Evaluation and Repair of Wrought Iron and - Purdue e-Pubs ...
Evaluation and Repair of Wrought Iron and - Purdue e-Pubs ... Evaluation and Repair of Wrought Iron and - Purdue e-Pubs ...
86wrought iron bars were investigated, because this material was commonly used for bridgeconstruction.The tensile strengths from the testing and historical data can be seen in the plot inFigure 4.12. In the plot, the results from the tensile testing conducted for this study fallbelow the mean found for the historical data and mostly are near the lower standarddeviation of this data. All of the testing results except for one, were above the secondstandard deviation from the mean of the historical data. For a set of data, sixty-eightpercent of the data falls within one standard deviation of the mean and ninety-five percentfalls within the second standard deviation. This second standard deviation of 40,000 psicould be used as a conservative estimate of the tensile strength of historic wrought iron.The percent elongation values collected from historic data were also compared tothe percent elongation values found in this study. Figure 4.13 is a plot of these two datasets. In this plot, the data collected from the round test specimens taken from the AdamsMill Bridge were plotted separate from the rectangular eyebar test specimens taken fromthe Bell Ford Bridge. The percent elongations from the round specimens were generallygreater than the average percent elongation of the historical data. All of the percentelongations of the round samples, except one, were greater than one standard deviationless than then mean of the percent elongations for the historical data.The percent elongation results for the rectangular specimens were considerablylower than for the round specimens. Most of the rectangular specimen percent elongationresults were less than one standard deviation lower than the mean of the historical data,and a few were less than the second standard deviation. As previously mentioned, it isbelieved that these low percent elongations are the result of damage that these specimensendured during the collapse of the Bell Ford Bridge. Since many bridge members enduredamage and are repaired and reused, the second standard deviation could be used as apossible minimum value of percent elongation for historic wrought iron.
874.4.4 Results of the Heat Straightened SpecimensFour of the rectangular tensile testing specimens were heat straightened beforethey were tested. The procedure that was used to heat straighten these tensile couponspecimens was outlined in Chapter 3. These specimens were machined from the BellFord Bridge material and, therefore, were compared to the tensile specimens taken fromthe same bridge that were not heat straightened.When comparing the tensile strength and yield strength of the heat straightenedspecimens to the regular (not heat straightened) specimens, little difference in the valueswas observed. Figure 4.14, for example, illustrates the tensile strength values.Moreover, if the percent elongations of the heat straightened specimens is compared tothe regular specimens, there is again very little effect on the specimen ductility, as Figure4.15 demonstrates.4.4.5 Results of the Mechanically Straightened SpecimenOne of the tensile coupon specimens from the Bell Ford bridge was mechanicallystraightened. The procedure utilized in straightening this bar without heat was presentedin Chapter 3. The properties of the mechanically straighten bar were compared to theother non treated bars from the Bell Ford bridge. The tensile strength of the mechanicallystraightened bar was only 37,500 psi and the percent elongation was only 3.1%. Figure4.16 is a plot of the percent elongations from all the tensile coupons with the result fromthe mechanically straightened bar highlighted. As the plot indicates, the percentelongation for this specimen is considerably lower than any other specimen results.The lack of ductility and tensile strength in this specimen is directly related to theeffects induced from mechanically straightening the bar. When straightening the bar, thecold metal is forced past the yield stress until permanent deformations and residual
- 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 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
874.4.4 Results <strong>of</strong> the Heat Straightened SpecimensFour <strong>of</strong> the rectangular tensile testing specimens were heat straightened beforethey were tested. The procedure that was used to heat straighten these tensile couponspecimens was outlined in Chapter 3. These specimens were machined from the BellFord Bridge material <strong>and</strong>, therefore, were compared to the tensile specimens taken fromthe same bridge that were not heat straightened.When comparing the tensile strength <strong>and</strong> yield strength <strong>of</strong> the heat straightenedspecimens to the regular (not heat straightened) specimens, little difference in the valueswas observed. Figure 4.14, for example, illustrates the tensile strength values.Moreover, if the percent elongations <strong>of</strong> the heat straightened specimens is compared tothe regular specimens, there is again very little effect on the specimen ductility, as Figure4.15 demonstrates.4.4.5 Results <strong>of</strong> the Mechanically Straightened SpecimenOne <strong>of</strong> the tensile coupon specimens from the Bell Ford bridge was mechanicallystraightened. The procedure utilized in straightening this bar without heat was presentedin Chapter 3. The properties <strong>of</strong> the mechanically straighten bar were compared to theother non treated bars from the Bell Ford bridge. The tensile strength <strong>of</strong> the mechanicallystraightened bar was only 37,500 psi <strong>and</strong> the percent elongation was only 3.1%. Figure4.16 is a plot <strong>of</strong> the percent elongations from all the tensile coupons with the result fromthe mechanically straightened bar highlighted. As the plot indicates, the percentelongation for this specimen is considerably lower than any other specimen results.The lack <strong>of</strong> ductility <strong>and</strong> tensile strength in this specimen is directly related to theeffects induced from mechanically straightening the bar. When straightening the bar, thecold metal is forced past the yield stress until permanent deformations <strong>and</strong> residual