RESEARCH REPORT
UKTRP-8 1-12
Evaluation of Watertight Bridge Expansion joints
by
Wm. Vernon Azevedo
Research Engineer Principal
Kentucky Transportation Research Program
College of Engineering
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky
in cooperation with
Department of Transportation
Commonwealth of Kentucky
The contents of this report reflect the views
of the author who Is responsible for the facts
and accuracy of the data presented herein.
The contents do not necessarily reflect the official
views or policies of the University of Kentucky
nor of the Kentucky Department of
Transportation. This report does not constitute
a standard, specification, or regulation.
July 1981
Technical Report Documentation Page
1.
Report No.
4.
Title and Subtitle
2.
Government Accession No.
Evaluation of Watertight Bridge Expansion Joints
7.
Author! s)
3.
Recipient's Catalog No.
5.
Report Date
6.
Performing Organization Code
8.
Performing Organization Report No.
Julv lQRl
UKTRP-81-12
Wm. Vernon Azevedo
10.
Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
Kentucky Transportation Research Program
College of Engineering
11.
Contract or Grant No.
University of Kentucky
Lexim<ton Kentuckv
40506
13.
9.
12.
Performing Organization Name and Address
Type of Report and Period Covered
Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Final
Kentucky Department of Transportation
State Office Building
Frankfort, Kentucky
15.
VVP.- 71-? <;
14.
40622
Sponsoring Agency Code
Supplementary Notes
Study Title: Experimental Use of Modular Expansion System In Bridges
1 6.
Abstract
Engineers have long recognized the importance of bridge expansion joints. The inadequacy in
design of such joints has also been realized. Proprietary products are now available which may eliminate
well- documented problems associated with bridge expansion.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the field performance of such products.
17.
Key Words
19.
Security Clossif. (of this report)
Expansion Joint
Modular Expansion Joint
Scratch Gage
Linear Displacement Transducer
Form DOT F 1700.7
18-721
20.
18.
Distribution Statement
Security Classif. (of this page)
Reproduction of completed page authorized
21.
No, of Pages
22.
Price
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction
1
Structure Selection
1
Inspection Procedure
1
Prewitt Gages .
3
Displacement Transducers .
4
Joint Models
.
11
General Observations and Conclusions .
13
References .
13
Appendix
Summary of Expansion Joint Inspections
15
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1 .
Location o f experimental bridge expansion joints.
2
Figure 2.
Prewitt scratch strain gage model S S R .
3
Figure 3.
Scratch gage frame attached to bridge expansion joint.
3
Figure 4.
Scratch gage frame with stiffeners
4
Figure 5.
Schematic of the motion recorder
4
Figure 6 .
Displacement transducer motion recorder.
6
Figure 7.
Recorded movement plotted against temperature, US 25 (small gage).
7
Figure 8.
Recorded movement plotted against temperature, US 25 (large gage).
8
Figure 9.
Recorded movement plotted against temperature, 1-471 (small gage).
9
Figure 10.
Recorded movement plotted against temperature, I-471 (large gage).
10
Figure AI.
Wabo-Maurer 0 1 040; joint in excellent condition.
17
Figure A2.
Wabo-Maurer 01040; debris in gutter area.
17
Figure A3.
Acme Beta B 1 300;joint in excellent condition; note debris above neoprene seals.
Appendix A
Figure A4.
.
.
Acme, Acma Modular II 3M600; joint in excellent condition ; note
irregularity in neoprene seal.
Figure AS.
18
19
Acme, Acma Modular I I 3M600; note uneven compression of neoprene seals and
horizontal misalignment of seals and support bars.
19
Figure A6.
Wabo-Maurer 0 1 300; note uneven com pression of seals.
20
Figure A7.
Acme, Acma Modular II 3M600; note debris above seals.
21
Figure AS.
Acme, Acma Modular I I 3M600; note debris in gutter area.
22
Figure A9.
Wabo-Maurer 0 1560; note cavity above seal and pavement surface and
accumulation of debris.
23
Figure AlO.
Wabo-Maurer D520; note debris above seal which is depressed below the pavement surface.
24
Figure All.
Wabo-Maurer 0 1 300; note debris above seal which is depressed below the pavement surface.
25
Figure Al2.
Wabo-Maurer D780; accumulation of debris above the seals.
26
Figure A13.
Transflex 650; joint in excellent condition.
27
List of Figures
(Continued)
Figure A14.
Transflex 650; abutted sections, US 421 over Martins Fork.
27
Figure A15.
Transflex 650; note blemishes in the surface of the joint.
28
Figure A16.
Fel Span T20; note edge sealant and deterioration of the hole plugs.
29
Figure A17.
Fel Span T20; abutted sections.
30
Figure A18.
Transflex 650; abutted section.
31
Figure Al9.
Transflex 650; note tears in the surface of the joint.
31
Figure A20.
Transflex 400A; note blemishes in the surface of the joint.
32
Figure A 2 1 .
Transflex 400A; note accumulation o f debris and initial deterioration o f the hole plugs.
33
Figure A22.
Transflex 250; note tears in the surface of the joint.
33
Figure A23.
Transflex 200A; note loss of edge sealant and horizontal misalignment.
34
Figure A24.
Pel Span T40; note deterioration of the hole plugs and
accumulation of debris in the gutter area.
35
Figure A25.
Pel Span T40; note deterioration of the hole plugs.
35
Figure A26.
Wabo-Maurer 01040; note vertical misalignment across the joint.
36
Figure A27.
Wabo-Maurer 0520; joint in excellent condition.
36
Figure A28.
Transflex 200A; note vertical misalignment of the abutted sections,
loss of edge sealant, and loss of the plugs.
40
Figure A29.
Transflex 200A; total deterioration of the joint.
41
Figure A30.
Transflex 200A; total deterioration of the joint.
42
Figure A 3 1 .
Transflex 200A; misalignment o f the abutted sections, loss o f edge sealant,
loss of the hole plugs, and poor construction of concrete blackout.
Figure A32.
43
Transflex 200A; no edge sealant, loss of the hole plugs, and
total deterioration of the joint.
.
Figure A33.
Transflex ZOOA; total deterioration of the joint.
Figure A34.
Transflex 400; no edge sealant, no hole plugs, misalignment of the
abutted sections, open grid system collects debris
43
43
44
list of Tables
Page
Table 1.
Displacement Transducer Assembly Specifications
5
Table 2.
Expansion Joint Data
5
Table 3.
Theoretical Movement vs Recorded Movement
6
Introduction
Bridges expand and contract, and bow and
warp, in ways which are not altogether expected or
predictable. Wide variations in temperatures, liveMloads,
and winds induce complex forces. Lengthwise expanM
sions and contractions of long bridges are the most
predictable. Many bridges are supported on roller-type
bearings at an end to facilitate the movement. Gaps are
provided between the span and the abutment to
accommodate movement. A jointingMdevice covers the
gap and enables the traffic to move across on a smooth
floor or deck and prevents unwanted leakage of water.
Historically , jointing-devices have not proven to be
durable and leak-proof.
Recent trends in bridge design toward longer
spans with a minimum of expansion joints and the
need for improved performance of joints have forced
industry and transportation agencies to conceive and
evaluate new designs. Strip seals, joint sealants, sliding
plates, and finger-joints are now being replaced by
various proprietary products introduced in the last
decade. Molded, neoprene rubber body joints are being
used for movements up to 4 inches (102 mm). Modular
expansion joints utilizing multiples of compartmental,
neoprene rubber seals and steel channels are now
available for movements in excess of 50 inches ( 1 .27
m).
The objective of this study was to monitor the
performance of several expansion joints. Although the
systems evaluated are of a proprietary nature, it is not
the intent of this report to rate one product above
another, but to evaluate new concepts in the design of
expansion joints.
Structure Selection
The bridges and the types of joints selected were
designated by the Division of Bridges of the Kentucky
Department of Transportation. To ensure a broad
range of conditions to which joints are exposed, the
structures were chosen randomly throughout the state
(Figure 1). Highways ranged from rural secondary to
interstate facilities, and traffic volumes varied greatly.
Locations were both rural and urban.
Simple span continuous, truss, steel deck girders,
and reinforced concrete deck girders were incorporated
into this study. Span length and width and skew angle
varied.
As is standard on all structures constructed by
the Kentucky Department of Transportation, the con­
tractor was allowed to choose from an approved list of
alternates.
Inspection Procedure
Periodic field inspections were made to detect
distress in the abutting concrete attributable to an
improperly functioning joint, any apparent leakage,
accumulation of debris, ride quality, and noise gener­
ation. A photographic record was made. Bridge type
and dimensions, environmental conditions, joint model
and installation costs, and traffic volumes are also
indicated on the inspection forms. A summary of
individual inspections for each structure is presented in
the APPENDIX.
"'
BRIDGE LOCATION KEY
1. US 27 over Kentucky River; Garrard-Jessamine Counties
2. I 24 over Cumberland River; Livingston-Lyon Counties
3. I 275 over licking River; Campbell County
4. I 275 over Ohio River; Campbell County
5. I 275 Over KV 17, Banlick Creek, and L&N RR; Kenton
County
6. I 471 over Ohio River; Campbell County
7. US 25-US 42 over Ohio River; Kenton County
8. US 421 over Martins Fork and L&N RR, Stations
221+13.96 and 238+82.44; Harlan County
9.
Elmdale Road over I 24; McCracken County
10. KY 770 over Laurel River, I 75 and KV 312 Connector
Road; Laurel County
11. Prestonsburg-Pikeville Road Bridge Carrying Access Road
to KY 1426 over Levisa Fork of Island Creek, Pike
County
12. louisa-Fort Gay Bridge over Tug Fork; Lawrence County
13. Relocated Ky 225 over Cumberland River, Barbourville­
Artemus Road; Knox County
14. Riverside Parkway, 13th to 17th Streets; Jefferson
County
15. Jefferson Freeway over Ramp 6, Jefferson Freeway­
Kentucky Turnpike Interchange, Station 652+89.62;
KENTUCKY
Jefferson County
16. Ramp 2 over Jefferson Freeway and Preston Street,
Jefferson Freeway-Preston Street Interchange, Station
227+82.34; Jefferson County
17. Popular Level Road over Southern RR; Jefferson County
18. South Park Road over Kentucky Turnpike, Station
189+60; Jefferson County
19. US 31 over Ohio River, Clark Memorial Bridge;
Jefferson County
),: -
Figure 1. Location of experimental bridge expansion joints.
Prewitt Gages
From 1973 to 1975, attempts were made to mea­
sure joint movement with a mechanical-type
strain
gage (Figure 2)
made by Prewitt Associates of
Lexington, Kentucky. The device consisted of a
Prewitt scratch gage, Model SSR, attached to U-shaped
aluminum sheet metal. Each leg was attached to a
girder below each side of a joint (Figure 3). As the
joint expanded or contracted, the U flexed and the
bending strain in the U was measured by the Prewitt
scratch gage on a small brass disc. With each reversal of
strain, the gage scratches the disc proportionally to the
movement and advances the disc (Figure
2).
Problems with this system were encountered
from the outset. Initially, records indicated other than
horizontal movement of the bridge; the problem was
attributed to wind vibration. Wind shields were in­
stalled; however, erroneous data were still obtained.
While attempting to recalibrate the scratch mech­
anisms,
the
gages
were
found to be improperly
attached to the sheet metal.
corrected, gage assemblies
After this problem was
were reinstalled. Further
study of the gages revealed the sheet metal was not of
adequate stiffness. A nonproportional strain of the
scratch gage was observed for movements of less than
two inches (51 mm). Stiffners were attached (Figure
4); however, this failed to increase the sensitivity of the
gages so this equipment was abandoned and other
methods of measuring movement were sought.
Figure 3. Scratch gage frame attached to bridge
expansion joint.
Figure 2. Prewitt scratch strain gage model SSR.
3
RECORDER
POWER
SUPPLY
+
12VDC-=..
POWER
SUPPLY
3
4
I'
INPUT
z-
TRANSDUCER
1510W
10
VOLTAGE
DIVIDER
4V
Figure
4.
Figure 5. Schematic of the motion recorder.
Scratch gage frame with stiffners.
by a heavy duty automotive battery. A schematic of
Displacement Transducers
the system is shown in Figure 5 and specifications of
the displacement transducer and power supply are
potentiometer driven by the displacement of an
listed in Table I.
Measurements were made on four joints of two
extending cable. The resistance in the potentiometer is
bridges selected for accessibility rather than structure
linear with respect to the cable displacement. A strip·
or joint type. Table 2 identifies those bridges and
joints. A displacement transducer system was attached
to the transverse girders below the expansion joint. The
A
displacement transducer is basically a rotary
chart recorder produces a permanent record of move­
ment. The system adapted to this study was powered
Table 1. Displacement Transducer Assembly Specifications.
Displacement Transducer: Model
Manufactured by: Research Incorporated, Minneapolis,Minnesota
Displacement Range: in.
mm)
Resistance:
ohms
Rustrak Model 288
Strip-Chart Recorder:
Manufactured by: Gulton Industries, East Greenwich, Rhode Island
Writing Speed: strike/8 seconds
Chart Speed: in./hr. (25 mm/hr.)
Chart Duration: month
Hester Automotive Battery volt)
Power Supply:
4040·2
0·24
(0-610
1,000
1
1
1
I 12
4
2.
Table Expansion Joint Data
Bridge Identification: US 25 and US 42 over the Ohio River
Bridge Type: Combination five-span, continuous, welded-steel, plate girder and three-span cantilever truss
Location: Urban
Traffic Data: ADDT - 13,900
Percent Trucks- 10
Environmental Conditions: Yearly Temperature Range: -18° to 94°F (-28° to 34°C)
Average Annual Precipitation: 39.04 in. (992 mm)
Theoretical Movement:
Small Joint: Wabo-Maurer D520
Range: 5.3 · 10.5 in. (135 · 267 mm)
Large Joint: Wabo-Maurer D1300
Range: 14.2 · 27.2 in. (360 ·690 mm)
Bridge Identification: I 471 aver the Ohio River
Bridge Type: Twin Bridges- Two combination continuous,welded-steel, plate girder units and tied arch
Location: Urban
Traffic Data: ADDT · 81,800
Percent Trucks - 8
Environmental Conditions: Yearly Temperature Range: -18° to 94°F (-28° to 34°C)
Average Annual Precipitation: 39.04 in. (992 mm)
Theoretical Movement:
Small Joint: Wabo-Maurer D520
Range: 5.3- 10.5 in. (135 ·267 mm)
Large Joint: Wabo-Maurer D1560
Range: 17.1-32.7 in. (435 831 mm)
·
transducer was attached to one side of the joint and
movement of the joint. All other recorded movements
the cable extended to attach to the opposite side
(Figure 6).
were well within the theoretical prediction. A line of
regression is plotted by the least-squares method for
7 through 1 0 are records of movement
each set of values. The lines of regression very closely
approximate a linear relationship; the greatest separa­
plotted against temperature for specified periods of
tion occurred at the coldest temperatures, and the
Figures
time. The points are a calibrated measurement of the
smallest separation occurred at the hottest tempera­
displacement of the transducer for every three-hour
tures. The recording system measured movement only
in a horizontal plane. No attempt was made to account
for vertical or rotational movements.
period plotted against the corresponding temperature
as recorded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA).
The theoretical range of
movement for the specific joint and the recorded range
The power supply was subject to variation over a
long period of time, creating a drift in reading actual
movement. The battery was replaced every two
of movement are compared in Table 3. Examination of
the data in Table 3 reveals that the recorded movement
range cf the Wabo-Maurer D520 joint on the 1471
the
bridge over the Ohio River exceeded the theoretical
time.
weeks in
an
effort to alleviate this problem.
All of
instrumentation was vandalized from time to
5
Figure 6. Displacement transducer
motion recorder.
Table 3. Theoretical Movement vs Recorded Movement.
Joint
Wabo-Maurer 0520
Wabo-Maurer 01300
Bridge Identification: US 25 and US 42 over the Ohio River
Theoretical Movement
Recorded Movement Range
5.2 in. (132 mm)
3.3 in. (83.5 mm)
5.8
in. (148 mm)
13.0 in. (330 mm)
Bridge
Joint
Wabo-Maurer 0520
Wabo-Maurer 01560
6
Identification: 1�471 over the Ohio River
Recorded Movement Range
Theoretical Movement
5.7 in (145 mm)
5.2 in. (132 mm)
15.6 in. (396 mm)
10.4 in (264 mm)
Temperature (F)
0
10
40
20
90
60
30
70
50
80
100
--r---������----+---+110
"
c
.. ·AA
A
B A
A
A
100
ACASB�
�c A
1 4.5
A
.IJ. AA
?.
A
A
p
A
A
CA
:'A
A AA dAA J(�.>ACRiJ A
A
AA
A
A
I
'
B
A
A
A
=
AA
A
3.5
A
A
AP
A AAAA.AA
f3
A A
A
AAgA
AA A
"
A
A BABCA 3AA.t.. AOAB i-3 P AA A A
C
AAB
BA A
AAB
AAA.C A tj,A C AA
A
A A CBECO .\CCC CACB
4
RCA 4 A
AA
A"A AABOCB
A
OEBDCAFEC
CCCFBOIHC
A
ABC
AAAACBB
A B
A
AA
ER�ECB
5 A
d
BAFOF �
. AA- BABAAB -86"BCAACAA
.\
A
A
BBA
AA BA
A
AB A A AAAAAR C AAABC C
A A B
A
A
AA
A A
A A
AE A
t5
A
3 AA A
AA
.i\ OA.Af3" /J, "t8
AAA7!A- S -­
AA
AAA
A
A
A
B
A
AABA 8 AABA A A
A3
A
A
A
A AAAA
AAABAA AB
AAA
A
A AAA 90
A
A A
A
A u
A
A A A
BA
C �
••
AAA
--7( .
A AB
B
A
B A.BABBA AA
A
A
AAAAA
70
c
0
·;o
E
60
§,
rn
"'
50
40
30
A
4.0
=
AA
OA.:RCEAC.A" :JBA
D CF A Q A E CA�
A
A
rn
0.
m
(/)
A
-i�A -ASEG�DHDB -t:03A
AAE RGCU C�6AAD A
A BAC
ADCAAFBAa qsp A A
80
E
E
Date from Nov. 14,1975,1 pm to Aug. 23,1976,1 pm
Separation vs Temperature
Legend: A� 1 Observation
2 Observations
C 3 Observations
A
AA
.'.,A /l,
Jt�B
90
A
A
A
8
A
AA
C
3.0
AA
A A
A? AA
A
BR
!30A
A
AAA A
B AA BA
CBB CA
AAAAB
BA A
BABACA
A
ACAPB
CBBCOCAFG
AC BC C A
AC C b.. C BAC
�
Gl
�
�
"
U>
"
A
-o
�
2.5
A
CBBA
B
BBBABAOA
B C( B AAA A
AA
B
A
" BAB
BAA
BACEBC_
A
A 8
A 38
AA
AAA
BA
A
8-AAA A
A
A
AA
A
B
AB
SAB
ABA
AA CAA
A
AA A
�
n
2.0
1.5
A
A
A
AAA
A
1.0
A
A
20
·20.0
.....
-12.5
·5.0
2.5
10.0
Temperature (C)
Figure 7. Recorded movement plotted against temperature, US 25 (small gage) .
17.5
25.0
32.5
a·
�
A
JABBDOCBB
B
A
�
40.0
,..
"
�
Temperature
00
0
10
460
"
'
,,
A
AA
430
AA
A
AA..J
A
i:. ,,
A
,\
410
AA
\
A
(C
"'
0.
AA
j
A
Legend:
c
u
A
p,
..o1
Ja
C G .l ,\
390
"
A
380.
ru
"
A
A
(J)
15, 370
II
AA
A
liC AA..>.R
c
E�r.:? 3
c
·�
�� (1. C)
/,
A
A
•\
16
!\
D
A
A
A A
E ·'
AA c r AH
A AB
A/JAA
A o
A A A
El
AA
A
AA
-\
c
A
A
il
"'0
�
A A
A.Aa
A
A
A
A
:3
A
�
"
::r
A
A
8
A A
[A
DBAA
A o
A
A
A
Ai�PB
AA3
AC5
0
A
AA:�BB
JCSRCBHTC
F8AG- CEFG
A
fDBFOC
A9
A AAA
A
A C
B B DC AC A
AB AA
9
�A�� . 8
"
.
CF.FGECGGC
AA
A
CCAA
AAB
AC3DF
AA
A
310
B A e
AAAA
AA
CCCCCE
4
320
A
t;g.:)Q;)f!ACE
A
14 �
A
PCAC
t..A
"'
AA
A
?A
A.AA;\ABAC
300
"
'j 6
•\
A
(J)
15 .g
AA
A
[A
At>
Gl
"
"'
"'
A
A
A
,\
330
17
2
A A
A.:..AA,\ 8 C
A
340
am
A
A
A
AB
A
A
.:5 r ''
JAb
A A A AA3110
';A
A
B
A
POA3
,,,
"""-.. B
,,
,,
350
A
e
A
360
A
,,
A
"'
1. 1976, 10
=3
A
A ,\fl A
A
0A POll
A
(!)
100
1
=
c
E
�
90
18, 1975, 1
o
400
c
0
'<0
80
Dates from Aug.
pm to Sep.
Separation vs Temperature
A� Observation
B Observations
C Observations
A
,,
420
70
f,
A
440
E
60
50
18
,),
A
40
·'
450
·'
30
20
(F)
A BC
A
R
AAB
A c
BAA
A8
AA
��
C<-9
A A B .�\
13
A
A
12
...._,_
-20.0
-12.5
-5.0
2.5
10.0
Temperature (C)
Figure 8. Recorded movement plotted against temperature, US 25 {large gage).
17.5
25.0
32.5
40.0
0
-10
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
"'
Jl 90
"'
80
70
60
50
0
30
20 ....._....
-25.0
E
E
10
20
Temperature I F)
40
50
30
60
90
80
70
7
"
A
AA
,sA
A
•\
3
,,
AA
A
oA,J':�AO.
'"
A
Au8A
A
A
A
"
ACC83
Af;.:<
A
·\
"
B
Ac
A>
A
AA
A
.\ .A
A
-'
A
B=
.•\
eP
•\
AA
i\4.
"
'·
·'
A
A
A
"
·"
'"
A
A
A
,A
A
CAB
AA
A
A
AC
RA
�'A
A
A
A
Date from June 21,1977, 1 pm to May 16, 1978,10 pm
Separation vs Temperature
Legend: A= 1 Observation
2 Observations
C= 3 Observations
A
A
jA
dAR
c.: A A.\
AA
"
A(,J
JALS
A
..\ c
A
A
A
A
A
"
A
3
FGA
A
,\
A
8 c
A
c
A
o,'
B
A.t... /1.
AAAAA
"
A
_f:<.
A
c
A
A
t.. dC.J/1.3
,,
CA
r
AC8 ABAC-..P.An:)
t. A <\ B CCB A G(•j
a .\i'l
AA.JE!'ISBE
il
-".C
p r A A AAQ
.Q
�
ro
Cl.
A
m
AA
A
ro
<C)
•\
A
'
•.
A
,,
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AA A
A
A
AA
3A
'
A
c:
A
A
A
A
6
AA
A
A
A
A
n AA A
AHECE.83
A A
d
5
A
G)
m
A
A
;3 A
.\
A
'dA
A
A(
A
A
,'. 8
'0
m
4 Ol
�
o·
3AAAAAB
2AAR(AA8
3AA A BB
A A A A �A
A
AAD B
A A
"'
"
g>
..
A
A
"
BA
A
BBAB3
A
AB
A
AA
"
A
A
AA
A
"
"
=r
A
A
�
CPSA
'
A
ABA AA
A
A
3�
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
2
4
ID
A
A
AA
A
-17.5
-10.0
-2.5
Figure 9. Recorded movement plotted against temperature, 1-471 (small gage).
5.0
12.5
Temperature (C)
20.0
3
A
27.5
A
35.0
Temperature
0
0
-10
10
30
20
(F)
40
70
60
50
90
80
7oo .---+----l--+---l---1---+--t--.
27
-�A
AoA
675
4
A
A
�
.\ .....
�
A
ri
�.,
�
A
A
'- A;..A_ J
,.. ;,
', : f\,:,
..
,'.
A
L
,;
A�
r � � r- n C.
n
A
'A
A A16
4�:��
A
A
"
E
,,
,:._
(.9
A
A
4 r;
A
t,"
_,,;
•I
A
,,
.\/\
550
"'
525
"'A·\
'
A
...,AA�'•
,\
!J. A
B
;, 3
A A
-�
A
A
A
'
.'.
"
�
J
,..
.\
(.A
.,
'""
\
,\
"
�' A
,\
A
c
3
'
.\
'
"'
500
4
A
A
,� ).,
A
.\
,,
AA .•\A
.�
.\ !\
A
-�
,\ .�
A
A
A
8
A
!\
A
.A
AA
A
A
AA
A
A
A
c
A
A
A
.A.A
A
AA
A
A
A
A
C
Pc�Ct:
AAA
RC
450
C
fiB
AA
A
19
�A
dOCFCFJEF
A A 83QOQC
A
A
20
�ABAA
AC
AR,\AACB
?C
c
A
I}AAC AAB
(A
21
A
A
A
BBI.�B 4A
A
A
A
.fJ.
A
A
AA
A
A
A
AC
A
'
A
22 �
A
AAA
AA
A
A
A
AA
CR8R�
CAA
A A 4 A I'<.
AA
EACft
A
425
"
A
A
�
A
18
A
A
A
A
17
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
16
400
-25.0
-17.5
-10.0
5.0
-2.5
Temperature
Figure 10. Recorded movement plotted against temperature, 1-471 (large gage).
12.5
(C)
20.0
w
(f)
AA
A
?o
G)
'lil
A
AP
A
A
A
DBA
A
'
A
23
A
A
A
8
�A ,Jll Ff'A
AQ�AUtl(
A
A
A
A
AB
A
A
A
"
!J.
1\A
i•
475
A
A
fl t,t)
n ncccc'J
clA
.:..
A
A
·\
�ocn
-� c
3
,,
,1'>,
,\.<.\
·'
A
A
A
.\
A
A
A
A
"
('
24
,\
_,
A
,\ ,J
25
A
AA
,.\, \
Observations
,\
A
A
!:.,AA
'
26
A
A
Jj
�
n
AA
4.
"'
"w
�A
"
c
0
-�
1
-� :..
;.,
A
\,�
pm
Observations
=
.lhJU�F
A
575
16, 1978, 1
Observation
B=
\A
c _)
600
A=
Legend:
,A, L: �-
A
625
E
pm to May
Separation vs Temperature
c''
A.��-1
650
,'.
6, 1977, 1
1
2
C 3
Date from May
�J
27.5
35.0
�
�
"'·
0
"
-·
"
"
,-
�
joint Models
Transflex 200A
Six joints of this type are included in this evalu­
Transflex 400
The two joints of this type have been in service
1 2 years on a heavily traveled urban facility. The open
ation. Two of the six are installed on a structure
not open to traffic while the remainder have .been in
grid configuration becomes filled with all types of
service for 1 2 years on a heavily traveled urban struc­
ture. Problems with these joints can be traced to both
debris inhibiting the function of the joint. As with
other Transflex models, the loss of hole plugs and edge
faulty installation and the design of the joint. Con­
crete abutting these joints is severely distressed. Joint
performance is poor and there is much intrusion of
water and debris. The sections are misaligned both
horizontally and vertically; virtually no edge sealant re­
mains, and all sections are subject to loss of stud-hole
plugs. Replacement sections have not performed
satisfactorily. The sectional makeup of this and other
sealant makes leaking inevitable.
Wabo-Maurer D260
Five joints of this type were installed in 1974
and 197 5. All are on an interstate facility in an urban
area. Accumulation of debris across the entire joint is a
problem with this and other Wabo-Maurer joints. The
upper surface of the neoprene seal is generally one inch
Transflex joints appears to create problems inherent in
(25 mm) below the joint and pavement surface, creat­
the design. Abutting of sections creates extra surfaces
that must be watertight.
late. This increases the probability of the module being
ing a cavity for debris, i.e., sand and gravel, to accumu­
punctured and possibly interferes with the joint
Transflex 250
on a rural, two-lane bridge that has been in service for
functioning properly. However, none of the five joints
appear to be leaking, and all are providing satisfactory
performance.
four years. The joint has performed well to date. Some
gouges and tears were noted and were probably
Wabo-Maurer D520
One joint of this type was evaluated. The joint is
caused by snowplows. Neither leakage nor loss of edge
sealant has been a problem, hole plugs are showing
signs of wear and becoming loose.
Twenty-two of these joints were installed in
1974 and 1975; four were installed in 1976; one in
1979. All but one are on interstate facilities; the other
is on a heavily traveled urban-primary bridge. Accumu­
Transflex 400A
evalauted are installed on a structure not open to
lation of debris above the neoprene seal across the
entire joint is a problem caused by the depression of
the seal below the surface. There has been no distress
traffic while the other is on a rural, two-lane facility
that has been in service four years. The joint has
joints are providing satisfactory performance.
performed well. There is some evidence of snowplow
damage. As with other Transflex models, hole plugs are
Wabo-Maurer D780
Two of the three joints of this type that were
becoming loose and will probably be lost in the future.
There is no evidence of leakage nor loss of edge sealant.
around any joint nor evidence of a joint leaking. These
Twenty-two of these joints were installed in
1974 and 1975; one was installed in 1976. All but
three of the joints are on interstate facilities, while the
Transflex 650
Seven joints of this type were included in this
evaluation. Five have been in service for three years on
a primary route in a rural area, while the other two are
on a rural, secondary route and have been in service
for four years. The joints have tears and/or blemishes,
probably caused by snowplows. There is evidence of
leakage through the 4-year-old joints, primarily where
the sections are abutted. Some large�size debris is
remaining three are installed on a heavily traveled
urban bridge. Accumulation of debris above the
neoprene seal is a problem common to all Wabo-Maurer
joints; however, there is no evidence that the function
of these joints has been impaired.
Water was de­
tected in the interior cavity of several D78 0 joints,
indicating the upper surface of the seal had been punc­
tured. Modules that were added to the Wabo-Maurer
system to increase the size and movement have created
sealant is in good condition. The five joints in service
additional problems. Vertical misalignment of the
support bars became a problem typical of the D78 0
for three years are performing satisfactorily.
joint. Vertical misalignment of the support bars may
lodged in these joints in the driving lanes. The edge
11
produce some noise and ride discomfort. Uneven
compression of the neoprene modules is also evident.
No distress in the concrete attributable to joiut per­
formance, and no leakage has been detected with this
joiut type. The D78 0 is providing satisfactory perfor­
mance.
Wabo-Maurer D l040
Niue joiuts were installed in 1974 and 1975. Five
are in urban areas and are on interstate or primary
routes. The remaining four are on rural primary routes.
Accumulation of debris above the neoprene seal
across the entire joint is a problem as with other Wabo­
Maurer joints. Uneven compression of the modules
was noted on several joints; however, vertical misalign­
ment of the support bars did not appear to be a
problem. There has been no distress around any joint
nor any evidence of leaking. These joints are providing
satisfactory performance.
Wabo-Maurer Dl300
Three joints of this type were evaluated: one in­
stalled in 1974, is on a heavily traveled primary facility
in an urban area and the other two are on a rural
iuterstate facility that has been open to traffic since
the fall of 1979. The joint in service since 1974 is
subject to problems common to other Wabo-Maurer
joints - - that of accumulation of debris across the joint
and uneven compression of the modules. However , no
leakiug has been detected, and the joiut is performing
satisfactorily.
Wabo-Maurer D l 560
Four joints of this type were evaluated: one was
iustalled in 1975, two in 1976, and one in 1979. Two
are on a rural interstate facility and two are on an
urban iuterstate facility. The two on the rural facility
have been exposed to traffic since the fall of 1979 and
are in excellent condition. The other two are subject to
problems common to other Wabo-Maurer joints -­
accumulation of debris above the seal and uneven
compression of the modules. Water was detected in the
iuterior of the modules, iudicating the top surface of
the neoprene module had been punctured or that water
was entering the module from the end. There has
been no evidence that the bottom sides of these mod­
ules are leaking. No distress on these decks was noted
that is attributable to joint performance.
Acme, Acma Modular II 2M400
Four joints of this type were evaluated. All are
installed on a rural interstate facility and have been in
service for four years. This joint is similar to the
12
Wabo-Maurer and thus experiences the same basic
problems. Debris accumulates above the neoprene
modules across the entire joint. Uneven compression
and twisting of the modules were common. Stains on
piers indicated leakage. Some noise was noted at one
joiut, but this was not through! to be offensive to the
traveling public.
Acme, Acma Modular II 3M600
Six of ten joints have been in service for five
years; the remaining four have been in service for four
years. All are installed on rural interstate facilities.
Uneven compression of the modules, accumulation of
debris above the modules, and leakage indicated by
stains on the piers are problems evident with this type
of joint.
Acme, Acma Modular 116Ml200
Two joints have been in service for five years on
a rural iuterstate facility. The problems associated with
other Acme Modular systems are also associated with
the 6M l 2 0 0. Accumulation of debris across the entire
joint, uneven compression of the modules, and leakage
as evidenced by stains on the piers are present. In
addition, some horizontal misalignment was noted in
the steel members of the joillt.
Acme, Beta B780, B1040, B l 300
Twin structures utilizing one each of the above
joints were constructed as part of a rural interstate
facility. The structures were opened to traffic in
December 1979. These joints are a refinement of the
Acma Modular II systems. Performance expected of
these joints should be comparable to that of the Acma
Modular II and Wabo-Maurer systems.
Fel-Span T20
The bridge containiug the only T2 0 joiuts ill­
eluded iu this evaluation was constructed iu 1977;
however, the bridge has not been opened to traffic.
The bridge is a two-lane facility in an urban area.
Although no traffic has been allowed on the bridge,
the edge sealant has become brittle and has lost ad­
hesion to the joint and concrete surfaces. There has
been no evidence of leaking, and the two joints appear
to be functioning satisfactorily .
Fel-Span T40
Two joints are in a rural area on a state secon­
dary road and have been in service for two years.
Accumulation of debris, as with all joiut types, is a
problem in the gutter areas. Hole plugs are becoming
loose and some are missing. There is no evidence of
leaking. They are providing satisfactory performance.
General Observations and Conclusions
Virtually all of the joints inspected were filled to
some degree with incompressible debris in the traveling
lanes; and all were full of debris in the gutter area.
Any type of recess in the surface of the joint provides
a place for debris to accumulate. Accumulation is more
of a problem for the modular-type joints than the
molded rubber joints . Accumulation of debris above
the modules could inhibit the function of the joint
and (or) puncture the seal, allowing water to enter.
Joints installed as one continuous unit have
several advantages over those that are sectionalized.
Joints such as Wabo-Maurer, Acma Modular, and Acme
Beta are welded to anchor bolts and thus become an
integral part of the bridge deck; this is in opposition to
units bolted to the deck. Continuous units eliminate
possible points of leakage by having no surfaces that
have to be abutted and sealed. By virtue that no edge
sealant is required, this again improves the watertight­
ness of the joint and can eliminate future cleaning and
replacing cracked and brittle edge sealant.
Both the molded neoprene rubber joints and the
modular joints appear to be impr.ovements over the
sliding plate and finger dams. Construction and
installation problems were not addressed in this report.
The final report on the National Experimental and
Evaluation Program (NEEP) Project No. U relates that
several states have recommended not using joint
systems that require segmental installation for reasons
similar to those problems experienced in Kentucky.
The high installation costs of the modular systems may
be negated by improved performance and reduced
future maintenance needs.
References
I.
Watertight Bridge Deck Joint Seals, National
Experimental and Evaluation Program, Project
No. 1 1 , Final Report, Jul)( 1 977.
2.
Bridge Deck Joint-Sealing Systems, Evaluation
3.
and Performance Specification, National Cooper­
ative Highway Research Program Report 204,
Transportation Research Board, June 1979.
Finchner, H. E.; Sixth Annual Progress Report
5.
6.
Evaluation of Various Bridge Deck Joint Seal­
for Evaluation of Rubber Expansion Joints for
Indiana State Highway Commission,
June 1978.
Bashore, F. J . ; Evaluation of Various Bridge
Bridges,
4.
Sealing Systems, Michigan State
Highway Commission, August 1975.
Canfield, J. H.; and Cramer, C. L.;Development
of Watertight Bridge Deck Joint Seals, California
Department of Transportation, July 1975.
Kozlov, G. S.; and Mehalchick, G . J.; Field
Deck Joint
7.
ing Systems, New Jersey Department of Trans­
portation, March 1976.
Thornton, J. B. ; Evaluation of Existing Bridge
Expansion Joints, Georgia Department of Trans­
portation, October 1973.
13
Appendix
SUMMARY OF
EXPANSION JOINT INSPECTIONS
15
EXPANSION JOINT EVALUATION
Bridge Identification: US 27, Kentucky River
County: Garrard-Jessamine
Project Number. F 5 2 5 ( 1 6)
BRIDGE DESCRIPTION
Type: Twin bridges, welded steel plate girder, continuous
Length, 1 , 1 05 ft(337 m)
Width, 39 ft(12 m)
Span Length Contributing
to Joint Movement, One @ 1 , 105 ft(337 m)
Skew: 0
°
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
°
Yearly Temperature Range: -8
°
°
°
to 96 F(-22 to 36 C)
Average Annual Precipitation: 45.03 in. ( 1 ,144mm)
Location: Rural
JOINT DATA
Joint Type and Model: Four Wabo-Maurer D1040
Installation Date: Not Available
Installation Cost: 4@ $ 1 2,000 each
Theoretical Movement of Joint Type: D 1040:
10.4 in.
(264mm)
TRAFFIC DATA
AADT, 7,000
Percent Trucks: 10
INSPECTION DATA
Rid� Quality, Good
Figure A 1 . Wabo-Maurer 0 1 040; joint in excellent con­
Noise Generation: Good
Accummulation of Debris: Heavy in gutter areas, light
dition.
in traffic lanes
Joint Leaking: No evidence
of leaking
Distress around joint: None
Comments: Joints are in
excellent con�
clition
Compression of
modules is very
even
No apparent
vertical or hori�
zontal misalign�
ment of joint
Figure A2. Wabo-Maurer 01 040; debris in gutter area.
17
EXPANSION JOINT EVALUATION
Bridge Identification: I 24 , Cumberland River
County: Livingston-Lyon
Project Number: I 24- 2(26)33
BRIDGE DESCRIPTION
Type: Twin bridges -- Two combination welded-steel plate-girder units, continuous
Length: 1 ,74 0 ft (53 0 m)
Width: 38 ft (1 2 m)
Span Length Contributing to Joint Movement : Two @ 655 ft (2 0 0 m) , 1 , 027 ft (3 13 m)
Skew: 0°
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Yearly Temperature Range: -4° to 102' F (-29' to 39' C)
Average Annual Precipitation: 45.69 in. (I , 1 6 1 mm)
Location: Rural
JOINT DATA
Joint Type and Model: Two Acme Beta B78 0, two Acme Beta Bl 04 0, two Acme Beta Bl3 0 0
Installation Date: B78 0: 2-79; Bl 04 0: 6 ,8-79; Bl3 0 0: 2, 9-79
Installation Cost: B78 0: $26 , 0 0 0 each; B l 04 0: $35 , 0 0 0 each; Bl3 0 0: $3 0 , 0 0 0 each
Theoretical Movement of Joint Type: B78 0: 7.8 in. (198 mm); B l 04 0: 1 0.4 0 in. (264 mm); Bl 3 0 0:
13. 0 0 in. (3 3 0 mm)
TRAFFIC DATA
AADT: 1 0,6 0 0
Percent Trucks: 17
INSPECTION DATA
Ride Quality: Good
Noise Generation: Good
Accumulation of Debris: None
Joint Leaking: No
Distress around Joint: None
Comments: Opened to traffic December 1979
Joints in excellent condition
Figure A3. Acme Beta 81 300; joint in ex­
cellent condition; note debris
above neoprene seals.
18
EXPANSION JOINT EVALVATION
Bridge Identification: I 275, Ucking River
County: Kenton-Campbell
Project Number: I 275-9(35)19
BRIDGE DESCRIPTION
Type: Twin bridges, welded-steel plate girder - - simple-continuous-simple
Length: 1 ,535 ft (468 m)
Width: 5 0 ft (15 m)
Span Length Contributing to Joint Movement: Three @ 5 15 ft (16 0 m), 795 ft (242 m), !5 0 ft (46 m)
Skew: 0°
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Yearly Temperature Range: - 18° to 94° F (-28° to 34° C)
Average Annual Precipitation: 39. 04 in. (992 mm)
Location: Rural
JOINT DATA
Joint Type and Model: Six Acme, Acma Modular II 3M6 0 0 and two Acme, Acma Modular II 6Ml 2 0 0
Installation Date: 1974
Installation Cost: 8 @ $ 1 5, 0 0 0 each
Theoretical Movement of Joint Type: 3M6 0 0: 6. 0 0 in. (152 mm); 6Ml 2 0 0: 12. 0 0 in. (3 05 mm)
TRAFFIC DATA
AADT: 75,9 0 0
Percent Trucks: I 0
INSPECTION DATA
Ride Quality: Good
Noise Generation: Good
Accumulation of Debris: All across joints above modules
Joint Leaking: Piers beneath joints stained -- evidence of leaking
Distress around Joint: None
Comments: Uneven compression of modules evident
Some horizontal misalignment of channels
Figure A4. Acme, Acma Modular
II
3M600; joint in ex­
cellent condition; note irregularity in neopr­
ene seal.
Figure A5. Acme, Acma Modular II 3M600; note uneven
compression of neoprene seals and horizon­
tal misalignment of seals and support bars.
19
EXPANSION JOINT EVALUATION
Bridge Identification: I 275, Ohio River
County: Campbell
Project Number: I 275-9 {4 8)23, I 275-9 (4 0)22
BRIDGE DESCRWTION
Type: Twin Bridges, two combination welded-steel plate-girder units, continuous and continuous through
truss
Lenght: 2,82 0 ft (86 0 m)
Width: 5 0 ft (I 5 m)
Span Length Contributing to Joint Movement: Three @ 57 0 ft (1 74 m), I ,44 0 ft {439 m) , 81 0 ft {247 m)
Skew: 0°
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Yearly Temperature Range: - 1 8° to 94° F {- 28° to 34° C)
Average Annual Precipitation: 39 . 04 in . {992 mm)
Location: Rural
JOINT DATA
Joint Type and Model: Two Wabo-Maurer 01 56 0 , two Wabo-Maurer 013 0 0, two Wabo-Maurer 052 0
Installation Date: Fall 1976 and Fall 1979
Installation Cost: D l 56 0: $5 0,44 0 each; 013 0 0: $39,2 05 each; 052 0: $3 1,34 0 each
Theoretical Movement of Joint Type: D l56 0: 1 5 . 6 in. (396 mm) ; D l3 0 0: 13 . 0 in. {3 3 0 mm) ; 052 0:
5 . 2 in. {1 32 mm)
TRAFFIC DATA
AADT: 5 0,2 0 0
Percent of Trucks: I 0
INSPECTION DATA
Ride Quality : Good
Noise Generation: Good
Accumulation of Debris: None
Joint Leaking: No
Distress around Joint: None
Comments: All joints in excellent condition
Bridge open to traffic for only one
month as of last inspection
Figure A6. Wabo-Maurer 01 300; note uneven comp­
ression of seals.
20
EXPANSION JOINT EVALUATION
Bridge Identification: 1275 ,KY 17 ,L&N Railroad, and Banlick Creek
County: Kenton
Project Number: I 275-9(3 5)17
BRIDGE DESCRIPTION
Type: Twin Bridges, welded-steel plate girder: two simple span units, three continuous units
Length: I ,6 67 ft(508 m)
Width: 65 ft (20 m)
Span Length Contributing to Joint Movement: Four @ 244 ft(74 m) , 554 ft(169 m) ,479 ft ( 146 m) ,390
ft( 119 m)
Skew: 30°
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Yearly Temperature Range: - 1 8° to 94° F (-28° to 34° C)
Average Annual Precipitation: 39.04 in. (992 mm)
Location: Rural
Figure A7.
Acme, Acma Modular II 3M600; note debris above seals.
21
JOINT DATA
Joint Type and Model: Four Acme, Acma Modular II 2M400; four Acme, Acma Modular II 3M600
Installation Date: 1975
Installation Cost: Not Available
TI1eoretical Movement of Joint Type: 2M400: 4.0 in. (102 mm); 3M600: 6.0 in. (15 2 mm)
TRAFFIC DATA
AADT: 75,900
Percent Trucks: I0
INSPECTION DATA
llide Q uality: Good
Noise Generation: Some noise in first joint of eastbound lane
Accumulation of Debris: All across joints above modules
Joint Leaking: Stains on piers indicate leaking
Distress around Joint: None
Comments: Compression of modules uneven
Modules twisting in place, steel channels possibly rotating under traffic
Modules cut where turned up into barrier walls
Figure A8. Acme, Acma Modular
22
II
3M600; note debris in �utter area.
EXPANSION JOINT EVALUATION
Bridge Identification: I 47 1 , Ohio River
County: Campbell
Project Number: I 471-4(7)4 "B"
BRIDGE DESCRIPTION
Type: Twin Bridges, combination: two welded-steel plate-girder units, continuous and tied arch
Length: 2,547 ft (776 m)
Width: 55 ft (17 m)
Span Length Contributing to Joint Movement: Six @ SO ft (IS m), 388 ft ( 1 1 8 m), 540 ft (165 m), 759 ft
(231 m), 355 ft (108 m), 4 1 5 ft (126 m)
Skew: o'
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Yearly Temperature Range: - 1 8 ' to 94'F (-28 ' to 34'C)
Average Annual Precipitation: 39.04 in. (992 rnrn)
Location: Urban
JOINT DATA
Joint Type and Model: Six Wabo-Maurer D520; two Wabo-Maurer D780; two Wabo-Maurer D l 560
Installation Date: Not available
Installation Cost: Not available
Theoretical Movement of Joint Type: DS20: 5.2 in. (132 rnm); D780: 7.8 in. (198 mm) ; D 1 560: 1 5.6 in.
(396 mm)
TRAFFIC DATA
AADT: 81 ,800
Percent Trucks: 8
Figure A9. Wabo-Maurer 01560; note cavity above seal and pavement surface and accumula�
tion of debris.
23
INSPECTION DATA
Ride Quality: Good
Noise Generation: Good
Accumulation of Debris: All across joints above modules -- debris I in. (25 mm) deep
Joint Leaking: No evidence of leaking
Distress around Joint: None
Comments: Compression of modules uneven
Water present in the interior of compression module evidence that the module has been punc­
tured or water is infiltrating from the end of the module
Figure A 1 0. Wabo-Maurer 0520; note debris above seal which is depl'ess­
ed below pavement surface.
24
EXPANSION JOINT EVALUATION
Bridge Identification: US 25 - US 42 ,Ohio River
County: Kenton
Project Number: ER 141(7) "B" & "C"
BRIDGE DESCRIPTION
Type: Combination: Five-span, continuous, welded-steel plate-girder; three-span cantilever truss
Length: 3650 ft ( 1,1 13 m)
Width: 43 ft ( 13 m)
Span Length Contributing to Joint Movement: Eight @ 179 ft (55 m) 565 ft (172 m) , 573 ft (175 m) ,
908 ft (277 m ) , 350 ft ( 107 m) ,372 ft (1 13 m), 425 ft (130 m) , 278 ft (85 m)
Skew: 0°
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Yearly Temperature Range: -18° to 94° F (-28° to 34° C)
Average Annual Precipitation: 39.04 in. (992 mm)
Location: Urban
JOINT DATA
Joint Type and Model: One Wabo-Maurer D520; three Wabo-Maurer D780; two Wabo-Maurer D 1040;
one Wabo-Maurer D 1 300
Installation Date: Not available
Installation Cost: Not available
Theoretical Movement of Joint Type: D520: 5.2 in. (132 mm); D780; 7.8 in. ( 198 mm); D \ 040: 10.4 in.
(264 mm); D \ 300: 13.0 in. (330 mm)
TRAFFIC DATA
AADT: 1 3 ,900
Percent Trucks: 10
Figure A1 1 . Wabo-Maurer 01 300; note debris above seal which is depressed below the pave­
ment surface.
25
INSPECTION DATA
Ride Quality: Good
Noise Generation: Good
Accumulation of Debris: All across joint -- approximately 2 in. (51 mm) above neoprene seal
Joint Leaking: No apparent leaking -- end of joint showing signs of weathering (i.e, rust)
Distress around Joint: None
Comments: Neoprene approximately 2 in. (51 mm) below surface
Compression of modules uneven
Figure A 1 2. Wabo·Maurer 0780; accumulation of debris above the seals.
26
EXPANSION JOINT EVALUATION
Bridge Identification: US 421, Martins Fork and L&N Railroad
County: Harlan
Project Number: F 1 5 1(3 1 ) Bridge One
BRIDGE DESCRIPTION
Type: Welded-steel plate-girder, continuous
Length : 556ft (170 m)
Width: 75 ft (23 m)
Spans: One
Skew: 45 '
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Yearly Temperature Range: - 10' to 94' F (-23' to 34' C)
Average Annual Precipitation: 46.78 in. (1, 188 mm)
Location: Rural
JOINT DATA
Joint Type and Model: Two Transflex 650
Installation Date: 10-77
Installation Cost: $ 1 3 ,440
Theoretical Movement of Joint Type: Transflex 650: 6.5 in.
( 1 65 mm)
TRAFFIC DATA
AADT: 9,700
Percent Trucks: 6
INSPECTION DATA
Ride Quality: Good
Noise Generation: Good
Accumulation of Debris: In gutter areas only -· some large
debris lodged in joint
Joint Leaking: None
Distress around Joint: Minor chipping of abutting concrete
due to construction not function of joint
Figure A 13. Transflex 650; joint in excellent condition.
Comments: Joints in very good condition
Some blemishes or tears in rubber
Figure A 14. Transflex 650; abutted sections, US 421 over Martins Fork.
EXPANSION JOINT EVALUATION
Bridge Identification: US 421 , Martins Fork and L&N Railroad
County: Harlan
Project Number: F 1 5 1 (33) Bridge 2
BRIDGE DESCRIPTION
Type: Welded-steel plate-girder -- three continuous units
Length : 722 ft (220 m)
Width: 75 ft (23 rn)
Span Length Contributing to Joint Movement : Three @ 347 ft (106 m), 79 ft (24 m), 296 ft (90 rn)
Skew: Two @ 30°, one @ 0°
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Yearly Temperature Range: -10° to 94° F (-23° to 34° C)
Average Annual Precipitation: 46.78 in. (I , 1 88 mm)
Location : Rural
JOINT DATA
Joint Type and Model: Three Transflex 650
Installation Date: 7-77
Installation Cost: Not available
Theoretical Movement of Joint Type: Transflex 650: 6.5 in. (165 mm)
TRAFFIC DATA
AADT: 9,700
Percent Trucks: 6
INSPECTION DATA
Ride Quality: Good
Noise Generation: Good
Accumulation of Debris: In gutter areas only -- some large debris lodged in joint
Joint Leaking: None
Distress around Joint: None
Comments: Joints in very good condition
Some blemishes in rubber
Figure A 1 5. Transflex 650; note
blemishes in the sur­
face of the joint.
28
EXPANSION JOINT EVALUATION
Bridge Identification: Elmdale Road over I 24
County: McCracken
Project Number: I 24-1(33)4
BRIDGE DESCRIPTION
Type: Reinforced concrete deck-girder, continuous
Length: 333 ft (102 m)
Widtb: 43 ft (13 m)
Span : One
Skew: 30°
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Yearly Temperature Range: -2° to 1 00° P (-19° to 38° C)
Average Annual Precipitation: 45.69 in. (I , 1 6 1 mm)
Location: Urban
JOINT DATA
Joint Type and Model: Two Pel Span T20
Installation Date: 8-77
InstaUation Cost: Total for two joints - $6,720
Theoretical Movement of Joint Type: T20 Pel Span:
2.0 in. (5 1 mm)
TRAFFIC DATA
AADT: Not available
Percent Trucks: Not available
Figure A16. Fel Span T20; note edge sealant and deter­
ioration of the hole plugs.
INSPECTION DATA
Ride Quality: Not available
Noise Generation: Not available
Accumulation of Debris: See comments below
Joint Leaking: No apparent leakage
Distress around Joint: None
Comments: Bridge not open to traffic
Sealant between joint and concrete wearing, i.e, not functioning properly -- sealant is brittle
and is pulling from surface
Much debris on bridge as the result of bridge not being open to traffic -- no apparent problems
from debris
29
Figure A 1 7 . Fe I Span T20; abutted sections.
30
EXPANSION JOINT EVALUATION
!lridge Identification: KY 770, Laurel River, ! 75, and
KY 3 1 2 Connector
County: Laurel
Project Number: RS 1 5 2 (5)
BRIDGE DESCRIPTION
Type: Welded-steel plate-girder, continuous
Length : 566 ft (172 m)
Width: 29 ft (9 m)
Spans: One
Skew: 0°
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Yearly Temperature Range: -12° to 96° F (-24° to 36° C)
Average Annual Precipitation: 47.53 in. (1 ,207 mm)
Location: Rural
JOINT DATA
Joint Type and Model: Two Transflcx 650
Installation Date: 9176
Installation Cost: Total for both, $ 1 3 ,200
Theoretical Movement of j oint Type: Transflex 6 5 0:
6.5 in. ( 1 65 mm)
TRAFFIC DATA
AADT, 3,100
Perc:ent Trucks: 8
INSPECTION DATA
Ride Quality , Good
Noise Generation: Good
Accumulation of Debris: Debris in gutter areas -- light
in driving lanes
Joint Leaking: Stains on abutments indicate leakage -­
possibly leaking is joint sealant
Distress around Joint: None
Comments: Some tears noted in rubber
Leaks could possibly occur where sections
are put together
Joints appear in good condition except for
tears noted in rubber
Figure A19. Transflex 650; note tears in the surface of
Figure A18. Transflex 650; abutted section.
the joint.
31
EXPANSION JOINT EVALUATION
Bridge Identification: Prestonsburg-Pikeville Road, Access Road to KY 1426 over Levisa Fork of
Island Creek
County: Pike
Project Number: APD 127 (65)
BRIDGE DESCRIPTION
Type: Welded-steel plate-girder, continuous
Length: 395 ft (120 m)
Width: 44 ft (13 m)
Spans: One
Skew: 0°
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Yearly Temperature Range: -6° to 98° F (-21 o to 37° C)
Average Annual Precipitation: 43.21 in. (1 ,098 mm)
Location: Rural
JOINT DATA
Joint Type and Model: One Transflex 250; One Transflex 400A
Installation Date: 9-75
Installation Cost: 250 : $7,500; 400A: $1 0,000
Theoretical Movement of Joint Type: 250: 2.5 in. (64 nun); 400A: 4.0 in. (102 mm)
TRAFFIC DATA
AADT: Not available
Percent Trucks: Not available
INSPECTION DATA
Ride Quality: Good
Noise Generation: Good
Accumulation of Debris: Much debris in joint
Joint Leaking: Not apparent
Distress around Joint: None
Comments: Sections show signs of wear
Some tears noted
Plug covers becoming loose,
coming out, and tearing
Figure A20. Transflex 400A; note blemishes in the sur­
face of the joint.
32
1\C.C.ESS RoAD
10 K E JIIau c KY
I Ll- 2. '-
Figure A21 . Transflex 400A; note accumulation of de­
bris and initial deterioration of the hole
plugs.
Figure A22. Transflex 250; note tears in the surface of
the joint.
33
EXPANSION JOINT EVALUATION
Bridge Identification: Louisa - Fort Gay Bridge over Tug Fork
County: Lawrence
Project Number: BRS 5331-4, SP 64-33-14L
BRIDGE DESCRIPTION
Type: Welded-steel plate-girder, concrete deck-girder; combination simple span and continuous span
Length : 1 ,238 ft (377 m)
Width: 32 ft (10 m)
Span Length Contributing to Joint Movement: Five @ 78 ft (24 m), 320 ft (98 m), 245 ft (75 m), 420 ft
(128 m), 175 ft (53 m)
Skew: Joints 1 & 2 -- 20° ; 3 & 4 - 10°
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Yearly Temperature Range: -13° to 98° F (-25° to 37° C)
Average Annual Precipitation: 39.83 in. (1 ,012 mm)
Location: Urban
JOINT DATA
Joint Type and Model: Two Transflex 200A; two
Transflex 400A
Installation Date: 1979
Installation Cost: Total $16,223
Theoretical Movement of Joint Type: 200A: 2.0 in.
(5 1 mm): 400A:
4.0 in. (102 mm)
TRAFFIC DATA
AADT: 6,300 (estimated)
Percent Trucks: 5 (estimated)
INSPECTION DATA
Ride Quality : Not applicable
Noise Generation: Not applicable
Accumulation of Debris: None
Joint Leaking: Not apparent
Distress around Joint: None
Comments: Bridge not open to traffic
Figure A23. Transflex 200A; note loss of edge sealant
and horizontal misalignment
34
EXPANSION JOINT EVALVATION
Bridge Identification: KY 225, Cumberlan d River
County: Knox
Project Number: RS 355(4), SP 61-1 30-1 1 L
BRIDGE DESCRIPTION
Type: Reinforced concrete deck-girder; simple span ­
continuous - simple span
Length: 5 1 0 ft ( 1 5 5 m)
Width: 34 ft (I 0 m)
Span Length Contributing to
Joint Movement; Three @ 52 ft (16 m), 406 ft (124 m),
52 ft (16 m)
Skew: 0°
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Yearly Temperature Range: -8° to 96° F (-22° to 35° C)
Average Annual Precipitation: 47.53 in. ( 1 , 207 mm)
Location: Rural
JOINT DATA
Joint Type and Model: Two Fel Span T40
Installation Date: 7-78
Installation Cost: $4,87 5
Theoretical Movement of Joint Type: T40: 4.0 in.
( 1 02 mm)
of the
of debris in
Figure A24. Fel Span T40; note deterioration
hole plugs and accumulation
the gutter area.
TRAFFIC DATA
AADT: 2,300
Percent Trucks: 1 1
INSPECTION DATA
Ride Quality : Good
Noise Generation: Good
Accumulation of Debris: Clear in driving lanes, some
debris in gutter areas
Joint Leaking: No evidence of leaking
Distress around Joint: Some minor distress around joint,
possibly due to problems in
construction
Comments: Plugs covering bolts are loose or missing
Joint approximately 3/8 in. ( 1 0 mm) lower
than deck
Figure A25. Fel Span T40; note deterioration
of the
hole plugs.
35
EXPANSION JOINT EVALUATION
Bridge Identification: Riverside Parkway - 1 3th
to 17th Streets
County: Jefferson
Project Number' I 64-2(87)3
BRIDGE DESCRIPTION
Type: Welded-steel plate girder, continuous units
Length, 10,4 1 9 ft ( 3 , 1 7 6 m)
Width , Varies 22 to 5 2 ft (7 to 1 6 m)
Span Length Contributing to
Joint Movement: 41 spans of varing lengths from
1 1 0 ft ( 3 4 m) to 495 ft ( 1 5 1 m)
Skew: Varies
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
°
°
°
°
to 9 8 F (-22 to 3 7 C)
Yearly Temperature Range: -7
Average Annual Precipitation: 43 . 1 1 in. ( 1 ,095 mm)
Location: Urban
JOINT DATA
Joint Type and Model: Five Wabo-Maurer 0260; 1 8
Wabo-Maurer D 5 2 0 ; 1 8 Wabo­
Maurer D780; three Wabo­
Maurer D1 040
Installation Date: 1 974 and 1 9 7 5
Installation Cost: $600,000 total
Figure A26. Wabo-Maurer 01 040; note vertical misalign­
ment across the joint.
Theoretical Movement of
Joint Typ"'
D260, 2 . 6 in. (66 mm); D520'
5 . 2 in. ( 1 3 2 mm); 0780' 7 . 8
in. ( 1 98 mm); Dl 040' 10.4 in.
(264 mm)
TRAFFIC DATA
AADT' 63, 600
Percent Tmcks: 1 0
INSPECTION DATA
Ride Quality, Good
Noise Generation: See below
Accumulation of Debris: Excessive in gutter
area, all across joint
J oint Leaking: Not evident
Distress Around Joint: None
COMMENTS
Several joints loud under traffic as a result of
steel channels moving under traffic and plates
becoming loose.
Vertical misalignment between channels
noted on several joints.
Figure A27. Wabo-Maurer 0520; joint in excellent condition.
36
EXPANSION JOINT EVALUATION
Bridge Identification: Jefferson Freeway over Ramp 6: Jefferson Freeway
County: Jefferson Kentucky Turnpike Interchange
Project Number: F 552(12); SP56468-1 5L
BRIDGE DESCRIPTION
Type: Continuous, welded-steel plate-girder
Length: 200 ft (61 rn)
Width: 40 ft ( 1 2 m)
Span Length Contributing to Joint Movement: One @ 200 ft (61 rn)
Skew: 3°
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Yearly Temperature Range: -7° to 98° F (-22° to 37° C)
Annual Precipitation: 43. 1 1 in. (1 ,095 mm)
Location: Rural
JOINT DATA
Joint Type and Model:
Installation Date:
Installation Cost:
Theoretical Movement of Joint Type:
TRAFFIC DATA
AADT: 53,600 (estimated)
Percent Trucks: 1 0 (estimated)
INSPECTION DATA
Ride Quality:
Noise Generation:
Accumulation of Debris:
Joint Leaking:
Distress around Joint:
Comments: Contract has not been let
37
EXPANSION JOINT EVALUATION
Bridge Identification: Poplar Level Road over Southern Railroad
County: Jefferson
Project Number: U 553 (3)
BRIDGE DESCRIPTION
Type: 1 7�span, precast, prestressed concrete 1-beam
Length: 1 ,143 ft (348 m)
Width: 68 ft (2 1 m)
Spans: 1 7
Skew: 0°
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Yearly Temperature Range: -7° to 98° F (-22° to 37°C)
Average Annual Precipitation: 43,1 I in. ( 1 ,09 5 mm)
Location: Urban
JOINT DATA
Joint Type and Model:
Installlation Date:
Installation Cost:
Theoretical Movement of Joint Type:
TRAFFIC DATA
AADT: 39,700
Percent Trucks: I I
INSPECTION DATA
Ride Quality:
Noise Generation:
Accumulation of Debris:
Joint Leaking:
Distress around Joint:
Comments: Contract has not been let
38
EXPANSION JOINT EVALUATION
Bridge Identification: Southpark Road over Kentucky Turnpike
County: Jefferson
Project Number: F 552(12); SP 56-468-ISL
BRIDGE DESCRIPTION
Type: Combination simple span -- continuous span -- simple span; welded-steel plate-girder
Length; 377 ft (I I S m)
Width: 44 ft (13 m)
Span Length Contributing to Joint Movement: Three @ 43 ft (13 m), 291 ft {89 m), 43 ft (13 m)
Skew: 0°
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Yearly Temperature Range: -7° to 98°F (-22° to 37°C)
Average Annual Precipitation: 43 . 1 1 in. (I,095 mm)
Location: Rural
JOINT DATA
Joint Type and Model:
Installation Date:
Installation Cost:
Theoretical Movement of Joint Type
TRAFFIC DATA
AADT: 9,700
Percent Trucks: 3
INSPECTION DATA
Ride Quality
Noise Generation:
Accumulation of Debris:
Joint Leaking:
Distress around Joint:
Comments: Contract has not been let
39
EXPANSION JOINT EVALUATION
Bridge Identification: US 3 1 , Ohio River: Clark Memorial Bridge
County: Jefferson
Project Number: SP 56-8 1 1 8-7
BRIDGE DESCRIPTION
Type: Combination -- plate-girder and cantilever truss
Length : 6,363 ft (1 ,939 m)
Width : 37 ft ( I I m)
Span Length Contributing to Joint Movement: Thirteen @ 476 ft (145 m), 60 ft ( 1 8 m), 240 ft (73 m),
1 ,5 1 4 ft (461 m), 375 ft (1 14 m), 734 ft (224 m), 731 ft (223 m), 381 ft (1 16 m), 594 ft (181 m),
379 ft (1 16 m), 1 63 ft (50 m), 126 ft (3 8 m), 590 ft ( 1 80 m)
Skew: 0°
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Yearly Temperature Range: -7° to 98° F ( 22° to 37
Average Annual Precipitation: 43.1 1 in. (1 ,095 mm)
Location: Urban
·
o
C)
JOINT DATA
Joint Type and Model: Two Reynolds Aluminum, four Transflex 200A, two Transflex 400
Installation Date: 1967
Installation Cost: Not available
Theoretical Movement of Joint Type: Reynolds Aluminum: movement not available ; Transflex 200A: 2.0
in. (5 1 mm); Transflex 400: 4.0 in (I 02 mm)
Figure A28. Transflex 200A; note vertical misalignment of the abutted sections, loss of edge sealant, and loss of
the hole plugs.
40
TRAFFIC DATA
AADT: 19,600 (estimated)
Percent Trucks: 4 (estimated)
INSPECTION DATA
Ride Quality : Poor -- due to distress around joints and joints being loose
Noise Generation: Poor -- due to distress around j oints and joints being loose
Accumulation of Debris: Much debris
Joint Leaking: All joints -- due to distress and lack of sealant
Distress around Joint: Severe
Figure A29. Transflex 200A; total deterioration of the joint.
41
Comments: Reynolds Aluminum joint -- distress severe around joint -- noise due to contact of aluminum
plates
Transflex 200A - loss of plug covers, sections of joint not properly installed, edges have
little or no sealant, intrusion of debris and water, leakage severe due to poor joint
and pavement performance, sections misaligned both vertically and horizontally,
partial sections missing
Transflex 400 - waffle design fills with debris, loss of plug covers, loss of joint sealant, de­
terioration around joints, leaking inevitable
-
-
Figure A30. Transflex 200A; total deterioration of the joint.
42
Figure A32. Transflex 200A; no edge sealant, loss of the
hole plugs, and total deterioration of the
joint.
Figure A31 . Transflex 200A; misalignment of the abut­
ted sections, loss of edge sealant, loss of the
hole plugs, and poor construction of con­
crete blackout.
Figure A33. Transflex 200A; total deterioration of the
joint.
43
Figure A34. Transflex 400; no edge sealant, no hole plugs, misalignment of the abutted sections, open grid system
collects debris.
44
EXPANSION JOINT EVALUATION
Bridge Identification: Ramp 2 over Jefferson Freeway and Preston Street
County: Jefferson
Project Number: F 552(12) SP56-468-1 5L
BRJDGE DESCRJPTION
Type: Continuous, welded-steel plate-girder
Length: 366 ft (1 1 2 m)
Width: 38 ft (1 2 m)
Span Length Contributing to Movement: One @ 366 ft (1 1 2 m)
Skew: Varies
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Yearly Temperature Range: -7° to 98° F (-22° to 37°C)
Average Annual Precipitation: 43. 1 1 in. (I ,095 mm)
Location: Urbao
JOINT DATA
Joint Type and Model:
Installation Date:
Installation Cost:
Theoretical Movement of Joint Type:
TRAFFIC DATA
AADT:
Percent of Trucks:
INSPECTION DATA
Ride Quality:
Noise Generation:
Accumulation of Debris:
Joint Leaking:
Distress around Joint:
Comments: Contract has not been let
45