Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Technical guide
Bibliograph y .......................................................................................................... 40
General documents ................................................................................................................................ 40
Standards ............................................................................................................................................... 40
Bibliography specific to Appendix 1 ....................................................................................................... 41
Bearings are important elements of a structure for which the notion of wear and durability is not inferior to that of the
structure, as, in that case, they would be regarded as consumables. For this reason, particular care needs to be taken over
their choice, quality, design and implementation. This is all the more true in that the cost of the product itself is
disproportionate in comparison to that involved in interventions to raise the structure and repair the bosses: a ratio of 1 to
50 is considered the minimum.
A study carried out by the Sétra as to the causes of interventions on structures to repair bearings (of all types) revealed that
that there were three completely equal origins:
• Defects arising from poor product quality (such as corrosion or de-bonding). Concerning this matter, the
publication of the standard NF EN 1337 (after the French standards) regarding product specifications and CE marking for
laminated elastomeric bearings are giving rise to improvement.
• Installation defects. Following the specifications of the guide "Environnement des appareils d'appui en caoutchouc
fretté" ("The environment of laminated elastomeric bearings" cf. Bibliography) is a sine qua non condition for
improvements in this area.
This guide does not cover installation. This is covered in the guide entitled "Environnement des appareils d'appui en
caoutchouc fretté ("The environment of laminated elastomeric bearings"). We do however stress the importance of
including the specifications described in this document in Particular Technical Clauses (CCTP) and in the QAP
(Quality Assurance Plans) and of ensuring their application.
• Problems arising from errors in dimensioning (a slide plate that is too short, an insufficient number of elastomeric
laminations, insufficient plan dimensions, etc.).
It is this third section that this guide intends to examine, as regards laminated elastomeric bearings.
We would also like to highlight the importance of designing the deck, bearings and supports as an INDISSOCIABLE
whole. It is from this perspective that the present guide has been drafted.
Laminated elastomeric bearings (LEB) and pot bearings (PB) represent over 90 % of bearing used on bridges in France.
Although at the extremities of the field of use, the reasons for choosing one type of bearing over another are quite obvious,
they are less easy to discern in borderline cases.
The choice of bearing type depends on a number of factors, including the load path, maximum rotation, horizontal
displacement, durability, cost, the type of structure, the environment and structural arrangements. For this reason, it is
difficult to determine the respective field of use of one method over another.
For reactions of under 12 MN (calculated at ULS) on supports, laminated elastomeric bearings are wholly suitable. This
value corresponds to plan dimensions of around 700 x 700 mm. Above 20 MN, pot bearings are preferable as they limit the
bulk of the device. Between these two values, LEBs can be used, either by increasing the dimensions to 900 x 900mm for
large structures, or by joining two smaller bearings. The latter solution is only easy to implement on box bridges and
concrete slab bridges due to the space required for the bearings. They cannot easily be envisaged for girder bridges
(composite or of prestressed concrete).
However, in the event of large bearing rotations, LEBs may be suitable, but the thickness of the elastomer needs to be
greatly increased, thus posing other problems. As regards horizontal displacement, the slide systems of PBs offer better
quality and, therefore, higher durability. It is thus the displacement criteria that influence the choice.
In any event, manufacturing constraints (mainly the size of presses) mean that the largest size of LEBs is currently limited
to around 1000 x 1000 x 300mm as regards French manufacture (abroad, dimensions of 1200 x 1200 x 300mm can be
reached).
The cost of LEBs is lower than that of PBs. However, it must not be forgotten that the cost of bearings is a small percentage
of that of the structure.
In seismic areas, even for heavy load paths, LEBs are the preferred choice. In the absence of a fixed point, and taking into
account the flexibility offered by LEBs, the overall behaviour of a structure in the event of moderate seismic activity is
better. In the event of a strong earthquake, the LEBs would tear and replacing them would be less costly than for PBs.
1
CEN: European Committee for Standardization
1.4 – Scope
The rules set out in this technical guide are for the use of
Bearings composed of elastomeric plates.
These rules are only applicable to
Bearings made of at least two elastomeric laminations bonded by vulcanization to metal plates
(although the standard authorizes the use of bearings composed of a single lamination between two coated plates) (type B
of the NF EN 1337-3) and if required,
completed by sliding elements 3
(type D or E of the NF EN 1337-3)
Anti-slipping or anti-lifting elements 4
(type C of the NF EN 1337-3).
2
available for download on Sétra sites
3
cf. appendix 2
4
cf. chapter 2
5
NF EN 1337-3, § 3.1
2.2.1 - Composition
The various parts comprising a laminated elastomeric bearing are defined in figure 2.3.
Figure 2.3: typical composition of a type B bearing according to the standard NF EN 1337-3 (fig. 2)
Wha t are the criteria for choosing one o r ig in o ver ano ther?
Natural rubber (with the appropriate formulation) provides good resistance to traction, excellent failure strain and performs
well with dynamic loads and in the cold, although it does tend to crystallize. On the other hand, it is highly gas permeable,
its resistance to oils and solvents is quite poor and its susceptibility to aging must be compensated by the use of anti-
oxidant and anti-ozone6. France, along with many other European countries, has chosen polychloroprene which, among
other qualities, provides excellent resistance to aging, a very low load-bearing creep rate and good tear resistance. This
makes it perfectly suitable for the requirements of bearings. The scope of the standard (§ 1) specifies that only rubbers
described in § 4.4.1 of the standard are covered.
Certain short-term economic considerations may result in a decision to turn to natural rubber. This means taking a long-
term risk on the performance of the bearing that is not justified by the difference in price in relation to the cost of change on
a structure in service.
This explains why the national application document of the standard NF EN 1337-3, only accepts polychloroprene (or CR)
for use in France.
As regards ozone resistance, the national application document of the standard NF EN 1337-3 (§ 4.3.6) only accepted the
single level intended for CR, which is suitable for service conditions on a bridge. For our part, we suggest that you do not
define the material but, for bearings to be used on bridges and similar structures, we suggest setting a maximum
ozone resistance specification (i.e. 50 ppcm).
The minimum thickness of a sheet, in accordance with NF EN 1337-3 (§ 5.3.2), may in no circumstance be under 5 mm, or
over 25 mm.
6
cf. "Rubber bearings". § 3.3.1. See Bibliography.
The most commonly used configuration in France at the moment is described below, but there are other systems.
These sliding elements include a PTFE8 perforated plate fixed on the top of the elastomeric bearing, either on the external
elastomer coating (type D bearing according to NF EN 1337-3), or on an outside steel sheet (type E bearing according to
NF EN 1337-3). A polished stainless steel sheet (the grade of which is defined in NF EN 1337-2, § 5.4.1), connected to a
higher S235 steel plate, slides onto the PTFE plate (NF EN 1337-3, § 3.1.7).
The slide sheet is a single piece of austenitic steel. For a thin austenitic steel plate, two methods are used to fix the stainless
steel sheet onto the low carbon steel support plate. The first method involves cold gluing the stainless steel sheet by means
of a resin film (epoxydic or other). It is advisable to request a screw or peripheral welding fixation, as shown in the diagram
in figure 2.4. In the second method, the stainless steel plate and the support plate are attached by the interposition of a thin
sheet of special high-hardness elastomer. The bonding of the complex is then obtained by vulcanization.
Figure 2.4: further lateral types of fixation on stainless steel slide plates
The upper part (or slide plate) can be fixed to the part of the structure in contact with the bearing.
So as to follow displacements and to allow for checks during civil engineering inspections, these slide plates have a
measuring rule. It is essential that the rule be positioned on the side where the inspector will probably take place.
Furthermore, it is also highly recommended that the rules are set consistently within a same structure to ease operations. (cf.
figure 2.5).
To prevent them from being soiled during installation and service, these bearings must be fitted with a device that
protects the slide plane (in all normal service circumstances). This device must be easily removable so that the bearing can
be inspected and monitored.
All these elements are defined in NF EN 1337-2, standardised through part 3.
7
NF EN 10025. The standard does not specify the part concerned, but it is parts 1 and 2.
8
PolyTetraFluoro Ethylene or Teflon ®.
Bearings fitted with sliding elements are designed to accommodate significant horizontal displacements. Horizontal force
ranges from 3 to 8 % (for respective average pressure of 30 to 5 MPa) of vertical force. The bearing can always deform by
compression and rotation. This type of bearing is very advantageous for the launch of the structure.
The standard (NF EN 1337-3, § 4.4.4) limits the use of type D sliding bearings (cf. figure 3.1) in cases of irreversible
movements (creep, shrinkage, etc.). This limit does not extend to type E. The National Application Document regarding
part 3 authorizes a wider use than in the provisional phase, but great care needs to be taken as regards the durability of this
type of device and for use in service. Appendix 2 gives information about the durability of these devices and advice for
their use.
There should be no hesitation in over-sizing the length of the slide plates, even though their dimensions are at ULS. This
allows compensation for the many consecutive imprecisions regarding factory pre-settings, design hypotheses, the actual
date of installation and, therefore, the temperature on installation. The text of the standard (cf. NF EN 1337-1, § 5.4) is
remarkably unclear, so the National Application Document needs to be consulted. This specifies that it should be
interpreted as follows: "Displacements should be increased in both directions by ± 20mm. Furthermore, the minimum
displacement to take into account is ± 50mm in the principle direction of displacement resulting from the structure".
- with anchors.
Figure 3.1: table showing the different types of laminated elastomeric bearings according to NF EN 1337-3
9
Henceforth in this chapter, the reference of the paragraph concerned from NF EN 1337-3 will be specified in brackets in bold italics.
NF EN 1337-3 defines the geometric characteristics of the most widely used bearings. On a plan view, bearings are square,
rectangular or circular in shape, although elliptic and octagonal shapes are also tolerated. The rules given in this document
are for rectangular bearings. Please consult the standard as regards other shapes.
Among type B bearings (multi-plated and coated on all sides, cf. figure 3.1), the following can be distinguished, in
accordance with NF EN 1337:
a) type B bearings defined in table 3 NF EN 1337-3. They include n+1 metal plates and n elastomeric laminations of a
constant thickness. Their perimeter is coated with elastomer at least 4 millimetres thick and the upper and lower faces with
a nominal 2.5mm thickness of elastomer (with a – 0. + 2 mm tolerance).
b) other type B bearings that include "active” external half-laminations (cf. the table in appendix 3 of this guide).
These are different in that the upper and lower elastomeric coatings are thicker. These are no longer simple protection
coatings, but rather a half-lamination, the thickness of which is taken into account in the calculations defined in article
5.3.3.1 of NF EN 1337-3. It is suggested that they are designated with the number of intermediate laminations, mentioning
the two external half-laminations or the external coatings. This gives the following example of a bearing designation:
a x b; n(ti + ts); 2 e
e.g. 200 x 300; 2 (10 + 3); 2 x 5,
400 x 500; 4 (12 + 4); 2 x 6,
Type B
Type B defined in table 3 of the standard
With e = a half-lamination
With e = passive coating
(examples of plan dimensions in appendix 3)
e = 2,5 mm
e = ti / 2
ts ts
Tb
Tb
ti ti
n = 3 intermediate laminations, assuming that the n = 2, the half-laminations can be taken into account
coatings are not part. in the calculation.
Figure 3.2: the characteristics of the bearings described in this chapter
According to the n number of intermediate laminations, three thicknesses required for dimensioning can be defined:
With a b and b b the width and length of the support plate in mm.
This table has been drawn up using the following formula (EN 1337 - 2 - Appendix B):
1,2 k
μmax =
10 + σ p
It is specified that the values given are a function of σp. For a given load path, the friction coefficient is calculated using
the ULS stress.
We would like to point out the notable variation of the friction coefficient in accordance with the compression stress on the
PTFE.
To simplify, the 2/3 corrective factor does not need to be taken into account, except in specially justified cases and for
application in overseas departments and territories where the effective bearing temperature does not fall below - 5°C.
10
For the vertical dynamic effects of operating loads, the modulus G should be used.
3.3.1 - Principles
The dimensioning principle defined in NF EN 1337-3 consists of justifying each bearing according to its loads.
Consequently, the dimension tables (table 3 of the standard or the table in appendix 3 of this guide) are only starting points
in the calculation of bearing dimensions and are only given, therefore, for information purposes.
The rules for dimensioning and verification of the bearings are intended to restrict their total horizontal distortion at
Ultimate Limit State, by the effect of vertical and horizontal loads and horizontal or angular deformations applied to the
bearing.
For type B bearings, NF EN 1337-3 differentiates between:
• Recommended size bearings, as defined in table 3 of NF EN 1337-3;
• Other types of bearings, in particular those with two external half-laminations.
In compliance with NF EN 1337-3, four types of verification at Ultimate Limit State must be carried out for laminated
elastomeric bearings of whatever type:
• Maximum total distortion of any point of the bearing must be restricted
• The thickness of the plates must be sufficient to resist the traction to which they are subjected
• The stability of the bearing must be ensured as regards rotation, buckling and sliding
• Actions exerted by the bearing on the rest of the structure must be checked (the direct effect of the bearing on the
structure and the indirect effect due to deformation of the support).
Fz
γ Under normal centred force Fz, a linear distribution of
the distortion εc is noted, linked to the shear τΝ in a layer
of elastomer. Maximum distortion occurs at the middle
τN of the large side b of the bearing.
It is given by the formula (EN § 5.3.3.2):
ε τ N = 1,5 FZ
c=
G G Ar S
Fz
In this formula: G designates the conventional
εc modulus of elastomer (§ 3.2.2) with G = 0.9 MPa and
Ar is the effective plan surface.
a
Figure 3.4: distortion of a bearing under axial force.
To calculate Ar, the nominal lateral coating needs to be removed to obtain A1 (equal to the surface of plates A' reduced by
the holes if there are any) and the horizontal deformations vx and vy need to be taken into account, that are caused by the
horizontal force concomitant with the vertical force FZ.
a'
Figure 3.5: a surface reduced due to the effect of horizontal deformation.
⎛ v vy ⎞
We thus have A r = A' ⎜⎜1 - x - ⎟⎟ avec A'= a'×b' (if the plates do not have holes)
⎝ a ' b ' ⎠
The calculation of deformations vx and vy is relatively complex. As a first approach, we could often disregard the effect of
vy and use the maximum value of vx.
• S is the form coefficient of the layer i in question:
For a rectangular bearing we have:
avec l p = 2 (a '+b')
A'
S= ⎧ te = ti pour les feuillets des couches internes
lp t e et ⎨
⎩et = 1,4 t i pour les feuillets des couches externes
The standard also gives the means of estimating the total deformation ΣvZ due to a vertical force FZ (EN § 5.3.3.7):
Fz t i ⎛ 1 1 ⎞
vz =∑ ⎜⎜ 2
+ ⎟⎟
A' ⎝ 5 G d S 1 E b ⎠
Let us remember that in this formula, S designates the form coefficient of lamination "i" and that, in the event of a half-
lamination, the value of S is worth 2/1.4 times that of the intermediate lamination.
The values obtained with this formula are slightly lower than those of the standard, thus making for a safer verification of
the rotation stability (Cf. § 3.4.1.3 below) and limiting any losses in contact with the support under the effect of rotations.
Generally speaking, settlements obtained with these formulas are far too high in relation to the actual behaviour of the
bearing, if we disregard the adaptation movements between 0 and 3 MPa.
As an example, during tests, variations in pressure of between 5 and 15 MPa gave the following settlements:
The standard specifies that the vertical deformation is only more or less proportional to the load after an initial settlement
that we can estimate to be 2 mm. This value appears too high, especially when positioned on metal plates. Besides, a close
look at a number of settlement tests reveals a very wide dispersion of results and this dispersion is difficult to explain. In
fact, the calculated settlement value according to the standard indicates the maximum value obtainable on a compliant
bearing. In some tests, settlement values can be observed that are twice as small as those of the normative calculation up to
8 Mpa and above 15 Mpa, they can be 3 times less than the calculated value. Consequently, bearing in mind this incertitude
(together with note 2 of § 5.3.3.7 of NF EN 1337-3), to ensure that the loading on bearings on the same line is uniform,
it is highly advisable to plan for a “combined” installation (cf. § 3.4.1.3).
In the event of hyperstatic and highly rigid structures, testing is recommended in order to estimate the actual deformations
of the bearings.
a
Figure 3.6: distortion of the bearing under a horizontal force
In these formulas, the modulus G shall be taken as equal to 0.9 MPa for static loads and 1.8 MPa under dynamic effects (cf.
3.2.2). For simplification, for non-exceptional structures, displacements caused by wind are only considered at a static state.
Furthermore, the project designer must compose the longitudinal and transversal forces vectorially, following the
combinations of actions given in chapter 4 of this document (to obtain a force Fxy) when the case occurs.
2 ∑ t3i
The distribution of the distortions is given in figure 3.7.
Mt
εα
In this formula, α is the axis rotation parallel to side b of the bearing and n represents the number of internal laminations.
Ks is given in the following table (cf. NF EN 1337-3, table 4):
b/a 0.5 0.75 1 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.5 10 ∞
Ks 137 100.0 86.2 80.4 79.3 78.4 76.7 75.3 74.1 73.1 72.2 71.5 70.8 68.3 61.9 60
Total distortion at any point of the bearing is limited at Ultimate Limit State (EN § 5.3.3):
ε τ = KL ( ε c + ε q + ε α ) < 7
In this formula:
• KL is a coefficient equal to 1.00 in general. This coefficient can be extended to 1.5 in the case of railway structures
under rolling loads only.
• εc, εq and εα are the distortions calculated respectively under vertical force, horizontal force or displacements and
deck rotations.
Moreover, the standard (EN § 5.3.3.3) limits the distortion under horizontal force or displacements to 1: εq < 1.
It should be noted that there is no limitation for εc alone or Fz (other than that regarding buckling).
The plates must be at least 2 mm thick. The standard also requires the minimum thickness of the metal plates at Ultimate
Limit State be verified. For bearings without perforations (not drilled), which have laminations of constant thickness ti, the
minimum thickness ts of the plates is defined by (EN § 5.3.3.5 simplifying the formula for this hypothetical case):
2,6 Fz ti
ts = γ m
Ar fy
with:
Fz Maximum applied vertical force,
fy Yield strength of the steel of which the plates are composed (i.e. 235 MPa for S235 steel);
γm Partial factor, the value of which is 1 in the National Application Document (cf. § 1.3).
For bearings with varying thicknesses of elastomer layers or with plates that include holes, this formula is no longer valid
and the standard should be consulted (EN § 5.3.3.5, general formula).
N.B: in cases where the bearings have high rotation requirements or are close to the buckling limit, it is advisable, for b'/a'
< 1.24 ratios, to increase the thickness ts by 5 to 10 %.
The rotation stability of the bearing is checked at Ultimate Limit State. The following needs to be verified (EN § 5.3.3.6):
( a' α a + b' α b )
∑ vz ≥ Kr
with:
αa et αb Rotations of perpendicular axis on sides a and b of the bearing
Kr Coefficient equal to 3
∑v z
The sum of the vertical deformations calculated as per paragraph 3.3.2.1 of this guide.
Let us not forget that rotations αa and αb must include installation defects. These depend largely on care taken over the
installation and the precision of deformation calculations during installation, but also on the extent of homogeneity inside
the bearing. Wherever possible, an installation method that combines the surfaces should be used, for example with a
mortar bed, caulking or the deck concrete cast-in-place.
NF EN 1337-3 (§ 7.1.4) is not clear about the values to adopt for installation defects, or about the way to take them into
account. The following nominal values are therefore suggested:
• 0.003 radian in the case of “combining” methods
• 0.010 radian for structures placed directly onto the bearings.
This installation defect needs to be added to the largest of the rotations, αa or αb.
Buckling stability needs to be checked at Ultimate Limit State in the following conditions (EN § 5.3.3.6):
Fz 2 G a' S1
<
Ar 3 Te
The non-slip verification is carried out, in the absence of anti-slipping device, if (EN § 5.3.3.6):
Fz,Gmin
Fxy ≤ μ e Fz et ≥ 3 MPa
Ar
with:
Fz,Gmin Minimum reaction under permanent load
Fz and Fxy The most unfavourable concomitant vertical and horizontal force reaction
N.B: except in cases where the bearing never returns to a position of zero displacement (vxy =0), the surface Ar must be
taken equal to A’ to check the condition σm ≥ 3 MPa.
For the calculation of Fxy, we vectorially compose the horizontal force coming from all the concomitant actions and
combinations of actions presented in chapter 4 of this document. Fxy is therefore composed of permanents or variable force
applied directly to the deck (wind and breaking affects) and permanent or variable force from imposed deformations or
distortions (temperature, shrinkage, creep, difference in level, etc.).
N.B: attention is drawn to the fact that most special mortars are not considered to be resin mortars.
This coefficient may however have values below those given above. This is the case, for example, with bearings placed on
painted metal sheets or on certain resins.
Although the standard does include verification of the contact pressure between the bearing and the structure, it only gives
the principle, indicating that this pressure may not be uniform (EN § 5.3.3.7), cf. table 4.4 in chapter 4.
For a preliminary design, we could take the usual value of average stress on the surface of the plates of around 20 to 25
MPa at ULS (less for small blocks and a little more for large dimensions), it being understood that the final average stress
will result from the overall formula of § 5.3.3 of NF EN 1337-3. If there is a risk of heaving, the final stress should be
recalculated. For large-size bearings, higher pressures are possible, as for other types of high-pressure bearings (pot
bearings, for example). When designing the supports, it is essential to take into account the possibility of the load path
spreading on its reduced surface.
As regards bearings positioned on concrete bosses, the bosses and the pier crosshead can be checked at Ultimate Limit
State, according to the rules in article 6.7 of Eurocode 2 (NF EN 1992-1-1). Stress on the concrete can be calculated by
taking an evenly-loaded reduced surface and by taking into account not only the translation distortion, but also the rotation
and any hardening of the elastomer according to the average pressure. A calculation example is given in § 3.4.2 with the
research method into possible heaving at support level.
ULS
Verification
Basic combinations
2,6 Fz ti
Traction in the plates ts=
Ar fy
( a' α a + b' α b )
Limit in rotation
∑ vz ≥ Kr
Fz 2 G a' S1
Buckling stability <
Ar 3 Te
Non-slip Fz,Gmin
Fxy ≤ μ e Fz et ≥ 3 MPa
A'
Figure 3.9: synthesis of verifications to be conducted
All limitations given by NF EN 1337-3 are based on a shear modulus deduced from pure shear tests. However, the
behaviour of a bearing in simple compression is more complex. The modulus varies in different points of the elastomer and
is not consistent in accordance with the stress applied. Rotation further complicates shear distribution.
This could be the cause of a number of heavings that have been noted on bearings in situ, under the effect of rotations
applied to the deck. Indeed, even with a correctly-sized bearing, extreme rotations may cause decompression higher than
the effect of the centred vertical load on the edge of a bearing. This decompression may well cause deterioration in the
bearings.
Experimental studies11 have enabled limit heaving curves to be established according to the rotation α and the compression
σ = Fz / A’. These curves are given in figure 3.10, to illustrate the phenomenon observed in relation to the theoretical
calculation. They justify the use of an adjustment coefficient Ka which represents the relation between the distortion due to
compression εc and distortion due to rotation εα, when heaving occurs. In theory, this coefficient is 1.00, but experience has
shown that it can vary between the two values Ka min and Ka max (the maximum value Ka max varies from 2 to 2.75
respectively for an average pressure Fz/Ar of 0 to 50 MPa).
As explained in § 3.3.2.1 (as well as in note 2 of § 5.3.3.7 of NF EN 1337-3), the wide dispersion of test results only allows
for an approximate assessment of the minimum contact surface using calculation.
11
In particular tests carried out at as part of research at the LROP (West Paris Regional Laboratory).
30
Limite normative
σ m = 23,84
20
10
- Tassement
- Possibilité de rotation
sans soulèvement
0
1 αs 2 3 αn
αn K a max
K a max = valeur sécuritaire théorique
αs d'après les essais = 2,47
12
cf. theories of F. Conversy and M. Topaloff and notes of J. Rajade
σunif = Fz / Aunif
That is, on a surface of uniform pressure, Aunif = (a’ - 2 excmax - vx ) b’
The surface thus defined is that which should be taken into account for the diffusion of force in the supports (cf. table 4.4 of
chapter 4).
b) If the value excmax is above a’/6, there is a risk of heaving.
In this case, an approximate calculation needs to be made of a coefficient Krs of reduction in surface contact by rotation
using compression and rotation distortion values with the formula:
εc
K a max
K rs = 3
(value still < 1)
εα
εα represents the rotation distortion under an angle α.
The factor Ka max is given is the following table (as well as in figure 3.10):
Figure 3.11: table giving the values of adjustment factor Ka max according to the average stress σm = Fz/Ar.
The value of the new reduced surface is Krs (a’ - vx) b’, from which σm’ = Fz/Krs (a’ - vx) b’ and the minimum surface of
uniform distribution is worth 2/3 of the preceding, therefore a uniform pressure of:
N°
+ 1.35 gr1b 3
(1)
+ 1.35 gr2 4
1.35 Gk,sup + Gk,inf + P + S + C
+ 1.35 {gr3 ou gr4} + 1.5 {0.6 Tk} 5
+ 1.35 gr5 6
+ 1.5 FWk 7
N°
The breaking force varies from around 340 to 400 kN for smaller structures 10 to 50 metres long and reaches the
maximum value of 900kN for structures 350 metres long between expansion joints. This value is far higher than those
normally used in former regulations (300kN for the braking of a Bc truck, for example). As regards structures on
laminated elastomer, the breaking force is spread over all the deck bearings, which should not cause problems for the
pier reinforcements. However, for large structures with fixed bearings that take nearly all the horizontal force, the sizing
of the piers can be complicated with such high breaking values. If the structure has high, flexible piers, it is advisable to
have several fixed bearings. Otherwise, the fixed bearing should be put on a short pier, or even on an abutment, which
may lead to difficulties in sizing the expansion joints (and the slide plates) on the abutment located at the other end of
the structure.
This maximum breaking force will most probably be reduced in the National Annex as NF EN 1991-2 allows for this.
The maximum breaking force could then be brought down to 500 kN, except if the structure carries military loads that
comply with the STANAG (Char Mc 120) standardisation agreements.
• For thermal force:
The effects of temperature are defined in section 4 of NF EN 1991-1-5. Temperature differences Te, max and Te, min in
characteristic values are to be calculated according to the material from which the deck is made and the region in which
the structure is built. These temperatures are to be determined using maps supplied in the National Annex 13 of NF EN
1991-1-5. In the meantime, the following values, found is the National Annex, can be used:
Te, min Te, max
Temperature variations resulting from these maximum and minimum temperatures can be calculated according to a
temperature T0 which is taken as equal to 10 °C in the absence of any specification on the project.
To calculate the positioning of bearings or their slide plates, NF EN 1991-1-5 recommends that a supplement be added to
this temperature variation range. This supplement is ± 20 °C, or ± 10 °C if the installation temperature is specified. The
13
At the time of writing, the National Appendix is being updated in view of future publication.
4.2 - Dimensioning
4.2.1 - Introduction
The best way to understand the procedure for calculating the dimensions of bearings is to use an example (which is not a
real case and is only used to illustrate the procedure).
We shall consider the dimensioning of laminated elastomeric bearings of a structure made of prestressed concrete cast-in-
place (PSI-DP).
The structure in question has 3 spans and an overall length of 62 m. The width of the slab is 12.30 m for a thickness of
0.90 m.
N.B: S refers to shrinkage, C to creep, P to pre-stressing. Vx* refers to displacement without the effect of
breaking force (Hx).
Table 4.3: calculated force and deformations
The following calculations correspond to the recommended procedure for dimensioning a bearing.
4,50
A' > = 0.1800 m2, that is, 1800 cm2
25
vx
εq = ≤ 1 with vx = v1 + v2
Tq
• Combination n° 4 of table 4.3:
v1 = maximum horizontal displacement due to temperature and shrinkage.
v2 = maximum horizontal displacement due to breaking.
H x x Tq 0,055× Tq
vx = v 1 + v2 = v + 1
= 0,061 + = 0.061 + 0.170 Tq
2G a b 2 x 0,9× 0,1800
0,89
We thus determine a maximum surface: A' ≤ = 0.2967 m2 , that is 2967 cm2
3
( 0, 2301) ⎛⎜ 1 −
0, 080 ⎞ 2 2
Ar = ⎟ = 0.1829 m > 0.1800 m
⎝ 0, 39 ⎠
The bearing is suitable.
For information, combinations n° 2, 4 and 8 of table 4.3 give us:
Ar (comb 2) = 0.1888 m²
Ar (comb 4) = 0.1875 m²
Ar (comb 8) = 0.1829 m2 (see the example above)
The value of the vertical force is: Vmax = 4.50 MN corresponding to combination n° 2 of table 4.3. (N.B: the combination
of the maximum vertical load is not always preponderant).
Vmax 4, 50
Average pressure of σm = = = 23.835 MPa with Ar = 0.1888 m²
Ar Ar
The total thickness of the elastomer is Te = 7 x 0.012 = 0.084 m (Te was given in chapter 3).
from which σlim = 27.253 MPa > σm = 23.835 MPa condition checked
If this condition has not been checked, in particular due to the significant height of the elastomer needed to take the
longitudinal displacement, sliding bearings or larger surface bearings should be used.
For information, combinations n° 4 and 8 of table 4.3 give us respectively:
Ar = 0.1875 m² σm = 19.997 MPa σlim = 27.253 MPa
Ar = 0.1829 m² σm = 20.886 MPa σlim = 27.253 MPa
The preceding condition has been checked for these two combinations.
1,5 Fz 1, 5 × 4, 50
εcd = = = 4.061
G Ar S 0, 9 × 0,1888 × 9, 783
0, 070
vx = 0.070 εqd = = 0.833
0, 084
2
0,39 x 0,0087 x 0,012
εαd = = 0.735 (α = 0.0087 = 0.0057 + 0.0030 installation defect)
( 3
2 x 6 x 0,012 + 2 x 0,006
3
)
from which εcd + εqd + εαd = 4.061 + 0.833 + 0.735 = 5.629 < 7 condition checked
Case n° 2 Vertical force with displacement due to thermal effects and breaking (combination n° 4 of table 4.3).
0, 072
vx = 0.072 εqd = = 0.857
0, 084
0, 39 × 0, 0079 × 0, 012
2
1, 5 Fz 1, 5 × 3, 82
εcd = = = 3.558
G Ar S 0, 9 × 0,1829 × 9, 783
0, 080
vx = 0.080 εqd = = 0.952
0, 084
0, 39 × 0, 0097 × 0, 012
2
αmax = 6.7 x 10-3 that is, with the initial rotation defect of 3 x 10-3, a value of αa = 9.7 x 10-3
for Vmax = 3.82 MN, we calculate the settlement of 7 laminations of 12 mm.
Fz ti ⎛⎜ 1 1 ⎞⎟ 3,82 x 7 x 0,012 ⎛ 1 1 ⎞
vz = ∑ ⎜
A' ⎝ 5GS1 2
+ ⎟
Eb ⎠
=
0,2301
⎜ + ⎟ = 0.00393 m, that is, 3.93 mm
⎝ 5 x 0,9 x 9,783 2000 ⎠
2
Fz t i ⎛ 1 1 ⎞ a 'αa + b 'αb
vc = ∑ ⎜ 5G S + ⎟ ≥ condition checked
⎝ ⎠
2
A' 1
Eb Kr
a 'αa + b 'αb
Vz = 4.63 mm = 1.13 mm
Kr
a 'αa + b 'αb
Vz = 3.86 mm = 1.03 mm
Kr
⎛ 0,059 ⎞
Ar = (0,2301) ⎜⎜1 − ⎟ = 0.19529 m2
⎟
⎝ 0,39 ⎠
NB: the value 0.07 is obtained by adding V1 (0.059 of table 4.3) and V2 (0.011) calculated for combination 4 of § 4.2.4.
Vmin 0,79
σmin = = = 4.187 MPa
Ar 0,1887
1, 5 K f 1,5 × 0,6
μe = 0.1 + = 0.1 + = 0.315 (Kf = 0.6 for concrete)
σm 4,187
0, 059
Fx = ( x 0.9 x 0.39 x 0.59) + 0.055 = 0.200 < μe Fd = 0.315 x 0.79 = 0.249 MN
0, 084
Condition checked
For information, combinations n° 2 bis and 8 bis of table 4.3 give us respectively:
2, 6 × 4, 50 × 0, 012
ts = = 0.00316 m
0,1888 × 235
Verification of an elastomer block: 400 x 600; 6 (12 + 4); 2 x 6 ⇒ S = 9.783 ⇒ A’= 0.2301 m2
Distorsions: εc = 4.061
εq = 0.833 < 1
εα = 1.268
εt = 6.162 < 7
Plating ts = 3.16 < 4 mm
Mt = 2.47 [0.9 × (0.015 – 0.003) x 3905 x 590)] / (6.25 × 123 × 75.3) = 174.6 MN.mm
Taking the same assumptions, but with a rotation αa = 0 .024 rad (that is, α = 0.021):
Results of bearing verifications: Ar = 188800 mm2
σm = 23.84 MPa
Distorsions εc = 4.061
εq = 0.833 < 1
εα = 2.028 ⇒ εα = 1.775 for α = 0.021
εt = 6.922 < 7
Plating ts = 3.16 < 4 mm
Mt = 2.47 [0.9 × (0.024 – 0.003) × 3905 × 590] / (6.25 × 123 × 75.3) = 305.6 MN.mm
(A heaving risk on around 2.5 % of the surface, without taking into account the horizontal displacement)
The uniform pressure surface is a rectangle: a’’ = 2/3 × Krs ( a’ - vx ) = 2/3 × 0.975 (390 –70) = 208 mm
b’ = 590 mm, d’où Aunif = 122705 mm2
A bearing 450 × 600; 5 (16 + 4); 2 × 8 meets the requirements of loads in this case without any risk of heaving and with the
least pressure on the interfaces.
This displacement Δ = Δ1 + Δ2 + Δ3 comes from the distortion of the bearing, the deformation of the body of the support
and, finally, from the deformation of the foundation (figure 4.2).
It should be noted that the stiffnesses R1 and R2 of a bearing are to be calculated for both cases indicated above: slow
deformations and dynamic force. The Eurocode recommends using the instantaneous modulus of the concrete for the pier.
However, as regards elastomer, its instantaneous modulus is to be used for dynamic force (cf. § 3.3.2.2, Gdyn = 2 x 0.9 = 1.8
MPa) and its reference modulus (0.9 MPa) for slow deformations (such as shrinkage, creep and temperature).
4.3.2.1 - Deformation
The data represent variations of lengths Δl i of each span of a continuous deck. We thus know the relative displacement of
bearing "i" in relation to bearing "1" situated on the far left:
i −1
Δi - Δ1 = ∑ Δ li = di
1
n ∑R 1,i di
From the relations H1,i = k1,i Δi and ∑ H1,i = 0 we can deduce Δ1 = − 1
n
1
∑R 1
1,i
When a force H2 is applied to the deck, the displacements Δi of the support heads are the same and we can deduce that
with:
∑H ∑R
R2, i
H2,i = Δi R2,i and = Δi = H2 H2,i = H2
∑R
2, i 2, i
2, i
N.B: for illustration purposes, we have taken highly dissymmetrical values for the flexibility of the supports.
It must be remembered that the flexibility of the piers must be taken in consideration of the instantaneous modulus of the
concrete for dynamic loads and daily effects of temperature. The attention of the project designer is drawn to the fact
that the bearing calculation must take into account the maximum instantaneous stiffness of the soil, whilst it is the
minimum time dependent stiffness that is taken for the calculation of the foundations.
∑R
1
1, i di = - (0.015 x 12.02 + 0.036 x 8.53 + 0.052 x 5.91) = - 0.798
∑R
1
1, i = 5.91 x 2 + 12.02 + 8.53 = 32.37
∑R
1
1, i di
0,798
and so Δi= - = = 0.0247 m
n
32,37
∑R 1
1, i
14
Readers are reminded that the value suggested by the national annex to NF EN 1991-2 is 0.5 MN (cf. § 4.1).
Abutment 1 Pier 2
c d c d
Δ1 deformation (m) 0.026 0.027 0.011 0.012
breaking (MN) 0.045 0.031 0.045 0.066
In this case, to simplify, as this is a common engineering structure, we will put the initial-size bearings on the abutments
and piers.
When all the calculations are completes, force on the abutments is slightly reduced in the event of breaking, but in an
insufficient proportion to modify the bearings. Consequently, it is often of little use, in common cases, to make complex
calculations taking into account this flexibility. Instead, more care should be taken over the initial dimensioning, not
forgetting a combination load that may affect the size.
1,2 ⋅ k
The values of the friction coefficient μ are given in chapter 3: μd = with k = 1 for stainless steel and σp contact
10 + σ p
pressure on the PTFE, that we will take equal to Fz/A for type D bearings. We will take into account the actual surface of
PTFE for E type bearings. Furthermore, pressure must be limited to 30 MPa.
As with sliding pot bearings, we will consider a simplified calculation in which the extreme horizontal force (at ULS) will
be determined from extreme vertical loads of corresponding combinations. This has a positive impact on safety without
significantly increasing the actions. Readers are invited to consult the document on pot bearings15 for more detailed
explanations regarding this simplification.
We refer here to NF EN 1337-1 "General design rules" for bearings. In our case, the friction coefficients that apply to
sliding bearings are the following:
μa = 0.5 μmax (1 + α)
μr = 0.5 μmax (1 - α)
μmax the maximum friction coefficient for a sliding bearing taken individually.
μa the friction coefficient to be applied if the friction is unfavourable in relation to the effect studied.
μr the friction coefficient to be applied if the friction is favourable in relation to the effect studied.
α the degression coefficient depending on "n", the number of sliding bearings intervening in the balance of
the structure.
n α
≤4 1
4 < n < 10 (16-n)/12
≥ 10 0.5
E.g. a 4-span structure with two ordinary bearings on central piers and two sliding bearings on each of the abutments:
n= 4 from which α = 1
μa = 0.5 μmax (1 + 1) = μmax = 5.3 % (taking into account the pressure σp = 12.65 MPa)
μr = 0.5 μmax (1 - 1) = 0
15
cf. Bibliography
According to paragraph 6.7 of NF EN 1337-2, sliding bearings should not play a part in assuming horizontal breaking
force. In theory, these forces are therefore assumed entirely by the non-sliding bearings. This hypothesis is pessimistic as
sliding bears do actually play a part in assuming these forces, but in a non-quantifiable proportion.
This is a four-span pre-stressed structure, built as balanced cantilever method, with the main dimensions as shown on figure
4.4.
We show here the linear compressions taken into account for each span, as with the preceding case:
The displacements are calculated as in paragraph 4.3. If there are sliding bearings, the difficulty lies in the fact that these
bearings work up to a certain threshold. Below the sliding force, their flexibility is the same as if they were not sliding.
Above, their flexibility is "infinite". An initial calculation thus needs to be made, taking them as non-sliding bearings and
then, if the force corresponding to the displacement goes beyond the threshold, their flexibility needs to be replaced by a
corresponding limit force and the balance of horizontal force needs to be recalculated.
To do this, an initial dimensioning of the bearing needs to be carried out, mainly from vertical force and rotations (that are
not dependent on horizontal force).
The following force is obtained for a bearing:
C0 and C4 P1 and P3 P2
V max (MN) 2.35 10.71 11.12
V min (MN) 1.16 8.39 8.87
| max rot | (10-3 rd) 2.4 1.2 2.1
| min rot | (10-3 rd) 1.0 0.6 1.5
C0 and C4 P1 - P2 - P3
1 bearing of 400 x 500 2 bearings of 700 x 600*
This calculation immediately shows that abutment bearings –of small size – must be sliding as it would be impossible to
stack enough layers of elastomer to absorb the displacement.
With the principles of paragraph 4.2, we arrive at:
C0 and C4 P1 - P2 -P3
1 bearing of 400 x 500; 3 (12 + 3); 2 x 6 2 bearings of 700 x 600; 6 (16 + 4); 2 x 8
1 s t itera tio n
An initial calculation is carried out in a similar way to that of paragraph 4.3.
For maximum deformation, taken as equal to 6 x 10-4 (CP and uniform temperature), the relative displacements di of the
bearings in relation to the left-hand support are:
Displacement of support 1 = - 0.031 = - 0.031 m
Displacement of support 2 = - 0.031 - 0.047 = - 0.078 m
Displacement of support 3 = - 0.078 - 0.047 = - 0.125 m
Displacement of support 4 = - 0.125 - 0.031 = - 0.156 m
n n
∑1
R1,i di = -3.276 ∑R 1, i = 44.09
1
∑R 1, i di
3,276
and therefore Δ0 = - 1
= = 0.074 m
n
44,09
∑R 1
1, i
C0 P1 P2 P3 C4
displacement M 0.074 0.043 -0.004 -0.051 -0.082
H MN 0.56 0.52 -0.03 -0.43 -0.61
Hlim 0.25 - - - 0.25
2 n d itera tion
Sliding bearings have zero stiffness. We replace the values of Ri for C0 and C4 by 0. The calculations gets more
complicated, however, as we have to successively study three case scenarios, namely:
• The sliding bearings all have the same friction.
• Those of the supports situated on the left of the point 0 have a value equal to the minimum value (§ 4.4.1.3), and
maximum for thus situated on the right.
• And the opposite, namely the maximum values for the supports on the left and the minimum for those on the right.
There are 4 sliding bearings on the full number of bearings.
The friction coefficients are therefore (§ 4.4.1.3):
• minimum μa = μmax = 5.3 %
• maximum μr =0
Case 1 – the same friction coefficient value on the left and the right
In this case, we replace the value of the product Ri x di by the limit value of H for the supports C0 and C4. The calculation
becomes:
C0 P1 P2 P3 C4
Ri 0 12.019 8.532 8.532 0
Sum Ri 29.084
Ri x di or Hlim -0.235 -0.375 -0.666 -1.065 0.235
Sum Hi -2.105
point 0 120.65
displacement 0.072 0.041 -0.006 -0.052 -0.084
H 0.25 0.50 -0.05 -0.45 0.25
Hlim 0.25 - - - 0.25
C0 P1 P2 P3 C4
Ri 0 12.019 8.532 8.532 0
Sum Ri 29.084
Ri x di or Hlim 0 -0.375 -0.666 -1.065 0.235
Sum Hi -1.870
point 0 107.18
displacement 0.064 0.033 -0.014 -0.060 -0.092
H 0 0.40 -0.12 -0.52 -0.25
Hlim 0.25 - - - 0.25
C0 P1 P2 P3 C4
Ri 0 12.019 8.532 8.532 0
Sum Ri 29.084
Ri x di or Hlim -0.235 -0.375 -0.666 -1.065 0
Sum Hi -2.340
point 0 134.11
displacement 0.080 0.049 0.002 -0.044 -0.076
H 0.24 0.59 -0.02 -0.38 0
Hlim 0.24 - - - 0.24
Ri = 1 24.969 19.474
v
C0 and C4 P1 P2 P3
1 bearing of 400 x 500 2 bearings of 700 x 600
3 x (12 + 3); 2 x 6 4 x (16 + 4); 2 x 8 3 x (16 + 4); 2 x 8 6 x (16 + 4); 2 x 8
(unchanged) (unchanged)
As the bearings on the piers have been modified, we need to recalculate the distribution of forces. This calculation proves
that the bearings on the piers are suitable.
These are the fundamental tests that assess aptitude to fulfil three degrees of freedom:
a) Shear behaviour
• Determination of the shear modulus G in accordance with appendix F of NF EN 1337-3
The modulus G is determined using two bearings that are inserted between three plates. The sides of the upper and lower
plates are fixed solidly to the press platens, while a horizontal force is applied on the middle plate (figure 5.1). To prevent
the bearings from slipping, a constant load is also applied during the test.
Under the following conditions: at an ambient temperature – 23°C ± 2°C – during a minimum test period of one month,
under a compressive stress of 25 MPa, the following results should be obtained:
• The creep index ΔΣ/Σ1 must be lower than 0.2
• No defects accepted: bond, small cracks, larger cracks, breakdown, breakage, etc.
Under the following conditions: at an ambient temperature – 23°C ± 2°C – during a minimum test period of three months,
under a compressive stress of 6 MPa and a distortion of tg γ = 0.7, the following results should be obtained:
• Rcst ≤ 20 %. DRC à 23 °C, C ≤ 25 %
• No defects accepted: bond, small cracks, larger cracks, breakdown, breakage, etc.
These evaluations have not been chosen for the assessment for CE marking. However, French standards are maintained and
it is possible to perform evaluation tests for specific situations.
Under test conditions, at an ambient temperature of 23°C ± 2°C with a modulus G = 0.9 MPa ± 0.1 MPa, the following
results should be obtained:
This involves the behaviour to accidental dynamic effects, such as impacts, cyclonic winds and earthquakes.
As regards behaviour to seismic effects, readers may refer to the specific tests defined in the prEN 15129 on anti-seismic
devices, or, failing that, to appendix K of NF EN 1998-2 (EC8-2).
0123-CPD-0001
There is, however, nothing to stop you checking compliance by the performing of controls on reception. If the CE marking
and the specifications of the standard have not been respected, the anti-fraud service should be informed.
However, for a specific application, constructions managers are completely free to define a product that will be specific to
the structure and will be manufactured solely for it. In this case, they should ensure, based on the standards NF EN and/or
simply on national standard (cf. § 5.2.2.2 and 5.2.2.3 of the test standards not taken up at European level in the EN
standard) that the product is market-compliant.
As regards the National Application Document of NF EN 1337-3, we recommend that construction managers use the
examples of Particular Technical Clauses (CCTP) that are to be found in appendix 4.
A summary of the forces (vertical and horizontal) and provisional deformations (distortion, rotation) for permanent loads,
operating loads and thermal effects:
• when the bearings are loaded
• for the finished structure
• after creep and shrinkage deformation.
16
This operation is performed by jacking and can avoid the use of sliding bearings on the abutments.
17
A Sétra publication - reference F0230 and LCPC FASC13.
Shear modulus under seismic activity Gdyn Rated Gb = 1.1 Gg in l'EC8-2 § 7.5.2.3.3 (2)
Axial stress σm
Vertical force Fz,d
Plate width a'
Plate length b'
Thickness of a current layer: ti
Form coefficient S
Form coefficient of the thickest layer S1
Reduced area Ar (at 1° order)
Total elastomer thickness Te Rated te in l'EC8-2 § 7.5.2.3.3 (2)
Distortion due to horizontal force εq,d
Total nominal distortion εt,d
Table A.1: notations of Eurocode 8 and NF EN 1337-3
0,3 Fy Fy 0,3 Fy
Fx 0,3 Fx 0,3 Fx
0 3 Fx
0,3 Fz 0,3 Fz Fz
Kz
⎡ ti ⎛
−1 ∞
1 1 ⎞⎤
⎢∑ ⋅ ⎜⎜ + ⎟⎥
⎢⎣ A′ ⎝ 5 ⋅ G b ⋅ S1
2
E b ⎟⎠⎥⎦
Kθ rectangular a ′5 ⋅ b′ 0
Gb ⋅ 3
n ⋅ ti ⋅ Ks
Kθ circular π ⋅ D' 6 0
Gb ⋅ 3
512 n ⋅ t i
Kθz - 0
A1-5 - Recommendations
Generally speaking, verifications to be performed are the same as for other loads. No heaving is permitted perpendicular to
elastomeric bearings.
Recommendations under seismic load combinations are detailed below (NF EN 1998-2, article 7.6).
Typical elastomeric bearings need to be checked in accordance with the regulations of 5.3.3 of NF EN1337-3, using the
value KL=1 in the expression (5.1) of NF EN 1337-3 (NF EN 1998-2, § 7.6.2(5)).
Distortion resulting solely from authorized seismic horizontal force is twice as high as the value permitted for other loads
(1.0):
ε q ,d ≤ 2,0
The distortion calculation takes into account the deformations imposed as specified above (cf. A.1.2).
A1-5.2 - Buckling
As for other loads, seismic combinations are used for verification:
Fz ,d 2 ⋅ a ′ ⋅ Gb ⋅ S ′
≤
Ar 3 ⋅ Te
A1-5.3 - Slippage
Here also, the same verifications are to be performed as for normal loads, but taking into account the seismic effect.
However, the friction coefficient to use is that of the Service Limit State.
⎛ K ⎞ Fz,d
Fxy,d ≤ ⎜ 0,1 + f ⎟ ⋅ Fz,d where σm =
⎝ σm ⎠ Ar
and σ m ≥ 3,0 MPa
Contrary to the specifications of NF EN 1337-3, this last clause is not to be checked under permanent loads, but rather
under the most unfavourable seismic combination (probably when there is an upward vertical seism).
In most cases, it will not be possible to check non-slip conditions in a seismic zone and anti-slipping devices will have to be
implemented.
In some cases, it can be beneficial to supplement elastomeric bearings with seismic couplings that act as safety stops. This
is particularly the case lengthwise for the upgrading of existing bridges perpendicular to the mobile end supports between
the deck and the abutment or the pier, when the requirements for minimum support rest have not been fulfilled (NF
EN 1998-2, § 6.6.3.1(2)c).
These couplings need to be designed with appropriate clearance or margins so as they remain inactive during the
calculation seismic action, and only intervene at the limit of the bearing.
In the AFPS rules, this measure is proposed in accordance with both horizontal directions: longitudinal and transversal. It is
then recommended that a part of the thermal effects and all the time dependent effects be taken into account in the
clearance calculation:
d S = d G + 0,40 d T + d + dE
diff
- dG: displacement due to the long-term effects of permanent and quasi-permanent actions
- dT: calculation displacement due to thermal movements
- ddiff: displacements due to time dependenteffects
- dE: calculation seismic displacement
The clearance must not be greater so as to limit the impact effects resulting from the movement of the deck, and the stop is
designed to take up a force H equal to 40 % of the seismic design force.
Figure A.4 shows one possible arrangement. This involves a reinforced concrete stop integral with the pier shaft. This stop
penetrates into a recess made in the underside of the deck at a height of around 10 cm, sufficient for the transmission of
force H. Seismic coupling thus constituted works equally well transversally and longitudinally.
In some cases, it is useful to block the functioning of bearings in one of the two horizontal directions, for example, to
preserve the integrity of the equipment (such as expansion joints or restraint systems) or else because we do not wish to
design bearings for seismic design force. Obviously, the dynamic calculation model must take account of this block.
The device can be the same as the seismic coupling described above, the difference being that the clearance is reduced to a
value not exceeding 15 mm. This measurement is a compromise between:
• The on-site construction tolerances
• A clearance required to leave deformations free in the direction perpendicular to the blockage
• A clearance not to be exceeded so as to avoid the effects of impacts.
In this case, seismic coupling must be designed to resist the calculation effects arising from the principle of capacity design
(forces resulting from the plastification level being exceeded in the underlying pier).
For uncommon or specific structures, specialized devices can also be designed. For example, a laminated elastomeric
bearing placed vertically in conjunction with a sliding device. However, the project designer and the manager must bear in
mind that the more sophisticated the system, the more likely it is cease functioning due to ageing and the more it will cost
to maintain.
The first term, lm, represents the minimum length of the support cover allowing the transmission of loads. A value lower
than 40 cm should not be used.
The last two terms represent the relative displacement between the deck and its support under seismic activity. It has two
parts:
• des is the displacement calculated under seismic excitation (NF EN 1998-2, article 6.6.4 (3) A);
• deg is the actual displacement between two parts resulting from differential ground displacement (cf. figure A.6). It
enables the relative difference between the foundations of the two supports to be taken into account, a factor that is not
considered in the dynamic calculation of the structure (giving des). It must be assessed in accordance with the
specifications of laws defining seismic action (NF EN 1998-2, § 6.6.4 (3) and appendix D or guide AFPS 92).
Verification should be carried out, for example, of the support rest when the longitudinal stops are unilateral devices placed
on the crossheads of the abutments. It needs to be ascertained that the overhang of the bearing shelf is sufficient for the
deck not to fall in the event of a relative variance between the two abutments.
Similarly, for decks that are relatively rigid in design and for short structure, it can be sufficient to put transversal seismic
couplings on the abutments. It then needs to be ascertained that the support rest is sufficient for the various piers.
N.B: jacking after construction and before acceptance, can avoid having to bring in sliding planes and restrict their use to
standardised laminated elastomeric bearings.
A2-5 - Conclusion
Whatever measures have already been taken, or will be taken at European Standardisation level, as far as the manufacture
of sliding bearings is concerned, the risk and the gravity of disorders have to be assessed, along with the cost of replacing
the bearings throughout the entire service life of the structure, as from the project stage.
Article in the event of using laminated elastomer bearings with sliding planes
§ A2.3 Bearing with sliding planes are to include perforations Note that the 5th paragraph of § 4.4.4.3 of NF EN 1337-3 does
in the PTFE with lubrication and an appropriate not exclude the use of non-perforated PTFE sheets for type D
protection of the sliding plane (cf. § 7.3 and 7.4 of NF bearings, if the structure designer has so specified.
EN 1337-2).
§ 2.2.4.1 The fixing method used for the stainless steel sliding
and § plates on the supports steel shall be submitted to the
2.2.4.3 construction manager for approval.
The position of the measuring devices, together with
the dirt protection method shall be submitted to the
construction manager for approval.
As regards the dimensioning of the sliding plates,
displacements shall be increased in both directions by
± 20 mm. Furthermore, the minimum displacement to
be taken into account is ± 50 mm in the principal
direction of the displacements resulting from the
structure.
Standards
• NF EN 1337-1 – Structural bearings. Part 1: General design rules
• NF EN 1337-2 - Structural bearings. Part 2: Sliding elements
• NF EN 1337-3 - Structural bearings. Part 3: Elastomeric bearings
• NF EN 1991-2 - Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges and its National Annex (to be
published)
• NF EN 1992-1-1: Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: Common rules and rules for buildings
• NF EN 1993-2: Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures - Part 2: Steel bridges (to be published)
• NF EN 1991-1-5: Eurocode 1 – Actions on structures - Part 1-5: General actions – Thermal actions
• NF EN 1990: Structural Eurocodes: Basis of structural design and NF EN 1990/A1: Appendix A2 (application to
bridges)
Reference : 0925A
This document may not be reproduced – even partially – without Sétra's prior consent.
© 2009 Sétra – ISRN No. : EQ-SETRA--09-ED09--FR+ANG