TURNER-FAIRBANK HIGHWAY RESEARCH … HIGHWAY RESEARCH CENTER Inspection of Steel Bridge Components...

TURNER-FAIRBANK HIGHWAY RESEARCH CENTERTURNER-FAIRBANK HIGHWAY RESEARCH CENTER

Inspection of Steel Bridge Components using Nondestructive Evaluation

Shane D. Boone, Ph.D. Federal Highway Administration

Pranaam Haldipur, Ph.D. Engineering & Software Consultants, Inc. (ESCINC)

Under FHWA Contract # DTFH61‐08‐D‐00014


1

Slip Testing of Steel Bridge CoatingsJustin Ocel, PhD P.E – FHWA - Author

Office of Infrastructure R&DStructural Steel Research Program Manager

Louis N. Triandafilou, P.E. – FHWA - PresenterOffice of Infrastructure R&D

Team Leader – Bridge & Foundation Engineering Team

Slip Testing of Steel Bridge CoatingsJustin Ocel, PhD P.E – FHWA - Author

Office of Infrastructure R&DStructural Steel Research Program Manager

Louis N. Triandafilou, P.E. – FHWA - PresenterOffice of Infrastructure R&D

Team Leader – Bridge & Foundation Engineering Team


Design of Slip-Critical ConnectionsDesign of Slip-Critical ConnectionsClass A : unpainted clean mill scale, or coating equivalent

Class B: unpainted blast-cleaned surfaces, or coating equivalent

Class C: not relevant to this presentation.


Concerns of a FabricatorConcerns of a FabricatorIf you’re going to paint, you want to avoid masking

So,

The coating (i.e. primer) on the faying surface must meet the assumption of the designer in terms of a slip coefficient (i.e. Class A or B)


Big Deal, Who Cares……Big Deal, Who Cares……Some organic zinc rich coatings no longer meet Class B performance

• Paint manufactures claim no change in formulation

• Paint manufactures blame the testing agencies

• Testing agencies blame the testing specification

“Welcome to my Nightmare on Elm Street” Dee McNeil – Sherwin-Williams


Test ProcedureTest ProcedureAppendix A, “Specification for Structural

Joints Using High-Strength Bolts”


Test MatrixTest Matrix1. Round Robin Testing – 4 labs

• FHWA-TFHRC, KTA-Tator, CCC&L, UT-Austin

2. Five Organic Zinc-Rich Primers• PPG Amercoat 68HS • Sherwin-Williams Zinc-Clad III HS• Carboline Carbozinc 859 • Wasser MC 100 Zinc• International Interzinc 315B

3. Two Thicknesses• +1 mil• +2 mil


Results – Product A (Max +1) - TFHRCResults – Product A (Max +1) - TFHRC

0

10

20

30

40

50

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

Load

(kip

s)

Slip (inches)

A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6X


Results – Product A (Max +1) – CCC&LResults – Product A (Max +1) – CCC&L


Specimen Lab 1 Lab 2 Lab 31 0.460 0.314 0.5072 0.483 0.502 0.5113 0.379 0.531 0.5034 0.463 0.384 0.5115 0.462 0.490 0.507

Average 0.449Class A

0.444Class A

0.508Class B

Results – Product A (Max +1)Results – Product A (Max +1)



Average 0.439Class A

0.483Class A

0.528Class B

Results – Product A (Max +2)Results – Product A (Max +2)



Average 0.530Class B

0.556Class B

Results – Product B (Max +1)Results – Product B (Max +1)


Closing Thoughts on Round RobinClosing Thoughts on Round Robin

We’re still testing every two weeks between the four labs

No firm recommendations as of yet for RCSC consideration, likely better idea by

Summer 2014


15

Slip Coefficient Testing of Metallized/Sealed CoatingsSlip Coefficient Testing of Metallized/Sealed Coatings


What is Metallizing?What is Metallizing?

Profiled Steel Substrate

Slide taken from Joe Bracken (PennDOT) presentation “Galvanizing versus Metallizing of Structural Steel” 2013 QAW in Williamsburg, VA


Test MatrixTest Matrix

Preliminary study looking at slip and creep testing of metallized coatings

• 100% Zn and 85% Zn/15% Al

• w/ and w/o sealer


Specimen Slip Factor100% Zn (avg. 14.8 mil)(unsealed) > 0.780100% Zn (avg. 14.8 mil)(sealed with Carboline Rustbond® EpoxyPenetrating Sealer, avg. 1.4 mil DFT)

0.414(Class A)

85% Zn/15% Al (avg. 14.7 mil) (unsealed) > 0.77185% Zn/15% Al (avg. 14.7 mil) (sealed with Carboline Rustbond®Epoxy Penetrating Sealer avg. 1.2 mil DFT)

0.439(Class A)

Slip ResultsSlip Results


Specimen Creep100% Zn (avg. 14.8 mil)(unsealed) PASS100% Zn (avg. 14.8 mil)(sealed with Carboline Rustbond® EpoxyPenetrating Sealer, avg. 1.4 mil DFT)

FAIL

85% Zn/15% Al (avg. 14.7 mil) (unsealed) PASS85% Zn/15% Al (avg. 14.7 mil) (sealed with Carboline Rustbond®Epoxy Penetrating Sealer avg. 1.2 mil DFT)

FAIL

Creep ResultsCreep Results


Closing Thoughts on Metallizing Slip/CreepClosing Thoughts on Metallizing Slip/Creep

Limited data collected warrants further exploration, Ocel trying to secure internal funding for further

testing


?? Questions ??

[email protected]

?? Questions ??

[email protected]


• Inspection of Transition Butt‐Welds using Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing

• Goal was to compare UT, PAUT, and RT inspection results

• Currently testing three transition butt‐weld specimens

• Protocols for shop and field testing

• Inspection of Multi‐Plate Gusset Connections using Pulsed X‐ray

• NTSB Report

• Protocols for field testing

Overview


Inspection of Transition Butt‐Welds using Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing


4

SCAN PLAN FOR TRANSITION BUTT‐WELDS


SCAN PLAN FOR TEST SPECIMEN TP3


1st Leg data

S-scan view of data from 1st leg

Weld CL

S-SCAN

3.1”


S-scan view of data from 2nd leg

0”

3.3”3.3”

0”

S-SCAN

6.4”


8

PAUT Probe

Volume Corrected C‐scan


9

PAUT Vs RTSpecimen Transition Butt‐weld :TP1


10

PAUT Vs RTSpecimen Transition Butt‐weld : ESW‐1‐2


11

PAUT Vs RTSpecimen Transition Butt‐weld : SAW 1‐2


12

• Specimen TP1: 4 clusters of slag and inclusions and one large inclusion

• Specimen ESW 1‐2 : Two clusters of slag

• Specimen SAW 1‐2 : A cluster of porosity and a cluster of slag.

PAUT Results from Transition Butt Welds


Conclusions and Future Work• Volume corrected C‐scans can be directly correlated to

Radiography

• Demonstrated ability to size flaws accurately using PAUT data.

• Future work will involve inspecting a larger set of butt‐weld and transition butt‐weld specimens with round robin type testing

• Development of protocols for specific weld types and joint configurations.


Inspection of Multi‐Plate Gusset Connections using Pulsed X‐ray


National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)• I‐35W Bridge collapse

– Accident Report NTSB/HAR‐08/03[1] recommendation H‐08‐18 was to: “require that bridge owners assess the truss bridges in their inventories to identify locations where visual inspections may not detect gusset plate corrosion and where, therefore, appropriate Non‐Destructive Evaluation technologies should be used to assess gusset plate condition.”

15


Mockup Specimen, L8 Joint

16


Mockup Specimen, L8 Joint

17


X‐ray Imaging with Pulsed Collimated Source

• Pulsed X‐ray sources produce radiation only when source is active

• X‐rays are highly directional• Sources are portable and can be operated using batteries equivalent to those used in electric screwdrivers

• Orthotropic crystal imaging plates

18


• Each gusset was examined separately• Exploited the flexible plate construction to inspect hard to access regions• Also, angled source when appropriate

– This smears images but allows inspection of hard to access areas


Imaging Results


Conclusions and Future Work• Pulsed X‐ray technique found to be most appropriate for

detection of corrosion damage in multi‐plate gusset members (also tried multiple ultrasonic methods)

• Refine the X‐ray technique to allow for sizing of damage when flexible film is “folded” to fit in areas of limited access

• Evaluate different pulsed X‐ray sources for thicker specimen

• Develop stand‐alone analysis software for both approaches.

23

TURNER-FAIRBANK HIGHWAY RESEARCH … HIGHWAY RESEARCH CENTER Inspection of Steel Bridge Components...

Documents

Transcript of TURNER-FAIRBANK HIGHWAY RESEARCH … HIGHWAY RESEARCH CENTER Inspection of Steel Bridge Components...