Faculty of Engineering, Health, Science and the Environment School of Engineering and Information Technology BOLTED CONNECTIONS IN STRUCTURAL STEELWORK Author: Cielo Marie Alvaran s213623 A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Bachelor of Engineering Co-Op Thesis Supervisor: Professor David Lilley Professor of Structural Engineering at Charles Darwin University June 2014 Abstract: This thesis aims to investigate the characteristics and structural properties of bolted connections in steel structures with the main focus on the design adequacy and failure mechanisms of high-strength friction-grip (HSFG) bolted connections. As a case study, the bolted connections on the Mary River Bridge along Arnhem Highway in the Northern Territory have been investigated. The composite highway bridge is composed of reinforced concrete deck over five simply supported spans of structural steelwork. The structural steelwork includes five main UB girders connected to diaphragms and horizontal bracings by HSFG bolted connections. Initial inspection of the bridge found that a number of bolts were loosened, missing or had already fractured and most were heavily corroded. Remedial works in which the original bolted connections have been replaced and the new ones ensured to be installed at the correct tension have been recently completed. The structural and environmental factors that may have contributed to the eventual failure of the bolts have been investigated. The design adequacy of the bolted connections compared to the externally applied loads on the bridge superstructure was checked in accordance with current standards: AS5100 and AS4100. The failure mechanisms of the fractured bolts were investigated. The residual loads on the original bolts have been identified through slip testing on both the original bolts and new HSFG bolts in double shear configuration. The fractured bolts were analysed through optical and scanned electron microscopy. The design fatigue life of the bolts were identified through fatigue testing of the M16 bolts in double shear configuration and the M22 bolts subjected to cyclic tensile load. The difference of the rate of corrosion of the bolts with and without the zinc plate corrosion protection was also identified. It was found that the main factors the contributed to the failure of the bolted connections at the Mary River Bridge include overstressing of the bolts, the fluctuating loads, the eventual abrasion and wear of the corrosive protection and the corrosive environment it was subjected to. The failure mechanisms of the fractured bolts were mainly due to corrosion and fretting fatigue. Similarly, the bolts subjected to tension, have failed due to self-loosening over time. Keywords: highway bridge, HSFG bolts, modes of failure ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude for the constant guidance and unwavering patience of my supervisor Prof. David Lilley. I’m also grateful to Richard Underhill, Krishnan Kannoorpatti and Margarita Vargas for their feedbacks and guidance. Undertaking this thesis has been challenging and completing this report would not have been possible without the guidance of these people, so again, thank you. LIST OF TABLES Table 1: UB members dimensions (Polsteel, 2012) ................................................................... 5 Table 2: Summary of Bolt types and categories (GAA) .......................................................... 11 Table 3: Corrosion rate of steel and zinc in C3 zones (GAA, 2012) ........................................ 14 Table 4: Permissible Loads on the Mary River Bridge according to the Report on Bridge Load Capacities (1979) ............................................................................................................. 28 Table 5: Vertical and Horizontal Loads on the Bridge Superstructure over one span ............. 33 Table 6: Vickers Hardness Results ........................................................................................... 40 Table 7: Slip loads of Old and New bolts ................................................................................. 45 Table 8: Fatigue Testing Parameters ........................................................................................ 48 Table 9: Bolt Specimens Properties.......................................................................................... 50 Table 10: Total Surface Area exposed to corrosive media ....................................................... 50 Table 11: Weight loss after corrosion by immersion testing .................................................... 51 Table 12: Design Shear and Tension - Strength Limit State (Blacks Fasteners) ..................... 60 Table 13: Design Shear - Serviceability Limit State (Blacks Fasteners) ................................. 60 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Bridge Cross Section (DoW, 1968) ............................................................................ 5 Figure 2: Concrete Slab as top flange ......................................................................................... 8 Figure 3: Grillage System for a Two-Span Bridge (SCI, 2012) ................................................. 9 Figure 4: (a) Bearing and shear and (b) friction grip on a bolted lap joint (Gorenc, 2012) ..... 10 Figure 5: ASSHTO and Eurocode S-N curves (NHCRP, 2012) .............................................. 13 Figure 6: Life to First Maintenance of Hot Dipped Galvanized Steel (GAA, 2012) ............... 14 Figure 7: Percentage Error and Relative Cost in Bolt Installation (Fernando, 2001) .............. 15 Figure 8: Typical failure points of a bolt: (a) head fillet, (b) thread runout, ............................ 16 Figure 9: Joint Face Angularity (Bolt Science Limited, 2013) ................................................ 16 Figure 10: Major Steps in Conducting a Failure Analysis (Davidson, 1999) .......................... 18 Figure 11: Diamond Indenter for Hardness Test (ibid., p112) ................................................. 20 Figure 12: FHWA Transverse Wind Load Reactions at Pier bearings from Wind on Superstructure ........................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 13: A160 Axle Load (SA, 2004) ................................................................................... 30 Figure 14: S1600 Stationary Traffic Load (SA, 2004) ............................................................. 31 Figure 15: M1600 Moving Traffic Load (SA, 2004) ............................................................... 31 Figure 16: M1600 loading position causing maximum bending moment over one span......... 31 Figure 17: Horizontal Loads on a Bridge Span (in Plan View)................................................ 32 Figure 18: Vertical Loads over a beam .................................................................................... 33 Figure 19: Resultant Shear Forces(maximum of 916kN at LHS support) ............................... 34 Figure 20: Bending Moment Diagram (maximum of 5127 kNm) ........................................... 34 Figure 21: Grillage Model of Bridge Span Superstructure ....................................................... 35 Figure 22: EDS Spectrum of Sample (prior to acid pickling) .................................................. 41 Figure 23: Macrographs of Fractured Surfaces for Sample A and Sample B .......................... 42 Figure 24: Shear Slip Testing Results ...................................................................................... 45 Figure 25: New M16 bolts loaded over slip critical load (Graph generated by software used by the machine) ........................................................................................................................ 46 Figure 26: Old 5/8” bolts loaded over slip critical load (graph generated by use of raw data from testing) ............................................................................................................................. 46 Figure 27: M16 and 5/8" bolts loaded over design slip capacity ............................................. 46 Figure 28: One Cycle of Load Applied .................................................................................... 48 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Illustration 1: Mary River Bridge (Bennett, 2013) ..................................................................... 5 Illustration 2: Mary River Bridge Telemetered Gauging Station (NRETA, 2007) .................... 5 Illustration 3: Mary River Bridge from the end abutment .......................................................... 6 Illustration 4: Inverted V brace at abutment ............................................................................... 6 Illustration 5: UB Diaphragm section ......................................................................................... 6 Illustration 6: EM Photomicrographs of Fracture Surfaces Exhibiting (a) Dimpled Fracture, (b) Brittle Transgranular Fracture, (c) Intergranular Fracture, and (d) Fatigue Striations (Shamsudin, 2011) .................................................................................................................... 19 Illustration 7: Test Fixtures for Slip and Cyclic loading (from left to right: M16 double shear plates, M22 double shear plates, M16 2 bolts in tensile T-plates and M22 in tensile L-plates)24 Illustration 8: Set-up for Tensile Testing of M22 bolts ........................................................... 24 Illustration 9: Fractured 5/8" Bolt Samples A and B from bridge diaphragms ........................ 38 Illustration 10: Heavily Corroded 7/8" Nuts............................................................................. 38 Illustration 11: SEM micrograph at the outer surface .............................................................. 42 Illustration 12: SEM micrograph on fracture surface showing “indentations” .................... 42 Illustration 13: Surface Fractograph After Acid Pickling along a surface crack ...................... 43 Illustration 14: Surface Fractograph at Final Fracture.............................................................. 43 Illustration 15: Surface Fractograph at 500x Magnification .................................................... 43 Illustration 16: Surface Fractograph at 1000x Magnification .................................................. 43 Illustration 17: Surface Fractograph at 2000x Magnification .................................................. 44 Illustration 18: Bolt Fracture Surface ....................................................................................... 44 Illustration 19: Fatigue Cracks at the Bolt Fracture Surface .................................................... 44 Illustration 20: Slip Load Testing Setup ................................................................................... 45 Illustration 21: M22 tensile testing set-up ................................................................................ 47 Illustration 22: Corrosion by immersion set-up ........................................................................ 49 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 2. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Scope and Approach............................................................................................................... 2 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................... 4 2.1. The Mary River Bridge .......................................................................................................... 4 2.2. Bridge Loading....................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.1. Bridge Design Loads ...................................................................................................... 7 2.2.2. Analysis of Composite Concrete and Steel Girder Bridges ........................................... 7 2.3. 2.3.1. Bolt Types and Properties .............................................................................................. 9 2.3.2. Design of High Strength Friction Grip (HSFG) Bolts.................................................. 11 2.4. 4. Overstressing ................................................................................................................ 14 2.4.2. Cyclic Loading ............................................................................................................. 15 2.4.3. Corrosion ...................................................................................................................... 16 3.1. Investigation of Design Adequacy of the Bridge Connections ............................................ 22 3.2. Failure Analysis of the Bolts Taken from the Bridge........................................................... 23 3.3. Methodology of Mechanical Testings Conducted................................................................ 24 3.4. Corrosion by Immersion....................................................................................................... 25 Investigation on Design Adequacy of Bolted Connections on Mary River Bridge ..................... 27 Mary River Bridge Loads ..................................................................................................... 27 4.1.1. Original Design Loads ................................................................................................. 27 4.1.2. Design Loads based on Current Standards ................................................................... 28 4.2. 6. Metal Failure Analysis ......................................................................................................... 17 Methodology of Analysis and Testing ......................................................................................... 22 4.1. 5. Mechanical Modes of Bolt Failure ....................................................................................... 14 2.4.1. 2.5. 3. Bolted Connections ................................................................................................................ 9 Bolted Connections at the Mary River Bridge ..................................................................... 34 Bolt Failure Analysis Results and Discussion .............................................................................. 37 5.1. Inspection of Conditions of Bolted Connections at the Mary River Bridge ........................ 37 5.2. Microstructure ...................................................................................................................... 39 5.3. Residual Loads ..................................................................................................................... 45 5.4. Fatigue Testing ..................................................................................................................... 48 5.5. Corrosion Testing ................................................................................................................. 49 Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................. 52 6.1. Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................... 52 6.1.1. Design Adequacy of the HSFG joints .......................................................................... 52 6.1.2. Bolt Analysis and Testing ............................................................................................ 52 6.1.3. Failure Mechanism of the HSFG bolts At Mary River Bridge .................................... 53 6.2. Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 54 6.3. Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 55 6.3.1. Maintenance of Steel Structures ................................................................................... 55 6.3.2. Thesis Improvement ..................................................................................................... 55 6.3.3. Further Studies ............................................................................................................. 56 References ............................................................................................................................................ 57 Appendices ........................................................................................................................................... 60 Appendix A. Load Capacity of M16 and M22 bolts.................................................................. 60 Appendix B. Bridge Loading Analysis ...................................................................................... 62 1. Calculations of Loads on the Superstructure ........................................................................ 62 2. Microstran Analysis Reports ................................................................................................ 67 Appendix C. Specified Properties of 8.8/TF bolts ..................................................................... 76 Appendix D. Bolts, Nuts and Washers Inventory ...................................................................... 77 Appendix E. Equipment Used for Sample Preparation, Bolt Analysis and Bolt Testing .......... 79 Appendix F. Vickers Hardness Testing..................................................................................... 80 Appendix G. Images from Optical and Scanned Electron Microscopy ..................................... 82 Appendix H. Mechanical Testings ............................................................................................. 83 1. One Set of Slip Load Graph from the Slip Testing Experiments ......................................... 83 2. Fatigue Testing Experimental Design .................................................................................. 83 CHAPTER 1 1. 1.1. INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Connections are essential members of a structure allowing the applied load to be transferred effectively between the structural members and transmitted to the ground. For a steel structure, these loads include the dead loads due to structural self-weight and all the external loads to which the structure is subjected to. In bridges, these forces include the road traffic loads, wind loads, forces due to water flow and many others as specified in relevant clauses of the bridge design standards: AS5100 (SA, 2004). As the load applied on the system varies, the structure must be capable of resisting the loading condition causing the most adverse effect. Members of a structural steel framework are connected either by welding, riveting or bolting. These connections must hence, be capable of transferring the design strength and serviceability loads. As bridges experience cyclic loading conditions, the type of bolted connections most commonly used for its superstructure are the high-strength friction-grip (HSFG) bolts. The design of bolted connections and the type of bolts used, vary depending on the loads the structure itself is subjected to. Structural steel bolts are categorised according to grades and methods of installation. Categories of bolts in steel construction include commercial bolts, high-strength structural bolts and precision bolts (Gorenc et al, 2012, p206). Depending on the modes of force transfer in which they are subjected to and allowance in slippage of surfaces, the bolts are then further categorised as either bearing or friction type (ibid, p208). The appropriate bolt type must be chosen in the design of the connection depending on the nature and combination of loads. When the bolts are either in shear, in tension or loaded in both shear and tension, the connections must be designed to conform to the strength and serviceability limit states as specified in relevant clauses of AS4100 (Standards Australia, 1998). As parts of the structure, connections are also subjected to the effects of environmental conditions and repetitive loadings, if any. If exposed to oxygen and water, connections may suffer from wet corrosion, in which, the rusting may occur rapidly (Ashby & Jones, 2005). 1 Due to fluctuating loads on a structure, its connections may hence also be subjected to fatigue loading. In AS4100, HSFG bolts of grade 8.8 are referred to as Grade8.8/TF bolts as As HSFG bolts, specifically that of grade 8.8, otherwise referred to as Grade8.8/TF bolts in AS4100, is the most commonly used bolt type connection in general structural steelwork (Barber, 1992), the main focus of this thesis is investigating the properties both structural and environmental affecting the life span of this type of bolted connection. Mary River Bridge is a composite steel girders and concrete deck bridge of over 100m length located along Arnhem Highway in the Northern Territory. The bridge has recently undergone rehabilitation works in which the HSFG bolted connections throughout the superstructure have been replaced. From inspection conducted by the Department of Infrastructure (DoI), it was found that the majority of the bolts (from both diameters: 16mm and 22mm) in the structure were either rusted or missing. This has then led to the question at hand of whether or not these connections have failed prematurely, or before their design life span, and if so, what may have caused said failures. 1.2. SCOPE AND APPROACH The aim of this thesis is to investigate the characteristics and structural properties of bolted connections in steel structures, specifically that of HSFG. This has been achieved through the completion of the following tasks: 1. Intensive review of related literature of the following topics: Types and designs of bolted connections on steel structures, including High Strength Friction Grip (HSFG) bolts and other more conventional bolted connections, and comparison of their material characteristics and structural properties, Causes of failure on bolted connections on steel structures such as environmental factors causing corrosion and crack propagation, and fatigue loading and thermal changes on the structures causing yielding, loosening or unthreading of the bolts, Metallurgical testing mechanisms and failure analysis, Behaviour of bolted connections in response to application of dynamic loads on the steel structure (such as fracture and loosening), Standards for appropriate maintenance of bolted connections in structural steelwork. 2 2. Investigation of bolted connections on the Mary River Bridge along Arnhem Highway through: Determination and comparison of original design loads and loads causing most adverse effects on the superstructure based on AS1170.0-2: Structural Design and AS5100.2:2004 Bridge Design Standard Design Loads and through finite element analysis, Checking the adequacy of the design of the bolted connections in accordance with AS4100.9: Design of Steel Structures: Bolted Connections. 3. Determination of causes of failure of the removed bolts from the existing connections on the bridge and identification of material and structural properties of the existing bolted connections, both from the removed original set of bolts and the new replacement bolts through the following: Metallographic examination of the original bolts through optical and scanned electron microscopy, Comparison of Vickers hardness of new and old bolts, Slip testing as a measure of residual loads on the removed bolts compared to slip loads of new HSFG bolts Fatigue load testing to compare total service life of removed bolts to expected fatigue life of bolts loaded to design loads Corrosion by immersion testing of bolts with and without the zinc plating in different corrosive media 4. From the research, analysis and testings as listed above, draw conclusions to answer the following questions: Have the bolts failed prematurely (or before expected end of service life)? Are the bolted connections in Mary River Bridge adequate to resist the design loads based on current standards? What are the main causes of failure on the bolted connections of the bridge? And thus, conclude on possible most common failure modes of HSFG bolts in structural steelwork. 3 CHAPTER 2 2. LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter consists of the review of literature related to the main components of this thesis. It includes the background research on the theories and similar past investigations related to the thesis work found in various publications, as well as, a review of the design and history of Mary River Bridge and its connections. This chapter includes a background on bridge loading conditions and the design of its bolted connections, a study on various mechanical modes of bolt failure and procedures for the analysis of metal failures and bolt testing. Brief summaries and descriptions of some of the related publications are also included. 2.1. THE MARY RIVER BRIDGE The Mary River Bridge is located at a section along Arnhem Highway with several aggregates quarry sites nearby. Although, there is no nearby traffic counter in the area (the closest of which is at the intersection of Arnhem Highway and Stuart Highway), a significant percentage of the vehicles traversing over the bridge consists of loaded and unloaded trucks from tipper trucks to multi-trailer transfer trucks. The bridge is located within the Mary River Coastal Floodplain about 90km east of Darwin (NRETAS, 2013). The floodplain is a large one but is poorly drained as instead of a direct channel to the sea, the inflow diffuses over swamps and through tidal channels. The floodplain thus experiences extended flooding over its wetland habitat areas. Over the years, there have also been a major saltwater control program that have been implemented to minimize saltwater intrusion in the floodplain (ibid.). The three main sections of a bridge include the bridge deck, the superstructure (structural steelwork or other) and the sub-structure (the headstocks and piers). The superstructure of Mary River Bridge is made up of five equal spans of simply supported beams composed of a concrete deck over five universal beam (UB) girders. The typical cross-section of the bridge is illustrated in Figure 1 below The bridge was earlier constructed with three 762UB147 girders in 1968 and was then widened in 1972 with the addition of two 762UB197 girders of the same web dimensions but higher flange width and hence, heavier sections (Department of 4 Works (DoW), 1968). Each beam was designed to span at 75ft centres (22.86m) and have a total width of 24ft (7.315m). Figure 1: Bridge Cross Section (DoW, 1968) The section properties of the members are as tabulated below. As the UB members are bigger than what is commercially available, the second moments of area about the X and the Y axes were calculated. Table 1: UB members dimensions (Polsteel, 2012) Type 762 x 267 UB 147 762 x 267 UB 197 H: Web height [mm] D: Width [mm] d: Web thickness [mm] h: Flange thickness [mm] IX-area [mm4] IY-area [mm4] (H3d)/12 + 2* [(h3D)/12 + h*D(H+h)2/4 ] (d3H/)12 + 2(D3h/12 ) 147 719 265.2 12.8 17.5 1.2897E+09 5.4401E+07 197 719 268 15.6 25.4 1.9170E+09 8.1487E+07 Weight [kg/m] The following figures are photographs of Mary River Bridge. Illustration 1: Mary River Bridge (Bennett, 2013) Illustration 2: Mary River Bridge Telemetered Gauging Station (NRETA, 2007) The second, third and fourth piers of the bridge can be seen in Illustration 1, where the pier in which the river height gauge is adjacent to is the second pier along Arnhem Highway in the outbound direction (also shown in Illustration 2). 5 Illustration 3: Mary River Bridge from the end abutment The photograph in Illustration 3 was taken from the end abutment of the bridge. It shows piers 3 and 4 and spans 4 and 5 of the bridge. Illustration 4: Inverted V brace at abutment Illustration 5: UB Diaphragm section The figures below show the typical detail of the diaphragms and braces of the bridge. The brace system (Illustration 4), positioned on each pier, is composed of sections similar to those used in the girder. The diaphragms are located at the mid-span between each pier. In Illustration 5, the bolt groups on the left are not aligned with those on the right as this view shows the new beam at the left (from the 1972 widening) and the old beam (1968) at the right. The horizontally oriented bolts at the diaphragms and the bracings are 5/8” in diameter while the vertical bolts at the headstock and at the underside of the diaphragm-to-girder connections are 7/8” diameter bolts. As these bolts are in imperial sizes, the replacement bolts, as well as the bolts used for the experiments, were the M16 and M22 equivalent. 6 2.2. BRIDGE LOADING 2.2.1. BRIDGE DESIGN LOADS The main bridge design loads covered in the book The Design of Modern Steel Bridges are the dead loads, live loads, longitudinal forces on bridges, wind loading and thermal forces (Chatterjee, 1991). Other possible sources of stresses on the superstructures were also enlisted but have not been discussed in detail (ibid, p.74). In AS5100.2: Design loads in bridge superstructures, the design loads include the following: Dead Loads Forces due to water flow and debris Road Traffic Loads Wind Load Fatigue Load Earthquake Load Braking Forces Collision Loads (SA, 2004) The bridge design live loadings from different guidelines, in different countries, vary not only with the uniformly distributed loads and the axle loads, but also in terms of the number of axles, axle width and the spacing between them. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) specifications from the USA, BS52001997 and Australia’s AS5100 stipulate different classes of vehicle loadings (Chatterjee, 1991; SA, 2004). According to Chatterjee (1991), the worst loading for 20m length bridge span is often caused by more than three two-axled, medium-weight, compact vehicles rather than road-trains with the heaviest loads and more axles (Chatterjee, 1991, p54). This implies that the heaviest loads do not necessarily cause the most adverse effect and thus, in determining the design live loads, analysis of the bridge response due to combination of various types of vehicles traversing over the bridge must be conducted. 2.2.2. ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE CONCRETE AND STEEL GIRDER BRIDGES Composite construction of bridges has been practiced as an economical engineering solution. In a composite steel and concrete bridge, the reinforced concrete slab is bonded to the top of the steel girder and acts as part of its flange, as shown below (O’Connor, 1971). 7 In this configuration, the concrete, thus, effectively has two main functions: (1) transmit the externally applied loads (vehicle loads on deck) to the girder and (2) participate in carrying the bending moments in the beam. By analysing the concrete deck as effectively a section of the girder’s top Figure 2: Concrete Slab as top flange flange, the structural behaviour due to live loads can hence be defined (ibid). As the neutral axis of a composite section is at a higher depth on the UB, compared to when UB is analysed alone, the stiffness and the section modulus of the composite section, are hence also higher (Lawson & Wickens, 1992). In concrete and steel-girder bridges, the structure is commonly made of a number of parallel longitudinal members linked through a transverse system (ibid, p351).The load distribution in this parallel girder system is complex and hence, special techniques are required in its analysis. O’Connor (1971) states that for cases in which the main structure and the deck beams are integral with a continuous deck slab, as is the case with the Mary River Bridge, the load distribution can be analysed through two ways: (1) to subdivide the slab into areas effectively acting as the upper flange on the steel girder beams or (2) subdivide the slabs such that they are represented by additional transverse or longitudinal elements. The bridge is then analysed as a grid system composed of longitudinal elements representing the parallel main girders (topped with the concrete slab of the defined effective width) and transverse elements representing the cross-girders, which in the case of the Mary River Bridge is the diaphragm at mid-span and the braces on the piers. The bridge analysis can be either a two-dimensional (2D) analysis or three-dimensional (3D). The road traffic loads on the bridge can be analysed by simplifying the loading conditions into two simple linear elastic models. The first beam being the cross-section in which the steel girders act as pinned supports and the second beam is a simply supported beam representing one span of the bridge between two piers. This method of analysis is both simpler and quicker to carry out. However, it treats each beam as elastic and does not take into account the transverse distribution of the loads over the concrete deck. The line beam 8 also does not consider the effects of skew. This method is useful in preliminary design, but may prove to be unrealistic in detail design (SCI, 2012). In order to investigate the dynamic response of highway girder bridges, Huang and his colleagues from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering in Florida (1995) has modelled a girder bridge through the finite element method (FEM) as a grillage beam system. In this system, the bridge is divided into grillage members, in both transverse and longitudinal directions, with set node intervals. Shown in Figure 3 is an example of how a two-span bridge is modelled as a grillage beam. Figure 3: Grillage System for a Two-Span Bridge (SCI, 2012) The grillage system can be applied through the use of Microstran Analysis and SAP2000 structural analysis software packages. In Microstran Analysis, the traffic loading condition found to cause the most adverse effect can be found when analysed using simple linear elastic models. This loading condition, together with the other design loads on the bridge superstructure can then be applied in the grillage beam model of the bridge. A similar grillage bridge can be modelled in SAP2000 wherein the traffic loads and the horizontal loads, such as water flow and debris, can be modelled dynamically for a 3D analysis. 2.3. BOLTED CONNECTIONS 2.3.1. BOLT TYPES AND PROPERTIES Bolts are categorised according to their property classes as either 4.6 commercial bolts, 8.8 high-strength structural bolts, or 8.8, 10.9 or 12.9 precision bolts (Gorenc, op cit). According to Barber (1992) of The Steel Construction Institute (SCI), the most commonly used bolts in 9 structural connections are of grades 4.6 and 8.8. Each of these bolt connections must conform to AS1111-1980 ISO Metric hexagon and commercial bolts and screws and AS/NZS12521983: High-strength steel bolts with associated nuts and washers for structural engineering respectively (Gorenc, op cit; SA, 1980; SA, 1983). The three fundamental modes of force transfer in the design of individual bolts (in bolt groups) are shear or bearing mode, friction mode and axial tension mode. The bolt axis for the axial tension mode of force transfer is parallel to the applied external loads. This force transfer is also applicable in combination with the other bolting categories as bolts are often subjected to axial loads as well as the external forces being transferred (ibid). The bearing and friction modes of force transfer are as illustrated in Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Bearing and shear and (b) friction grip on a bolted lap joint (Gorenc, 2012) In shear or bearing mode, when the applied load acts perpendicular to the bolt axis, they are transferred by shear and bearing on the connecting plies (GAA, 2011). In this mode, the connection is allowed to slip until the bolts come in bearing contact (Gorenc, op cit). Similar to the bearing mode, the loads in friction mode are transferred perpendicular to the bolt axis. However, as the joints are designed to not allow for slippage under limit loads, the frictional forces at the mating surfaces, as illustrated in Figure 1.b are able to resist external loads (GAA & Gorenc, op cit). Both the 8.8/TB and 8.8/TF connections must be installed through full tightening of the bolts (GAA, 2011). The following table, taken from a publication by the Galvanizers Association of Australia, summarises the attributes of the different common bolt types. 10 Table 2: Summary of Bolt types and categories (GAA) Australian Steel Institute released publications by Hogan and Munter (2007) regarding the bolting of steel structures containing tables summarising the attributes and design capacities of different bolt types. The Steel Designer’s Handbook also includes such tables, as well as discussion on the mechanisms of each joint type (Gorenc et al, 2012). According to the Research Council on Structural Connections (RCSC), if the joint is subjected to tensile fatigue loading, referring to the cyclic application of externally applied service loads and prying force (if any), it must be designed to either be pre-tensioned or slipcritical (2004). Barber (1992) claimed that HSFG bolts of the general grade, as governed by the British Standard (BS) 4395, amongst all the other bolt types, is the most commonly used type in general structural steelwork. This thesis thus focuses on the design and properties of the 8.8/TF bolts. 2.3.2. DESIGN OF HIGH STRENGTH FRICTION GRIP (HSFG) BOLTS AS4100-1998 defines friction-type connections as: “high-strength bolts tightened to induce a specified minimum bolt tension so that the resultant clamping action transfers the design shear forces at the serviceability limit state acting in the plane of the common contact surfaces by the friction developed between the contact surfaces” (Standards Australia, 1998). 11 The design of high strength fully tensioned friction type joints differs from that of conventional bolt connections as slip is required to be limited in the serviceability limit state design (SA, 1998). Due to this, for 8.8/TF bolted connections, the strength and serviceability limit states are assessed separately in accordance with AS4100 clauses 9.3.2 and 9.3.3 respectively. As shown in Appendix A, the calculations for the tensile load capacity of a friction tightened bolt vary for both the strength limit state and the serviceability limit state or strength limit state, the tensile capacity is determined similarly to bolts of different grade. However, for the serviceability limit state, the slip factor is considered. The nominal capacities of bolts in tension, shear and combined shear and tension must be calculated in designing for both the strength and serviceability limit states, and the design loads transmitted through the bolted connection must not exceed these values. According to Barber (1992), general grade HSFG bolts, as covered by the British Standard (BS) 4395, has the strength of 8.8 bolts given that the nominal diameter is less than 24mm, which is the case in the bolts utilised in the Mary River Bridge. Based on ASSHTO LRFD Bridge design, the bridge’s design life is the “period of time on which the statistical derivation of transient loads is based is 75 years” whilst its service life is the time it is expected to be in operation (Bartholomew, 2009, p12). The expected service life of the bridge depends on the original designer while its actual service life actually varies according to various factors such as the structure’s exposure conditions, quality of design, materials used upon construction and maintenance periods (ibid, p13). The indicative value for the design service life of bridges is 100 years (ibid, p14). NHCRP (12) has conducted a research testing of steel components of bridges under fatigue loading conditions and compared with the S-N curves according the ASSHTO and Eurocode standards as illustrated in the figure below. 12 Figure 5: ASSHTO and Eurocode S-N curves (NHCRP, 2012) In Australia, hot dipped galvanized (HDG) steel are commonly used commercially as its performance in the Australian atmosphere is relatively predictable and that compared to other cathodic protection such as electroplating, zinc-plating and paint, HDG provides the thickest coating and longer life to first maintenance (LFM) (GAA, 2012 & AMA, 2009). Shown below is a chart of approximated LFM of HDG steel. The bolted connections in Mary River Bridge are classified into C3 (medium corrosivity) due to its atmospheric environmental conditions and although the bridge itself is not directly adjacent to the coastal region, as previously mentioned, the site has experienced salt water intrusion (GAA, 2012). From the chart below, it could be seen, that the LFM of HDG steels in C3 classified zones within Australia varies from 21 to 40 years depending on the thickness of the zinc corrosion protection layer on the steel. 13 Figure 6: Life to First Maintenance of Hot Dipped Galvanized Steel (GAA, 2012) GAA also developed a table based on ISO9223Corrosion of metals and alloys which included the rate of corrosion of carbon steel and zinc in the different corrosivity category (20112).The values for C3 classified zone are as tabulated below. Table 3: Corrosion rate of steel and zinc in C3 zones (GAA, 2012) Unit g/(m2a) grams per square metre per year µm/a Recalculated in micrometres per year 2.4. Carbon Steel 200 to 400 Zinc 5 to 15 25 to 50 0.7 to 2.1 MECHANICAL MODES OF BOLT FAILURE Bolts generally fail due to one or a combination of overstress, fatigue and corrosion (Buda, 1994). 2.4.1. OVERSTRESSING The bolts are said to be overstressed if they are subjected to loads which are higher than what their capacities allow. This may be the case if the design of the bolted connections is inadequate compared to the loads they are actually subjected to. Overstressing of the bolts due to tensile loads may be caused by the following: Preload or torque of the bolts during installation exceeds specified preload and hence, reduces the bolt’s axial tensile strength. Loads transmitted by the bolted connection exceed its ultimate tensile strength, which may cause fracture on the bolt. (Buda, 1994, p85) 14 Another cause of failure is due to improper torque upon installation. In a Steel Construction journal by Dr. Fernando (2001), he has stated that using torque as a measure of tension can lead to high percentages of errors as shown in Figure 7. Figure 7: Percentage Error and Relative Cost in Bolt Installation (Fernando, 2001) 2.4.2. CYCLIC LOADING When a structure or any of its components is subjected to a cyclic tensile stress, fatigue failure may occur (Taylor, 2003). This failure is characterised by an incremental propagation of a fatigue crack on the material caused by each stress cycle (ibid, p25). Din and Ghazali (2004) claims that currently, in designing steel structures subjected to fatigue loading, the focus of the designer is normally on the main structural elements. This has been observed in a number of publications, wherein the focus is in selecting structural members after determining the design loads as the importance is on the internal stresses induced and the displacements due to the externally applied loads and does not discuss connections requirements in as much detail. They also claim that there is a presumption that fatigue failure is not likely to happen and that bolt connections do not play a major role in resisting such loads (ibid, p20). However, this has not been the case for structural collapses that have occurred due to insufficient fatigue resistance on the bearings (ibid). The cyclic stresses, due to alternating applied loads on the bolts, from the pre-load torque to the externally applied service loads, may cause for failure below the bolt’s rated tensile strength (Buda, 1994). 15 Fatigue failure on bolts normally occurs on points where there is a change in the crosssectional area as shown in Figure 8. The joint face angularity, as indicated in Figure 9, caused by uneven joint surfaces, also affects the fatigue life of a bolt. Figure 8: Typical failure points of a bolt: (a) head fillet, (b) thread runout, (c) first thread to engage the nut (Hobson. 1997) Figure 9: Joint Face Angularity (Bolt Science Limited, 2013) 2.4.3. CORROSION Corrosion is the process of material degradation due to exposure and hence, chemical or electrochemical interaction with its environment. As metal reacts with its environment, various types of metallic corrosion may occur (ACA, 2013). The metal may reach a point in which it is no longer capable of functioning to its original design capacity due to corrosion in which case, it is said that corrosion failure has occurred. Bolted connections are often coated to prevent this; however, over time, the coating themselves corrode and hence, the outer layer of the bolts themselves begin to corrode. Bolt failure due to corrosion is either in the form of chemical decomposition, galvanic corrosion, corrosion fatigue or stress corrosion cracking (Buda op cit). Often, corrosion and fatigue both contribute to the eventual failure of a mechanical component in failure modes including stress corrosion cracking (SCC), fretting corrosion and corrosion fatigue. As previously mentioned, high strength bolts are used in high tensile load applications. When these types of bolts are in the presence of corrosive agents, stress corrosion cracking may occur (ibid). The two factors determining the rate in which the corrosion assists crack propagation are the stress on the bolt and the fracture toughness of the material (Buda, 1994). Fretting corrosion, on the other hand, occurs when the contact surfaces between materials subjected to repetitive motion cause abrasion and wear of the material’s surface. In terms of bolts, fretting corrosion would be observed on the bolt shank 16 as the motion of the plates cause abrasion and wear on the bolt due to the vibration as effect of externally applied fluctuating loads. The abrasion on the bolt threads essentially remove the corrosion protective layer on the bolt allowing for accelerated corrosion attack to occur. The causes of bolt failure are not limited to the earlier discussed ones. Determining the causes of bolt failure will thus enable the engineers, in charge of the design phase, maintenance and quality assurance, to take proper actions in preventing the same type of failures from occurring. 2.5. METAL FAILURE ANALYSIS ASTM’s Standard Guide for Corrosion-Related Failure Analysis is a guideline intending to assist in an analysis wherein corrosion is a possible causative factor for failure of the material (2013). The standard discusses the steps that may help an investigator in identifying relevant corrosion information contributing to eventual failure. These steps include organising the analysis, examination of failure site conditions, observation of operating conditions at time of failure, records of historical information when available, careful sampling, evaluation of samples and failure assessment (ASTM International, 2013). The online article entitled The Consequences of Bolt Failures have several examples of bolt failures that have been involved in what the author called “serious losses” referring to both the structural and economic damages (Roberts, 2013). Photographs of failed bolts, examination of the failure surface and description of their primary cause of failure have been included. Davidson published a paper on failure analysis from a series of case studies of bolt connection failures (1999). The procedure generally followed while conducting a metallurgical failure analysis has been summarised as shown in Figure 10. 17 Figure 10: Major Steps in Conducting a Failure Analysis (Davidson, 1999) Through visual examination, the fracture surfaces can be analysed in detail from which possible causes of failure may be determined (Davidson, 1999). As each type of failure results in a different fracture surface, comparison of the broken parts to recorded and catalogued fracture surfaces available in various publications may hence be done. Non-destructive tests (NDTs) can be done without permanently damaging the bolts (ibid.). These tests are normally conducted in the field (prior to removal of bolts) to detect failures. Metallographic examinations require for the samples to be sectioned (both longitudinally and through its cross-section) to study its microstructure and thus, may be done in conjunction with the mechanical testings. As the bolts are steel, hence ferritic, appropriate metallographic preparation procedures must be followed (Struers, 1992). An optical microscopy evaluation of the bolt sectioned about its cross-sectional and longitudinal axes will enable analysis of its microstructure (Davidson, 1999). The properties determined from the microstructure are then compared with those available in various literature. Chemical analysis is done to determine the chemical composition of the material (Davidson, 1999). The chemical composition of the metal can be identified through Scanned Electron Microscope (SEM). Macrographs and photomicrographs of failure surface could also be produced though use of SEM from which the fracture surface exhibited could be identified (Shamsudin, 2011). The following images are SEM micrographs of fracture surfaces from which the type of failure have been determined. The SEM micrographs from the fracture surface of the bolts from the bridge could hence be compared with these images. Also through SEM, an Energy- 18 Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy (EDS) spectrum of the chemical composition of the surface can be produced (ibid). Illustration 6: EM Photomicrographs of Fracture Surfaces Exhibiting (a) Dimpled Fracture, (b) Brittle Transgranular Fracture, (c) Intergranular Fracture, and (d) Fatigue Striations (Shamsudin, 2011) Mechanical testings are carried out to verify whether the mechanical properties of the bolts conform to relevant standards, in this case AS4291.1-2000: Mechanical properties of fasteners made of carbon and alloy steel (SA, 2000). For checking whether the mechanical properties of the bolts are within the range of values as specified in the standards, a hardness tests was conducted. The Vickers hardness test, as specified in AS4291.1, is one of the many types of hardness tests available (SA, 2000). Ashby and Jones (2006) define the hardness tests as a loading of an indenter (a pointed diamond for Vickers test) onto the material surface. The material hardness (H) is determined by dividing the load (F) by projected area (A) of the indent (ibid.) as shown in Figure 11. However, in the case of Vickers Hardness test, the Vickers Hardness (Hv) derived is F over the indent’s total surface area as opposed to projected area and thus, H must be found from the Hv value determined (ibid.) 19 Figure 11: Diamond Indenter for Hardness Test (ibid., p112) As the yield strength of a metal is proportional to its hardness, an approximate tensile strength can be derived from the hardness value determined through the relationship H=3y where H=hardness and y= yield strength (Ashby & Jones, 2006). Alternatively, separate tensile testing of the bolts could also be carried out. As the bolted connections in the bridge are in different orientations, the connections can be grouped into those subjected to mostly tensile loads (due to vertical loads on the deck), to those subjected to only shear loads and to the connections that may be subjected to combination of both tensile and shear loads. Due to this, research has also been conducted for testing methodology in determining the residual loads on the bolted connections subjected to different types of loading conditions. 8.8/TF bolted connections are designed to be loaded to their slip critical loads. Hirashima and Uesugi (2004) have conducted an experimental study on the shear strength of HSFG bolted joints at elevated temperature in which they have conducted slip loading tests of bolts hardened at different temperatures. In this thesis, although the focus is not on temperature difference, their testing methodology can be adopted to compare the slip loads of the imperial bolts (5/8” and7/8” bolts from the original design) and slip loads of the new bolts (M16 and M22) as the original bolts have already been exposed to loads causing work-hardening and to a corrosive environment which have caused different levels of corrosion on the connections. As the bridge is subjected to fatigue loads, one of the mechanical testings earlier proposed to be conducted is a fatigue loading test. Din and Ghazali (2004) have conducted fatigue loading tests on two sizes of HSFG bolts: 12mm diameter and 25mm diameter. They have 20 conducted mechanical testings, including tensile tests, to define the parameters of their fatigue loading test. Young’s Modulus (E) and the Yield Strength (y) can be determined through the tensile testing. They then proceeded to subject the bolt under cyclic constant tensile loads (of 50% y for the smaller bolt and 30% y for the larger bolt) through a cyclic sine wave loading of 8 to 10 Hz (ibid, p21). To establish the Stress-Number of Cycles (S-N) Curve of the bolts, it was hence proposed to subject M16 and M22 bolts under fatigue loading tests. Vaious studies conducted regarding the fatigue life of bolted connections have been reviewed. A study regarding the fatigue performance of HSFG bols of overlapped joints conducted by H.Wang and his colleagues (2013) have analysed the fatigue life and damage of HSFG bolted connections when loaded in a double shear configuration where the load is applied on the middle plate (as shown below) and at varying friction coefficients through finite element analysis. From their analysis, friction coefficients ranging from 0.4 to 0.6 have resulted to fatigue life within the range of 107 cycles (Wang et al, 2013). A research on estimation of fatigue life of bolt clamped in double shear lap joints included finite element analysis (FEA) and fatigue tests of aluminium specimen have resulted to number of cycles in the 105 to 106 range. A study on the different aspects of fatigue resistance of HSFG bolts with large diameters by Prof.P.Schaumann (2008) dealt with the reduction of fatigue strength of bolts with diameters larger than 30mm. The article included Stress to Number of Cycles (S/N) curves for fatigue loading of high-strength bolts, as well as a chart showing the decrease in the fatigue limit for an increase in the bolt diameter (Schaumann, 2008). Fatigue testing of high strength M48 bolts in axial, bending and combined loading have been conducted for said study from which testing in this thesis could be based on (ibid.). The deterioration of a metal as its reaction to its environment is called corrosion (Byers, n.d.). As corrosion is observed on the surfaces of the bolted connections, corrosion testing was also proposed to be conducted. The rate of corrosion varies due to different factors including moisture, temperature, and water quality and concentration differences of the corrosion agents. There are several available standards and types of corrosion testing aiming to measure the corrosion rate of a material including corrosion by immersion and electrochemical testing. For this thesis work, the corrosion by immersion has been chosen. 21 CHAPTER 3 3. METHODOLOGY OF ANALYSIS AND TESTING This section contains the methodology followed in the investigation of the bolted connections on the Mary River Bridge. In this section of the thesis, the methods for the metal failure analysis, calculation of design loads and allowable loads on the connections, as well as, the procedure of the experiments conducted are discussed. The equipment used for the experiments outlined in this section are found in Appendix E. 3.1. INVESTIGATION OF DESIGN ADEQUACY OF THE BRIDGE CONNECTIONS To investigate the design adequacy of the bolted connections in the Mary River Bridge, two main tasks are to: (1) identify the loads acting on the superstructure based on current standards Compare values acquired to original design values and (2) calculate design loads on bolted connections and compare these values on the calculated allowable loads on the connections. These tasks are conducted based on the following standards: AS5100: Bridge Design AS1170 Structural Design and AS4100: Design of Steel Structures. Microstran Analysis and SAP2000 software packages were proposed to be utilised for the first task. However, after the elements, nodes, traffic loading conditions were inputted in SAP2000, the dynamic 3D analysis could not be conducted and thus, 2D analyses of the vertical loads and horizontal loads were instead conducted using Microstran Analysis. As the main task was to determine the loads at the location of the bolted connections and the maximum bending moment induced along the bridge span and not the displacements and internal stresses throughout the bridge superstructure, the use of 2D analysis should be sufficient. The detailed methodology for this section has been further discussed in Section 4 of this paper. 22 3.2. FAILURE ANALYSIS OF THE BOLTS TAKEN FROM THE BRIDGE To analyse the failure mechanisms of the bolts taken from the bridge, the following steps were followed: Take an inventory of the 5/8” and 7/8” bolts removed from the side and record 1. observations. Take 5/8” and 7/8” bolts from sections installed in 1968 and 1972 and prepare them 2. for metallographic investigation. a. Cut sections of bolts from the 1968, 1972 and 2013 batches through their cross- section and longitudinally, b. grind the sectioned samples on coarse paper (80 grit), c. mount the specimens by embedding them in resin epoxy stands, d. polish specimens on different polishing surfaces (to 6µm). e. Examine specimens through an optical microscope: f. i. etching of the polished specimen in a nital solution for 30 sec ii. examining the surfaces under the optical microscope of different magnification iii. measuring corroded area around the bolt cross-section iv. comparing the microstructure of the specimen with those in literature Conduct Vickers Hardness Tests on both the cross-sectional and longitudinal sectioned test specimens, in accordance with AS4192 as summarised: i. apply HV0,3 loading in a series on the cross-section ii. apply HV0,3 loading on the longitudinally cut specimens on the positions as specified iii. record the diagonals for each and calculate the hardness number and tensile strength 3. Take fractured bolt surfaces and cut to a shorter length (less than 10mm) for SEM. a. View specimen through SEM and take macro and micrographs. b. Generate EDS graph of the specimens’ microstructure. c. Submerge specimens in acid pickling solution to remove rust on the surface. d. View specimen through SEM and take micrographs at similar magnification settings as those in literatures for direct comparison e. Analyse failure mechanism of bolts from the micrographs taken. 23 3.3. METHODOLOGY OF MECHANICAL TESTINGS CONDUCTED The mechanical experiments required for this thesis work have been conducted in the Instron machine (Appendix E) which required test fixtures to be designed for the bolt testings. The test fixtures are flat, L and tee plates made of grade 350 structural steel designed to dimensions that will allow for load application to the bolts’ theoretical slip loads without the risk of plate tearing and with holes of the design standard diameter (2mm larger than bolt shank) at allowable spacing from the edges and from other holes as specified in AS41000.9: Design of Steel Structures: Connections (1998). A set-up of metal plates welded and connected through threaded fasteners were also designed. The test fixtures designed and machined are as shown below: Illustration 7: Test Fixtures for Slip and Cyclic loading (from left to right: M16 double shear plates, M22 double shear plates, M16 2 bolts in tensile T-plates and M22 in tensile L-plates) Note: The bolts placed through the above fixtures are not the ones tested – they were only placed to hold the plates together initially. The M16 and M22 bolts tested were ordered to the available length closest to the original imperial bolts from the bridge. The set-up adjacent is composed of 2 T-sections made of plates joined by full-penetration bevelled welds designed to not fail before the M22 central bolt and 2 flat plates in the middle. 8 threaded rods were used to connect each Tsection with a central flat plate. However, as shown, the welding in the T-section have caused the plates to not stay level and thus when the test specimen was placed in Intron, bending was induced at the extreme ends from Illustration 8: Set-up for Tensile Testing of M22 bolts 24 the centre, causing for the failure to occur in the threaded rods instead. The steps followed for the slip and fatigue testing are outlined below: 1. Choose 3 sets of each of the following bolt groups: (a) 2x 5/8”, 2x M16, 2x 7/8” and 2x M22 bolts for slip testing in double shear configuration, (b) 2x 5/8”, 2x M16, 1x 7/8” and 1x M22 bolts for slip testing in tensile 2. Tighten bolts to specified preload for HSFG bolted connections of their bolt size using the appropriate torque wrench and a DTI washer (also known as load indicating washers). As the new bolts, nuts and washers were galvanized, the bolts were tightened until the gap between the DTI washer and the plate was reduced to 0.025mm which was measured by a feeler gauge. 3. Position test specimens on the Instron machine as shown below. After calibrating the gauge length and zeroing the load applied by the machine, initiate axial testing and record load in which the bolts begin to slip. 4. Plot theoretical and experimental slip loads. 5. From the slip loads determined, conduct fatigue load testing of new sets of bolts (M16 and M22) by subjecting the specimen in constant cyclic loading of constant amplitude of 70% the determined average critical loads of the new sets of bolts at low frequencies (no more than 10Hz) to cycles of 500 000 to 2 000 000 cycles. 3.4. CORROSION BY IMMERSION As previously discussed in Section 2.5, the corrosion test chosen was by weight loss through immersion. From similar experiments in literature, the standard for this test and the availability of materials, the methodology for this testing has been summarised below. The aim of this test was to show the difference in the corrosion rate of the medium carbon bolts when coated with corrosion protection layer and as plain bolts. This would show that once fretting fatigue causes abrasion and wear on the coating of the bolts, the corrosion attack is accelerated. 25 The equipment used for this experiment are as listed below: Corrosive Media: Consistent volume of Tap water, Seawater (with approximately 3% by weight of NaCl solution) and HCl (Hydrochloric Acid) 0.1mol in all 6 setups 6 250ml glass beakers, Teflon tape, sticks and weighing scale (accurate to 1mg) 6 M16 bolts, HCl acid, Distilled water The experiment was completed by following the steps listed below: 1. Select 6 of the same type hot-dipped galvanised bolts. 2. Submerge 3 of them in concentrated HCl acid until zinc layer is completely removed. After removing, wash specimens in distilled water and dry. 3. Measure initial values listed below to enable calculation of the bolt’s total exposed area to the corrosion medium each is to be submerged in. a. Sample weight, e. Minor diameter of bolt pitch, b. Total length, f.Major diameter of bolt pitch (i.e. c. Length of head, also diameter of unthreaded area), d. Length of unthreaded shank g. Width of side of hexagon (head) area, 4. Submerge bolts (up to where threaded area only for consistency and ease in exposed area calculation) 5. Ensure volume of liquid in each set up stays consistent i.e. fill up with distilled water to the same level. 6. After a set number of immersion days, note corrosion deposits observed (if any) on the specimen, wash, and dry then weight sample again. 7. Calculate rate of corrosion of each. 26 CHAPTER 4 4. INVESTIGATION ON DESIGN ADEQUACY OF BOLTED CONNECTIONS ON MARY RIVER BRIDGE This section contains the discussion of how the design stresses on the bolts have been determined, as well as, the comparison between the design loads and the allowable loads on the bolted connections. 4.1. MARY RIVER BRIDGE LOADS 4.1.1. ORIGINAL DESIGN LOADS In 1968, the bridge was originally designed to the following design loads: Design maximum stream velocity: 8.5fps = 2.591m/s Average stream velocity over one span: 7.5fps = 2.286m/s Debris plus stream force loading 0.6 kips per ft run = 8.756kN/m Live Loading: AASHTO H20-S16-44 Braking Load: 70% of one 83 Ton ore truck = 569.96kN The loads in imperial units were converted into metric for ease in comparison with current standards. In May 1979, a report on Bridge Road Capacities on the NT bridges was prepared by Cameron McNamara & Partners Consulting Engineers. The report contained computations for the overload capacities of the bridge superstructures including the Mary River Bridge. The document states that for bridges composed of steel girders and reinforced concrete deck, “the overstress limits are 40% above the working stress limits” (ibid, 1979). The report assumes the spacing between the two wheels in each axle to be 1800mm, where the allowable bending moment and shear force are decreased by 3% when the spacing is at 1500mm and increased by 2% when the spacing is 2100mm. From the report, the design bridge span was 22650mm and the permissible lane loads are as tabulated below. 27 Table 4: Permissible Loads on the Mary River Bridge according to the Report on Bridge Load Capacities (1979) Load Type 1 Two Lanes 2 One Lane 3 One Lane in Centre 4 One Lane 5 One Lane on Centre Allowable Stress Working Working Working 50% Overstress 50% Overstress Mid-Span Bending Moment (kNm) 2200 2760 3810 4000 5510 Support Shear (kN) 300 380 530 650 940 The above table includes the allowable loads on the bridge. However, the maximum bending moment and shear force induced by the vehicle loadings, including the percentage impact by which the loading should be increased, on the position along a span of the bridge that may cause the most adverse effects, have not been determined. Different vehicle loading types must be identified and moved along various points on the span. Through this, the maximum bending and its location, as well as shear forces on the supports, can be identified for each relative position of the loads on the beam. This is done through a series of influence line diagrams in which the loads acting on the specific position along the beam are combined with relevant uniformly distributed load. Once identified, the maximum bending moment and maximum support shear could then be compared to the permissible loads in the table above. 4.1.2. DESIGN LOADS BASED ON CURRENT STANDARDS The steel structure of the Mary River Bridge is composed of five main UB girders spanning across four main headstocks between two abutments with secondary UB girders as diaphragms located mid-span between the supports. Due to this design, the cross-section of the bridge, is hence classified as an open-section as opposed to a closed section bridge crosssection typical of bridges with completely closed steel cross-section, and as such, the internal forces and moments in each bridge span must be analysed the way bridges with open cross sections are analysed. As previously mentioned, the bridge superstructure has a concrete deck which spans over the girders. Throughout the concrete deck, there are shear connectors which effectively allow for externally applied loads to act as uniformly distributed loads onto the structure. As the case with simply supported beams, the maximum shear forces are found on the supports and as such, the vertical loads acting on the deck including the dead loads of the 28 superstructure and the traffic loading condition causing the most adverse effect on the structure are distributed such that they are acting on the bridge supports on which the inverted V-braces are located. This then implies that when checking for load capacities of the bolted connections all vertical loads and all induced bending moments are transmitted to the connections on the supports. The maximum moment and deflection on a simply supported beam with a uniformly distributed load are located at mid-span; which in this case is where the diaphragms are positioned. The forces transmitted onto the diaphragms are those of the lateral forces applied on the deck which may include braking loads, drag forces and the reaction of the bridge due to traversing vehicles. The loads due to traversing traffic, as well as the self-weight of the reinforced concrete slab on top must be determined to enable determination of loads on the bolted connections at the bridge diaphragms and those at the inverse v-bracings. Similarly, the loads transmitted by the bolted connection finally connecting the structural steels to the concrete headstocks can only be determined after the dead loads and the traffic loading condition causing the most adverse effect on the structure is determined. The bridge responds to (mechanical, physical or chemical) actions in terms of action effects including moments, stresses, support reactions and displacements (Hirt & Lebet, 2013). Hirt and Lebet categories the types of actions identified for the design of a bridge to be permanent, variable or accidental. The permanent loads include the self-weights of all components of the structure and any prestressing force, the variable actions refer to the traffic and climatic loads and the accidental actions are the very rare but have very high intensity loads (ibid., 2013). In order to analyse if the bolt connections in this bridge is under-designed in accordance with current standards, the design loads must first be identified through AS5100.2. The loads acting on the superstructure have been divided into vertical and horizontal loads. The bridge is made up of 5 simply supported spans and hence, one span is analysed. 29 Figure 12: FHWA Transverse Wind Load Reactions at Pier bearings from Wind on Superstructure The figure above is from FHWA’s design example with the same configuration (different dimensions) as the Mary River Bridge cross-sections. As the document included calculations of the loads for the design of the bridge, together with the standards, the example has served as a basis for the calculations conducted in this section. One of the differences between the FHWA’s sample problem and Mary River Bridge’s design is that the parapets on the design example is a closed one while those on Mary River bridge are open. Relevant clauses in AS5100.2 have been used for these load calculations. The Commentary for AS5100.2 have also been used as guidelines. The vertical loads include the permanent dead loads due to structural self-weight and the imposed road traffic loads. The calculations of the loads are as shown in Appendix B.1 where it was found that the dead load due to the self-weight was approximately 1009kN/span – as the bridge is composed of 5 spans of the same lengths and includes the same components, then each support should be able to hold the total of 1009kN. Over each UB girder in a span, the uniformly distributed load is 11.04kN/m. Each beam was then statically analysed for SM1600 loads, referring to the stationary and moving traffic loads, and a series of A160 axle loads as shown in Figures 12, 13 and 14 where the axle loads were analysed as concentrated point loads along the beam. The support reactions required were then calculated and a dynamic factor of 35% was added onto the moving loads (SA, 2004). The HS20 truck loads as specified in AASHTO have axle width of 1.8m while AS5100.2 specifies for 2.0 axle width (SA, Figure 13: A160 Axle Load (SA, 2004) 2004). 30 Figure 14: S1600 Stationary Traffic Load (SA, 2004) Figure 15: M1600 Moving Traffic Load (SA, 2004) Each vehicle load type was positioned over the 22.860m (75ft) simply supported bridge span and the maximum bending moments and support reactions were derived through Microstran, from which it was found that the loading type producing the maximum bending moment was the M1600 when the front axle wheels are in line with the left hand support and the varying axle spacing between the sixth and seventh axle is at its minimum of 6.25m, as shown in Figure 16. Figure 16: M1600 loading position causing maximum bending moment over one span 31 This loading condition (M1600 traffic loads positioned on a span as shown above) was then used to calculate the maximum road traffic loads at each support with the appropriate factors for the dynamic load allowance and the fatigue load effects following Clause 6: Road Traffic Loads of AS5100.2 (SA, 2004). The value of the maximum total road traffic loads at each support was calculated to be 3161kN. The total vertical forces due to traffic loads and dead loads at each support was hence calculated to be 4170kN. The ultimate and serviceability vertical wind loads acting on the bridge deck were also calculated based on Clause16.6 of AS5100 and relevant clauses in AS1170.2 Structural Design Actions Part 2: Wind Loads. The values for the ultimate and serviceability vertical wind loads were calculated as 454.33kN and 166.24kN respectively over the surface area of the bridge deck over one span. Horizontal loads on the bridge include the braking forces of vehicles stopping at any point along the bridge span. The braking forces are to be applied horizontally on the deck in opposite directions. The horizontal loads acting on the bridge superstructure are summarised in Figure 17 below. Figure 17: Horizontal Loads on a Bridge Span (in Plan View) 32 Table 5: Vertical and Horizontal Loads on the Bridge Superstructure over one span Load (kN) Action Direction Bridge deck and superstructure self-weight 1009.00 Vertical (uniformly distributed onto span) Traffic Load (S1600) Traffic Load (M1600 + dynamic, fatigue and other factors) Vertical wind load (Ultimate) 2427.55 Vertical (on wheel axle lines) 3161.00 Vertical (on wheel axle lines) 454.33 Vertical (uniformly distributed onto span) Vertical wind load (serviceability) Braking Load (single vehicle stopping) 166.24 1337.00 Braking Load (multiple vehicle stopping ) 601.72 Vertical (uniformly distributed onto span) Horizontal (longitudinal on bridge plan centreline) Horizontal (longitudinal on centreline of each of the 2 lanes) Horizontal (longitudinal on bridge superstructure centreline) Drag force on superstructure due to water flow (dry season) Ultimate Drag force on superstructure due to water flow (superstructure height) ultimate Drag force on superstructure due to water flow (5 year flood level) ultimate Drag force on superstructure due to water flow (dry season) serviceability Drag force on superstructure due to water flow (superstructure height) Serviceability Drag force on superstructure due to water flow (5 year flood level) Serviceability Transverse wind load (Ultimate) 3.96 6.86 Horizontal (longitudinal on bridge superstructure) 7.81 Horizontal (longitudinal on bridge superstructure) 3.10 Horizontal (longitudinal on bridge superstructure) 5.37 Horizontal (longitudinal on bridge superstructure) 6.11 Horizontal (longitudinal on bridge superstructure) 94.65 Horizontal (transverse on bridge superstructure) Transverse wind load (serviceability) 34.63 Horizontal (transverse on bridge superstructure) Longitudinal wind load (Ultimate) 187.31 Horizontal (longitudinal on bridge superstructure) Longitudinal wind load (serviceability) 68.53 Horizontal (longitudinal on bridge superstructure) The loads acting on the bridge superstructure have been summarised in the above table. The calculations for the values presented are attached in Appendix B.1. From the above table, the braking forces as specified by AS5100.2 Clause 6.8.2 to be applied in either direction horizontally on the bridge span is 601.72kN. However, as mentioned in Secion 4.1.1, the bridge was earlier designed for braking forces of 569.96kN which signifies an increase of 5% on the design braking forces. The maximum bending moments induced by the combination of the dead loads and the traffic loads causing the most adverse effect on the structure have been determined again through the use of Microstran Analysis and compared to the maximum value earlier in Table 4. Figure 18: Vertical Loads over a beam 33 The above figure shows the maximum vertical loads on the beam at the line of action of the wheels of M1600 road traffic vehicle on the bridge deck, These loads include the vertical wind loads, structural self-weight, axle loads and vehicle line loads. The shear forces and bending moment diagrams along the beam as the resultant of the combination of the externally applied vertical loads on the deck is shown in the figure below. Figure 19: Resultant Shear Forces(maximum of 916kN at LHS support) Figure 20: Bending Moment Diagram (maximum of 5127 kNm) As shown above, the maximum moment induced by this loading condition is 5127kNm which is within the maximum 50% overstress permissible bending moment of 5510kNm. This implies that the maximum design loads are still within the permissible limits of the bridge. 4.2. BOLTED CONNECTIONS AT THE MARY RIVER BRIDGE The results from the linear models representing a UB girder member in each span loaded with the vertical loads, as well as the different loads determined from Section 4.1.2 have been inputted in Microstran Analysis at the grillage model of the superstructure of one bridge span as shown below. The line-elements of the model represent the UB girder members, diaphragm sections and the inverted V bracings at the supports and the nodes represent the locations of the bolted connections. Rotation about the X, Y and Z saxes at the supports have not been fixed as each bridge span essentially acts as a simply supported beam. Linear 34 models representing a UB girder member in a span have also been modelled for the traffic loads. Figure 21: Grillage Model of Bridge Span Superstructure Combinations of longitudinal and transverse horizontal ultimate and serviceability loads (or those acting at the X and Z axes) together with the vertical loads from the vehicle type and position causing the most adverse effect on the beam have been analysed through the software with factors based on AS1170.0: Structural Design Loading Combinations applied. The longitudinal wind load and the drag force on the superstructure due to water load were applied coming from the same direction as this would cause the worst combination on the longitudinal forces. These combinations, as well as the reports generated by the software, are attached in Appendix B.2. From equilibrium equations, the node reactions at the X, Y and Z axes are then used as the total load applied at each group of bolted connections located about those points. These loads are included in the second Microstran report attached in Appendix B.2. As shown in the above table the diaphragm-to-girder connections are only subjected to shear forces and as such must be compared to the total design slip load of a connection with 12 M16 bolts.. The resultant support reactions at the Microstran generated report are calculated based on the current design standards and the maximum total shear force at a diaphragm bolt group connection in shear was found to be 261.26kN. As the nodes have 12 bolts, the shear load each must resist is approximately 21.77kN. This is not the exact value as the strength of the bolt group connection is not directly a product of the strength of one bolt and the number of bolts in the connection. This value is however taken as the design for this thesis work as it is 35 an overestimation of the actual load. This design load is then compared with the slip critical load of one M16 bolt loaded in shear. As shown in Appendix A, the allowable design load for M16 varies from 16.30kN to 23.30kN with a reduction factor of 0.7 and depending on the kh factor for the hole type. The slip critical load (the actual load in which the bolt will start slipping without the safety reduction factor) for M16 bolts varies from 23.29kN to 33.29kN, again depending on the hole type. As the holes on the structural steelwork for the bolted connections are standard sized (with diameter 2mm larger than the bolt shank) and are positioned in a vertical manner as to not have any stagger of the holes, kh is hence 1.0 (SA, 1998). The design slip load allowed for M16 bolts according to the standards is 23.30kN (and the slip load is 33.29kN). The design shear force applied of 21.77kN is less than 23.30kN and hence, the M16 bolts in the diaphragm connection are still adequate in accordance with current standards. 36 CHAPTER 5 5. BOLT FAILURE ANALYSIS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In this section, the results of the testing as described in sections 3.2 to 3.4 are summarised. Discussion of results for each test is also included at the end of each sub-section. 5.1. INSPECTION OF CONDITIONS OF BOLTED CONNECTIONS AT THE MARY RIVER BRIDGE An inventory of the original bolts from the bridge removed that were sent to CDU, as tabulated in Appendix D, showed that the connections from which the most number of bolts that have failed are those located at the diaphragm-to-web-girder connections, both those oriented horizontally in shear and vertically at the underside of the steel in tension. From Illustration 5 (in Section 2), it can be seen that there are a total of 6x 5/8” (equivalent to M16) HSFG bolts on either side of a UB girder web. From the inventory, the bolts from these sets of connections have showed the most number of bolts that are heavily corroded and were either missing, has fractured in shear and showed indentations along the bolts such as necking and abrasion and wear along the bolt shanks due to fretting. These bolts are designed to be slip-critical and as such the necking and fretting along the bolts imply that the bolts have been overstressed. The other bolt group located on the UB diaphragms are the 4x7/8” bolts (replaced with M22 bolts) at the underside of the girder where the connections to the diaphragms are located. From the inventory, these bolts have shown relatively uniform rusting along the bolt shanks compared to the 5/8” bolts and there have not been any fractured bolt recovered. However, there are a number of missing 7/8” bolts from the diaphragm connection sets that may be attributed to the bolts have loosened over time, lost the pre-tension applied unto them upon installation and have simply fallen off the bridge. Also observed upon inspection, the bolted connections that have suffered the most corrosion are those located at the abutments followed by those on the headstocks, both of which are the sets of bolts connecting the steel structure on the concrete. Localised corrosion and corrosion 37 pitting have been observed on the connections, especially the ones on the abutments, due to exposure of those areas to atmosphere, marine water and soil. Depicted in the following images are two sets of fractured bolts from the bridge diaphragms and nuts from the bridge. Illustration 9: Fractured 5/8" Bolt Samples A and B from bridge diaphragms Illustration 10: Heavily Corroded 7/8" Nuts Two bolts have been investigated to represent all bolts from diaphragms that have failed. Abrasion and wear along the bolt shanks were noted. The bolts have also already failed before the painting works conducted on the bridge superstructure back in 2008. The fractured bolts all sheared in the first thread to engage the nut. The part of the bolt that was in the nut was cut, examined through an optical microscope and was used to check for material hardness while the other part (the piece with the head and the longer shank length) was then examined through Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy(EDS) and SEM before and after acid pickling. By analysing the sample through the aforementioned methods, the general mode of failure of the sheared bolts could be determined. 38 5.2. MICROSTRUCTURE The microstructure of the bolts were analysed through optical microscopy and compared to optical micrographs available in literature as tabulated: Optical Microscope Image Magnification 5x magnification of outer surface of threaded area of a 1968 5/8” bolt Observation surface fretting and corrosion of the protective layer at low magnification 20x magnification of Decarburization of bolt 5/8” bolt surface, minimal layer of corrosion protection layer left 5x magnification of Fretting corrosion at the 5/8” bolt thread bolt shank 100x Magnification Shows micro-structure taken about the similar to Medium Carbon middle of the bolt steel The following table summarises the results from the Vickers Hardness testing conducted. The measurements of the diagonals are attached in Appendix F. 39 Table 6: Vickers Hardness Results Bolt 1968 M16 Bolt 1 Cross-section 1968 M16 Bolt 2 Cross-section 1972 M16 Bolt 1 Cross-Section 1972 M16 Bolt 2 Cross-Section 1968 M16 Bolt Thread 1 1968 M16 Bolt Thread 2 1972 M16 Bolt Thread 1 1972 M16 Bolt Thread 2 1968 M22 Bolt Thread 2 (Hv 1) 1972 M22 Bolt Thread 1 (Hv 0,3) 1968 M22 Bolt Cross-section 1 (Hv 0,3) 1972 M22 Bolt Cross-section 2 (Hv 0,3) 1972 M22 Bolt Cross-section 2 (Hv 0,3) Average Vickers Hardness 292.4 288.6 306.8 309.0 321.7 326.7 309.0 311.3 296.2 278.6 297.0 297.0 296.2 Average Tensile Strength (Mpa) 935.7 923.5 981.8 988.8 1029.3 1045.3 988.8 996.3 947.8 891.5 950.4 950.4 947.8 From the Vickers Hardness tests conducted, it was observed that the Vickers hardness (and by association the tensile strength) of bolts installed in 1968 and their 1972 counterparts were in the similar range. The hardness and tensile strength of 5/8” bolts were higher than those of the 78” bolts. All values are also higher than the minimum values as specified in AS1252 (attached in Appendix C) and some of the M16 hardness are higher than the maximum limit. The figure below shows the EDS spectrum of the failed bolt taken about the centre of the sample. As shown, high levels of oxide were scanned due to the heavy corrosion deposits found on the failed surface. Within the spectrum, it can be seen that chlorine and sodium peaks are relatively close together implying there have been salt and chloride compound levels in the river that have contributed to the corrosive environment of the bridge and its bolted connections. No discernible zinc peaks have been observed implying low levels of zinc from the protective layer were found on the surface of the corrosion deposit. The other element peaks are those included in the alloy of the base metal (as specified in the tables in Appendix C). 40 Figure 22: EDS Spectrum of Sample (prior to acid pickling) The following images depict the fracture surface of the bolt samples viewed through an optical microscope. The image on the left of Figure 23 shows that sample A has been inappropriately pickled and dried which led to embrittlement and fibre filaments on the surface whilst Sample B was pickled and dried with the appropriate acid and dried with compressed air. Some corrosion is seen on the image at the right as this optical microscopy image (and the SEM after pickling) were taken not immediately after pickling and hence, corrosion of the base metal has commenced. Despite the fibre filaments on Sample A, it can be seen that the bolts did not fail at the same overstress crack growth rate. As the two bolts were from different diaphragm sections on the bridge, the difference in the fatigue striations and final fracture can be attributed to the number of bolts missing from their bolt groups prior to fracture of these bolts. From both samples, hairline fatigue cracks from the outer surface of the bolts were observed and cracks that have propagated across the surface have been observed under the microscope. 41 Figure 23: Macrographs of Fractured Surfaces for Sample A and Sample B Fractographs of higher magnification taken from different areas of sample A before acid pickling are shown in the images below. As shown, the striations, and hence by association, the mode of failure cannot be identified in 70x magnification due to the debris including corrosion deposits that were still on the metal. This was also the case for Sample B. The images (Illustration 11 and Illustration 12)are taken using Back-scattered Electron in the SEM. Illustration 11 shows the outer edge where the failure has begun with the fretting damaged zone at the top left corner, the thinning of the zinc layer and the location where there is more debris in the surface. Illustration 12 shows different levels on the surface, however it cannot be said for certain whether these are indentations of the fatigue striations as there have been a thick layer of rust on the fractured surface and these lines may be attributed to those of the debris and not actual cracks or depression on the metal surface. Illustration 11: SEM micrograph at the outer surface Illustration 12: SEM micrograph on fracture surface showing “indentations” 42 After acid pickling, Sample B has been observed through the SEM in which the following images have been produced: Illustration 13: Surface Fractograph After Acid Pickling along a surface crack Illustration 14: Surface Fractograph at Final Fracture The above images were taken through Secondary Electron in the SEM after the corrosion deposits on Bolt Sample B have been cleaned through pickling in 50% hydrochloride acid. Illustration 13 shows the fatigue cracks along the surface approaching the final fracture while Illustration 14 is that of the final fracture itself wherein multiple cracks can be seen. Fractographs of different magnification of the failure surface at different points after acid pickling were taken and shown in the following images. Illustration 15 shows magnified fatigue striations on the bolt surface. Both Illustration 15 and Illustration 16 indicate fatigue as the failure mode. Illustration 15: Surface Fractograph at 500x Magnification Illustration 16: Surface Fractograph at 1000x Magnification 43 The fatigue striations shown are not only depicting striations but also suggests stress corrosion cracking. A more magnified image was hence taken, as shown in Illustration 17 which indicate that there has indeed been intergranular stress corrosion cracking which could be attributed to long-term exposure to hydrogen, oxygen and chloride. This implies that the bolts failed due to a combination of overstressing, Illustration 17: Surface Fractograph at 2000x Magnification fatigue and corrosion. The cross-section of the other section of the fractured bolt (the part that was in the nut) was mounted, polished and observed under an optical microscope as shown in the images below. Figure 14(a) shows indentations on the fracture surface and it can be seen that there is discoloration due to corrosion and area in which the corrosion protective layer is not evident. Figure 14(b) shows a part of the shear surface where fatigue cracks can be seen. Illustration 18: Bolt Fracture Surface Illustration 19: Fatigue Cracks at the Bolt Fracture Surface The other photomicrographs taken are attached in Appendix G. 44 5.3. RESIDUAL LOADS The testing methodology outlined in Section 3.3 has been followed and the results have been tabulated below. Shown in the image is the setup of the experiment conducted. The Instron machine was operated through a computer software that generated graphs for slip loads and provides the raw data Illustration 20: Slip Load Testing Setup recorded for testing so that the user could better analyse the values. The results of the slip loading test are as tabulated below. Table 7: Slip loads of Old and New bolts From Appendix A Experimental: M16 Bolts Experimental: 5/8" From literature Interpolated from Appendix A Experimental: M22 Bolts Experimental: 7/8" Bolts 90 Slip Load (kN) 42.00 46.60 39.90 41.90 43.00 20.00 7.00 0.00 Average 41.60 Average 9.00 72.40 83.00 80 70 Slip Load (kN) Type From literature 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Theoretical Experimental: New M16 (5/8") Bolts 70.03 75.56 75.28 73.28 50.23 73.30 Average Experimental: Old M22 (7/8") bolts Figure 24: Shear Slip Testing Results 73.62 Average 65.60 From the table and figure above, the average slip load for the new bolts tested was 41.6kN (20.8kN each bolt) while that of the old ones was 9kN due to how the bolts could not be tightened to required pre-tension and as such the slip loads were more varied. 45 M22 bolts, new and old, have also been subjected to slip testing, however, both sets of bolts were tightened to required pre-tension as indicated by the gap in between the plates and the load indicating washers as the old M22 bolts are not as heavily corroded as the old M!6 ones. The slip load for 2 old M22 bolt was 65.6kN and for the new, it was 73.62kN. This indicates that there was 89% residual load in the M22 bolts. The difference between the slip loads of the new bolts compared to the theoretical values can be attributed to the use of torque wrench and DTI washers that, according to literature (Figure 7) may result to up to 15% inaccuracy in reaching the required tension upon installation or initial tightening of bolt. 70000 60000 load (N) 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 extension (mm) Figure 25: New M16 bolts loaded over slip critical load (Graph generated by software used by the machine) Figure 26: Old 5/8” bolts loaded over slip critical load (graph generated by use of raw data from testing) Old and new M16 bolts where loaded over the slip critical load as shown in the graphs above. From the separate data files generated for each testing, Figure 27 was hence generated. A similar graph was plotted for one set of results for the M22 bolt slip testing in double shear attached in Appendix H. The old M16 bolts are heavily corroded that the nuts could no longer be tightened to required pre-tension and as such, did not reach a slip load and behaved elastically, as shown in Figure 27. This implies that no clamp loads were induced on the M16 bolts and that the corrosion on the bolts indicates they have reached their end of service life and if left on the bridge, they would have eventually sheared. As shown, once the Figure 27: M16 and 5/8" bolts loaded over design slip capacity 46 slip load of the bolts were reached and the bolts are still loaded, the bolts behave elastically such that the elongation starts increasing proportionally to the load. When both the old and the new bolts were loaded over the slip resistance load (theoretical value of 46.6kN), when removed from the set-up, the new bolts did not have a discernible difference along its length while the old bolts have elongated and begun to bend. For slip testing of the bolts in tensile configuration, the T and L sections were designed and prepared. However, only one trial for each have been conducted for these testings. This is because, slip critical load is essential for HSFG bolted connections loaded in shear configuration and the tensile testing were conducted to observe the behaviour of the friction tightened tensile joint when subjected to loads higher than its design allowable loads. The set-up adjacent is composed of 2 T-sections made of plates joined by full-penetration bevelled welds designed to not fail before the M22 central bolt and 2 flat plates in the middle. 8 threaded rods were used to connect each T-section with a central flat plate. It was designed to allow for slip load testing of M22 tensile bolt as the L pieces were designed for the fatigue testing in which lower load amplitude to be applied. However, as shown, the welding in the T-section caused the plates to not stay level and thus when the test specimen was placed in Intron, the adjusting of the machine grips caused for the rods compress at certain areas inducing unequal stresses which led to pulling Illustration 21: M22 tensile testing set-up out of the bottom rods. Although, this testing did not allow for the M22 bolt to reach slip critical load, when the set-up was taken out of the machine, the M22 bolt that was earlier tightened with a DTI washer was noted to have loosened to a great extent. This suggests that unexpected loading on friction tightened bolts designed for tensile loads, self-loosening could readily occur. 47 5.4. FATIGUE TESTING The parameters for the fatigue testing, as derived in Appendix H, are tabulated below. Table 8: Fatigue Testing Parameters Loading Condition Double shear Tensile Bolt Size M16 M22 Test fixture flat plates L-plates Bolt tension at installation 95 kN 175kN Test frequency 10Hz 1Hz Number of cycles tested 2,500,000 100,000 Load amplitude 35-45kN 15-100kN Test set-up The following graph represents one cycle of the fatigue testing Cyclic Loading for M16 Bolts 60 Load (kN) 40 20 33kN amplitude 0 -20 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 45N amplitude -40 -60 time (s) Figure 28: One Cycle of Load Applied The M16 double-shear set-up was similar to that used in the slip testing but with wider plates and the thickness of the central plates were increased and the outer plates decreased. Both 48 testing have not reached rupture, however, cracks were observed on the double shear M16 bolts set-up. Fatigue cracks were observed on the outer side of the middle plates. This could be attributed to the thickness of the middle plate (10mm) being not sufficient for fatigue testing such that the stress was concentrated on the plates rather than the bolts. However, after 2,500,000 cycles, the M16 HSFG bolts have not loosened. As the design experiment on the M22 bolts in tensile required load application of over 100kN at 5Hz, as shown in Appendix H, the set-up was subjected to that high load amplitude initially, however, cyclic testing at higher amplitude was not ideal in the system and hence lowered until the parameters of the test was at 15kN amplitude at frequency of less than 1Hz. As higher load and frequency was earlier applied, the set-up appeared to have already loosened and would have failed earlier than the expected 500,000 to 2,500,000 cycles range. 5.5. CORROSION TESTING The outline in Section 3.4 was followed and the bolts have been submerged as shown in the adjacent image. The corrosive media had the following pH level: tap-water: 6.8, seawater: 7.9 and diluted HCl solution: 3.0. The equation used to calculate the total surface area exposed was derived as shown: ; Illustration 22: Corrosion by immersion setup Where: √ , , For isometric bolts, the thread angle was kept at 60º and pitch diameter at 2mm and thus, the surface area of the threaded area can be estimated as twice the same equation as that of the unthreaded but multiplied to the length of the threaded area and doubled due to equilateral triangle approximation caused by the thread angle. , 49 The initial measurements and approximate total surface area are as tabulated below. Table 9: Bolt Specimens Properties Initial Dimensions of the bolt (mm) Plain or Corrosive Minor Major Side of Galvanized Medium Total Head Unthreaded Pitch Pitch Hexagonal Length Height height Diameter Diameter Head Initial weight (g) plain plain plain galvanized galvanized galvanized tapwater seawater Hcl solution tapwater seawater Hcl solution 70.37 70.50 13.72 13.79 15.77 15.72 9.96 9.93 26.44 26.34 20.41 20.57 126.69 126.41 70.00 70.35 70.18 13.75 14.03 13.92 15.73 16.03 16.04 10.30 10.31 10.21 26.44 26.49 26.41 19.70 20.04 19.97 126.51 129.50 129.62 70.04 14.00 16.00 10.08 26.49 19.96 128.90 Table 10: Total Surface Area exposed to corrosive media Bolt Specimen A(head) A(unthreaded) A(threaded) Total Surface Area (mm2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1816.25 1802.53 1816.25 1823.12 1812.13 1823.12 1401.82 1404.04 1362.19 1412.84 1410.45 1405.42 4744.73 4727.21 4730.71 4836.04 4839.57 4825.49 7962.79 7933.79 7909.15 8072.01 8062.14 8054.03 The results of the corrosion by immersion test is tabulated below. After the last weighing, the bolts were placed back in the corrosive media and again weighed after 3 days. 50 Table 11: Weight loss after corrosion by immersion testing Bolt Specimen Weight before immersion(g) Weight after 7 days of immersion (g) Weight loss (mg) Exposed Surface Area (cm2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Bolt Specimen 126.691 126.513 126.509 129.500 129.618 128.901 Weight before immersion(g) 272.00 68.00 775.00 4.00 70.00 761.00 Weight loss (mg) 1 2 3 4 5 6 126.691 126.513 126.509 129.500 129.618 128.901 126.419 126.445 125.734 129.496 129.548 128.140 Weight after 10 days of immersion 126.389 126.417 125.693 129.477 129.477 128.134 79.63 79.34 79.09 80.72 80.62 80.54 Exposed Surface Area (cm2) 79.63 79.34 79.09 80.72 80.62 80.54 302 96 816 23 141 767 Weight loss/surface area (mg/cm2) 3.42 0.86 9.80 0.05 0.87 9.45 Weight loss/surface area (mg/cm2) 3.79 1.21 10.32 0.28 1.75 9.52 From the results above, the bolts have experienced the highest corrosion rate when exposed to the HCl solution with or without the protective layer. Bolt specimen 3 with the removed protective layer had a weight loss of 4% more than the one with the zinc layer (Bolt 6) after 7 days and over 8% difference after 10 days. This was also the case for the bolts submerged in tap-water (bolts 1 and 4) shows the increase in the corrosion rate of bolts after its corrosive layer have worn off or have fretted when exposed to acidic corrosive media. On the other hand, , the bolts with the protective layer exposed in the natural seawater resulted to weight losses of higher rate than the plain ones. This shows that when exposed to corrosive media with high salinity and have chloride compounds present (about 2 to 3% NaCl present in seawater) the corrosion is also accelerated. 51 CHAPTER 6 6. 6.1. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS As discussion of each component of the results were included earlier, this section serves as a summary of the findings as discussed in Chapter 4 and each sub-section of Chapter 5. 6.1.1. DESIGN ADEQUACY OF THE HSFG JOINTS From the investigation in Section 4, the maximum moment induced by the design loading condition with the most adverse effect on the structure is 5127kNm which is still within the maximum permissible bending moment of 5510kNm when the bridge is overstressed by 50%. Also found was that the design shear force on the HSFG bolts at the diaphragm-togirder connections was 21.77kN for each bolt which was less than the 23.30 allowable design load as per AS4100 and thus, the design of the M16 shear joints at the diaphragms are still adequate in accordance with current standards. 6.1.2. BOLT ANALYSIS AND TESTING Based on the inspection of the bridge before and during the bolt connections replacement work. as well as, the inventory taken of the components of the bolted connections removed from the bridge, the following have been observed: - The bolted connections that were most heavily corroded were those at the abutments where the metal is exposed to the atmosphere and the water, debris and soil that may get concentrated underneath the bridge deck and on the steel on the abutments. - The connections on the concrete headstocks have apparent localised corrosion from which cracks on the concrete have propagated - The bolted connections on the diaphragm have the most number of missing and fractured bolts. The 5/8” bolts loaded in shear were also noted to have fretted shank areas and deformation about the bolt neck. 52 From the slip testings conducted, the general trend found was that the old bolts when retightened and tested have slipped at loads lower than the new bolts. This would imply that there is a limit to retightening the bolts until which they would require immediate replacement. Based on both the literature review and the corrosion by immersion test conducted, the bolts that had their corrosion protective layer removed prior to immersion have an increased corrosion rate except for those submerged in seawater in which the HDG bolt have resulted in a higher corrosion rate than its plain counterpart. From the corrosion test, it can hence be concluded that the general trend for bolts that have fretted surfaces would be to experience an accelerated corrosion and that when exposed to corrosive media with high salinity (and by association, chloride content), the corrosion rate is also increased. 6.1.3. FAILURE MECHANISM OF THE HSFG BOLTS AT MARY RIVER BRIDGE The following have attributed to the eventual failure of the HSFG bolted connections on the Mary River Bridge: a. Incorrect pre-tension on bolts upon installation and decreasing clamp force on bolts over time As the capacity of the HSFG bolts are dependent on the friction forces induced upon installation, if not tightened to the correct torque (less than or more than required pretension), the bolt may slip at a lower load than designed and will behave as snug tight connection would and may eventually shear. In case of bolted connections in a group, as the case with the connections on the bridge diaphragm, if the bolts are not tightened such that the pretension on each of the bolts in the group are not similar, over time, as the structure is subjected to fluctuating loads, the bolts with the least pre-tension upon installation may loosen or shear and fall off leaving the rest of the bolts in the group to carry the same maximum load but with less number of bolts in the group. The stress induced on each of the bolt is hence, higher than what was originally designed. b. Overstressing of bolts If the loads to which the bolts have been designed to carry are less than the externally applied loads, the bolts are overstressed. In slip-critical bolted connections, the slip resistance load 53 may be surpassed by the externally applied load or the bolted connection designed to be subjected only in shear and experiences increased loads due to the structure’s internal moments or combined shear and tension loading. Similarly, when bolts in tensile are loaded over their design allowable loads, decrease in the clamp force is quickened. For this thesis, the analysis conducted were all elastic and thus, the plastic effects of the stress concentration over each bolt group was not analysed. Although each bolt in a bolt group must withstand the highest load, the concentration of stress over the entire group is not equal and failure of one bolt may lead to overstressing of the rest of the bolts. c. Fatigue and Fretting Corrosion Due to fluctuating loads to which the bridge superstructure is subjected to, the coated bolt shanks would experience would begin to exhibit abrasion and wear, also known as fretting. Fretting may also cause for a decrease in the cross-sectional area. Due to the wear of the corrosion protective zinc layer, corrosion attack is hence accelerated. 6.2. CONCLUSION The modes of mechanical failure of the bolted connections on the Mary River Bridge are a combination of overstressed, fatigue and corrosion. Even if the bridge is not structurally under-designed, it is subjected to fluctuating loads, failure will occur on loads less than the design yield of the friction tightened bolts. Corrosion also lowers the design life expectancy of the connections. Combined, both fatigue and corrosion contribute to decreasing the life span of the bridge’s bolted connections. The failure of the bolts have initialised at the threaded section of the bolt shank that was in contact with the web girder plates. As the fretted surface no longer had the protection of the zinc plate, the corrosion attack is accelerated and together with the fluctuating loads, as well as the decrease in the clamp force on the bolts, lead to propagation of fatigue cracks and eventual fracture of the bolts. The life expectancy of bolted connections on structural steelwork is not only governed by the ultimate limit states of the structural design and its metallographic properties based on the standards and the chemical components increasing the design strength of the steel alloy, but is also greatly affected by the fluctuation of the serviceability loads, the effect of the 54 environmental condition to the corrosivity and the interval and quality of inspection and maintenance works. Although the design loads may be lower than the loads that would cause immediate failure in a system, it is important to allow for factors such as the structure’s dynamic response and the fatigue effect of the loads in designing the bolted connections on a steel superstructure. Similarly, allowances for rate of corrosion of the metals at the location of the bridge must be taken into account when choosing the appropriate corrosive protection layer of a steel structure and its components. 6.3. RECOMMENDATIONS 6.3.1. MAINTENANCE OF STEEL STRUCTURES Steel structures in the Northern Territory are subjected to medium to high corrosivity due to its tropical climate and geographical conditions as a significant portion is at a coastal region and there are wide catchment areas and floodplains). Due to this, the inspection and quality assurance of steel structures must be regularly monitored. It may be more beneficial economically for shorter intervals between maintenance work to be implemented rather than higher risks and more costly operations required when the components that are beginning to fail are not recognized earlier. 6.3.2. THESIS IMPROVEMENT In analysing material failure as a component of a structural steel work, the following tasks are recommended to be incorporated in the methodology: - Through Finite Element Method, analyse the following: o dynamic response of the bridge in 3D o stresses induced on the bolt as fluctuating loads on the system - Conduct the following experiments: o accelerated corrosion testing over a longer duration, with more test specimens and using other corrosion testing (such as an electrochemical corrosion testing) o fatigue testing of connections to rupture 55 o corrosion fatigue test on the joints in which the fatigue testing is conducted whilst the test specimen is immersed in a corrosive media 6.3.3. FURTHER STUDIES Research work and investigation on the following topics: - Economic analysis on different maintenance practices to increase the serviceability lifespan of a structural steelwork - Loads induced in the components of a bridge super-structure due to vibration as a response of the bridge to the changing speeds of the traversing traffic - Effect of varying salinity (airborne or otherwise), on the corrosion rate of a material 56 REFERENCES ACA – see The Australian Corrosion Association Ashby, M, Jones, D, 2005, Engineering Materials 1, 3rd Edition, ISBN-10: 0080966659, Elsevier, USA ASTM – see ASTM International ASTM Internatonal, 2013, G161-00 Standard Guide for Corrosion-Related Failure Analysis Barber, H, 1992, Steel Designers’ Manual, 5th Edition, Chapter 23: Bolts, The Steel Construction Institute, ISBN: 9780470775097, Blackwell Scientific Publication, Cambridge Bartholomew, 2009, Design for Service Life, Bridge Birth Certificate & Concrete Structures Management Concepts, [online] available via www.bridge.transportation.org Bennett, C, 2013, Mary River Wilderness Retreat and Caravan Park told of man taken by crocodile while swimming in Mary River, NT Blacks Fasteners, n.d., Blacks Structural Fasteners, [online] available: <http://www.gaa.com.au/index.php?page=bolting> Bolt Science Limited, 2013, Joint Face Angularity, [online] available: <http://www.boltscience.com/pages/nutfaceangularity.htm>, accessed October 2013 Buda, J, 1994, Why Bolts Fail, Machine Design, pp85-90, [online] available: <http://www.rexnord.com/sites/Process/ringgears/Documents/Design%20%20Bolt%20Design%20and%20Avoiding%20Failure.pdf>,accessed October 2013 Byers, J, n.d., Corrosion Issues and Test Methods, [online] available: <http://mwfmag.com/mwf/docs/Corrosion_STLE2010_2.pdf> Cameron McNamara & Partners Consulting Engineers, 1979, Report on Bridge Load Capacities, NT, via DoI NTG Carbide Depot, n.d., Hardness Conversion Chart, [online] available: <www.carbidedepot.com/formulas-hardness.htm> Chatterjee, S, 1991, The Design of Modern Steel Bridges, Oxford BSP Professional Books, ISBN: 978-0-632-05511-1, Great Britain Davidson, T, 1991, An Introduction to Failure Analysis for Metallurgical Engineers, TMS, [online] available: <http://www.tms.org/Students/Winners/Davidson/Davidson.html> Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sports, 2013, Sites of Conservation Significance: Mary River Coastal Floodplain, online, available: <http://www.lrm.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/13927/13_mary.pdf> Department of Works, 1968, Mary River Bridge Drawings, via DoI NTG 57 Din, K & Ghazala, M, 2004, Fatigue Life of Bolt Subjected to Fatigue Loading Condition, International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol.1, No.4, pp.20-27 EPI (EPI Engineering), 2012, Fretting Corrosion, [online] available: <http://www.epieng.com/mechanical_engineering_basics/fretting_corrosion.htm>, accessed April 2014 Federal Highway Administration, 2013, LRFD (Load and Resistance Factor Design) Steel Girder Superstructure Design Example, [online], available: <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/lrfd/us_ds3.cfm>, accessed: March 2014 Fernando, Dr. S, 2001, An Engineering Insight to the Fundamental Behaviour of Tensile Bolted Joints,[online] via: www.researchnet.net FHWA – see Federal Highway Administration GAA – See Galvanizers Association of Australia Galvanizers Association of Australia, 2011, Bolting Galvanized Steel, [online] available: <http://www.gaa.com.au/index.php?page=bolting> accessed: September 2013 Galvanizers Association of Australia, 2012, Atmospheric Corrosion Resistance of Hot Dip Galvanized Coatings, Gorenc, B, Syam, A, Tinyou, R, 2012, Steel Designer’s Handbook, 8th edition, ISBN-13: 9781742233413, Chapter 8, New South Publishing, Sydney, NSW Hobson, P, 1997, The Hobson Update, Volume 13, ‘Typical Failure Locations of a Bolt’, Australia Lawson, M, Wickens, P, 1992, Steel Designers’ Manual, 5th Edition, Chapter 21: Composite Beams, The Steel Construction Institute, Blackwell Scientific Publication, Cambridge Munter, S, 2007, High Strength Bolt Assemblies Certification to AS/NZS 1252/1996…Reject or Accept?, Australian Steel Institute National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2012, Fatigue Evaluation of Steel Bridges, Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts, 2007, Description of Telemetered Gauging Station, National Research Board, via national-academies.org NHCRP – see National Cooperative Highway Research Program NORCAT, n.d., Corrosion Testing of Friction Bolts, [online] available: <http://www.partshq.com/bolts.skema.corrosion.fulltest1.htm>, accessed October 2013 NRETA- see Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts NRETAS – see Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sports O’Connor, C, 1971, Design of Bridge Superstructures, Chapter 7: Parallel Girder Systems, WileyInterscience, USA Polsteel, 2012, Universal Steel Beam, [online] available: <http://polsteel.co.uk/steel-guide/steelsections/ub/>, accessed October 2013 58 RCSC – see Research Council on Structural Connections Research Council on Structural Connections, 2004, Specification for Structural Joints Using ASTM A325 and A490 Bolts, [online] via www.boltcouncil.org Roberts, C, 2013, The Consequences of Bolt Failure, [online] available: <http://www.croberts.com/bolt.htm> accessed October 2013 SA- see Standards Australia SCI – See Steelconstruction.info Shamsudin, S, 20011, Role of Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) in Metal Failure Analysis, [online] available:< http://emicroscope.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/role-of-scanning-electronmicroscope.html> accessed April 2014 Standards Australia, 1980, AS1111-1980: ISO metric hexagon commercial bolts and screws, via SAIGlobal Standards Australia, 1983, AS 1252-1983 High strength steel bolts with associated nuts and washers for structural engineering, via SAIGlobal Standards Australia, 1998, AS4100.9 Steel Structures: Connections, via SAIGlobal Standards Australia, 2000, AS4291.1 Mechanical Properties of Fasteners Made of Carbon Steel and Alloy Steel, via SAIGlobal Standards Australia, 2004, AS5100.2: Bridge Design Part 2: Design Loads, via SAIGlobal Steelconstruction.info, 2012, Modelling and Analysis of Beam Bridges, [online] available: <http://www.steelconstruction.info/Modelling_and_analysis_of_beam_bridges>, accessed September 2013 Struers, 1992, Metalog Guide, Denmark Taylor, J, 2003, An Engineer’s Guide to Fabricating Steel Structures, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Fatigue of Steel Structures, [online] via: Australian Steel Institute The Australian Corrosion Association, 2013, Technical Publication Series, ACA 6: Corrosion in Natural Environment, version1.0, The Australian Corrosion Association Inc, Victoria Australia Wang, H, Qin, S, Yin, H, 2013, Fatigue performance analysis of frictional type high strength bolts of overlapped joints, International Conference on Fracture, Beijing 59 APPENDICES Appendix A. LOAD CAPACITY OF M16 AND M22 BOLTS The following tables have been taken from a publication by Blacks Fasteners. The load capacities have been calculated based on AS1252 and AS4100. Table 12: Design Shear and Tension - Strength Limit State (Blacks Fasteners) Table 13: Design Shear - Serviceability Limit State (Blacks Fasteners) For Design of 8.8/TF bolts, AS4100 Clauses 3.5.5, 9.1.6 and 9.3.3 applies. 60 As M22 bolts are not standard sizes, dimensions like pitch threads and diameters must first be measured and the stress area and cross-sectional areas at the threaded and unthreaded region can be identified through AS1252. Steps in calculating load capacities are as summarised from AS4100: Strength Limit States: Nominal Tensile Capacity of Bolts: For M16 bolts: For M22 bolts: where Nominal Shear Capacity of Bolts: The shear capacity of the bolts varies depending on the number of shear planes in the threaded, as well as, the unthreaded regions of the bolt. For bolts where the shear planes are all in the unthreaded region: For bolts where the shear planes are all in the threaded region: For bolts where there is 1 shear plane in the threaded and 1 in the unthreaded: It is hence assumed that there are no more than two shear planes on the bolts at any given time (i.e. that each joint is not connecting more than 3 surfaces together). Bolts in shear and tension must satisfy: ( ) ( ) The tables above only account for having only a single shear. This means that the bolt is effectively connecting two plates upon shear failure. 61 Appendix B. 1. BRIDGE LOADING ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS OF LOADS ON THE SUPERSTRUCTURE The clauses referred to in this section are those in AS5100.2: Bridge Design Loads. Clauses from other standards (AS1170 and others) are also included. Vertical Loads: The load effects on the superstructure can be categorised into three: dead load effects, live load effects and other load effects. The dead loads have been calculated as shown: Cl.5: Dead Loads over a bridge span Take L=75ft=22.86m (span centres) Girders: Thus, including connections, take girder weight as approximately 200kN. Diaphragm 1968: 1972: 2(6+7) = 26kN Decking: 24ft wide = 7.3152m, 75ft long = 22.86m, Volume= Decking is reinforced, thus, take unit weight = 7.25in thick=184.15mm ⁄ Braces (Inverted V): Total: 1009kN/span – as the bridge is composed of 5 spans of the same lengths and includes the same components, then each support should be able to hold the total of 1009kN. The live loads effects have been calculated as shown: Cl.6: Road Traffic Loads S1600: The load position found to have most adverse effect (through Microstran) is as shown below: 62 ∑ Cl.6.5: , rounded down, n=2 lanes Two lanes are loaded, thus accompanying lane factors: 1.0 for the first lane and 0.8 for the second lane. Each support must resist is the load on support due to S1600 loading at position causing most adverse effect over one span. M1600: When bridge is loaded as shown: ∑ Each support must resist is the load on support due to M1600 loading at position causing most adverse effect over one span. Also, unlike S1600 stationary traffic loads, M1600 moving traffic loads allow for dynamic, braking and centrifugal effects to be applied. Cl.6.7.2 Dynamic Load allowance for M1600 load =0.30 Load on each support =2406.89x1.3=3128.95kN= load on support due to M1600 loads. Cl.6.9: Fatigue Load Effects (vehicles/lane/day) ; =1092kN:107413.6, Factor=0.0102 (where 410 vehicles count taken from Arnhem/Stuart count and may be an overestimate on number of cars passing over the bridge) The factor is added onto the calculated load on each support: 3129kN x 1.0102 = 3161kN on each support. Moving traffic load is said to be a function of speed. Figure C6.2.3 of AS5100.2 Commentary is a chart showing the load per unit length equivalent of M1600 and S1600 when the influence of the speed on the land load is factored into the loads. From the chart, it can be seen that for loaded length of less than about 40m, the load per unit length has no variation whether the speed is around 60kph or 120kph. Mary River Bridge is essentially 5 simply supported spans and as such the loaded length is considered to be the full length of each span (22.86m) which imply that the total load on each support due to the M1600 loads with the dynamic allowance and accompanying lane factors is 3161kN as calculated above. Total vertical forces due to traffic loads and dead loads at each support = 3161+1009 kN = 4170kN Cl.16.6 Vertical Wind Load (for wind with angles of inclination to the superstructure of less than 5º) Ultimate design vertical wind load (W*vu): =454.33kN * Serviceability design vertical wind load (W vs): Where: As = area of bridge span in plan: 7.3152m*22.86m =167.23m2. 63 CL= lift coefficient: 0.75 Vu = 77.7m/s and Vs=47m/s (as explained in Horizontal loads) Horizontal Loads: The horizontal forces acting on the system include the centrifugal forces (transverse forces required for vehicles to move around a curve) and braking forces (longitudinal forces induced by accelerating or decelerating traffic stream). The bridge is along a straight road and thus no geometrical curve considerations are considered in the design (i.e. Fc=mv2/r is 0). Thus, the only horizontal loads considered to be acting on the bridge surface are those induced by the braking forces. Cl.6.8.2: Braking Forces Single vehicle stopping M1600 in one lane without dynamic allowance = 1337.16kN Multi-lane moving traffic stream stopping Braking forces to be applied in either direction = 601.72 kN When compared to Figure C6.8.2 Braking Forces FBS and FBM for different bridge lengths, the calculated values of 1337kN for the ultimate load with a single vehicle stopping and 602kN for 2 lanes of vehicles are both within the expected range. Note: FHWA specifications state that the braking force is applied at a distance of six feet above the roadway surface. However, an assumption that the bearings are “incapable of transmitting longitudinal moment, the bearing force will be applied at the bearing elevation”. Cl15.4: Forces on superstructures due to water flow The commentary for the Bridge Design standards state that further research is required to determine how much of the drag forces acting on the piers due to the water flow acts on the superstructure itself, however, as an interim a value of 30% of the drag force may be taken as the load along the longitudinal centreline of the bridge superstructure. The drag force itself is not reduced and the transverse load would be applied in the direction of the upstream abutment. Cl.15.3.1: Drag forces on piers Ultimate design drag force (F*du): Serviceability design drag force (F*ds): Where Cd= drag coefficient, depending upon pier shape: Due to absence of more exact estimates, the value of Cd is hence assumed to be 0.7 due to the semi-circular pier nosing. Vu = mean velocity of water flow for ultimate limit states at the level of the superstructure or debris as appropriate (2.6m/s) Vs = mean velocity of water flow for serviceability limit states at the level of the superstructure or debris as appropriate (2.3m/s) Ad = area, equal to the thickness of the pier normal to the direction of the water flow, multiplied by the height of the water flow: d of pier x height of water flow (height from river bed to centre of superstructure) =2’ x 52’=104ft2 x (0.3048m/ft)2 = 9.66m2 64 RL: Dry season water level = 30ft, 5 year predicted flood level = 59.19ft, crown = 54.5ft (take headstock level as 52ft). Design Level Design Drag Force Due to Water Flow Level (ft) (m) Ultimate 30%Ult Serviceability 30%Serv Dry season water level 30 9.14 13.19 3.96 10.32 3.10 5 Yr predicted flood level 59.19 18.04 26.02 7.81 20.36 6.11 Pier Headstock level 52 15.85 22.86 6.86 17.89 5.37 Therefore, along the longitudinal centreline of the bridge superstructure, the design drag force due to water flow = 7.81kN/m. Cl.16 Wind Loads As Mary River Bridge is a conventional type bridge structure such that it is neither a suspension nor long-span cable-stayed bridge (those that may be subjected to wind excited oscillations), this clause should be adequate in determining the wind loads on the system. Cl.16.3.1 Transverse wind loads act horizontally at the centroids of the area it is calculated for (i.e. in this case over the one span) Ultimate design transverse wind load (W*tu): ( ) Serviceability design transverse wind load (W*ts): Where: Vu = design wind speed for ultimate limit states Vs = design wind speed for serviceability limit states Based on AS1170.0 and AS1170.2: The bridge is categorised as a major structure (i.e. affects crowds) thus it falls under high consequence of failure – which would give an importance level of 3. As a bridge, the design working life is categorised as over 100 years and thus, annual probability of exceedance for ultimate state is 1/2500 and for serviceability state is 1/25. From AS1170.2, the location is within the Cyclonic Region C. From which, and Where Fc =1.05 for R>50 and 1.00 for R<50. Therefore, Vu=74*1.05=77.7m/s and Vs=47m/s. At = area of structure for calculation of wind loads (according to Commentary, this would only include the transverse area of the superstructure – not including effect of wind loads to traffic loads); take area of superstructure as b x d = 7.3152 * 2.3813 = 17.42m2 (although the cross-section is open, there are diaphragms and other horizontal bracings along the bridge hence, this area is taken to be the overall area). Cd = drag coefficient from the chart Figure 16.3.3 in the standards (as Mary River bridge can be considered a typical superstructure with multiple beams/girders, the values in the chart would apply); includes an open parapet hence the depth does not include barriers: b/d=7.3152m/2.3813m = 3.072; from chart, Cd=1.5 Note: An example calculation for steel bridges from FHWA determined the wind actions on the transverse and longitudinal area of the bridge at varying angles but showed that the maximum loads are generated when the winds are acting from the direction normal to the bridge face analysed. 65 Cl.16.4 Longitudinal Wind Load Longitudinal wind loads for ultimate and serviceability are calculated in the same manner as the transverse one – except the area considered is the longitudinal side (75ft) therefore, A=22.86*2.3813=54.43m2 Cd based on b/d (22.86/2.3813) of 9.6 is 0.95. And the longitudinal and transverse wind loads are as tabulated below: Wind Direction relative to the bridge Longitudinal Transverse Ultimate wind load 187.3075kN 94.65kN Serviceability wind load 68.53kN 34.63kN 66 2. MICROSTRAN ANALYSIS REPORTS (Basis for Section 4.1) == I N P U T / A N A L Y S I S Title: Type: R E P O R T == Longitudinal Line Beam loads Plane frame Nodes ............................. Members ........................... Spring supports ................... Sections .......................... Materials ......................... Primary load cases ................ Combination load cases ............ Analysis: 12 11 0 1 1 4 1 Linear elastic == L O A D C A S E S == Case Type Analysis Title 2 P L M1600axle loads 3 P L M1600line loads 11 C L Vertical loads combination Analysis Types: S - Skipped (not analysed) L - Linear N - Non-linear == N O D E Node 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 C O O R D I N A T E S == X m 0.000 1.250 2.500 6.250 7.500 8.750 11.430 15.000 16.250 17.500 22.500 22.860 == M E M B E R Member A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Y m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Name UBgirder == S E C T I O N Section Restraint 111000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 111000 D E F I N I T I O N == B C Prop Matl Rel-A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y == S E C T I O N S Section 1 Z m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Ax 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I N P U T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 B Y Rel-B 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 Length m 1.250 1.250 3.750 1.250 1.250 2.680 3.570 1.250 1.250 5.000 0.360 P R O P E R T Y V A L U E S == Comment comment P R O P E R T I E S == Ay Az J Iy Iz fact 67 1 m2 7.500E-01 == M A T E R I A L Material == T A B L E O F MATERIAL 1 m2 2.650E-01 m4 1.800E-02 m4 2.650E-01 m4 1.800E-02 P R O P E R T I E S == E kN/m2 2.000E+08 1 Section m2 1.300E-02 u 0.2500 Density t/m3 7.850E+00 Alpha /deg C 1.170E-05 Q U A N T I T I E S == 1 Name Length m 22.860 ---------22.860 UBgirder == C O N D I T I O N Mass tonne 134.588 ---------134.588 Comment comment N U M B E R == Maximum condition number: 2.179E+01 at node: 12 DOFN: 6 == A P P L I E D L O A D I N G == CASE 2: M1600axle loads -- Node Loads -Node 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 X Force kN 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Y Force kN -120.000 -120.000 -120.000 -120.000 -120.000 -120.000 -120.000 -120.000 -120.000 -120.000 -120.000 Z Force kN 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 X Moment kNm 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -- Sum of Applied Loads (Global Axes): -FX: 0.000 FY: -1320.000 FZ: Moments about the global origin: MX: 0.000 MY: 0.000 MZ: == M E M B E R 2: M1600axle loads Member Node 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Z Moment kNm 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -13071.600 F O R C E S == CASE 2 Y Moment kNm 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Axial kN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Shear-y kN -628.19 -628.19 -508.19 -508.19 -388.19 -388.19 -268.19 -268.19 -148.19 -148.19 -28.19 -28.19 91.81 91.81 211.81 211.81 331.81 Shear-z kN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Torque kNm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Moment-y kNm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Moment-z kNm 0.00 785.24 785.24 1420.47 1420.47 2876.18 2876.18 3211.42 3211.42 3396.65 3396.65 3472.20 3472.20 3144.43 3144.43 2879.67 2879.67 68 10 11 10 10 11 11 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 331.81 451.81 451.81 571.81 571.81 Positive Forces (Member Axes): Axial - Tension Torque - Right-hand twist 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2464.91 2464.91 205.85 205.85 0.00 Shear - End A sagging Moment - Sagging == S U P P O R T R E A C T I O N S == CASE 2: M1600axle loads Node 1 12 Force-X kN 0.00 0.00 Force-Y kN 748.19 571.81 Force-Z kN 0.00 0.00 Moment-X kNm 0.00 0.00 Moment-Y kNm 0.00 0.00 Moment-Z kNm 0.00 0.00 SUM: 0.00 1320.00 0.00 (all nodes) Max. residual: -1.091E-11 at DOFN: 4 (Reactions act on structure in positive global axis directions.) CASE 3: M1600line loads -- Member Loads -Member Form T A S 1 UNIF FY LO 2 UNIF FY LO 3 UNIF FY LO 4 UNIF FY LO 5 UNIF FY LO 6 UNIF FY LO 7 UNIF FY LO 8 UNIF FY LO 9 UNIF FY LO 10 UNIF FY LO 11 UNIF FY LO F1 -6.000 -6.000 -6.000 -6.000 -6.000 -6.000 -6.000 -6.000 -6.000 -6.000 -6.000 X1 -- Sum of Applied Loads (Global Axes): -FX: 0.000 FY: -137.160 FZ: Moments about the global origin: MX: 0.000 MY: 0.000 MZ: == M E M B E R F O R C E S CASE 3: M1600line loads Member Node Axial kN 1 1 0.00 2 0.00 2 2 0.00 3 0.00 3 3 0.00 4 0.00 4 4 0.00 5 0.00 5 5 0.00 6 0.00 6 6 0.00 7 0.00 7 7 0.00 8 0.00 8 8 0.00 9 0.00 9 9 0.00 10 0.00 10 10 0.00 11 0.00 11 11 0.00 12 0.00 F2 X2 Torque kNm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Moment-y kNm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 -1567.739 == Shear-y kN -68.58 -61.08 -61.08 -53.58 -53.58 -31.08 -31.08 -23.58 -23.58 -16.08 -16.08 0.00 0.00 21.42 21.42 28.92 28.92 36.42 36.42 66.42 66.42 68.58 Shear-z kN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Moment-z kNm 0.00 81.04 81.04 152.70 152.70 311.44 311.44 345.60 345.60 370.39 370.39 391.93 391.93 353.70 353.70 322.24 322.24 281.40 281.40 24.30 24.30 0.00 Positive Forces (Member Axes): 69 Axial - Tension Torque - Right-hand twist Shear - End A sagging Moment - Sagging == S U P P O R T R E A C T I O N S == CASE 3: M1600line loads Node 1 12 Force-X kN 0.00 0.00 Force-Y kN 68.58 68.58 Force-Z kN 0.00 0.00 Moment-X kNm 0.00 0.00 Moment-Y kNm 0.00 0.00 Moment-Z kNm 0.00 0.00 SUM: 0.00 137.16 0.00 (all nodes) Max. residual: -1.137E-12 at DOFN: 4 (Reactions act on structure in positive global axis directions.) CASE 11: Vertical loads combination -- Load Combinations -Case Factor 1 1.300 Self weight 2 1.000 M1600axle loads 3 1.000 M1600line loads 4 1.000 Vertical Wind loads -- Sum of Applied Loads (Global Axes): -FX: 0.000 FY: -1899.158 FZ: Moments about the global origin: MX: 0.000 MY: 0.000 MZ: == M E M B E R CASE 0.000 -19691.375 F O R C E S == 11: Vertical loads combination Member Node 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Axial kN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Shear-y kN -917.77 -886.10 -766.10 -734.43 -614.43 -519.42 -399.42 -367.76 -247.76 -216.09 -96.09 -28.19 91.81 182.26 302.26 333.93 453.93 485.59 605.59 732.27 852.27 861.39 Positive Forces (Member Axes): Axial - Tension Torque - Right-hand twist Shear-z kN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Torque kNm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Moment-y kNm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Moment-z kNm 0.00 1127.42 1127.42 2065.25 2065.25 4191.23 4191.23 4670.71 4670.71 4960.61 4960.61 5127.14 5127.14 4637.93 4637.93 4240.32 4240.32 3653.12 3653.12 308.46 308.46 0.00 Shear - End A sagging Moment - Sagging == S U P P O R T R E A C T I O N S == CASE 11: Vertical loads combination Node Force-X Force-Y Force-Z Moment-X Moment-Y Moment-Z kN kN kN kNm kNm kNm 1 0.00 1037.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12 0.00 861.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUM: 0.00 1899.16 0.00 (all nodes) (Reactions act on structure in positive global axis directions.) 70 (Basis for Section 4.2) a Longitudinal And Transverse Horizontal Loads on a Bridge Span (At the Superstructure) Combination of Ultimate Loads on a Bridge Span (Note: The Vertical loads have been modelled as uniformly distriuted load from the deck onto the girders) == I N P U T / A N A L Y S I S R E P O R T == Job: Load Combinations Title: Ultimate Loads Type: Space frame Nodes ............................. 15 Members ........................... 22 Spring supports ................... 0 Sections .......................... 2 Materials ......................... 1 Primary load cases ................ 7 Combination load cases ............ 1 Analysis: Linear elastic == L O A D C A S E S == Case Type Analysis Title 1 P L Transverse Wind Loads- ultimate 2 P L Longitudinal Wind Loads - ultimate 3 P L Self-weight 71 4 5 7 8 11 P P L L P P C Braking Loads - Multiple Drag Force Due to Water Flow - flood level L L L Vertical Wind Loads - ultimate Traffic Loads Title of case 11 Analysis Types: S - Skipped (not analysed) L - Linear N - Non-linear == N O D E Node 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 C O O R D I N A T E S == X Y Z m m m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.638 0.000 0.000 3.277 0.000 0.000 5.144 0.000 0.000 7.010 11.430 0.000 0.000 11.430 0.000 1.638 11.430 0.000 3.277 11.430 0.000 5.144 11.430 0.000 7.010 22.860 0.000 0.000 22.860 0.000 1.638 22.860 0.000 3.277 22.860 0.000 5.144 22.860 0.000 7.010 Restraint 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 == M E M B E R D E F I N I T I O N == Member A B C Prop Matl Rel-A Rel-B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 -Y -Y -Y -Y -Y -Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y -Y -Y -Y -Y -Y -Y -Y -Y 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 == S T A N D A R D S H A P E S == Section Shape Name Comment 1 I/H 762X267UB147 comment 2 I/H 762X267UB197 Dimension codes: I/H - D1=D D2=Tw comment Length m 1.638 1.639 1.867 1.866 11.430 11.430 11.430 11.430 11.430 11.430 11.430 11.430 11.430 11.430 1.638 1.639 1.867 1.866 1.638 1.639 1.867 1.866 D1/D4 0.750 0.018 0.770 0.025 D2/D5 0.013 0.265 0.016 0.268 D3/D6 0.265 0.018 0.268 0.025 D3=Btf D4=Ttf D5=Bbf D6=Tbf == S E C T I O N P R O P E R T I E S == Section Ax Ay Az J Iy Iz fact m2 m2 m2 m4 m4 m4 1 1.882E-02 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 1.503E-06 5.596E-05 1.673E-03 1.000 2 2.492E-02 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 3.597E-06 8.045E-05 2.358E-03 1.000 == M A T E R I A L P R O P E R T I E S == 72 Material E kN/m2 2.000E+08 1 == T A B L E MATERIAL Section 1 2 O F u 0.2500 Density t/m3 7.850E+00 Alpha /deg C 1.170E-05 Q U A N T I T I E S == 1 Name Length Mass Comment m tonne 63.017 9.311 comment 72.313 14.146 comment ---------- ---------135.330 23.457 762X267UB147 762X267UB197 == C O N D I T I O N N U M B E R == Maximum condition number: 2.493E+03 at node: 10 DOFN: 3 == A P P L I E D CASE L O A D I N G == 1: Transverse Wind Loads- ultimate -- Member Loads -Member 1 2 3 4 Form UNIF UNIF UNIF UNIF T FZ FZ FZ FZ A S LO LO LO LO F1 14.443 14.443 14.443 14.443 X1 -- Sum of Applied Loads (Global Axes): -FX: 101.245 FY: 0.000 FZ: Moments about the global origin: MX: 0.000 MY: 354.865 MZ: CASE F2 X2 0.000 0.000 2: Longitudinal Wind Loads - ultimate -- Member Loads -Member Form T A 5 UNIF FZ LO 10 UNIF FZ LO S F1 -6.490 6.490 X1 -- Sum of Applied Loads (Global Axes): -FX: 0.000 FY: 0.000 FZ: Moments about the global origin: MX: 0.000 MY: -1695.771 MZ: CASE 3: Self-weight -- Member Loads -Member Form T A S 5 UNIF FY LO 6 UNIF FY LO 7 UNIF FY LO 8 UNIF FY LO 9 UNIF FY LO 10 UNIF FY LO 11 UNIF FY LO 12 UNIF FY LO 13 UNIF FY LO 14 UNIF FY LO F1 6.000 11.050 -11.050 -11.050 -6.000 -6.000 -11.050 -11.050 -11.050 -6.000 -- Sum of Applied Loads (Global Axes): -FX: 0.000 FY: -1032.129 FZ: Moments about the global origin: MX: 3502.425 MY: 0.000 MZ: CASE 4: Braking Loads - Multiple -- Member Loads -Member Form T A S F1 6 UNIF FX LO 22.830 8 UNIF FX LO -22.830 11 UNIF FX LO 22.830 13 UNIF FX LO -22.830 F2 X2 F2 X2 F2 X2 148.361 0.000 X1 0.000 -11797.235 X1 -- Sum of Applied Loads (Global Axes): -- 73 FX: 0.000 FY: 0.000 Moments about the global origin: MX: 0.000 MY: -1829.760 CASE FZ: 0.000 MZ: 0.000 5: Drag Force Due to Water Flow - flood level -- Member Loads -Member 5 10 Form UNIF UNIF T A S FZ LO FZ LO F1 -0.342 0.342 X1 F2 -- Sum of Applied Loads (Global Axes): -FX: 0.000 FY: 0.000 FZ: Moments about the global origin: MX: 0.000 MY: -89.361 MZ: X2 7.818 0.000 CASE 7: Vertical Wind Loads - ultimate -- Member Loads -Member 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Form UNIF UNIF UNIF UNIF UNIF UNIF UNIF UNIF UNIF UNIF T FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY A S LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO F1 5.000 5.000 -5.000 -5.000 -5.000 -5.000 -5.000 -5.000 -5.000 -5.000 -- Sum of Applied Loads (Global Axes): -FX: 0.000 FY: -571.500 FZ: Moments about the global origin: MX: 1950.987 MY: 0.000 MZ: CASE 8: Traffic Loads -- Member Loads -Member Form T A S 5 UNIF FY LO 6 UNIF FY LO 7 UNIF FY LO 8 UNIF FY LO 9 UNIF FY LO 10 UNIF FY LO 11 UNIF FY LO 12 UNIF FY LO 13 UNIF FY LO 14 UNIF FY LO F1 17.280 34.500 -34.500 -34.500 -17.280 -17.280 -34.500 -34.500 -34.500 -17.280 -- Sum of Applied Loads (Global Axes): -FX: 0.000 FY: -3156.052 FZ: Moments about the global origin: MX: 10702.328 MY: -0.001 MZ: X1 F2 X2 0.000 -6532.245 X1 F2 X2 0.000 -36073.672 CASE 11: Title of case 11 -- Load Combinations -Case Factor 1 1.000 Transverse Wind Loads- ultimate 2 1.000 Longitudinal Wind Loads - ultimate 3 1.200 Self-weight 4 1.000 Braking Loads - Multiple 5 1.000 Drag Force Due to Water Flow - flood level 7 1.000 Vertical Wind Loads - ultimate 8 1.000 Traffic Loads -- Sum of Applied Loads (Global Axes): -FX: 101.245 FY: -4966.106 FZ: Moments about the global origin: MX: 16856.227 MY: -3260.029 MZ: == M E M B E R CASE 156.180 -56762.602 F O R C E S == 11: Title of case 11 74 Member 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Node Axial Shear-y kN kN 1 0.000000 0.189913 2 0.000000 0.189913 2 0.000000 0.244824 3 0.000000 0.244824 3 0.000000 0.276777 4 0.000000 0.276777 4 0.000000 0.530643 5 0.000000 0.530643 1 0.000000 431.113068 6 0.000000 94.156662 2 130.473450 508.155640 7-130.473450 -94.891174 3 0.000000-589.510620 8 0.000000 13.536164 4-130.473450-548.399658 9 130.473450 54.647141 5 0.000000-405.874237 10 0.000000 -68.917816 6 0.000000 94.156662 11 0.000000 431.113068 7 130.473450 -94.891174 12-130.473450 508.155640 8 0.000000 -13.536164 13 0.000000 589.510620 9-130.473450 -54.647141 14 130.473450 548.399658 10 0.000000 68.917816 15 0.000000 405.874237 6 -68.296928 188.313324 7 -68.296928 188.313324 7 -54.171227 -1.469025 8 -54.171227 -1.469025 8 -36.000107 -28.541355 9 -36.000107 -28.541355 9 -16.986214-137.835632 10 -16.986214-137.835632 11 0.000000 0.189933 12 0.000000 0.189933 12 0.000000 0.244827 13 0.000000 0.244827 13 0.000000 0.276783 14 0.000000 0.276783 14 0.000000 0.530653 15 0.000000 0.530653 Positive Forces (Member Axes): Axial - Tension Torque - Right-hand twist Shear-z kN 94.043961 70.386322 25.746429 2.074357 40.333904 13.368821 57.430733 30.480097 -43.967751 34.122009 -7.056072 -7.056072 9.091908 9.091908 9.516005 9.516005 8.443434 8.443434 34.174919 -43.914841 -7.069632 -7.069632 -9.079210 -9.079210 -9.497896 -9.497896 -8.542773 -8.542773 0.122448 0.122448 -0.058635 -0.058635 0.104262 0.104262 -0.208756 -0.208756 -84.376183 -84.376183 -13.563260 -13.563260 -27.799545 -27.799545 -41.544968 -41.544968 Torque kNm 0.167305 0.167305 0.450331 0.450331 0.367040 0.367040 0.479516 0.479516 -0.214752 -0.214752 -0.222720 -0.222720 -0.571005 -0.571005 -0.599059 -0.599059 -0.611731 -0.611731 0.214752 0.214752 0.222720 0.222720 0.571005 0.571005 0.599059 0.599059 0.611731 0.611731 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 -0.167305 -0.167305 -0.450331 -0.450331 -0.367040 -0.367040 -0.479516 -0.479516 Moment-y Moment-z kNm kNm 98.884651 0.214752 -35.783749 -0.096326 4.960060 0.126394 -17.839075 -0.274873 32.733105 0.296132 -17.398392 -0.220610 36.416924 0.378449 -45.603893 -0.611731 -98.884651 0.167305 -42.616238 -3.002E+03 -40.743809 0.283025 39.907101 -2.362E+03 50.572178 0.083290 -53.3483353291.777832 53.815311 -0.112479 -54.9526142821.683594 45.603893 0.479513 -50.9045492713.916260 42.7878193001.749512 98.451454 -0.167305 -39.9479102361.523438 40.857986 -0.283027 -53.3023453291.777832 50.473022 0.083290 -54.9024282821.683594 53.658527 -0.112479 -51.2218362713.916260 46.422054 0.479513 0.171576 -0.429504 -0.028994-308.886719 -0.069876-309.332153 0.026227-306.924438 0.072213-308.066467 -0.122445-254.779739 -0.072258-255.977875 0.317281 1.223463 -98.451454 0.214774 39.756733 -0.096335 -1.101251 0.126394 21.128933 -0.274878 -29.344091 0.296138 22.557661 -0.220615 -31.100866 0.378456 46.422054 -0.611742 Shear - End A sagging Moment - Sagging == S U P P O R T R E A C T I O N S == CASE 11: Title of case 11 Node Force-X Force-Y Force-Z kN kN kN 1 -94.043961 431.302979 -43.967751 2 -85.833557 508.210541 -7.056064 3 -38.259548 589.542603 -9.091928 4 86.411537 548.653564 -9.516032 5 30.480097 405.343597 -8.443461 6 -0.122427 0.000000 0.000000 7-260.765839 0.000000 0.000000 8 -0.162901 0.000000 0.000000 9 261.259918 0.000000 0.000000 10 -0.208741 0.000000 0.000000 11 84.376183 431.302979 -43.914841 12-201.286362 508.210541 -7.069640 13 14.236283 589.542603 -9.079229 14 144.218872 548.653564 -9.497924 15 -41.544968 405.343597 -8.542801 Moment-X kNm 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Moment-Y Moment-Z kNm kNm 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 SUM: -101.2454224966.106445-156.179657 (all nodes) (Reactions act on structure in positive global axis directions.) 75 Appendix C. SPECIFIED PROPERTIES OF 8.8/TF BOLTS The following tables include the specified values for the properties of Grade 8.8 bolts in accordance with AS4192. Chemical Composition Material Treatment Carbon Steel with additives (e.g. Carbon Steel quenched B, Mn or Cr) quenched and and tempered tempered 0,15 0,25 Check C min Composition 0,55 max 0,40 Limits % 0,035 0,035 P max (m/m) 0,035 S max 0,035 0,003 B max 0,003 425 425 Tempering Temperature °C min Mechanical and Physical Properties Nominal Tensile Strength (Rm,nom) Minimum Tensile Strength (Rm, min)= de Vickers Hardness, HV (F≥98N) Surface Hardness HV 0,3 Stress at 0.2% non-proportional elongation Rp0,2 N/mm2 Stress under proof load, Sp Breaking Torque Mb Percent elongation after fracture, A Reduction area after fracture, Z Strength under wedge loading 2 N/mm N/mm2 min max max nom min Sp/R p0,2 N/mm2 Nm min min %min J min Impact strength, Ku Head soundness Minimum height of non-decarburized thread zone, E Minimum depth of complete decarburization, G Hardness after tempering Surface Integrity mm d≤16mm d>16mm 800 800 800 830 250 255 320 335 not more than 30 Vickers points above core hardness 640 640 640 660 0,91 0,91 580 600 See ISO898-7 12 12 52 not smaller than minimum tensile strength 30 30 No fracture ½ H1 0,015 Reduction of hardness, 20 HV maximum In accordance with ISO 6157-1 or ISO 6157-3 as appropriate 76 Appendix D. BOLTS, NUTS AND WASHERS INVENTORY The diagram below shows the naming convention used in the bolt groups in the tabulated inventory. Note: Old Beam (1,2,3) – those constructed in 1968 New Beam (4,5)– those constructed in 1972 Abutment 1 refers to the in-bound side (closer to Stuart Highway) Section 1 refers to diaphragm section between Old beams 1 and 2, etc. M16 M22 Bridge Section (All from Brace+Bottom Flange) Bolts Nuts Washers Bolts Nuts Washers Abutment 1 New Beam 4A 8 8 10 0 2 0 Abutment 1 New Beam 5A Abutment 1 Old Beam 1A 4 4 4 4 6 8 0 0 4 3 0 2 Abutment 1 Old Beam 2A 8 8 16 0 4 4 Abutment 1 Old Beam 3A 8 8 14 0 4 4 Abutment 2 New Beam 4E Abutment 2 NewBeam 5E Abutment 2 Old Beam 1E Abutment 2 Old Beam 2E 8 4 4 8 8 4 4 8 16 8 8 17 0 0 0 0 3 4 4 3 0 0 4 5 Abutment 2 Old Beam 3E Diaphragm 1 Section 1 Diaphragm 1 Section 2 8 12 12 7 12 11 16 24 21 0 4 2 4 4 2 3 7 2 Diaphragm 1 Section 3 11 10 10 2 3 1 Diaphragm 1 Section 4 11 11 16 3 4 2 Diaphragm 2 Section 1 12 12 24 4 4 8 Diaphragm 2 Section 2 Diaphragm 2 Section 3 Diaphragm 2 Section 4 11 12 12 11 12 12 22 24 24 4 4 4 3 3 4 7 8 5 Diaphragm 3 Section 1 Diaphragm 3 Section 2 Diaphragm 3 Section 3 12 12 12 11 12 13 21 24 25 4 4 3 4 1 3 8 8 6 Diaphragm 4 Section 1 20 20 10 4 4 8 Diaphragm 4 Section 2 11 11 22 3 3 6 Diaphragm 4 Section 3 7 11 7 4 2 8 Diaphragm 4 Section 4 12 12 23 4 3 8 Observations Notes on Diaphragm bolts None of the M16 washers have tabs Only 2 of M16 washers have tabs M22 nuts are badly corroded M22 washers have no tabs and are corroded 2 M16 bolts have failed in fatigue 5 of the M16 washers were on their own (spares) 1 set of M16 connection was not painted and had a smaller tab (recently replaced) complete missing 2 M22 missing 1 M16 and 2 M22 missing 1 M16 and 1 M22 Complete Missing 1 M16 Complete Complete 1 M22 bolt was cut to be removed M22 bolts are corroded and some necking. 1 M16 bolt failed (fatigue). Bolts have corroded on some parts of the threaded section 1 set of M16 connection without washers have fatigued (where neck and threaded area meets) M22 bolts are more corroded than M16 bolts Complete Complete Missing 1 M22 missing 1 M16 and 1 M22 Missing 5 M16 complete 77 Bridge Section (All from Brace+Bottom Flange) Bolts M16 Nuts Washers Bolts M22 Nuts Washers Diaphragm 5 Section 1 11 12 22 3 4 7 Diaphragm 5 Section 2 13 13 25 3 3.5 8 Diaphragm 5 Section 3 Diaphragm 5 Section 4 Headstock 2 New Beam 4C Headstock Old Beam 1B 12 12 6 3 12 10 6 3 23 23 12 6 4 4 0 0 3 4 5 3 8 8 1 3 Headstock 2 New Beam 4B Headstock 2 New Beam5B 8 3 8 3 8 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 Headstock 2 Old Beam 1C Headstock 2 Old Beam 2C 4 8 4 8 8 16 0 0 5 4 4 4 Headstock 2 Old Beam 3B Headstock 2 Old Beam 3C Headstock 3 ld Beam 3C Headstock 3 New Bam 4D Headstock 3 New Beam 4C Headstock 3 New Beam 5D Headstock 3 Old Beam 1C 8 9 8 8 8 4 4 8 9 8 8 8 4 7 9 16 16 15 16 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 6 3 2 0 0 0 4 Headstock 3 Old Beam 1D 4 4 8 0 4 4 Headstock 3 Old Beam 2C Headstock 3 Old Beam 2D Headstock 3 Old Beam 3D 8 8 8 8 8 8 16 16 16 0 0 0 4 4 3 4 4 3 Headstock 4 New Beam 4D 10 10 20 0 4 0 Headstock 4 New Beam 5D Headstock 4 New Beam 5E Headstock 4 Old Beam 1D 5 3 2 5 3 2 9 6 4 0 0 0 4 4 2 0 0 2 Headstock 4 Old Beam 1E Headstock 4 Old Beam 2D Headstock 4 Old Beam 2E Headstock 4 Old Beam 3D 5 7 8 8 5 7 8 8 10 14 18 16 0 0 0 0 6 4 3 4 6 4 3 0 Observations 1 M22 nut was cut in half and missing the other half 1 M16 bolt needed to be cut to be removed Notes on Diaphragm bolts missing 1 M16 and 1 M22 Missing 1 M22 complete complete M22 washers have no tabs M16 washers have no tabs and bolts have dark finish and some corrosion noticeable on threads. Minimal corrosion M16 bolts have corrosion about the neck and nuts are corroded that some were broken from the outer surface through to the bolts M16 bolts are long and are corroded about the necks M16 bolts are corroded about the thread M22 washers have no tabs Minimal corrosion M16 connections all thoroughly corroded M22 nuts are badly corroded Bolts are heavily corroded about the neck M16 bolts of varying lengths, M22 nuts have corroded about the centre Headstock 4 Old Beam 3E Headstock New Beam 4A Headstock New Beam 4B Headstock New Beam 5A Headstock New Beam 5B 8 6 11 4 3 8 6 11 4 3 16 0 12 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 2 7 0 0 0 Headstock New Beam 5C Headstock Old Beam 1A Headstock Old Beam 1B 5 4 4 3 4 4 8 8 8 0 0 0 4 4 4 0 4 4 Headstock Old Beam 2A 10 10 20 0 4 4 Headstock Old Beam 2B 6 6 12 0 4 4 Headstock Old Beam 3A 7 7 11 0 4 4 M15 washers had varying sizes; some without tabs Headstock Old Beam 3B 8 8 12 0 4 4 1 M16 bolt had a neck longer than the rest 1 M16 bolt had a neck longer than the rest 78 Appendix E. EQUIPMENT USED FOR SAMPLE PREPARATION, BOLT ANALYSIS AND BOLT TESTING The above has been used for Optical Microscope metallographic preparation of test samples as shown below. Vickers Hardness Tester sInstron machine and Actuator 79 Appendix F. VICKERS HARDNESS TESTING Shown in this image is one of the results from the Vickers Hardness Tests conducted. The software is capable of measuring the diagonals and automatically calculating the hardness number. The tensile strength (MPa) was 3.2x the Vickers Hardness. Test Specimen 1968 M22 Bolt Thread 2 (Hv 1) 1972 M22 Bolt Thread 1 (Hv 0,3) 1968 M22 Bolt Cross-section 1 (Hv 0,3) 1972 M22 Bolt Cross-section 2 (Hv 0,3) Trial Diagonal Vickers Hardness Tensile Strength (Mpa) 1 79.15 296 947.2 2 79.284 295 944.0 3 78.571 300 960.0 4 79.351 295 944.0 5 79.284 295 944.0 1 45.974 263 841.6 2 43.636 292 934.4 3 45.455 269 860.8 4 44.156 285 912.0 5 44.286 284 908.8 1 43.636 292 934.4 2 43.506 294 940.8 3 42.849 303 969.6 4 43.117 299 956.8 5 43.279 297 950.4 1 79.15 296 947.2 2 79.284 295 944.0 3 78.571 300 960.0 4 79.351 295 944.0 5 79.284 295 944.0 Average Tensile Strength (Mpa) 947.8 891.5 950.4 947.8 80 Test Specimen Trial Diagonal Vickers Hardness Tensile Strength (Mpa) Average Tensile Strength (Mpa) 1968 M16 Bolt 1 Crosssection 1 44.104 286 43.352 296 3 43.799 290 4 43.279 297 5 43.574 293 1 44.654 279 2 43.723 291 3 43.45 288 4 43.723 291 5 43.5 294 1 42.941 301 2 42.638 306 3 42.499 308 4 42.226 312 5 42.569 307 1 42.708 305 2 41.958 316 3 42.708 305 4 41.958 315 5 42.778 304 1 40.935 332 2 42.778 304 3 41.121 329 1 40.873 333 2 41.826 318 3 41.121 329 1 42.431 309 2 42.294 311 3 42.597 307 1 42.091 314 2 42.849 303 3 41.892 317 915.2 947.2 928.0 950.4 937.6 892.8 931.2 921.6 931.2 940.8 963.2 979.2 985.6 998.4 982.4 976.0 1011.2 976.0 1008.0 972.8 1062.4 972.8 1052.8 1065.6 1017.6 1052.8 988.8 995.2 982.4 1004.8 969.6 1014.4 935.7 2 1968 M16 Bolt 2 Crosssection 1972 M16 Bolt 1 CrossSection 1972 M16 Bolt 2 CrossSection 1968 M16 Bolt Thread 1 1968 M16 Bolt Thread 2 1972 M16 Bolt Thread 1 1972 M16 Bolt Thread 2 923.5 981.8 988.8 1029.3 1045.3 988.8 996.3 81 Appendix G. IMAGES FROM OPTICAL AND SCANNED ELECTRON MICROSCOPY 1968 5/8” Bolts Cross-Section 20x Magnification: 50x Magnification: 1968 5/8” Bolts Longitudinal Axis (Thread) 20x Magnification: 50x Magnification: 1972 M16 Bolts Cross Section 20x Magnification 50x Magnification 82 Appendix H. 1. MECHANICAL TESTINGS ONE SET OF SLIP LOAD GRAPH FROM THE SLIP TESTING EXPERIMENTS First trials for M22 and 7/8" bolts 90 80 70 Load (kN) 60 50 40 New 30 Old 20 10 0 -0.2 -10 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Extension (mm) 2. FATIGUE TESTING EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN M16 bolts (shear) To determine the fatigue life of the M16 bolt group on the bridge diaphragm, a cyclic load experiment is proposed to be conducted. Fatigue tests require the following parameters to be determined: minimum load, maximum load and loading frequency. Minimum and Maximum Load The bolt group of 12 M16 bolts on the bridge diaphragms and the bolt group of 4 M16 on the gusset plate connection at the inverse v-bracings are friction tightened and hence designed to resist slip at load service and hence are designed to not be loaded over 70% of its slip load. In conducting a fatigue test, the minimum and maximum loads in each cycle must be defined. In the case of the M16 connections on the diaphragms, the minimum load is that of the dead loads and the maximum is the 70% of the slip critical load. This 70% of the slip critical load is hence, for this testing, assumed to be more than the dead load of the self-weight of the reinforced concrete deck and the bridge railings together with the live loads of the traversing traffic causing the most adverse effect on the structure. This is because the design factor only allow for bolted connections to not be loaded more than 70% their capacity and as this connection is in shear, then that 70% is applied to its slip critical load and not to its nominal shear capacity. 83 The shear joints connecting the diaphragms and the main UB girders are subjected to the dead loads due to the self-weight of the sections of the structure on top of the steel beams which include the reinforced decking and the bridge railings which totalled up to 760kN per bridge span (total area of 168m2 and thus stress of 4.6MPa. The dead load due to 1/8 of the total area of the bridge span acts on each set of bolted connection (21m2) thus total dead load each connection must resist is 4.6MPa x 21m2 = 96.6kN. There are 12 bolts in each of the diaphragm to girder bolted connection (6 on each side) and hence each bolt is subjected to 8.05 kN each. However, it must be remembered that the total strength of a bolt group of 12 bolts in one set of connection is not equal to 12 times the nominal capacity of each bolt and that the stress concentration, shear and bending moment on each bolt in the group varies depending on the bolt group centroid and the location of out-of-plain loading. For simplicity, to carry out a cyclic loading test, it is important to use the maximum shear force on a bolt in the group which in this case is that of the 8.05kN (as it would be acting on the bolts at the top or closest to the location of the loading). The maximum load is hence determined as the 70% of the slip critical load of the M16 friction tightened bolts in double shear configuration. The slip resistance of an M16 bolt in a double shear configuration was earlier calculated to be 29.47kN and as such its 70% is 20.6kN. From the slip tests conducted on the new set of M16 bolts tightened such that the gap between the load indicating washers and the plates was ensured to be at 0.25mm as specified for galvanized bolts, the average slip load on 2 M16 bolts in a double shear configuration was 48kN implying that each bolt resisted 24kN before slipping began, which is less than the 29kN as earlier calculated due to up to 20% inaccuracies due to manual bolt tightening. As the average slip load from the earlier test is less than the determined one from the calculated slip critical load, this will hence be the basis for the fatigue testing and as such 70% of the 24kN will be used as the maximum load for the fatigue testing which is 16.8kN From the above, the parameters for the fatigue testing of friction tightened bolt in an overlapped joint is hence determined to have a minimum load of 8.05 kN and a maximum load of 16.8kN on each bolt. However, as there are two bolts in the testing mechanism, for the fatigue testing, the loads will be at minimum of 16.1kN and maximum of 33.6kN. Loading Frequency and Expected Stress Cycle From standards, service life of highways designed for Average Daily Truck Traffic (ADTT) of 2500 must be 2,000,000 cycles and those highways designed for ADTT of less than 2500 must have a service life of 500,000 cycles. Cyclic load testing requires for a pre-determined constant frequency for testing. For high-cycle fatigue (HCF),20 to 50Hz is commonly used; however, this parameter is purely ideal and as such a low-cycle fatigue (LCF) will instead be applied using a frequency of less than 10Hz,usually 0.01 to 5 Hz for a cycle of 10^4, however previous articles have conducted LCF testing in 5Hz and even up to 8-10Hz, which is usually indicated by the capacity of the testing machine or pre-determined based on operation. As the lower frequency range in the LCF (0.01-5Hz) would imply stress cycles of less than 10^4, a loading frequency within the higher frequency range in the LCF (5-10Hz) would be chosen to result in stress cycles in the 500,000 to 2,500,000 range. 84 Parameters: Clamping force: Endure bolts are tightened such that the gap between the plate and the load indicating washers is decreased down to 0.25mm Minimum load: 16 kN Maximum load: 33kN Loading Frequency: 5-10 Hz (range can be smaller to ensure accuracy i.e. 5-6 or 8-10Hz depending on machine) Fatigue Testing for M22 bolts (tensile) At the underside of each of the diaphragm-girder connections, there are 4 M22 bolts. For fatigue testing, the amplitude for the cyclic loading would have a minimum of 0kN (as these connections are not responsible for transfer of structural self-weight onto supports) and the maximum would be 1/4 of the maximum horizontal braking forces (as there are 5 sets of this type of connection under each diaphragm). The design horizontal braking force of the traffic condition with the highest vertical loads on the structure was calculated to be 601.72kN which implies that each of the four bolt is subjected to load of 150.4kN if only the braking force is considered. And as such for a cyclic tensile testing of an M22 bolt the amplitude is 0kN and 150kN at 5-10Hz. The maximum design axial tension of an M22 bolt with 0.8 factor (allowable maximum design load is only 80% of nominal axial capacity) is 198kN. The 150.4kN due to horizontal braking forces is a lot less than the design load which is still less than the axial capacity. However, if self-weight of the structure and the other vertical loads on the bridge adds on to that load, the total applied load on the M22 bolt at the diaphragm may very well be over the allowable maximum design load especially that that location is where the maximum internal bending moment and maximum deflection of the bridge occurs. 85