Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Jhamb1971 Effect

    Uploaded by

    mggll
    9 views29 pages

    Original Title

    jhamb1971 effect

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views29 pages

    Jhamb1971 Effect

    Uploaded by

    mggll

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 29
    SP 41-7 Effect Of Surface Characteristics On Fatigue Strength of Reinforcing Steel By LLC. Jhamb and J.G. Mac Gregor Synopsis: An experimental investigation vas undertaken to study the effect of the deformations, decarburization of bar surface, rust and mill scale and grade of steel on fatigue strength of reinforcing bars under repeated axial loading in air. The experimental data was analysed statistically. The test results suggest there are significant decreases in the fatigue strength due to the deformations and the decarburization or roughness of the bar surface. No influence of rust and mill scale was observed, however, The grade of steel had no influence on the fatigue strength of deformed bars, while as-rolled plain specimens showed some increase in strength with grade and specimens machined from the center of deformed bars showed a linear increase in fatigue strength with the grade. Keywords: axlal loadss bars; deformations (reinforcing steels); fatigue (materfals); fatigue tests; flexural strengt! reinforcing Steels; rusting; surface roughness, 139 140 fatigue of concrete “WeI-weaber Tshwar C. Jhamb is a Materials mngineer with Grace Construc— tion Materials Ltd., Edmonton, Canada. He obtained a B.E. degree from University of Jodhpur, India, an M.E. (Honors) degree from the University of Roorkee, India and a Ph.D. degree fron the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. Currently, he is engaged in the development and marketing of construction materials. ACI member James G. MacGregor is Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. In 1972 Dr. MacGregor was co-recipient of the Wason and Reese medals. Currently, he is Chairman of ACI~ASCE Conmittee 426, Shear and Diagonal Tension, and a menber of the ACI Board of Direction. INTRODUCTION The surface characteristics of @ structural member have been found to have a pronounced influence on its fatigue strength because the stress is usually greatest on the surface, particularly when stress concentrations are present. The test series reported in this paper attempts to statistically quantify the influence of deformations, surface decarburization, rust and mill scale and grade of steel on the fatigue strength of one type of hot rolled reinforcing bars. PROPERTIES OF REINFORCEMENT Manufacturing Process, Geometrical, Physical ‘and Chenical Properties Plain and deforned No, 8 bars (25 mm diam.) of Grade 40 and 60 were used in this investigation. The deformed bars met the ASTM spec~ Affcations A615-68 (1). All the bars were manufactured by the hot rolling process from the billets produced from steel serap in a continuous casting electrical furnace. The deformed bars of both grades were rolled in two successive passes through the rolls and therefore had essentially identical deformations. Because the rolls were newly machined, the deformations were extremely sharp. In a similar manner the plain bars of Grade 40 and 60 were rolled in two successive passes through round bar rolls. The deformed bars had tvo longitudinal lugs and uniformly spaced parallel transverse lugs inclined at 75° to the bar axis. In each case the transverse lugs merged into the longitudinal lugs. The geometrical dimensions and unit weights of the bars are given in Table 1, The bars resembled those shown in References 2 and 3. Three reinforcing bars of each grade and bar type were tested in tension to determine the mechanical properties of the bars. The stress strain curves for the plain and deformed bars are shown in Fig. 1. The laboratory test data is sumarized in Table 2. This table also contains the yield and tensile strengths of specimens machined from surface characte 141 the center of the plain asrrolled bars. Although the steel in the plain and deformed bars of each grade came from successive billets and had essentially the same chemistry, the strength and ductility of the plain bars was always greater than that of the deformed bars» Chemical analysis were carried out for all elements except carbon and sulphur using an emission spectrograph. The carbon and sulphur analyses were done separately. The results are given in Table 3. Structure of Reinforcing Steels The macro and microstructure was studied for the four types of bars used in this project. The macrostructure of the steels revealed nonuniformity of the metal structure in the cross-section of the bar. Evidence of segregation in the ingot in all steels was indicated by wide banding near the center of the bar. Such variation in the struc~, ture is quite conmon with rolled steels. The non-metallic inclusions Present were not excessive and their influence on fatigue strength is Probably not significant since they were oriented in the direction of the stress. The grain structure was uniform except close to the surface, The austenitic grain size increased with an increase in grade (2). Grain sizes measured using the comparison technique and the grains per unit area method are listed in Table 2. Photomicrographs are given in Figure 2 for both grades of steel. Metallographical observations also disclosed a zone of decarburi~ zation and oxidation close to the bar surface. Decarburization of steel occurs due to the grain boundary oxidation which usually occurs on the billet surface while in the furnace. The presence of the oxide layer and the decarburized zone may significantly lower the fatigue strength of reinforcing bars (2,4,5,6). The decarburization of steel was determined by Knoop micro-hardness tests and carbon analyses. Photo-micrographs showing Knoop indentations on the bar cross- section close to the surface and the corresponding Knoop Hardness Numbers are given in Figure 3. The horizontal scale is the sane in the graph and the indent micrograph of this figure. It may be noted that hardness of the decarburized surface was much lover than in the center of the bars. The decarburized surface was much lower than in the center of the bars. The decarburized zone shown in the indent photo-micrograph and that estimated from micro-hardness results agreed closely. Carbon analyses of the surface layers of the plain bars were made in the laboratory at the Stelco plant in Ednonton. The bar surface was machined off in layers. Five cuts of 0.002 inch (.05 mm) and eight cuts of .005 inch (.127 mm) were made taking care to avoid contamination of the cuttings, The cuttings from each cut were sealed in separate containers and sent for carbon analyses. The results of carbon analyses given in Figures 3(a) and 3(b) show that carbon contents as low as 0.16% and 0.21% were measured at the surfaces of the Grade 40 and 60 bars, respectively. The carbon content was lowest at the bar surface, increased towards the bar center and became equal to the carbon content of the bar steel at the inside edge of the 142 fatigue of concrete decarburized zone. From the hardness tests and the carbon contents, the tensile strength of the outer surface of the bars can be estimated to be 62 ksi (4360 k,f/en*) ‘and 70 ksi (4920 k,f/em*) for the Grade 40 and 60 bars respectively. The fatigue specimens investigated had three basic surfaces: a rolled, rolled with rust and mill scale removed, and machined and polished. The roughness of these three surfaces was measured using a "talysurf 4" surface measuring instrument consisting of a sharply pointed stylus, an electrical pickup and a graph recorder. Typical surface trace records for three surfaces are presented in Reference 3. The roughnesses were expressed in terms of equivalent CLA values ( a measure of roughness) (7). The surface roughness of as-rolled surfaces with and without rust and mill scale were found to be about the sane having CLA values ranging between 250 to 400. CLA values for the machined polished specimen varied from 12 to 14. TESTING PROGRAM, SPECIMENS AND PROCEDURE Experimental Design A total of 88 No. 8 bar specimens and 32 plain machined specimens were tested in air under repeated loading. The object of the fatigue teste vas to determine the influence of the deformations, tust and mill scale, decarburization and grade of steel on the fatigue strength at Jong life, arbitrarily defined as 3 million cycles. The test program consisted of a two-way complete factorial design with 8 cells, combining two grades of steel and four surface conditions, The grade of steel, bar surface characteristics, and minimum stre were kept constant for a given cell. The cells were divided into four sub-cells, each consisting of four specimens tested with the same maximum stress to provide information on the distribution of fatigue life of bars under the same maximum and minimun stress levels. The four sub-cells in a cell provided data for constructing an S-N diagram for that steel. A randomization procedure was adopted in the test program to minimize the effects of possible bias due to sampling, test sequence, machine and operator. The outline of the experimental design is given in Reference 3. Six of the 88 No, 8 bar specimens were Grade 40 bars from the sane material tested in Reference 2. These tests were intended to compare the fatigue strengths of bars in air to those in concrete beams under identical stress conditions. Testing Equipment ‘An overall view of the set-up used to test reinforcing bats in air is shown in Figure 4. The test set-up consisted of two reaction frames which were anchored to the laboratory test floor. These two frames were connected by a distributing beam on which two Amsler hydraulic jacks of 110 kips (50 m ton) dynamic capacity were mounted. These two surface characteristics © 143 Jacks applied sinusofdal loading on two loading beams, each supported by two fatigue specimens, supported in turn by tvo assemblies hanging fron the distributing beam. Both jacks were connected to the sane pulsator which operated at 500 cycles per minute. With this equipment four specinens could be tested simultaneously. A statistical study of the test results showed that the first bar failure occured randomly within the four specimens under test. Axial fatigue tests were performed on machined specimens using an Amsler Vibraphone Fatigue Testing Machine. This machine operated on the resonance principle, the test frequency coinciding with the natural frequency of the oscillating element. A test frequency of 213 cycles per second was used for these tests. The force exerted on the specimen could be chosen to fluctuate between any desired minimum or maximum loads, Initially the tests were intended to apply a stress cycle similar to that used in the reinforcing bar tests, but due to inability of the testing equipment to maintain maximum stresses above yield stress, stress cycles with minimum stresses of 12 and 6 ksi (843 and 422'k,f/en*) compression were chosen for Grade 40 and 60 bars respectively. Test Specinens ‘The specimen used to test reinforcing bars in air was essentially 2 30 inch (76.2 cm) long piece of No. 8 reinforcing bar. The details of the fatigue specimen and the end grips are shown in the inset in Figure 4, The end grips were made of a cylindrical block of high strength steel having a spherical shape on one end and a conical hole. The spherical face of the grip and grip housing seat were designed to facilitate the application of an axial load to the specimen. The bars were cemented into end grips using a two component steel filled epoxy. A wooden jig was used to ensure alignment of the grips and the bar, and to keep the grips a fixed distance apart. As mentioned previously, the bar specimens had three types of surface characteristics. The deformed bars and plain rolled bars were tested as received from the mill. The plain bars without rust and mill scale vere plain rolled bars cleaned using a chemical solution containing 10 percent EDTA (Diamino-Ethate-Tetra-Acidic acid) and one percent sodium hydroxide dissolved in water. This solution reacted only with the tron oxide and formed an Fe-EDTA complex compound (8). Generally two soakings in heated solutions were required to clean the bars. Inmediately after the bars were taken out of the cleaning bath, they were washed in a soap solution and a fine protective film of corrosion protective ofl was applied. The cleaned bars showed no blackish mill scale or rust and had a shiny, greyish color. Rolling defects such as longitudinal seams, laps and flaws were visible on the bars. The bars showed no signs of pitting due to the cleaning operation. One or tvo days after the cleaning operation the bars were tested under fatigue loading. Sixteen specimens machined from each of the two grades of plain bare were tested in the Vibraphore Machine mentioned earlier. Two 144 fatigue of concrete others were tested in tension. The machined test specimens had a 0.437 inch (11.1 nm) minimum diameter which was the maximum size of standard Vibraphore specimen which could be rachined from a No, 8 plain bar. The eighteen specimens of each grade were all machined from the same bar using an automatic lathe. They were polished using No. 120 enery cloth, No. 240 emery paper and No. 320 silicon carbide paper, successively. Polishing was done in the longitudinal direction on a lathe rotating at 100 rpm. Test Procedure The groups of four bar specimens were chosen for testing accord~ ing to the preplanned test scheme, Repeated loads were simultaneously applied on these four specimens at predetermined minimum and maximum stress level. Minimum stresses of 5 ksi and 6,7 ksi (351 and 471 k,f/en*) were used for Grade 40 and 60 bars respectively. In all cases the bar stresses were calculated using a nominal area of 0.79 sq. inch (3.1 em?) for the bars. The effects of the self weight of the loading assembly and the forced vibrations were taken into account. When one out of the four specimens failed under the fatigue load— ing the machine stopped automatically. The nunber of cycles applied to the specimens prior to the failure of the first specimen was recorded. The failed specimen was renoved and was replaced :by a dunny specimen, made of @ plain polished one inch diameter high strength steel bar having the sane dimensions and end grips as the rest of fatigue specinens. Similarly, when the second and third specimens failed they were also replaced by dummy bars. After fatigue fracture of the fourth specimen, the next group of fatigue specimens was tested. When fatigue failure did not occur within 3 million cycles, the tests were terminated. These specimens were called “run outs" and were not used for future tests. After completion of tests on two groups of bars of each grade, without rust and mill scale, a statistical analysis of the test data showed there was no significant difference between the life of these specimens and that of as-rolled bars at the same stress level. Thus the remaining tests on bars without rust and mill scale were abandoned, ‘The machined polished specinens were divided into eight groups of four specimens. The four specimens belonging to one group were tested one at a time under identical stress cycles. TEST RESULTS Description of Fatlures of Reinforcing Bar Specimens ALL the deformed bar specimens which failed did so by fatigue failure, In all cases, the failure surfaces had two or three failure zones. The zone of crack nucleation was smoother than the other two zones and in some cases concoidal or beach markings were seen in this zone. In most cases, however, it was difficult to distinguish between the zones of crack nucleation and progression. The final fracture surface characteristics 145 zone could be easily recognized by its crystalline appearance. In all the deformed bar specimens, the fatigue failure originated at the base of a transverse lug. In 71 percent of the specimens, the failure started at the steeper side of a lug, inthe remaining 29 percent of the specimens the failure originated on the other side of the lugs. No specimen failed at the manufacturer's mark despite the fact that such marke were present on 21 percent of the specimens. The crack locations varied along the base of the transverse lugs. In 76 percent of the specimens the cracking nucleated more than 0.2 inches (5.1 mm) from the intersection of the longitudinal and transverse ribs. From the observations on failure surfaces of deformed bars, it was suspected that the failure might have been caused due to nucleation of several cracks at the free bar surface at the lug base rather than from a single crack. To investigate this possibility the failure surfaces were examined under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and cracks on the surface of bar specimens were detected by magnetic and penetrant methods (3). Photographs taken with the SEM, showing details of crack origin ate given in Figure 5. Figure 5(a) shows an overall view of the failure inittation region. Magnified views of two locations marked X and Y in Figure 5(a) are shown in (b) and (c). It may be seen that the structural features and roughness of the failure surface is alnost the same in both locations. In place of concoidal markings close to the surface, there are almost parallel crack fronts moving towards the interior of the bar. These observations indicate nucleation of several cracks rather than a single crack. The results from penetrant and magnetic crack detection tests also showed that independent cracks started at several locations along the base of a single lug. In the plain as-rolled bar specimens and the specimens without mill scale or rust, fatigue failure often started from a surface defect such as a lap, a depression or an inclusion. Presentation and Statistical Analysis of Test Data The fatigue test data are plotted in Figures 6 to 8, tabulated in Appendix A and summarized in Table 4, Fach plotted point in these figures refers to one reinforcing bar or machined polished specimen. The test data was divided into finite-life and long-life regions at one million cycles for statistical analyses. Analysis of Long Life Data The fatigue test data shown in Figures 6 to 8, show that the reinforcing bars exhibited a practical fatigue limit and the scatter in the fatigue limit was considerably lover than that in fatigue life, The mean fatigue limit and its lower tolerance linit were obtained by a sensitivity analysis the results of which are presented in columns (8) and (9) of Table 4. The mean fatigue lintts from this analysis are plotted in Figure 6 to 8 In the sensitivity analysis, a normal 146 fatigue of concrete distribution of the mean fatigue limit was assumed. This assumption te justified because the distribution of the fatigue strengths has been found to be a normal distribution over the entire range of the S-N curve (9). An analysis of variance was performed on the mean fatigue limite to investigate the effects of surface conditions and the grade of steel, on the fatigue strength and the interaction of these variables. In this analysis homogeneity of the variance of the mean fatigue Limit was checked and accepted (3), The analysis showed that the F values related to the bar surface characteristics, grade and the interaction of these variables were significant to one percent level of significance. The results of the analysis of variance are presented in Table 5. It may be noted that there was no difference between the mean fatigue limits of plain bars with and without rust and mill scale and between deformed bars of Grades 40 and 60 at the 5 percent level of significance All the remaining specified variables were highly significant at the levels of significance shown in this table. The influences of bar surface characteristics and grade on the fatigue limit strength are summarized in Table 6. For comparison purposes the values are expressed as a ratio of the values for the deformed bars of Grade 40. The ratios were higher for Grade 60 than Grade 40 indicating that the effect of stress concentrations was higher for Grade 60 bara. Analysis of Finite Life Data The regression model given by Equation (1) wi finite life data from each series. fitted to the log N= A4BS, where log N = logarithm of fatigue life, to the base lo S, = stress range, ksi A and B are regression coefficients This equation was chosen because statistical analyses (3) showed that log N was normally distributed and because this equation gave a better fit than several other S-N equations (10), (12). Figures 6 to 8 are S-N-P (strese-nusber of cycles-probability) diagrams showing the test data, a mean S-N curve for 50 percent survival, and 5 and 95 percent survival limits of the population. The determination of these curves for the finite life region involved the mean S-N equation given by Equation (1) and a life distribution function. The regression coefficients A and B and the residual stand~ ard deviation of each series are given in Table 4. ‘The test data in the finite life region was also analysed to find the influence of the specified variables. An analysis of covariance and Hald's method were used to determine the significant variables (3), The results from these analyses are presented in Table 7. Comparing Tables 5 and 7, it may be noted that the variables which influenced surface characteristics 147 the fatigue limit also influenced the fatigue life in the finite life region at the same level of significance, The effect of various specified variables on fatigue life vas systematically studied by a multiple regression analysis. All the data in the finite-Life region were used in this analysis. A stepwise multiple Linear regression procedure was used because of its versatili- ty+ A linear additive model was used in which log N was the dependent variable and stress range (S_), stress concentration factor (Ky), tensile strength (£,) and decarburization and surface roughness defined by the CLA Values (R) were independent variables. The model, given in equation (2) explained 82.7 percent of the variation in the tests results. The order of significance of variables is the same 4s the order of terms in Equation (2). Log N= 0.4397 - 0.1075 S, - K, (0.0296 £, ~ 1.4662) + 0.1310 £, = R (0.002 £, - .0164) @) where K, = 1.0 for as-rolled and machined specimens and f, and S_ are expressed in ksi. The standard deviation of all the residuals of equation (2) was 0.110. The multiple regression analysis confirmed the results of the analysis of covariance regarding the significance of interaction between the grade and surface characteristics. The interaction terns Kf, and RE, in the equation (2) were both found to be significant. DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS Bar Surface Characteristics Within each grade, the four types of fatigue specimens: machine polished, as-rolled plain bars, plain bars without rust or mill scale, and deformed bars differed only in their surface characteristics. ‘They had the same chemical composition and were produced by identical manufacturing processes ‘The metallographic observations revealed that the grain structure was uniform across the cross-section of the bar except for mill scale, rust, and a decarburized layer about 1/30 inch (0.85 mm) thick at the surface of the bar. The machined polished specimens came from the center of the reinforcing bars and had no decarburization, mill scale or rust. Referring to Tables 4 and 6 and Figure 8, it may be seen that the machined polished specimens had the highest fatigue strength anong all the types of specimens tested. This type of behavior was expected, since these specimens essentially had no stress concentrations. The influence of rust and mill scale on fatigue strength was studied by testing plain as-rolled bars and similar bars with the rust or mill scale removed, The statistical analysis of the finite and long life data showed no significant difference between the two types of 148 fatigue of concrete specimens (this conclusion may not be valid for severely rusted bars). In contrast to the above finding the fatigue strength of plain as~ rolled bars was significantly lover than those of machined polished specimens. The surfaces of the plain bars without rust and mill scale and the machined polished specimens differed with respect to decarburization and surface roughness. Several report 2,4,5,6 conclude that the fatigue strength of steel is considerably reduced by decarburization. As shown in Figures 2 and 3, the decarburized surface had a lower car- bon content than the interior of the bar which made the surface weaker than the core. Since the fatigue cracks initiated in this region they probably did so at a lower stress than required in the base metal. The as-rolled bar surface was very much rougher than that of the machined polished specimens. The multiple regression analysis of the fatigue data showed that the surface roughness and/or decarburization vas a significant variable: the rougher the bar surface, the lover the fatigue strength as indicated by Equation 2. The analysis also showed that the influence of surface condition on fatigue strength, like that of stress concentration was more detrimental in the higher grade steels. The deformed bar specimens exhibited the lowest fatigue strength among all the types of specimens tested. These specimens had stress concentrations due to the as-rolled surface as well as the deformations ‘The discrepancy between the fatigue strengths of the deformed bars and the bar steel could not be accounted for using stress concentration theory and notch sensitivity factors or by using the strength of the decarburized layer in the calculations. This may have been partly due to the Lack of stress concentration factors and notch sensitivity factors for notches corresponding to surface roughness and partly due to the lack of knowledge of the properties of the decarburized steel. Grade of Steel Two grades of steel, Grade 40 and 60, were investigated in this project. The statistical anlysis of finite and long life data showed no significant difference between the fatigue strengths of two grades of deformed bars. It should be noted here that the bars of both grades were rolled in to successive passes through the sane rolls and the geometrical dimensions of the bars were measured to be the sane, This observation supports the earlier finding that the fatigue strength of deformed reinforcing bars is insensitive to the grade of steel (2), (11), (12). Contrary to this conclusion, however, the fatigue strength of the machined polished specimens and the as-rolled plain bars increased with an increase in grade of steel. The inconsistency in the effect of grade on fatigue strength is due to interaction of the effects of stress concentrations and grade of steel and the effect of the surface layer on the strength. The multiple regression analysis of the test data showed that the reduction surface characteristics 149 in fatigue strength due to stress concentration was higher for higher grade bars. Thus, although the fatigue strength of the bar metal improves with an increase in grade, this is offset by a greater suscept- ibility to stress concentrations. Effect of Concrete Encasement Figure 9 compares the fatigue strength of bara from the sane heat tested in air and previously tested under similar cycles in concrete beams (2). Both the finite Life and long life sections of the S-N diagrams for beans are higher than those for tests in air, The fatigue limit of the bars tested in air was 2 ksi (141 k,f/cm*) lover than those in beans : PREDICTION OF FATIGUE STRENGTH The interaction of the surface roughness and strength terns in Equation (2) suggests that the effects of the surface roughness and decarburization can be approximated by a stress concentration factor coubined with a notch sensitivity factor to give an effective fatigue stress concentration factor, for surface conditions, Keg: For the range of ultimate tensile strengths encountered in reinforcing bars these tests suggest that Ky, can be stated Xe where £, = ultimate tensile strength of the reinforcing bar, ksi. 5 7 0:90 + 0.006 £, @) From data from these tests of machined specimens and those presented in Reference (2) the following expression has been derived for the fatigue strength of the bar metal in a zero to tension stress cyele: Spp 0-65 £, + 2e1 ket “ Using Equations (3) and (4), and a fatigue stress concentration factor for the deformations, K,4, derived from the theoretical stress concentration factors in Reference 13 and the notch sensitivity factors presented by Forrest (14), it is possible to compute the fatigue strength of reinforcing bars in a zero to tension stress cycle a Sue oat ts * Kea ) For ‘other types of stress cycles the appropriate stress ranges can be computed using a Goodman Diagram with straight line envelopes (2). When applied to 35 series of fatigue tests of reinforcing bars for which adequate information was available to estimate stress concentration factors (2), (11),(15) the mean ratio of test to calcu- lated strength was 1.04 with a coefficient of variation of 7.0 percent and a range of 0.92 to 1.17. For bars tested in beans the calculated strengths were increased by 2 ksi (141 k,f/cm*) before comparing with the test data. = 150 fatigue of concrete CONCLUSIONS On the basis of the experimental results reported in this paper the following conclusions may be drawn: (1) The fatigue strength of deformed bars is considerably reduced by deformations, surface roughness, and decarburization. Ordinary rust and mill scale did not influence the fatigue strength of bars for the cases investigated. (2) The detrimental influences of the deformations, decarburization and surface roughness may be estimated by stress concentration theory. The average value of the fatigue strength reduction factor due to deformations was 1.60 and that due to decarburization was 1.41 in these tests. These were found to be cumulative in effect. (3) The fatigue strength of deformed bars was found to be insensitive to the grade of steel (G40 and 60). This conclusion 4s in agree- ment with previous findings. (4) The fatigue strength of bars tested {n air was lover than for bars tested in beans, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This investigation was financially supported by the National Research Council of Canada, The reinforcing bars used in the project were specially rolled for this project and were donated by the Steel Company of Canada. Professor R. Mureika and Professor F. Vitovec are thanked for their advice on statistical analyses and metallographical investigations, respectively. surface characteristics = 157 REFERENCES “Standard Specification for Deformed Billet-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement, A615-68", American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1968. MacGregor, J.G., Jhamb, 1.C., and Nuttall, N., "Fatigue Strength of Hot Rolled Deformed Reinforcing Bars", ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 68, No. 3, March 1971, pp. 169-179. Jhanb, 1.0, and MacGregor, J.C., "Fatigue of Reinforcing Bars", Structural Engineering Report No. 39, University of Alberta, Banonton, Canada, 1971. 4. Metals Engineerings-Design, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Handbook, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1965 (Chapter 8.4, “Decarburization"). Lipeitt, H.A., and Horne, G.T., "The Fatigue Strength of Decarbur- ized Steel", American Society of Testing and Materials, Proceedings, Vol. 57, 1957, pp. 587 - 599. Jackson, L.R. and Pochapsky, T-E., "Effect of Composition on the Fatigue Strength of Decerburized Steel", Transactions of American Society of Metals, Vol. 39, 1949, pp. 45-60. Pritchard, R.T.,. "4 Workshop Technology", English Universities Press, London, pp. 168-173. Cotton, F.A., and Wilkinson, G., “Advances in Inorganic Chemistry", John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1966, pp. 847. Baistenaire, F., “A Study of the Scatter of Fatigue Test Results ‘of Statistical and Physical Methods", Fatigue of Aircraft Structures, Pergamon Press, New York, 1963, pp. 53-85. 10. Reemsnyder, H.S., "Procurement and Analysis of Structural Fatigue Data", Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 95, No. ST7, 1969, pp. 1533-1551. Ll, Pfister, J.F.,and Hognestad, E., “High Strength Bars as Concrete Reinforcement, Part 6, Fatigue Tests", Journal of the PCA Research and Development Laboratories, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 1964, pp. 65-84. 12. Hanson, J.M., Somes, N.F., Helgason, T., Corley, W.G. and Hognestad, E., "Fatigue Strength of High Yield Reinforcing Bars", Interin Report, National Co-operative Highway Research Program, Project 4-7, Highway Research Board, February 1970, 45 pp. 13. Jhamb, I.C. and MacGregor, J.G., "Stress Concentrations Caused by Reinforcing Bar Deformations", Abeles Symposium on Fatigue, ACI Special Publication, 1973. 152 fatigue of concrete 14. Forrest, P.G., "Fatigue of Metals", Pergamon Press, 1962. 15, Hanson, J.M., Burton, K.T., and Hognestad, E., "Fatigue Tests of Reinforcing Bars - Effect of Deformation Pattern”, Journal of the PCA Research and evelopment Laboratories, Vol. 10, No. 3, September 1968, pp. 2-13. nea Eetga faw eraEcesied tora es | i]t H HEE tes |G | HH He il H dee: sy] i]t 8 ld ween | f | a 3 “Hu: Baee | of |B 33 HBge bark | t [a | ge 3 sue Bae |b | 3 uh BEE pect | HH disees aor rasp pt fa ag | ERE? | $y mf maki |b | ES |G REEP |B |e ; 3asek eel || 8 Bg tee: mack |B | #3 Ls RE + BAR OID WOT FAIL surface characteristics 153 tase A (continue? Bla | i eld | Ha i Rid | gs eh rack | BL | aS & ty eREE | | Bo | GR gf a eat He ge [Sb | dages: EACH Ba 550 [S05 | deaies: 4] BR wre hee: WeGGu=38 a 67.0 Rees: . SCE | 8 ie sees: WeGou-13- 22 67.0 1578700, WeGo0~20 22 67.0 988000, tet 3 | AES [eS | uaa: ‘MeG8015 5u.0 $1700. sree SES) gngsee: Fas Seo | HSE wae $55 | ieee: weetects See | tess: may Tae woGuoetg 900001. rae! ash: Sesh at ree Bien: el Bk: a 294000, GAR DIO HoT FAIL 2 BARS WITHOUT RUST AND MiLuscace 154 fatigue of concrete your T = mm gz oso" mo | to so agezone - op3s 29420 £20" oro | oto == asoxoae - apr s0da025 sousup ‘egoq 30 980g Jo enPPy sr wv t i soazSep — apts 29420 ty so Sy =| seaatep ~ apps 10da03g : Shy jo aTSue 99g aay" azyo | ezv-0 -| sayouy - s8ny 30 Bupords 10° £90" 940° - - sayout - s8nt yo 348TaH Zito szt-o s7T°o _ = sayouy = s8nT Jo yIPyA STH ce $96°0 $%6°0 900°T 900°T seyouy - 1sjemeTq £9°% The ole eee 33/SqT q8fem qtun on 099 0” 099 070 ‘T2235 Jo epeag strow wzom Ating sieg powzojoq | saeg poazojoa save ureta adky 20g peisay seq Jo suofsuemzq Teuoy39eg ss03) T SIeVL surface characteristics Table 2 - Mechanical Properties and Grain Sizes of Reinforcins Bar Type Fata tare [Deformed fare Grade of Steel. cho G60 | G40 660 Yield Strength, ksi (eg£/mn*) 34.2 | 67.0 | 50.6 61.4 Tensile Strength, ksi Bars 86.3 | 100.1] 81.5 96.8 Machined Specimens 90.0 | 102.5} - Elongation, * Percent 22.6 | 18.5|29.5 14.7 Reduction in Area, Percent 44.6] — - Grain Size at Center of Bar ASTM Index 8 75] 8 nS Grains per sq. inch at _100x Magni fication 98 75_|s02 80. ¥Heasured on 8 inch (20,3 om) gage length 1 kgf/em = 70.33 kst Table 3 = Chemica? Anslysis of Reinforcing Bars Bar Type Plain Deforne: Grade of Steel Content in percent: Carbon (C) Manganese (Nn) Sulphur (S) Phosphorus (P) Copper (Cu) Nickel (Nt) Chrosiun (Cr) Molybdenum (Mo) Silicon (Si) Vanadium (V) Tin (Sa) Niobium (Cb) ‘Aluminum (41) c4o | ceo | cao | c6o 0.33 | 0.34 | 0.34] 0.34 0.64 | 0.99 | 0.61 | 1.00 0.039) 0.036| 0.036) 0.034 0.026 0.024] 0.024) 0.024 0.41 | 0.29 | 0.41 | 0.29 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.12 0.16 | 0,11 | 0.15 | 0.12 <.05 | <,05 | <.05 | <.05 0.28 | 0.23 | 0.28 | 0.23 * * * * <.05 | <.05 | <.05 | <.05 * |<.o5 | # | <.05 * * * ak * Trace, <.01 ** Not detected 155 ars 156 fatigue of concrete sFeH C6°OL = 89/4 T +(2) sousaegoy up poaaoder [ sezzag wee 07 63593 LOFUEdUOD yyy «ATaatavedsez ‘s9ss0I38 unUTUTM Fs4 {°9 PUE TSH O°S 03 wmea8eqzg ueupoop e Guysn payrez309 useq sey g PUR S9TI9S IOJ UIC ¥y r29Te9s TTTm pue aenz anoyaza Sieg y - rez esto | gtets- | ezztot | 2's pouzozea | oo | xx¥6 res org HeTO | 0980 | CaL“OT | _£-9_| PoUsTTOE "peUTasEH | 099 | we oer Tes TBO O | USOT = OES OT | O'S | POUSTTOR “POUTEDEN | OVD | wel re ver Wer | yeor = | Oe OT | OS Ty UFeTE | 095 9 we oe SIT | Se0r = | S0e OT | O'S Tay UPeTE | OVD $ ese oe Were | yeOr = |e OT | TF PaTION Se UFETE | 09S 7 ve vie STO | Seo = | SET | OS Pattee Be UPETE | OVD € Te ara Bszro | veor =} L006 To Poured | O95 z THe ost RIO | eee | HTS os PaIOTsT | Ov T (6) (8) w@ «) (s) 1c) (e) @ mM 7 5% s ‘uopaeraeg] v FH Teayaing | TeATAing paepucas auesaea ¢¢ | ateozed 05 Tenprsex| adors |adoazoaur | ...,55 ars aa BW ARUP] endyaeg (SIe}27z3000 WoFSseaou) OF7T eaTUTA [unutuTK | empoads onBzaey 3eq ‘ON Sazzag L AFY UF poasey susupoeds onyaeq yo soyazedorg yIBuer3g onBz2eg 7 eTAeL Table 5 surface characteristics 157 Results From Analysis of Variance of Fatigue Limit Data Difference at significant Bar Surface Jevel#* of Grade 5% 2.5% iz G40 and 60 | Deformed ve As-rolled | Yes | Yes Yes Ae-rolied ve fars WR | No Rerrolled vs Vachineds [veg ae Yea Gio ve G60 Deformed No Ae-rolled ves | Yes Bars WRM* | Yes Yes AWRM - Bars without rust and mill scale **The level of significance is the risk of rejecting the null hypothesis, ise. no difference exists when it is true. Table 6 Influence of Surface Characteristics and Grade on Fatigue Limit Grade Fatigue Limit Strength Ratio Deformed | Plain As-rolled | Machined Polished cso | 1.00 1.47 2.03 ceo} 1.01 1.63 2.38 fatigue of concrete 158 +eTe9S TITw ple asnx qnoyaTA sIeg - Hume sox sex coe Peysttoa ‘peuryoen 83x coe eeu UTETE 8a coe pattoa-sy on pawr0zeq 099 84 ono sax, co 69x PaysTTog ‘pauyyoeH SA PaTTOI-sy ‘ on wi UFETE 8A peTTo3-sy sax 59, sax, PeTTos-sy sa pouzozeq | 099 PUR OY at ase xs sopasfasaoeaeyD |>ezaNg IPG epez9 Jo T@AeT queoTyTUSzs ae eouer—zzTq saTqeTaeA petzyeds yo eouLTIeA0D Jo STSsTeUY WoIZ sITnSey (eaed 837 93TUFa) £ eraen surface characteristics 159 242/484 ‘ssauis ° 3 3 = 0002 sxeq 203 searno upesae - se073S—1 “Td NIVaLs z100 8000 v000 900 T TT 1 s$av@ d3w40s30— —— —— Sava Nivid 184 ‘SS3aLS 160 fatigue of concrete (a) GRADE 40 (b) GRADE 60 center of bars Fig. 2—Grain structure at surface characteristics 161 a z ig © HARDNESS. RESULTS g Se 4 CARBON ANALYSES @ ee < =3 - a> 2 of o g : x $s 7 root 05 19 15 \ DEPTH , mm 300 z 3 Zz ao < Vv = 200 ‘ a> _ of @ HARDNESS RESULTS g 8 : 4 CARBON ANALYSES fr z 2 100 . 05 10 See DEPTH, mm (b) GRADE 60 Fig. 3—Hardn surfa nd carbon content gradients through decarburized 162 fatigue of concrete aff or nowees SUPPORT DETAILS tice Hy se =f} pistRIBUTING a BEAM + OVER HANGING BAR e SPECIMEN, Ly cre 7 =|” suppor | -o—t-Loaninc En eT Seams ‘sate ane oe | specimens (4) ] : f | (BEAM “= woooen stock Fig. 4—Detaile of test set up 163 surface characteristics sw 200 0 Aly Wvi3d () uy820 yove Jo suoz Jo sTTeIG—S “BTL sui -—i zoo 80. X Av 11v130 (4) sw — vo oO ava aawa0d3d NI 3NOZ NOWWVILIN| ADVID WwaaNgd (°) fatigue of concrete 164 ‘aye uF peases suampoods 19q pomrosop 203 senin> g-N-S—9 “8td 431-9 » ssea3e unoyuya save cowaona “2 ony 1 sai2s ea DONE SSRIs Sava cim40i90 09 30725 # ON'Z ON S3n 249 10 BRWON Seve qaWi0.80 OF J0rW0 8°ON'Y ON Sa435 sone seas SSD 30 0HON me nee eee SEER ~

    You might also like