Evaluation and Repair of Wrought Iron and - Purdue e-Pubs ...

93measurements were taken of the holes to determine the amount of elongation: onemeasured the diameter of the pin hole parallel to the direction of loading, the secondmeasured the diameter of the hole perpendicular to the direction of loading. These pindiameter measurements are provided in Table 4.9. The average pin hole elongationparallel to the direction of loading was 5.6%, while the average contraction perpendicularto the loading direction was 1.3%.4.8 Repaired Eyebar Connection Testing ResultsTwo eyebar connections were machined to model severe corrosion that might befound on a typical member from an existing historic wrought iron bridge and thenrepaired. These eyebar connections were repaired by filling in the modeled corroded areawith filler weld material. Eyebar A was modeled after typical corrosion along the edge ofan eyebar connection, while Eyebar B was modeled after severe corrosion across the faceof the eyebar connection. The procedure utilized for this repair is further explained inChapter 3.To determine if the repair was adequate, these eyebars were tested using a similarmethod as the testing method utilized for the non-repaired eyebar connections. The maindifference in the testing methods was that the strains around the face of the eyebarconnection were not recorded for the repaired eyebar connections.Both repaired eyebar connections were loaded until failure. Both connectionspecimens fractured in the shank of the eyebar connection, proving that the repair wassuitable. The first eyebar connection, Eyebar A failed at a higher stress than the second(Eyebar B). Similar to the non-repaired eyebar connections, the elongation of the pinholes were measured and recorded. The results from these two tests can be seen inTables 4.8 and 4.9.