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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

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

150Appendix A. Data Collected From Historical StudiesOne of the most comprehensive sets of data acquired on the strength of wroughtiron was completed by David Kirkaldy while he worked at Robert Napier’s VulcanFoundry Works in Glasgow. During this time period, the company was using wroughtiron and steel to construct boilers and pressure vessels and was interested in ensuring thematerials used were strong enough and well understood. Between 1858 and 1861,Kirkaldy completed a series of tensile load tests of common metals used during this time.He published Results of an Experimental Inquiry into the Comparative Tensile Strengthand other properties of various kinds of Wrought-Iron and Steel in 1862.Table A.1 lists the tensile test results of wrought iron bars that Kirkaldy hadreported. In this table the diameter of the bar, tensile strength (psi), and percentelongation of the bars were recorded from Kirkaldy’s publication. The percentelongation reported by Kirkaldy was typically the average of four tensile tests, andtherefore the percent elongation data from every test performed was not available. Alsothe manufacturers of each iron bar was not recorded due to the fact that majority of themanufacturers were from Europe and would not be found in many wrought iron trussbridges throughout the United States.Along with testing wrought iron bar material, Kirkaldy also tested wrought ironplate and angle iron material that was commonly used for construction purposes. TablesA.2 and A.3 include the results from this plate and angle iron testing that were recordedfrom Kirkaldy’s publication. These tables include the thickness and tensile strength ofthe plate and angle iron material tested.Commander L. A. Beardslee U.S.N. was the chairman in charge of a committeethat was appointed in1875 by President U. S. Grant of the United States to complete athorough testing program with the purpose to determine the material properties ofwrought iron. The majority of the material tested in his study was round bar material that
151could be forged into chain link or tension rods in bridges. The committee completedmore than two thousand tests on wrought iron bar material from nineteen differentmanufacturers in the United States. Half of these tests were standard tensile tests wherethe bar specimens were pulled monolithically and resulted in a determination of thetensile strength and other material properties.Table A.4 lists a summary of the results of 959 tensile tests that Beardsleeperformed on different wrought iron bars from different manufacturers that were notrevealed but labeled with a corresponding letter. In this testing he reported the diameter(size) of the bar tested in inches, the name of the iron (manufacturer), the fracturestrength (lbs), the tensile limit (psi), and the elastic limit (psi) were reported. The elasticlimit correlates to a modern day yield strength, but is not as accurate. Beardslee simplyrecorded the load where the first noticeable stretch occurred while testing each specimen.Some of these values were not available for every test due to this inexact method.Percent Elongation was not determined in this set of testing performed by Beardslee.Table A.5 lists the detailed testing results that were completed by Beardslee andthe rest of the committee appointed by U.S. Grant on other iron bars. This table includesthe diameter, original length, percent elongation (per original length), elastic limit (psi),and tensile strength (psi). The manufacturer of each bar tested was not recorded from theoriginal due to the fact that they were unknown and the large amount of data that had tobe collected. The elastic limit and tensile limit were found in the same manner asdescribed in Table A.4. The percent elongation was found by dividing the fracturedlength by the original length.Tables A.6 and A.7 consist of wrought iron tensile strength data that was reportedby Fairbairn (1869) and Humber (1870) respectively. These sources are generalhandbooks that discuss basic concepts of building with wrought iron. In these sourcesthe manufacturer and type of iron that could purchased during the late 19 th century werelisted along with the tensile strength found from testing their material.
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 160 and 161: 140were joined together with a full
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 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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?