e) Bridges present ‘soft targets’ for terrorists
and vandals making them unserviceable
(a) Integral Bridges
Integral Bridges are characterized by monolithic
connection between the deck and the sub-
structure (piers and abutments). Such bridges
are the answer for small and medium length
bridges where bearings and expansion joints
can either be eliminated altogether or reduced to
a minimum. Fig. 13 shows an example of integral
incorporation of intermediate expansion joints
the Integral Bridge concept can be extended to
long bridges and viaducts.
The elimination or minimizing of Bearings and
Expansion Joints is important as they are fragile
elements and represent the weakest links in
bridge structures. The provision of Bearings and
Expansion Joints imply the following:
a) Increased incidence of inspection and
maintenance required.
b) Necessity of replacement during the service
life of the bridge since their design life is
much smaller than that of the rest of the
bridge elements.
providing adequate ductility for resisting
earthquake effects, leading to larger
earthquake design forces.
d) Possibility of dislodgement of
superstructure during accidental loads,
especially those due to earthquakes is
a clear danger requiring expensive and
clumsy attachments.
Fig: 14: Example of Damaged Pier Cap, Bearings &
Superstructure due to Terrorist Action
The Bridge and Structural Engineer
in Fig. 14.
f) Sharply skewed superstructures have the
possibility of uplift at the acute angle corner,
which can be tackled with considerable
bearings.
(b) Bearings in Consort with Seismic Devices
Seismic devices can be effectively used in bridge
structures for the following purposes:
(i) Reduce the seismic forces by increasing
the natural period of vibration by base
isolation using special bearings or those
that increase damping. Example of such
bearings are shown in Fig. 15.
(ii) Distribution the earthquake forces to
several sub-structures, so that the seismic
forces do not get loealised on piers with
restrained bearings only. A good example
of the utilization of devices called “Shock
Transmission Units” (STUs) is shown in Fig.
16. A 1020m long bridge could be provided
with only one Expansion Joints (EJ2) in the
center and two at the extreme ends (EJ1
and EJ3). The forces generated by the mass
inertia of the deck could be shared between
3 piers in this arrangement. The photograph
of the STU installation is shown in Fig. 17.
It is highlighted that STUs do not reduce the
total force generated but is only a means of
resisting it as multiple locations.
Fig. 15: Base Isolation & Energy Dissipation
Volume 43 Number 4 December 2013 9
 elastomeric bearings does reduce the effective

1.3) it must be ensured that the superstructure is

Fig. 16: NHAI’s Ganga Bridge at Allahabad
Showing Application of STUs
restrained from translation.
Piers are subjected to both vertical and horizontal
forces which can act simultaneously. Horizontal
forces can include both seismic and non-seismic
forces like braking and traction.
In the case of a series of simply supported spans
resting on elastomeric bearings it is seldom
possible to create external restraint or bracing
and consequently all piers sway in identical
fashion when subject to horizontal forces. In
such bearing arrangements case 7 of the Table
in BS 5400 Part 4 becomes applicable and K=2.3
should be adopted.
Since, our recent code IRC 112 has adopted

along the above lines would be most helpful for

the designer.
Fig. 17: NHAI’s Allahabad Bridge:
Application of STUs

(c) Effective length of pier

The physical pier length (height), L, is multiplied
by an effective length factor K to compensate
for the rotational and translational boundary
conditions. KL represents the length between

represents a column hinged at both ends. Fig. 18: Eurocode EC2 cl. 5.8.3.2. : Figure 5.7

Contrary to general perception, bearings also

have an effect on the design of piers in some
cases. This is apparent from the effective length
factors given in the Eurocode EC2, AASHTO
code and BS 5400 Part 4 shown in Figs 18, 19
& 20 respectively. By and large all three codes
have similar provisions and should be adopted

exception is the case of BS 5400 Part 4 in which a

special provision exists for elastomeric bearings.
The provisions shown in Figure 20 not only
indicate the type of support at the upper end but
also the connecting member or bracing, if any.
When seen from this viewpoint it becomes clear
that whereas supporting the superstructure on Fig. 19: AASHTO Code

10 Volume 43 Number 4 December 2013 The Bridge and Structural Engineer


Fig. 20: BS : 5400 Part 4
The importance of careful planning of the general
arrangement of bearings and the selection of
bearing type has been highlighted in the paper.
Elastomeric bearings should always be the
behavior when subjected to vertical loads.
However, their behavior under lateral loads like
earthquake requires external restrainers such as
“reaction blocks” to ensure safety of the bridge.
For larger vertical loads, POT-PTFE or spherical
bearings need to be used.
The Bridge and Structural Engineer
The arrangement of all elements over the pier
cap require careful consideration. Bearing
replacement during the life time of the structure
and edge distances are some of these
considerations. A generously dimensioned pier
cap is highly recommended.
Use of Integral Bridge concepts reduce the
number of bearings and expansion joints and
should be adopted where possible.
In the present state-of-the-art bearings are often
used effectively in consort with seismic devices
like Shock Transmission Units and Dampers in
order to design sub-structures economically with
respect to lateral forces.
Code of Practice for Road Bridges: Part I-
Metallic Bearings.
Code of Practice for Road Bridges: Part II-
Elastomeric Bearings.
Code of Practice for Road Bridges Part
III- POT, POT-cum-PTFE, Pin and Metallic
Guide Bearings.
Code of Practice of Road Bridges: Section
II- Loads and Stresses.
78 dated 28th July, 2012.
6. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for
Earthquake Resistance: Part 2: Bridges.
Volume 43 Number 4 December 2013 11