Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (xxxx) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

Failure behaviour of radial spherical plain bearing (RSPB) joints for

civil engineering applications
Xianzhong Zhaoa,b, Cheng Fangb,, Yiyi Chena,b, Yida Zhangb
a
State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
b
Department of Structural Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China

AR TI CLE I NF O AB S T R A CT

Keywords: This paper presents a comprehensive study on the failure behaviour of structural joints em-
Radial spherical plain bearing (RSPB) joint ploying radial spherical plain bearings (RSPBs). The research program commenced with an ex-
Load rating perimental study looking into the performance of the RSPBs and the associated joints. Two major
Radial load failure modes, namely, brittle fracture of the inner ring and brittle crack of the outer ring, under
Thrust load
radial and thrust loads, respectively, are found for the RSPBs. Conservative predictions are given
Out-of-plane rotational exibility
by the nominal radial load rating, with the ultimate load-to-load rating ratio ranging between
1.27 and 1.79. The nominal thrust load rating for the RSPBs also tends to be conservative, where
the ultimate load-to-load rating ratio ranged between 3.01 and 3.48. For the joint behaviour, the
main source of inelastic deformation was provided by yielding of the pin shaft, and as a result a
reasonable level of joint ductility is exhibited, but the contact between the pin shaft and the
bearing could result in brittle fracture of the bearing. The RSPB joints are also shown to have very
stable load resistance performance under a constant high load level lasting for 1 h. A numerical
study is subsequently conducted, and the deformation and damage mechanism of the joints and
its key components are further analysed. Based on the test data and numerical investigations,
some design recommendations have been proposed for the RSPB joints.

1. Introduction

With diverse structural forms being conceived and constructed over the past few decades, traditional joint types such as welded
joints and plain hinge joints may not be able to meet the ever-increasing demand for special and complex load transfer requirements
at member junctions. In particular, spatial structures (e.g. stadiums, exhibition halls, and airports) and other structures with highly
irregular geometric shapes often require that the member junctions could exhibit both in-plane and certain out-of-plane rotational
exibilities while being able to transfer full axial and shear forces. Conventional plain hinges [1], in the absence of the out-of-plane
rotational exibility, may cause signicant unwanted secondary forces to the adjacent members when the structure is under certain
loading conditions including temperature variation and uneven settlement of the foundations. Ball joints, which are widely con-
sidered in spatial frames and domes [23], could have complex semi-rigid moment-rotation responses. Inaccurate estimation of the
internal member forces and displacements, resulting from the uncertainties of the joint performance, could lead to unsafe design [4].
In addition, ball joints often have a large or moderate rotational stiness, and thus may be unsuitable for applications where pin
behaviour is desirable.
The commercial availability of radial spherical plain bearings (RSPBs) oer an alternative and eective structural joint solution

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: chengfang@tongji.edu.cn (C. Fang).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2017.07.002
Received 5 April 2017; Received in revised form 28 June 2017; Accepted 5 July 2017
1350-6307/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Zhao, X., Engineering Failure Analysis (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2017.07.002
X. Zhao et al. Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (xxxx) xxxxxx

(a)

(b)
Fig. 1. Radial spherical plain bearing (RSPB) joints: a) typical geometric congurations, b) test specimens.

which combines high assembly eciency with favourable load transfer mechanism. A RSPB, as typically shown in Fig. 1(a), is a
ready-to-t precision machine device consisting of a spherically ground inner ring housed in a mating outer ring with no need of extra
rolling elements [5]. The outer ring, rmly embedded within the housing bore of a linking plate, is normally comprised of two
separate half rings for easy accommodation of the inner ring. RSPBs can allow tilt and swivel adjustment motions, and can resist a
large radial-direction load and concurrently a certain level of thrust-direction load. Before being considered for civil engineering
applications, RSPBs are widely used in automobile, aerospace, shipping, and craning industries, where signicant research eorts
have been devoted to their mechanical properties including lubricating strategies and wear resistance. Through detailed 3D nite
element (FE) models, Fang et al. [6] proposed a new theoretical model for calculating the conformal contact pressure in RSPBs. Qiu
et al. [7] investigated the frictional properties of self-lubricating RSPBs with various liners, and conrmed the benecial inuence of
ultrasonic modications on the tribological performances. Lu et al. [8] later found that the motion directions, friction forces and wear
depths could inuence the contact pressures on the liner, and dierent fatigue damage mechanisms of the liner were analysed. The
contact pressure distribution on spherical surfaces of RSPBs used in airplanes was also determined by Germaneau et al. [9], and some

2
X. Zhao et al. Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (xxxx) xxxxxx

important inuential factors, including the tting behaviour, were observed to signicantly change the contact pressure distribution
and thus the performance of the bearings.
While the pioneering applications of RSPBs in civil engineering projects started relatively late, they have already been considered
in a number of landmark buildings and bridges such as Pudong airport (Shanghai), the Harbour Bridge (Barcelona), and the London
Eye [10]. However, no codied design rule is currently available for such joints, nor there are sucient research data. For practical
use, the joints were normally designed based on the nominal load rating of commercial RSPBs, whereas the rationale behind this
design philosophy was not fully justied. In particular, the possible load combinations experienced by civil engineering structures can
be dierent from the load pattern encountered in dierent application elds (e.g. mechanical equipment). The applicability of the
existing RSPB load rating to structural design needs to be carefully assessed, and the ultimate load resistance of the RSPB joints and
the detailed failure mechanism need to be fully understood. Importantly, focus of the previous studies was mainly on the mechanical
properties, especially the high-cycle fatigue and friction responses, of individual RSPBs, whereas the complex interactions between
the RSPBs and the connecting structural components (e.g. ear plate, link plate, pin shaft, locating ring, etc.) have been inadequately
considered, and the associated strength, ductility, and failure modes of the entire joints for civil engineering applications are still
unclear.
This paper sheds considerable light on the failure behaviour of radial spherical plain bearing (RSPB) joints under varying loading
scenarios. A series of experimental studies are carried out rst, and the possible failure modes of RSPB joints under civil engineering
loading scenarios are identied. The strain development responses of the key structural components, including the ear plate, link
plate, pin shaft, and locating ring, are revealed. A numerical study is subsequently conducted to provide a complementary insight into
the deformation, stress distribution, and damage mechanism of the joints and its key components, and the reasons behind these
failures are explained in detail via numerical and analytical tools. Based on the test and numerical data, the safety level of RSPB joints
are commented and a set of preliminary design rules for such joints are proposed accordingly.

2. Test program

2.1. Test phases and specimens

Due to the directly applied loads such as gravity load, wind load, snow load, and seismic action, plus the environmental action
such as temperature variation, RSPBs can be subjected to radial load, thrust load, or a combination of both loads. A RSPB joint can
have dierent failure modes under dierent loading scenarios. In order to fully reveal the structural behaviour of RSPB joints under
various loading conditions, the test program consisted of two phases. The Phase-I test was carried out to evaluate the uniaxial
behaviour of individual RSPBs under either radial or thrust load (the two loading directions are illustrated in Fig. 1(b)), with the main
focus on the nal fractural performance of the RSPBs themselves. This oers important information on Ultimate Limit State (ULS)
design of RSPB joints used in civil engineering structures. Load rating (LR), which is provided directly by the commercial suppliers, is
a widely employed indicator representing the nominal load that a RSPB can safely support without being damaged. However,
currently there is no consistent rationale for determining the nominal load rating, and the value may dier from manufacturer to
manufacturer. A typical way of determining the load rating of a bearing (RSPB is named as bearing in the following discussion for
consistency of terminology) is to monitor the stress condition of the bearing rings, and when the maximum stress achieves the
allowable stress, the load rating is reached [11]. While the nominal load ratings of commercial bearings are readily available through
product manuals, it is essential, from civil engineering point of view, to understand their actual load resistance and safety level. The
Phase-II test provides insights into the strength and behaviour of more practical RSPB joints under combined radial and thrust loads, a
loading scenario which is more common for civil engineering structures. Importantly, the interacted deformation and failure response
of the bearings and the adjacent structural components are fully revealed in the second test phase.
Three RSPB series, i.e. GEG140, GEG120, GEG80, were considered under the Phase-I test program. Each bearing was subjected to
either uniaxial radial or uniaxial thrust load, making a total of six specimens in this test phase. The geometric dimensions of the test
bearings are shown in Fig. 1(b) and are detailed in Table 1. The nominal load ratings under uniaxial radial or thrust load, i.e. LR-ra
and LR-th, respectively, are given in Table 2. For easy reference, the test code starts with the test phase, followed by the bearing type,
and ends with the loading direction (R = radial, and T = thrust). For instance, specimen I-140-R represents a GEG140-series bearing
under uniaxial radial load in the Phase-I test. In the Phase-II tests, two identical RSPB joints, i.e. specimens II-140-RT1 and II-140-
RT2, with dierent loading protocols, were tested, as shown in Fig. 1(b). In order to realistically reect the practical joint detailing
and actual loading conditions, the specimens in this test phase represented typical beam-to-inclined column joints that are used in
spatial structures, especially in airport terminals. The specimens, which were designed based on a prototype airport terminal

Table 1
Geometric dimensions of bearings (unit: mm).

Bearing C R B d D f t

Phase I GEG80 50 57.5 75 80 110 15 16

GEG120 70 90 115 120 210 15 16
GEG140 80 100 130 140 230 15 25
Phase II GEG140 80 100 130 140 230 6 /

3
X. Zhao et al. Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (xxxx) xxxxxx

Table 2
Nominal load ratings of bearings and uniaxial test results.

Bearing type Radial Thrust

LR-ra (kN) Pe-ra (kN) Pe ra Pu-ra (kN) Pu ra LR-th (kN) Pu-th (kN) Pu th
LR ra LR ra LR th

GEG140 6800 6596 0.97 10,992 1.62 7.37 1360 4665 3.43
GEG120 5350 4834 0.90 9600 1.79 12.11 1070 3217 3.01
GEG80 2400 1442 0.60 3050 1.27 12.90 488 1698 3.48

structure [12], are important joints which connect the linking plate supporting the upper steel beam to the ear plate base connected
to the lower inclined column. The Phase-II test specimens generally consisted of a bearing, a cast steel ear plate base connected to a
column, a cast steel linking plate, and a pin shaft. The outer ring of the bearing was embedded (and xed by welding) within the
linking plate. The pin shaft passes through the inner ring and the ear plate base. The edge of the inner ring was positioned matching
the edge of the locating ring of the ear plate base to facilitate the installation of the pin shaft passing through the bore. Tension
coupons with dog bone shapes [13] were cut from dierent components in the test specimens. The typical measured material
properties are summarized in Table 3.

2.2. Test setup and procedures

For the Phase-I specimens under radial load, the test setup was designed such that the load resistance mechanism of the bearing is
similar to that encountered under actual loading cases. As shown in Fig. 2(a), the bearing was embedded within a linking plate, and a
pin shaft was used to connect the bearing to the cast steel ear plate base. Two 1 mm-deep, 20 mm-wide grooves were made on the pin
shaft to postpone its contact with the edge of the RSPB inner ring. The load was applied at a cover plate xed to the linking plate. For
the Phase-I specimens under thrust load, the outer ring of the bearing was simply seated on a cast steel base, and the load was applied
onto a cover plate which was placed above the upper edge of the inner ring. The cast steel base rmly accommodated the outer ring
and to resist the thrust load transferred from the inner ring. For both loading cases, an electro-hydraulic servo actuator was used for
load application, and the load was applied monotonically until failure of the bearing.
For the Phase-II test, the joints were subjected to combined radial and thrust loads. Considering the limits of the lab space and for
ease of load application, the specimens were placed upside down, as typically shown in Fig. 2(b). The radial load was applied through
a vertical actuator located at the top of the vertical column, and concurrently a lower horizontal actuator, located in the vicinity of
the joint zone, was employed to apply the thrust load. An additional upper horizontal actuator was adopted to prevent any horizontal
displacement at that point, such that a fulcrum is formed, and the resulting thrust load applied to the joint can be easily calculated by
deducting the upper actuator reading from the lower actuator reading.
Dierent loading scenarios were considered for the Phase-II test specimens which were designed based on a specic prototype
building, as mentioned before. Specimen II-140-RT1 was tested to examine the responses of the joint under medium to strong design
earthquakes. Based on a preliminary structural analysis on the prototype building, the maximum radial loads experienced by the joint
under medium design earthquake were 5300 kN (Fd-rc) under column compression and 2000 kN (Fd-rt) under column tension, and the
maximum thrust load was Fd-th = 129 kN. Based on the analysis results, a 4-step loading procedure was employed, where both
tension and compression loading scenarios were covered in the proposed loading procedure. A compression load was applied to the
column until 1.2Fd-rc and 1.2Fd-th, which was followed by an unloading process where both the radial and thrust loads decreased to
zero (Test step 1). Subsequently, a tension load was applied to the column until 1.5Fd-rt. and 1.5Fd-th (Test step 2), and then the radial
load was kept constant and the thrust load was increased to 6.5Fd-th to observe the joint performance under high thrust loading
conditions (Test step 3). Finally, after unloading, the compression load was applied again to the column until 1.7Fd-rc and 1.7Fd-th
where the loading capacity of the vertical actuator was achieved (Test step 4). Specimen II-140-RT2 was considered to investigate the
joint response under prolonged high loading levels. Due to the complex combination of various structural components in a RSPB
joint, it is inevitable that very minor radial and thrust clearances exist among these components which are manufactured with
tolerance. As civil engineering structures can be subjected to persistent load, the constant loading scenario was adopted to examine
the possible inuences of clearance on the evolutions of stresses/strains and joint deformation, and to ensure that the joints have
stable load resistance performance. The specimen was rst loaded to 1.0Fd-rc and 1.0Fd-th and then kept for 1 h. Afterwards the load

Table 3
Summary of material properties.

Component Material Young's modulus E (GPa) Yield strength Ultimate strength fu (MPa) Fracture elongation
fy (MPa)

Bearing 40Cr13 219 1375 1520 9%

Pin shaft Phase I 42CrMo4 210 700 900 18%
Pin shaft Phase II 41Cr4 210 630 795 22%
Ear and linking plates GS-20Mn5V 210 325 525 25%

4
X. Zhao et al. Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (xxxx) xxxxxx

(a)

(b)
Fig. 2. Test setup: a) Phase-I tests, b) Phase-II tests.

was further increased to 1.4Fd-rc and 1.4Fd-th, and again, being kept for 1 h before unloading.

2.3. Instrumentations

A series of linear variable dierential transformers (LVDTs) and strain gauge rosettes were employed to monitor the deformation
conditions of the specimens, as typically illustrated in Fig. 3(a) and (b) for the Phase I and Phase-II specimens, respectively. For the
specimens under uniaxial radial load, the rosettes were mainly distributed near the at edge of the inner ring at a 30 interval. For
displacement, four vertical LVDTs were used to measure the overall vertical deformation of the joint. For the specimens under
uniaxial thrust load, the rosettes were distributed over the internal bore surface of the inner ring as well as the at edge of the inner
ring. Four LVDTs, located at the four sides of the cover plate, were employed to measure the relative displacement between the outer

5
X. Zhao et al. Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (xxxx) xxxxxx

(a)

(b)
Fig. 3. Typical instrumentations: a) Phase-I tests, b) Phase-II tests.

and inner rings.

More complex arrangements of instrumentations were adopted for the Phase-II test specimens for understanding the deformation
and yielding behaviour of various structural components. A series of rosettes were mounted on the surfaces (including the edge of the
housing bore) of the linking plate. The strains of the locating ring of the cast steel ear plate base as well as those of the inner ring edge
were also monitored in detail. LVDTs 24 and LVDTs 57 were employed to measure the column displacements (along three di-
rections) at the upper and lower horizontal actuators, respectively. The displacements of the bearing were measured by LVDTs 810.
Other locations of the specimens and the testing frame were also monitored by extra LVDTs.

3. Test results

3.1. Deformation and failure responses

The Phase-I tests focused on the failure responses of the bearings under either uniaxial thrust or radial load. As shown in Fig. 4(a),
the three specimens under uniaxial radial load exhibited similar load-deformation responses. The initial linear part of the load-
deformation curve terminated when the load reached approximately 60% to 100% of the nominal radial load rating (LR-ra). The load
level at which the linear response terminated can be dened as the elastic load resistance Pe-ra, and the Pe-ra/LR-ra ratios of the
specimens are given in Table 2. Beyond Pe-ra, the deformation increased considerably with a moderate increase of the sustained load.
The nonlinear deformation of the specimens was substantially contributed by the combined bending-shear deformation of the pin
shaft, as can be seen in Fig. 4(b). These test observations indicate that the pin shaft and the bearing are highly interacted when the
joint is under radial load. The nal governing failure mode was fracture of the inner ring with an m-shape fractural pattern, as

6
X. Zhao et al. Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (xxxx) xxxxxx

12000 10000

Applied radial load (kN)

10000 8000
1-hour constant load
Applied load (kN)

8000
6000
1-hour constant load
6000

4000
I-140-R
4000
I-120-R
I-80-R 2000
2000 I-140-T II-140-RT1 (test step 1)
I-120-T II-140-RT1 (test step 4)
I-80-T II-140-RT2
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Deformation (mm) Deformation (mm)

(a)

Fracture
Pin
shaft

Fracture of
inner ring

Under uniaxial thrust load

Under uniaxial radial load
(b)
Fig. 4. Typical test results: a) load-deection responses, b) failure modes.

typically shown in Fig. 4(b). The ultimate load (Pu-ra) ranged between 3050 kN and 10,992 kN, corresponding to the Pu-ra/LR-ra ratio
ranging between 1.27 and 1.79.
From an ultimate load point of view, LR-ra was shown to be on the conservative side, but from the perspective of serviceability
limit state, the earlier pin shaft inelastic deformation may prohibit a full utilisation of Pu-ra, especially when one wants to strictly
control the joint deformation. A ductility factor, expressed by = u/y, may be quantitatively used for ductility assessment of the
current specimens. In the expression of ductility factor, u is the joint deformation at ultimate load, and y may be taken as the joint
deformation at the elastic load resistance Pe-ra. As can be seen in Table 2, the obtained values are all greater than 7.0, indicating
that the joints under uniaxial radial load had a reasonable level of ductility.
For the specimens under uniaxial thrust load, the load-deformation curve generally followed a linear response until reaching
approximately twice of the nominal thrust load rating (LR-th). It was noted that at the very beginning of the loading, a relatively low
stiness of the load-deformation curve was found prior to the linear load-deformation response, and this slippage-type deformation
might be related to the non-perfect initial contacting conditions between the sideways of the inner and outer rings (i.e. could be due
to manufacturing tolerance). After the linear load-deformation response stage, minor nonlinear load-deformation response was
observed. Sudden fracture nally occurred in a brittle manner at the outer ring, as shown in Fig. 4(b). The fracture was initiated near
the upper contacting area between the two half outer rings. The ultimate load (Pu-th) of the specimens ranged between 1698 kN and
4665 kN, corresponding to Pu-th/LR-th ratios between 3.01 and 3.48. This indicates that LR-th is very conservative.
In the Phase-II test, the two specimens were subjected to combined radial and thrust loads. Specimen II-140-RT1 behaved almost
elastically when the compression load to column achieved 1.2Fd-rc and 1.2Fd-th (0.94LR-ra and 0.12LR-th). The maximum joint
deformation (i.e. LDVT 9 minus LVDT 6) was around 5 mm, which was mainly contributed by the pin shaft deformation. The typical
compression load vs. deformation response of specimen II-140-RT1 is shown in Fig. 4(a). The loading direction was then reversed
with a maximum tension load of 1.5Fd-rt. and 1.5Fd-th (0.44LR-ra and 0.14LR-th). Again, a linear load-deformation response was

7
X. Zhao et al. Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (xxxx) xxxxxx

generally observed (not shown in the gure), and no visual damage was found to any structural component. Subsequently, the
column axial load was kept constant, and the thrust load was increased to 6.5Fd-th (0.62LR-th). This caused very limited increase of the
joint deformation along the thrust loading direction. Until this stage, the joint generally exhibited an almost linear load-deformation
response when the combined loads were less than the corresponding nominal load ratings.
Finally, the specimen was reloaded under compression. Prior to 1.2Fd-rc and 1.2Fd-th, the load-deformation response were similar
to that observed during the rst round of loading. Nonlinear load-deformation responses started to be shown after 1.2Fd-rc and 1.2Fd-
th, and the joint deformation increased signicantly due to increasing bending and shear deformation of the pin shaft. Fracture of the
RSPB inner ring occurred at 1.7Fd-rc and 1.7Fd-th (1.33LR-ra and 0.16LR-th) with a maximum joint deformation of 12 mm. Again, an
m-shape fractural pattern was exhibited. On the other hand, specimen II-140-RT2 showed a similar load-deformation response to
that observed in specimen II-140-RT1. As shown in Fig. 4(a), the 1 hour-duration constant loading seemed to have negligible in-
uence on joint deformation. No damage was observed for the joint at 1.4Fd-rc and 1.4Fd-th (1.09LR-ra and 0.13LR-th).

3.2. Rosette readings

The local deformation and yielding behaviour of the joints could be further understood via the applied rosettes. In the following
discussions, at each monitored location, the rosette readings are consistently expressed by a single equivalent strain value, namely,
strain intensity (eq), as expressed by:

2
eq = (1 2 )2 + 12 + 22
3 (1)

where 1 and 2 are the two principle strains which can be calculated from the three rosette readings, i.e. 0, 45, and 90 as expressed
by:

1 = 0.5[( 0 + 90) + 2[( 0 45 )2 + ( 45 90 )2] ] (2)

2 = 0.5[( 0 + 90) 2[( 0 45 )2 + ( 45 90 )2] ] (3)

For the Phase-I specimens under uniaxial radial load, high strain levels were found to concentrate near the upper edge of the inner
ring (e.g. T1 and T8, as marked in Fig. 3(a)), recalling that nal bearing fracture occurred near this region. As typically shown by
specimen I-140-R in Fig. 5(a), eq rst increased linearly at these critical locations. At approximately 9700 kN (1.43LR-ra), eq started
to increase more quickly in a nonlinear manner. The inception of quick strain development was induced by rst contact between the
deformed pin shaft and the edge of the RSPB inner ring. It should be noted that the aforementioned load-deformation response
showed that the inelastic deformation of the pin shaft, signied by the nonlinear part of the curve, started at approximately 0.97LR-
ra, which is lower than 1.43LR-ra. This indicates that with the current joint detailing, the inelastic deformation of the pin shaft
occurred rst, and then large contacting force was developed between the deformed pin shaft and the inner ring.
For the specimens under uniaxial thrust load, the strain intensity of the internal bore surface of the inner ring increased almost
linearly with increasing load until sudden fracture of the RSPB outer ring, as typically shown by specimen I-140-T in Fig. 5(b). Due to
a large contacting force induced between the inner and outer ring at the lower part of the ring, the highest eq was recorded in Section
5-5 (i.e. T5T10, as marked in Fig. 3(a)) which experienced signicant yielding prior to bearing failure. Other monitored locations
generally experienced much smaller eq levels. It was of interest to nd that (not shown in the gure) a large tensile strain was
recorded along the thrust direction at the internal bore surface of the inner ring at Section 5-5, whereas for the upper areas (i.e.
Sections 3-3 and 4-4), compressive strain along the thrust direction was exhibited. A detailed explanation will be given through
supplementary numerical studies, as discussed in Section 5.
For the second test phase, the typical strain development conditions during the varied loading steps are shown in Fig. 5(c) through
(f). At 1.0Fd-rc and 1.0Fd-th (0.78LR-ra and 0.10LR-th) during step 1, specimen II-140-RT1 experienced minor local yielding at the cast
steel linking plate (Te1) including the edge of the housing bore (Ta3), as well as the locating ring of the ear plate base (Th1). No
yielding was observed at the inner and outer rings of the bearing. These strain readings generally show satisfactory performance of
the joint under medium design earthquakes. The minor yielding areas stayed localised when the load further increased to 1.2Fd-rc and
1.2Fd-th (0.94LR-ra and 0.12LR-th). At the maximum reversed load (column in tension), i.e. step 2, minor yielding was induced at the
cast steel linking plate (e.g. Ta2 and Ta4) and the locating ring of the ear plate base (Th2), while the bearing stayed elastic. With
subsequent increase of the thrust load, i.e. step 3, the strains increased mildly. At some typical locations, e.g. inner ring (Tc1), linking
plate (Te3), and locating ring (Th2), eq was increased by up to 20% during step 3. This indicates that the thrust load had moderate
inuence on the strain state of the joint. Finally, the joint was loaded to 1.7Fd-rc and 1.7Fd-th (1.33LR-ra and 0.16LR-th), i.e. step 4, and
signicant yielding of the joint was observed. Upon sudden fracture of the bearing, the strains at some locations (e.g. inner ring)
quickly decreased, which was due to stress relief. The maximum eq of the inner ring could achieve 5000 prior to fracture, and
concurrently eq had exceeded 10000 at some other locations, e.g. locating ring. The relatively low fractural strain of the inner ring
echoed the coupon test results that the material for bearing has high strength but relatively low ductility.
Specimen II-140-RT2, which was subjected to constant load, showed a similar load-eq response to that observed in specimen II-
140-RT1. The constant loads at 1.0Fd-rc/1.0Fd-th and 1.4Fd-rc/1.4Fd-th led to limited increase of strain during these constant loading
durations, as typically shown in Fig. 5(g). These results showed that the joint could generally have stabilised load resistance per-
formance when subjected to a high level of prolonged load.

8
X. Zhao et al. Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (xxxx) xxxxxx

14000 6000
I-140-R (a) I-140-T (b)
12000

Applied thrust load (kN)

5000
Applied radial load (kN)

10000
4000

8000
3000
6000

2000
4000
T1 T4
2000
T8 1000 T6
T9 T8
T14 T10
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Strain intensity ( ) Strain intensity ( )
7000 3500
II-140-RT1 (Test step 1) (c) II-140-RT1 (Test step 2) (d)
6000 3000

Applied radial load (kN)

Applied radial load (kN)

5000 2500

4000 2000

3000 1500
Ta3 Ta2
2000 Tb3 1000 Ta4
Tc3 Tc1
1000 Td3 500 Td1
Te1 Tg5
Th1 Th2
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Strain intensity ( ) Strain intensity ( )
1000
II-140-RT1 (Test step 3) (e) 10000
II-140-RT1 (Test step 4) (f)
Applied thrust load (kN)

800
Applied radial load (kN)

8000

600 6000

400 4000
Ta3
Ta4 Tb3
Tc1 Tc3
200 2000
Te3 Td3
Tg5 Te1
Th2 Th1
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Strain intensity ( ) Strain intensity ( )
8000
II-140-RT2 1-hour constant load
7000 (g)
Applied radial load (kN)

6000

5000
1-hour constant load

4000

3000
Ta3
2000
Tb3
Tc3
1000
Td3
Te3
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Strain intensity ( )
Fig. 5. Load-strain responses of specimens.

9
X. Zhao et al. Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (xxxx) xxxxxx

4. Numerical study

4.1. General

After showing satisfactory structural performance of the RSPB joints through the experimental study, a numerical study was
further carried out to oer a complementary insight into the deformation and damage mechanism of the joint and its key compo-
nents. In particular, as the number of rosettes used for the specimens was limited, the numerical models can eectively reveal the
complex stress distributions within the key structural components, and thus enabling further interpretation of the test results and to
help explain some important test phenomena. To highlight the failure mechanisms of the bearing under either radial or thrust loading
scenarios, only typical Phase-I specimens (GEG140 series) were simulated in this study.

4.2. Modelling approach and validation

The general nonlinear nite element (FE) analysis programme ABAQUS [14] was used for the current numerical study. The 8-
node linear brick elements with reduced integration and hourglass control, i.e. C3D8R elements, were employed for the joint
components, including the bearing, pin shaft, linking plate, ear plate, and other necessary supporting members. The general meshing
size was approximately 810 mm, but a rened meshing size of around 45 mm was employed for some critical locations (e.g.
bearing) involving complex contact and large deformation. Hard contact with no penetration in the normal direction was considered
for all the contact pairs, and according to the information from the supplier, a coecient of friction of 0.05 was used for the
contacting pair between the inner and outer rings. For the other contacting pairs, a coecient of friction of 0.2 was assumed
corresponding to the practical treatment of the steel surface [1516]. For computational eciency, a half model was built with an
appropriate boundary condition considered for the symmetrical plane. Other boundary conditions of the models were applied to
reect the actual conditions of the test setup. The basic nonlinear material property of steel was simulated using an isotropic
hardening model with the von Mises yield criterion. The fundamental material properties, including the modulus of elasticity, yield
strength, and ultimate strength, were obtained from the tensile coupon test results. The values of true stress true and true plastic
strain ptrue based on the engineering stresses nom and engineering strains nom obtained from the tension coupon tests were input into
the ABAQUS model, as expressed by:

true = nom (1 + nom) (4)

p
true = ln(1 + nom) true
E (5)

General static solver was employed for the analysis. The general overview of the FE models and the meshing scheme are shown in
Fig. 6(a).
The key structural responses predicted by the FE models are compared with the test results, as typically shown in Fig. 6(b). The
overall load-deformation responses of the specimens are well captured by the FE models, although in some cases a higher initial
stiness is given by the FE results. This is due to the fact that some minor sources of deformation, including possible initial slippage
between various contacting components, could not be suciently reected by the FE models. Nevertheless, the general trend and the
key stages (e.g. elastic and inelastic stages) of the load-deformation history are adequately predicted. In addition, the strain devel-
opment conditions at some critical locations of the bearing are also adequately predicted by the FE models, as shown in Fig. 6(b).

5. Further discussions and design considerations

5.1. Failure mechanism under radial load

Summarizing both the test and FE data, the failure mechanism of the RSPB joints can be further discussed and the critical areas
which are prone to fracture can be fully identied. This oers more detailed information for structural engineers when designing and
assessing the safety level of such joints. All the specimens subjected to radial load shared a common failure mode: brittle fracture of
the edge of the inner ring with an m-shape fractural pattern. The FE model conrms the high strain levels at this region, and the
result also echoes the large strain gauge readings observed in the test specimens. It is revealed by the FE model that the m-shape
fractural pattern results from a combination of three actions, namely, hoop tension action, squeeze action, and bending action. As
shown in Fig. 7, when the edge of the inner ring and the pin shaft contact each other, the inner ring tends to be expanded, causing a
large hoop tensile strain developed in the inner ring, as can be illustrated via the simplied load transfer sketches. The contacting
force also causes signicant compressive strain through the depth of the inner ring (i.e. the squeeze action), an action further
increases the strain demand at this critical area. Concurrently, the deformed pin shaft exerts a bending action to the edge of the inner
ring which acts like a cantilever beam with tensile strain (along the thrust direction) developed in the internal surface and com-
pressive strain in the external surface. The maximum tensile strain is developed at the root of the cantilever. Under the above three
combined actions, the critical area is subjected to a complex multi-directional stress/strain state. The high hoop strain in conjunction
with the high tensile strain at the cantilever root are directly responsible for the m-shape fractural pattern.

10
X. Zhao et al. Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (xxxx) xxxxxx

(a)

14000
14000

12000 12000
Test results:
Applied load (kN)

Applied load (kN)

10000 10000 I-140-R: T1

I-140-R: T8
8000 8000 I-140-R: T7
I-140-R: T9
6000 I-140-T: T6
6000
I-140-T: T8
I-140-T: T10
4000 4000
I-140-R: test FE results:
I-140-T: test I-140-R: T1/T8
2000 2000
I-140-R: FE I-140-R: T7/T9
I-140-T: FE I-140-T: T5-T10
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Deformation (mm) Strain intensity ( )

(b)
Fig. 6. Finite Element (FE) analysis: a) meshing scheme for the models, b) comparison between test and FE results.

5.2. Failure mechanism under thrust load

For the case of uniaxial thrust load, the failure mode was sudden fracture at the upper contacting area between the two half outer
rings. This is further conrmed by the FE results, as shown in Fig. 8. The reason behind this failure mode is the high pressure rst
induced at the lower part of the contacting area between the inner and outer rings. When this pressure is signicant, there is a
tendency that the lower parts of the two half outer rings are slightly separated by the thrusting action from the inner ring. The
separating trend of the two half outer rings must be balanced by a contacting force concentrated at their upper contacting area. This
area is quite small, causing stress concentration which is accompanied by signicant shear dislocation at late loading stages. Failure
nally occurred at this sharp contacting area between the two half outer rings.
Another important nding from the test is the large tensile strain (along the thrust direction) recorded locally at the internal bore
surface of the inner ring at Section 5-5 (e.g. locations of strain gauges T510 as shown in Fig. 3(a)). The FE model rearmed this
nding, as shown in Fig. 9. Although no tensile fracture was directly observed near this area, the high tensile strain level, reaching
more than 10,000 at the failure stage, should receive sucient attention, noting that the material for the bearing is quite brittle
and is thus prone to tensile fracture. The high tensile strain could be explained by a free body diagram shown in Fig. 9. The applied
load P is partially balanced by the vertical component N1 of the contacting force N, where the resulting eccentricity could be
considered by an equivalent additional moment M1 which causes tensile action at the internal bore surface of the inner ring. In
addition, the horizontal component N2 of the contacting force tends to exert a local contraction action to the inner ring (i.e. at zone
B), but this action is restrained by the adjacent zones (i.e. zones A and C), and as a result an extra moment M2 is induced. The
combined moment (M1 + M2) attributes to the high tensile strain of the internal surface at zone B.

11
X. Zhao et al. Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (xxxx) xxxxxx

Fig. 7. Failure mechanism of bearing under uniaxial radial load: a) hoop tension action and hoop stress distribution, b) squeeze action and radial-direction stress
distribution, c) bending action and thrust-direction stress distribution.

5.3. Overall joint response and design comments

The overall behaviour of a RSPB joint depends on the responses of individual components, including the ear plate base, linking
plate, pin shaft, and bearing. It can be seen from the current study that the pin shaft tends to dominate the elastic joint resistance. In

12
X. Zhao et al. Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (xxxx) xxxxxx

Fig. 8. Failure mechanism of bearing under uniaxial thrust load.

P P P P P

N N1 N1 N1
F N1
N2 N2 M1

F1

N2 N2 M2

F2
Fig. 9. Load transfer mechanism and free body diagram of bearing under uniaxial thrust load.

other words, the joint starts to exhibit inelastic deformation when yielding of the pin shaft occurs. Subsequently, a large contact force
is induced between the pin shaft and the inner ring of the bearing, leading to a signicant increase of the stress level and nally brittle
fracture of the bearing. From a practical design point of view, it is desired that the contact between the pin shaft and the bearing
should be avoided such that the function of the bearing, which is made of brittle metal, is safely maintained.
In light of this, it is recommended that failures of the bearing and the pin shaft should not govern the design. For the bearing, in
particular, it is required that the ultimate load capacity should well exceed the maximum design load. The current test program
revealed that the nominal load rating is on the conservative side: the Pu-ra/LR-ra ratio ranges between 1.27 and 1.79 for the specimens
under pure radial load, and when the joints are under combined radial and thrust loads, the Pu-ra/LR-ra ratio is 1.33, which is well
above unity. These results suggest that when radial load dominates (which is true for most typical cases), the nominal load rating
seems to consistently provide a lower bound for the ultimate load capacity. Based on the limited test data, the nominal load rating
may be preliminarily used for strength design and selection criterion of RSPB joints.
For the pin shaft, a simplied shear-bending interaction equation, which is based on a beam analogy and an idealised bending
moment diagram, is given in Eurocode 3 [17]. According to the current test results, the Eurocode 3 method could give unrealistic
predictions. Alternatively, a more comprehensive method was proposed by Wang et al. [18]. Two critical locations, namely, point 1

13
X. Zhao et al. Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (xxxx) xxxxxx

Fig. 10. Illustration of pin shaft response.

and point 2 (as illustrated in Fig. 10), were identied, and it was suggested that the yield resistance of the pin shaft could be derived
by monitoring these two points. Once any of the two points experiences yielding rst, the yield resistance of the pin shaft is deemed to
be reached. Through the analysis of a large number of FE models and employing least-square regression, the yield resistance at the
two points, i.e. F1 and F2, are expressed by:
d f y D3
F1 =
16 { 3L2
4
+ 1

3( + 1) L2

4( + 2) 2 }
+d
(6)
D
F2 = L2 f y
2 (7)
In the above equations, D = diameter of the pin shaft, fy = yield strength of the pin shaft, = 0.1 (2.2 D/L2 + 0.25 L1/
L2) + 0.1, = 0.5 L1 L2/D2 + 0.9, d = 0.326 d/D + 1, = 6.4552 (L1/D)3 12.43 (L1/D)2 + 7.2701 (L1/D) + 1,
and L1, L2, and d are illustrated in Fig. 10. It is noted that d includes the width of the groove (if there is any). According to Wang et al.
[18], the proposed equations could lead to a mean design-to-FE predicted ratio of 1.006 for F1, and the corresponding coecient of
variation (CoV) is 0.032; for F2, the mean design-to-FE predicted ratio is 1.001, and the corresponding CoV is 0.044. These values are
within satisfactory ranges from the perspective of engineering application. According to the above method, the calculated yield
resistances of the pin shaft for specimens I-140-R, I-120-R, and I-80-R are 6341 kN, 4488 kN, and 1828 kN, respectively. Based on the
overall load-deformation curves of the three specimens, the inelastic stage starts at approximately 6596 kN, 4834 kN, and 1442 kN,
respectively (as given in Table 2). A reasonably good agreement is observed between the test and calculated results, and therefore the
method proposed by Wang et al. [18] is preliminarily recommended for pin shaft design.
The ear plate base and the linking plate may be designed as a relatively weak part of the joint. The common failure types of ear
plate base and the linking plate include tensile fracture over the net section, splitting on a single plane beyond the hole, shear on two
planes beyond the hole, bearing failure, and out-of-plane instability (dishing). Through extensive experimental, numerical, and
analytical investigations conducted by various researchers, these responses have now been well understood in the community of
structural engineers. The corresponding design expressions can be found in Eurocode 3 [17] and other relevant studies [1,19], while
the detailed design equations are not repeated in this paper. The lowest strength of these failure modes should govern the ultimate
limit state design of the joints.

6. Summary and conclusions

This paper has revealed the great potential of radial spherical plain bearings (RSPBs) for civil engineering applications. The study
commenced with an experimental investigation looking into the failure behaviour of RSPB joints under various loading scenarios,
including uniaxial radial load, uniaxial thrust load, and combined radial and thrust load. A numerical study was subsequently
conducted, oering a complementary insight into the deformation and damage mechanism of the joints and its key components.
According to the test and numerical studies, the key ndings and conclusions are summarized as follows.

The RSPB joints exhibited dierent failure modes under a radial or thrust loading action. For the former case (or the case where
radial load governs), the nal failure mode was fracture of the inner ring exhibiting an m-shape fractural pattern. This failure
mechanism was further analysed, and it was revealed that the m-shape fractural pattern resulted from a combination of three
actions, namely, hoop tension action, squeeze action, and bending action. For the latter case, sudden fracture occurred at the outer
ring due to the large squeeze action between the two half outer rings.
Conservative predictions are given by the nominal radial load rating (LR-ra), with the ultimate load-to-load rating ratio ranging
between 1.27 and 1.79. The nominal thrust load rating (LR-th) for the bearings also tends to be very conservative, where the
ultimate load-to-load rating ratio ranged between 3.01 and 3.48.
The main source of inelastic deformation of the RSPB joints was contributed by the yielding behaviour of the pin shaft under

14
X. Zhao et al. Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (xxxx) xxxxxx

combined bending and shear actions. The joints generally exhibited a reasonable level of ductility, but at late loading stages, the
direct contact between the pin shaft and the bearing attributed to brittle fracture of the bearing.
The constant loading scenario (1 hour-duration) added no obvious detrimental inuence on the joint response. The joint de-
formation and strain conditions exhibited very limited changes during the constant loading stage.

The ndings from the current study also make contributions to practical design of RSPB joints. Specically, the failure mechanism
revealed in this study provides an important basis for failure sequence control of RSPB joints such that they could be designed with
sucient strength whilst maintaining good ductility. It was suggested that the early contact between the pin shaft and the bearing
should be avoided such that the function of the bearing, which is made of brittle metal, is safely maintained. Therefore, failures of the
bearing and the pin shaft should not govern the design, whereas the ear plate base and the linking plate may be designed as relatively
weak parts of the joint. A comprehensive method for pin shaft design was veried and recommended in this study through com-
parisons against the test results. In addition, the ultimate load-to-load rating ratios obtained in this study are important for de-
termining a consistent reliability factor for strength design and selection criterion of RSPB joints; however, this is beyond the scope of
the current study.

Acknowledgement

The technical support from the Fujian Longxi Bearing Group is gratefully appreciated. The assistance provided by Mr. Shuai Wang
and Mr. Yue Ma in conducting the tests is also gratefully acknowledged.

References

[1] D. Duerr, Pinned connection strength and behaviour, J. Struct. Eng. 132 (2) (2006) 182194.
[2] S.A. Mostafavian, M.R. Davoodi, J.V. Amiri, Ball joint behavior in a double layer grid by dynamic model updating, J. Constr. Steel Res. 76 (2012) 2838.
[3] F. Fan, H. Ma, G. Chen, et al., Experimental study of semi-rigid joint systems subjected to bending with and without axial force, J. Constr. Steel Res. 68 (2012)
126137.
[4] M. Ahmadizadeh, S. Maalek, An investigation of the eects of socket joint exibility in space structures, J. Constr. Steel Res. 102 (2014) 7281.
[5] ISO 12240-1, Spherical Plain Bearings - Part 1: Radial Spherical Plain Bearings, (1998).
[6] X. Fang, C. Zhang, X. Chen, et al., Newly developed theoretical solution and numerical model for conformal contact pressure distribution and free-edge eect in
spherical plain bearings, Tribol. Int. 84 (2015) 4860.
[7] M. Qiu, Y. Miao, Y. Li, et al., Film-forming mechanisms for self-lubricating radial spherical plain bearings with hybrid PTFE/aramid fabric liners modied by
ultrasonic, Tribol. Int. 87 (2015) 132138.
[8] J. Lu, M. Qiu, Y. Li, Numerical analysis of self-lubricating radial spherical plain bearings and investigations on fatigue damage mechanisms of the liner, Tribol.
Int. 96 (2016) 97108.
[9] A. Germaneau, F. Peyruseigt, S. Mistou, et al., 3D mechanical analysis of aeronautical plain bearings: Validation of a nite element model from measurement of
displacement elds by digital volume correlation and optical scanning tomography, Opt. Lasers Eng. 48 (6) (2010) 676683.
[10] Bearing Supports in Buildings and Structures: Our Expertise & Your Benet. Schaeer Group Industry, Internal Report.
[11] X.Q. Yang, S.F. Jiang, The load ratings of spherical plain bearings, Wear 165 (1) (1993) 3539.
[12] J. Zhou, Q.Y. Liu, Y.K. Zhang, et al., Elasto-plastic time-history analysis of the roof structure of shanghai Pudong international airport T2, Building Structure 37
(5) (2007) 5055 (In Chinese).
[13] BS EN ISO 6892-1, Metallic Materials Tensile Testing Part 1: Method of Test at Ambient Temperature, (2009).
[14] ABAQUS Analysis User's Manual, ABAQUS Standard, Version 6.12, (2012).
[15] C. Fang, M.C.H. Yam, A.C.C. Lam, et al., Cyclic performance of extended end-plate connections equipped with shape memory alloy bolts, J. Constr. Steel Res. 94
(2014) 122136.
[16] M.C.H. Yam, C. Fang, A.C.C. Lam, et al., Numerical study and practical design of beam-to-column connections with shape memory alloys, J. Constr. Steel Res.
104 (2015) 177192.
[17] EN 1993-1-8:2005, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures Part 18: Design of Joints. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, (2005).
[18] S. Wang, X. Zhao, Y. Chen, Mechanical behavior and design equation for pins connected plates, Building Structure 39 (6) (2009) 7781 (In Chinese).
[19] R. Aceti, G. Ballio, A. Capsoni, et al., A limit analysis study to interpret the ultimate behavior of bolted joints, J. Constr. Steel Res. 60 (9) (2004) 13331351.

15