‘Technical Report No. 4 CRITERIA FOR DESIGN OF BEARING PADS ‘ames K. Iverson and Donald W. Pfeifer Oa).Copyright 1985 By Prestressed Concrete Institute Al rights reserved. This book or any part thereot may not be reproducad in any form without the variten permssion of the Pre: stressed Conerete Insitute. Liteary of Congress Catalog Card Number 85-61825, ISBN 0-937040-28-x Printed in USATABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION «5 General y+ ‘types of Pads. Material and Design Specifications Purpose and Direction for this Study. REVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICE AND PROBLEMS . Materials ... Design Gutdance SURVEYS AND SITG VISITS sessseeeeeeee PCI Membership Survey + Site Visits . Collection of Infornation from Pad Manufacturers « TRSTING PROGRAM Compression Tests Simple Chloroprene Verification Test seeeseeeee Shear Tests + Creep Tests. DISCUSSION seseseeeeeeee General seveseeeeee Current Recommendations on Compre: Bridge Bearing Pads Conpressive Stress-Strain Properties of Building Bearing Pads . Rotation and Shear Deformations esessese Friction and Slippage Creep Characteristics sion for Chloroprene DESIGN RECOMMENDATTONS Plain Chloroprene Pads sessecssseeeeeeeeeeseeee Random Fiber Reinforced Pads Duck Layer Reinforced Pads sssseeeeueeseees Chloroprene Tdenti fication Test Future Research i 13 1B 15 16 1B 18 27 28 a 4 al a 42 45 45. 62TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .. Surveys and Site Visits Laboratory Testing +++. Literature Review seeeeee Recommendations + REFERENCES se seeee APPENDIX 1 ~ SUNMARY OF PCI PROKICERS SURVEY. cece APPENDIX 2 ~ SUMMARY OF SITE VISUT INFORMATION AND TESTS.c+eeseeeeeees APPENDIX 3 - SPECTROPHOTONETER ANALYSTS OF BEARING PAD SAMPLES. « APPENDIX 4 — RECOMMENDED PCI DESIGN HANDBOOK SECTION ON BEARING PADS. . it 19 ae 98 105oRITERTA FOR DESLON OF BEARING PADS INTRODUCTION Generals Bearing pads are essential in construction with precast con crete, They provide two primary design functions both intended to minimize undesirable stresses in the adjacent concrete: 1) To obtain more uniform distribution of concentrated loads. 2) To allow movement and minimize the effects of Loads due to volume changes frow shrinkage, creep and tempera~ ture, Problens and failures have occurred due to poor materials or Amproper use of bearing pads, but the majority of experience has demonstrated their beneficial effects. Tn the past, the most commonly used elastomeric bearing pads could be divided inte two general groups; unreiaforced plain pads made of elastomer, and laminated pads mde of elastomer rein- forced with parallel horizontal steel plates. Small size plain pads are used throughout the construction industry, whereas the larger, more expensive, reinforced, laminated pads are used pri- marily for bridge bearings. Pads reinforced with both random oriented fibers and layered fiber material are avaflable and their use is inereasing in building construction. These newer pads bridge the gap between the large steel laminated pads and the plain unreinforced pads. One of the difficulties in designing bearing pads stems from che Large aumber of companies producing similar competing pro- ducts which often have different physical properties and capabil- ities, Generally, 2 few large chemical companies produce thebasic raw elastomer, but they do aot produce the final bearing pad product. This operation is left co the numerous pad produ- cers, who buy the ray uaterial, formate it with a number of fillers and enhancers, valeanize it with or without reinforcement, and cut the Flan] pad, This company may in turn sell the bearing pads to other suppliers or distributors aad the final user or ée~ signer Finds it difficult to determine che actual composition and mechanical properties for the pad. Types of Pads The most comaon types of bearing pads used today are: = Chloroprene (Neoprene) is probably the most commonly used pad. = Random oriented fiber (ROF) reinforced elastomeric pads are mde from excess materials from the cire industry, with shore fibers randomly oriented throughout the aateri- al. ~ Duck layer reinforced (DLR) pads ate generatly of chloro~ prene or similar elastomer with horizontal Layers of woven duck fiber reinforcing at extremely close spacings ~ Laminated elastomeric pads with reinforcing layers of steel or fiberglass are commonly used for bridge bearings. Natural rubber is commonly used {n Europe but seldom used in the Untted States. - Plastic pads = Steel place = Low frietton materials such as teflon or TRE (polytetra~ flouroechylene) are most often used in conjunction with other bearing materials, to provide a slip surface. =A umber of materials, such as bituminous joint filler, hardboard, wood and similar filler materials have been used, but these materials are not generally considered as rellable structural bearing materials.Maverial and Design Specifications At prevent, the design guidance for these various pads cones primarily from the Anerican Association of State Highway aad Transportation Dfficiais (AASHTO) Specification, (1)* state High way Departaents, and the Prestressed Concrete Insticute (PCL) Handbooks. (2,3) Mose of the design information and matertai on plain chtoropeene pads ts based an Ou Pont research and design recommendattons published in 1959, (4) AASHTO provides a matertal spectfteatton for chloroprene and natural rubber bearing pads in Section 25 of their Standard Spe- eifications(!), Article 2.19.3(L) also provides a brief deserip~ tion of duck layer reinforced pads that Calls short of being a complete specification, Military specification tIL-C-8826 also covers duck layer reinforced pads and a nunber of State Highway Departments have sections In their standard specifications deal ing with bridge bearing pads. Design information and specifications for the numerous types of small pads used in building construction are not covered to any extent by standard specifications. The general sources of @esign gutdance for small pads are the PCI handbooks (2,3) and manufacturers brochures which apply to a particular product Purpose and Direction for this Study The purpose of this study is to better understand pad hehav- ior and development of appropriate design criteria for bearing pads to he included in the PCT Desiga Handbook. This study has been accomplished in accordance with the following five tasks outlined ta the PCI request for proposals and detailed in further directions from the following advisory committee appointed by Por: AReferences at end of reportAdvisory Conmittee Member Affiliation Daniel ®, Jenny Technical Director, P»Cels Anthony L. Schloss E, I, duPont deNemours & Company, Elastomers Division Ted. Guct TRAC Division of the Tanner Companies Kenneth Vick Spanerete Industries, Ince Thomas J. Lechner Voss Engineeting, Inc. Janes &. Voss JVI, Tacs John M. Hanson Wiss, Janney, Elstner Assoctates, Inc. Research Tasks Task 1 - “Conduct a survey of the membership of the Insti~ tute to obtain information on problens that have been encountered with use of bearing pads in buildings, Task 2- “Investigate a selected number of the problems identified in Task 1, by making site visics and carrying out analyses to determine conditions that caused these problers.” Task 3 - “Collect and synthesize all current informatton on pads that are suitable for bearings of precast members.” Task 4 - "To the extent that resources are available, con~ duet tests to evaluate the performance of selected bearing pad materials.” Task S$ ~ “Using the tafornation collected in Tasks 1 through 4 develop appropriate design criteria for precast concrete con- struction, These criteria along with supplemental design aids ave to be developed in a form suitable for inclusion in the In- dusery Design Handbook A primary direction emerged during the early committee dis cussions, Since the PCT Design Handbook is currently under revi ston, the Industry Handbook Committee determined thar the new edition would be clearly directed to serve destgn of precast and prestressed concrate tn buildings and it would not attewt to serve the bridge construction industry. As a result, the orien- tation of this study was directed tovard buildings. The prixary4 _--UNDEFORMED PAD BULGE Fig. 1 - Bulging of unreinforced elastomeric pad under compressive loadelastomer to flow or act similarly to an inflated inner tube leads to many of its desirable qualities. Such pads can acconmo~ date small irregularities in the loeding surfaces, absorb small amounts of rotation and horizontal movement between the two load~ ing surfaces and still support and transfer compression loads. This flowability can also contribute to slippage problens. The designer's task is to choose 4 pad that will take the loads and movements without excessive deformation or gross slippage. Aa examle of an unreinforced chloroprene pad is shown in the center of Figs 2 Duck layer reinforced pads are generally produced with chloroprene or nitrile elastomers used to bond closely spaced horizontal Layers of woven duck fiber marerial together. The re~ sulting pads are wore costly and have mech higher compressive Load capacities than unreinforced pads since the reinforcing min- imizes bulging and deformation, However, shear, rotation and ir- regularities are less easily accommodated than with the unrein~ forced chlocoprene pads. A sample of this pad type is shown on the right in Fig. 2. ‘The random oriented fiber reinforced pads are a recently in- croduced pad type. They are generally produced from excess vir- fin tire production material, ‘The material is processed by chop- ping the tice Eibers, adding ozone retardant and then wleanizing into sheets, These sheets are then cut to size. Again, the tan- dom fiber reinforcement reduces the usual pad bulging character- totic and alloys higher compressive loads, but the material is somewhat stiffer and accommodates irregularities, rotation and shear movenents less easily, A sarple of this type of pad is shown on the left in Figs 2. Some variability is noted in these pads, such as, fiber type (nylon, rayoa, etc), fiber distritu- tion, and elastomeric comosition. Plastic is net commonly used for bearing pads except under solld or hollow-core concrete slabs. It is used for shims under precast wall panels and columas. Two companies manufacture suchsped pasaogupox aadey YP pur suvsdoaoTyo *pardozutes xoqTs-wopMes Jo sojdurg - 7 *BTEa product. The material is considered advantageous for shims be~ cause it creeps slightly and transfers some load to the grovt hed. The matertal essentiatly does not bulge, aad it has nigh compressive load capability. It is relatively hard and has more limited ability to conform to surface irregularities, rotations or shear movements than the elastomeric pads. No standard in~ dustry specifications are known to exist for this material. Steel pads are used in heated buildings where movements will be a minimim and where Little surface irregularity is encoun~ tered. They also are used for shims simflarly to the plaste ma~ terial discussed above. The steel has very high compressive load capability, but no ability to acconmodate surface irregularities, rotation or horizontal shear. If used as shim it does not creep to allow transfer of load to grout, and spalling at the shins may result. TFE or teflon is often used with stainless steel to provide an extremely low frietion aurface that can slip to accommodate horizontal movement and still transfer high vertical loads. ‘These low friction materials have also been coated on other bear~ ing pad materias such as duck layer reinforced pads. Finally, a number of miscellaneous materials, such as hard~ board, wood and other absorptive materials have been used as pads and have sometim s caused problems through collapse of the pad or staining or spalling of the concrete. Design Guidance Current AASHTO Specifications, although often used, are now considered outdated and ace currently under study (5167) for re= viston, Host State Highway Departments use these guidelines Ghich are clearly directed coward large pads with heavy loads. Bridge pad design is conservative since these pads will be used in extreme environmental conditions with heavy moviag loads and generally provided little or no maintenance. toThe design of pads for tuildings are covered ta the PCL De~ sign Kandbooks or various pad manufacturers brochures) ‘The man— ufacturers’ brochures are limited to each manufacturer's data and often do not provide sufficiently broad design values for the de- signers use. The first pact of the study to update the AASHTO bridge pad design spectficatton is covered in NCHRP Report 26865). This comprehensive report is of interest as ir also summarizes the most commonly used foreign design requirements. {t appears that significant research has been undertaken on bearing pads in europe. Table 1, which summarizes these desiga requirements and notation for Large, plain chloroprene pads for bridges, is taken directly from this NCHRP report. The three foreign bridge codes and the AASHTO specifications that are summirized are represents— tive of current world practice. The UIC 7728 Spectfication(S) is developed by the International Union of Railways and is used in europe and some other parts of the world by both railway and highway authorities. the BE 1/7649) is a British code and is atated to be the most widely used elastomeric bearing specifica ton in the World, Lt is used in Britain, Australia and tn coun tries ia Europe and Asia. The desiga mathods were particularly developed for reinforced-laminaved bearings of natural rubber but they are widely used with chloroprene. 355400(10) isa arate British Standard and represents current thought on this subject In Bricain Ut represents 4 combination of BE 1/76 and UIG 772. These Foreiga codes are generally based on considerable testing or theory and tend to be more complex than AASHTO Specifications. Novever, if favorable design conditions with minimis aovenents are encountered, mch higher compressive stresses are allowed when compared will AASHTO particularly on pads with large shape factors. Lt is useful to note again chat these codes all are dealing with large bridge bearing pads, where small plain pads tend Co be relegated to « secondary position. A discusston on German practice 15 warranted. Design calcu- lations are simplified, and only a few standardized sizes and aepoe 1000 popyaoad 58 00g SH a 2 458 009 5 ¥ RT TE -12-shapes of pad usiag a single elastomer are used. All pads are proof tested and each manufacturer mst pass a rigorous certifi~ cation procedure, The results from chis concept have apparently been very satisfactory but pads are quite costly and the concept tends co restrain new developments. SURYEYS_AND SITE VTSTT: The survey work involved in Tasks 1, 2 and 3 involved: = PCL Membership Survey ~ Site Visits ~ Collection of Data and Information PCI Membership Survey This work was performed with a controlled combination letter and telephone survey of selected producer members, Twenty-one PCI member companies were selected across the U.S.A. and Canada, An initial letter outlining the followup telephone survey was sent to each company. Following their study of this letter ques~ tionnaire, telephone contact was mide and their responses were noted as outlined in Appendix 1. Significant comments on responses from the Survey are: 1. Four respondents or about 20 percent felt they had bearing pad problems. MWowever, these problems were re~ lated to only a few projects. 2. Six respondents or about 30 percent felt that they ex- perienced Limited bearing pad problems. 3. About 60 percent of the respondents used the PCL or slightly modified PCL criteria for their pad desigm 4. The remaining respondents used rule-of-thuxb procedures co select pads, relied on the building designer to pro~ vide pad design, or used pad manufacturer's data. 5, AASHTO-grade plain chloroprene (neoprene) was the most commonly used pad materiai (60 percent used tr as a primary material). Two respondents with no problens used AASHTO~grade exclusively, whenever possible. “136Randow-oriented fiber pads were also used by 60 per- cent. four producers, or 20 percent, use random fiber pads as their primary material, while others use it as a secondary material, One producer has recently switched to the use of plastic bearing pads for all projects. This change being fairly recent, judgment of the suecess of this chofce is still pending, bur the producer is enthusiastic, Commercial-grade neoprene is used by four producers, or 20 percent, primarily under double tee legs. Duck layer reinforced pads are gener— ally only used if specified, alrhough one producer uses it under beams on a regular basis. 6, Two producers, or 10 percent, perform limited regular inspections of the pad performance in parking garages. ALL others do not perform inspections or only on a cas~ ual basis. 7. None of the PC1 producers test the pads chat they use. Most rely on the pad manufacturec's certification. This survey indicates that a hearing pad problem does exist, but 1 is not wide spread. A number of comneats trom individuals indicated that their practices with regard to plain bearing pads had changed about seven to ten years agos These changes general~ ly involved closer specification of materials, which resulted in increased use of AASHTO-grade chloroprene and increased cere tn pad design and (nstallation, They felt that performance since then has been more satisfactory. Three respondents menttoned that the PCL design practices sade no provisioas for considera~ Elon of rotation in the bearing surfaces, Two respondants felt that desiga for full concrete creep and shrinkage mvement with a shear displacement Limit of half the pad depth wes too conserva- tive, It ig significant that one type of structure, parking garages, seems to de the problen area, ALL significant problew projects aoted in the producer survey were parking garages. -16-Whether this ts due to the larger volume changes due to the expo- sure conditions, or co the very small pad sizes used, was not clear and probably both items contribste to the problem the writers are also familiar with other types of structures (cooling towers and storage tacks) that have experienced significant pad problems. After reviewing this data, five geographic areas were selec ted for site trips to review bearing pad performance, A decision was sade co concentrate on parking garages, siace no significant problens were reported in other types of buildings and garages are easily available for inspection Site Visits Five urban areas were visited: 1) Chicago, Illinois 2) Washington, D.c. 3) Minneapolis, Minnesota 4) Denver, Colorado 5) Phoenix, Arizona Comoents from these inspections are summarized in Appen- dix 2. Individual projects were also reviewed from several other states including Washington, Tennessee and Ohio. Tn each of the five areas, from four to six garages were visited, conditions noted, and photographs taken. The inspection team generally consisted of an Engineer froma local PCL pro- ducer, @ representative of a pad producer and one of the writers. Garages with poor to excellent performance of the pads were en countered. When problens occurred, the following were noted constetent~ ly im all areas: 1) Poor pad materials 2) Nonuniform bearing 3) Mislocated pads 15+other problem areas were noted although on a more local basis: 1) Delamination of elastomeric pads 2) Excessive shimming and mlti-pieced beam pads 3) Moving pads 4) Total disintegration of pad material in loaded area. Testing of individual pads for durometer hardness (Shore A) was undertaken at most locations. There was no clear correlation between hardness and pad performance. A cigarette lighter fire test to determine chloroprene content was also used and correla~ tion with poor performance and burnability was clears Aa important observation was that none of the garages viewed were experiencing significant damage to the concrete because of these aumerous bearing pad problems. If significant problems were evident it generally was from umisual bearing conditions that a bearing pad could not solve, Even when pads had crumbled and practically disappeared concrete damage was mininal, The average age of the garages Inspected was about five years, so distress might develop in the future. Collection of Information from Pad Vanufacturers A survey letter was mailed to seventeen bearing pad manufac~ turers and nine responses were received. The responses generally consisted of a letter with company literature or data on physical tests on their pads. A list of the responding companies is g{ven in Tabte 2. These responding companies generally provide design aids although design recommendations vary widely. Some companies have developed pads of combined mitertals for specialized fune~ tlons. ‘The information was reviewed and is felt to be limited in scope and ix often duplicative of PCI recommendations. It is prinartly related to proprietary materials. No stcespr was made to summarize the data, but it was referred to in the development of design aids discussed laver in this report. “16-TABLE 2 PONDING PAD MANUFACTURER: Alere Manufacturing 1848 Wilmot Avenue Chicayo, [2linols 60647 312-452-6480 Jack Blackburn Con-Serv Tee: 500 Forest Ave 2.0. Box 604 E, Hanover, New Jersey 07936 General Tice & Rubber Co. Wabash, Indiana 219-563-1121 Don Dean JVL, Ines 7315 N. Monticello Avenue Skokie, [1linots 60076 312-675-1560 James Voss Oil States Rubber Co. Farm Rd. 2495 at Progress Way Athens, Texas 73751 216-824-2502 Walter Adler -17- Spencer dynamics 8-235 Promenade St. Providence, Rhode Island 02908 401-274-6202 Geoff Spencer Structural Bearing Co. 189 Arkansas San Francisco, 415-552-0600 Bob Blanchette California 94107 Tobi Engineering 94 Carlisch Dr. Elk Grove Village, I1linois 60007 312-364-6140 Yous Engineering, [nee 6965 Ne Hemlin Ave. Lincolnwood, Tilinois 312-673-8900 Tom Lechner 60645TESTING eRocRaN Pads vade of AASHTO-grade chloroprene, random oriented fiber reinforced materials (RUF) and dick layer reinforced materials (DLR) were tested as follows: 1, Compression testing; with nonparallel steel bearing plates; with one concrete surface and a parallel steel plate; and with two parallel steel plates, a total of Five tests. 2. A simple in-plant burnability test. 3. Horizontal shear with accompanying perpendicular com pression, a total of four tests, 4, Compression creep under typical maxtoum design stresses on each material, a total of six tests. ALL test materials were obtained from Chicago area pad sup~ pliers, The test pads were Sin. x Sine x 1/2 in or 3/8 ime nominal size. The shape factors were 2.5 or 3.3, respectively, Compression Tests A series of direct compression rests were undertaken with all three materials to study the effect of using a sloped bearing surface which simlates sormal tolerances for steel bearing plate installation as well as the usual geonetry at the end of a cam bered prestressed concrete element. The slope of one steel plate was set at 1/8 inch in 5 inches {a one direction relative to the mating plate, Companion tests were also made with all three pad materials using parallel 6 x 6 ia steel plates, An additional test series was also undertaken with the chloroprene pad material using a parallel steel plate and concrete plate with a normal floated finish, Average stress was deterninad as the applied load divided by the daitial pad area, For all testing, vertical displacements were measured at the four corners of the pad and the average strain was calculated as the average vertical displacement of the pad divided by the initial average pad thickness. -18-Figures 3, 4, and 5 show various views of these tests in progress. Figures 6, 7 and 8 show the test results for these various test methods and materials. Fig. 9 shows the superia~ posed data for the patadlel sceel plate testing for the three ma~ terials, For comparison purposes, a stress/strain curve frow the commonly used 1959 DuPont publication is also shown in Figs. 6 and 9 It is probable that DuPont testing utilized parallel steel plates. ‘The parallel surfaces tests tndicate the following: 1. The reinforced pads are mich stiffer tn comression chan the chloroprene pad and the samples tested of DLR and ROF are very sim{lar in this property. 2, Compressive strains at 1000 psi were about 0.12 for the Yelnforced pads and aboot 0.27 for the chloroprene. For the reinforced pads strains increased to about 0.2 at 2000 psi. 3. The chloroprene test indicated somewhat similar slope to the 1959 DuPont data but showed considerably higher initial nonlinear displacement. The pads in this test were somewhat softer than DuPont's (55 vs 60). 4, When a concrete surface is substituted for one of the two steel plates in the parallel plate loading systen using chloroprene, as shown in Fig. 6, the average ver- tical strain was reduced by about 30 percent, apparent— ly from the increased friction effect from the con- crete. 5. Significant bulging of the chloroprene pads occurred at stresses of 400 to 600 pst. Figure 10 shows the superimposed data for the nonparallel plate testing. These data indicate the following: 1. At an average stress of 1000 psi, the chloroprene, ROF and DLR exhibited compressive strains which were about 50, 130 and 95 percent greater, respectively, than when a parallel steel plate loading system was used. ~19-Fig. 3 ~ Typical parallel plate compression test Fig. 4 - Typical non-parallel plate compression test -20-Fig. 5 - Extresion of chtoreprene during non~ parallel plate test ~21-COMPRESSIVE STRESS (psi) Parallel steel Pie 1900 Parallel surteces W/ ant Goncrole surtece ond ona staal 800 Nan garaliel ~ 2 areal turtases (Top. plate raped at “ue i in one 600 400 SUa5"H 2" BAD Bs? F 35 Duromerar 200 Qa ol o2 O03 aq as COMPRESSIVE STRAIN (in/in) Fin, & - Effect of searinp place elope and surFace on compression bebarior of ASSHTO chlgreprene pede a2y-COMPRESSIVE STRESS (psi) 2000 i600, 1200 800 400 ‘Two Parallel Steel plates Non-Parallelt one direction S"x5"X 1/2" PAD 6 F Ol 02 03 04 Os COMPRESSIVE STRAIN (in/in) Fig. 7 ~ Effect of bearing slope on compression behavior of random fiber reinforced pad 23COMPRESSIVE STRESS (psi) 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 Parallel steel Bearing piates Top bearing piote sloped at 1/8” in 5"in one direction "x8" x 1/2" PAD 6s F oO Ol 02 03 04 COMPRESSIVE STRAIN (in/in) big. 8 ~ Effect of bearing plate slope on compression behavior of duck layer reinforced pad -24"COMPRESSIVE STRESS ( psi) 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 DLR ROF 1959 DuPont Chioroprene 8°x 8"x 1/2" PAD 6s F 0 OL 02 03 04 O5 COMPRESSIVE STRAIN (in/in) Fig. 9 - Unifors compression tests with parallel plates comparing chloroprene, KOK and DLR pads -23-COMPRESSIVE STRESS (psi) 3000 2500 8 oO 1500 1000 500 0 Ol 02 03 04 0.5 COMPRESSIVE STRAIN (in/in) Fig. 10 - Comparison of compression behavior of materials for testing with one bearing plate sloped ~26-2. At stresses up to about 200 psi, Little difference in stress/strain behavior exists between these three mate rials. 3. Increased bulging of the chloroprene pad occurred at a stress of about 400 psi as shown in Fig. 5. During all of these various compression tests, one of these pads showed evidence of pad failure from eracking or delamina~ tion, At stresses above 200 co 409 pei, all pads apparently had full contact. Recent testing by Raths, Raths and Johnson{!!) on a ROF pad wich a different formation than that used here, shows 100 per— cent greater compressive strain at 2000 psi than noted in this test. Their research resulted in recommending design based on a compressive strain limit of 30 percent of the pad thickness. Simple Chloroprene Verification Test A simple burning test was tried several times throughout the site visits aud in the laboratory to indicate whether the pads contained chloroprene as their only elastomer, Chloroprene (or neoprene) does not support combustion and neither do mst of the fillers used in the AASHTO-grade pad manufacture. As such, if the pad is ignited and the source of flame removed, aa AASHTO~ grade chloroprene pad will quickly extinguish, 4 commercial~ grade chloroprene pad will act. During the site visits to five urban areas, many elastomeric pads would easily support combustion after belng exposed to a cigarette lighter flame. Generally if the sustained flame was intense, so were the problems with the pads. A suggested test procedure was developed in the laboratory co verify Eield observations, This same test could be easily made by PCI producers in their plants. The test procedure is as follows: 1. Use a drafe-free roor 2, Use a Bunsen burner or other constant flame “273. Hold a sampie of the pad in the flame, as shown in Fig. 1, for 5 seconds 4, Remove pad from flame and if the pad continues to bur after 15 to 20 seconds out of the flame, the pad is probably not an AASHTO-grade chloroprene pad Figs (2 shows 3 commercial-grade pad burning after being removed From the flames To confirm the validity of this simple test, spectrophoto~ meter analysis was used on 4 number of pad samples. Spectra for approximately 25 vulcanized elastomers, including five types of Neoprene, were obtained from DuPont. Five random samples were then selected from the pad samples obtatned in the field trips as show in Figs 13, Samples from atl areas of the country were used. These five samples (Nos. 1 to 5) were subjected to spec~ trophotoneter analysis, which is reported in Appendix 3. Two pads (Nos. 4 and 5) were of AASHTO-grade chloroprene (neoprene), three were not. The remaining portion of these five samles were then given the simplified burn test. Samples 1, 2 and 3 burned continuously after being renovad from the flame. Samples 4 and 5 burned for less than 15 seconds after being removed from the flames Both Samples 4 and 5 were retested with similar results. Sample 5 is shown tn Fig. 14 after two seconds out of the Flame and che flame has extinguished. These tests show that the simple flame test should be a use- ful tool for preliminary verification of AASHTO-grade chloroprene pads and that spectrophotometer analysis ts a valid method for more certain verification, Shear Tests A Limited number of shear tests ware aade, A diagram and photograph of the test set-up are shown in Figs, 15 and 16. These four tests were setmup to attempt co emlate Field condi- tions for pads and not necessarily to mximize the accurate meas~ urement of the static friction coefficient of the material. Ie ~28-Fig. 11 - Pad sample held in Bunsen burner flame Fig. 12 = Pad burning eut of flame 2.\ ime | R hy Vy ; a eeFig. 14 - Sampie No. 5 after two seconds out of flame -31-2 IDENTICAL 3/8"X5"X5" PAD SPECIMENS (BY HYDRAULIC JACK WITH LOAD CELL) P (BY TESTING MACHINE) Fig. 15 - Diagraw of shear test secup 32Fig. 16 - Photograph of shear test 33.was decided to test for shear properties under approximately max— imin compression shear loading conditions. Mill quality steel bearing surfaces, free of heavy rust, were used and the pads were nyt glued to the steel surfaces. Tt should be emphasized chat all results relate to aa apparent shear and friction performance that one might expect from pads of these materials and size act~ ing on steel hearing surfaces under the conditions noted, These data do not represent a true material shear modulus, ot coeffi- cient of Friction obtaleed under ideal laboratory conditions. Identical pad specimens, 5 in, x5 in. x 3/8 ins, were used. ‘The results are reported in term of shear stress, ive. hortzon- tal force divided by the undeformed pad area, and shear strain, ise. horizontal displacement divided by original pad thickness. Rach test required about 19 te 15 minutes. ‘The normal compression stresses were 800 psi for chloto- prene, 1500 psi for ROF and 2000 psi for OLR. These stress levels are generally equal to the saximm design stresses al- loved. Test results are shown in Figs. 17 and 18, The chloro- prene test result is not plotted because of early slipping. Slipping of the chloroprene pads occurred at an extremely low shear stress of about 27 psi which is approximately a shear stress to compressive stress ratio of 0.03, The two tests wit! ROP pads shoved slippage at shear stresses of about 75 psi and 125 psi, which are at shear to compression stress ratios of 0.05 to 0,08 The ROF pads exhibit a shear oodulus of elasticity (G) of about 700 psi up toa shear stress of 75 psi. At higher stresses, the shear modulus reduced to about 50 percent of the original. ‘The duck Layered reinforced (DLR) pad test showed no appar- ent sltppage up to the maximin applied shear stress of 200 psi while under a normal comresston stress of 2000 psi. The shear strain of the pad at a shear stress of 200 psi was about 10 perm cent, The DLR pads exhibited an initial shear modulus of elasti- city (G) of about 4700 psi and a secant modulus from 0 to 170 psi of about 3000 psi. 34a no a i ind ~ i a i w x B \75 SHEAR TESTS 283 - 2 ROF Pads - 5x5x3/8 All bearing surfaces steel Load in shear at about 10 psi per minute 150 Vertical Compressive Stress - i500 psi @ = TEST 2 x= TEST 3 (Both with identical conditions) Slip in TEST 3 x 100 75 25 0 Or 02 03 04 Os 06 SHEAR STRAIN, (in/in) Fig. 17 - Shear test data en randow oriented fiber padsSHEAR STRESS (psi) 200 175 i50 125 100 SHEAR TEST 4~- 2 Duck Layer Reinforced Pads - 5x5x 3/8 in. Vertical Compressive Stress = 2000 psi Loaded in shear ot 10 psi per minute All Searing Surfaces steel 0.02 004 006 008 = =O10 ole SHEAR STRAIN, (in/in) Fig. 18 = Shoar Lest data on duck layer reinforced pads th‘These limited shear-compression tests show chat the measured Eviction coetfictents (at slippage) for the chloroprene and ROF pads on stcel plate were only 7 to 8 percent of the applied con pressive stress. Creep Tests ‘The creep teste were nade in standard creep frames ia a con— trolled temperature and relative humidity room (7397, 50% R.H-) as shown in Pig. 19, Six creep tests were made on two samples of each of the three matertals. All tests were on nominal 1/2 in. chick pads. As shan {n Fig. 19, the steel plates extended over the sides of the pads. During testing the separation of the four corners of these projecting steel plates was measured with a mi- erometer and averaged to indicate the initial vertical deforma— tion of the pad during loading and the subsequent time-dependent creep deformation of the pad for over 120 days while under con~ stant loading The vertical deformations were measured Jamedi~ ately after the Initial loading, after 4 hours under load, and then at appropriate intervals duriag the test period. Again, naximim compressive stresses were used, The test results are presented in Fig. 20, Discussion of test results follow. Chioryprene Natecial ~The chloroprenc sample No. 2 was loaded to 600 psi uniform compressive stress. The average meas~ ured modulus of elasticity was about 3000 pai. ‘The measured int- clal and creep strains with pad No. 2 were 18.8 and 17.6 percent of the ortgtaat pad thickness as shova in Fig, 20. As a result, the total deformation was 36.4 perccent of the pad thickness or 0.18 inches. Thus, tite O45 inch thick pad reduced in thickness doa to 0.32 iaches in 120 days. The shape of the creep curve in Fig. 20 suggests that additional creep shortening witl occur in the Future, These data show that at a stress of 600 psi the creep shortening may equal or exceed the instentaneous shorten~ ing. “376Fig. 19 - Typical creep specimen with chloroprene pad at 600 pst ~38-COMP CREEP (% OF ORIGINAL PAD THICKNESS) Fig. TEST 2- \72" Chloroprene ot GOO psi 18.8% IE TEST 6 - 1/2" DLR at 2000 psi 102% IE TEST 4- 172" ROF_at 1500 psi 186% IE TEST 5- 122" DLR at 2000 psi 135% IE TEST 3 1/2" ROF_ot 1500psi 13.6% IE IE = Initiol Stroin 05 % of Pod Thickness 20 40 60 80 100 120 DAYS UNDER LOAD 20 - Creep data on chloroprene (Neoprene), random oriented Fiber reinforced and duck layered reiaforced pads 395Chioroprene test pad No. 1 was preloaded to 800 psi for two minutes and then unloaded down to 600 psi and held at 690 psi for the duration of the testing. Resules of testing of pad No. 1 were aot conclusive and are not plotted. Creep wae approximately 2 percent of original pad thicknes: ‘The chloropreae pads shoved significant bulging at 600 pei as shoun in Fig. 19 and even more severe bulging at 800 psi tension outside the loading plates was not considered significant in the reported specimens, 1 ~ The 80% pads were loaded to 1560 psi. The average modulus of elasticity measured during the Random Oriented Fiber Mate Initial loading was about 900U psi. The measured average tnittal and creep strains were 16.1 and 7.8 percent of the original pad thickness as shown in Fige 20, As a result, the total deforma~ tion was 23.9 percent of the pad thickness or 0,12 inches. The 0.5 inch thick pad reduced in thickness to 0.38 inches in 120 days. The shape of the creep curves suggest that the continuing rate of creep and amount of creep are significantly less than that of the chloroprene pad No. 2 even though the applied stress on the ROP pad is 2 1/2 times greater. Duck Layered Reinforced Material ~ The DLR pads were loaded to 2000 psi. The average measured modulus of elasticity during the tntetal loading was about 17,000 psi. The masured average initial and creep strains were 11.9 and 8.4 perceat of the orig- inal pad thickness as shown in Fig. 20. As a result, the total deformation was 20.3 percent of the pad thickness or 0.10 inches, Thus, this 0.5 inch thick pad reduced tn thickness down to 0.40 inches in 120 days. The shape of the creep curves suggest that the DLR pads exhibit the least rate of creep of all three matert~ als at age 120 days. These lintted tests at maximm design stresses illustrate that additional ereep tests are required to better understand these vartous engineering factors. -40~-DIscussiox, General There is a nead for siople, straightforward design criteria for chloroprene, rondo oriented fiber and duck layer reinforced pads For building construction The present PCI bearing pad de- sign orfteria are widely used, and these criteria appear to pro- vide aduquate field performance vhen proper beating pad materials are used, Sone pad problems have occurred and often can be re~ lated to poor eatecials. The remainder of this section deals with coaclusions and observations obtained during this study. Gurrent Recommendations on Compression of Chloroprene Bridge Bearing Pads ‘The recent publications by Stanton and Roeder(567) intro~ duce a simple formla limiting oominal compressive stress for plain chloroprene pads, fg, tot fe» 8, but Less than 800 psi for non-restrained, plain pads G = Shear Modulus, pat $= Shape Factor B = Material Factor (= 1.8) ‘This formla is straightforward, but it does depend on the shear modulus of the material. While this is an important physi~ cal property of the mterial, it is not information that is com monly available. In addition, this property is difficult to measure consistently, and it varies widely with temperatures This proposed formla essentially linearizes the allowable com~ pressive stres asa function of shape factor, The simplifica tion provided ty this type of formula makes it appealing, Fur- ther, pad properties are aot as accurately known as many other eagineeting mterials properties and such a single linear forma ts probably as accurate as the present state of our knowledge varrance. the material factor of 1.8 is applied slightly differently in the recent DuPont publication(!2) and guropean codes (Table “41SHAPE FACTOR NCHRP 248(5) with B= 18 on 4 2 Comp. sree / d / 12 From DuPont (12) / 4. with B= 1.8 on Shope Factor PRG Reo, a ST \ I onl Curves from PCI, Ed.2 ° 200 400 600 800 1000 MAXIMUM COMP. STRESS (psi) Fig. 21 - Recent design recommendations for plain chloreprene pads a 43—3. As shown in Fig.6, the stress-strain characteristic may be influenced by the type of bearing aaterials that contact the pad (lees, concrete vs steel). 4, The compression testing with nonparallel plates as undertaken in this study (Pigs. 6, 7 and 8) clearly illustrated an increased compressive strain when compared to parallel steel plates. ‘The review of information on ROF and DL pads finds limited data available for their design or spacification, The lack of, definitive specifications for ROF is a detriment to their uses Wowever, many producers are using the ROF pads which are less ex~ pensive and take higher comressive loads than plain pads. ‘The desiga of a bearing pad mist relate to the loaded area. Te was noted in the site inspections that many pads were used that extend some distance outside of the loaded area, The over- Sized pad is comonly used to alloy holding the pad while the ptecast member is being placed, Design should consider only the loaded area, The lateral flow of a pad as illustrated in Fig. 19 is dec~ timental to its bearing capacity. Bonding the pad to the bearing surfaces, or between reinforcing steel plates, as in the lami~ nated steel plate reinforced bearing, {s beneficial. Both NCHRP 243° and Dupont suggest mich higher allowable compressive stresses for these conditions. Such confined pads are not pres~ ently used in building construction tut may be a future develop- ment worth study. The large vertical displacement caused by the lateral flow of the chloroprene is one of its best and yer most troublesome Properties. The flow allows accommodation for Large irregulari~ ties and shears or rotations in the bearing surfaces. The pres- ent PCT and AASHTO pad design procedures call for a limit on pad compressive strains. Based on the variations discussed above, this is not a consistent approach; the use of a design procedure based on limiting stresses seems more consistent. 443. As shown in Fig.6, the stress-strain characteristic may be influenced by che type of bearing materials that contact the pad (ses, conerete vs steel). 4, The compression testing with nonparallel plates as undertaken in this study (Figs. 6, 7 and 8) clearly illustrated an increased compressive strain when compared to parallel steel plates. ‘The review of information on ROF and DLR pads finds limited data avatlable for their design or specification. The lack of definitive specifications for ROF is a detriment to their use. However, many producers are using the ROF pads which are less ex- pensive and take higher compressive loads than plain pads. The design of a bearing pad mst relate to the loaded area, It was noted in the site inspections that many pads were used that extend some distance outside of the loaded area, The aver- sized pad is commonly used to allow holding the pad while the precast member {s being placed. Design should consider only the loaded area, The laceral flow of a pad as illustrated in Fig, 19 is det- rimental to its bearing capacity. Bonding the pad to the bearing surfaces, or between reinforcing steel plates, as in the lami~ nated steel plate reinforced bearing, is beneficial. Boch NCHRP 248 and Dupont suggest mich higher allowable compressive stresses for these conditions. Such confined pads are not pres— ently used in building construction but my be a future develop- ment worth study+ The large vertical displacemeat caused by the lateral flow of the chloroprene is one of irs best and yet most troublesome Properties. The flow allows accommodation for large irregulari-~ ties and shears or rotations in the bearing surfaces. The pres~ ent PCT and AASHTO pad design procedures call for a limit on pad compressive strains, Based on the variations discussed above, this is not a consisteat approach; the use of a design procedure based on Limiting stresses seems more consistent. n4b~Rotation and Shoar Deformations ‘The consideration of rotation, {+e+, noaparallel bearing suctaces is not made In etther the PCL oF AASITO design proce= dures. A common rule of chumb(3) has been to limit such rotation to: Fos 2d 1 compression displacement length of bearing in direction of rotation r= maximm rotation in radians This is intended to prevent lift-off at the low-stress end of the nonparallel plates. This geometry is illustrated in Fig. 22. Lateral shear displacement has also commonly been Limited to 0.5 of the pad thickness as {1lustrated in Fig. 23, European practice has allowed up to 0.7. Ip is actually che combination of compressive strain, shear strain and rotation strain that leads to failure (cracking) in che critical toe region of the bearing pad, The present limits on rotation and shear deformation were set to be sufficientiy conservative so chat design compression stresses are not signifi- cantly affected by deformations within the limits. The European Codes (Table 1) attempt to model these combinations, either through stress or strain limitations, However, the resulting ex~ pressions are often complex and the wide variety of properties for pads used in the U.S. negate the usefulness of such detailed analysis, Also, as discussed below, slippage probably makes such Limits physically unrealistte Friction and $lippag Design for the shear deformation of elastoneric pads as out- Lined above has generally been based upon the assumption that the horizontally loaded pads can deform In shear to 50 percent of the pad thickness while under perpendicular design compressive stres- ses and chat friction will prevent the pad from slipping. the -45-C aye COMPRESSION DISPLACEMENT “= ROTATION MAXIMUM = ite Fig. 22 - Linitacion on rotation dg< t/2 FOR he CHLOROPRENE 2 Fig. 23 - Shear movenent limite ~a6-upper limit on the frictional force which could he developed be~ tween elastonoric pads and steel or concrete surfaces was assumed to be 0.7 of the normal force, based upon static friction coef- fietent vest data. The 1982 NCHRP 248 report (5) dimcusses the apparently trou~ blesome slipping characteristic of plain elastoneric pads when loaded in shear while under perpendicular compression loads. This slipping or ‘Walking oot from under loads" ts a conmonly noted pad problem, The NCHRP report discusses research reported in Furope in 1965 which showed chat the friction coefficient for conerete or steel surfaces tn contact with plain rubber pads de~ creased dramatically as the compressive stress level on the rubber pad was increased. This Suropean study suggested the fol- lasing equation for a conservative estimate of the coefficient of friction for concrete or steel surfaces as a function of conpres~ sive stress on the pad: b> d.10 + 29 oe where w= friction coeffictent + % 9%, = compressive stress on pad, psi ©, = shear etress on pad, psi A plot of this equation is shown in Fig. 24 covering a range in compressive stress from 50 to 2,000 psi, It is noted that the value approaches 0.7 at compressive stress levels of 50 psi while it decreases rapidly to values of only 0.17 to 0412 for compres- sive stress levels of 400 pst to 2,000 psi, respectively. A similar reduction effect on y for teflon pads is shown in the PCL Architectural Design Manual(3) in Fig. 2.81, The fric~ tion coefficient for TFE reduces from about 9.09 to 0604 as the compressive stress level increases from 10 to 2,000 psi. These dramatic decreases in friction coefficients have not been previously accounted for in des. practice. The NCHRP 248 report discusses other test data which substantiate this decrease “470.2 ol a 4 9 E 07 cy UIC 772 EQUATION ° 06 F RUBBER PADS ON CONCRETE OR STEEL 2 SURFACES gt @- O08 58 Ou fe a iN 04 z w o> 38 Q 03 = © pez 110+ er, Se N Q fe °o S x= ir So 2 & a ° ° 400 800 1200 1600 2000 COMPRESSIVE STRESS ON PAD, Og, psi Fig. 24 - Friction coefficient versus normal stress for rubber pads 48and certain comments taken directly from this report are as fol- Lows? + “Friction is thus seen to be imperfectly under- stood and the possibility of slipping merits con- servative consideration.” + “Further, the unreliability of the friction results in the increased probability of a plein pad ‘walk~ ing’ from under the load.” + “The loser values of 1 found by others, combined with the effects of dynamic Live load which further reduce them, nake some slip almost inevitable for pads of practical shape factors.” A significant research paper on this subject is from West Germany and was published in A.C.1, Publication sP~70(14) in 1981. This paper by I. Schrage presented and discussed numerous tests on plain chloroprene pads undergoing shear/conpression tests against concrete and steel surfaces. The tests utilized nominal compressive stresses of 72, 725 and 2,900 psi on the plain chloroprene pads. The pad shape factor was generally 2.0. These tests applied the shear loads at constant horizontal éis~ placement rates of 1.97 im /sec, 0-02 ins/sec and 0.0004 ins /secs toa maximim displacement of 0.7, 1.4 and 2.1 times the pad thickness. The typical unrestrained displacement rate for the end of a 60 £t long double-tee member experiencing a 50°F tenperature change uniformly over a six hour period would be about 0.900005 in, /sec at each end of the tee. Thus, the lowest rate of shear loading used in these tests (0.0004 in. /sec) was most typical of daily temperature effects and long-term creep and shrinkage ef- fects. Thetr data are presented and discussed in terms of “slip re~ sistance” at the different maximim shear deformations for the pad, The German building regulations assume that nonanchored bearings are appropriate to transfer short-term tangential loads. -49-However, service performance ts limited to a naximm shear defor- mation for the psd of 0.7 times the pad thickness and the fric~ tion coefficient, I, was previously assumed at 0.20. Significant observations and conclusions fron these tests are ag follows: + Minor slip occurs at even lov shear stresses. + Plain chloroprene pads under low vertical stresses tend to move under horizontal load by pure slip- pane. + Plain chloroprene pads exhibit olling” and slip= ping when under high compressive stresses and sub- jected to horizontal shear loads. + The coefficient of friction ts dependent on the shear Loading rate. + For the very slax shear loading rate, the tests an steel and concrete surfaces produced different co~ efficients of friction. Figures 25 and 26 show the average relationship between + and compressive stress on the pad at a “shear plus stppage” strain of 70 percent using concrete and steel surfaces. Figure 27 shows the range of the data for their mitiple tests on chlor~ oprene pads on concrete surfaces using the shear load rate of 0.02 ins /sec. Ta the conclusion portion of his 1981 ACI paper, Mr. Schrage suggests a “rough” equation for relating Friction dependence on compressive stress as folla¥s: v= 0.05 + 58 oe He further coments that the present German resulation of using «= 0.20 is realistic at very low compressive stresses but the pad will slip before reaching shear strains of 70 percent. -50-o7 6 FROM REFERENCE 14 CHLOROPRENE PADS ON CONCRETE SURFACES 2 B \ SHEAR LOADING nA OF 70%, ° & 02 on RATIO OF HORIZONTAL SHEAR STRESS TO VERTICAL COMPRESSIVE STRESS AT SHEAR AND SLIP STRAIN ° 500 1000 5002000 25G0—«3000 COMPRESSIVE STRESS ON PAD,@¢, psi Fig. 25 - Compressive stress versus apparent friction factor ~ concrete surfaces 51+OF 70%, pb RATIO OF HORIZONTAL SHEAR STRESS TO VERTICAL COMPRESSIVE STRESS AT SHEAR AND SLIP STRAIN or FROM REFERENCE 14 CHLOROPRENE PADS ON os STEEL SURFACES 1 os \ 04 \ SHEAR LOADING RATE 08 2 ol ° 500 ooo = 1500 2000 © 2500-3000 COMPRESSIVE STRESS ON PAD,Oz, psi Fig. 26 = Compressive stress versus apparent friction facter ~ steel surfaces “52TO VERTICAL COMPRESSIVE STRESS AT SHEAR AND SLIP STRAIN OF 70%, w RATIO OF HORIZONTAL SHEAR STRESS or FROM REFERENCE 14 CHLOROPRENE PADS ON CONCRETE SURFACES . SHEAR LOADING RATE, 0.02"/sec. 06 2 3 © @ RANGE OF DATA 02 on ° 500 1000S 600-2000 2500-3000 COMPRESSIVE STRESS ON PAD, Go, psi Fig. 27 ~ Range of data - concrete surfaces 53ie also pointed out that at high compressive stresses, the value will be well below 0.20, Figure 28 shows the sbove sug~ gested equation and compares it with the 1965 UIC equation previ~ ously discussed. A study of the shear-compression strength of specially form ulated random oriented fiber pads was undertaken tn 1983-84 by a pad manufacturer ia the United States (II), This data was submit~ ted during this study for review. Sixteen shear tests were mde using pads tanging in size from 2x 2t0 6x6 In. (squate pads) and 1-1/2 x 3 to 3.x 6 in. (rectangular pads). The thicknesses were 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 in, The compressive stress levels used were 800 pei and 1,200 psi, The shear test method is the same as used by WE as sham in Fig. 15. These tests were on unttorm Float finished concrete surfaces. Significant test results from this v + study are discussed below: + The ROF pad static friction coefficient on a con— crete surface using only gravity loading during an inclined plane test, where the angle of the in- clined plane was measured at which sliding or slip- ping initiated, varied from 0.7 to 0.9, while the 0.7 value was the most usuals + The friction coefficient measured during the 16 shear-compression tests varied from 0.2 to 0.5, de~ pending upon the compression stress and shear dis placement. + The leading edge of the pad tended to roll at shear plus slip deformations of about 3/4 of the pad thickness. (This same type of behavior was noted in the tests by Schrage on chloroprene pads with similar geometries.) + For comressive stress levels of 800 psi and 1,200 psi on the ROF pads, the average friction co- efficient was about 0.20 and 0.15, at shear plus slippage strains of 75 percent. These coefficients gradually increased to about 0.30 and 0.27, at “3dB RATIO OF HORIZONTAL SHEAR STRESS TO VERTICAL COMPRESSIVE STRESS AT SHEAR STRAIN OF 70%, ° g ° a ° a 2 2 2 o ° x p= 010+ ®%y_ (1965) o4 ° 00 1000 1500 2000 ©2500 = 3000 COMPRESSIVE STRESS ON PAD, Oy , psi Pig. 26 - Comparison of friction coefficients from 1965 and 1981 West German reports ~55-shear plus slippage displacements of twice the pad thickness, AL that time significant slippage had occurred, These recently acquired shear test data on ROF pads on con- crete are shown in Fig. 29 superimposed on the L, Schrage resules for chloroprene on concrete. The previously discussed WJE shear-compression tests on chloroprene and ROF pads oa steel surfaces exhibited extremely low friction coefficients. These tests used a shear loading rate of about 0.00002 in. fsec. which is slower than the lowest rate used in the Schrage tests on chloroprene. Tne chloroprene pad test for PCI utilized a compressive stress of 800 psi and slip occurred at a Friction coefficient of approximately 0.03 at a very low shear strain, The ROF on steel tests both utilized a compressive stress of 1500 psi and friction coefficients 0.05 and 0.08 resulted, These data are plotted in Fig. 30 which also shows the Schrage data for chloroprene pads on steel surfaces for comparison. Fig. 31 shows the 1965 UIC equation and the 1981 equation proposed by Schrage for rubber or chloroprene pads on either con- crete or steel surfaces and all the 1984 U.S. test results for both ROF and chioroprene pads. The DLR pad test for PCI did not show any apparent slippage while being subjected to a shear stress of 200 psi and under a compressive stress of 2,000 psi. The shear strain was only 10 percent and the friction coeffictent, u, at the end of the test was about 0.10. This test was terminated due to equipment capa city. These 20 shear-compression tests in the U.S. during 1983-84 substantiate the European data and show that the shear- compression friction coefficients for chloroprene and the spe- cially formated and standard ROF pads decrease well below a statie coefficient of 0.7 that is commonly used in design, under commonly used compression Loads « -56-a 2 07 ge A ROF PADS = CONGRETE Ee SURFACES USA DATA a REF.) % 06 ° F2 q BE os Do = 5et wu a Tet OF CHLOROPRENE PADS - CONCRETE a0 SURFACES 1981 GERMAN DATA oe BY |. SCHRAGE (14) Bao yr 8 23 ew ga ge Bo oz Loa g RATE w <3 3B oo of " 02" suc eS 0.0008". gO ZS ° 400 800-1200 1600-2000 COMPRESSIVE STRESS ON PAD, O, psi Fig. 29 - Compressive stress versus friction for ROF and chloroprene on concrete surfaces -37-or @ CHLOROPRENE PAD ON STEEL, 904 wae “DATA & ROF PADS ON STEEL, os 1984 WJE DATA IEAR STRESS TO VERTICAL COMPRESSIVE STRESS AT 70% SHEAR STRAIN OR ad CHLOROPRENE PADS~ STEEL o SURFACES 961. GERMAN. DATA 3 5 BY |. SCHRAGE (/4) a 2 O38 =z é Bo 02 Loao Ss RATE £ 1977 sec. \ SB ° 002"/s06. 2 0.00047 sec. = ° 9 400 800 200-600-2000 COMPRESSIVE STRESS, psi Fig. 30 - Stress ratios on steel surfaces -38-° S ° a e a ° 3 ‘A 1984 TESTS ON ROF PADS ON CONCRETE REF. (11) 1984 TEST ON ROF PADS ON STEEL-WJE @ 1984 TEST ON CHLOROPRENE ON STEEL—WJE BK ° a . ° iD [= 010+ 2%, (1965) (UIC) 2 p= 005+ 5%, (961) (REF (4) e RATIO OF HORIZONTAL SHEAR STRESS TO VERTICAL COMPRESSIVE STRESS AT SHEAR STRAIN OF 70%, ° 400 800 I200 1600-2000 COMPRESSIVE STRESS ON PAD, 0; , psi Fig. 31 - Comparison of friction coefficient from 1965 and 1981 Vest German reports and U.S. test results 595Wnile the shear-compression friction coefficient, uy at slippage or pad rolling decreases éranatically as the compressive stress level increases, the available or allosable shear stress on the pad under the sane conditions does not decrease. The data from the 24 European tests and the 20 U.S. tests on plain pads were calevlated and plotted in Fig, 320 compare the ahear sezess on the pad versus compressive stress on the pad at shear plos slippage strains of 70 percent. ‘These plots are for chloro- prene and R0F pads on concrete or ste! surfaces. These four curves show inereasing shear stress capacity as comressive stress nereases, These curves are based on a slow loading rate, such as occurs due to temperature changes, and are not aporopri~ ate for sefentc Loading. The Heropean equations for » are of the form: pea eB fe where A and B = Constanta os = shear stress on pad oe = compressive stress on pad " friction coefficient (0,/¢¢) This equation 1s equivalent to Oe aa B oF Pe %e ©, = AG +B This linear equatioe with an fatercept on the shear stress axis can then be used to approximate the curves in Figs 32 and can be solved for the A and B constants. Approxinate values for these constants are as follows: Pad Type Surface 3 Chloroprene Steel 0.03 18 Chioroprene Concrete 0.04 38 ROF Steel 0.05 36 Ror Concrete 0.09 90 ~60-SHEAR STRESS ON PAD AT SHEAR AND SLIPPAGE STRAIN OF 70%, psi 210 ROF (OW CONCRETE 180 150 120 on STEEL nor 90 (CHLOROPRENE 60 30 ° ° 400) 800) 1200 1600-2000 COMPRESSIVE STRESS ON PAD, Oo, psi Fig. 32 - Shear stress versus compressive stress for chloroprene (Neoprene) and random oriented Fiber pads oa steel and concrete surfacesThese constants would produce equations for » as follows for the above four combinations: = 0,03 + 14/%, (hloroprene - Steel) py = 0,04 + 38/%, (Chloroprene ~ Concrete) ¥ = 0,05 + 36/9, (ROP ~ Steel) v= 0.09 + 90/9, (ROF ~ Concrete) ‘The form of this equation suggests that the allowable shear stress at slippage increases linearly as the compressive stress increases. Considering Fig. 32, it can be noted that when the Linearity ceases, it is probably evidence of unnoticed slippage during the testing, The constants suggest that only 3 to 9 psi added shear stress is achieved for each 100 psi added coupressive stress on the pad. The above four equations are shown plotted in Fig. 33 along with the 1981 German equation suggested by Schrage for chloro— Prene on steel or concrete surfaces. Creep Characteristics The creep testing indicated that the creep strains after 120 Gays of loading ranged from 48 to 94 percent of the inirsal shortening and averaged 70 percent for these three materials. These values are mich greater than the 20 co 40 percent values discussed tn the NCHRP 248 report based on Large size bridge bearings. They are also mich greater than the creep values shoun in the 1983 DuPont brochure on chloroprene, These creep tests oa small pads were undertaken using maximm design compressive stresses and for a reasonably long period and certainly represent rigorous conditions although nonparatlel plates were act tn- eluded. The addittonat vertical deflection of the pad from the creep in the bearing pads probably has little effect in the buttding. Tt might have to be accounted for in certain joint de~ tails, but the majority of the pad deflection has often occurred by the time the roppings are cast and connections are made. ~62-APPROXIMATE ALLOWABLE BK O7 O6 ———— 1981 GERMAN EQUATION- CHLOROPRENE ON. STEEL OR CONCRETE (REFERENCE 14) COMPRESSIVE STRESS ON PAD, Op, psi Fig. 33 - Friction coefficient variation for chloroprene Qleoprene) and random oriented pads on concrete and steel surfaces 6DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Appendix 4 contains a recommended Section for the PCI Desiga Handbook which incoporates the following recommendations. Blain Chloroprene Pads These recommendations are intended for plain chloroprene pads of 50 to 70 durometer, under normal exposure conditions, for precast concrete building construction, aad for materials necting AASHTO Section 25 Specifications Allowable Compressive Stress - The allowable compressive stress is the aost appropriate and straightforward design para~ meter for choroprene pad design. The simplified forma pro- posed by Stanton and Roder (NCHRP 248) has appeal. However, the use of the shear modulus has the weaknesses of being difficult to measure consistently and this saterial property is extremely tem perature sensitive, ardness, on the other hand, is still the most widely employed measure of the physical properties of rubber materials and hardness is related to shear modulus and comres~ sion modulus. The Following design forma for untactored service loads is recommended: fo = KDS ¢ TAllowable compressive stress, psi K = Empirical constant, psi 2 Shore A Nardness of the matertal (Durometer) Shape factor The incorporation of the durometer factor, D, allows for considecation of the improved stiffness and compressive strength of harder elastomeric materials. This same consideration is ac~ complished in the NCHRP 248 forma through the use of the shear modulus, The empirical constant, K, accounts for conversions of units. The proposed forma when equated to the previous PCI de~ sign recommendations results in a "K" factor of about 4 A plot of chis proposed equation with K = 4 is shown in Fig. 34 along 64.SHAPE FACTOR NCHRP 248 (5) with B= 1.8 on Comp. stress > SY /\-y¥ v fio / a/ S / / ] a t/ ° 200 400 600 800 1000, MAXIMUM COMP. STRESS (psi) From Dupont with B= 1.8 on Shape Factor (Bxtrapoleced beyond 10 percent max. strats) Proposed Formula with K=4 Original Curves from PCI, Ed. 2 Fig. 34 - Recent design recomendations for chloroprene (Neoprene) pads compared with PCI and recon mended formula -63-with the present PCT recommendations and the NCHRP 248 bridge pad recommendations which were given in Fig. 2i, The proposed form~ la mtches closely with the current PCL recommendations and is considerbly less conservative than either of the recent bridge recommendations for plain pads. This 1s appropriate since the present PCL recomendations are considered well tested and most of the problems encountered in the fleld were clearly related to poor materials. Since plain pads do not contain any reinforcing, the elasto~ ner itself must resist internal tensile stresses from bulging caused by the coapression loading. Friction along the loaded surfaces also acts to restrain bulging. Since the friction coef~ Eicient at aoderate to high compression stresses is very low and potentially unreliable due to long-term creep effects, plain chloroprene pads should be designed for relatively los compres~ sive stresses, particularly under unfactored working dead loads. A 1,000 psi maximin design compressive stress for unfactored design loads has been used for many years. However, the results of the testing in this project illustrate that significant bulg- ing and creep deformation occur when high compressive stresses Uves, 600 psi) are held constant for long periods. Lt is recom mended that the maximim design compressive stress under unfactor~ ed dead and live loads be generally Umiced to 800 psi and that the unfactored sustained dead load stress be limited to 300 to 500 psie Further Limitations are cecommended that under double tee stems pads with a shape factor less than 2 be avoided and under beams a shape factor less than 3 be avoided. This implies that small, thick pads should not be used. For example, a 1/4 x 2 x 2 in, or al/2 x4 x4 im pad have a shape factor (SF) of 2+ Plain chloroprene pads of these sizes that are any thicker should be used only with extreme care. Such small pads may sometines be required, and Lf go, reinforced material is recommended. The choice of SF = 2as a limit is based on observed results and -66-problems, Ir is noted that these recommendations are based on properties for the loaded area of the pads Shear Modulus and Frictional Effects — The shear modulus is usually determined by pad manufacturers using the ASTM D4014~81 test procedures. These procedures utilize pads bonded to steel plates and slipping is not permitted. Since bearing pads in pre~ cast building construction are not glued or fixed in place, slip- page occurs, and shear deformation calculations using a shear modulus are unrealistic, even when a long-term shear modulus of 0.5 Gis assumed. The use of normal short-term shear modulus values of 110, 150 and 215 psi) for 50, 60 and 70 durometer chloroprene pads (at 70°F) will significantly underestimate the measured pad deformation in actual tests. ‘The recent shear-compression testing discussed in the previ- ous section suggests that pads slip appreciably and that this slip can play 4 significant role in reducing forces transmitted to the ends of precast members by frictional forces. While the amount of testing has been limited, the data in the previous sec~ tion suggest that Fig, 32 represents an alternative and improved design aid to estimate frictional forces at ends of members. The use of the data in Fig. 32 as an upper limit is conservative since long-term creep effects are not included. Shear Deformation and Movement Limitations ~ Present desiga practice has been to limit the shear strain of the pad to $0 per coat of the pad thickness. This design practice did not totally recognize the effect of slippage. This Limitation results ina pad thickness of two times the calculated deformation of the end of the precast pember and a cesulting lov shape factor since thick pads are oftea necessary. Current testing and other prac~ tice {in European codes leads to the approach of Limiting pad shear and slip to 70 percent of the pad thickness since rolling and severe slipping {9 noted at this point. Based upon this ~67-limit, the pad thickness can be selected as 1.4 times the calcu~ lated deformation of the end of the precast member, This leads to a more favorable shape factor. Agtatton - Rotation ts not presently covered in the PCL pad design reconuendations. Nonparallel bearing surfaces are a com non problen and were noted in many instances in tha site visite. A wothod to consider rotation of bearing surfaces in pad design procedures by using the follaving forma 1s suggested: Maxime rotation < 03 1 & = pad thickness L = dtnenston of pad Tite would be coken in either ome of the priactpal dinensions of the pad in which che amxiaum rotation oceurs. This formla fs based on the assumption that a minima compressive displacenent of 0115t occurs under design loads and then applying che rule of thumb dtscussed previously: © Me 2(0.15t) = 23k, 1 L Since nonparallel bearing surfaces do exist, it mst be rec ognized that such nonuniform Ioading can double the 15 percent strain often assumed in design, Thus, 30 percent instantaneous compressive strain can occur in highly stressed, nonparallel sit- wations as was noted {n the testing. Random Fiber Reinforced Pads Allovable Compressive Stress ~ The PCI Design Manuals previ- ously suggested a maximm design compressive stress of 1,500 pst Eor ROF pads, This suggested level of stress was not influenced by the shape factor. Pes problens were noted in the site tnspections, although Limited cracking of the exposed surfaces was observed. As such, ~68-there is Litele evidence to suggest sigaificant problems shen ROF is used at or belov this stress level. Since ROF pads have a wore Linited experience record than chloroprene pads, and since recent cesting(I1) suggests chat pad performance 1s sensitive to low shape factor, the atove reconmen- dation my be too lMheral for small shape factors and denign con servation my be warranted. Also, testing has shown hat ROF pads can have widely different comression and shear modulus values depending on the elastomer type, and fiber type and orten~ tation, Recognition of shape factor is recommended in their de~ sign, Based upon the data avatlable, the folloviag maximn de- sign compressive stresses are recommended for unfactored dead and Live Load uniform Coapressive Stress, Shape actor (psi) 1 1100 2 1200 3 1300 4 1400 3 1500 3 1300 or stated as a forma; f, = 1000 + 100(SF) <1500 psi. The compressibility of ROF pads mist be calculated or esti— mated from test data fron the actual pad matertal used since stiffness of the ROF pads varies significantly from one mamufac~ turer te another. As an example, for a S.F. of 2.5, one pad ma~ terial under a uniform coupressive stress of 1250 psi comressed about 15 percent while a different manufacturer's pad cowressed ~69-ahout 30 percent. Pads from various manufacturers have been sub~ jected to uniform compressive strasses of 5000 psi without exhi- biting any evidence of pad failure, other than Large vertical de~ Formation. Shear Modulus and Friction ~ The shear modulus of OF pads is higher than chloroprene pads and values in the range of 300 to 700 pst have been measured at room temperature. High or low tem perature data are not available. The shear-conpression testing discussed previously has shown significant slippage and rolling at apparent shear strains of 15 to 75 percent. These tests show similar slippage and rolling he~ havior as was noted in the chloroprene tests fron Europe which showed severe slippage and rolling at or near 70 percent apparent shear strain. Since pad slippage does occur, it is recommended that the pad thickness be selected as 1.4 times the calculated deformation of the end of the preeast menber, similarly to the chloroprene recommendation. The maximm friction force which can be produced at the ends of members can be estimated by the shear stress ver~ Sus compressive stress curves shown in Fig. 32. Rotation ~ The same recommendations would be suggested here as were used in chloroprene pads. The recommendations are hased on a afnimm 15 percent vertical strain in the pad and rotations limited to avoid lift-off or tension in the high side. These criteria also seem appropriace for ROP pads. Duck Layer Reinforced Pads ‘Allovable Compressive Stress - Present CI criteria and a nomber of mamfacturers suggest an allovabie maxim compressive stress of 2000 psi for DLR pads. This value appears appropriate and should be continued in che PCT literature. These pads are seldom used in smaller shape factors and Itttle apparent need exists to limit stresses on smaller pads. =70-Shear Modulus ~The shear modulus is mich higher than for the other pads. A recommended range of shear modulus is suggest— ed with a lower Limit of $00 psi, taken from preseat PCL recom nondations, and an upper Limit of 3000 psi, as noted in our tesr— tag. Shear Deformation ~The high shear modulus Leads co very snall shear deformations during shear-compression testing, while the single test in this research is far from conclusive it is re~ commended that a Limit of 0.2t be considered for the maximum shear deformation Tn this single test a shear deformation of about O.}0t required a shear streas of over 200 psi and no ob- servable slipping had occurred, This area warrants future test~ ing to confirm upper limits on shear deformation and slippage be- havior. Rotation ~ Essentially the sane recommendations for rotation Limits would be used as for other pads, based on a ainfoum verti~ cal strain of 0.15 and designing against 1ift-off or tension on the high side. Chioroprene Ident fication Test The simple turning test developed in this study apparently provides a teady means of preliminary identification of those pads containing only chloroprene as an elastomer. The small pad is inserted in = Buasen burner flame for 5 seconds and then with- drawn. Tf the Elame dies 1a leas than 15 to 20 seconds, the pad is probably composed of chloraprene elastomer. More certain analysis can be accomplished weing spectrometer analysis, with the availability of spectra of various materials to be idenei- Fied, These spectra tests are mich more expensive and time con sunings -TeFuture Research The general searcity of test data relating to random orient— ed fiber and duck layer reinforced pads suggests a serious need for future research with these pad types, and need for definitive specifications for these mterials. ‘The slipping noted in the shear-compression testing at mod~ erate to high compressive stress in Europe and the U.S.A. sug- gests that further testing and correlation with field performance would perhaps yield a different outlook on the performance of plain bearing pads, Tests should be undertaken on actual long- span structures co determine if the sember deformation results in ped shear strains, slippage or a combination of these two mecha~ Further correlation of the “kK” factor in the simplified com pressive stress formla proposed here for chloroprene pads should be considered to provide the designer with safe yet economical designs. The use of plastic shim material as bearing pads is an in~ teresting development that also needs future review, study and evaluation. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A broad study of elastomeric bearing pads for use in precast conerete building construction was undertaken, This work includ- ed a survey of PCI producers to identify problems and practices, and a review of recent literature. Limited laboratory testing on chloroprene (neoprene), random oriented fiber and duck layer re~ inforced elastomeric pads was undertaken with respect to long- tern compressive creep, shear-conpression, and uniform and nenun~ iform compression, Parking structures in five different cities in various U.S. locations were inspected to determine actual field performance of bearing pads under out~of-door conditions. As a result of this work, new design recommendations are suggested for use in the PCL literature, A simple method to -72-identify AASHTO-grade chloroprene (neoprene) pads and a new method to estimate frictional forces on pads were developed. Noteworthy conclusions or observations from these various tasks aze discussed in the following sections: Surveys agg Site visits Le Ea 3 6 Bearing pad problems exist, but not on a broad scale. The use of commercial-grade chloroprene pads has created numerous problems in the past such as ex- cessive bulging, disintegration, ete. Chiotoprene, tandow fiber reinforced and duck layer reinforced pads ace most prevalent in building con- struction. Nonuntform bearing due to aonparaliel surfaces is a commonly noted problem and excessive deformation of the pad does ocoar. Mislocated pads vere observed, These nislocations can be caused by {mroper installation or by grad- ual ped slippage due to low frictional resistance. Pertinent generalized design information based upon appropriate testing of pads used for building con~ struction are not available, pacticularly for rein~ forced pads. AASHTO-grade chloroprene pads exhibited excellent performance in che field survey. Commercial-grade chloreprene pads exhibited widely different perfor mance in the field from total disintegration to good performance. A simple burnability test was used during this work to help identity if @ chlero~ prene pad is AASHTO-geade, i.e,, tf It contains only chloroprene as the elastomer, Pads which are supposedly deformed in horizontal shear ag essumed in design were not observed in that deformed shape during the site visits. -73-Laboratory Testing 2 Ae Literatu 1 2 3 The long-term compressive creep testing on chloro~ prene pads at 600 psi showed high creep strain of almost 90 percent of the initial pad strain. This is greater than the 30 percent creep strain versus initial strain data shown in the 1983 DuPont liter- ature for 55 Durometer material. ‘The creep tests show the benef{ctal effect of in- ternal reinforcing in the ROF and DLR pads on com pression modulus, rate of creep, cotal creep and total deformation. Extremely log friction coefficients of from 0.03 to 0.08 tines the applied compressive stresses were measured. Typical tolerances for precast construction lead to nonparallel bearing surfaces and tescs to eimlate this condition shoy an increase in the average in- stantaneous compressive strain in the pad by as much as 100 percent over uniform bearing condi- tions. Review A ousher of companies manufacture pads which can be wenerically the same but which can have widely dif- fereat engineering properties. NCHRP Report No. 248 suggests @ simplified equation for design of compression strength of plain bearing pads. This equation utilizes the shape factor and shear modulus as variables. The 1983 DuPont brochure “Engineering Properties of Neoprene Bridge Bearings” suggests that plain (non- reinforced) chloroprene pads be generally limited to design compressive stresses of 400 to 500 psi ~14-‘This compares with the present AASHTO design value of 800 psi for plain, enrestrained chloroprene bearings. European design utilizes en allowable shear dis~ placesent of 0:5 to O.7 times the pad thickness. Testing has shown that at an apparent shear strain of 70 percent severe slippage and rolling of the pad occurs. The shear-compression stress ratio at slipping my be extremely low (012 to 0.05) when noderate to high compressive stresses are applied to chloroprene materials. 5. The use of the craditional shear modulus equation to estimate the horizontal force the pad can devel~ op, even using the long-term value of 50 percent of the shear modulus, appears to be inappropriate. This traditional design approach does not recognize the slippage that occurs at all levels of shear stress and the shear wodulus values used in these equations were usually deternined fron glued pads which do not reflect realistic field conditions. An alternative design procedure is suggested. Sinplified formas for compression design of chloroprene pads are suggested. A method of considering plate rotation in bearing pad design ia suggested. Revisions in aaximm recoamend- ed comression values for chloroprene are suggested. Pad thickaess design has been modified to alloy thinner pads with subsequently Larger shape factors, generally based upon 1.4 ties the anticipated movenent of the end of the precast mem ber. Previous design concepts generally utilized two times the end-of-member movexent for pad thickness. A destgn chart, based on laboratory tests, suggesting re- vised friction forces is presented. These values are based on test work that illustrates that at compressive stresses over -75-400 pst slippage of the chloroprene and random-fiber reinforced pads will occur at lov shear forces. A simple fire test to give a preliminary indication that a pad contains only chloroprene as its elastomer is also suggested. -76-5. 6 a % 10. Me 12. Be REFERENCES Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, American Asso- ciation of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Wash~ ington, D.C. PCL Design Handbook, 2nd Bdition, 1978, Prestressed Con~ ereté Institate, Chicago, Illinois. PCL Manual For Structural Design of Architectural Precast Gonerete, 1977, Prestressed Concrete Inetitute, Chicago, Tilinots. “Design of Neoprene Beartng Pads," &. [. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, Delaware, April, 1959, 20 pp. Stanton, J. F. and Roeder, C. W., “Elastomeric Bearings, De~ sign, ‘Construction, Materials,” NCHRP REPORT NO. 248, Transportation Research Board, Washingtoa, D.C., Aug. 1962, 82 pp. Stanton, J. F. and Roeder, C. Ws, "Elastomeric Bridge Sear- ings Specificaitons: Review of the Present and Proposals for the Future,” Title No. 80-47, ACI Journal, Nov-Dec. 1983, p. 514 “Elastomeric Bearings: State-of-the-Art," C. W. Roeder and J. F. Stanton, ASCE, Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 109, No. 12, Sept. 1983, p. 2853. “Code for the Use of Rubber Bearings for Rail Bridges,” Union Internationale des Chemin De Fer (IC), Code 772R (1973). "Design Requirements for Rlastomeric Bridge Bearings,” Tech- nical Memorandum BE 1/76, Highways Directorate, Dept. of En- vironment, Great Britain (Feb. 1976). “Draft British Standard BS5400: Steel, Concrete, and Compo site Bridges: Part 9A: Code of Practice for Design of Bearing and Part 98: Specifications for Materials, Manufac~ ture and Installation of Bearings,” British Standards Insti- tution, Document B1/10184, Feb. 25, 1981. "Masticord Design Guide JVI Inc," by Raths, Raths and John= son, 1984, Skokie, [11 “Engineering Properties of Neoprene Bridge Bearings," DuPont Company, Elastomers Diviston, Wilmington, Delaware, 1983, 13 Pps Minor, J. C. and Egen, R. A., “Elastomeric Bearing Re~ search,” NCURP Report No. 109, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.) 1970, 53 pp. -17-14. Serage, Ingo, “Anchoring of Bearings by Friction,” American Gonerer Institute Publication SP~70, Joint Sealing and Bearing Systems for Concrete Structures, Volume 1, 1981, pp. 197-215. ~18-APPENDIX 1. SUMMARY OF PCI PRODUCERS SURVEY ~19-- aw foe fom | on | a ot ' | | ce | = | cenit wy a foe omme | os ott « | on - Set oLESWY 6 | ne sre on ~ | ow ‘ wee | oe | mmm oo . 1 ‘ m= | wm) mmm | ‘ wf BEETS «| nme | oo ’ a] - = : sin wie | : eee wohl SERS SHOAMONT Ta a0 AAITS T xIaNaday ~80-7 1 ont a * sseang ox ts we erent | ci fae) rn wfaunl + | « ee ee ee sor |e mm) ope poo eres | Ng Saag ape | sevrasead yeoman Sioa || S| EL ta ten seoraess TERS SHAAIONE 9a 0 AVAARS (3009) T xTaNgaa¥ ~81-APPENDIX 2 SUMMARY OF SITE VISIT INFORMATION AND TESTS =82-bn reeseiee 1908 5 : ro - rersonea 2004 205 1 sowie | ateseo | th ow pox oo seum | step | tT . 9083 spn TS xe T/T 08 s arredesouma) 8299 | or ow eraesme a0 foyuyede-goseert ora —jexteswaven| ste |g oo pevsssen s00 ot jertecnouer} sfeana |g saef wereete - heme ong oo = a art ores [ertaceousne| arene | 208 com paprot oF reamre aoe | Gree mura smrress | web arc oee | yuo | attarg | 9 seusawe ares sresng = 8 oar se copremreyep mea] 9 Cr a - weave 03 2008 ~ 404 aft - in sree | ote | - sung 09 = 055 9 H/T ~ : sro | ote |g ~ song 68 18 B/T seis | ste | esine-005 rot 200um ancent ye cece | Ta/t CHa * oxtpeuinn oneg sea |g armour | oteey |r Ces oma eresuaose | -puyas aeseroonp « wna — vwerecre pcs | wnme [a Jonny ‘SiSaL ONY NOTIVWHOINT TISIA IIS 30 RIVENNS 2 XIGNaddy “83.~ - {8 wor er | tee 8 - - out nou bef otere | tee] oe tess sano 1 sone set % - wo tern sox | eur ae For etn | stesso | oe ered eng ane ens ang on | Bugeee oi oon . | eateent ee PA | senate esses et Fe | wanursen| steaeg sens sana on | "Gecgend oo oer ) emtee ate a Tay | secass eve oof se 7 | ate « 2e7of woreurs ieee weer - ~ peeiticiad oo 2 | ootonem| tere | at aeortew perme ee oseartuye “Toe por an ' ove som"ioreit'tee Wane | paar aay | epee ‘ secon | aman | at Sere . wer este sca ok Sena Ear seco Soe | whe ie] aesom | steno | ot ext wae see weresg | sanetey | screen | oata | erst setae Besos sorters i SISEI OAV NOL(VAMOIN] LISIA aITS GO RAVES (3009) 7% XLaNEday Bbprd poqexopasiad - Icy *3yasoa wang ~ cy ra -86-ped passesducy — ¢-zy “Brypaspropaszep AjTesoa ease popeol uy Teyspeu ‘spud poavacyxo1ap jo suTeWaY = p-Zy “8TEpetqunz> peg = Sazv ‘8ty ~39-ped paoerdspu a0 Buraow - zy “BIEFig. A2-7 ~ Excessive bulging of padTesAOKA — Bo: supmerys an zw "81auor}rpuos Surzeaq wiosrusuoy ~ Gazy ‘BIE -93-ped gow jo aprs vo BupypRx9 ~ QT-2v ‘Sta 90ped paaecorste - TT-7v "Ere -95-gutaow peg - ¢1-7v ‘BraAPPENDIX 3 SPECTROPHOTOMETER ANALYSIS OF BEARING PAD SAMPLES 98APPENDIX 3 SPECTROPHOTOMETER ANALYSTS OF BEARING PAD_ SAMPLES This report presents the results of an examination of five samples. The samples were submitted for laboratory investigation by Je Ke Iverson, Consultant for Wiss, Janney, istner Associ~ abes, Inc. (WE) on September 22, 1983. The samples were identi- fied aa Nos. 1 through 5. Each sample consisted of one small piece of black cubber-Like waterial. We were requested to deter- wine the comosition of the material. An analytical procedure and reference spectra prepared by the DuPont Chewical Company were submitted for comparison. Bach sample was analyzed using the Becknan spectrophotome- cer. The best spectra were obtained when samples vere treated with O-dichlorbenzene and recorded using cast-film techniques. The spectra obtained were compared to the supplied reference spectra and (dentified as follows: Reference Sample spectra number Identification of the base polyner (page) 1 Scyrene butadiene copolymer (SBR) 27 2 Styrene butadiene copolymer (SBR) 2 3 Nortel 1560 hydrocarbon rubber 16 4 Neoprene GN 9 5 Neoprene AK a Sample Nos. 1 and 2 contained significant amounts of a clay and silicatertype filler. They are a mixture of styrene buta- diene rubber and hydrocarbon of 1s which probably gave the clastic properties to the final product. It is believed a small amount of silicate-type filler is also ia Sample Nos. 4 and 5. All sam ples contatned carbon black. The spectra of No. 1 through Nov 5 are enclosed. “99+1 ‘ON @[dueg yo vaaveds pazeayuy ous, - (ey “Ftd TROT NOTSSIKSNVEL LNEDEaE ~100-2 ‘ON etdueg 30 eaazeds parerzup ou, - Z-Ey “BTA END HaTHONAVA NKOTSSIWSNVEL LNADWHa = 101€ ‘on erdues go vazoads peawayuy out - ¢-ev “Sra NOLSSTNSNWUL LNADWIA 102+> ‘ox atéueg zo vaqzeds poseajut (eo HTHANEAVA ys > yey 8a NOTSSIRSNVEL LNIONEE -103-§ ‘ox erduwes yo eazoads pouvazuy ayy - SEY “STE at Te WORT + KOTSSTRSNVIL LNIDIAE ~104~APPENDIX 4 RECOMMENDED PCI DESTGN HANDBOOK SECTION ON BEARING PADS -105-APPENDLX 4 PCE HANDBOOK SECTION 4 BEARING PADS Bearing pads are used to distribute localized vertical Loads over the bearing area and to provide freedom for Limited horizen~ tal of rotational movement without creating large undes{rable tangential forces from effects of time-dependent volume or load change. Their use has proven beneficial and often may be neces~ sary in precast conerete construction Design is accouplished based on unfaetored service loads. Several materials are commonly used for bearing pads. 1, AASHTO-grade chloroprene pads are mde with 100 percent chloropreae (neoprene) as the only elasto- ner and conform to the requirements of the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges (1977), Section 25. Inert fillers are used with the chlor~ oprene and the resulting pad is black in color and of a smooth uniform texture. While allozable com pressive stresses are sovevhst loser than other pad types, these pads allow the greatest freedom ia novenent at the bearing. 2. Comnercial-grade chloroprene pads have no defined specification and often represent a given manufac~ curer's attempt to provide a less expensive yet functional mtecia!, These are plain pads with no reinforcing and properties vary widely. They should be used only If satisfactory long-term per formance has been achieved with the sane material. Many commercial-grade chloroprene pads have led to problems in field service. 3. Random ortented fiber reinforced pads are a sore recently Latvoduced mterial. These pads are usu ally black aad contain short reinforcing fibers lo~ cated randomly throughout the body of the pad. -106-Vertical load capacity is enhanced by the reta~ forcement, but tolerance of rotations and horizon~ tal movement may be somewhat less than the chloro- prene pads. No national standard specifications ave available for this material. 4. Duck Fiber reinforced pads are generally used where higher coupression stresses are encountered. These pads are often yellow-orange in color and are rein~ forced with closely spaced, horizontal layers of woven duck material, bonded in the elastomer. The horizontal retaforcement layers are easily observed at the edge of the pad, Section 2.10,3(L) of the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Bridges and Mil- itary Spectfleation MIL“C-8820 discuss this nateri- al 5. Laminated pads utilizing chloroprene saterial reia~ forced with alternate layers of bonded steel or fi- berglass are often used in bridges but seldom if ever used in building construction. The AASHTO Specification, Section 25 covers these pads. 6. Miscellaneous materials such as plastic, steel, joint filler, or hardboard are used as bearing ma- terials in specialized situations, but are aot con- sidered as structural materiale and are not discus~ sed in this sectton, A oftuation in pad design occurs occasionally when larger horizontal moveuents exceed the capacity of any reasonably sized elastomeric bearing pad, as at a slip or expansion joint. Teflon or TFE coated materials are often used in this situation, to pro vide @ low friction slip surface. Stainless steel mated with teflon at the slip surface has been found to provide the xost re~ Liable and durable jotat. The teflon or TRE must be reinforced by bonding to an appropriate backing material, Figure 4-1 shows typical details and a range of friction coefficients for use in this type of design situation, -107-Static coelficient of fiction Friction coefficient of TFE os function of compression stresses yo 20 $0 109 200 sm 10002000 pressure. psi Typical TFE bearing pad detail Stainless steel bond sliding surface : \ steel plate Pig. a-1- TE slip bearing 108The following are simple, design criteria for nonrestrained elastomeric bearing pads. These criteria recognize the preseace of slippage in pad shear movements and are stated in terms of maxim allovable one-way horizontal movement expressed in termi of pad thickness. Design Recommendations 1. Use unfactored service loads for design. 2, AE the suggested maximim uniform compressive stresses, in- stantaneous vertical strains of 10 to 20 percent fn the pad will generally result, The instantaneous compressive strains may double when nonparallel bearing surfaces are present. In addition, these uniform and nonuniform instan~ taneous strains may increase approximately 25 to 100 percent from long-term creep effects. The higher creep values are associated with high sustained design load stresses on the pads. These instantaneous and creep movements should be ac~ counted for in design and detailing. 3. Length of unreinforced pad > 5 x thickness for stability. Width of pad 35 x thickness for stability. 4. t 21/4 dns for stemmed members and 3/8 in for beans. 5. Shear force has been shown to be a function of slip in the chloroprene or random orfented fiber pad and Fige 4-2 should be used to estimate these forces. 6. The portion of a pad outside of the covering bearing surface is not considered in these recommendations. If additional pad area is provided for ease in placement, it should be te- nored in calculating pad stresses, stability and movements. Unreinforeed pads with shape factor ($) less than 2 should be avoided under tees and pads with shape factor less than 3 should be avoided under beans. The sustained dead load compressive stress on an unreia~ forced chloroprene bearing pad should be limited to 500 psi. 9. In checking long-term slowly applied pad shear deformation due to creep and shrinkage of concrete members, the long term concrete movement may he reduced by one-half because of compensating creep and slip in the bearing pad. -109-SINGLE LAYER BEARING PADS REE TO SCIP D =Durometer (Shore A Hardness) LxW Ta = __loaded area Kyea Free to bulge 8 = Shape Factor = © = pad thickness (ins) 4 = Design Horizontal Movement at End of Member in one direction Gn) Allowable | Warduess | Minfeum pad axiom compressive | Range thickness allowable type of Pad stress ©) |For horizontal) rotation Material, (st) movement of | (in critical 4 direction) Ga.) Unreinforced = aps) 50 Chioroprene or Rubber |< 800 through | 1.48 (3) 0,34 (2) (AASHTO Sec. 25) 7 Tori Random fiber Reinforced 1900 + 3008 | 80#10 1.68 3) on 3e(2) Elastomeric © 1500 Tore Duck Layer Data Reinforced < 2000 90410 not. 0. 30 (2) Elastoneric ~ available Tort (AASHTO 2.10.3(L) & MIL-C~882) (1) See 7 and 8 (@) The maximum rotetion angle in either the L or W direction should be compared with the appropriate Limit. (3) If the pad is sheared in cwo directions, the maximim of the two hori~ zontal movements should be used, The values in the table are hased on sliding criteria. If sliding Is not critical or testing indicates more advantageous conditions, thinner pads may be used. -110-SHEAR STRESS ON PAD AT SHEAR AND SLIPPAGE STRAIN OF 70%, psi 210 ov concRerE, 180 reo om sree not 90 coLonorne NE 60 Note: Suitable safety factors should be applied 30 depending on uses ° ° 400 «800200 600-2000 COMPRESSIVE STRESS ON PAD, Oe, psi Fig. 4-2 - Design chart for estimating shear stress or force on member ends (for small paés) “tePrestressed Concrete Institute 201 North Wells Street Chicago, ilino's 60606 Telephone 312/346-4071