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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$MATH 050 Prealgebra Practice Test 1 Introduction to Algebra ...$

$MATH 050 Financial Project Making Money WORK for You! 1. Use a ...$

140were joined together with a full penetration double V butt joint groove weld utilizingE6010 or E7018 SMAW weld metal. The welded test specimens had comparable tensilestrength and yield strength results to the non-repaired specimens, but the percentelongation results from the welded specimens was slightly lower than the otherspecimens.Charpy impact testing was also completed on material from the Bell Ford Bridgeand Adams Mill Bridge. Charpy impact specimens were machined from the eyebars ofthe Bell Ford Bridge in three different orientations. These orientations were LongitudinalNotched to the Side (LS), Longitudinal Notched to the Top (LU), and TransverseNotched (T). A fourth type of Charpy impact specimen was machined from the roundtensile rods of the Adams Mill Bridge. The Charpy impact strength of all the specimens,except for the longitudinal notched to the top, were lower than the base metal Charpy V-notch requirements for fracture critical members of ASTM A36 steel in a Zone 2environment. The transverse specimens did not have an impact strength greater than 3 ftlbs at any temperature.The ends of the eyebars from the Bell Ford Bridge were also investigated toobtain a better understanding of the stress distribution in the connection. To accomplishthis, a finite element analysis of the eye connection was completed along with tensiletesting utilizing strain gages. Both of these methods verified that high stressconcentrations existed directly adjacent to the pin hole, with the second highest stressconcentration being though the shank of the eye connection. When testing to full failure,all the connections failed in the shank.A filler weld repair for severe section loss from corrosion in an eyebar connectionwas also investigated in this study. Two eyebar end connections were modeled with twodifferent types of section loss and then repaired using a filler weld procedure. Both therepaired eyebar end connections were then tested in tension until failure, where they bothfractured in the shaft of the eyebar.
1416.2 ConclusionsBased upon information gathered through the literary search and the experimentaltesting program, a number of conclusions about wrought iron material properties andsuitable repair procedures were obtained.1. Wrought iron mainly consists of ferrite particles with numerous deposits ofimpurities due to the manufacturing process. In this process iron ore is heateduntil it is in a pasty condition and then squeezed and rolled into shapes used forconstruction purposes. Since the iron ore is never heated to a fluid condition,many impurities become imbedded throughout the metal. These impurities,which are mostly categorized as slag, or iron oxide, are dispersed in elongateddeposits throughout the iron leading to a fibrous structure in the metal. This leadsto lower strength than most common steels.2. The average tensile strength from materials testing completed in this study was47,000 psi, while the tensile strength found from historical sources was 54,000psi. The lower second standard deviation for the tensile strength of wrought ironfrom historical sources was 40,000 psi. This means that 97.7% of the historicalwrought iron specimens have tensile strengths greater than this value and it maybe a conservative estimate for the tensile strength of wrought iron in existingbridges.3. The percent elongation data from the tensile coupons machined from the damagedeyebars from the Bell Ford Bridge were much lower than the percent elongationof the testing coupons machined from the replaced diagonal tension rods from theAdams Mill Bridge. This may be due to the amount of plastic strain that wasinduced during the collapse of the bridge. This overload condition may havedepleted the amount of plastic strain available and, therefore effectively reducedthe ductility and the resulting percent elongations.
Page 1 and 2:
Purdue UniversityPurdue e-PubsJTRP
Page 3:
1. Report No. 2. Government Accessi
Page 6 and 7:
epairing a bent wrought iron tensio
Page 8 and 9:
vPageCHAPTER 3TEST PROCEDURES FOR M
Page 10 and 11:
ixLIST OF FIGURESFigurePageFigure 1
Page 12 and 13:
xiFigurePageFigure 3.30 Top View of
Page 14 and 15:
xiiiFigurePageFigure 5.12 Typical T
Page 16 and 17:
xvAppendix FigurePageFigure D.7 Ini
Page 18 and 19:
viiiAppendix TablePageTable A.5 Det
Page 20 and 21:
iiiThe authors would also like to t
Page 22 and 23:
2but also what material properties
Page 24 and 25:
4microstructure of the metal. The c
Page 26 and 27:
62. LITERATURE SEARCHBefore experim
Page 28 and 29:
8imperfections, the performance of
Page 30 and 31:
10wrought iron. Adding the slag aft
Page 32 and 33:
12method for manufacturing wrought
Page 34 and 35:
14patents for their process and tra
Page 36 and 37:
16This method of testing of structu
Page 38 and 39:
18plot of this percent elongation d
Page 40 and 41:
20significant variation in the perc
Page 42 and 43:
22The practice of restoring histori
Page 44 and 45:
24Elleby, Wallace W. Sanders, F. Wa
Page 46 and 47:
26From all the surveys that were di
Page 48 and 49:
28Table 2.1 Average Ultimate Streng
Page 50 and 51:
30Figure 2.3 Wrought Iron “Sponge
Page 52 and 53:
32Histogram of Kirkaldy Wrought Iro
Page 54 and 55:
34Percent Occurance in Range - %45.
Page 56 and 57:
3660Combined Wrought Iron BarsTensi
Page 58 and 59:
38The Bell Ford Bridge consisted of
Page 60 and 61:
40Two. These samples were taken fro
Page 62 and 63:
42specimens were of constant cross
Page 64 and 65:
44Along with rectangular tensile co
Page 66 and 67:
46After the initial test loading wa
Page 68 and 69:
483.6 Fatigue TestingTo develop a b
Page 70 and 71:
50The final specimen category consi
Page 72 and 73:
52This analysis was completed using
Page 74 and 75:
54After the initial test was comple
Page 76 and 77:
56completed, but before the surface
Page 78 and 79:
58readings, load cell readings and
Page 80 and 81:
60Figure 3.3 Donated Eyebars 4 and
Page 82 and 83:
62Figure 3.7 Heated Areas in Blue o
Page 84 and 85:
64Figure 3.11 Detail Used in Groove
Page 86 and 87:
66900080007000y = 27.153xR 2 = 0.99
Page 88 and 89:
68Figure 3.19 Charpy Impact Testing
Page 90 and 91:
70Figure 3.23 Eyebar Connection in
Page 92 and 93:
72Figure 3.27 Eyebar A After Filler
Page 94 and 95:
74Figure 3.31 Side View of Finished
Page 96 and 97:
76Figure 3.35 Front View of Eyebar
Page 98 and 99:
78strength from the existence of pe
Page 100 and 101:
80The carbon content present in the
Page 102 and 103:
82value may not be very accurate bu
Page 104 and 105:
84strengths was found to be 29,940
Page 106 and 107:
86wrought iron bars were investigat
Page 108 and 109:
88stresses are induced. These perma
Page 110 and 111: 90toughness the material. The test
Page 112 and 113: 92From the finite element analysis,
Page 114 and 115: 94Table 4.1 Chemical Analysis of Ey
Page 116 and 117: 96Table 4.3 Tensile Coupon Test Res
Page 118 and 119: 98Table 4.5 Charpy Impact Test Resu
Page 120 and 121: 100Table 4.7 Comparison of Strain G
Page 122 and 123: 102Figure 4.1 Typical Micrograph of
Page 124 and 125: 104Figure 4.5 Fracture Surface of D
Page 126 and 127: 106Comparison of Tensile Strengthfo
Page 128 and 129: 108Combined Wrought Iron Bar Histor
Page 130 and 131: 110Figure 4.17 Macrograph of Weld u
Page 132 and 133: 112Figure 4.21 Cleavage Fracture of
Page 134 and 135: Figure 4.25 Elongation of Hole in E
Page 136 and 137: 116signs on or near the bridge that
Page 138 and 139: 118testing of historic wrought iron
Page 140 and 141: 120so that they would act in symmet
Page 142 and 143: 122The reasons for the differences
Page 144 and 145: 124The second corrosion pattern mod
Page 146 and 147: 126Keating (1984) stated that the s
Page 148 and 149: 128charcoal fire until it is red ho
Page 150 and 151: 130Figure 5.3 Picture of Bottom Cho
Page 152 and 153: 132Figure 5.7 Using Force After Usi
Page 154 and 155: 134Figure 5.11 Reassembling a Pin C
Page 156 and 157: 1366. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPL
Page 158 and 159: 138rectangular in shape. These eyeb
Page 162 and 163: 1424. The Charpy impact energy of t
Page 164 and 165: 144connections are unsymmetrical, i
Page 166 and 167: 146LIST OF REFERENCESAASHTO (1998).
Page 168 and 169: 148Hodgkinson, Eaton (1840). Experi
Page 170 and 171: 150Appendix A. Data Collected From
Page 172 and 173: 152Table A.1 Wrought Iron Bar Tensi
Page 174 and 175: 154Table A.1 (continued) Wrought Ir
Page 176 and 177: 156Table A.2 (continued) Wrought Ir
Page 178 and 179: 158Table A.3 Wrought Iron Angle Ten
Page 180 and 181: 160Table A.4 (continued) Summary of
Page 182 and 183: 162Table A.4 (continued) Summary of
Page 184 and 185: 164Table A.5 (continued) Detailed I
Page 204 and 205: 184Table A.7 Tensile Strength Data
Page 206 and 207: 186Table B.1 Example Historic Wroug
Page 208 and 209: 188DepartmentofTransportationIf you
Page 210 and 211:
190CountyIf your organizationdoes m
Page 212 and 213:
192County 16: County bridge inspect
Page 214 and 215:
194State 13: Included in original d
Page 216 and 217:
196Figure C.1 Diagrams Showing Loca
Page 218 and 219:
198Figure C.3 Heating of Eyebar fro
Page 220 and 221:
200Figure C.7 Double V Butt Joint u
Page 222 and 223:
202Figure C. 11 Welded Tensile Coup
Page 224 and 225:
204Figure C.15 Tensile Coupon from
Page 226 and 227:
206Figure C.19 Cooling Bath with Su
Page 228 and 229:
208Figure C.23 Side View of Eyebar
Page 230 and 231:
210Figure C.27 Eyebar End Connectio
Page 232 and 233:
212Appendix D. Welding Procedure fo
Page 234 and 235:
214D.2 Filler Weld for Eyebar Conne
Page 236 and 237:
216Figure D.1 Weld Joint Detail Use
Page 238 and 239:
Figure D.5 Completed Weld Before Su
Page 240 and 241:
220Figure D.7 Initial Pass Pattern
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?