Robert J. Connor Ryan Sherman Francisco Martin Will ...
Transcript of Robert J. Connor Ryan Sherman Francisco Martin Will ...
Robert J. Connor
Ryan Sherman
Matt Hebdon
Francisco Martin
Will Collins
Jason Lloyd
AASHTO SCOBS
Saratoga Springs, NY
April 20, 2015
Projects Underway
TPF-5(238) - Design and Fabrication
Standards to Eliminate Fracture Concerns
in Steel Members Traditionally Classified
as FCMs
TPF-5(253) - Evaluation of Member Level
Redundancy in Built-up Steel Members
Projects Underway
NCHRP Project 12-87a – Looking at
System Analysis of FC Bridges
NSBA/AISI Twin Tub Girder FC Analysis
Integrated Fracture Control Plan
Must recognize and accept:
Defects exist
Bridges experience variable loading
Materials are variable
Inspection methods have limitations
Components of Integrated FCP:
Material properties
Fabrication guidelines
In-service inspections
Design considerations
Outcomes of Integrated FCP
Confidence/Life Safety
Treat fracture like any other limit state
○ Statistical understanding of fracture behavior
Pf and β can equivalent to other limit states
○ Approach fracture like all limit states in LRFD
Economic
Reduce required “hands-on” inspections
○ Set rational interval w/o compromising reliability
Better allocation of inspection resources
FCP Considerations: Material Variability
Scatter in toughness data
FCP Considerations: Material Variability
Scatter in toughness data
Statistical characterization possible
FCP Considerations: In-service Inspections
Probability of Detection (POD)
POD Testing
TPF 5(253) - “Evaluation of Member Level
Redundancy in Built-up Steel Members”
Project Update – April 2015
Member-level Redundancy
Built-up members
Consist of several individual components
○ Could prevent cracks from propagating through
entire member
Common strategy in other industries to reduce
complete member fracture susceptibility
Not explicitly accounted for in highway bridges
○ (though we know it exists)
TPF 5(253) - “Evaluation of Member Level
Redundancy in Built-up Steel Members”
Establish fracture resistance and remaining
fatigue life AFTER one component fails
Testing Method:
Crack a component Controlled location (angle/cover plate)
○ Notch specimen
○ Not looking at initial fatigue life – already documented
Grow crack in fatigue
Cool beam to AASHTO Zone 3 temp. Much colder often used (-100F)
Load to induce a fracture If no fracture, repeat
Fatigue ‘failed’ beam to determine fatigue resistance after a component fails
Test Setup
Cooling Chamber
-60°F (Zone 3)
Sometimes much less!!
Specimen Preparation
Riveting
Experimental Research Program
Test specimens
20
Specimen sizes
23” Web Plate Specimen L5x3½”x3/8” flange angles
1/2” or 5/8” single cover plate
46” Web Plate Specimen L6x6x3/4” flange angles
3/4” single cover plate
36” Web Plate Specimen L6x6x3/4” flange angles
3/4” double cover plate
30” Web Specimen L6x6x3/4” flange angles
1” single cover plate
Load Redistribution as Cracks
Grow in First Component
Very difficult to get cracks to “fracture” on their own
26 “attempts”
1 “natural” fracture
4 induced with – driven wedges (“Mr. Fracture”)
No fractures “jumped” into uncracked components
Strain measurements and FEA point to load redistribution
Cracked component sheds load to stiffer uncracked
components
Not simple “P/A” fracture mechanics problem
Lack of Fracture not due to High Toughness
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Ene
rgy,
ft-
lbs
Temperature, Deg F
CVN Data – 23-1, 23-2, 23-3, 46-1, 46-2
Plate A (36-48FL)
Plate B (23FL)
Plate C (36-48CP)
Plate D (23-1/2CP)
Plate E (23-5/8CP)AASHTO SPEC.
Zone 3
Zone 2
Zone 1
CVN @
Temp of
Tests
Alternative Method to Inducing Fracture
Developed
Alternate fracture method
Hardfacing weld rod
○ Hard material (Rc = 59)
○ Low toughness
○ Microcracks form to relieve residual stresses
24
“Mr. Fracture”!
Test on Girder Specimen
Failure Mode of 1st Component
Specimen
# of
Fracture
Attempts
Method Failure Mode of
1st Component
Fracture Prop. to
Uncracked
Components?
23-1 4 Fatigue Crack Growth Fatigue NO
23-2 4 Fatigue Crack Growth Fatigue NO
23-3 1 Fatigue Crack Growth Fatigue NO
36-1 4 Fatigue Crack Growth* Fatigue NO
36-2 1 Hardfacing Weld Fuse Fatigue NO
36-2b 3 Driven Wedges Fracture NO
36-3 1 Driven Wedges Fracture NO
36-4 1 Driven Wedges Fracture NO
46-1 1 Fatigue Crack Growth Fatigue NO
46-2 1 Fatigue Crack Growth Fatigue NO
46-3 1 Fatigue Crack Growth Fracture NO
46-4 3 Driven Wedges Fracture NO
28
Fatigue Life
With Previous Research
29
Drilled Holes
Punched
Holes
Out-of-plane Behavior
Specimen 46-5
46” web plate, L6x6x¾” Flange Angles,
¾” Cover Plate
Severed Flange Angle
Loaded to 0.55Fy of
original net section
0.034” Out-of-plane
deflection (~1/32”)
30
Severed Flange Angle
Web Plate
Girder Bottom Flange
Finite Element Modeling Stress distribution
31
Failed flange angle
Results to Date
No fractures “jumped” into uncracked
components
“Natural” fracture of 1st primary component in
only 1 case
Larger member (proportions) being
investigated in FEA and experimental
○ e.g. 1”+ thick CP)
Results to Date
Cat D for drilled holes after 1st component failure
Worse for punched
FEA parametric studies for Sr calculation in process
Effect of unsymmetric failure
Does not appear to be an issue
Evaluation approach may be as simple as:
SrAF = SrNETKbKg
Check Mc/InetAF - simple software developed
Calculation of rational inspection interval
assuming one component failed If not infinite life, hands inspection at extended (calculated)
interval appropriate
Redundancy Evaluation Software
Redundancy Evaluation Software
Redundancy Evaluation Software
Proposed Deliverable Timeline
Focus on wrapping up work on riveted
members subjected to flexure
Deliver draft evaluation guidelines to FHWA / T-
18 / T-14 for consideration in Summer 2015
Include inspection guidance
Work on bolted members to continue
Investigating different plate geometry
Wrap up bolted early 2016
Proposed Deliverables
Axial (truss) members
TPF panel requested testing of axial
members
Behavior may be different than
bending
2,000 kip capacity machine in
fabrication
Will be utilized by both
TPF-5(253) and TPF-5(238)
Questions?
Steel
Bridge
Research
Inspection
Training
Engineering
S-BRITE Status
Unique Training
Environment
Various Components
I-35W
Components
Lafayette St. Bridge Fractured Girder (Minnesota)
Even Complete
Bridges
2015 Planned S-BRITE Activities
Continue with training
New courses for 2015 “Implementing Effective Retrofits in Selected Steel
Bridge Details” ○ Includes hands-on retrofit implementation
“Welding 101”
Continue with DEN
Proposed pooled fund tasks Virtual Bridge Inspection Pilot Study
Development of Tools for Corrosion and Damage Measurement using 3D Imaging
Roll out “Steel Property Material Archive”
Development of Tools for Corrosion and
Damage Measurement using 3D Imaging
Virtual Bridge Inspection Pilot Study
Steel Property Material Archive