Current Practice Sheet No.

BRIDGE
JOINTS The fifth in a series of Current Practice Sheets prepared by the Concrete Bridge
Development Group

Introduction Type 5: Reinforced elastomeric joint (RE)

A sectional prefabricated joint where an elastomer bonded to metal plates is
An expansion joint may be defined as a device to support the surfacing, or
bolted to the deck. Additional metal reinforcing plates are embedded in the
provide a running surface, across the expansion gap, i.e. the area between
elastomer. Movement range ±165mm.
adjacent bridge deck spans or the bridge deck and abutment(1)

Types of bridge expansion joint

(specified in BD33/94(2))
Type 1: Buried joint
An in-situ joint consisting of an elastomeric pad or flashing placed across
the expansion gap to support the surfacing laid continuously over the joint.
Sub-types are buried flashing (BF) and buried pad (BP). Movement range
±10mm.

Type 6: Elastomeric joint in metal runners (EMR)

A prefabricated joint, where an elastomeric seal is fixed between metal rails
or runners. There are two types of EMR joint, determined by the method by
which metal runners are attached to the deck. The two methods are either
cast-in or resin encapsulated.
The cast-in method is supplied in both single and multi-element form. The
single version has a movement capacity of 75mm (single) whereas the
multi-element form has a capacity of 1m. The resin encapsulated type is a
surface-mounted elastomeric single-sealing element fixed between carrier
Type 2: Asphaltic plug joint (APJ)
rails. It is embedded in resin nosing material, fully bonded to the structural
An in-situ joint comprising a band of specially formulated binder plus
deck concrete. Movement range is 30–150mm, depending on the
aggregate, typically 500mm wide and 100mm deep(3). This runs across the
elastomeric sealing element.
road, above the expansion gap. These joints accommodate movements of
±20mm without cracking at low temperatures. They resist rutting under
wheel loading at high temperatures.

Types 3 and 4: Nosing joint (N)

A section of nosing material is bonded to the deck on both sides of the
expansion gap, bridged by a compression seal. The nosing material is to
support the adjacent surfacing, providing an edge which will resist the
impact of vehicle wheel loads. Movement range is ±20mm, as the maximum
joint gap specified in BD33/94(2) may not exceed 65mm.
Type 7: Cantilever comb or tooth joint (CT)
A prefabricated joint consisting of mating metal comb or sawtooth plates
bridging the expansion gap. Movement range ±300mm.
Joint performance
The requirements during operation are:
• the ability to withstand traffic loads and accommodate bridge
movements arising from temperature, creep, shrinkage, settlement and
dynamic loading without inducing unacceptable stresses in the joint or
other structural components
• provision of a surface that does not cause discomfort or inconvenience
to any class of road user (including cyclists, pedestrians and animals,
where appropriate)
• maintenance of an acceptable skid resistance level
• avoidance of generating excessive noise or vibration during the
passage of traffic
• water-resistance, or provision for carrying away water and detritus to
prevent structural damage
• easy inspection and maintenance of the structure, preferably from
beneath the deck, and wearing elements should be easily replaceable
• avoidance of sudden deterioration, the effects of which are likely to
cause traffic hazards
Joint selection
The bridge designer should specify the desired operating standards and
define the total movement related to imposed loadings, temperature range,
deck shortening and rotation. The manufacturer or supplier may then
provide the correct technical solution at an early stage. Apart from these
technical issues, whole-life costings must be taken into consideration
together with a procurement method which will enable achievement of the
required performance specification.
Durability and whole-life costing
The service life of an expansion joint should equal the life expectancy of
adjacent surfaces to avoid unnecessary traffic disruption and the cost of
repair or replacement. Only approved materials of proven durability,
registered according to the Highways Agency Manual of contracts for high-
ways works, should be used(4). Clients must take into account the total costs
of a joint throughout its service life, rather than solely the initial costs.
Water management
Design and detailing for adequate deck drainage is essential for the
enhancement of structural durability. Water removal from within and below
the surface is very important and should include the possibility of joint
leakage. The drainage system adopted for the joint should ideally overlap
the deck waterproofing system used. Combined subsurface drainage outlets
discharge water and prevent build-up behind the joint. Through-drainage
units in the decks are recommended, together with the provision of rodding
points to clear blockages.
Joint installation
The installation process should be a team effort between the engineer, main
contractor and installer. They should have access to information and design
details, together with sufficient time in which to complete the process,
including curing, in a competent and professional manner.
Inspection and maintenance
Bridge deck design should incorporate provision for joint inspection from
the underside of the deck. Regular inspection of carriageway surfacing and
the joint is necessary to maintain satisfactory performance throughout its
service life. Early fault detection, such as blocked drainage or rutted
surfacing, is necessary to avoid major remedial work. The inspector should
be familiar with the joint type and its potential defects.
Inspection and maintenance at maximum intervals of one year should be
programmed to coincide with other maintenance work on the carriageway to
reduce disruption and consequential costs.
Figure 4: Arched footbridge at Dublin Castle (Photo: Arup)
References
1. BRIDGE JOINT ASSOCIATION. Standard for mechanical expansion joints, Crowthorne, 2003
(available from www.cbdg.org.uk/publications.html)
2. THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. BD 33/94 Vol. 2,
Section 3, Expansion joints for use in highway bridge decks, HMSO, 1994.
3. BRIDGE JOINT ASSOCIATION. Standard for asphaltic plug joints, 2003
(available from www.cbdg.org.uk/publications.html)
4. THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. SA1, Vol.0, Section 3,
Annex C. Manual of contract documents for highways works, HMSO.
Further reading
BARNARD, C. and CUNINGHAME, J. TRL Report 236: Improving the performance of bridge
expansion joints, Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, 1997.
LEE, D. Bridge bearings and expansion joints, E & FN Spon, London, 1994.
THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. BA 26/94 Vol. 2, Section 3,
Materials and components, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1994.
TRANSPORT RESEARCH LABORATORY. TRL Report LR1104: The performance in service of
bridge deck expansion joints, 1984.
TRANSPORT RESEARCH LABORATORY. TRL Report PA2138/92: Draft design for durability:
expansion joints and continuity, 1992.
TRANSPORT RESEARCH LABORATORY. TRL Report PR9: Research into the condition and
performance of bridge deck expansion joints, 1993.
TRANSPORT RESEARCH LABORATORY. TRL Report SR479: Bridge temperatures for setting
bearings and expansion joints, 1979.