its
underside rubber bond line. Thus later versions of these joints utilised a number of ‘failsafe’ high
strength countersunk head bolts that tied the top steel fingerplate to the underside base steel angle
insert. This ensured that the top fingerplate segment that is completely delaminated from the
rubber would not be a loose segment causing vehicle damage until the entire segment could be
replaced. The RMS of NSW has recognized this flaw in the products design and has a ‘conditional’
approval of this joint relating to the requirement for replacement upon impost of a certain cycle of
wheel loading events.
Modern Finger joints utilise the concept of ‘tensioned’ fixings. RMS of NSW has recently released a
‘position paper’ on this concept of joints advising of findings relating to their design requirements.
Incorporation of such findings could be prudently used in any re-issue of AS-5100.4.
Austroads 2012
— 102 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Poor concrete vibrating practices and poor or inadequate tensioning procedures or facilitation
would be the predominant root cause of any in-service failures of such modern concept finger
joints.
Modular joints
These joints are predominately a proprietary product, designed, and fabricated to in house
specifications. The nature of the product is such that external expertise to analyse the design is not
readily available. Location of manufacture is also of concern as in some cases fabrication is sub-
contracted to outside companies. Limited usage in Australia places increasing reliance onto the
overseas suppliers, and their source of fabrication.
It is recommended that improvements in future specifications are made by stipulating the need for
designs to incorporate easier removability and replacement of critical damping bearings and other
steel component only via access to the underside of the joint system. Such removal of these
‘replaceable’ components should be enabled without the need to cut existing welds and then
re-weld in order to achieve replacement. It would be required that the steel components holding in
place the replaceable damping bearing components be of bolted connection detail and not of
welded connection.
Correct selection of the type of asphaltic binder used for the particular environmental temperature
range in the location of the joint, and correct selection of aggregate grading for the particular binder
grade used contribute to the joint’s performance.
Austroads 2012
— 103 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
3.2 Miska
3.2.1 Types of Expansion Joints Manufactured
Bolted-in bridge expansion joint
This is a strip seal expansion joint type (Figure 3.11), which consists of aluminium retainers and an
elastomer gland. The gland comes in two shapes, being the ND gland (drape gland) and NF gland
(flush gland). The drape gland is used when the joint can accommodate a zero joint gap at the
maximum contraction, while the flush gland provides smaller gaps at maximum joint extension (not
for use in pedestrian areas). The joint can accommodate movements of up to 125 mm. This type
is approved for use by TMR.
Austroads 2012
— 104 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
ZealSeal 4000 can be used to repair or replace old steel plates, compression seal and broken or
cracked bridge deck end expansion joints. ZealCrete™ by itself is a product used to repair broken
bridge deck ends or concrete.
Austroads 2012
— 105 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
3.3 Trelleborg
3.3.1 Types of Expansion Joints Manufactured
Modular expansion joint
Trelleborg supplies the Maurer girder grid joint, which is used for large movements of up to
600 mm and larger (Figure 3.15). Detailed information on this joint can be found in Section 2.2.9.
Another type of modular joint supplied by Trelleborg is the Maurer swivel-joist expansion joint
(Figure 3.16), which is an advanced model of the Maurer girder grid joint and is usually favoured
for large and complex movements. This joint is similar to the girder grid joint except that the central
beams slide on obliquely arranged swivelling support bars and a joist box is included (Figure 3.17).
Austroads 2012
— 106 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Figure 3.17: Two-way obliquely arranged swivel support bars and joist boxes
Austroads 2012
— 107 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— 108 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Common failures
For strip seal joints, bolts may come out due to vibration. Appropriate torque should be
applied to tighten the bolts in the installation. Appropriate torque should be specified by the
manufacturer and supported with experimental data to prove that this torque value results in
an axial tension in the anchor of 65% of ULS.
For Transflex bonded metal/elastomer joints, the common failure is the shearing of the bolts
due to direct impact from vehicles if the panels are not protected by an impact-absorbing
header material.
For fingerplate joints, aluminium types (CIPEC and ETIC) should only be used for
movements less than 200 mm as fatigue failure of fingers is the concern. In addition, the
fingers may have locking-up issues when the joint is in a fully closed position, not allowing
any lateral movement.
For MBJS, inspection should be frequent (once a year) to check the replaceable components
such as springs and buffers.
Austroads 2012
— 109 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Directions
The future generic specifications should not be limited to any overseas specifications but
should be able to cover other systems approved by legitimate and internationally recognised
standards or approving authorities. An example is the RMS B316 specification for MBJS is
based on American standards, so it ruled out all the products designed according to
European standards which have a longer history.
It is recommended that Eurocode TL/Tp FU 92 be included for MBJS.
In an email from Xavier Delattre on 4 February 2011, recommendations for revising AS 5100.4
were also provided:
The inclusion of other small expansion joint systems such as compression seals,
polyurethane concrete header joints, Transflex, finger joints and cast-in strip seal systems
should be considered.
The production of different rubber compounds for each state is extremely difficult to achieve
and to manage. In turn, these properties could be included in AS 5100.4. The seal material
and its specification should also be reviewed. The neoprene specified is extremely difficult to
manufacture, and the benefit of neoprene over natural rubber is also questionable. EPDM
(ethylene propylene diene monomer) is recommended as an alternative material.
Cast-in aluminium joints: the cost/benefit of stainless steel anchors over hot dip galvanised
ones is questioned; the need for joints in the aluminium extrusion to only occur at the road
centre line or lane line does not appear to offer increased durability, but it makes
manufacturing and installation more complicated and expensive. Again, it is a cost/benefit
exercise; the tensioning of anchors is the most critical factor in terms of durability of the joint
in service.
Most failures of the aluminium strip seal systems installed to date are due to the loosening of
the anchor bolts. Consequently, the existing specifications should address the correct
number of anchors to be used and the correct torque to be applied to them to prevent
loosening under fatigue. In fact, some of the installed systems specifying a ‘snug and turn’
method would work well under the AS 5100.4 required 500 kN/m per side of joint. The key to
this is to translate a given torque into an actual axial hold-down force in the anchor. This can
be calculated, but the nut/thread friction factor ’k’ is critical. This ’k’ factor will be particular to
the finish on the thread of the anchors, and therefore it should be verified by lab testing.
Breakages of bolts used in bridge deck expansion joints anchored in concrete have been
experienced on some RMS bridges. Fatigue and vibration loosening were found to be the
main causes of failure. It was recognised that applying adequate preload to the bolts (or
fasteners) is critical for long-term performance of the joints, and is the best way to prevent
fatigue and vibration loosening.
Possible text that could be added to specifications in the future was suggested:
Further to the requirements of AS 5100.4 clause 17.4, the supplier of the joint shall provide
calculations to show the relationship between the applied torque and the resulting axial hold-down
force provided by the anchors. The k factor used in these calculations shall be determined by
testing a batch of 10 anchors in a NATA laboratory approved to conduct these tests. The
calculations shall be completed or verified by an engineer eligible to the Chartered status of the
Institute of Engineers Australia. A minimum of M20 grade 8.8 anchors at 200 mm spacings each
side of the joint shall be used.
Austroads 2012
— 110 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
In an email from Ben Hallett on 21 January 2011, a number of issues were highlighted as noted
below:
The biggest issue for expansion joints relates to the quality of the joint installations. While
design and manufacture appears relatively well covered few controls are in place to ensure
that quality is maintained with respect to installations. Countless cases have been observed
where works have been installed poorly; this includes new build projects through to
rehabilitation projects.
It is unfortunate that manufacturers are often more interested in making a sale than enforcing
the quality of the installations. This is compounded by the fact that little or nothing exists with
respect to specifications for installations. The only information provided is general guidance
by the respective manufacturers and this is questionable on occasions.
It may be prudent to consider some form of pre-qualification scheme as suppliers will sell
their joint systems to contractors without enforcing some form of training. Even where
training is provided it is system-specific and very basic.
Better control measures from an installation perspective would ensure that this is avoided
completely and only specialist experienced contractors should undertake the installation of
expansion joints.
An overseas system should be considered where specialist contractors have their own
bridge expansion joint systems that are approved individually by the highways agency. The
basis of this approval follows the successful performance of a trial and includes a very
specific installation process and the use of specific materials. Each contractor undertakes
work with its own approved systems and associated materials and methods. These control
measures result in work being undertaken to a good and consistent standard across the
board.
It should be noted that Australian manufacturers often supply joint systems without the
associated grout or mortars that are used to support them. This leaves the contractor or
project engineer to specify a suitable product. This results in different products and methods
being used with varied results. These ancillary materials should form part of the approval of
the system.
Austroads 2012
— 111 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— 112 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
do not conform to AS 5100.4 in regards to watertightness and sealing against dirt ingress, and can
generate excessive noise and problems in service.
Austroads 2012
— 113 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
For the sealant, RMS uses four types: self-levelling trafficable, self-levelling non-trafficable, non-
sag trafficable and non-sag non-trafficable sealants depending on the location of the sealant and
the surrounding material.
Austroads 2012
— 114 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— 115 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— 116 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
1 Edge beam
2 Centre beam
3 Support bar
4 Sliding plate
5 Sliding spring
6 Sliding bearing
7 Control spring
8 Strip seal
9 Carriageway anchor
10 Anchor stud
11 Support box.
Source: Trelleborg website.
B310 specifies the requirements for the design, supply and installation of preformed elastomeric
compression seals of the open-cell type and the adhesive lubricant used for installation. Detailed
material properties of the seal are specified along with allowable tolerances for the seal
Austroads 2012
— 117 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
cross-section and requirements for a recovery test. For the adhesive lubricant, it also sets out the
requirements for the properties. Both seal and lubricant are required to be tested by ASTM test
methods.
B312 sets out the requirements for the properties and performance of rapid curing, cold applied,
elastomeric sealants for small movement bridge deck joints. There are four types of sealants:
self-levelling trafficable, self-levelling non-trafficable, non-sag trafficable and non-sag
non-trafficable sealants; and three different applications: type A for sawn joints in asphalt, type B
for joints in concrete underneath asphalt, and type C for joints in concrete away from asphalt.
There are two hold points for delivery of the sealant to the site and installation. The guarantee
period is five years minimum.
B315 covers the requirements for the supply and installation of preformed elastomeric strip seal
expansion joints, including the metal seal retainers and their anchorages. Detailed requirements for
the elastomer material, design of retainers and anchorages as well as installation tolerances are
specified. The joint will be under a minimum warranty period of five years from the date of
installation.
B316 covers the requirements for the design, fabrication, testing, supply and installation of modular
bridge expansion joints including both single and multiple support bar systems. It is noted that only
RMS and TMR have a technical specification for this modern joint type. The required design
service life varies for different components, which is 15 years for compression and control springs
and support bearings, 20 years for joint seals, and 100 years for centre beams, support bars,
support boxes and welded attachments. The provisions for replaceable components are specified
that minimise impact to traffic during replacement. The following annexures are also included:
Annexure B316/A: specific project requirements: joint openings, horizontal forces, additional
requirements for skewed joints
Annexure B316/B: payment and resolution of nonconformities
Annexure B316/C: Schedules of hold and witness points and identified records: 6 hold
points, 5 witness points, and 14 documents
Annexure B316/D: Planning documents, e.g. quality management, procedures and
fabrication program
Annexure 316/E: Design methodology that sets out requirements on limit state checks, such
as required yield strength of structural steel members, tensile strength of connections, fatigue
limit state, strength limit state and ULS checks. Detailed calculation methods for structural
analysis and limit state design of all joint components are also included.
Annexure B316/L: Outlines test procedure for experimental modal analysis to determine the mode
shapes, natural frequencies, modal damping and dynamic amplification factors. The data can be
used to calibrate any dynamic FE model developed to assist the fatigue design of project-specific
modular joints.
B318 specifies the requirements for the supply and installation of bonded metal/elastomer
expansion joints. In general the design requirements conform to AS 5100.4. Detailed provisions
for anchors, elastomer material, and corrosion protection are included. Installation procedures are
also required to be submitted to RMS before installation of the joint. The guarantee period is also
five years.
Austroads 2012
— 118 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
B319 sets out the provisions for the supply and installation of proprietary aluminium bridge
expansion joints. Only brand names listed in RMS’s approved list in BTD 2008/11 (RTA 2010b)
shall be used.
According to this BTD, RMS has discontinued the use of cork or hose filled, hot poured sealant,
moulded elastomer with strip seal, open gap without protection angles, semi-rigid epoxy and sliding
steel plate joints. The reasons are summarised below:
Cork or hose filled joints are not suitable for trafficable surfaces as they will displace under
vehicle loading and are not watertight. They are used only for footpath due to their low cost
and ease of installation. Existing joints may be replaced by cold applied sealant joints if
damaged.
Hot poured sealant becomes soft under hot weather and stiff under cold weather. If
damaged, this joint may be replaced by a cold applied sealant joint.
Moulded elastomer with strip seal was discontinued since the anchorage is not adequate and
the elastomeric moulding wears excessively around the retainers. The failure develops
rapidly after initiation. If failed, this joint may be replaced by a strip seal, a bonded metal
elastomer or a finger joint.
Open gap without protection angles does not comply with AS 5100.4 as metal armouring is
required to protect the concrete deck edges. If damaged, this joint may be replaced by a cold
sealant, compression seal or a strip seal.
Sliding steel plate is not watertight and has a high level of noise. In addition, the plate
becomes loose over time so it requires frequent tightening of the bolts. If failed, this joint may
be replaced by a compression seal, strip seal or finger joints.
Semi-rigid epoxy is too stiff at low temperatures and delaminated from the concrete under
tension or at high temperatures. If damaged, an asphaltic plug, a cold applied sealant or a
compression seal may be replaced.
In addition, four types of joints are of limited use and only allowed following site-specific studies.
They are asphaltic plug, bonded metal/elastomer, metal fingers bonded to elastomer and open gap
with protection angles, as follows:
Bonded metal elastomer is only used with caution due to its high replacement cost and
variable field performance.
The reason why the use of metal fingers bonded to elastomer is limited rests on its weak
debonding metal male plate to baseplate.
Open gap with protection angles conforms to AS 5100.4 only when used with troughs for
drainage under the deck or along the top of headstock.
The use of asphaltic plug expansion joints has been restricted even though they are easy to
install and repair and provide a smooth, quiet and seamless road surface for traffic. These
Austroads 2012
— 119 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
joints in NSW have been noted to soften in hot weather, to harden and crack in very cold
weather, to rut or delaminate under heavy traffic, and to shove with longitudinal cracking
under light traffic. They are also deficient when installed on lively bridges. The quality of
these joints is highly dependent on the skill of the work crew operating under site constraints.
As a result, these joints have been banned for new bridges and discouraged for maintenance
and rehabilitation works except for locations where noise issues are predominant and there
is no suitable alternative, in which case their installation, maintenance and replacement are
carefully managed (Forster et al. 2009).
Other types of expansion joints, including elastomeric compression seal, cold applied sealant,
fabricated steel fingerplate, modular, strip seal and saw tooth, continue to be used in new bridges
of appropriate movement range as described below:
Advantages of elastomeric compression seals include ease of installation, cost effectiveness
and flexibility to accommodate different movement ranges. RMS recommends that for new
bridges, the gap be narrower than the design width and saw cutting technique be used
immediately before installation of the seal.
Cold applied sealants, which are easy to handle and have stable performance, will be used
for small movement joints. According to RMS experience, the joint performs better if the
maximum expansion or contraction of the sealant is not greater than one quarter of the
installation width of the sealant.
Fabricated steel fingerplate can accommodate large movements, work stably, and cover the
majority of movement ranges. Provision of a stainless steel drainage trough is recommended
to minimise water damage to the underneath bridge elements.
Strip seal has the lowest rate of failure or poor performance reported in recent years in New
South Wales. New versions of this joint are available with improved performance. Scuppers
are recommended to be strategically placed to reduce the problem of debris build-up.
Saw tooth is also recommended for continued use, however, not in skewed bridges.
Modular joints are used for very large movements. This type is recommended when
fabricated fingerplates are not viable.
Preformed or proprietary expansion joints are supplied and installed by the supplier. The
serviceability of the expansion joints shall be guaranteed by the supplier for a period of time after
installation (normally five years minimum).
4.2.3 Testing
Each type of expansion joint requires a different set of tests for quality assurance. Compression
seal joints require a material test of elastomers, recovery test of seals, and adhesive test of the
lubricant used (RTA 2006c).
For cold applied elastomeric sealant joints, the sealant shall be tested to conform to specified
material properties and performance requirements such as hardness, movement capacity, tensile
modulus and be compatible with surrounding materials (RTA 2006d).
For elastomeric strip seal, bonded metal/elastomer and proprietary aluminium joints, material tests
of elastomer and a field test for watertightness are required (RTA 2007c, RTA 2008c and RTA
2008d).
Austroads 2012
— 120 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
4.2.4 Failures
The most common issues for bridge expansion joints in NSW are described in BTD2008/10 (RTA
2008b). In addition, the RMS’s Bridge Inspection Procedure Manual (RTA 2007b) lists the failure
modes of common types of expansion joints in NSW (Table 4.2).
Austroads 2012
— 121 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— 122 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— 123 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Figure 4.17: Joint blocked with debris and spalls appearing at joint edges
As noted in Section 4.2.4, RMS has a Bridge Inspection Procedure Manual (RTA 2007b), part of
which is for expansion joint inspection. For each type of expansion joint, four condition states are
given with clear descriptions and illustrative photos. The manual is a very useful resource for
condition management of bridge expansion joints.
Austroads 2012
— 124 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
BTD2008/10 (RTA 2008b) Section 6 provides brief guidelines on monitoring, maintenance and
rehabilitation for the most common joint types such as asphaltic plug, elastomeric compression
seal, sealant, fingerplate, modular and strip seal.
For maintenance, it is specified that the serviceability of the joint be guaranteed by the supplier for
a minimum period of 10 years after installation. It is also recommended that the joint sealant type
be used on short span bridges having a range of movement of less than 20 mm or limited to ±25%
of the installation width.
VicRoads specified lists of approved deck-joint suppliers and types of joints in BTN1999/002,
however, are out-of-date. Currently VicRoads does not maintain these lists nor does it have an
evaluation or approval process. Normally joints that comply with AS 5100 design/material
requirements and VicRoads specifications are acceptable provided that they have a satisfactory
history of performance. New products that comply with the design and specification requirements
may also be considered for use. Proposals in relation to products of this type are normally
submitted by the contractor to the Superintendent who may, in-turn, seek advice about their use
from the Structures Section. For wholly new items, this process may include an appraisal of
information from the supplier. Once a product has been accepted on this basis, subsequent use on
other projects is a simpler process (Henry Luczak’s email, 10 March 2010).
VicRoads standard specification Section 660 (VicRoads 2006) sets out the requirements for the
supply and installation of deck expansion joints for bridges. Beside the standard requirements, the
following tolerances on the installation of the joint are specified:
joint gap ±3 mm
top surface of joint to be within 5 mm of a 2.5 m straight edge
deviation from plan alignment is 5 mm maximum.
In addition, BTN2002/001 sets out the requirements for the design of anchorage reinforcement and
transverse reinforcement in the concrete nosings adjacent to the joint to prevent deterioration of
the concrete in these areas. Specifically it requires that at least three No. 16 bars be used on each
side of the joint as shown in Figure 4.18.
Austroads 2012
— 125 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Anchorage failure is a common defect affecting deck joints and is often attributed to inadequacy of
the design or incorrect installation of the deck joint. In order to avoid defects due to incorrect
installation, all deck joints shall be installed by the supplier in accordance with the requirements of
VicRoads standard specification Section 660 (VicRoads 2006), and the supplier shall guarantee
the serviceability of the joint for a minimum period of 10 years after installation (VicRoads 2010).
4.3.3 Testing
VicRoads requires test certificates of deck joints from suppliers to ensure that the material
complies with the appropriate material test criteria. All deck joints shall also be installed by the
supplier, and the supplier shall guarantee the serviceability of the joint during guarantee periods.
Austroads 2012
— 126 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
4.3.4 Failures
The following failure modes (Table 4.3) are extracted from VicRoads Bridge inspection manual
(VicRoad 2007) and the database provided by VicRoads Network and Asset Planning (email from
Mahes T Maheswaran on 21 February 2011).
In addition to the above failures, early tearing failures of neoprene glands in extruded aluminium
alloy rail joints due to mechanical damage have been observed (Henry Luczak’s email, 8 February
2011).
Austroads 2012
— 127 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Finger joint and modular joint types are favoured for future use. However, there is a specification
only for modular joints. There is a need for a specification for the design and installation of finger
joints.
4.4.3 Testing
For expansion joints using elastomer seals, evidence is required that the elastomer used in the
manufacture of the joint seals has been tested in accordance with Table 5.2.2 of MRTS82 (TMR
2009c).
For modular expansion joints, similar to RMS B316, a series of tests are required, including:
Preformed elastomeric joint seals shall be tested in accordance with the seal push-out test
procedure set out in NCHRP Report 467 (Dexter et al. 2002).
Elastomer used in the manufacture of the joint seals shall be tested in accordance with Table
9.7 of MRTS90 (TMR 2009d).
Test certificates for steel components in accordance with MRTS78 Fabrication of Structural
Steelwork shall be provided.
Test reports showing conformance of the lubricant with the requirements of penetration and
evaporation tests shall be provided.
Springs shall be tested in accordance with the opening movement and vibration (OMV)
procedure set out in NCHRP Report 467 (Dexter et al. 2002) with 70 hours of continuous
testing.
Watertightness test of the seal shall be tested under a 25 mm depth of water on the roadway
and continuous flow across footpaths and kerbs maintained for 5 hours, or pre-tested in the
factory.
Noise test report (where available) in accordance with AS 2702.
Dynamic stiffness and damping of springs and bearings shall be tested by the testing
procedure set out in Appendix B of MTRS90 (TMR 2009d).
Evidence of compliance with the fatigue test requirements set out in Appendix B of NCHRP
Report 402 (Dexter et al. 1997).
Results of the performance test of the whole system in accordance with NCHRP Report 467
(Dexter et al. 2002) must be provided where available.
A fabrication shop assessment shall also be required.
4.4.4 Failures
Table 4.4 outlines the common failure modes of expansion joints in Queensland as observed in
recent inspections.
Austroads 2012
— 128 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Specifically, it is recommended that the RMS specification be referred to when using modular
expansion joints.
For modular joints, one design requirement that is not well developed is for noise
performance. Modular joints are typically noisy for a number of reasons. Retrofitting noise
reduction is expensive and difficult and some understanding of performance and requirements is
required prior to installation.
Fingerplate joints have been found to generate the least noise if installed correctly. There are,
however, a number of design and performance issues with fingerplates, including fatigue and
durability of connections, and design rules to overcome these would be useful. Access to the bolts,
and the ability to replace or re-tension connections is required in good design. In addition, long
post-tensioned bridges have a significant shrinkage/creep factor and joints will tend to widen and
this needs to be considered. The ability to reposition the joints to close up the gap would be useful
in the original design. Design of the fingers needs to consider access for cyclists.
Austroads 2012
— 129 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Table 4.5 shows a guide for the selection of an appropriate joint type (MRWA 2008).
For extra long bridges, specialist joints may be required, e.g. roller-leaf, and manufacturers should
be consulted. Another alternative is to divide the superstructure in order to use a number of smaller
joints.
4.5.3 Testing
No additional test is specified for expansion joints.
4.5.4 Failures
The following examples from MRWA Routine Visual Bridge Inspection Guidelines (MRWA 2009a),
show common failures in expansion joints. They include a Wabo joint filled with debris
(Figure 4.19), damaged steel angle nosings (Figure 4.20), or damaged or missing seals
(Figure 4.21 and Figure 4.22).
Austroads 2012
— 130 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— 131 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
For fingerplate joints, the fatigue and durability of connections have been of concern. In addition,
water leakage filling the recess hole of the bolts has been an issue.
Another example is the failure of a metal fingers-bonded to elastomer joint in Shelley bridge No.
931 (Robert Scanlon’s email on 19 October 2009, Figure 4.23). One segment of the male metal
fingers was removed since the hold-down bolts were broken.
Figure 4.23: Failures of a metal fingers-bonded to elastomer joint in Shelley bridge No. 931 in WA
Figure 4.24 shows several failure modes of fingerplate type joints. The failures include:
welded stud failure
broken anchor bolts
broken cantilevered fingers
corrosion of metal parts.
Austroads 2012
— 132 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Source: MRWA.
DPTI does not allow step joints in girders (unless there are exceptional circumstances) because of
the difficulty of accessing bearings. Rubber bonded fingerplates on rubber bedding joints (FT
joints) have been discontinued as the components separate and break.
Austroads 2012
— 133 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
The requirements for design and installation of expansion joints shall be based on the provisions in
AS 5100.4 and rewritten in project briefs for design and construction purposes.
In addition to standard requirements, the following provisions are required in project briefs:
Unless otherwise specified, decks of bridges shall be continuous over the full length of the
bridge with movement joints permitted at the abutments only. For bridges up to 100 m long,
no deck joints are required, provided that adequate provision is made for end diaphragms to
move against the fill.
For bridges over 100 m long, joints shall be used. Free-draining fingerplate type joints are
preferred provided joint geometry is suitable for cyclists. Bonded steel/rubber type joints shall
not be used. Where fingerplate type joints are used, adequate measures, including
drainage, shall be taken to prevent water or other liquids from staining any pier or abutment,
causing any damage to any bearing or restraint, or causing corrosion or deterioration to
concrete or metal surfaces.
Joints shall not inhibit the proper placement of concrete and shall have adequate provision
for maintenance and inspection access. Joints shall be detailed and constructed such that
the noise generated by traffic crossing the joint is kept to a minimum. If modular type joints
are used they shall comply with the RMS specification B316 Modular Bridge Expansion
Joints.
The maximum open gap of deck joints shall be limited to 70 mm at the ULS and 85 mm at
the ULS. The use of steel angles exposed at deck level as part of the joint system is not
permitted. Sliding plate expansion joints shall not be used for road bridges except for
adjacent footpaths.
For some recent large bridges finger joints have been used and there has been debate on their
suitability for cyclists. Some crude tests using plywood mock-ups of proposed joints tend to show
they are satisfactory but it is still hard to overcome the perception of the problem (Grant Wilksch
email on 24 November 2010).
4.6.3 Testing
There is no additional test specified for expansion joints.
4.6.4 Failures
The following failures have been reported (email from Grant Wilksch on 24 November 2010):
Asphaltic plug – cracking and breaking up of asphalt are common.
Metal fingers bonded to elastomer – fingers de-bond from elastomer, being replaced when
they start failing.
Elastomeric compression seal – seal loses elasticity and leaks.
Protection angles – corrosion or failure of anchorages.
Sliding steel plates – plates become loose. Often noisy and subject to complaints from
nearby residents.
Proprietary strip seals – retainer anchorages come loose generally a year or two after
installation (often just after end of defects liability period). After tightening, anchorages
perform as normal.
Austroads 2012
— 134 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Strips seals – seals break or are punctured. Difficult to replace seals. One type designed by
DPTI in the 1980's requires the removal of anchorages to replace the seal with the
anchorages commonly breaking during their removal.
There are some examples of expansion joint failures available. In Figure 4.25, anchor bolts of a
Granor strip seal on Craig Gilbert bridge over Port River Expressway were loosened in the first
year and were re-tightened.
Figure 4.26 shows an early Granor XJS joint on a bridge over Onkaparinga River on South East
Freeway in which the silicone seal was cracked due to too thin an application.
Another example is in Figure 4.27 showing a FT joint with the bonded rubber separated/broken in a
bridge on South East Freeway.
Source: DPTI.
Figure 4.25: A strip seal on Craig Gilbert bridge, bolts were loosened
Austroads 2012
— 135 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Source: DPTI.
Source: DPTI.
Austroads 2012
— 136 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
4.7.3 Testing
There was no information found or provided.
4.7.4 Failures
Information provided by Graeme Nichols on 15 November 2010 highlighted the following:
Cork or hose filled joints have unsatisfactory performance as they generally leak.
Asphaltic plug joints have poor performance and require specialised construction.
Hot pour sealant and elastomeric compression joints generally perform well.
Fabricated steel fingerplates were used in large bridges. The hold-down bolts need to be
correctly tensioned otherwise problems will occur.
Modular joints were used for large bridges only. They are expensive to install and repair and
parts availability may be a problem.
4.8.3 Testing
All testings required follows TMR technical standards and specifications.
4.8.4 Failures
The following types of failures have been reported:
Early bridge joints were rubber hose with sealant, and all failed (the hoses came out).
Austroads 2012
— 137 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Small Wabo compression seals generally failed early in life due to UV or hardening. Modern
Wabo style joints with steel angles worked better, but control of joint width was often poor
leading to compression failure or the strip seal coming out.
T-plates with asphalt were often placed in failed joints, but the asphalt over the top always
failed and the T-plates occasionally came out of the joint and ended up being a hazard to
vehicles.
Felspan laminated elastomeric joints are not common. Delamination and failure occurred on
Stuart Hwy.
FT joints (rubber bonded fingerplates on rubber bedding) have all failed due to debonding.
The joints were all installed on the approach slabs and were never reset to adjust for the
rotation of the approach slabs, and therefore the joints were all working as loaded
cantilevers. NT has recorded one incident of a loose joint comb being flung into the air by a
truck and taking out the sump of a following sedan.
Early plank bridges often had joint angles bolted into longitudinal joints. They were generally
light and the angles and bolts failed due to fatigue.
Retrofitting non-composite plank bridges with strip seal joints bolted into longitudinal joints
has been problematic.
Leakage through joints of concrete bridges causes staining, but has not been a major cause
of corrosion so far.
4.9.3 Testing
There is no additional requirement.
4.9.4 Failures
Few modes of failure have been observed from recent annual reports. Table 4.6 summaries failure
modes of some expansion types that are derived from two recent reports:
Bridge Expansion Joints Program 2007-2008 Report (Roads ACT 2008)
Bridge Expansion Joints Program 2008-2009 Report (Roads ACT 2009).
Austroads 2012
— 138 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Figure 4.28: Damaged asphaltic plug joint in Bridge 1056, cracks along the edges
Figure 4.29: A compression seal joint with concrete nosing in Bridge 1147, deteriorated seal and damaged nosings
Austroads 2012
— 139 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Figure 4.30: A compression seal joint with steel angles in Bridge 1249, protrusion of and minor damage/wear to
compression seals
Figure 4.32: A Felspan joint in Bridge 2097, damaged joint and missing sections
Austroads 2012
— 140 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Figure 4.33: A mechanical finger joint in Bridge 2113, a male finger joint segment broken out
Austroads 2012
— 141 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
4.10.3 Testing
No additional requirements to AS 5100.4.
4.10.4 Failures
Information provided by John Reynolds on 3 November 2010 highlighted the following:
Asphaltic plug joints are used for retrofitting where appropriate, especially to avoid noise
issues. Maintenance of these joints is typically required on a 10 year cycle.
Bonded metal/elastomer joints were used extensively in the past. They tend to fail through
either metal/elastomer debonding or anchorage failure due to the very high induced forces
under movement. They are no longer used.
Compression seal joints have been used extensively for joint retrofitting. They are good joint
systems, thus will be used in new designs.
Cold applied sealant joints are used frequently. Problems can occur with concrete-sealant
debonding and loss of sealant integrity due to incompatibility with bitumen.
Fabricated steel fingerplate joints often fill with debris. Many have been replaced due to
anchorage failures.
Open gaps with protection angles are seldom used in NZTA as they have leak and debris
issues.
Sliding steel plate joints have mostly been replaced due to leakage and noise problems.
Strip seals joints are the most common joint used in NZTA for large movements. They
perform well and will be continued.
Very few modular joints have been used in NZTA and will be used as required for very large
movements.
Austroads 2012
— 142 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Adhesion and cohesion cracks or loss of the joint sealant and/or hose RMS, VicRoads, TMR, DPTI, ACT TAMS,
Cracks and spalls in adjacent deck or headers NZTA
Section delaminated from the deck RMS, VicRoads, TMR, ACT TAMS
Joints are impacted with debris or stones VicRoads, TMR, DIER, DPI
Broken bitumen/cork filler; ripped out in chunks by traffic RMS
VicRoads, TMR
Compression seal joints
Adhesion failures from abrasion or tearing RMS, VicRoads, TMR
Cracks and spalls in adjacent deck or headers RMS, VicRoads, TMR, MRWA, ACT TAMS
Damaged nosings DPTI, VicRoads, TMR
Damaged or lost seals DPTI, ACT TAMS
Seals deteriorated due to UV or hardening DPI
Broken stud and loose nosing angles ACT TAMS
Loss of compression set, falling through the gap, protruding above the trafficked surface Granor
Strip seal joints
Accumulation of debris DPTI, RMS
Loosened anchor bolts due to vibration DPTI, Trelleborg
Elastomeric seal punctures or breaks up DPTI
Delamination and failure of Felspan joints DPI, ACT TAMS
Breakage of the aluminium retainers and fixings. Granor
Bonded metal/elastomer expansion joints
Glands split or pulled out of the housings TMR, VicRoads
Peeled rubber Granor
Loosening or breaking of anchorage RMS, TMR, VicRoads
Cracked concrete or asphalt nosings TMR, VicRoads
Leakage Granor
Variable field performance RMS
Fingerplate joints
Section of finger joint came lose, due to loosening of the threaded anchors RMS, MRWA, DPI, ACT TAMS
Misalignment or broken fingers MRWA, VicRoads, TMR
Water leaking and debris accumulation MRWA, ACT TAMS, DPI
Corrosion of metal parts VicRoads, MRWA
Debonding of the upper and lower plates from central neoprene pad (for FT joints) DPTI, DPI, ACT TAMS, RMS
Failed or missing catch drains or membranes TMR, VicRoads
Frequent maintenance required DIER
Fatigue issues MRWA
Not compatible with seismic requirements NZTA
Austroads 2012
— 143 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Modular joints
Significant noise from vehicle impact RMS, MRWA
Fatigue cracks RMS
Frequent maintenance required Trelleborg
The above summary shows that the common failure modes of bridge expansion joints identified in
Australia are similar to those reported in the literature (see Section 2).
4.11.3 Recommendations
Based on the information collected from the SRAs the following investigation is proposed:
Identify the key types of expansion joint to be investigated. They are the joints that have
been used in the past, will be continued to use in new bridges, and have issues, including
compression seal joints, fingerplate joints and modular joints. Investigation will focus on root
causes of the issues, maintenance to rectify the issues, upgrade and modification, and
changes for future use.
Propose revised provisions and/or new provisions in AS 5100.4 for the selected expansion
joints in order to improve their performance.
Specifically, detailed specification clauses for fingerplate joints and modular joints will be
developed and proposed to be included in AS 5100.4.
Propose AS 5100.4 clauses for other types of expansion joints.
Austroads 2012
— 144 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Recommendations provided in this section can be used as guidelines for the design of these
expansion joints.
Austroads 2012
— 145 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
In addition, special types of compression seal joints have been available on the local market, such
as Wizflex EJS, which is designed based on a combination of compression joint and epoxy-bonded
rubber seal technologies. The seal is bonded into the gap walls, which may be steel, concrete,
polymer modified concrete or aluminium members, thus providing waterproofing and prevention of
dislodgement of the seal (Figure 3.7).
Austroads 2012
— 146 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— 147 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Austroads 2012
— 148 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
In addition, one of the disadvantages of fingerplate joints is their limited capacity for
accommodating differential movements (deflection, rotation or settlement) across the joint and they
should not be used if significant movements from these effects are expected (RTA 2008b).
Austroads 2012
— 149 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Fingerplates should have adequate stiffness to prevent excessive vibration and have
sufficient flexural capacity to prevent bending and fatigue issues.
Fingers should be aligned in the direction of movement to avoid exerting excessive forces on
opposing fingers.
Anchorages shall have sufficient tensile and shear strength to resist loads from heavy traffic
including impact. To prevent fatigue failures of the anchorages sufficient bolt tension is
required such that the load in the bolt does not change under the design ULS traffic load.
Long debonded anchor bolts to avoid the use of base plates should be considered in new
designs.
Stainless steel drainage troughs with cross-falls of at least 8% should be provided to prevent
water and debris accumulation. Stainless steel should be used for bolts, nuts and washers.
In new, long bridges with significant creep and shrinkage, resetting of fingerplates should be
considered by providing extra bolt holes in the plates.
In addition, modern fingerplate joints are available on the market with special features that help to
address the causes of the joint failures. The pre-tensioned bolts, as used in Cipec and Etic joints
by Granor (Section 3.1.1), create a permanent compression stress between the joint and the
structure, thus providing good resistance against vibrations and fatigue effects. The pre-tensioned
fingers that are used in the TensaFlex sliding finger system by Megaba (Moor 2006), combined
with a flexible and shock-absorbing design, help to protect the bridge structure underneath from
fatigue-related problems and improve the capacity for accommodating different deflection, rotation
or settlement across the joint.
In addition, the following findings from recent RMS position papers should be considered for
inclusion (RTA 2011, RTA 2008e, RTA 2005e):
Variable tyre contact areas should be used for different limit states when designing fingers
and anchorages.
The supplier of the joint should provide calculations to show the relationship between the
applied torque and the resulting axial hold-down force provided by the anchors. Appropriate
tests should be performed to determine the tightening factor used in the calculation.
A minimum of M20 grade 8.8 anchors at 200 mm spacings at each side of the joint should be
used.
Adequate preload should be maintained in the bolt to prevent vibration loosening.
Austroads 2012
— 150 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
In addition, as mentioned in Section 2.2.9, more possible failures related to modular expansion
joints have been reported in the literature as follows:
water leakage at seal splice
debris accumulated in seals
reflective cracks in the concrete deck directly above the support boxes
corrosion of metal components.
Austroads 2012
— 151 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Close cooperation between the designer, contractor, and joint manufacturer is required to ensure
good detail design, thus reducing placement problems during joint installation (AASHTO 2004).
The specific provisions for modular expansion joints in AS 5100.4 should be revised incorporating
the provisions of B316 (RTA 2005d) and/or further tests on existing installed modular joints
(Section 3.1.2).
Austroads 2012
— 152 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Of the above criteria, the selection of expansion joints is mainly based on the applicable movement
range of the joint. Table 5.1 lists the applicable movement ranges for a number of popular
expansion joint systems based on the manufacturers’ and suppliers’ product specifications.
Asphaltic plug
Prismo-ThormaJoint < 50
Austroads 2012
— 153 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
For a movement range of 85 mm to 125 mm, bonded metal/elastomer and fingerplate joints
are applicable. It should be noted that although the strip seals can accommodate a
movement of up to 125 mm, it is limited by the AS 5100.4 requirement for a maximum gap of
85 mm.
For a movement range of 125 mm to 330 mm, fingerplate joints and bonded metal/elastomer
joints are applicable. An MBSJ can also be considered for this movement range.
For a movement of less than 500 mm, a fingerplate joint or a MBSJ can be selected.
MBSJ is the only joint system that can be applicable for movements of larger than 500 mm.
If a fingerplate joint is selected for a movement of larger than 200 mm, special attention
should be paid to control the fatigue failure of the fingers.
Austroads 2012
— 154 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
6.1 General
Same as Clause 17.1, AS 5100.4.
Principally, expansion joints must perform the functions required in Section 2.1.2 of this report.
6.3 Requirements
Same as Clause 17.3, AS 5100.4.
6.5 Drainage
Same as Clause 17.5, AS 5100.4.
Austroads 2012
— 155 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
The material of the seal as manufactured shall conform to the requirements in Table 6.1.
The width of the seal shall be sufficient to ensure that it is not damaged of pulled out of the metal
retainer at the maximum design gap width. In addition, the width of the seal shall not be wider than
required to accommodate the design movement range to avoid entrapment of debris.
Extruded aluminium seal retainers shall have sufficient stiffness to not require stiffeners.
Anchorages shall be designed to resist all static and dynamic loads and shall be thoroughly
bonded to the concrete. The metal retainers shall have regularly spaced vent holes to allow air to
escape, unless venting is provided by the anchor bolt holes.
Appropriate torque shall be applied to tighten the anchor bolts during installation. The value of
appropriate torque shall be specified by the manufacturer and supported with experimental data to
ensure an axial tension of 65% ULS load in the anchor.
Austroads 2012
— 156 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
The appropriate number and size of anchor bolts shall be specified on the design drawing.
Sufficient space for inspection, maintenance and replacement of joint components shall be
provided.
A maintenance manual shall be provided simultaneously with the delivery of the joint. The manual
shall detail the required inspection and maintenance schedule for the joint, together with work
procedures required to carry out repairs and/or replacement of each component of the joint.
The material of the seal as manufactured shall conform to Table 6.1. Materials of other
components shall conform to AS 5100.4.
Austroads 2012
— 157 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
The supplier of the joint shall provide calculations to show the relationship between the
applied torque and the resulting axial hold-down force provided by the anchors.
A minimum of M20 grade 8.8 anchors at 200 mm spacings at each side of the joint shall be
used.
6.11 Installation
Same as Clause 17.7, AS 5100.4.
6.12.1 General
Bridge expansion joints shall be inspected at regular bridge inspection programs. When a joint is in
need of attention, the available options are to immediately start maintenance or rehabilitation work
or to monitor the joint’s behaviour and its overall effects on the bridge and hazard to road users
when deciding on the course of action to be taken.
Spray seals or asphalt shall not be permitted to overlay on top of joints as this will cause damage
to the joint, inhibit its performance and cause ride and later bridge maintenance problems.
6.12.2 Monitoring
Monitoring a joint can be undertaken to better understand the condition of the joint and severity of
the damage or evaluate rehabilitation methods. Monitoring can assist programming of joint works
and assessment of functionality of the joint.
Monitoring methods and tools shall be carefully selected to provide ample warning about any
impending failure or to provide sufficient information to make the right decisions. Risk management
techniques can be applied to aid decision making.
Regular inspections of joints shall be conducted to identify maintenance or rehabilitation needs and
preventative measures required to improve the quality of joints.
Joints shall be maintained starting from their installation when the bridge is new and shall continue
throughout the whole life of the bridge, to prevent the need for major expensive rehabilitation
works.
Austroads 2012
— 158 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Any joint requiring corrective action shall be checked to assess whether a replacement or a repair
is necessary.
If joint replacement is required, an acceptable joint type shall be identified that can cater for the
required movement range.
The remaining bridge life and difficulties in placing anchors between existing steel reinforcement
shall be considered during the design of rehabilitation works.
Wherever possible and depending on the site, a failed joint shall be fully replaced by a new joint
conforming to AS 5100.4.
Austroads 2012
— 159 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
7 CONCLUSIONS
The project has involved a literature review, consultation with manufacturers and consultation with
SRAs to identify the most common modes of failure of bridge expansion joints in Australia. The
following conclusions are noted:
A number of failure modes have been reported in both the literature and current Australian
practice. There are as many joint-specific failure modes as common failure modes.
The root causes of failures may come from all stages including design, manufacture,
installation and maintenance. However, the most common cause of failures relates to the
design and installation stage.
In addition to following AS 5100.4, each SRA has developed and/or used its own technical
guidelines and specifications. The requirements, particularly in materials and testing, may
vary significantly, creating a level of inconsistency throughout the SRAs and difficulties for
manufacturers, suppliers and contractors.
There is a lack of consistent procedures for acceptance and control measures of new
products, especially of imported products.
The recommendations made in Section 5 can be used as design rules to overcome the
performance issues for each type of expansion joint.
Section 6 can be used as the basis to develop generic code provisions and specifications for
joints.
Austroads 2012
— 160 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
REFERENCES
AASHTO 1998, AASHTO LRFD Bridge construction specifications, 1st edn, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington, DC, USA.
nd
AASHTO 2004, AASHTO LRFD Bridge construction specifications, 2 edn, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington, DC, USA.
AASHTO 2007, ‘Joints and bearings’, section 14 (SI) in AASHTO LRFD Bridge design specifications: dual
th
units, 4 edn, LRFDEM-4-CD, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), Washington, DC, USA.
th
AASHTO 2010, ‘Joints and bearings’, section 14 in AASHTO LRFD Bridge design specifications, 5 edn,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington, DC,
USA.
AASHTO & NSBA 2005, Steel bridge bearing design and detailing guidelines, AASHTO document SBB-1G
9.1- 2004, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO),
Washington, DC, USA.
Ancich, EJ & Bhavnagri, V 2006, ‘Fatigue comparison of modular bridge expansion joints using multiple
bridge design code approaches’, World congress of joints, bearings, and seismic systems for concrete
th
structures, 6 , Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, The International Joints & Bearings Research Council &
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
Ancich, EJ & Bradford, P 2006, ‘Modular bridge expansion joint dynamics’, World congress of joints,
bearings, and seismic systems for concrete structures, 6th, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, The
International Joints & Bearings Research Council & American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
USA.
Ancich, EJ & Chirgwin, GJ 2006, ‘Fatigue proofing of an in-service modular bridge expansion joint’, World
th
congress of joints, bearings, and seismic systems for concrete structures, 6 , Halifax, Nova Scotia,
Canada, The International Joints & Bearings Research Council & American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
Ancich, EJ, Forster, G & Bhavnagri, V 2006, ‘Modular bridge expansion joint specifications and load testing’,
Austroads bridge conference, 6th, 2006, Perth, Western Australia, Austroads, Sydney NSW, 15 pp.
Austroads 1992, Austroads bridge design code: section 4: bearings and deck joints, AP-15.4, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009, Guide to bridge technology: part 3: typical superstructures, substructures and components,
AGBT03/09, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Baker, RJ & Adams, BW 1996, ‘A new generation of APJ design: the cold plug joint’, World congress on joint
sealants and bearing systems for concrete structures, 4th, Sacramento, California, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA, pp. 353-63.
Barnard, CP & Cunninghame, JR 1997, Improving the performance of bridge expansion joints, report 236,
Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, UK.
Braun, J 1996, ‘Development of expansion joints and bearings’, World congress on joint sealants and
bearing systems for concrete structures, 4th, Sacramento, California, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, USA, pp.1157-70.
Austroads 2012
— 161 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Chang, LM & Lee, YJ 2002, ‘Evaluation of performance of bridge deck expansion joints’, Journal of
Performance Of Constructed Facilities, vol.16, no.1, pp. 3-9.
Chen, WF & Duan, L 2000, Bridge engineering handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Chen, WF & Duan, L 2003, Bridge engineering substructure design, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Dahir, SH & Mellott, DB 1987, ‘Bridge deck expansion joint’, Transportation Research Record, no.1118,
pp.16-24.
Davidson, G, Sarmiento, C, Williams, C & Robinson, N 2004, ‘Design, specification, manufacture and testing
of laminated elastomeric and pot bearings to AS 5100.4’, Austroads bridge conference, 5th, 2004,
Hobart, Tasmania, Austroads, Sydney, NSW, 22 pp.
Dexter, RJ, Connor, RJ & Kaczinski, MR 1997, Fatigue design of modular bridge expansion joints, National
cooperative highway research program (NCHRP) report 402, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, USA.
Dexter, RJ, Mutziger, MJ & Osberg, CB 2002, Performance testing for modular bridge joint systems, National
cooperative highway research program (NCHRP) report 467, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, USA.
Dexter, RJ, Osberg, CB, & Mutziger, MJ 2001, ‘Design, specification, installation, and maintenance of
modular bridge expansion joint systems’, Journal of Bridge Engineering, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 529-37.
DIER 2004, Elastomeric bearings, bridgeworks specification B30, Department of Infrastructure, Energy and
Resources, Hobart, Tas.
Fleuriot, E, McCulloch, D & Szto, B 2006, ‘The replacement of the expansion joints on the Aplex Fraser
bridge’, World congress of joints, bearings, and seismic systems for concrete structures, 6th, Halifax,
Nova Scotia, Canada , The International Joints & Bearings Research Council & American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
Forster, G, Anzar, M & Ahmed, T 2009, 'Investigation, assessment, approval and management of bridge
deck joints by RTA NSW', Austroads bridge conference, 7th, 2009, Auckland, New Zealand,
Convention Management, Auckland, NZ, 12 pp.
Fyfe, ER, Milligan, P & Watson, SC 2006, ‘A discussion of failure modes on high load bridge bearings which
have resulted in the current design methods, philosophy, and guidelines for disc bearings’, World
congress of joints, bearings, and seismic systems for concrete structures, 6th, Halifax, Nova Scotia,
Canada , The International Joints & Bearings Research Council & American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
Gase, PM & Kaczinski, MR 2006, ‘Bridge bearing design and detailing guidelines’, World congress of joints,
bearings, and seismic systems for concrete structures, 6th, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada , The
International Joints & Bearings Research Council & American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
USA.
Granor Rubber and Engineering n.d, Granor Rubber and Engineering home page, Bayswater, Vic, viewed
12 October 2010, <http://www.granor.com.au/>.
Issa, MA, Robinson, B & Shahawy, M 1996, ‘On-site evaluation of bridge deck expansion joints’, World
th
congress on joint sealants & bearing systems for concrete structures, 4 , Sacramento, California,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA, pp. 561-83.
Austroads 2012
— 162 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Kaczinski, MR, Dexter, RJ & Connor, RJ 1996, ‘Fatigue design and testing of modular bridge expansion
joints’, World congress on joint sealants and bearing systems for concrete structures, 4th,
Sacramento, California, American Concrete Institute, MI, USA, pp. 97-111.
nd
Lee, DJ 1994, Bridge bearings and expansion joints, 2 edn, E&FN Spon, London, UK.
Littlefair, K 2008, ‘Inspection of bridge bearings at Lake Ginninderra, Belconnen,’ Roads ACT, Territory and
Municipal Services Directorate, Canberra, ACT.
Ludowici n.d, Engineered products/bridge bearings, Ludowici, Pinkenba, Qld, viewed 12 October 2010,
<http://www.ludowici.com.au/web/news.html?newsId=292>.
Lyons, M 2009, ‘Bridge 2097: supplementary report’, Roads ACT, Territory and Municipal Services
Directorate, Canberra, ACT.
Majumdar, S & Datta, S 2006, ‘First introduction of disc bearings in India in Bandra Worli Sea Link’, World
congress of joints, bearings, and seismic systems for concrete structures, 6th, Halifax, Nova Scotia,
Canada, The International Joints & Bearings Research Council & American Concrete Institute, MI,
USA.
Marioni, A 2006, ‘The European standard EN 1337 on structural bearings’, World congress of joints,
bearings, and seismic systems for concrete structures, 6th, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, The
International Joints & Bearings Research Council & American Concrete Institute, MI, USA.
Moor, G 2006, ‘Modern sliding finger expansion joints: minimizing traffic management problems’, World
congress of joints, bearings, and seismic systems for concrete structures, 6th, Halifax, Nova Scotia,
Canada, The International Joints & Bearings Research Council & American Concrete Institute, MI,
USA.
MRWA 2008, Bridge branch design information manual, document 3912/02/01, Main Roads Western
Australia, East Perth, WA.
MRWA 2009, Routine visual bridge inspection guidelines, document 6706-02-2234, Main Roads Western
Australia, East Perth, WA.
MRWA 2010, Bridge bearings, specification 860, Main Roads Western Australia, East Perth, WA.
QMR 2004, Bridge inspection manual, Queensland Department of Main Roads, Spring Hill, Qld.
QMR 2006, ‘Pot bearing: configuration and typical defects’, BAM advice note no. 63, Queensland
Department of Main Roads, Spring Hill, Qld.
Raina, VK 1994, Concrete bridge practice: analysis, design and economics, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi,
India.
Roads ACT 2008, ‘Bridge expansion joints program 2007-2008’, Roads ACT, Territory and Municipal
Services Directorate, Canberra, ACT.
Roads ACT 2009, ‘Bridge expansion joints program 2008-2009’, Roads ACT, Territory and Municipal
Services Directorate, Canberra, ACT.
Roeder, CW, Stanton, JF & Campbell, TI 1995, ‘Rotation of high load multirotational bridge bearings’,
Journal of Structural Engineering, vol.121, no. 4, pp. 747-56.
Austroads 2012
— 163 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
RTA 1997a, Design of bearings for durability, Chief bridge engineer circular CBE 97/5, Roads and Traffic
Authority, Sydney, NSW, viewed 4 July 2011,
<http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/doingbusinesswithus/engineeringpolicies/downloads/bridge_td_2006.html
>.
RTA 1997b, Bridge bearings: design for maintenance or replacement, Chief bridge engineer circular CBE
98/8, Roads and Traffic Authority, Sydney, NSW, viewed 4 July 2011,
<http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/doingbusinesswithus/engineeringpolicies/downloads/bridge_td_2006.html
>.
RTA 2004, Inspection of modular expansion joint and control of noise, RTA bridge policy circular
BCP2004/08, Roads and Traffic Authority, Sydney, NSW, viewed 4 July 2011,
<http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/doingbusinesswithus/engineeringpolicies/downloads/bridge_td_2006.html
>.
RTA 2005a, Pot bearings: stainless steel, RTA QA Specification B283, Roads and Traffic Authority, Sydney,
NSW, viewed 4 July 2011,
<http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/doingbusinesswithus/engineeringpolicies/bridge_td.html>.
RTA 2005b, Installation of elastomeric bearings for pretensioned concrete girders, RTA bridge policy
circulars BCP 2005/03, Roads and Traffic Authority, Sydney, NSW.
RTA 2005c, Pot bearing attachment plates, RTA bridge policy circulars BCP 2005/04, Roads and Traffic
Authority, Sydney, NSW.
RTA 2005d, Modular bridge expansion joints, RTA QA specification B316, Roads and Traffic Authority,
Sydney, NSW, viewed 4 July 2011,
<http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/doingbusinesswithus/engineeringpolicies/bridge_td.html>.
RTA 2005e, ‘Locking devices for stress bar nuts and caps screws’, RTA position paper, Roads and Traffic
Authority, Sydney, NSW.
RTA 2006a, Unreinforced elastomeric bearing pads and strips, RTA QA specification B280, Roads and
Traffic Authority, Sydney, NSW, viewed 4 July 2011,
<http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/doingbusinesswithus/engineeringpolicies/bridge_td.html>.
RTA 2006b, Laminated elastomeric bearings, RTA QA specification B281, Roads and Traffic Authority,
Sydney, NSW, viewed 4 July 2011,
<http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/doingbusinesswithus/engineeringpolicies/bridge_td.html>.
RTA 2006c, Compression seal expansion joints, RTA QA specification B310, Roads and Traffic Authority,
Sydney, NSW viewed 4 July 2011,
<http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/doingbusinesswithus/engineeringpolicies/bridge_td.html>.
RTA 2006d, Cold applied elastomeric joint sealants, RTA QA specification B312, Roads and Traffic
Authority, Sydney, NSW, viewed 4 July 2011,
<http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/doingbusinesswithus/engineeringpolicies/bridge_td.html>.
RTA 2007a, Pot bearings: structural steel, RTA QA specification B282, RTA, NSW.
nd
RTA 2007b, Bridge inspection procedure manual, 2 edn, Roads and Traffic Authority, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2012
— 164 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
RTA 2007c, Elastomeric strip seal expansion joints, RTA QA specification B315, Roads and Traffic Authority,
Sydney, NSW, viewed 4 July 2011,
<http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/doingbusinesswithus/engineeringpolicies/bridge_td.html>.
RTA 2008a, Installation of bridge bearings, RTA QA specification B284, Roads and Traffic Authority, Sydney,
NSW, viewed 4 July 2011,
<http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/doingbusinesswithus/specifications/bridgeworks.html>.
RTA 2008b, Bridge deck joint selection, design, installation and maintenance, bridge technical direction BTD
2008/10, Roads and Traffic Authority, Sydney, NSW, viewed 4 July 2011,
<http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/doingbusinesswithus/engineeringpolicies/bridge_td.html>.
RTA 2008c, Bonded metal-elastomer expansion joints, RTA QA specification B318, Roads and Traffic
Authority, Sydney, NSW, viewed 4 July 2011,
<http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/doingbusinesswithus/engineeringpolicies/bridge_td.html>.
RTA 2008d, Proprietary aluminium expansion joints, RTA QA specification B319, Roads and Traffic
Authority, Sydney, NSW, viewed 4 July 2011,
<http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/doingbusinesswithus/engineeringpolicies/bridge_td.html>.
RTA 2008e, ‘Design and installation of socket head cap screws and bolts for expansion joint anchorage’,
RTA position paper, Roads and Traffic Authority, Sydney, NSW.
RTA 2010a, ‘Design of through-bolts for anchoring expansion joints to concrete bridge decks’, RTA position
paper, 14 July 2010, Roads and Traffic Authority, Sydney, NSW.
RTA 2010b, Lists of RTA approved bridge components and systems, bridge technical direction BTD
2008/11, Roads and Traffic Authority, Sydney, NSW, viewed 4 July 2011,
<http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/doingbusinesswithus/engineeringpolicies/bridge_td.html>.
RTA 2011, ‘Design of fingerplate joints’, position paper: revision 3, March 2011, Roads and Traffic Authority,
Sydney, NSW.
Shiau, YC, Wang, MT, Huang, CM & Zeng, JY 2008 ‘Discussion of pot bearing for concrete bridge’,
th
International symposium on automation and robotics in construction, 25 , Vilnius, Lithuania, IAARC,
Eindhoven, Netherlands, pp. 213-23.
TMR 2009a, Bridge bearings, Main Roads technical standard MRTS81, Queensland Department of
Transport and Main Roads, Spring Hill, Qld.
TMR 2009b, Stainless steel bridge bearings, Main Roads technical standard MRTS81a, Queensland
Department of Transport and Main Roads, Spring Hill, Qld.
TMR 2009c, Bridge deck expansion joints, Main Roads technical standard MRTS82, Queensland
Department of Transport and Main Roads, Spring Hill, Qld.
TMR 2009d, Modular bridge expansion joints, Main Roads technical standard MRTS90, Queensland
Department of Transport and Main Roads, Spring Hill, Qld.
TMR 2009e, Design criteria for bridges and other structures, Queensland Department of Transport and Main
Roads, Spring Hill, Qld.
TMR 2010, Bridge bearings, Main Roads standard specification MRS 11.81, Queensland Department of
Transport and Main Roads, Spring Hill, Qld.
Austroads 2012
— 165 —
Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints
Transit New Zealand 2001, Bridge inspection and maintenance manual, revised edn, Transit New Zealand,
Wellington, NZ.
nd
Transit New Zealand 2003, Bridge manual, 2 edn, SP/M/022, Transit New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.
Trelleborg Engineered Systems Australia, Infrastructure: rail, road and bridges, Trelleborg Engineered
Systems Australia, Brisbane, Qld, viewed 12 October 2010, < <http://www.trelleborg.com.au.php5-
1.dfw1-1.websitetestlink.com/?page_id=493>.
VicRoads 2004a, Supply of elastomeric bearings, standard section 652, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
VicRoads 2004b, Pot type confined elastomeric bearings, standard section 653, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
VicRoads 2004c, Installation of elastomeric bearings and pads, standard section 656, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
VicRoads 2005a, Design of laminated elastomeric bearing, bridge technical notes BTN2003/001, VicRoads,
Kew, Vic.
VicRoads 2005b, Procedure for testing pot bearings, bridge technical notes BTN2002/002, VicRoads, Kew,
Vic.
VicRoads 2005c, Reinforcement of deck joints, bridge technical notes BTN2002/001 version 1.1, VicRoads,
Kew, Vic.
VicRoads 2006, Deck expansion joints, standard section 660, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
VicRoads 2010, Design of deck joint for road bridges, bridge technical notes BTN1999/002 version 2.1,
VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
Watson, SC 2006, ‘Experience with joint sealing and bearing systems on North American pavements and
bridges and a history of involvement with them during the last 60 years’, World congress of joints,
bearings, and seismic systems for concrete structures, 6th, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
Standards Australia
Austroads 2012
— 166 —
INFORMATION RETRIEVAL
Austroads, 2012, Design Rules for Bridge Bearings and Expansion Joints,
Sydney, A4, pp. 177. AP-R405-12.
Keywords: bridge bearing, expansion joint, deck joint, bearing, pot bearing,
elastomeric bearing, laminated elastomeric bearing, disc bearing, spherical
bearing, joint, modular expansion joint, fingerplate joint, MBJS, strip, seal,
compression joint, design rule, design, specification, failure, joint failure,
bearing failure.
This report develops guidelines for the design and construction of both bridge
bearings and bridge expansion joints to overcome performance issues
experienced in Australian bridges. The project report includes (i) a review of
existing Australian and international literature on bridge bearings and
expansion joints, (ii) identification of typical failure modes of various types of
bearings and expansion joints observed in Australian current practice, (iii) key
issues in design, manufacture, construction and maintenance of bridge
bearings and expansion joints experienced by various State Road Authorities
and local manufacturers/suppliers, (iv) an investigation into failure modes of
some common bridge bearing and expansion joint types as well as
recommendations for design, construction and/or maintenance solutions to
overcome these identified issues and (v) suggested generic specifications for
bridge bearings and expansion joints.