PLA ert) Practical guide to the use of bridge expansion joints by C P Barnard (Chairman of the Working Group) and J R Cuninghame (TRL) Application Guide 29‘The Transport Research Laboratory isthe largest and most comprehensive centee forthe study of road transport in the United Kingdom. For more than 60 years it has provided information that has helped Frame transport policy, set standards and save lives ‘TRL provides research-based technical help Which enables its Government Customers to set standards for highway and vehicle design formulate policies on road safety, transport and the environment, and encourage good traffic engineering practice ‘Asa national research laboratory TRL has developed close working links with many other international transport centres tals sels its services to ther customers inthe UK and overseas, providing fundamental and applied research, working asa contractor. consultant oF providing facilities and staff. TRL’s customers include local and regional authorities, major civil engineering contractors, transport consultants, industry, foreign governments and international aid agencies ‘TRL. employs around 300 technical specialists - among them mathematicians, physicists, psychologists, engineers, geologists, computer expets, statisticians - most of whom are based at Crovwthome, Berkshire. Facilities include a state of the art driving Simulator, a new indoor impact test facility, a 3.8km test track, a separate self-contained road network, u structures hall, an Indoor facility that ean dynamically test roads and advanced computer programs which are used to develop sophisticated traffic control systems, ‘TRL also has a facility in Scotland, based Edinburgh, that looks ater the special needs of road transport in Scotland. ‘The laboratory's primary objective isto carry out commissioned research, investigations, studies and tests tothe highest levels ‘of quality reliability and impartiality. TRL cartes out its work in such a way as to ensure that customers recive results tht not ‘only meet the project specification or requirement but ar also geared to rapid and effective implementation. In doing this, TRL. recognises the need ofthe customer tobe able to generate maximum value from the investment ithas placed wit the laboratory. ‘TRL covers all major aspects of road transport, and is able wo offer a wide range of expertise ranging trom detailed specialist analysis to complex muli-dsciplinary programmes and from basic research to advanced consultancy. ‘TRL with its breadth of expertise and facilities ean provide customers with a research and eonsultaney capability matched to the ‘complex problems arising across the whole transport field. Areas such as safety, congestion environment and te infrastructure equite a multi-disciplinary approach and TRL is ideally structured to deliver effective solutions ‘TRL prides iset on its record for delivering projects that meet customers’ quality, delivery and cost targets. The laboratory has, however, instigated a programme of continuous improvement and continually reviews customers satisfaction to ensure that its performance stays in line with the increasing expectations of its customers, TRL operates a quality management system which is ertficated as complying with BS EN 180 9001 The Highways Agency (HA) is an executive agency of the Department of Transport, It was established in April 1994 by the Secretary of State for Transpon to manage, maintain and improve England's 6300 miles of motorway and trunk roads. These Foads account for 33% of all road travel and more than $0% ofall Jory travel within the country. ‘The HA role is to ensure tha the network is safe efficient, reliable and environmentally acceptable, The aim isto make the best use ofthe existing national road network through efficient management and maintenance and to improve the network by man aging the design, procurement and construction of schemes in the Government's road progrannine, which are set out inthe Trunk ‘Roads in England 1994 Review. Aso a substantial numberof smaller network improvement and safety schemes are undertaken ‘each year ‘The HA is acustomer-responsive organisation and must take into account the diverse interests and opinions of all those who are affected by road use. Teams have been set up that provide consultation committes for interest groups, charter statements ‘outlining what customers can expect and commitment to regular surveys of road users (o assess how well these requirements are being met. ‘The HA suppor collaborative research and development in areas where technology and improvements can be implemented into the network and this project isan example of that commitment, “Transport Research Foundation Group of Companies “Transport Research Foundation (a company limited by guarntce)tsding a Tranpor Research Laboratory. Registered in England, Number 301746, TRL Limited. Registered in England, Number 314 Repstered Office: Oid Wokingham Road, Crowthonte, Berkshire, ROAS 6AUTRANSPORT RESEARCH LABORATORY ae APPLICATION GUIDE 29 PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE USE OF BRIDGE EXPANSION JOINTS by C P Barnard (Chairman of the Working Group) and J R Cuninghame (TRL) This report describes work commissioned by the Bridges Engineering Division of the Highways Agency under E548B/BC, Survey of Bridge Expansion Joints. The work also formed part of the programme of the County Surveyors Society Working Party on Highway Research under the chairmanship of T W Thompson, Director of Planning and ‘Transportation, Leicester County Council. Copyright Transport Research Laboratory 1997. All rights reserved. Transport Research Laboratory Highways Agency Old Wokingham Road St Christopher House Crowthorne, Berkshire, RG45 6AU. Southwark Street, London SE1 OTE, ‘Transport Research Foundation Group of Companies ‘Transport Resech Foundation (a company limited by gurantee) wading as Transport Research Laboratory. Registered in England, Number 3011746, ‘TRL Limited. Registered in England, Number 342272. Registered Offices: Old Wokingham Road, Crowthorne, Berkshire, RG4S 6AV.‘Tae information contained herein is the property of the Transport Research Laboratory. ‘This report has been produced by the Transport Research Laboratory under a contract, placed by the Department of Transport. Any views expressed in it are not necessarily ‘those of the Department. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the matter ‘Presented in this report is relevant, accurate and up-to-date at the time of publication, the Transport Research Laboratory cannot accept any liability for any error or omission, First Published 1997 ISSN 1365-6929CONTENTS Page Executive Summary 1 Abstract 3 1, Introduction 3 2. Background and definitions 3 24 Definitions 4 22 Joint types 4 23. Joint performance 3 3. General conclusions from the Working Party report 8 4. Joint selection ° 4.1, Preliminaries u 42. Bridge movements 2 42.1 Movement ranges for different bridge types 3B 4.22 Joint movement ranges “4 4.23 Tralfic induced movement 15 4.24 Setting joins 1 425 Skew 1s 4.26 Traffic loading 16 43. Site specific factors 18 43.1. Footways and verges 18 4.3.2. Service pipes and ducts 23 43.3 Water management 26 434 Environmental noise 31 43.5. Skid resistance 31 43.6 Traffic management 31 43.7 Lane rental 32 44 Consultations 33 4.5. Suitable joint types 34 435.1 Report findings 34 45.2 Performance factors 35 4.6 Whole life costing 37 4.6.1 Calculation of whole life costs 37 4.6.2 Discussion of whole life costs 38 6 1. Page 4.7 Final joint selection 40 4.7.1 Design! installation 40 4.72 Selection 40 4.73. Further developments 41 Joint procurement 2 5.1 Method of procurement a 5.2 Preparatory works “4 5.3 Contract preparation 45 53.1 Technical specification 46 54 Responsibilities for installation 47 5.5. Inspection and maintenance 48 Acknowledgements 52 References 2 Appendix A: Data sheets for different joint types 54 Appendix B: Whole life costing 65 ‘Appendix C: Checklists nMEMBERSHIP OF THE WORKING GROUP Mr Chris Barnard Formerly West Sussex County Council (Chairman) Mr Jeff Chrimes Cheshire County Council Mr Graham Cole Surrey County Council Mr John Cuninghame Transport Research Laboratory (Secretary) Mr John Darby Oxfordshire County Council Mr Steve Francis Formerly Highways Agency, Department of Transport Mr Derek Ives Highways Agency, Department of Transport Mr Richard Jordan ‘Transport Research Laboratory Mr Steve Pearson Derbyshire County Council Mr Colin Swash Formerly Wiltshire County CouncilEXECUTIVE SUMMARY A Working Group was set up in 1992 under the auspices of, the County Surveyors’ Society (CSS) and Transport Re- search Laboratory (TRL) Working Party on Highway Re- search. The overall objective of the project was to propose the means to improve the consistency of performance and. value for money of expansion joints, reducing the inci- dence of premature failure and leakage. This was achieved largely by drawing on the expertise of practising bridge ‘maintenance engineers. ‘The first stage of the project was to collect and analyse information concerning the condition of currently installed expansion joints on existing bridges. A questionnaire sent tothe majority of bridge owners produced a snapshot of the current situation and indicated the problem areas. An interim report was produced at the end of stage 1 (Cuninghame, 1994), describing the survey and providing ‘a detailed breakdown of the data. Subsequently each aspect of joint selection, performance and maintenance was studied; selected joints from the survey were examined; discussions were held with bridge ‘maintenance engineers; and laboratory tests were carried ‘out on samples of asphaltic plug joint material. A key part of the project was a whole life cost study to weigh the benefits of high initial cosviong-life joints against low initial cost/short-life options. ‘There is general agreement that the number of joints on a bridge should be kept to a minimum by using continuous construction, or to remove the joints between spans and abutments by constructing ‘integral’ bridges where the ‘oad surface is continuous from one approach embankment to the other. Where joints have to be used, sub-surface joints are preferred, to avoid trapping water within the surfacing - particularly with porous asphalt surfacing. Many Engineers are unhappy with the performance of at least some types of expansion joint and there are wide variations in performance, particularly with regard to dura- bility. This appears to be a consequence of the methods used to select, purchase and install joins. At all stages, the pressure is for the joint Supplier to achieve the lowest supply cost and the shortest installation time. There is insufficient incentive to produce a durable joint. ‘The total cost of an expansion joint is very much greater than the supply and installation cost. On busy roads, traffic ‘management and delay costs for joint repair or replacement are such that the cost of the joint is almost irrelevant. A. study of whole life costs for expansion joints on typical roads showed that it is always worth paying extra for increased service life. It is recommended that the current ‘procurement method be changed to one based on the whole life cost of the joint. A workable method, which would {guarantee an agreed service life, could not be found within this study and itis recommended that further work should bbe carried out to devise such a system. I was found that most joint failures are caused by traffic loading, faulty installation, poor detailing, or movements, ‘much less than the maximum expected - very few are due to the design movement capacity of the joint being ex- ceeded. Therefore, the whole range of service conditions should be taken into account when selecting joint type(s) for a particular application. ‘The survey and inspections showed that elastomeric in ‘metal runner joints were performing better than other types. ‘Within their limits, buried joints were also highly regarded by maintenance engineers. A hybrid joint, the "Clwyd Buried Plug’ was found to be performing well on spans up to 35 metres, This significantly extends the movement range of sub-surface joints and it should be used more ‘widely. The performance of Asphaltic Plug Joints was found to be variable, but they have significant advantages ‘such as speed of installation and versatility, so should be ‘developed further to improve durability. ‘The findings of the Group are reported separately (Barnard and Cuninghame 1997) and have formed the basis for this Practical Guide, which sets out procedures and recommen- * SINGLE ELEMENT) J = Support beam Scing boating TYPICAL MOVEMENT RANGE (mm) ee Single 15mm up to 8omm Multi 40mm upwards (both determined by manufacturer) DESCRIPTION: A prefabricated joint comprising an elastomeric seal fixed between metal runners, either in a single element or multi element form. COMMENTS ADVANTAGES: | DISADVANTAGES: © Durable © Expensive © Seal can be replaced without disturbing joint | @ Built into structure .. difficult to replace © Low stifness ‘© Metal components — corrosion @ Allows vertical/skew movement © Waterproofing — not continuous. © Can be a problem with large skew angle © Can be difficult to install particularly on decks with diaphragm at end of beam and slab deck © Noise (in some cases) © Debris collects between runners REPORTED DEFECTS: ‘© Elastomeric seal breaks up or pulls out causing @ Fatigue of metal components leakage @ Leakage past seal © Transition strip or surfacing breaks up adjacent” @ Seal can be punctured by a sharp object to metal nosing © Top plate which secures seal can snap © Metal nosings wear and become distorted allowing seal to break free SUPPLIERS OF PROPRIETARY PRODUCTS: (refer to latest HA documentation) CAS Engineering (Mageba modular joint) Maurer (UK) Ltd. Glacier Metal Co. Ltd, Thoro System Products Ltd, MAN GHH (GB) Ltd.a TYPE: ELASTOMERIC WITH METAL RUNNERS (EMR(RE)) (RESIN ENCAPSULATED OR BOLTED ON) SKETCH: Seo Se mcn Serie Sea lm pann my ait 12 rade See i tall a ak a BER ampoot TYPICAL MOVEMENT RANGE (mm) 100mm up to 150mm (maximum depends on manufacturer) DESCRIPTION: Metal rails set between resin bed and nosings holding a neoprene elastomeric seal often compressed into the rail gaps COMMENTS ADVANTAGES: DISADVANTAGES: © Fairly simple installation @ Rails corrode on top surface ‘© Continuous seal in road and in kerbs © Waterproofing not continuous © Seal replaced without raising joint © Expensive in deep recesses © Not affected by jacking eg. to replace bearings | @ Can be a problem with large skew angle © Bonded strip joints can break up causing rails to become loose REPORTED DEFECTS: © Seals can be dislodged especially in tension @ Resin can debond from sub-base concrete © Nosings easily damaged when resurfacing © Securing botts can loosen either through slackening nuts or by conerete anchorage becoming free SUPPLIERS OF PROPRIETARY PRODUCTS: (refer to latest HA documentation) ASL Contracts Ltd. Freyssinet (Structural Repairs) Ltd. Maurer (UK) Ltd. Prismo Ltd. Universal Sealants Ltd. 63sono CANTILEVER COMB OR TOOTH (C/T) SKETCH: Transition Surfacing * Securing botts v va | t = ans Pile a / membrane Dock joint gap 25mm up to 1000mm. (determined by the manufacturer but ‘typically 100mm) DESCRIPTION: A prefabricated joint comprising principally mating metal comb or saw-tooth or roller-shutter plates which bridge the deck joint gap, with separate flexible waterproofing seal. COMMENTS ADVANTAGES: DISADVANTAGES: © Allows very high movement © Low stiffness © Expensive © Built into structure © Securing bolts may clash with reinforcements © Barrier to water flow © Large gaps unsuitable for cyclists or motorcyclists. Transition strips problems © Limited lateral movement REPORTED DEFECTS: © Transition strip break up © Loosening of securing botts/failure of concrete @ Comb fills up with debris — seizing joint anchorage @ Low skid resistance on metal comb © Drainage membrane catches ditt until it splits - © Breakage of teeth Positive draining required SUPPLIERS OF PROPRIETARY PRODUCTS: (refero latest HA documentation) Freyssinet (Structural Repairs) Ltd. SHW Maurer (UK) Ltd Glacier Metal Co. Ltd. 64APPENDIX B: WHOLE LIFE COSTING TABLES AND EXAMPLES B.1 INTRODUCTION Whole life cost is clearly necessary to shift the balance of priorities away from short term factors. However, itis difficult to ‘obtain estimates of all the costs involved, since every job has particular features and problems that affect the overall cost. There ‘were also commercial considerations; UK trading laws are designed to prevent cartels being formed, so that t was not possible for joint manufacturers to supply cost data collectively through the Bridge Joint Association (but the rules do not prevent individuals giving information. Estimates were made of all of the costs involved in the initial installation of a joint in an existing or new bridge, together ‘with the cost of subsequent replacements atthe end of their assumed service lives fora period of 50 years. These were carried ‘out for a number of differing conditions to illustrate the effects of comparing different joint types on the basis of total cost, rather than initial cost as at present. Service lives vary forall ointtypes because ofthe differing service conditions and joint quality, so any single value simplifies the real situation, Some survey data showed a rapid fall-off in rated condition at a certain age and this provided a base for some of the estimates, but others had to be based on experience. ‘Although an evaluation of the benefits of whole life costs compared to initial costs only was the overall aim of the study, ‘partial sensitivity analysis was also carried out within the project to investigate the effects of changing a limited number of parameters. This further analysis included a comparison of the whole life costs methods used, the effects for a number of road types, differing repair options for various levels of structural damage, the service lives of APJs and REJs and the ‘contract period required for installing EMR(CI) joints. Overall it is felt that the calculations demonstrate that method proposed for whole life cost estimates is sufficiently accurate for the purpose, and that the main conclusions of the study ‘would not be altered by minor changes in the input data. should be emphasised thatthe figures in he following tables represent typical examples. As mentioned above, all jobs have specific features which increase or decrease the costs and these should be taken into account. Thus the method set out below cean be applied in specific cases, but the figures used should be altered to suit the circumstances. B.2 CALCULATIONS ‘The input data are given in Tables B.1 to B.4 and the actual methods of estimating the whole life costs follow the typical calculations in Table B.S ‘Table B.5 compares the whole life costs obtained using the recommended method of calculation, noted in the main report as method 2. The approach is simple, being merely the total cost of installing a replacement joint, including traffic management and delay, divided by the estimated service life, Thus the method provides an estimate of the annual cost of providing the joint and the results, when used to compare different joints, have been found to correspond to the other method considered. ‘The alternative, method 1, is discussed in the main report and it can be used for both new and existing bridges. Ituses the cost of the initial installation ofthe selected joint on either a new bridge, i. including all costs except traffic management and delay assuming that the joints installed before the bridge is opened to traffic, or for an existing bridge, where the traffic management ‘and delay costs are included. In addition, further costs are added to account for the net present value (NPV) of the cost of replacing the joint atthe end of the service life of each joint, in order to keep the bridge provided with a serviceable joint for a period of 50 years. Traffic ‘management and delay costs are included for each joint replacement. A discount rate of 8% is used.TABLE B.1(A) ‘Background data on joint costing (data estimated for a 6m carriageway and 2m verges) Joint Materials and Install Total Service life Type Labour cost of time curing see note 1 Notes joint only (£) ays) time (years) BL* 300 1 nil 20 ‘new works only BF 400 1 nil 9 BP 550 1 1 hour 10 cBP 400 1 Shours 15 API 800 1 Shours 5 1 he/SOmm depth @ 1 N 2,400 2 12 hours 5 depends on resin used RED 3,500 2 8 hours 6 EMR(CI) 5,000 5 2days 20 ‘depends on material used EMR(RE) 3,200 2 hours 10 assumes heat curing. cre 17,000 5 2days 25 seldom used - large movement Notes: 1. Service lives were assumed for the purpose of the study. Values were taken from the stage 1 survey results where available, and estimated in the case of other joints. 2. The assumed service life is taken to be that period until the joint will require major repair or replacement. 3. _ These costs relate only to the cost of materials and labour for the joint only. They do not include traffic control, profit, overhead contract costs, weather delays or special site conditions. 4. Joint types marked * are only likely to be practicable on new works. 5. The costs given in this table are estimated typical costs, based on recent tenders. They are intended to illustrate the principal of whole life costing. TABLE B.1(B) Cost of joint supply and installation, and total contract period ‘Assumed supply & install cost (£) ‘Assumed total contract period (days) ingle cway Dualcway Two lane Single cway Dual cway Two lane Joint unclassified trunkor — Mivay unclassified trunkor — M/way Type principal principal BL* 300 600 900 1 2 4 BF 400 800 1,200 1 2 4 BP 350 1,100 1,650 1 2 4 cBP 400 800 1,200 12 24 48 APY 800 1,600 2,400 12 24 48 N 2,400 4,800 7,200 25 5 10 REI 3,500 7,000 10,500 23 46 92 EMR(CI) 5,000 10,000 15,000 7 14 28 EMR(RE) 3,200 6.400 9,600 2.25 45 9 cre 17,000 34,000 51,000 7 14 28 Notes: 1. These estimated figures are approximate and are used to estimate trends. 2. The periods and costs forthe dual carriageway trunk or principal road have been taken as double that of the single carriageway, 3. Costs for atwo lane motorway have been taken as three times those of the single carriageway, whilst the periods are four times those of the single carriageway due to the construction sequence. 4, Joint types marked * are only likely to be practicable on new works. 68TABLE B.2 Additional contract costs Class of highway ‘Additional contract costs (£) Fixed per contract, Per extra day of installation Single carriageway unclassified road. 1,000 200 Dual carriageway trunk or 3,000 500 principal road ‘Two lane motorway 10,000 1,000 Notes: 1. Additional contract costs are taken to include all costs which are independent of the joint type selected. 2. ‘The fixed costs include costs of contract preparation, tendering, profit, setting up on site, etc, and the first day of site supervision and traffic control. 3. ‘The costs per extra day include traffic control and site supervision after the first day. TABLE B3 Road user delay costs Class of highway ‘Vehicles per day Delay cost per day (£) Single carriageway unclassified road 3,000 210 ‘Dual carriageway trunk or 30,000 5,000 principal road ‘Two lane motorway 40,000 2.400 ‘Two lane motorway 60,000 6,000 Notes: 1. The delay costs given are estimated assuming average traffic flows and average lengths of diversion. 2. The delay costs have been estimated using QUADRO, and are the total delay costs as opposed to figures quoted in Jane rental contracts.TABLE B4 Indirect costs of joint failure Indirect costs of joint failure (6) Structural situation of joint and significance of leakage Class of highway No effects to pier Affects pier, minor Affects pier, major or deck effects todeck effects to deck Single carriageway unclassified road 50 500 2,000 ual carriageway trunk or principal road 100 1,000 10,000 ‘Two lane motorway 200 2,000 20,000 Notes: 1, The indirect costs when leakage is not significant cover emergency attendance and traffic management costs etc. arising from poor ride quality, loose components and the safety implications of surface defects. 2. Theindirect costs due to leakage affecting piers and decks cover the cost of concrete repair, and in extreme cases deck replacement. They are based on a statistical estimate, e.g. one pier in every 25 on a dual carriageway will require £25,000 to be spent on repairs. Hence the average cost is £1,000. 3. The statistical approach means that the assessment of the significance of leakage is left to the Engineer, but not the cost figure to be used. The figures above provide examples, appropriate costs would have to be developed for other types of road. B3 EXAMPLE OF WHOLE LIFE COSTING OF BRIDGE JOINTS Consider as an example, the cost of replacing a joint on a two lane motorway carrying 40,000 vehicles per day, for which ‘an APJ and an EMR(RE) are under consideration. Assume that in this particular case leakage atthe joint would affect the pier only. ‘The costs used are those taken from Tables B.1 to B.4 and the whole life cost to the client and the publicis estimated by the recommended method. This averages the replacement cost over the anticipated life and, although itis not ideally applicable ‘tonew joints where future replacement costs differ significantly from the cost of the initial installation, for most joints where conditions do not vary, such as for regular replacement, the method is sufficiently accurate for cost comparisons. ‘The alternative discounting method set out in the main report reduces all future costs to net present Value, and is therefore suitable for both new works and replacement joint contracts should that detail be necessary. ‘The worked example Table B.5(a) is shown below, together with Table B.5(b) containing guidance notes for its use.TABLE B.5 (A) Cost Comparison Table - Example costs Joint Type API Joint Type EMR(RE) Replacement joint - Whole Life Cost data: Supply and installation £2,400 £9,600 Fixed contract costs £10,000 £10,000 Installation period, including curing 4.8 days 6.75 days Extra daily contract costs @ £1,000/day £3,800 @ 5.75 days = £5,750 Road user delay costs @ £2,400/day £11,520 @ 6.75 days = £16,200 Estimated indirect failure costs: (a) Emergency action £200 £200 (©) Pier concrete repairs £2,000 £2,000 (6) Major deck repairs Nil Nil ‘Total Cost Per Replacement £29,920 £43,150 Assumed service life 5S years: 10 years ‘Average Annual Replacement Cost £5,984 £4375 TABLE B.5 (B) Cost Comparison Table - Notes ‘costs Joint Type - Notes Replacement joint - Whole Life Cost data Supply and installation Fixed contract costs Installation period, including curing Extra daily contract costs @ £..../day Road user delay costs @ £.../day Estimate indirect failure costs (a) Emergency action (©) Pier concrete repairs (©) Major deck repairs ‘Total Cost Per Replacement £sUM Assumed service life Y years ‘Average Annual Replacement Cost £SUM/Y Table B.1(a) & (b) ‘Table B.2 Table B.1(@) & () Table B.2 Table B3 ) ) Table B+ ) ‘Table B.1B.4 RESULTS ‘The main report contains the calculations for an evaluation ofthe benefits of whole life costs compared 1o initial costs only for cach joint type, together with a partial sensitivity analysis to investigate the effects of changing a limited number of parameters. This further analysis included a comparison of the whole life costs methods used, the effects for a number of ‘oad types, differing repair options for various levels of structural damage, the service lives of APJsandREJs and the contract Period required for installing EMR (CI) joints. These examples were used as illustrations in comparing different joint types (on the basis of total cost, rather than initial cost as at present ‘The input data used was taken from the costs given in Tables B.1 (oB.4 and estimates were made of al ofthe costs involved in the purchase, installation and replacement of expansion joints. The whole life costs were calculated for each joint type using the average annual cost method and the 50 year discounting method, both for existing bridges and for new bridges. In addition, the increases in cost when comparing existing and new bridges are also considered. Each of the costing methods was used on four typical road bridges carrying a minor single carriageway road, a dual two lane trunk or principal road and two lane motorway with either 40,000 or 60,000 vehicles per day. These costs were combined with various levels of repair which might be needed to the bridge at the time when the joint is being installed, such as the need for minor repairs, more extensive repairs to piers only, or for major deck repairs. In addition, further calculations were carried out to test the consequences of installing APJs and REJs with doubled service lives, identified as APJ*2 and REJ*?2 in the tables, and of varying the contract period required for installing EMR(CI) joints. ‘The contract periods selected were for a minimal curing time of two days or a more average one of 7 days, shown as EMR(CDMin and EMR(CI)Av., respectively in the tables. ‘The results for each of the examples is summarised in Charts B.1, B.2(a) and (b) and B.3(a) to (4) where comparisons are made across the range of whole life costs Is clear that the current method of comparing the cost of different joint types does not provide best value for money to the client for the examples given. The output ofthe calculations is presented as, ‘ comparison between the various joints, relating the costs as a percentage of the mean or average cost for al ofthe joints in the group under consideration. ‘Overall, the position is clear since, when whole life costs are considered in Chart B. the significant costs to note are for the APIs, REJs and nosing joints. On average the whole life costs make these joints considerably more expensive than any of the sub-surface joints and, also, dearer than most other joints which have a higher initial costs. Even the EMR(CI)s, which are costly to replace because of the high traffic delay costs, are only about as dear as the APIs, ‘Chart B.2(a) shows a comparison between the methods used to determine the whole life costs set out previously. For most Joints there is litle difference between the methods, except in the results forthe short service life joints (APJs 5 years, REIS 6 years and nosing joints $ years). For these joints method 1, which compares whole life costs between new and existing bridges, shows « marked reduction in relative costs for replacement joints. At first, this seems to be at variance with expectations because ofthe additional traffic delay costs entailed in replacing an existing joint compared with the costs for joint on a new bridge. However, Chart B.2(b) shows that this relative reduction is only because of the lower percentage increase in costs for these particular joints, reflecting the shorter time required for their renewal. Charts B.3(a) and B.3(b) investigate various parameters to sec what effect they might have on the general conclusions shown inthe whole ife cost comparison. The effect of road type and the repair options ic. whether only minor repairs or something ‘more major is needed, seem to have only a marginal effect on the results, ‘The short service lives of APIs and REIs add significantly to their poor showing in the whole life cost chart B.1, so the Possible doubling of the service life is considered. Chart B.3(c) demonstrates again that road type has no influence but that the overall whole life cost is very dependent on service life. If the service life could be increased to twice the value found from the first stage study at no major increase in cost, the whole life cost understandably reduces to about half its current value. The charts show that these joints would then become much more competitive and it emphasises that manufacturers should be encouraged to develop their products to achieve an enhanced service life to the benefit ofthe client and travelling public. 70‘The effect of varying the contract time was considered in Chart B.3(d) for the example of EMR joints, The cast-in type of Jjoint is generally more expensive than the resin encapsulated version for replacement joints because of the time normally ‘required for the cast-in joint to be removed and replaced, together withthe curing time for the in-situ concrete. The examples used two contract periods for EMR (CI) joints, representing the minimum time needed and amore average time which might be taken. The table shows that the extended contract period makes the joint uncompetitive compared to the other options. ‘When considering the results where the range of whole life costs is compared othe simple costs of supply and installation of ajoint,itisclearthatthe current method of comparing the cos of different joint types does not provide best value for money to the client. In addition, itis felt thatthe calculations demonstrate thatthe method proposed for whole life cost estimates is sufficiently accurate for the purpose, and thatthe main conclusions of the study would not be altered by minor changes inthe input data. 200 180 160 5 40 2 120 5 100 = 0 ~ 8 wo 0 - 4a ° 8 & > 2 z ® ® 6 & a g & Joint Type a @ Chart B2.1 Whole Life Costs nCost % of mean 200 F— BB wuc 50 yrs Naw bridge: 150 }— [I wic 50 yrs ex be too | Ll eam cnt al | rags eae ag Jou yy # ¢ € g soi Type eG ‘Chart B2.2(a) Whole Life Costs methods 20 ~ A ee TH ucsingecway [1] Demw (40000) 3 [Ml Oval TR orPR = J Damw (60000) B i 2 A * ag . a a 2 z a és g eee oe ee @ = & vite = BG Chart 82.2(b) Whole Life Costs increaseCost % of mean Cost % of mean El ucengloeway [] Dam (40000) BM Dual TRorPR — [ DeMw (60000) Road Type 200 180 160 | 140 }— 120 100 80 60 40 - 20 2 = em eee a Joint Type a Chart B2.3(a) Road Type EB ucsingecway [[] o2mw (40000) BE Dual TRorPR EJ DeMW (60000) Repair Options b & & 2p 2 gg € BB z Ss 8 & & g 3 Joint Type S Chart B2.3(b) Repair Options EMRIRE) 7374 Cost % of mean Cost % of mean BH Uceingle eway [] 2m (40000) [Dual TRorPR [7] D2MW (60000) Service Lite 180 160 140 120 100 20 0 40 20 ° APS APL Res EJ 8 years 10 years 6 yoars 12,years Joint Type / Lite Chart B2.3(c) Service Life BB ewaccimin BE cvacave 2 ewnney Materiais+ Unclassified Dual Dual2MW Dual 2 MW labour single TRorPR (40000) (60000) way Road Type Chart B2.3(d) Contract PeriodB.S CONCLUSIONS ‘The following conclusions may be drawn from the results. 1, Forall joints, the cost of labour and materials forthe joint itself isa small proportion of the total cost - less than 10% in many cases. Traffic management and road user delay costs are much larger items. 2. The whole life cost ofa joint is almost exclusively dependent on its service life, the other variations tested had only a relatively minor effect on the whole life cost figures. Although the service life for each joint type is difficult to predict, the examples have assumed a figure based on the stage I study, even though some manufacturers may well claim higher lives. Clearly the benefits of whole life costing are only realised if the assumed lives are achieved in practice, The only really satisfactory solution would be for some guarantee of life to be given, but introducing a rigorous approval system might be & more practical approach in the short term. 3. Whole life costing demonstrates that longer life joints are worth the extra investment on all classes of road with the _Breatest benefits on busy roads without spare lanes. The sequence of joint installation can have different effects ‘depending on the road. For example, delay costs on a dual carriageway principal all purpose road may be higher than for a two lane motorway, where the hard shoulders provide reserve capacity. 4. Onnew works, ie, when the roadis not open to traffic for reasons other than joint installation, an APS may cost £1,600 labour and material) for a dual carriageway, compared with £10,000 for a cast in EMR. However, on a dual carriageway the whole life cost of the APJ may exceed that ofthe joint costing so much more initially. 5. Joints which improve from whole life costing considerations include the buried pad, both types of EMR andthe comb and tooth (C/T) joint. The joints which do not come out so well ae the APIs, REJs and nosing joints. 6. However, the costs have been calculated for APIsand REJs, both forthe assumed service life foundinthe earlier study and fora service life twice as long. The significant improvement in the whole life costs forthe doubled service life shows that these joints can be competitive if the longer service life can be achieved and, therefore, every encouragement should be given to suppliers to provide joints with an enhanced service life. 7. A joint which appears to do well under all circumstances is the Clwyd buried plug (CBP). Itappears tobe economical and ong lasting ands not affected by surfacing replacement. This will have tobe confirmed by observation of service performance over a longer period. 8. Thebearing level joint (BL) also appears favourable, though itis not suitable for large movements and has been little used and so will also require further observation. It should be considered as an example of “no joint affecting the carriageway” and illustrates the fact that the best joint of all is no joint. 9. Joints should not be selected on initial cost (and extreme movement capacity) only, without regard to future ‘maintenance and renewal costs over the life ofthe structure. The selection should be based on long term performance and hence the total cost. The eventual cost tothe client of constructing and maintaining an effective bridge joint over the whole life of a structure is made up of many elements, 10. Itshould be noted that, where the 50 year discounting method has been used, the benefits of long life joints have been ‘demonstrated using an 8% discount rate. Many would argue that a lower rate would be more appropriate and this ‘would show even greater benefits for long life joints. 11. Of the whole life cost methods investigated, Method 2, Average annual replacement cost, appears to be the most straightforward. It is simple to carry out and seems to be reliable for most circumstances. A suggested blank calculation sheet is included as Table B.6. 75TABLE B.6 ‘Cost Comparison Table - blank form, costs Joint Type .. Joint Type .. Replacement joint - Whole Life Cost data: ‘Supply and installation a Fixed contract costs Boon Installation period, including curing . days days Extra daily contract costs @ £..../day @... days @ .. days =£. Road user delay costs @ £.../day @ wn £. Estimated indirect failure costs: (a) Emergency action (b) Pier concrete repairs (©) Major deck repairs ‘Total Cost Per Replacement ‘Assumed service life oe YOU years Average Annual Replacement Cost 76APPENDIX C: CHECKLISTS Req'd Done ‘Existing records Sito investigation opatreturish ? Thermal movements Long term effects Trafic induced movements Trafic loading Footways and verges Services ‘Water management Identity solutions Environmental noise. ‘Skid resistance ‘Trac management Lane rental Highway Autoriy Joint suppliers Unites Produce short ist om HA Standards Section 45 _| Data sheets endix ? | Movement ranges bs Technical specication Past performance Installation, replacement ‘and additional costs ‘Whole le costing tables Procurement method ‘Appendix 2 Raview information rom HA Standards Bridge movements Site specifi factors ‘Whole ite costing Joint type(s) ‘selection ‘Traffic loading Checklist 1 Joint selection‘Complete 78 Current method ‘Alternative methods Performance bond ‘Approval est + OMS. ‘Structural work Deck drainage Water loakage Services HA Standards Specification Programme Procurement aus Joint installation Responsiilies of Design Engineer Site supervisor Supplevinstller Contract Inspection Routine maintenance Remedial measures Checklist 2 Joint procurementMORE INFORMATION ‘The Transport Research Laboratory has published the following other reports on this area of research: PRO E434A/BC: Research into the condition and performance of bridge deck expansion joints by ID Johnson and S P McAndrew. Price code Q. LR 1104 The performance in service of bridge deck expansion joints by A R Price. Price £10. ‘TRL236 Improving the performance of bridge expansion joints: Bridge Deck Expansion Joint ‘Working Group Final Report by C P Barnard and JR Cuninghame. Price code P. If you would like copies, photocopy and fill in the slip below. There is a 20% discount if you take all the reports listed above. Prices include postage and are correct at the time of publication. Please see the enclosed letter for current price code values and handling charge. Enquiries to TRL Library Services, Tel: 01344 770784, Fax: 01344 770193. To: Publication Sales, TRL Library, PO Box 304, CROWTHORNE, Berkshire, RG45 6YU. Please send me the following Transport Research Laboratory reports (state report Nos and quantity) Report no. Quantity Report no. Quantity Report no | Quantity Report no. Quantity . Report no. Quantity ...... Report no... Quantity ..... Name.. PAYMENT: Address *Tenclose a cheque for £. c ee payable to TRL Ltd. + Please debit my Deposit Account Postcode Telephone no + Please debit my Credit Card by £. + Credit card no .. Credit card address (if different from above)...... Expiry date...<6¢ HGIND NOLLVOIIddV syutof uotsuedxa a8piq Jo asn ay} 0} apm yeooRIg