GowdaS - Dis (Final)

MULTI-SCALE EFFECTS OF CORROSION ON STEEL STRUCTURES
A Dissertation
Presented to
The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Sunil Gowda
December, 2016
MULTI-SCALE EFFECTS OF CORROSION ON STEEL STRUCTURES
Sunil Gowda
Dissertation
Approved: Accepted:
Advisor Department Chair

Dr. Anil Patnaik Dr. Wieslaw K. Binienda
Co-Advisor Interim Dean of the College

Dr. T. S. Srivatsan Dr. Donald J. Visco
Committee Member Dean of the Graduate School

Dr. Craig Menzemer Dr. Chand Midha
Committee Member Date

Dr. Ping Yi
Committee Member
Dr. Nao Mimoto
ii
ABSTRACT
Corrosion is a naturally occurring process which under favorable
environmental conditions, causes deterioration of metals when exposed to c o r r o s i v e
e n v i r o n m e n t f o r a n extended period of time. This time dependent factor related to
corrosion rate is an important factor among others, affecting the process of corrosion
itself. Some of these factors can be controlled and some may not. Steel structures like
bridges are essentially made of structural members such as beams, compression
members and p l a t e girders. Ship structures are made up of a combination of steel
plates and stiffened panels. Such structural steel members, in their respective
applications are susceptible to different types of corrosion depending on the environment
they are exposed to. Uniform corrosion, non-uniform corrosion and pitting corrosion
are the most common types of corrosion affecting all of the mentioned steel structural
members. Without proper maintenance procedures, corrosion can cause needless
financial and safety burdens on steel structures. Therefore, studying the effect of these
types of corrosion on the strength of structural members used in civil engineering
applications, forms the core objective of this research.
In order to achieve the desired objective of this research, a “multi-scale”
approach was taken to understand the effects of corrosion on steel structures. A framed
industrial steel structure in Akron, Ohio which is part of a salt manufacturing plant was
iii
considered and the global effect of uniform corrosion on the entire framework
consisting of standard steel shapes such as wide flanged beams, angles, channel sections
and hollow sections is studied. This constitutes the mega-scale level in this study. The
macro-scale level consists of studying the effects of non-uniform corrosion on the load
carrying capacity of individual members which make up a structural system, such as wide
flanged beams. These beams are assumed to have reduced thicknesses in either the
webs or flanges, simulating non-uniform corrosion occurring along the length of the
beam and are analyzed using a standard finite element analysis program ABAQUS to
determine the load carrying capacity of deteriorated I-beam sections. The effect of various
levels of pitting corrosion including beams with web holes are also simulated and
analyzed to determine the strength reduction of a beam. Steel plates and stiffened panels
which form the core structural components in ship structures are also considered to
study the effects of corrosion on the strength of these members under appropriate
loading and boundary conditions. An accelerated corrosion procedure called GMW14872
was employed to corrode ASTM E8 samples and to study the effects of corrosion on short
term and long term mechanical properties such as tensile and fatigue strengths of ASTM
A572 structural steel. T h i s f o r m s t h e m i c r o - l e v e l i n t h e m u l t i - s c a l e
a p p r o a c h . Scanning electron microscopy was employed to study the effects of
corrosion on the mechanical properties of steel samples by observing the optical
micrographs at high magnifications.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my advisors, Dr. Anil Patnaik and Dr. T. S. Srivatsan for
their continued support and encouragement throughout the course of my studies and
research. Their guidance on conducting this research was invaluable. I am indebted to
Dr. Craig Menzemer, Dr. Ping Yi and Dr. Nao Mimoto for agreeing to serve on my
Doctoral Research Committee. I would like to convey my gratitude towards the civil
engineering staff Kim Stone, Patricia Eaglewolf and Civil Engineering laboratory
technician Dave McVaney and Mechanical Engineering laboratory technician Cliff.
Work is associated with the National Corrosion Center (NCERCAMP) at The
University of Akron and the DoD Technical Corrosion Collaboration (TCC), U.S. DoD
Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight.
I would also like to thank my colleagues and friends f o r t h e i r support at
various stages of this research. Thanks to some of my fellow graduate students in Civil
Engineering at the University of Akron for their precious time and help.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................... xii
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... xx
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………1
1.1 Problem Statement ..................................................................................................5
1.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Scope of this dissertation ........................................................................................ 7
II LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………………8
2.1 Definition and Chemistry of Corrosion ................................................................. 8
2.2 Types of Corrosion .............................................................................................. 11
2.2.1 Uniform (General) Corrosion ........................................................................ 13
2.2.2 Non-Uniform Corrosion ................................................................................ 15
2.2.3 Pitting Corrosion ........................................................................................... 18
2.2.4 Crevice Corrosion .......................................................................................... 19
2.2.5 Galvanic Corrosion ........................................................................................ 21
vi
2.3 NCHRP 333 Guidelines ..................................................................................... 24
2.4 Corrosion rate and factors influencing corrosion rate ........................................ 25
2.5 Influence of corrosion on Steel Structures .......................................................... 31
III EFFECTS OF CORROSION ON THE DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF STRUCTURAL

STEEL FRAME……………………………….………………………………………..44
3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 44
3.2 Objectives of this Chapter .................................................................................... 46
3.3 Background .......................................................................................................... 47
3.4 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 56
3.5 Reference (Uncorroded) Analysis ........................................................................ 65
3.6 Corroded State ...................................................................................................... 68
Modal Analysis ............................................................................................... 68
Linear Modal Time-History Analysis in SAP2000 (Progressive degrees of

corrosion). ....................................................................................................... 73
3.8 Discussion of Results ........................................................................................... 74
3.9 Conclusions from this Chapter............................................................................. 76
IV NUMERICAL MODELING OF BEAMS SUBJECT TO NON-UNIFORM AND

PITTING CORROSION DETERIORATION………………………………………….77
4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 77
4.2 Objective .............................................................................................................. 78
4.3 Finite Element Modeling...................................................................................... 78
4.3.1 End Beam Deterioration: ............................................................................... 79
vii
4.3.2 Beam with Web Pitting .................................................................................. 83
4.4 Results and Discussion......................................................................................... 88
4.5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 100
V TENSILE STRENGTH OF STRUCTURAL A572 GRADE 50 STEEL…………..103
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 103
5.2 Material .............................................................................................................. 106
5.3 Experimental Procedures.................................................................................... 108
5.3.1 Characterization of Initial Microstructure .................................................... 108
5.3.2 Microhardness Test ...................................................................................... 108
5.4 Mechanical Testing ............................................................................................ 110
5.5 Failure-Damage Analysis ................................................................................... 111
5.5 Results and Discussion ....................................................................................... 111
5.5.1 Initial Microstructure ................................................................................... 111
5.5.2 Microhardness ............................................................................................. 113
5.5.3 Macrohardness............................................................................................. 115
5.6 Tensile Response ................................................................................................ 116
5.7 Tensile Fracture Behavior .................................................................................. 119
5.7.1 Orientation: Longitudinal .......................................................................... 119
5.7.2 Orientation: Transverse .............................................................................. 120
viii
5.8 Microscopic Mechanisms Governing Stress-Microstructure-Deformation
Interactions ........................................................................................................ 120
5.9 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 121
VI HIGH CYCLE FATIGUE TESTING ON STRUCTURAL A572 GRADE 50
STEEL……………………………………………………………………………..…..125
6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 125
6.2 Materials and Experimental Procedures ............................................................. 126
6.2.1 Material and Test Specimen Preparation...................................................... 126
6.2.2 Initial Microstructure ................................................................................... 127
6.2.3 Mechanical Testing ...................................................................................... 128
6.2.4 Fracture and/or Failure-damage Analysis .................................................... 129
6.3 Results & Discussion ......................................................................................... 129
6.3.1 Initial Microstructure .................................................................................... 129
6.3.2 Tensile Properties ......................................................................................... 130
6.3.3 Cyclic Stress-Amplitude Controlled Fatigue Response................................ 132
6.4 Cyclic Fracture Behavior- Longitudinal Orientation ......................................... 136
6.4.1 Transverse Orientation ................................................................................. 137
6.5 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 138
VII EFFECT OF CORROSION ON THE TENSILE STRENGTH AND FATIGUE

LIFE OF A572 STEEL………………………………………………………………..145
7.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 145
ix
7.2 The GMW14872 Laboratory Corrosion Test ................................................... 146
7.3 Salt solution preparation ................................................................................... 147
7.4 Coupon initial cleaning ..................................................................................... 148
7.5 Post-corrosion cleaning .................................................................................... 148
7.6 Post-corrosion cleaning .................................................................................... 149
7.7 Coupon Rack Preparation ................................................................................. 150
7.8 The GMW14872 Testing Procedure ................................................................. 151
7.9 Test Documentation .......................................................................................... 152
7.10 Corrosion Rate ................................................................................................ 152
7.11 Mechanical Testing......................................................................................... 154
7.12 Results and Discussion ................................................................................... 154
7.12.1 Tensile Response .................................................................................... 154
7.12.2 Fatigue Response .................................................................................... 155
7.12.3 Tensile Fracture Behavior....................................................................... 159
7.12.4 As-Provided: No Exposure to Environment ............................................ 159
7.12.5 Exposure to Corrosive Environment: 7 days ......................................... 159
7.12.6 Exposure to Corrosive Environment: 14 days ......................................... 160
7.13 Stress-Environment-Microstructure Interactions ............................................ 160
7.14 Conclusions .................................................................................................... 161
x
VIII COMPRESSION BUCKLING OF 7075-T6 ALUMINUM SKIN STIFFENED
PANELS- A FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH………………………………………175
8.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 175
8.2 Finite Element/Test Panel ................................................................................. 177
8.3 Element Type and Meshing.............................................................................. 177
8.4 Boundary conditions and load arrangements .................................................... 178
8.5 Contact properties ............................................................................................. 178
8.6 Design Equations.............................................................................................. 179
8.7 Summary of material properties ....................................................................... 183
8.8 Results .............................................................................................................. 184
8.9 Conclusion........................................................................................................ 186
IX CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................... 188
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 190
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................... 200
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.1 The multi-scale approach ............................................................................................ 4
2.2 The steel life cycle (NCHRP 333) [12] ..................................................................... 10
2.3 Representation of Corrosion Mechanism .................................................................. 11
2.4 A bridge member representing uniform corrosion (NCHRP 333) [12] .................... 13
2.5 Locations of possible non-uniform corrosion occurring on stringer spans.

Section A- A hows localized corrosion can sometimes cause a through hole.
(NCHRP 333) [12] .................................................................................................... 17
2.6 Pitting intensity diagrams (a) DOP=10%; (b) DOP=20%; (c) DOP=30%; (d)
DOP=50%............................................................................................................... 18
2.7 Pitting corrosion on a piece of steel plate obtained from a salt manufacturing plant
in Akron, OH (after sand blasting) ......................................................................... 19
2.8 The crevice corrosion mechanism (Left), corroded steel bridge I-beam in Hudson,
Ohio (Right) [30] .................................................................................................... 20
2.9 Crevice corrosion in an angle-to-angle connection [12] .......................................... 21
2.10 Progression of crevice corrosion over time at the plate-fastener boundary. [28] .... 21
2.11 Dry cell battery [28] ................................................................................................ 23
2.12 Galvanic corrosion in a section of the bridge with the railing of aluminum,
connected to steel [191] .......................................................................................... 23
2.13 Corrosion rates [38] ................................................................................................ 29
2.14 Girder versus system reliability indices for span 42m and girder spacing of ......... 30
xii
2.15 Corrosion pattern on a typical steel bridge [17] ...................................................... 32
2.16 Corrosion decay models by thickness reduction as a) Uniform thickness loss model
and b) Varying thickness loss model [45] .............................................................. 32
2.17 Different buckling modes of steel I-beams. (a) Lateral-torsional buckling; (b) local
buckling [58]........................................................................................................... 37
2.18 Failure pattern of corroded plate girder. [64] .......................................................... 39
2.19 Dimensions and loading locations of the test piece for flexural failure [64] ...... 39
2.20 Comparison between experimental and analytical results ...................................... 40
3.21 The SDOF system. .................................................................................................. 48
3.22 The DMF plot of a SDOF subjected to Harmonic Loading for different damping
[ 6 6 ] ...................................................................................................................... 51
3.23 The DMF plot and the phase angle plot for different damping conditions [66]...... 51
3.24 Resultant displacement and modal components [CSI Knowledge Base, 70].......... 54
3.25 One of the structural CAD drawing of the frame .................................................... 57
3.26 The framed structure modelled in SAP2000 (left) and in SPACEGASS (right) .... 57
3.27 Elevation Dependent Corrosion Model-Corrosion Distribution [68] ..................... 60
3.28 Frame Geometry- Section A ................................................................................... 63
3.29 Frame Geometry- Section B.................................................................................... 63
3.30 Frame Geometry- Section C.................................................................................... 64
3.31 Dead Load Distribution........................................................................................... 64
3.32 Standard dimensions of geometrical sections ......................................................... 65
3.33 The top four nodes in SAP 2000 (320, 372, 378, 338) and top four nodes in
SPACEGASS (17, 18, 19, 20) used as reference nodes for displacement output... 66
3.34 Bending moment diagram for member BB71 (beam) in SAP 2000 and
SPACEGASS. ........................................................................................................ 67
xiii
3.35 Chart showing a linear increase in fundamental (1st mode) periods due to
progressive degrees of uniform corrosion ............................................................. 70
3.36 Deterioration factors charts for beams, bracing members and columns ................. 75
4.37 (a) MDOT verification model (b) The parabolic tetrahedral element (c) Meshed
model in ABAQUS................................................................................................. 80
4.38 The test model used by researchers at Michigan Department of

Transportation [72] ................................................................................................. 82
4.39 Beam models B1-B4 subject to simulated corrosion damage ................................ 83
4.40 Corrosion pattern of a plate girder of the collapsed bridge in Japan [73] ............... 84
4.41 Cross Section and Isometric view of the chosen I-beam ........................................ 86
4.42 The web pitting patterns chosen for numerical analysis. (a) Circular Hole (b)
Rectangular/Square hole (c) Radial pitting pattern (d) Series pitting pattern (e)
Beam dimensions.................................................................................................... 87
4.43 MDOT’s design chart for damage occurring on both sides of the web. Chart is only
applicable to rolled sections having depths or unsupported web heights between
27” to 36” [72] ........................................................................................................ 89
4.44 The CSRF chart for varying damage depths against different damage heights for
Beam B1 ................................................................................................................. 92
Beam B2 ................................................................................................................. 92
Beam B3 ................................................................................................................. 93
Beam B4 ................................................................................................................. 93
4.48 The Von-Mises distribution and the failure modes of beam with circular idealized
web pit at different locations along the beam span. ............................................... 94
4.49 The Von-Mises stress distribution for beam with rectangular idealized web pitting
with different degree of pitting ............................................................................... 95
4.50 Von-Mises stress distribution of the series pitting pattern showing that the critical
stress limit is reached when the depth of pitting increases. The degree of damage is
a function of beam web thickness to the beam depth ............................................ 96
xiv
4.51 Von-Mises stress distribution of the radial pitting pattern showing a rapid change in
failure mode depending on the depth of web pitting .............................................. 97
4.52 Von Mises Stress distribution for the beam having pitting holes penetrating ......... 98
4.53 Von Mises Stress distribution for the beam having pitting holes penetrating ......... 99
5.54 Optical micrographs showing microstructure of structural steel A572 at two

different magnifications of (a) Longitudinal at 100X, (b) Longitudinal at 200X (c)
Transverse at 100X, (d) Transverse at 200X ........................................................ 113
5.55 A profile showing the variation of microhardness (kg/mm2) taken across the length
of the mounted sample of A572........................................................................... 114
5.56 A profile showing the variation of macrohardness (kg/mm2) taken across the length
of the mounted sample of A572........................................................................... 115
5.57 Bar graph comparing the macro-hardness and micro-hardness of A572 steel in the
two orientations: longitudinal and transverse. ..................................................... 116
5.58 Influence of test specimen orientation on engineering stress versus engineering

strain response of structural steel A572 samples deformed in uniaxial tension at
room temperature (T=25°C) ................................................................................. 118
5.59 A comparison of the influence of test specimen orientation (Longitudinal vs

Transverse) on true stress vs true strain response of A572 deformed in uniaxial
tension .................................................................................................................. 118
5.60 Scanning electron micrographs of the tensile fracture surface of the longitudinal
sample of A572, showing: (a) Overall morphology of failure, cup-and-cone (b)
Fine microscopic voids covering the transgranular fracture region (c) Shallow
dimples intermingled with voids of varying size in region immediate prior to
overload (d) Ductile dimples intermingled with macroscopic and fine microscopic
voids in region of overload ................................................................................... 123
5.61 Scanning Electron Micrographs of the tensile fracture surface of the transverse
sample of A572, showing: (a) Overall morphology of failure: cup-and-cone (b)
Transgranular region covered with voids of varying size and shallow dimples (c)
Microvoid coalescence to form microscopic crack that run along the grain
boundaries (d) Population of voids of varying size and shallow pockets of dimples
on the overload fracture surface ........................................................................... 124
6.62 Optical micrographs showing microstructure of the alloy steel (A572) sample in
the orientations: Longitudinal, and Transverse .................................................... 128
xv
6.63 Influence of test specimen orientation on engineering stress versus engineering
strain response for alloy steel (A572) deformed in uniaxial tension at room
temperature (T=25°C) .......................................................................................... 132
6.64 Influence of test specimen orientation on variation of maximum stress (σmax ) with
fatigue life (Nf) for alloy steel A572 when cyclically deformed at room
temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1...................................................... 134
6.65 Influence of test specimen orientation on variation of maximum elastic strain

[σmax/E] with fatigue life (Nf) for alloy steel A572 when cyclically deformed at
room temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1 ............................................ 134
6.66 Influence of test specimen orientation on variation of maximum stress to yield

stress [σmax/ σYS] with fatigue life (Nf) for alloy steel A572 when cyclically
deformed at room temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1 ........................ 135
6.67 Influence of test specimen orientation on variation of maximum stress to ultimate

tensile strength [σmax/ σUTS] with fatigue life (Nf) for alloy steel A572 when
cyclically deformed at room temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1 ........ 135
6.68 Scanning electron micrographs of the longitudinal test sample of A572 steel
cylindrically deformed at a maximum stress of 442 MPa and a fatigue life of
232,218 cycles showing: (a) Overall morphology of failure normal to stress axis
(b) High magnification observation of the fatigue region showing microscopically
rough fracture surface (c) An array of fine microscopic cracks in the region of
unstable crack growth. (d) Elongated nature of microscopic voids in the region of
unstable crack Growth prior to overload ............................................................. 141
6.69 Scanning electron micrographs of the longitudinal test sample of A572 steel
779,001 cycles showing: (a) Overall morphology of failure normal to stress axis
(b) Population of shallow dimples intermingled with microscopic voids in the
region of overload (c) Coplanar array of fine microscopic cracks in region of
unstable crack growth. (d) High magnification of macro cracking in the fatigue
region. ................................................................................................................... 142
6.70 Scanning electron micrographs of the transverse test sample of A572 steel
245,146 cycles showing: (a) Overall morphology of failure (b) Fine microscopic
cracks and some macroscopic cracks (c) Coplanar array of fine microscopic cracks
in region of unstable crack growth. (d) High magnification of
striations intermingled with microscopic cracks and macro
cracking in the fatigue region. .............................................................................. 143
xvi
6.71 Scanning electron micrographs of the transverse test sample of A572 steel
505,081 cycles showing: (a) Overall morphology of failure (b) High magnification
observation of the region of stable crack growth. (c) High magnification of macro
crack in the fatigue region. (d) Population of shallow dimples intermingled with
microscopic voids in the region of overload ....................................................... 144
7.72 The ASTM E8 test specimens ............................................................................... 146
7.73 The test chamber used for artificially corroding A572 test specimens for
specified period under respective temperature and humidity controlled
environment .......................................................................................................... 147
7.74 The coupon racks .................................................................................................. 150
7.75 GMW14872 Test flow diagram [97] .................................................................... 151
7.76 Test specimens in their as-new and corroded states. ............................................ 152
7.77 Engineering stress vs engineering strain for A572 longitudinal specimens

comparing the corroded specimens with the as-new sample ............................... 157
7.78 Engineering stress vs engineering strain for A572 transverse specimens comparing
the corroded specimens with the as-new sample.................................................. 157
7.79 Effect of ASTM cleaning procedures on the tensile strength of A572 steel ........ 158
7.80 Scanning electron micrographs of the tensile fracture surface of non-corroded test
sample of alloy steel A572 from longitudinal orientation showing: (a) A sizeable
population of voids of varying size and shape intermingled with dimples at higher
magnifications of the tensile fracture surface. (b) In the region of tensile overload
microvoid coalescence to form fine microscopic crack ....................................... 164
7.81 Scanning electron micrographs of the tensile fracture surface of transverse non-
corroded sample of alloy steel A572 showing: (a) A sizeable population of fine
microscopic voids of varying size intermingled with dimples (b) Intergranular
cracking in the region prior to overload (c) Voids of varying size intermingled
with dimples covering the overload fracture surface ........................................... 165
7.82 Scanning electron micrographs of the tensile fracture surface of sample of

longitudinal orientation of alloy steel A572 exposed to 7 days to the aggressive
aqueous environment and resultant degradation, showing: (a) Overall morphology
of failure indicative of globally ductile (b) High magnification observation of the
region of fracture surface revealing a network of fine microscopic cracks (c) Fine
microscopic voids coalesce to form a microscopic crack .................................... 166
xvii
7.83 Scanning electron micrographs of the tensile fracture surface of longitudinal
sample of A572 exposed for 14 days to the aggressive aqueous environment and
resultant degradation, showing: (a) A sizeable population of fine microscopic voids
intermingled with dimples observed on the tensile fracture surface at higher
magnification. Features indicative of locally ductile failure (b) High magnification
observation of the region of fracture surface prior to overload revealing void growth
and eventual coalescence to form fine microscopic cracks ................................... 167
7.84 Scanning electron micrographs of the tensile fracture surface of transverse sample
of A572 exposed for 14 days to the aggressive aqueous environmental deterioration,
showing: (a) High magnification observation of the tensile fracture surface
revealing an observable population of voids of varying size intermingled with an
array of dimples. (b) Formation of macroscopic voids at the coarse second-phase
particles distributed through the microstructure .................................................... 168
temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1 for uncorroded specimens. ........... 169

room temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1 for uncorroded specimens. .. 169

deformed at room temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1 for uncorroded
specimens ............................................................................................................... 170

cyclically deformed at room temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1 for
uncorroded specimens .......................................................................................... 170
temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1 for specimens
exposed to 7 days. ................................................................................................ 171

room temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1 for specimens exposed to 7
days. ...................................................................................................................... 171
xviii
deformed at room temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1 for specimens
exposed to 7 days ................................................................................................. 172

specimens exposed to 7 days ................................................................................ 172
temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1
for specimens exposed to 14 days.......................................................................... 173

room temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1
for specimens exposed to 14 days. ....................................................................... 173

deformed at room temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1 for specimens
exposed to 14 days ............................................................................................... 174

specimens exposed to 14 days .............................................................................. 174
8.97 Friction stir welding technique diagram [114]...................................................... 176
8.98 Typical cross-sectional details of one of the test panels…………………………177
8.99 Typical finite element model for FSW and riveted connections…………….......183
8.10 First Eigen Value buckling modes for (a) FSW1 panel (b) Riveted Panel (c) FSW2
panel………………………………………………………………………………185
xix
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2.1 Average Values for Corrosion Parameters A and B, for Carbon and
Weathering Steel ....................................................................................................... 15
2.2 Values of K for use in the ASTM corrosion rate equation ....................................... 28
2.3 Conditions of test specimens tested for shear strength. ............................................ 41
3.1 Geometrical properties of some of the cross sections used in

the structural analysis ............................................................................................... 65
3.2 Joint displacement comparison of the top four nodes in

SAP2000 and SPACEGASS .................................................................................... 66
3.3 Comparison of forces and moments in member BB71 (beam) in SAP2000 and
SPACEGASS ........................................................................................................... 67
3.4 Modal periods at progressive degrees of corrosion and percentage increase ........... 69
3.5 Reduced cross sectional properties of some sections for different percentages of
corrosion .................................................................................................................. 71
3.6 Reduced capacities and corresponding deterioration factors for different corrosion
damage cases for I, T and angle sections of the frame. ........................................... 74
4.1 Corrosion parameters for beams B1 to B4 ............................................................... 81
4.2 A summary of buckling loads obtained for a damage depth of 1/16”. Refer to Table
4.1 for details of beam models (B1-B4). ................................................................. 89
4.3 Summary of the corrosion strength reduction factors (CSRF) for Beam B1 with a
damage depth of 1/8” (3.175mm) ............................................................................ 90
4.4 Summary of the corrosion strength reduction factors for Beam B2 with a damage
depth of 1/8” (3.175mm) ......................................................................................... 90
depth of 1/8” (3.175mm) ......................................................................................... 91
xx
depth of 1/8” (3.175mm) ......................................................................................... 91
4.7 The Von-Mises stress distribution values for circular pits in beam web ................. 95
4.8 The average Von-Mises stress distribution values for rectangular pits in beam web.
The degree of damage is a function of beam depth to the beam web thickness..... 96
4.9 Average Von-Mises stress distribution for the radial pitting pattern damage .......... 97
5.1 Chemical composition of A572 steel (in weight percent) ..................................... 107
5.2 Micro-hardness measurements on Structural Steel A572 steel.............................. 110
6.1 Chemical composition of A572 steel (in weight percent) ..................................... 127
6.2 A compilation of the room temperature (T=250C) tensile properties of the chosen
alloy (A572) [Results are the mean values of several duplicate tests] .................. 131
7.1 Chemical cleaning procedure for removal of corrosion products .......................... 150
7.2 Values of K for use in the ASTM corrosion rate equation .................................... 153
7.3 Uniaxial tensile properties of Structural Steel A572 for the two different exposure
times and no-exposure ........................................................................................... 158
8.1 Input for material properties in ABAQUS* [115] ................................................. 183
8.2 Tabular column showing the comparison between FEA and experimental
analysis................................................................................................................... 184
8.3 Comparison of critical buckling loads between finite element analysis, experiment
and design equations.............................................................................................. 186
xxi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The ASCE 2013 report card for America’s infrastructure [1] reported that one in
nine of the nation’s bridges is rated as structurally deficient, while the average age of the
nation’s 607,380 bridges was 42 years. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)[]
estimates that to eliminate the nation’s bridge deficient backlog by 2028, $20.5 billion has
to be invested annually. In another international study, steel which is also widely used in
the UK for petro-chemical industries has almost reached its designated service life and is
in a severely corroded state [3].
Corrosion damage is one of the most common problems for any kind of steel
structures which by nature is more aggressive in chemical plants like framed steel
structures in salt manufacturing plant and structures built along a coast line. Corrosion
damage can result in an increased stress, change in geometric properties and a
reduction in member cross section properties, such as section modulus or increase in
slenderness ratio (Czarnecki and Nowak. 2008) [4]. It has been estimated by the NACE
International, formerly the National Association for Corrosion Engineers [9] that the
corrosion damage is approximately $276 billion per year. The effects of corrosion on
steel structures is global. Millions of dollars are spent worldwide for repair and
rehabilitation of steel bridges which are exposed to severe corrosive environment.
Therefore it is all the more important to understand the different forms of corrosion and
1
their effects on structural steel components. It is apparent that the loss of thicknesses
(corrosion deterioration) in either the flanges or web of a structural I-beam leads to loss
in cross sectional properties which can eventually lead to the reduction in the load carrying
capacity of the member. For example, corrosion damage proved to play a significant
role in the catastrophic failure of the silver bridge (Point Pleasant, WV) in 1967 and the
Mianus river bridge collapse (Connecticut, USA) [10]. Over the years, several corrosion
models have been proposed f o r analytical evaluation of strength reduction in structural
members affected by uniform corrosion.
Visual inspection of deteriorated steel structures [8] can be categorized into four
conditions depending on the level of deterioration. The level with the severe type is further
subjected to design checks based on the measured section sizes. Although this procedure
can be used for categorizing steel structures affected by corrosion damage, the strength
assessment of the same cannot be carried out by visual inspection. Hence, more accurate
methods for evaluating the residual capacity of corroded steel structures is needed. Former
researchers have attempted to predict the effect of corrosion on steel structures under
various environmental conditions by means of mathematical and analytical models. It has
been previously shown [6] that corrosion affects steel angled members used in constructing
various steel structures. The buckling behavior and ultimate strength of corroded angle section
members were experimentally and numerically analyzed. The difference from the one used in
Eurocode 3 [7] was determined. These models considered many variables for the purpose of
residual strength analysis and were considered time consuming. These studies analyzed
the effects of corrosion on the shear, buckling and ultimate limit states of steel structural
components.
2
The scope of this study is limited to steel sections (I-sections, angles, T-sections,
steel plates and stiffened panels) which are commonly used for the purpose of
constructing steel bridges a n d ship structural c o m p o n e n t s . The
immediate objective was to identify the common types of corrosion damage in the
above mentioned steel structures and propose methods for safe and quick assessment of
steel structural components affected by these types of corrosion. This objective was
mainly accomplished through a series of finite element analysis, experimental study and
analytical calculations. The results of which are used to determine the reduced capacities of
steel structural components affected by common deterioration types against several
different possible failure mechanisms.
In order to achieve the desired objective of this research, a multi-scale approach
(Figure 1.1) is used to understand the effects of corrosion on a steel structure. A framed
steel structure in Akron, Ohio which is part of a salt manufacturing plant is considered
in this study. Global effects of corrosion on the entire framework consisting of standard
steel shapes such as wide flanged beams, angles, channel sections and tubes are studied
and presented in this dissertation. This constitutes the mega-scale level in this study.
The macro-scale level consists of studying the load carrying capacity of individual
members which make up a structural system such as wide flanged beams. These beams
are assumed to have non-uniform corrosion occurring along the length of the beam and
are analyzed using a standard finite element analysis program ABAQUS to determine the
load carrying capacity of deteriorated I-beam sections. The effects of various levels of
pitting corrosion including beams with web holes are also simulated and analyzed
to determine the strength reduction in beams. Steel plates and stiffened panels which
3
form important structural members in ship structures are also considered to study the
various effects of corrosion on the strength of these members under appropriate loading
and boundary conditions. Finally, a micro-scale level of study is conducted to determine
the effects of corrosion on mechanical properties such as tensile and fatigue strengths of
ASTM A572 [80] which is a common grade structural steel. The effectiveness of using
the GMW14872 laboratory corrosion p r o c e d u r e as an accelerated method to
corrode steel specimens under artificial laboratory conditions was also investigated.
Scanning electron microscopy was employed for a more detailed investigation of the
failure surfaces of steel samples by observing the optical micrographs at high
magnifications.
Figure 1.1 The multi-scale approach
4
1.1 Problem Statement
Although steel structures are commonly constructed owing to their high strength
to weight ratio, its effectiveness when exposed to corrosive environments is always
uncertain. Depending on the type of corrosion and the environment to which they
are exposed to, the effect o f c o r r o s i o n on steel structures has always been
detrimental. One solution can be the replacement of the particular structural component
or the entire structure itself. This approach can not only prove to be expensive, but also
time consuming as well when dealing with large structures.
The primary focus of this dissertation was to simulate different forms of
commonly occurring corrosion types (uniform, non-uniform and pitting) by
experimental and numerical methods which are discussed in detail in this dissertation.
Additionally, through structural analysis and finite element analysis, methods are
proposed to quantify the strength reduction in steel structural components due to the
above mentioned corrosion types so that these methods can be readily and safely adopted
by structural engineers for quick and reliable assessment of corrosion affected steel
structures.
This dissertation is also aimed at providing the required background and
methods in the development of a technical guidance document. Some of the methods
proposed in this dissertation are primarily based on the principles and design approach
given in NCHRP 333 [12]. Research results would quantify the strength reduction based
on the reduced capacity of a member. This quantification is clearly outlined under the
heading “NCHRP 333 guidelines” [12] in literature review section of this dissertation.
5
1.2 Objectives
The purpose of this dissertation is to present methods to assess the reliability
of steel structures and steel components subjected to three types of corrosion damage.
The specific objectives are highlighted below:
1. Evaluate the effects of uniform corrosion damage on the dynamic response of a
structural steel frame representative of an industrial salt manufacturing plant in
Akron, OH subjected to a sinusoidal time-history loading.
2. Propose a method for quick strength assessment of structural steel sections
subjected to progressive degrees of uniform corrosion damage.
3. Develop strength deterioration charts to compare the impact of uniform
corrosion on the reference structural frame to easily quantify strength reduction
of standard steel structural sections such as I-sections, angles and T-sections.
4. To simulate and evaluate the effects of non-uniform corrosion and pitting
corrosion damage on the strength of individual steel structural components
such as wide flanged beams.
5. Using the results obtained from (4), develop typical corrosion reduction factor
charts that can be used to quantify the reduction in strength in terms of critical
buckling load. This chart can be used for different variations of thickness losses
in wide flanged beams.
6. To determine short term and long term mechanical properties of structural
ASTM A572 [80] steel which is commonly used in steel structures and
components. These properties are useful in understanding the mechanical
behavior of the steel and can be used in finite element analysis for more
6
accurate results.
7. T o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e u s e o f a n accelerated method of corrosion to simulate
uniform corrosion on representative steel A572 samples and study the effects on
short term and long term mechanical properties.
1.3 Scope of this dissertation
This dissertation consists details of experimental tests, analytical calculations
and numerical analysis of structural components subjected to different types of
corrosion damage. The dissertation is organized into 8 chapters. Chapter 1 deals
with the introduction, problem statement, objective and scope of dissertation. Chapter
2 contains a summary of the literature review. Chapter 3 describes primarily the effect
of uniform corrosion on the dynamic response of a steel framed structure and the
results associated with the same. Chapter 4 outlines the effects of non-uniform
corrosion damage on wide flanged beams with different damage patterns. Chapter 5
and Chapter 6 present the summary of short term and long term mechanical properties
of ASTM A572 structural steel. Chapter 7 which is ongoing research summarizes the
work that is currently being documented. This chapter deals with the effects of an
accelerated corrosion process “GMW14872” procedure on the mechanical properties
(tensile and fatigue) of A572 steel. Chapter 8 which is a precursor to study the effect
of corrosion on stiffened panels deals with the behavior of a skin- stiffened
aluminum panels under uniaxial compression. A method is suggested to determine
the buckling capacity of stiffened panels through finite element analyses and to verify
the results obtained through analytical calculations based on ABS (American Bureau
of Shipping) and API (American Petroleum Institute) guidelines.
7
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Definition and Chemistry of Corrosion
Corrosion is an electrochemical process, which in the presence of moist air,
degrades and eventually leads to loss of surface material. However this is a time
dependent process, i.e. the longer a component is exposed to corrosive environment, the
more it corrodes. Chemically, the transformation of metal to its oxide through the
electrochemical reaction is depicted through the steel life cycle as shown in Figure 2.2.
Structural steel is an alloy made up of mainly iron and a small percentage of carbon; the
final product after this degradation is called rust. The following chemical reaction and the
accompanying figure shows this process. This reaction is often called an oxidation
reaction since there is the formation of respective oxides at the end of the process. Moist
corrosion is an oxidation process in which steel dissolves on the anode and a reduction
takes place at the cathode
O2 + 4 e− + 2 H2O → 4 OH− (1)
4 Fe2+ + O2 → 4 Fe3+ + 2 O2− (Redux-reaction)
The following multistep acid-base reactions affect the course of rust formation:
8
Fe2+ + 2 H2O ⇌ Fe (OH)2
+ 2 H+(1) Fe3+ + 3 H2O ⇌
Fe (OH) 3 + 3 H+ (1)
When exposed to a corrosive environment, general or uniform corrosion in steel beams
is characterized by a uniform loss of section or material over the surface of the material.
This rate of loss of material over time is called as “corrosion rate” and is often expressed
in mm/year, mils per year (mpy) or g/m2h. In chemistry terms, uniform corrosion can be
expressed in the form of iso-corrosion curves. These iso-corrosion curves represent
corrosion rate, often at 0.1 mm/year intervals is plotted against temperature and
concentration of test solution. 0.1 mm/year is the accepted corrosion rate with respect
to uniform corrosion in service [15]
On bridges, the electrolyte is usually water. The flow of electrons is from anode
to cathode. As negatively charged electrons leave the anode, positively charged ions of
the anode metal are released into the electrolyte. These ions can react with other
materials to form corrosion products called “rust”. Due to this, the anode is damaged
and the cathode is undamaged. The simplified process is shown in Figure 2.3. Since,
there is presence of a metal (steel), electrolyte (moist environment such as water)
and current flow through this electrolyte from anode to cathode (galvanic couple),
the corrosion process can be compared to a simple "corrosion cell." An oxygen cell is a
type of corrosion cell in which oxygen concentrations in the electrolyte determine the
anode and cathode locations. Locations where the electrolyte oxygen concentration is
9
low (such as stagnant standing water) are anodic and prone to corrosion. Metals at point
of low ion concentration corrode. In some cases, certain bacteria can also affect the rate
of corrosion because their metabolic processes can alter the oxygen and metal ion
concentrations in the electrolyte.
Corrosion on
Bridge
Ore
(Water, oxygen,
salts and acids)
Steel
Figure 2.2The steel life cycle (NCHRP 333) [12]
Among many other factors, corrosion can also be affected by environmental
effects which include temperature and humidity. High temperature increases the rate
of corrosion. This rate usually plays a crucial role in steel bridges. The amount of
moisture available is very crucial to the rate of corrosion because water serves as an
electrolyte. In regions where water is scarce, corrosion rate is slow compared to regions
with above-average precipitation. Exposure is important in assessing corrosion on a
single structure. Areas exposed to wind or sun that can dry quickly are less prone to
corrosion than sheltered areas where water can remain in contact with the metalwork.
Because of this, structures in coastal areas-or those exposed to deicing salts-will corrode
faster than bridges not exposed to salt. Studies have shown corrosion rates 2.75 times
higher due to salts.
10
Figure 2.3 Representation of Corrosion Mechanism
In both the United States and the United Kingdom, the cost of corrosion has been
estimated to be around 3% of the gross national product [9]. For its economy and
strength, structural steel is one of the most common and extensively used materials for
the infrastructure such as buildings, transportation structures, and industrial equipment.
Because many steel structures are exposed to corrosion-conducive environments, loss of
metal due to corrosion becomes a crucial and continual issue. The loss of metal material
consequently results in a decrease in strength of the structure, which may lead to structural
failure and increased safety risks. Therefore, it is essential to determine the structural
integrity of corroded steel structures and evaluate their ability to continue structural
performance for their intended loads. Corrosion of structural steel is not in any way a
new issue; however with new technology, continual research, and an expanding
understanding it is possible to better design and properly maintain structures subject to
corrosion for optimal lifetime expectancy.
2.2 Types of Corrosion
Common types of corrosion encountered in steel structures include: uniform
11
corrosion, galvanic corrosion, pitting corrosion, stress corrosion cracking and crevice
corrosion. The documentation of these types of corrosion is up to the engineer’s
discretion so as to determine ways to mitigate or prevent them from causing
deterioration. There are precautionary measures that can be taken to reduce the
likelihood that corrosion will occur, but as life of steel structures/components is
pushed longer and longer, there is no guarantee that these measures will be effective.
Corrosion can occur in many forms. These forms are classified depending on
inspection of corrosion ranging from uniform corrosion, which can be identified
visually, to stress corrosion, which cannot be visually identified.
Fontana's Corrosion Engineering [16] classifies corrosion into five forms. The most
commonly occurring forms are: (1) uniform corrosion; (2) Non-uniform; (3) crevice
corrosion; (4) pitting; and (5) galvanic corrosion. Familiarity with these forms of
corrosion, particularly those that are easily identified by the naked eye is important.
In many situations, several forms of corrosion may be present simultaneously. This
section discusses mainly uniform corrosion, non-uniform corrosion and pitting
corrosion, which are the forms of corrosion that affect steel structures such as beams,
columns, braces, plates and stiffened panel. Hence these forms will be briefly discussed
below. The discussion includes, but not limited to the formation of the corrosion,
the frequency of observation, the locations where the form is generally found on bridges,
accompanying each form with a visual representation of field occurrence.
12
2.2.1 Uniform (General) Corrosion
General or uniform corrosion is the most prevalent form of corrosion leading
to general/overall surface material loss which eventually leads to gradual thinning of
members. This type of corrosion accounts for the largest percentage of corrosion damage
affecting steel structures. It is regarded as one of the most easily identified form of
corrosion to the naked eye due to the nature of the corrosion process. Since there is a
uniform loss of material overall (Figure 2.4), the corrosion rate is also considered to be
uniform too. Uniform corrosion is often regarded as less dangerous kind of corrosion
process because of its identifiable nature.
Figure 2.4 A bridge member representing uniform corrosion (NCHRP 333) [12]
13
Some of the studies done by researchers to study the effects of uniform corrosion
on steel structures [ 1 7 ] date back as early as1988. They developed a model for
evaluating the deteriorating capacity in steel girders used in bridges by combining
information on the location and rate of corrosion with the structural analysis of corroded
members. This model evaluated two typical structures in a corrosive environment. From
this analysis several conclusions were made regarding the effects of environment and the
performance of corroding steel bridges.
Ship structural components (bulkheads, hulls and decks) such as steel plates,
stiffened panels which are generally made up of structural steel are exposed to
corrosive environment throughout the life span of the structure. Hence, it becomes
imperative for the design and evaluation of marine infrastructure which also includes,
jetties, pipelines and offshore structures.
Probabilistic models were recently introduced [ 1 8 - 2 1 ] which relate general (and for
pitting) corrosion as a function of time of exposure.
Earlier literature review [22] has shown that the general corrosion (uniform
corrosion) can be expressed as a simple function of time (corrosion rate) which is linear
in nature and is represented by the commonly used expression for corrosion loss as:
C = AtB
Where, C is the average corrosion penetration, in microns; t is the number of years and A
and B are parameters determined from the regression analysis of experimental data. Test
results for the parameters A and B for carbon and weathering steel were summarized by
Albrecht and Naeemi [23]. Average values for parameters A and B are listed in Table 2.1
14
Table 2.1 Average Values for Corrosion Parameters A and B, for Carbon and
Weathering Steel
Environment Carbon Steel Weathering Steel
A B A B
Rural 34.0 0.65 33.3 0.5
Urban 80.2 0.59 50.7 0.57
Marine 70.6 0.79 40.2 0.56
2.2.2 Non-Uniform Corrosion
Non-Uniform or Localized form of corrosion occurs when damage gets limited to
specific areas on a structural member. This type of corrosion usually occurs at steel
beam ends as shown
in Figure 2.5. Deterioration usually consists of thinning of sections in web/flange
sections causing irregular pitting/holes.
Localized corrosion can often cause increased nominal stresses, stress
concentrations, and localized yielding or buckling, and thus result in strength reduction.
Redistribution of stresses may take place at the local level and the overall behavior
of the member may be affected. A local reduction in strength does not always
necessarily mean that the same reduction in the overall strength of the member will
result. The effect of localized deterioration on the overall behavior of a member will
depend on the type of member and the location, nature, and extent of deterioration. For
example, a reduction in the moment capacity of a girder in a low moment region is
not as serious as a reduction in bending strength at a location of the maximum moment.
15
Extensive deterioration of a member can affect the behavior of the bridge
structure as a whole. It can affect the load distribution characteristics of the structure and
result in increased load effects in adjacent members and a reduction in load c a r r y i n g
c a p a c i t y o f the deteriorated member. The overall reduction in bridge capacity will
depend on the type of structure, the type and location of the deteriorated member and its
degree of deterioration. Some members are more critical than others. For example, a
reduction in the strength of the suspending hangers of a cantilever truss bridge will
directly affect the load- carrying capacity of the structure with no possibility for load
redistribution. Severe deterioration of a girder in a multigirder spans will result in
redistribution of loads before failure. In general, the more redundant the structure, the
smaller the effects of single member deterioration.
16
Figure 2.5 Locations of possible non-uniform corrosion occurring on stringer spans.
Section A- A shows localized corrosion can sometimes cause a through hole. (NCHRP
333) [12]
17
2.2.3 Pitting Corrosion
Pitting corrosion can be regarded as another form of localized or non-uniform
corrosion in which the material loss is characterized by penetrations occurring deep
into the steel structure’s surface. Geometrical imperfections, paint protection flaws and
under deposits of foreign material are ideal conditions for pitting corrosion to take
place. Failure due to pitting corrosion in steel structures follow as a result of cracking
caused by stress concentration. Just like uniform corrosion, pitting corrosion can also be
easily identifiable with naked eye. As with uniform corrosion, pitting corrosion affects
both land and offshore structures. Figure 2.6 shows the pitting corrosion distribution
in plates of oil tankers [24]. Here the degree of pitting (DOP) is defined as a ratio of the
pitted surface area to the original plate surface area.
Figure 2.6 Pitting intensity diagrams (a) DOP=10%; (b) DOP=20%; (c) DOP=30%; (d)
DOP=50%
Due to the presence of small blemishes (Figure 2.7) on the surface of the metal
due to pitting, the identification becomes easier. Pits can form in many different shapes
and sizes. While shallow pits are easier to examine and are unlikely to affect the
structural integrity of the component, they can act as stress concentrators and initiate
18
stress corrosion cracking (SCC). SCC is another corrosion mechanism seen under
insulation in marine environments [25].
The American Society for Testing and Materials [26] Standard G46 “Standard
Guide for Examination and Evaluation of Pitting Corrosion“ describes visual
inspections as inspection that can be done in ambient light to determine location and
severity of pitting. Pictures are often used to document the difference in appearance of
pits before and after removal of corrosion products. This technique is the easiest to
employ, requires no specialized equipment and is relatively inexpensive.
Figure 2.7 Pitting corrosion on a piece of steel plate obtained from a salt manufacturing
plant in Akron, OH (after sand blasting)
2.2.4 Crevice Corrosion
Multi-girder type bridges with welded plates and stiffeners are usually subject
to pitting and crevice corrosion which affect the bottom part of the web and flanges
of the steel I-beams making up these girders. Crevice corrosion occurs due to lack of
oxygen and typically occurs when two plates are bolted, riveted or butted up against each
other. Crevice corrosion can also occur due to soil deposit, dust or other debris on the
steel surface. Figure 2.8 shows the crevice corrosion mechanism and how it affects the
bridge girders.
19
Figure 2.8 The crevice corrosion mechanism (Left), corroded steel bridge I-beam in
Hudson, Ohio (Right) [30]
Crevice corrosion is regarded as another form of localized corrosion commonly
found in confined locations where access to oxygen is limited or completely restricted. As
the name itself indicates, small crevices on a steel surface are perfect spots for collection
of small volumes of stagnant water often found near holes, gaskets, lap joints, bolts and
rivets [192]. The severity of corrosion also depends on the size of the crevice and the type
of foreign material associated with it. Constructional errors can also lead to crevice
corrosion due to some gaps left in between connections. Figure 2.5 shows the classic
example of crevice corrosion in a stringer section (steel girder and concrete slab) of a
bridge.
Crevice corrosion can take place in angles (Figure 2.9) of trussed structures as in
cross-braced frames and members in between gusset plates. Crevice corrosion can also
occur in between the concrete slabs and stringers. When the concrete deck cracks, the
water and deicing salts can seep through the deck and on to the stringer. Figure 2.10 shows
another example of crevice corrosion in between plates and fastener. Initially crevice
corrosion starts off as uniform corrosion, where the metal loses electrons as it corrodes at
the anode. Those electrons lost by the metal are consumed at the cathode, typically by the
reduction of oxygen. With time, crevice corrosion can reduce the pH in the crevice, further
20
accelerating the corrosion process.
Figure 2.9 Crevice corrosion in an angle-to-angle connection [12]
Figure 2.10 Progression of crevice corrosion over time at the plate-fastener boundary.
[28]
2.2.5 Galvanic Corrosion
Galvanic corrosion occurs due to the difference in electric potentials characterized
by dissimilar metals. When these two metals are in contact with each other, in the presence
of an electrolyte, a galvanic couple is formed due to the flow of electrons from anode to
cathode of the two metals. The intensity of corrosion depends on the difference in
potential between metals and on the ratio of the exposed area of the metals. This
21
constitutes an important factor to be taken into consideration when dealing with coupling
of different metals such as titanium and steel [27] which together could be used in
structural applications such as gusset plates and bearings. Few of the places in a bridge
structure to form galvanic corrosion, are the handrail-support connections, aluminum light
poles or electrical conduits which are in contact with steel. As with other forms of
corrosion, galvanic corrosion can be easily visually identified.
Although galvanic corrosion is seen as a hindrance, the process can be regarded to
be beneficial too. In the application of Zinc paints on steel, the less resistant metal zinc,
will be sacrificed in the corrosion process and the steel surface will remain free of
corrosion. This process is called galvanizing [28]. This can be naturally seen in a dry cell
battery as shown in the Figure 2.11. A dry cell battery gets its electricity from the
corrosion of zinc. When zinc and iron are electrically connected they will form a battery,
also known as a galvanic couple, and if both are exposed to an electrolyte, such as water,
the zinc will corrode and in the process cathodically protect the steel. For bridge
applications, most galvanizing is accomplished using the hot-dip process (HDG) wherein
the steel element is dipped into molten zinc [12]. A typical galvanic series is summarized
in a table for metals in sea water [29]. The table related to the galvanic data provides
useful guidance with respect to selecting metals to be joined, such that metals having a
minimal tendency to interact galvanically can be coupled with minimal galvanic effects.
22
Figure 2.11 Dry cell battery [28]
Galvanic corrosion can also occur if the railing in a bridge is of a different
material from the rest of the bridge as shown in Figure 2.12.
Figure 2.12 Galvanic corrosion in a section of the bridge with the railing of aluminum,
connected to steel [191]
23
2.3 NCHRP 333 Guidelines
The NCHRP 333 [12] guidelines for evaluating corrosion effects in existing steel
bridges is a report containing the results and findings of a study which dealt with
guidelines for assessing corrosion effects on structural components in highway bridges.
Different corrosion types such as uniform, localized, deposit attack and pitting were
considered in developing this report. Specific guidelines consisting of field inspections
in addition to evaluation and analysis procedures are detailed.
The NCHRP 333 [12] report is organized into four phases. Phase 1 includes
collecting bridge data, understanding the structure behavior and coordinating the purpose
of inspection with the bridge inspector. Phase 2 identifies the criticality of the conditions
created by corrosion and urgency of required actions. It includes examining the inspection
report and addressing the location of damage, nature of damage, amount and geometry of
damage, extent of damage and environment conditions. Phase 3 includes quantitative
evaluation, which determines the residual capacity of a deteriorated bridge. The
quantification of corrosive damage is necessary to calculate the reduced capacity. NCHRP
333 [12] defines the parameters; percentage section loss, loss coefficient, length of loss,
and transition from reduced to full section in order to quantify the corrosion damage.
Percentage section loss (%loss) is defined as the amount of metal loss at a given location
on a bridge member, NCHRP 333 [12] considers the load carrying capacity of a rolled
shape member by its resistance to overall or local buckling. Corrosion forms such as
uniform corrosion can reduce the section area and other section properties like moment of
inertia and radius of gyration, thus affecting the stability of the member. Overall failure of
a steel beam may result from web buckling, compression yielding, or a combination of
24
both. Uniform corrosion can increase the width-thickness ratio, b/t, and result in localized
buckling of the steel beam
2.4 Corrosion rate and factors influencing corrosion rate
When exposed to a corrosive environment, general or uniform corrosion in steel
beams is characterized by a uniform loss of section or material over the surface of the
material. This loss of material over time is called as “corrosion rate” and is often
expressed in mm/year, mils per year (mpy) or g/m2h. In chemistry terms, uniform
corrosion can be expressed as iso-corrosion curves. These iso-corrosion curves
represent corrosion rate, often 0.1 mm/year is plotted against temperature and
concentration of test solution. 0.1 mm/year is the accepted corrosion rate with respect
to uniform corrosion in service [32].
Under different atmospheric conditions, structural steel has different corrosion
rates and effect of pitting. When immersed in salt water, weathering steels have 21-
65% greater corrosion and pitting rates than ordinary plain carbon structural steels.
The average corrosion rate for structural steel over a period of time is generally linear
[34 ].
Determination of corrosion rates plays a crucial role in evaluating the corrosion
effects for structural assessment, inspection scheduling and maintenance. Research
carried out by Ge Wang, estimated corrosion rates of structural members in oil tankers
based on a corrosion wastage database of over 110,000 thickness measurements from 140
single hull oil tankers. With the help of mean, standard deviation and maximum values
of corrosion rates, a Weibull distribution was established for describing the corrosion
rates. They were then compared with the corrosion rate ranges published by Tanker
25
Structure Co-operative Forum (TSCF) [191]. Measurement of corrosion is essential
for the purpose of material selection and for corrosion allowances for structural designs,
inspection planning and maintenance scheduling. The compatibility of a metal with its
environment is a prime requirement for its reliable performance. Corrosion rate
measurement becomes necessary for the evaluation and selection of materials for a
specific environment, a given definite application, or for the evaluation of a new or old
metal or alloys to determine the environments in which they are suitable. Often, the
corrosive environment is treated to make it less aggressive and corrosion rate
measurements of a specific material in untreated environments will reflect the
efficiency of the treatment. In addition, corrosion rate measurement is also essential
in the study of the mechanisms of corrosion. Corrosion involves dissolution of metal,
as a result of which the metallic part loses its mass (or weight) and becomes thinner.
The most widely used weight expression, based on weight loss is mg/dm2/day
(mdd) and the rate expression based on penetration is inch penetration/year (ipy) and
mils penetration/year (mpy). One mil is one thousandth of an inch. The last expression
involves no decimal point or zeroes. Thus, 0.002 ips is simply expressed as 2 mpy. The
expression is readily calculated from the weight loss of metal specimen during the
corrosion test by the empirical formula: where W is the weight loss (mg), D is the density
(g/cm3), A is the area of the specimen (in2), t is exposure time (h).
534W
mpy =
DAt
26
There can be many factors that can influence the rate of corrosion. Since the
statistical data required to formulate an analytical model is insufficient, it is
impossible or very difficult to accurately predict the rate of corrosion. At the most,
there are approximate empirical formulas.
As seen later in this dissertation (Chapter 7), the corrosion rate for ASTM E8
samples is determined according to ASTM [35]. The initial total surface area of the
specimen (making corrections for the areas associated with mounting holes) and the mass
lost during the test are determined. The average corrosion rate may then be obtained as
follows:
𝐊𝐊 ∗ 𝐖𝐖
𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂 𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑 =
𝐀𝐀 ∗ 𝐓𝐓 ∗ 𝐃𝐃
Where,
K = A constant (Refer Table 2.2)
T = Time of exposure in hours,
A = Area in cm2
W = Mass loss in grams, and
D = Density in g/cm3
Many different units are used to express corrosion rates. Table 2.2 gives the values of K
for expressing corrosion rate, depending on the units desired.
27
Table 2.2 Values of K for use in the ASTM corrosion rate equation
Corrosion Rate Units Desired Constant (K) in Corrosion Rate Equation
mils per year (mpy) 3.45 x 106
inches per year (ipy) 3.45 x 103
millimeters per year (mm/y) 2.87 x 102
micrometers per year (um/y) 8.76 x 104
picometers per second (pm/s) 8.76 x 107
Three levels of corrosion rates (high, medium and low) was proposed by [38] and
curves as shown in Figure 2.13 were plotted against time. The curves were developed
by assuming:
• The paint on the new bridge construction acts as a protective cover for 5 to 15
years and will never be painted again in its service life.
• Low corrosion rate signifies a dry environment, without any salt or any other
chemically aggressive deicing agents on a bridge.
• A high corrosion rate represents marine environment or heavy industrial
conditions, or areas where the use of deicing agents is high.
• A medium corrosion rate represents average conditions.
28
Figure 2.13 Corrosion rates [38]
Similarly, Czarnecki and Nowak [ 3 9 ] proposed a time-dependent reliability
based model for the evaluation of steel bridges with reference to corrosion during its service
life. Three different types of environment were considered. Load and resistance parameters
were treated as time-variant random variables. Ultimate capacity of steel girders with
respect to flexure and shear, and serviceability with respect to deformation or instability
under overload were investigated. The statistical parameters of load and resistance
components are based on the available literature. Load models are developed on the basis
of the available truck surveys and other measurements. The analysis is performed for
representative steel girder bridges. The structural performance is measured in terms of
the reliability index, β. The resulting time-variant reliability-based profiles can help in the
development of a rational procedure for evaluation of the load carrying capacity of bridges.
29
Figure 2.14 Girder versus system reliability indices for span 42m and girder spacing of
3.0m [39]
Figure 2.14 shows the decreasing system reliability indices as a function of time
for the three considered rates of corrosion (Figure 2.13). The horizontal axis represents the
exposure time, from the start of corrosion. In Figure 2.14, the results are presented for
three composite steel bridges, each with four girders spaced at 3.0 m. The following sizes
of wide flange section were used: W44x335, W44x198, and W30x108, for the spans of
42 m, 30 m, and 18 m, respectively. The initial (prior to corrosion) reliability indices
obtained for the interior girders are 3.10, 3.75, and 3.86, respectively
It was observed, that the bridge reliability over time decreases much more for
shorter spans compared to longer spans. However, the presented results are based on
analytical studies and there is a need for more field observations to validate the developed
model.
30
2.5 Influence of corrosion on Steel Structures
The general overall effect of corrosion in steel structures may be loss of material
from the surface which in turn leads to reduced cross sections, reduction in strength
of material and deposition of corrosion on the metal surface. Sectional properties such
as area, moment of inertia etc. are also affected due to loss of material. Nakai et al. [40]
studied the effect of periodic pitting on the strength reduction in structural components
of aged ships, Sumi [41] studied the effect of surface corrosion on the strength and
deformability of steel plates. Among the number of studies carried out, Paik et al. [42,
43] investigated the effects of pitting corrosion in plates subjected to axial
compression and in-plane shear. An empirical formula was also derived for predicting the
ultimate compressive strength and shear strength of pitted plates.
Some of the previous research that was carried out on the effects of corrosion
on strength capacity reduction in steel beams has been summarized here. As already
mentioned, corrosion in steel I-beams usually occurs as the reduction in thicknesses in the
webs and the flanges which in turn reduces the load carrying capacity. Most of the studies
concentrated on developing a damage model to better simulate the actual deterioration
and to help improve the resistance against corrosion in steel beams used for the
construction of bridges and other structures. Kayser and Nowak [17] were some of the
few people who started the early work on corrosion in steel structures. Their research was
on the effects of corrosion on capacity loss of steel girder bridges. They found there are
five major types or forms of corrosion that effect steel girder bridges: general, pitting,
galvanic, crevice and stress corrosion. Additionally, they developed a corrosion damage
model to show that the governing factors such as location and rate of corrosion may change
over time and this change is dependent on the relative thickness of the girder web and flange.
31
They also reported the corrosion pattern for bridge girders is typically general corrosion
with higher levels of corrosion damage on the bottom flange, lower portion of the web
and near deck joints (See Figure 2.15)
Figure 2.15 Corrosion pattern on a typical steel bridge [17]
More recently, R. Rahgozar and Y. Sharifi [45] (
Figure 2.16) in their paper came up with a simple method which could be used for
making reliable assessments of the remaining moment capacity, using thickness loss
information provided by visual inspection and/or measurements. The remaining service life
(moment capacity of deteriorated I-beams) can be calculated by using the simple equations
obtained from this study.
Figure 2.16 Corrosion decay models by thickness reduction as a) Uniform thickness loss
model and b) Varying thickness loss model [45]
32
Sarveswaran et. Al [47] showed, using several numerical examples, that if the
degree of dependence is reasonably judged, the bounds obtained using interval
probability theory are satisfactory compared with those of Cornell and Ditlevsen [48] and
are obtained relatively easily. They have also shown, using an example, that it is
possible to derive even narrower bounds than Ditlevsen's bounds based on the same
amount of information (pairwise dependence). In obtaining Cornell's bounds, it is assumed
that independence and maximum dependence give the upper and lower bounds for the
probability of failure, neglecting possible values from minimum dependence to
independence. However, if the probabilities are small, the practical effect of this omission
is negligible.
When compared to uniform corrosion, the strength calculation procedure due
to pitting corrosion can be more complex, since pitting corrosion distribution is random
in nature. However, the pitted plates can be idealized using an equivalent general
corrosion.
The influence of pitting corrosion on the ultimate strength of steel plates was
described as early as 1967 by Chapkis [49]. He considered an equivalent thickness of pitted
plates for the evaluation of ultimate strength of pitted plates. The equivalent thickness tc was
given as tc = t/k where k = up/u0, where up is the average edge deformation of a pitted plate
and u0 is the average edge deformation of a non-pitted plate.
A mathematical model was developed for assessing the effect of pitting corrosion
on the ultimate strength of aluminum plates subjected to tensile loads proposed by Flaks
[50]. The loss of tensile, yield strengths and hardness was accounted for using a coefficient
33
obtained from experimental testing of corroded aluminum plates.
Experimental and analytical observations was made by TSCF [51] on steel plates
affected by pitting corrosion under bending. They suggested an equivalent plate
thickness formula for bending capacity evaluation of steel pitted plates which in this
case was a function of bending stiffness, mass, boundary conditions and geometrical
dimensions of the plate. One of the most recent research [52] on pitting corrosion effect
includes the study of ultimate strength characteristics of pitted plates subjected to axial
compressive loads and deriving an analytical formula for evaluation of ultimate
compressive strength of pitted plates.
Daidola et al. [53] proposed a mathematical model to estimate the residual
thickness of pitted plates using the average and maximum values of pitting data or the
number of pits and the depth of the deepest pit, and presented a method to assess the
effect of thickness reduction due to pitting on local yielding and plate buckling based
on the probabilistic approach. Furthermore, they developed a set of tools which can
be used to assess the residual strength of pitted plates.
Fukuda et al. [54] at the graduate school of Engineering at Hiroshima, Japan in
their research paper studied the effect of local corrosion damage on the upper flanges
under rail sleepers in the plate girder railway bridges. Since the sleepers are put on the
upper flanges directly, the corrosion at the boundary progresses faster and causes a lack
of the flange thickness through erosion, wet conditions among others due to contact of
sleepers. Consequently, the strength of the plate girder decreases. Since the local corrosion
often occurs on the upper flange under the sleepers, evaluation of the remaining strength
of the plate girder with such corrosion damage is a very important problem for the
34
maintenance. This paper presented an evaluation method for the remaining strength of a
plate girder with local corrosion on the upper flange under sleepers, in which the
remaining strength can be derived easily based on the buckling stress of the upper flange
with lack of thickness due to corrosion. The ultimate behavior of the plate girder with
corrosion is analyzed using the non-linear finite element method, and also some loading
tests are conducted. In order to discuss the applicability of the evaluation formula, a
comparison of the remaining strengths with the experimental and FEM results is made
and it is concluded that the remaining strength can be accurately evaluated by the
presented method.
From the analytical results, the flange torsional buckling curve showed that
with the proposed equation of Basler [55], many of the cases yielded and collapsed. On
the other hand, the elastic-plastic buckling in some cases collapsed before yielding when
the plate thickness became small. Though Basler’s equation is used as the buckling
coefficient k=0.43, this equation does not consider the aspect ratio. If the width of sleepers
is assumed to be the buckling length, the ultimate stress can be calculated which considers
the effect of the aspect ratio. In this paper, the buckling length was analyzed as the
width of sleepers. If corrosion is in two places, the buckling length becomes 2a.
Atmospheric corrosion will cause the section loss of structural members of a steel
space structure, which will in turn change the structural stiffness [56] and lead to stress
reallocation. The damaged capacity of steel bridges can be modeled by combining
location and rate of corrosion with structural analysis methods. However, the effect of
corrosion varies depending on the mode of resistance. From experimental tests carried out,
it [57] was shown that buckling of the web is the critical mode of failure for a 40ft bridge,
35
whereas bearing is not as important for a 60ft bridge because of larger web thickness.
The ultimate strength of ship panels with pitting corrosion under axial
compressive loads was analyzed by Paik and Thayamballi [63] using the finite element
software package ANSYS. They concluded that presence of small corrosion pits
anywhere in the plate did not significantly reduce the plate’s ultimate compressive
strength.
Lateral-torsional buckling can be defined as the overall buckling in lateral-
torsional deformation mode accompanied by significant distortion of cross-sections.
Depending on the loading conditions, the lateral-torsional buckling can occur prior to
buckling of web/flange. As compared to uniform corrosion, estimation of load carrying
capacity (strength) is difficult for members with large uneven pitting corrosion owing to
randomness. Daidola et al.’s [53] model estimated the remaining thickness of pitted
plates using the average and maximum values of pitting data. His method evaluates
the effect of reduction in thickness on local yielding based on probabilistic approach.
Buckling is important for steel structures because they are composed of slender elements.
Buckling can occur suddenly and cause the entire structural system to collapse. Wide
flanged beams when acted upon in-plane loads are subjected to lateral torsional and
local buckling depending on the slenderness of web and flanges of the beam. Based on
t h e span of the beams, Sharifi and Tohidi [58] showed that buckling can occur in steel
I-beams as long span (Lateral torsional buckling) and short span (Lateral buckling).
36
Figure 2.17 Different buckling modes of steel I-beams. (a) Lateral-torsional buckling; (b)
local buckling [58]
Matsumoto et al. (1989) [58] studied the tensile strength using tensile specimens
with uniform and non-uniform corrosion. Prediction of remaining tensile strength was
done using the minimum average thickness (tsa) of the cross section perpendicular to the
loading axis. Muranaka et al [60] used tr= tavg-1.3σst as a representative thickness for
estimating the tensile and fatigue strength based from tensile tests on corroded plates.
J.M.R.S. Appuhamy et al. [61] showed the importance of numerical analysis
method to be a reliable estimation of not only the remaining strength of corroded
members, but also the mechanical behavior and stress redistribution. They devised a
simple method to calculate the remaining yield and tensile strength by using the
effective thickness (teff) with the correlation of initial thickness (to) and standard
deviation of thickness (σst). The experimental tests were compared with the numerical
modeling results as well.
Ok et al. [62] studied the effect of localized corrosion on ultimate strength
depending on one or more areas and calculated the strength reduction of unstiffened
steel plates under uniaxial compression. Jiang and Guedes Soares [56] also investigated
37
the ultimate strength properties of pitted plate elements under in-plane compression.
Both of these studies concluded that an increase in degree of pitting intensity has a
dominating effect on the ultimate strength than on the plate slenderness.
J. E. Silva, Y. Garbatov and Guedes Soares [57] in their research paper talked
about further extending their own work. Ultimate strength assessment on ageing steel
plates subjected to compressive load and corrosion were considered for a reliability study.
Effects of non-uniform time-dependent corrosion on the ultimate compressive strength
of an unstiffened rectangular steel plates were analyzed. By running Monte Carlo
simulations, a series of corroded plates were generated for varying degree of corrosion
and ages. A non-linear finite element analysis was carried out and an empirical
formula to predict the strength reduction because of corrosion degradation was
developed based on regression analysis with a good accuracy.
The effect of pitting corrosion in steel plate elements on the ultimate compressive
strengths subjected to axial compressive loads was carried out by J. K. Paik, J. M.
Lee and M. J. Ko [63]. A series of non-linear finite element analysis for steel plate
elements under axial compressive loads was carried out with varying degree of pitting
corrosion intensity. It was concluded that there was a significant reduction in ultimate
strength of steel plates due to pitting corrosion as well as general corrosion.
Three Japanese researchers Ichiro Sugimoto, Yasuke Kobayashi and Atsushi
Ichikawa [64] in their paper discussed corrosion effects on steel deck girders and
examined the load carrying capacity limit state of steel riveted girders. Actual railway
girders were examined and tested. By performing some nonlinear analysis using an
38
analytical model taking corrosion effects into account, they proposed a new method to
evaluate durability of railway riveted steel bridges.
Figure 2.18 Failure pattern of corroded plate girder. [64]
Figure 2.19 Dimensions and loading locations of the test piece for flexural failure [64]
39
The main girder G1 was statically loaded in such a way that its upper flange would
not be subjected to local buckling out of plane below the loading points and the
horizontal load was decreased by considering the loading support. Corrosion was
visible on the upper flange elsewhere. The upper flange may be considered prone to
corrosion because the girder is of the type on which bridge sleepers and rails are
constructed and water tends to accumulate here.
Based on the results of this experiment, finite element analysis was conducted to
reproduce the yield strength and ultimate strength. Static nonlinear analysis was
conducted using ABAQUS analysis code. The local buckling occurred at the minimum
section located by the upper flange gusset. The buckling approximately matched the
results of the experiment as shown in Figure 2.20.
Figure 2.20 Comparison between experimental and analytical results
Shear strength testing was performed to investigate steel corrosion in actual
bridges using test pieces artificially corroded with sprayed salt water. To match the
corrosion conditions of web plates found in actual steel railway bridges. The following
40
corrosion conditions were considered:
1. the whole web plate is uniformly corroded, where one side of the web plate is
exposed to rainwater
2. Lower part of the web plate is only partially corroded.
Table 2.3 Conditions of test specimens tested for shear strength.
For the bending strength it was shown that ratio of the design cross section and the corroded
state minimum section is approximately proportional to that of the design ultimate bending
strength and the corroded state ultimate bending strength. The ultimate bending strength
ratio:
𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 2 𝐴𝐴 2
�� 𝑇𝑇 + � 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 � 𝐶𝐶
𝐴𝐴0 𝐴𝐴0
𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ⁄𝐴𝐴0 =
2
Where, 𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚⁄𝐴𝐴0 : Minimum section ratio
𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 : Minimum section area in corroded state
𝐴𝐴0 : Design cross section
𝑇𝑇: Tensile force
41
𝐶𝐶: Compressive force
𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢
𝑅𝑅𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢 =
𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢(0)
Where, 𝑅𝑅𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢 : Ultimate bending strength ratio
𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢 : Ultimate bending strength in corroded state
𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢(0) : Design ultimate bending strength
For shear strength it was found that the average plate thickness reduction ratio and the
shear buckling strength ratio are approximately proportional. The average plate thickness
reduction ratio is represented as:
𝑡𝑡0 − 𝑡𝑡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝑅𝑅𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 =
𝑡𝑡0
Where, 𝑅𝑅𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 : Average plate thickness reduction ratio
𝑡𝑡0 : Design plate thickness
𝑡𝑡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 : Average residual plate thickness
Finally it was concluded that buckling occurs at the minimum section location for
flexure failure and the buckling occurs around the center of the web plate for shear failure.
Regardless of the form of corrosion. It was also found that experimental results were more
accurate.
C. Liu, T. Miyashita and M. Nagai [ 6 4 ] from the department of civil and
environmental engineering at Nagaoka University of technology, Japan analyzed the
remaining shear capacity of I-girders with different corrosion shapes nearby supports by
42
elasto-plastic finite element analysis where four kinds of corrosion shapes and three
rates of thickness reduction in the area of local corrosion were considered. Based on
the experimental and finite element results, the extent of decrease of shear strengths
was discussed for each corrosion shape. Furthermore, the relationship of remaining load
and rates of thickness reduction were clarified. The extent of decrease depends on both
corrosion shapes and percentage section loss in the area of local corrosion. In addition, the
critical parts in end panels were elucidated, along with the influence on shear capacity. As
a result, the paper provides supplementary data which are useful for maintenance of
aging steel bridges.
43
CHAPTER III
EFFECTS OF CORROSION ON THE DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF STRUCTURAL STEEL
FRAME
3.1 Introduction
Owing to its relatively high strength to weight ratio, steel is a very common
construction material, it is easy to work with and is readily available. Even structures
constructed predominantly from concrete or wood utilize steel as a reinforcing material
to make the structure more economical and reliable. For example, engineers often
utilize reinforcement steel in concrete structures to increase tensile strength. Similarly,
the end connections of wood structures are typically made from steel. In all situations
where steel is used, it will be subjected to corrosion. Corrosion causes degradation of
steel due to its interaction with its environment. This degradation will lead to
premature failure of the material due to its reduced mechanical properties and element
thicknesses.
In many industries, it is common to assess the adequacy of structural
components based solely on visual inspection with limited or no structural analysis. As the
life of steel structures and components is increased, a more scientifically based analysis
is needed. Premature replacement of structural components can prove costly over time
while delayed replacement of these components might be a safety concern. The
remaining life of a structure can be better predicted using a structural analysis in order
to save money and improve safety. The purpose of this research is to present a study to
44
dynamically assess the reliability of a structural frame system subjected to uniform
corrosion by investigating the effect of corrosion on individual structural members and
then applying these results to the overall frame system itself.
The two major earthquakes that took place in Northridge (Jan. 17 1994, Los Angles)
and Kobe (Jan. 17 1995, japan) were so devastating that design codes for steel-moment
frames connections which were being used prior to these earthquakes, had to be changed
or revised. From a Structural Engineer’s point of view and for a better learning of the
disaster itself, it was important to know the reasons for the widespread failure of steel
structures. One of the noted observations that were made following the investigations
was the unanticipated brittle failures of beam to column connections (Hwang et.al,
2009).
Steel moment frames are beams and columns connected by welding and/ or
bolting. This combination of beams and columns with the connections having the ability
to resist moments is needed for steel moment frames. Since steel is a ductile material,
these steel moment frames are designed to resist lateral loads (ground motion) through
bending of frame elements. The FEMA 302- [64] defines three types of steel moment
frames: Ordinary Moment Frames (OMF), Special Moment Frames (SMF) and
Intermediate Moment Frames (IMF). IMF systems are obsolete in practice and the
two commonly used types of steel moment frames are special moment frames (SMF)
and ordinary moment frames (OMF). Special moment frames are known to have higher
ductility than ordinary moment frames but have lower strength than ordinary moment
frames. Therefore, ordinary moment frames are generally used in non-seismic zones
and special moment frames in mid/high-seismic zones. SMF’s are designed to sustain a
45
high level of interstory drift as they are more ductile. It is now evident that the
unanticipated brittle failure in the beam- column connection that occurred in the two
major earthquakes (Northridge and Kobe) was mainly due to the use of OMF’s which
were not ductile enough to resist a ground motion of that high magnitude. Among
various recommendations provided by FEMA 350 for new type of connections, the
scope of this study is limited to Reduced Beam Section (RBS) connection only.
3.2 Objectives of this Chapter
This study aims at understanding the structural behavior of an existing steel
frame system of an industrial chemical process plant based on its as-built condition and
subsequently various degrees of uniform corrosion.
For verification purposes, a linear-static analysis was performed on as-built
condition and the results were developed from SAP2000 and SPACEGASS [71]
analyses were compared. Time-history analysis was then carried out in order to find
the dynamic response of the frame by imposing element thickness losses for each
member to simulate uniform corrosion under the specified loadings. Based on the
moment capacities of beams and columns and axial forces of bracing members, a
corrosion reduction factor is introduced for a quick and safe assessment of steel
frames subject to uniform corrosion loss. Analytical calculations based on idealized
structural system are included to compare the fundamental periods and frequencies of
the structure. The objective of this study is to dynamically analyze a structural steel
frame which is a part of a salt manufacturing company in Akron, Ohio. This framed
structure is made up of standard structural sections such as wide angles, equal/unequal
angles, T-sections and HSS sections. The results for following analyses are reported:
46
• Linear static analysis in SPACEGASS and SAP2000 (Uncorroded)
• Modal analysis in SAP2000 (Progressive degrees of corrosion)
• Linear modal time history analysis in SAP2000 (Progressive degrees of

corrosion)
3.3 Background
Dynamics
Every structural system like, bridges, buildings, truss frames is subjected to some kind
of loading. This loading can be in the form of dead loads, live loads and other loads. These
type of loadings are generally considered as static loadings. Since, these loadings
remain r e l a t i v e l y constant throughout the lifetime of the structure. However, there
are other type of loadings as well such as: wind, earthquake, blast or impact. These
loadings fall into the category of dynamic loadings, since these are either not constant or
vary with reference to time. Dynamic analysis of structures can be used to find time
history, modal analysis and dynamic displacements and moments. Although dynamic
analysis can be easily be done manually for simple structures with a few degrees of
freedom, it is very complicated to do so for complex structures involving many stories
and highly unsymmetrical geometries.
The Single Degree of Freedom System
The Single degree of freedom system (SDOF) is the simplest dynamic model as shown
in Figure 3.21. It is a model which resembles a simple single story frame with slender
columns and a rigid roof. The one degree of freedom system can be described as follows
(Mario Paz) [66]:
47
a) A mass element m resembling the mass and intertial characteristic of the
structure
b) A spring element k representing the elastic restoring force and
potential energy storage of the structure.
c) A damping element c representing the frictional characteristics
and energy dissipation of the structure.
d) An excitation force F(t) representing the external forces (if any)
acting on the structure.
Figure 3.21 The SDOF system.
The differential (governing) equation for this system is given as:
𝑚𝑚𝑦𝑦̈ + 𝑐𝑐𝑦𝑦̇ + 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 = 𝐹𝐹(𝑡𝑡)
As seen from the equation, the inertia, damping forces and stiffness forces is in
equilibrium with the applied external force. The applied external force or excitation can
also be in the form of an earthquake motion, wherein there is no actual force applied to
the structure except the ground motion then the equation changes to:
𝑚𝑚𝑦𝑦̈ + 𝑐𝑐�𝑦𝑦̇ − 𝑦𝑦𝑔𝑔̇ � + 𝑘𝑘�𝑦𝑦 − 𝑦𝑦𝑔𝑔 � = 0
Where, yg is the ground displacement.
48
The standard form of this equation can be rearranged as:
𝑚𝑚𝑦𝑦𝑟𝑟̈ + 𝑐𝑐𝑦𝑦𝑟𝑟̇ + 𝑘𝑘𝑦𝑦𝑟𝑟 = −𝑚𝑚𝑦𝑦𝑔𝑔̈
Where yr is the relative displacement of the structure given by y-yg
Case 1: Free Vibration
Without any damping or external force, the equilibrium equation of a SDOF structure is:
𝑚𝑚𝑦𝑦̈ + 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 = 0
Let the initial displacement be y0, the displacement of the structure with reference to time
is given by:
𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡) = 𝑦𝑦0 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝜔𝜔𝑛𝑛 𝑡𝑡
Where, 𝜔𝜔𝑛𝑛 = �𝑘𝑘�𝑚𝑚 is the natural frequency (rad/s), with damping the equation of
motion changes to:
𝑚𝑚𝑦𝑦̈ + 𝑐𝑐𝑦𝑦̇ + 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 = 0
Under ideal condition, the system is said to be critically damped and the system should
return to its initial position. In this case 𝑐𝑐 = 2√𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘. The damping ratio is given as:
𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐
𝜉𝜉 = =
2√𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
49
In the above equation, when ξ<1, the system is said to be underdamped.
The governing equation for an underdamped system then changes to:
𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡) = 𝑦𝑦0 𝑒𝑒 −𝜉𝜉𝜔𝜔𝑛𝑛 𝑡𝑡 cos �1 − 𝜉𝜉 2 𝜔𝜔𝑛𝑛 𝑡𝑡
Case 2: Harmonic Excitation
Consider the case of the single degree of freedom as shown in Figure 3.21. Under the
influence of viscous damping and a harmonic force varying with time, the governing
differential equation for this case is obtained by equilibrium of forces:
𝑚𝑚𝑦𝑦̈ + 𝑐𝑐𝑦𝑦̇ + 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 = 𝐹𝐹1 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠Ω𝑡𝑡

Where, Ω is the load frequency. This system is said to be in resonance when Ω=𝜔𝜔𝑛𝑛 which
leads to very large force and displacement output. The total response is a combination of
complementary and particular solutions, given by:
𝑦𝑦𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 sin(Ω𝑡𝑡 − 𝜑𝜑)

𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡) =
�(1 − 𝑟𝑟 2 )2 + (2𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾)2
Where,
Yst is the static deflection acted upon by the force F0. Ω is the load frequency, 𝜑𝜑 is the
phase angle and r=Ω/𝜔𝜔𝑛𝑛 is the frequency ratio. 𝛾𝛾, the damping ratio is given by 𝛾𝛾=c/ccr
The ratio of static displacement caused by the external force F to the dynamic
displacement caused by the harmonic load F (t) is called the dynamic magnification factor
(DMF) of a Single Degree of Freedom System (SDOF). A sample plot of this DMF is
shown in Figure 3.22 f rom the book by Mario Paz [66]. In the case of a natural ground
motion, DMF is defined as the ratio of peak absolute displacement of the structure to the
peak displacement of the ground.
50
Figure 3.22 The DMF plot of a SDOF subjected to Harmonic Loading for different
damping [ 6 6 ]
As seen from plot (Figure 3.22), the DMF varies with the frequency ratio r and the
damping ratio 𝛾𝛾. The phase angle 𝜑𝜑 is given by:
−2ℶ 𝜔𝜔�𝜔𝜔𝑛𝑛
∅ = tan−1 2
1 − 𝜔𝜔 � 2
𝜔𝜔𝑛𝑛
Figure 3.23 The DMF plot and the phase angle plot for different damping conditions [66]
51
The Multi-Degree of Freedom System (MDOF)
Although the single degree of freedom system is the simplest form of
representation of a single storied structure, not all the time this would be the case or
there are cases where in the structure cannot be modeled as a single degree of freedom
system (SDOF). In such cases, the ideal way would be to represent the structure as a
multi-degree of system (MDOF) model. This would result in a second order differential
equation unlike the general equation of a SDOF. The following equation is a second
order differential equation form of a structure subjected to a ground acceleration.
𝑚𝑚𝑥𝑥̈ + 𝑐𝑐𝑥𝑥̇ + 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 = 𝑚𝑚𝑥𝑥𝑔𝑔̈
Where, m, c and k are the mass, damping and stiffness matrices respectively. x
is the relative displacement, 𝑥𝑥𝑔𝑔̈ and 𝑥𝑥̇ are the ground acceleration and velocity
respectively.
In the case where there is no external force or ground acceleration acting on
the structure and assuming an undamped free vibration, the above equation reduces to:
𝑚𝑚𝑥𝑥̈ + 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 = 0
Which has the solution as:
−𝜔𝜔2 𝑚𝑚𝑥𝑥� sin(𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔 + 𝜃𝜃) + 𝑘𝑘𝑥𝑥� sin(𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔 + 𝜃𝜃) = 0
And can be written as:
[𝑘𝑘 − 𝜔𝜔2 𝑚𝑚]𝑥𝑥� = 0
This equation can be solved to give n natural frequencies corresponding to a different
Eigen vector
Φ. SAP2000 which was the analysis software used in this study uses the mass
normalizing procedure involving adjusting the each modal amplitude to the amplitude
52
�𝑇𝑇 𝑚𝑚𝜑𝜑
𝜑𝜑𝑛𝑛 � 𝑛𝑛 = 1
Irrespective of a structure’s external loading, the natural frequencies and mode
shapes are the basic properties of a structure. Usually, the first mode of vibration is of
primary concern and generally has the maximum effect on the structure’s motion. The
first mode also has the longest period and lowest natural frequency. As the degrees of
freedom increases, it becomes difficult to identify the respective modes and natural
frequencies of a structure.
Modal Analysis
Modal analysis, or the mode-superposition method, is a linear dynamic-response
procedure which evaluates and superimposes free-vibration mode shapes to characterize
displacement patterns. Mode shapes describe the configurations into which a structure
will naturally displace.
Typically, lateral displacement patterns are of primary concern. Mode shapes of
low-order mathematical expression tend to provide the greatest contribution to structural
response. As orders increase, mode shapes contribute less, and are predicted less
reliably. It is reasonable to truncate analysis when the number of mode shapes is
sufficient. A structure with N degrees of freedom will have N corresponding mode
shapes. Each mode shape is an independent and normalized displacement pattern which
may be amplified and superimposed to create a resultant displacement pattern, as shown
in Figure 3.24
53
Figure 3.24 Resultant displacement and modal components [CSI Knowledge Base, 70]
The modal analysis in SAP2000 is a precursor to the time history analysis which
is shown later on under the section “time-history analysis”. Depending upon the
number of stories the structure consideration has, the modal analysis is divided into
specific number of modes. In order to fully capture the behavior of the frame, this
particular case was divided into 12 modes. Usually, the first mode of the analysis is the
critical one. The SAP2000 has two types of modal analysis. The first one is called the
Eigen vector analysis and the second one is called as the ritz vector analysis. In this
particular case, eigen value analysis has been carried out and the period of the first mode
is noted down for the time-history analysis case. Table 3.7 gives the period, natural
frequency, circular frequency and the Eigen values at the end of the modal analysis for
different degrees of corrosion damage.
Eigen modes are most suitable for determining response from horizontal
ground acceleration. Eigen analysis is useful for checking behavior and locating
problems within the model. The advantage of this analysis is that natural frequencies
54
indicate when resonance should be expected under different loading conditions. Load-
dependent Ritz vectors are most suitable for analyses linking vertical ground
acceleration, localized machine vibration. Ritz vectors are also efficient and widely
used for dynamic analyses involving horizontal ground motion. Their benefit here is that,
for the same number of modes, Ritz vectors provide a better participation factor, which
enables the analysis to run faster, with the same level of accuracy.
Time-History Analysis
The modal linear time history analysis used in this study provides a linear
evaluation of the dynamic response under loading which varies according to specified
time function. The basic dynamic equilibrium equations are solved using modal
superposition method. Initial conditions may be set by continuing the structural state
from the end of the previous modal analysis. Hence when setting up a linear modal time
history case in SAP2000, a modal analysis case has to be run simultaneously with the
time history analysis case.
SAP2000 has many time history functions built into the program. For the
purpose of this study, a time history sine function was used. The sine time history
function is a periodic function. A sine function cycle starts at a function value of 0,
proceeds to its positive maximum value (positive value of amplitude), continues to a
value of 0, progresses to its negative minimum value (negative value of amplitude), and
returns to a value of 0 again.
The following parameters are specified in the sine time history function template.
 Period Use the default or specify the time in seconds that it takes for the sine
55
function to complete one cycle.
 Number of Steps per Cycle Use the default or specify the number of steps
(i.e., function value points) provided for each cycle of the function.
 Number of Cycles Use the default or specify the number of cycles in the
function.
 Amplitude Use the default or specify the maximum function value of the sine
function
3.4 Methodology
The frame in this study is modeled after a frame structure at a local salt
manufacturing plant. The structure comprises of rigid frames with cross bracing
members. In order to model the proposed frames, the existing frame dimensions,
member sizes, and end connection configurations were measured during several site
visits conducted throughout the summer and fall of 2011 as well as the spring of 2012.
This was done because there was only one old drawing available and it showed the top
level of supporting steel only. A typical plan with member names and dimensions is
shown in Figure 3.25. All the remaining details are shown in Figure 3.28 to Figure 3.30.
The existing steel frame structure has undergone maintenance several times over the
years so it would unlikely that the existing structure configuration would match the
drawings even if the originals were available. The frame under consideration is shown
below in Figure 3.26 as modeled in SAP 2000 and SPACEGASS [71].
56
Figure 3.25 One of the structural CAD drawing of the frame
Figure 3.26 The framed structure modelled in SAP2000 (left) and in SPACEGASS (right)
57
During the site visits, all members were not accessible for measurement due
to limited access, so some of the dimensions were estimated based on the assumption
that the frame was more or less symmetric. In particular, members on levels 2, 3 and 4
were mostly inaccessible. Please note that at the time of the first site visit, all the main
column members of the structural frame were found to be non-slender sections. There is
no indication that any of the columns were built-up sections so while the corroded state of
the members prevents determination of the original members, it can be assumed that they
are all rolled shapes. Sections and end connections were in varying condition so
assumptions had to be made for heavily corroded plates and bolts regarding thickness
and other dimensions.
The weight of the evaporating tank and heat exchanger were provided by the
owner. The evaporating tank and heat exchanger weigh 49,600 pounds and 20,500
pounds when empty, respectively. When filled with water and salt brine solution they
weigh 354,300 and 80,000 pounds, respectively. The dead load from both of these
components was considered to be distributed across the frame. The distribution of the
loads on the frame is shown in Figure 3.31.
Griffith [68] came up with a rating system for the steel frames that were
subjected to uniform corrosion under static conditions. The criticality rating system for
the structural members is defined as follows. The general trend that was noticed during
the site visit was that members towards the bottom of the frame had experienced more
material loss than members towards the top. In addition, members towards the top of the
frame generally had more of their painted protective coating intact than the members
towards the bottom. One reason for the condition disparity between sections in the frame
58
is because certain members have been replaced more recently than others and therefore
have more thickness in their sections and better protection systems. In addition,
members at different elevations will be exposed to different amounts and types of
corrosive materials. Gravity will carry all of the corrosive material downwards towards
the bottom level while the upper levels receive minimal exposure by comparison. Typical
clean up routines at the facility include spraying off the various levels of the frame to keep
them free from excessive salt build up. As this happens, members on the bottom get
exposed to all the salt that has been washed away from higher levels. By contrast,
members at the top don’t experience any additional salt interaction beyond that caused by
normal operation. This excessive exposure to the corrosive materials helps expedite
the corrosion process on lower levels. The elevation dependent uniform corrosion
approach attempts to simulate these varying exposure conditions by assuming that
longer thickness loss will occur at the bottom levels and less at higher levels. Since no
historical corrosion information was available for this particular frame, the exact
distribution of corrosion throughout the structure is not known. As a result, an elevation-
dependent model was selected. Similar to a general uniform corrosion model, element
thicknesses were reduced by a certain predetermined thickness loss increment of 0.02”
and subsequent SAP2000 analyses were conducted. The difference here is that the frame
was divided vertically into five corrosion affected zones and members on the bottom level
were assigned 100% thickness loss while members at the top level were only assigned
a thickness loss of 20% of the total 0.02”. The thickness losses were assigned to each
level. The element thicknesses were reduced all the way to failure and division points
in the frame are shown as in Figure 3.27.
59
Figure 3.27 Elevation Dependent Corrosion Model-Corrosion Distribution [68]
The information presented in his thesis represents just one of many steps required
to gain a full understanding of how corrosion will affect structural members as they
interact with each other in a frame system. The ultimate goal is to relate thickness loss
in the frame system to the adequacy of structural members in order to better predict the
reliability of the frame members and their remaining life span using a practical design
methodology. Further refinement is required in order for this procedure to actually be
applicable in a real-world setting.
In order to study the dynamic response of the frame for a linear time history
analysis under a specified loading and a specified time function, SAP2000 considers
the analysis based on the modal analysis. Hence, it is imperative to perform the modal
60
analysis prior to the time-history analysis. The loading is assumed to be a sinusoidal
function with a total time period of T=2secs. This time is taken for the frame to deviate
from t h e rest and displace by 0.5”, which was actually measured from the field
observations during the site visits in 2012. The lateral load applied for the time-history
analysis was calculated using this displacement by performing a linear static analysis.
After the time-history analysis, the bending moments of beams and columns for all
progressive degrees of corrosion are noted. Similarly, the axial loads of all bracing
members are noted for all degrees of corrosion. The corrosion strength reduction factor
is then obtained from these reduced capacities of the structural members as shown in the
sections on results and discussion.
For the purpose of the analysis, the following assumptions were made:
1. A36 Steel
2. Modulus of Elasticity (E) = 29,000 ksi
3. Yield Strength (Fy) = 36 ksi
4. Steel Density = 490 Lbs/ft3
5. Poisson’s Ratio (ν) = 0.3
The beams and columns are made up of structural wide flange sections. Angles
and structural tee sections are used as cross bracing to help resist the lateral forces due
to live and seismic loads. The dimensions of the main frame system that supports the
vapor body are 180”x180” with an approximate height of 576”. The frame is
61
approximately symmetric in all directions with a few exceptions to allow for walkway
and piping clearances. It has an area of 78”x78” and an approximate maximum
height of 360”.
The weights of the evaporating tank and heat exchanger were given by the
owner. The evaporating tank and heat exchanger weigh 49,600 pounds and 20,500
pounds when empty, respectively. When flooded with a water and salt brine solution
they weigh 354,300 and 80,000 pounds, respectively. The dead load from both of these
components was considered to be distributed across the frame. The lateral force was
assumed to act at the center of gravity of the evaporating tank and the heat exchanger,
respectively. Because the load acted through the center of gravity of the units and not
the support points, this created an uplift and downward force on the supports.
For the purpose of looking into the effect of uniform corrosion on the stability of
the frame, it was assumed that the thickness reduction of elements was performed by
the same amount for each member and SAP2000 analyses were conducted at thickness
loss increments of 1 percent to 20 percent of all the steel members which includes I-
sections, angles and T-sections.
62
Figure 3.28 Frame Geometry- Section A
Figure 3.29 Frame Geometry- Section B
63
Figure 3.30 Frame Geometry- Section C
Figure 3.31 Dead Load Distribution
64
Table 3.4 Geometrical properties of some of the cross sections used in the structural
analysis
Geometric Properties
bfb Original c/s
d (in) bft (in) tft (in) tfb (in) tw (in)
I-section (in) area (in2)
AB01 6.375 3.500 0.100 6.000 0.180 0.100 2.040
L1 L2 Original c/s area
Angle t1 (in) t2 (in)
(in) (in) (in2)
AX01 2.000 0.280 2.000 0.265 1.0158
L1 Original c/s area
bf (in) tf (in) t1 (in)
T-section (in) (in2)
AX11 6.375 3.500 0.100 6.000 2.040
Figure 3.32 Standard dimensions of geometrical sections
3.5 Reference (Uncorroded) Analysis
For verification purposes and validity of results, a linear-static, three-dimensional
analysis was conducted using SAP2000 and SPACEGASS. The loading pattern (dead
65
loads) were same in both the programs. The displacements in X, Y and Z directions
respectively are compared in Table 3.5. The bending moment and shear force values in the
vertical direction are shown in Table 3.6. The analyses show that the results compare very
well between the two structural analysis programs.
Figure 3.33 The top four nodes in SAP 2000 (320, 372, 378, 338) and top four nodes in
SPACEGASS (17, 18, 19, 20) used as reference nodes for displacement output
Table 3.5 Joint displacement comparison of the top four nodes in SAP2000 and
SPACEGASS
SAP 2000
Joint Load Case U1 (in) U2 (in) U3 (in)
320 COMB1 0.09548 -0.0558 -0.3118
338 COMB1 -0.0033 -0.0594 -0.2611
372 COMB1 0.09532 -0.0268 -0.3184
378 COMB1 -0.0067 -0.0303 -0.2709
SPACEGASS
Joint Load Case U1 (in) U2 (in) U3 (in)
18 COMB1 0.12 -0.05 -0.32
17 COMB1 0.12 0.09 -0.31
20 COMB1 0.11 0.05 -0.25
19 COMB1 -0.01 0.09 -0.25
66
Figure 3.34 Bending moment diagram for member BB71 (beam) in SAP 2000 and
SPACEGASS.
Table 3.6 Comparison of forces and moments in member BB71 (beam) in SAP2000 and
SPACEGASS
SAP2000
Load Shear V2 Moment M3 (Kip-
Member Node
Case (Kips) ft)
COMB1 BB71 10 31.682 285.125
322 32 173.319
SPACEGASS
Load Shear V2
Member Node Moment M3 (Kip-ft)
Case (Kips)
COMB1 BB71 85 29.16 284.45
60 29.68 173.12
67
3.6 Corroded State
The effect of progressive degrees of corrosion on the fundamental periods and
frequencies of the frame as well as the time-history response is discussed here.
Modal Analysis
The modal analysis in SAP2000 is a precursor to the time history analysis which
is shown later on under the section “time-history analysis”. Depending upon the
number of stories the structure under consideration has, the modal analysis is divided
into specific number of modes. In order to fully capture the behavior of the frame, this
particular case was divided into 12 modes. Usually, the first mode of the analysis is the
critical one. The SAP2000 has two types of modal analyses. The first one is called the
Eigen-Vector analysis and the second one is called as the Ritz-vector analysis. In this
particular case, Eigen value analysis was used and the period of the first mode was
documented for the time-history analysis case. Table 3.7 shows the period, natural
frequency, circular frequency and the Eigen values at the end of the modal analysis. The
corresponding figure also shows the first two modes of the analysis. Table 3.7 shows the
modal periods at progressive degrees of corrosion and percentage increase. Figure 3.35
is a graphical representation of the linear increase in time period with progressive
corrosion damage.
Eigen modes are most suitable for determining response from horizontal
ground acceleration. Eigen analysis is useful for checking behavior and locating
problems within the model. The advantage of this analysis is that natural frequencies
indicate when resonance should be expected under different loading conditions. Load-
dependent Ritz vectors are most suitable for analyses linking vertical ground acceleration,
68
localized machine vibration. Ritz vectors are also efficient and widely used for dynamic
analyses involving horizontal ground motion. Their benefit here is that, for the same
number of modes, Ritz vectors provide a better participation factor, which enables the
analysis to run faster, with the same level of accuracy. Refer APPENDIX for analytical
calculation of the frame as an idealized single degree of freedom system.
Table 3.7 Modal periods at progressive degrees of corrosion and percentage increase
% Reduction in c/s Mode number Period (sec) % increase
0 1 0.790
2 1 0.806 2.00
4 1 0.815 3.02
10 1 0.842 6.16
20 1 0.893 11.52
The frame may also be idealized as a single degree of freedom system and the
fundamental period and frequency of the structure can be found by analytical hand
calculation. The analytical results obtained from hand calculations matched closely with
that obtained from the SAP 2000 modal analysis. This calculation is shown in the
Appendix.
69
Figure 3.35 Chart showing a linear increase in fundamental (1st mode) periods due to
progressive degrees of uniform corrosion
70
Uniform corrosion was simulated by reducing the geometric dimensions of each
cross section and eventually reducing the overall cross sectional area by appropriate
percentages. This was achieved by developing a simple macro in MS Excel to
automatically determine the reduced cross sectional properties (Table 3.8) for different
degrees of corrosion.
Table 3.8 Reduced cross sectional properties of some sections for different percentages of
corrosion
Degree
bft bfb c/s area
of d (in) tft (in) tfb (in) tw (in)
I-section (in) (in) (in2)
corrosion
0 6.375 3.500 0.100 6.000 0.180 0.100 2.040
2 6.372 3.497 0.0975 5.997 0.1775 0.0975 1.998
4 6.370 3.494 0.0948 5.994 0.1748 0.0948 1.957
AB01 10 6.362 3.487 0.0870 5.987 0.167 0.087 1.835
20 6.349 3.474 0.0741 5.974 0.1541 0.074 1.631
Degree of
L1 L2
corrosion t1 (in) t2 (in) c/s area (in2)
Angle (in) (in)
(%)
0 2.000 0.280 2.000 0.265 1.0158
2 1.995 0.275 1.995 0.260 0.9954
4 1.9904 0.2704 1.9904 0.255 0.9751
AX01 10 1.976 0.256 1.976 0.241 0.914
20 1.951 0.231 1.951 0.216 0.812
Degree of
L1
corrosion bf (in) tf (in) t1 (in) c/s area (in2)
T-section (in)
(%)
0 5.500 0.460 4.625 0.360 4.195
2 5.4923 0.452 4.617 0.3523 4.111
4 5.484 0.444 4.609 0.3446 4.027
AX11 10 5.461 0.421 4.586 0.3214 3.775
20 5.4222 0.3822 4.547 0.2822 3.356
71
Table 3.4 shows the cross sectional properties obtained from the AISC (2) steel
manual. As indicated earlier, since the structural drawings were unavailable the
properties were approximate as measured in the field. Similar properties for angles and T-
sections are given in the Appendix. Assuming uniform reduction in cross sectional
properties throughout the section, Table 3.8 shows the reduced dimensions and cross
sectional area which was obtained using a simple “macro” script using MS-Excel. The
script was first developed for one section and similar script was used for the rest of the
sections by just changing the cells with their respective counterparts. The script used here
is based on simple geometric calculations which can be calculated manually. But due to
the large number of members in the frame, manual calculation would be time consuming
and cumbersome. Hence, programming was made use of. An example of this script is given
in the Appendix as well with the reduced cross sectional properties for angles and T-
sections. This method for determining the reduced cross sectional properties was
similarly applied to obtain the reduced properties for 4, 6, 8, 10 and 20 percent reduction
in overall geometric dimensions.
After getting the basic cross sectional properties of corroded and uncorroded
members, the properties were input into SAP2000 and the comparative analysis was
carried out for the respective corrosion damage cases. At the end of each analysis, the
maximum bending moment of each member of the frame was obtained and tabulated
accordingly for each damage case as shown in Table 3.9. It has to be noted that all time-
history analysis was carried out at a frequency of 1Hz based on a period of vibration
calculated to be 1 second from field observations.
72
Linear Modal Time-History Analysis in SAP2000 (Progressive degrees of
corrosion).
In order to study the dynamic response of the frame for a linear time history
analysis under a specified loading and a specified time function, SAP2000 considers
the analysis based on the modal analysis. Hence, it is imperative to perform the modal
analysis prior to the time-history analysis. The loading is assumed to be a sinusoidal
function with a total time period of T=2secs. This time is taken for the frame to deviate
from t h e p o s i t i o n o f rest and displace by 0.5”, which was actually measured from
the field observations during the site visits in 2012. The lateral load applied for the
time-history analysis was calculated using this displacement by performing a simple
linear static analysis.
After the time-history analysis, the bending moments of beams and columns
for all progressive degrees of corrosion are noted. Similarly, the axial loads of all
bracing members are noted for all degrees of corrosion.
73
Table 3.9 Reduced capacities and corresponding deterioration factors for different
corrosion damage cases for I, T and angle sections of the frame.
% Bending
Member Member Section
Reduction Moment (Kip- % Reduction Factors
Name Type Type
in c/s ft)
0 0.9443
2 0.9255 1.99 0.98
I-
DB01 Beam 4 0.9373 0.74 0.99
Section
10 0.9348 1.00 0.98
20 0.9178 2.80 0.97
Member Member Section % Axial Force
% Reduction Factors
Name Type Type Reduction (Kips)
0 3.963
2 3.884 1.99 0.98
DX11 Cross
Angle 4 3.888 1.89 0.98
(CX11) Brace
10 3.851 2.82 0.97
20 3.764 5.02 0.94
Member Member Section % Bending
% Reduction Factors
Name Type Type Reduction Moment (Kip-
0 0.4718
2 0.4333 8.16 0.91
I-
BC01 Column 4 0.4281 9.26 0.90
Section
10 0.415 12.03 0.87
20 0.4529 4.00 0.95
3.8 Discussion of Results
This study demonstrates the use of SAP2000 to perform a time-history analysis
on an existing steel frame subjected to varied degrees of corrosion by assuming
constant loss in cross sectional areas. From what was described in the methodology,
only the mass acting at the top level of the frame was considered. The overall reduction
due to uniform corrosion showed no apparent effect on the modal analysis as was seen
in the comparison between the unocorroded modal analysis and subsequent modal
analyses for all the cases. With an increase in corrosion damage in the members of the
74
frame, the joint displacements, bending moment also increased drastically since the
members are not able to carry the load with a reduced cross sectional areas. The typical
strength reduction charts for I-sections, angles and T-sections are shown below.
Figure 3.36 Deterioration factors charts for beams, bracing members and columns
75
3.9 Conclusions from this Chapter
1. SPACEGASS and SAP2000 gave identical linear static analysis results under trial
loading as well as dead loadings coming from the evaporating tank carried by the
big frame and heat exchanger carried by the smaller frame. This proves that the
assumptions and user input was consistent in both the programs.
2. Joint displacements (Ux) at the top of the frame increased nearly by 27% for
20 percent overall reduction for sinusoidal loading under the linear modal time
history analysis.
3. A linear increase in average displacements was observed at the top of the frame for
2, 4 and 10 percent overall reduction.
4. The fundamental period and frequency obtained from the modal analysis in
SAP2000 compared very well with the analytical hand calculations when the frame
was idealized as a single degree of freedom system.
5. By reducing each of the dimensions of the steel structural sections and hence
reducing the overall cross sectional area, uniform corrosion was simulated by
developing a simple macro and automatically calculated the progressive
damaged dimensions. These reduced dimensions are then input into SAP2000
to properly simulate uniform corrosion damage.
6. The deterioration design chart shown in this study for beams, columns and bracing
members provides a quick and reliable way to assess uniform corrosion damage
of standard steel shapes used commonly to construct frames and bridges.
76
CHAPTER IV
NUMERICAL MODELING OF BEAMS SUBJECT TO NON-UNIFORM AND PITTING
CORROSION DETERIORATION
4.1 Introduction
Structural steel is often subject to corrosion as a direct consequence of electrochemical
processes. This in turn is conducive for a progressive loss of the surface material as
a direct consequence of its prolonged exposure to corrosive environment. Over the
years, steel I-beams have been successfully used to form an integral part of structures
such as bridges and buildings. Since the loss of material is detrimental to its load carrying
capacity, there does exist an increasing awareness for a careful and cautious need for the
evaluation of the load carrying capacity of steel beams subsequent to their exposure to
an aggressive environment and the concomitant damage due to corrosion. In recent
years, a few to several independent research studies have focused on building analytical
models to both simulate and analyze the change and/or reduction in load capacity
of commercially available steel I-beams subjected to simulated corrosion damage. In this
study, the results of evaluation of the strength of wide-flanged beams subjected to
induced corrosion damage, modeled using a standard finite element program
(ABAQUS) are presented. Typical beams in consideration were subjected to different
cases of induced corrosion damage such as non-uniform and varied degrees of
material loss that simulates web pitting corrosion. Many variables such as shapes of
77
pitting damage, location of pits along the length of the beam, number of pits and
depth of pits were considered in this study to facilitate a better understanding of the
load carrying capacity of steel I-beams with damage similar to web pitting damage.The
numerical study consists of t h e results compared with an as-new beam for careful
evaluation of the reduction in strength due to the mentioned deterioration types. A
“Corrosion Strength Reduction Factor (CSRF)” is introduced to easily identify the
reduction in load carrying capacity based on the corrosion damage height and corrosion
damage depths and presented in t h e f o r m o f d e s i g n charts for practical
beam designs.
4.2 Objective
The specific objective of this chapter is to present a method of numerical analysis
for evaluating the buckling strength of “simulated non-uniform corrosion damaged”
beams. A typical beam was considered and was subjected to simulated non-uniform and
pitting corrosion damage in a finite element program, ABAQUS. Based on the analysis, a
“corrosion strength reduction factor (CSRF) is introduced to easily determine the
reduction in the buckling capacity centered on corrosion damage height and corrosion
damage width. These factors are compiled and presented in a chart form for quick
assessment of strength reduction based on the two variables. This method can be safely
extended to other sizes of the beams with varying damage height and damage width
dimensions.
4.3 Finite Element Modeling
Developing the models for the purpose of analysis in the finite element program
(ABAQUS) is discussed here. The version used is 6.11 which has the pre-processing,
78
solver and post processing modules built-in.
4.3.1 End Beam Deterioration:
The wide flanged beams considered in this study were modeled using ABAQUS
finite element software. A model of the W30x108 wide flanged beam is shown in Figure
4.37. For the purpose of validation, the analysis done by researchers at the Michigan
Department of Transportation (MDOT) [72] was repeated and provided as the basis for
this study with the prime objective of determining the reduced buckling capacity. The
NCHRP 333 [12] considers the load carrying capacity of a rolled member by establishing
its resistance to buckling at both the “local” and “global” levels. This was the primary
purpose of performing a numerical buckling analysis using ABAQUS.
Solid ABAQUS parabolic tetrahedral elements [Figure 4.37 (b)] having 10 nodes
with 6 degrees of freedom at each node were used for meshing. Based on a survey of the
published literature, the tetrahedral elements were suitable for the purpose of simulating
the deformation that occurs as a direct consequence of buckling and associated plasticity
effects. Both the web and flange portions of the beam were divided into respective
refined elements. The same material properties were chosen and used for both the web
and the flange. A nominal yield stress of 70 ksi [483MPa], modulus of elasticity of 29,000
ksi [200GPa] and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.3 were chosen. The boundary conditions used
were fixed at the bottom flange and pinned at the top flange. The lowest Eigen value
obtained from the buckling analysis was used for calculating buckling capacity or
buckling load. This is presented and discussed in the section on results and discussion.
79
Figure 4.37 (a) MDOT verification model (b) The parabolic tetrahedral element (c)
Meshed model in ABAQUS
The geometric properties of the chosen beam were obtained from the American
Institute of Steel Construction AISC manual [2]. The following properties of the corroded
surface were used as shown in Figure 4.38. Although corrosion damage occurring in the
web of an I-beam can be random and of different shape, for simplicity and analysis
purposes, an idealized rectangular shape of damage was assumed. The parameters of
which are defined as below.
• Damage depth (Dd): This is the amount of loss of thickness in the web of the beam
measured along the web thickness. The results clearly show that this has a
80
detrimental effect on the buckling load. Three damage depths were considered:
Case A (1/8”), Case B (1/16”), Case C (3/16”).
• Damage height (Dh): Web damage height measured along the height of the web
from the bottom of the flange.
• Web damage width (Dww): Width of the damage in the web measured along the
span length from the end of the beam.
• Flange damage width (Dfw): Width of flange damage
The corrosion parameters are summarized for all the beam models considered in this
study:
Table 4.10 Corrosion parameters for beams B1 to B4
B1 (End B2 (End B3 (Full B4 (Full
beam) beam) beam) beam)
Dd (in) 1/8, 1/16, 3/16 1/8, 1/16, 3/16 1/8, 1/16, 3/16 1/8, 1/16, 3/16
Dh (in) 3 6 6 6
Dww (in) 3 36 36 36
Dfw (in) - - - 4.97
• Damage to have occurred on either sides of web and bottom flange.
• Type of damage: Rectangular
• Damage height: 3 in
• Flange damage width (Dh) 3 in
• Damage depth (Dd) 0.0625 in
81
• Moment of Inertia of the deteriorated Section (I): 4,013 in4
• Sum of all areas (ΣA) 30 in2
The following models for the beam that was subject to damage as a direct consequence
of corrosion, were considered for both the web and flange sections (also shown in Figure
4.39)
B1 - End region- 3ft with localized damage (MDOT research model [72]).
B2 - End region with web damage
B3 - Full beam with localized web damage
B4 - Full beam with web and flange damage
Figure 4.38 The test model used by researchers at Michigan Department of Transportation
[72]
82
Figure 4.39 Beam models B1-B4 subject to simulated corrosion damage
4.3.2 Beam with Web Pitting
When a wide flanged steel beam is exposed to a corrosive environment for an
extended period of time without any protection, there is a chance that the loss in thickness
of the metal can be so large that the deterioration can cause holes in the web of an I-
beam. For example, Figure 4.40 shows a plate girder bridge that collapsed in Japan after
28 years of usage [73]. This type of failure highlights the need for assessing corroded
83
beams and their residual strength with varying degrees of damage to the webs.
Depending on the severity of the corrosion damage, this type of pitting corrosion can
occur in various shapes and forms. For simplicity of modeling these openings, idealized
shapes such as circular and rectangular shapes are assumed for the purpose of this study.
An analytical method for calculating the elastic stresses around an elliptical
opening centered on the centroidal axis of a simply supported beam was presented by
Bower [69]. The equations developed for calculating the stresses around a hole are
based on the theory of elasticity.
The existence of holes in the web of a beam can affect the behavior of the beam in
different ways [12]. It can reduce the resistance of the beam to shear, bending or
buckling. It can reduce the buckling resistance of the compression flange above the
hole; and it can also reduce the fatigue life of the beam. Therefore, failure may occur as
a result of increased bending and shear stresses, buckling of the compression flange,
buckling of the web and fatigue. However, the scope of this study is limited to failure
modes resulting from flexural and shear stresses caused by bending of simply supported
beams with web perforations.
Figure 4.40 Corrosion pattern of a plate girder of the collapsed bridge in Japan [73]
84
The numerical analysis was performed using the finite element package ABAQUS,
Version 6.11. The cross section and isometric view of the beam modeled in this chapter are
shown in Figure 4.41. The model accounted for the measured geometry, initial geometric
imperfections and measured material properties of both the flange and web portions.
Finite element analysis for the purpose of studying buckling requires two types of
analysis. The first is the Eigenvalue analysis that estimates the buckling mode(s) and
load(s). Such analysis is a linear elastic analysis that is performed with the load applied
within the first step. The buckling analysis provides the factor by which the load must be
multiplied to reach the buckling load. For practical purposes, only the lowest buckling
mode predicted from the Eigenvalue analysis is used. The second type of analysis is called
the load–displacement nonlinear analysis and follows the Eigenvalue prediction. It is
necessary to consider whether the post-buckling response is stable or unstable. The
nonlinear material properties and loading conditions are incorporated in the post-
buckling analysis. The effects of residual stresses were neglected in this study. It should
be noted that an earlier study revealed the residual stresses do have a small effect on
buckling behavior of different structural members [73], but the effects were
insignificant. The different finite models adopted for this study simulating various
pitting patterns are shown in the
Figure 4.42.
At the time of this study, a concurrent research was undergoing for studying the
effects of uniform corrosion on the bending strength of steel I-beams. This was mainly
done by artificially corroding the beams by exposing them to salt spray cycles in a Q-fog
chamber for several weeks. After the corrosion process, the beams were subjected to 4
85
point bending tests to evaluate the residual strength. Four beams were fabricated with
different dimensions. All the beams had end stiffeners, intermediate stiffeners and loading
stiffeners. The size of the beam shown in Figure 4.41 and which was chosen for the
purpose of this study was one of the four beam sizes.
Figure 4.41 Cross Section and Isometric view of the chosen I-beam
86
Figure 4.42 The web pitting patterns chosen for numerical analysis. (a) Circular Hole (b)
Rectangular/Square hole (c) Radial pitting pattern (d) Series pitting pattern (e) Beam
dimensions
87
4.4 Results and Discussion
Results of the finite element analyses are provided in terms of buckling load as a
function of both heights of the damage and depth of the damage. A sample of the
summary of the results for a damage height of 1/16” is summarized in Table 4.11. A
summary of the results obtained by “design chart” method developed by the Michigan
Department of Transportation (MDOT) is shown in Figure 4.43. The results obtained in
this study accord well with the results obtained by other researchers (e.g., MDOT
[72]). For beam B1, the percentage remaining capacity was compared with the “design
chart method” developed by the researchers at MDOT. The following is a simple
representation of a sample calculation. The design chart method can be used by
structural engineers to obtain a quick assessment of the buckling capacity, using a
factor ψd. The MDOT reported this factor as “deterioration factor”. The reduced load as
a direct consequence of damage induced due to corrosion, i.e., Freduced, is obtained by
multiplying the deterioration factor with the buckling load for the “undamaged” portion
of the beam. The accompanying tables (Table 4.11) and charts (Table 4.12 to Table 4.15)
for a damage depth of 3.175mm obtained from this study shows a practical manner of
representing the reduction in buckling capacity of corrosion damaged beams that were
considered in this study. Similar factors are plotted for 1.5875 and 4.7625mm damage
depths wherein, the “Corrosion Strength Reduction Factor (ψ)” is considered as t h e
ratio of the remaining capacity of damaged beams to original capacity of the
undamaged counterparts. This reduction factor study can be extended to other wide
flanged sections that are commonly used in the construction industry as a quick and
reliable way to assess the buckling capacity of corrosion damaged beams.
88
Freduced = ψd [ Fundamaged ]
Freduced = 0.79 [229 kips]
Freduced = 181 kips (805 kN)
Figure 4.43 MDOT’s design chart for damage occurring on both sides of
the web. Chart is only applicable to rolled sections having depths or
unsupported web heights between 27” to 36” [72]
Table 4.11 A summary of buckling loads obtained for a damage depth of

1/16”. Refer to Table 4.10 for details of beam models (B1-B4).
Beam Section Loss Buckling Buckling Remaining

Model Load Load Capacity (%)
(Kips) (kN)
B1 As new state 229 1018 83
Damaged 190 845
Condition
B2 As new state 229 1018 34

Damaged 77 342
condition
B3 As new state 65.1 289 59

Damaged 38.6 172
condition
B4 As new state 65.1 289 44

Damaged 28.8 128
condition
89
Table 4.12 Summary of the corrosion strength reduction factors (CSRF) for Beam B1
with a damage depth of 1/8” (3.175mm)
Remaining Capacity (%)
Damage depth (1/8")
Damage
Height (mm) Beam B1 CSRF (ψ)
0 100 1
12.7 88 0.88
38.1 72 0.72
76.2 62 0.62
127 54 0.54
Table 4.13 Summary of the corrosion strength reduction factors for Beam B2 with a
damage depth of 1/8” (3.175mm)
Damage depth (3.175mm)
Damage
Height Beam B2 CSRF (ψ)
(mm)
0 100 1
12.7 80 0.8
38.1 68 0.68
76.2 60 0.6
127 50 0.5
90

Damage CSRF (ψ)

Height Beam B3
0 100 1
12.7 92 0.92
38.1 87 0.87
76.2 82 0.82
127 75 0.75

CSRF (ψ)
Damage
Height Beam B4
0 100 1
12.7 60 0.6
38.1 48 0.48
76.2 35 0.35
127 30 0.3
91
Corrosion Strength Reduction Factor Chart for
Beam B1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
CSRF (Ψ)
0.6
0.5 1.5875 mm
0.4 3.175 mm
0.3
4.7625 mm
0.2
0.1
0
1 21 41 61 81 141
Damage Height (Dh)
Figure 4.44 The CSRF chart for varying damage depths against different
damage heights for Beam B1

Beam B2
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
CSRF (Ψ)
0.6
0.5 1.5875 mm
0.4 3.175 mm
0.3
4.7625 mm
0.2
0.1
0
1 41 61 81 141
Damage Height (Dh)
92
Beam B3
1
0.9
0.8
CSRF (Ψ) 0.7
0.6
0.5 1.5875 mm
0.4 3.175 mm
0.3
4.7625 mm
0.2
0.1
0
1 41 61 81 101 121 141
Damage Height (Dh)
Reduction Factor Chart for Beam B4

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
CSRF (Ψ)
0.5 1.5875 mm
0.4 3.175 mm
0.3 4.7625 mm
0.2
0.1
0
1 41 61 81 101 121 141
Damage Height (Dh)
93
Figure 4.48 and Table 4.16 summarize the results obtained from the buckling
and post- buckling analyses of the study with different degrees of web pitting in the beam.
The beam models considered for the analysis are shown in
Figure 4.42. Attention was paid to stress concentrations at the pit corners and edges.
Depending on the degree of pitting penetrating into the web, it was found that as the
degree of pitting increases, the mid-span deflection, and the Von- Mises stresses also
increased.
Figure 4.48 The Von-Mises distribution and the failure modes of beam with circular
idealized web pit at different locations along the beam span.
94
Table 4.16 The Von-Mises stress distribution values for circular pits in beam web
Analysis Type Damage type Thickness of Size of pit Avg Von-

pitting (percentage of Mises Stress
(percentage of web depth) (ksi)
Position 1 66
Post-Buckling Circular Position 2 50 26
Position 3 70
Figure 4.49 The Von-Mises stress distribution for beam with rectangular idealized web
pitting with different degree of pitting
95
Table 4.17 The average Von-Mises stress distribution values for rectangular pits in beam
web. The degree of damage is a function of beam depth to the beam web thickness.
Analysis Type Damage Type Beam Web Average

Von Mises
depth Thickness
stress at four
(%) (%)
corners
10 40 20(k i)
10 70 23
10 100 48
20 40 35
Post-Buckling Rectangular 20 70 69
30 70 66
40 70 68
Figure 4.50 Von-Mises stress distribution of the series pitting pattern showing that the
critical stress limit is reached when the depth of pitting increases. The degree of damage
is a function of beam web thickness to the beam depth
96
Figure 4.51 Von-Mises stress distribution of the radial pitting pattern showing a rapid
change in failure mode depending on the depth of web pitting
Table 4.18 Average Von-Mises stress distribution for the radial pitting pattern damage
Analysis Type Damage type Web Web Avg Von-Mises

Depth Thickness stress at the
(%) (%) edges of the pits
(ksi)
30 50 52
Post-Buckling Radial Pitting 30 100 65
97
Figure 4.52 Von Mises Stress distribution for the beam having pitting holes penetrating
(a) 10 percent of the web thickness and occupying 75 percent of web area
(b) 40 percent of web thickness and occupying 75 percent of web area
98
Figure 4.53 Von Mises Stress distribution for the beam having pitting holes penetrating
(c) 10 percent of the web thickness and occupying 75 percent of web
area
(d) 40 percent of web thickness and occupying 75 percent of web area
99
The highlight of this chapter is a pronounced effects of the location of the pits along
the span of the beam on the load carrying capacity of I-beams (Figure 4.48). The primary
purpose of including both the intermediate stiffeners and end stiffeners is to prevent the
beam from failing in compression due to buckling of the flange. The results reveal that as
the location of the pits shifts from center of the beam to support end of the beam, there
occurs a gradual reduction in the buckling load.
For the case of a standalone rectangular pit where in the damage is covering 70%
of the beam web thickness, similar cases were run using ABAQUS, ie. by varying the
size of the opening (as a function of the depth of the beam web). In Figure 4.49 the
Von-Mises stress distribution shows that the stress concentration is elevated at the two
opposite edges or the corners of the pitting damage. In other words, a diagonal
distribution of the stresses is seen when the damage is not completely penetrating
the web thickness. This appears to be common for the two cases [(i) 20 vs. 70, and (ii)
30 vs. 70]. However, when there is full penetration of the damage into web thickness of
the beam, all four corners of the opening reach a higher stress value. The resultant Von-
Mises stress distribution values are summarized in Table 4.17.
4.5 Conclusions
The objective of this study outlined in this chapter was to present the results of
analyses that evaluate the strength of a wide-flanged beam subjected to simulated
corrosion damage, modeled using a standard finite element program (ABAQUS).
Different cases of simulated corrosion damage such as non-uniform and varied degrees
of web pitting corrosion were considered. Many variables such as the shape of pitting,
location of pits along the length of the beam, number of pits and depth of pitting were
100
taken into account to develop a better understanding of beams with web pitting
damage. The numerical study consisted of results compared with an identical as-new
beam for the evaluation of the reduction in strength due to different types of deterioration.
The following maybe concluded from this study:
1. Steel I-beams, which are commonly used in the construction industry, are often
susceptible to loss in section thickness arising as a direct consequence of
corrosion. The reduction in buckling load seems inevitable when the section loss
occurs in both the flange and web sections of the beam.
2. The finite element analysis (FEA) results were verified with the chart method
used by MDOT (Michigan Department of Transportation) to determine the
reduced buckling capacity. The reduced buckling capacity (179 kips or 800 kN)
was well within 5% of the value that was obtained when using the deterioration
factor. This validates that the Eigen value buckling analysis using ABAQUS can
be safely adopted to determine the reduced buckling capacity of wide flanged beams
subjected to end beam deterioration.
3. This study also demonstrates the ability of a standard finite element package to model
a beam with web pitting and analyze these beams both for mid-span deflections and
stress concentrations around the holes. For the same loading and support conditions,
the mid-span deflections and Von-Mises stresses increased drastically with
progressive pitting damage of the beam web. This can be primarily attributed to
the degree of pitting (the area and depth of pitting the web).
4. For easier understanding of the reduction in load carrying capacity of wide flanged
101
beams, a “Corrosion Strength Reduction Factor (CSRF)” was introduced.
Different corrosion strength reduction factors were determined for different types
and locations of corrosion damage to the webs and flanges of the beam. The
strength reduction is larger when the corrosion damage occurs in both the bottom
flange and the bottom part of the web. Similarly, the corrosion strength reduction
factors can be determined for other wide flanged sections and other commonly used
structural sections to evaluate the residual load carrying capacity.
102
CHAPTER V
TENSILE STRENGTH OF STRUCTURAL A572 GRADE 50 STEEL
5.1 Introduction
In this section, the microstructure, hardness, tensile deformation and fracture
behavior of a structural steel (ASTM A572-Grade 50) [80] is commonly used in
construction industry is presented and discussed. Specifically, the influence of test
specimen orientation on microstructure of the as-provided material and resultant
influence of microstructure on hardness, tensile properties and final fracture behavior
is examined. Aspects related to the macroscopic mode and the governing intrinsic
microscopic features that result from fracture of the steel specimens machined from the
two orientations, longitudinal and transverse, are also examined. The microscopic
mechanisms governing quasi-static deformation and final fracture behavior of this
structural steel is discussed in light of the conjoint influence of test specimen
orientation, intrinsic microstructural effects and nature of loading.
In the time period spanning the last three decades, i.e., since the onset of the
1980’s, few to several manufacturers and producers of a spectrum of steels spanning
the domains of carbon steel, mild steel, stainless steel, alloy steels, tool steels and
even specialty steels have made a dedicated attempt to successfully engineer the
selection and use of these steels for a wide variety of applications spanning the domains
of both performance-critical and non-performance critical. This concurrently provided
them with not only an incentive but also the much needed and required impetus to
103
gradually shift their attention and action towards engineering the production, processing
and use of high strength steels for a wide range of commercial applications. The high
strength steels are particularly noted for offering an attractive combination of high
tensile strength, acceptable to good fracture toughness, improved weldability coupled
with better performance in environments spanning a range of aggressiveness, to include
both aqueous and gaseous, when compared one-on-one with the mild steel counterpart
[74-83]. The production and processing, to include both primary and secondary, of the
family of high strength steels has culminated from noticeable advances in both the
processing and manufacturing techniques currently in use in the steel industry, especially
in the domain of thermo-mechanical processing (TMP). In particular, a careful control of
heating and subsequent mechanical deformation processes during the production of the
steel can result in the formation of a fine grain size end product.
A noticeable advantage that results from selecting and using high strength steel
for an end application is that overall weight of the component can be drastically reduced,
thereby making it possible, in many ways, to achieve: (i) a reduction in the overall cost
of fabrication, (ii) a reduction in the cost of transportation of both the component and
structure, and (iii) concurrently enable ease in handling of both the material and the
resultant component or structure. In the prevailing era, lightweight and thin elements
are both desirable and essentially required for purpose of architecture and the creative
design of aesthetic members and structures. A noticeable reduction in the size of the
end product means less consumption of the chosen steel during manufacturing. The high
strength steels of continuing interest to the civil construction industry are particularly
noted for their high yield stress, while a few of them are noted for their ability to
104
offer marginal to acceptable ductility quantified by reduction in test specimen cross
sectional area.
The development, emergence and sustained interest in the use of structural steel
led to the initiation of its use in the civil construction industry. Due to its high strength
and relatively low weight, structural steels find use in a spectrum of applications to
include bridge construction, use as trusses, and for the construction of transmission towers
[84, 90, 91, 95]. However, with the gradual evolution of time an important, yet practical,
application for structural steel was in the ship- building industry. Standard AISC
shapes, such as, wide-flange sections, angles and channels are currently being used in
building applications. Similar sections are also been used to build stiffened panels, which
constitute ship bulk heads and hull girders. The stiffened panels are generally subject
to the combined action of transverse thrust and lateral pressure. Sustained research studies
driven by the need to understand the mechanical behavior of these steels have
culminated in sufficient information being made available on the structural behavior
of these stiffened panels under a spectrum of loading conditions.
Selection of the appropriate steel for a specific application has an influence on the
overall safety, reliability and even service life of a structure [80, 81, 95]. Appropriate
selection and the use of a high strength steel for the purpose of both engineering and
developing a newer product necessitates the need for careful consideration to be given
to all pertinent limit states, design procedures, fabrication practices and construction
procedures followed coupled with a careful evaluation of all potential applications and
the resultant end-users so as to help ensure both a safe and reliable operation [80, 81, 84,
92].
105
The properties of a high strength steel chosen for specific use in structural
applications are often governed by the conjoint and mutually interactive influences
of chemical composition, processing history (to include both primary processing
and secondary processing), intrinsic microstructural features, temperature of operation,
nature of loading and the presence of potential constraints due to both design and
construction [85-87]. Factors ranging from an increase in part thickness, incorporation
of sharp changes in cross-section or notches, and an increase in loading rate coupled
with lowering of the operating temperature can be detrimental to ductility, toughness and
even overall fracture behavior of the chosen structural steel.
In this chapter, the influence of microstructure on tensile response and fracture
behavior of a structural steel that has grown in stature to be chosen for use in applications
spanning the domains of both performance-critical and non-performance-
critical is reported. A rationalization of the fracture behavior is made in light of chemical
composition, intrinsic microstructural effects, nature of loading, and deformation
characteristics of the micro- constituents.
5.2 Material
The high-strength low-alloy C o l u m b i u m - V a n a d i u m s t r u c t u r a l steel
chosen for this research study was ASTM A572. In recent years, its selection for use
in a variety of structural plate applications has become common. The chemical
composition of this steel is summarized in Table 5.19. Due to noticeable amounts of
carbon and manganese, this steel is often referred to as “high- carbon, low-alloy
content” steel. This steel derives its strength from the formation, presence and dispersion
of fine carbide particles through the microstructure.
106
Presence of carbon basically provides solid solution strengthening while
concurrently enabling in a noticeable increase in hardenability arising from the
formation, presence and dispersion of alloy carbide particles through the
microstructure. The presence of manganese assists in the formation of carbides, which
contribute, either directly or indirectly, to increase strength while concurrently
resisting softening during heat treatment. To a limited extent, manganese also aids
in refining the grain size resulting in a much desired fine grain size end product.
Table 5.19 Chemical composition of A572 steel (in weight percent)
Material C Mn P S
A572 0.25 1.35 0.04 0.05
107
5.3 Experimental Procedures
The mechanical testing procedure for testing the ASTM E8 samples in accordance
to ASTM standards is explained in this section.
5.3.1 Characterization of Initial Microstructure
Samples of this high carbon content steel were prepared for observation very
much in conformance with standard procedures used for metallographic preparation
of metal samples. This essentially involves coarse polish using progressively finer
grades of silicon carbide impregnated paper [ i.e., 320-grit, 400-grit and 600-grit]
followed by fine polishing using 5-micron and 1-micron alumina-based polishing
compound suspended in distilled water as the lubricant. The as-polished samples were
etched using nital reagent, i.e., a solution mixture of nitric acid in ethanol. Etching
helps reveal the following: (a) the grain boundaries, (b) size of the grain, (c)
morphology of the grain, and (d) other intrinsic features, such as, the nature,
morphology and distribution of the second-phase carbide particles through the
microstructure of this high carbon content steel. A light optical microscope was used to
examine the polished and etched surfaces of the sample at low magnifications and
subsequently photographed using bright field illumination technique.
5.3.2 Microhardness Test
A basic mechanical property of a material is its hardness. The hardness test is an
important and widely used test for the purpose of quickly evaluating the mechanical
properties of monolithic metals, their alloy counterparts, and even composite materials
based on metal matrices. A simple yet appropriate definition that has been recorded
for hardness is the resistance offered by the material to indentation, i.e., permanent
108
deformation and cracking [86, 87]. A direct measurement of hardness is both a simple
and useful technique for characterizing the base-line mechanical properties while
concurrently investigating, establishing and rationalizing the role and contribution of
intrinsic microstructural constituents. Overall, the hardness test can be safely considered
to be both simple and easy enough to enable it to be safely categorized as being non-
destructive [80, 82, 87, 88] . In this study, the Vickers micro-hardness (HV)
measurements were made on a microhardness tester using an indentation load of 200
grams, a dwell time of 15 seconds, with the aid of a Vickers tool indenter [Model:
INSTRON Wilson Tukon 2100]. The indenter (made of diamond) has a square-base
pyramidal geometry with an included angle of 136 degrees. The indenter rests for a
specified length of time on the polished surface of the test specimen. The machine
makes an indent, or impression, on the polished surface of the sample whose diagonal
size was measured using a low magnification optical microscope. The area of the
impression is directly proportional to the load used and a load independent hardness
number can be found. The Vickers hardness number (HV) is the ratio of applied load to
the surface area of the indent and was provided by the test machine. Five indents were
made edge-to-edge across the polished surface along both the longitudinal and
transverse directions of the chosen high carbon, low alloy content steel A572 sample.
The result is reported as the average value in units of kg/mm2. The indentation load used
was 500 grams (4.9 N) for a dwell time of 10 seconds. The Hardness number was
computed using the expression:
Hv =1.8545 [P / d2][1]
where P is the indentation load used and d is the average length of the two diagonals in
109
mm. The microhardness measurements (trials and average) made on the structural
steel samples (Longitudinal and transverse) are provided in Table 5.20.
5.4 Mechanical Testing
Cylindrical test specimens, conforming to specifications outlined in
ASTM E-8-10 [89] were precision machined from the chosen steel. The threaded test
specimens measured 59 mm in length and 6.35 mm in diameter at the thread section.
The gage section of the machined test specimen measured 12.5 mm in length and 3.175
mm in diameter. To minimize the effects of surface irregularities and finish, the gage
sections of the machined test specimens were mechanically ground using progressively
finer grades of SiC impregnated emery paper. The purpose of polishing was to remove
any and all circumferential scratches and surface machining marks.
Table 5.20 Micro-hardness measurements on Structural Steel A572 steel
Orientation Trail 1 Trail 2 Trail 3 Trail 4 Trail 5 Avg

Hardness
(kg/mm2)
D1 (µm) 83.54 86.85 86.57 82.57 91.4
Longitudinal D2 (µm) 84.56 88.46 88.64 85.1 78.2
Hv 263 241 242 264 238 250
(kg/mm2)
D1 (µm) 85.56 82.8 91.49 84.96 80.87

Transverse D2 (µm) 87.54 92.18 88.41 87.03 83.11
Hv 248 242 229 251 275 249
(kg/mm2)
Uniaxial tensile tests were performed up until failure on a fully-automated,
closed-loop servo hydraulic mechanical test machine [INSTRON Model 8500 plus]
equipped with a 100KN load cell. The test specimens were deformed at a constant strain
110
rate of 0.0001/sec. An axial 12.5 mm gage length extensometer was attached to the test
specimen at the gage section, using rubber bands, to provide a precise measurement of
strain during uniaxial loading and resultant stretching of the test specimen. The stress
and strain measurements, parallel to the load line, were recorded on a PC-based data
acquisition system [DAS].
5.5 Failure-Damage Analysis
Fracture surfaces of the steel samples that were deformed and failed in uniaxial
tension were carefully examined in a scanning electron microscope (SEM) to determine
the macroscopic fracture mode and to concurrently characterize the fine scale
topography of the tensile fracture surface that would help establish the fine microscopic
mechanisms governing failure during tensile loading. This is important to consider in light
of the alloy carbides unique to this high performance structural steel. The macroscopic
mode refers to the overall mode of failure at the ‘global’ level, while microscopic mode
considers all of the failure processes occurring at the “local” level. Samples for
observation in the scanning electron microscope (SEM) were obtained from the
deformed and failed specimens by sectioning parallel to the fracture surface, i.e., slicing
perpendicular to the major stress axis.
After testing the samples for uniaxial tensions, the results are compiled in terms of
micrographs, stress vs strain plots and scanning electron micrographs for a more detailed
observation of the failed surfaces of the E8 samples.
5.5.1 Initial Microstructure
111
Optical microstructure of the chosen ASTM A572 [80] sample is as shown in
Figure 5.54 at two different magnifications for both the longitudinal and transverse
orientation. The observed microstructure is quite typical of high carbon, low alloy
content steel. The primary micro-constituent is the carbon depleted white region referred
to as ferrite. The grains are distinct and small in size and fairly non-uniform in shape.
Besides this distinguishing micro-constituent dispersed through the microstructure were
the second-phase particles primarily the carbides. The presence and morphology of the
ferrite micro-constituent is governed both by chemical composition and the processing
techniques, both primary and secondary, used to engineer this steel. These intrinsic
features namely: the size and morphology of ferrite along with randomly spaced carbide
particles are an important factor that essentially determines its hardness, tensile
properties and eventual fracture behavior at the fine microscopic level when the steel
specimen is subject to uniaxial loading at the “global” level. The two orientations
(L and T) reveal microstructure of this alloy steel to be essentially similar with minimal
difference in the nature, volume fraction, morphology, size and distribution of the
intrinsic microstructural constituents.
112
Figure 5.54 Optical micrographs showing microstructure of structural steel A572 at two
different magnifications of (a) Longitudinal at 100X, (b) Longitudinal at 200X (c)
Transverse at 100X, (d) Transverse at 200X
5.5.2 Microhardness
Vickers’s micro-hardness measurements were taken edge-to-edge across the
center of polished surface of test specimens taken from both the longitudinal and
transverse orientation of the high carbon, low alloy content steel sample. All of the
measurements were made with accuracy and precision across the center of the test
sample that was mounted on bakelite in order to collect information on spatial variability
of hardness while minimizing contributions from location of the indent. The load used
was 200 grams for a dwell time of 10 seconds. The microhardness profile for the two
orientations is shown in Figure 5.55. The average value of micro-hardness for this high
carbon, low alloy content steel is 250 MPa in the longitudinal (L) orientation and 249
MPa in the transverse (T) orientation.
113
Figure 5.55 A profile showing the variation of microhardness (kg/mm2) taken across the
length of the mounted sample of A572
114
5.5.3 Macrohardness
The macrohardness value based on Rockwell B scale, made across the width of
both the longitudinal (L) and transverse (T) samples, gave an average value of 432 MPa
for the longitudinal (L) sample and 434 MPa for the transverse (T) sample. All
measurements were made across the width of the polished surface of both the
longitudinal and transverse samples. The macrohardness profile for the two orientations
is shown in Figure 5.56. The macrohardness values for the two orientations are
compared with the corresponding microhardness values in Figure 5.57. The bar graph
representation does reveal the intrinsic influence of microstructure on both
microhardness, i.e., ‘local’ hardness, and macrohardness, i.e., “global” hardness of this
structural steel.
Figure 5.56 A profile showing the variation of macrohardness (kg/mm2) taken across the
length of the mounted sample of A572
115
Figure 5.57 Bar graph comparing the macro-hardness and micro-hardness of A572 steel
in the two orientations: longitudinal and transverse.
5.6 Tensile Response
The ambient temperature tensile properties for both the longitudinal and
transverse orientations for the chosen structural steel are summarized here.
Results reported are the mean values based on duplicate tests.
(a) The elastic modulus in the longitudinal (L) orientation [217 GPa] of this specific
steel is noticeably higher than the elastic modulus in the transverse (T)
orientation [210 GPa].
(b) The yield strength in the transverse (T) orientation [496 MPa] is 14 percent higher
the yield strength in the longitudinal orientation [436 MPa].
(c) The ultimate tensile strength in the transverse (T) orientation [566 MPa] is
around 12 percent higher than in the longitudinal orientation [503 MPa].
116
(d) The ductility quantified by elongation over 0.5 inch (12.5 mm) gage length was
10 percent lower than in the transverse (T) orientation [30 percent] than in
the longitudinal [L] orientation [34 percent]. The observed lower ductility in
the transverse (T) orientation is commensurate with the higher strength in this
orientation.
(e) The reduction in test specimen cross-sectional area, a measure of ductility
experienced by the test specimen, was around 44 percent.
The engineering stress versus engineering strain curves for the two chosen
orientations, i.e., longitudinal and transverse, are compared in Figure 5.58. This curve
clearly reveals higher yield strength and tensile strength in the transverse (T) orientation
but a noticeable decrease in ductility quantified by engineering strain or strain-to-failure
(εf). For both the transverse (T) and longitudinal (L) orientations this steel revealed
observable plastic strain prior to failure by fracture.
The variation of true stress with true strain is shown in Figure 5.59. The true stress
and true strain can be expressed in the form of a power law relationship
σ =K (ε p) n
The exponent ‘n’ provides a measure of the strain hardening capability of the chosen
structural steel. This figure also reveals the chosen structural steel to have a low value
of strain hardening as quantified by the strain hardening exponent (n) for both the
longitudinal (L) and transverse (T) orientations. There was minimal difference in the
value of strain hardening coefficient (K) for the two orientations.
117
600
A572
Engineering Stress (MPa) T=27oC
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Engineering Strain (%)
Figure 5.58 Influence of test specimen orientation on engineering stress

versus engineering strain response of structural steel A572 samples
deformed in uniaxial tension at room temperature (T=25°C)
A572
A572
T=270C
T=27oC
Figure 5.59 A comparison of the influence of test specimen orientation

(Longitudinal vs Transverse) on true stress vs true strain response of
A572 deformed in uniaxial tension
118
5.7 Tensile Fracture Behavior
The tensile fracture surfaces of this steel for both the longitudinal (L) and
transverse (T) orientations were carefully examined in a scanning electron microscope,
over a range of allowable magnifications, to provide information with specific reference
to the presence and role of intrinsic microstructural effects, nature of loading and
deformation characteristics of the micro-constituents in governing fracture behavior of
this alloy steel at the fine microscopic level. Representative fractographs for the two
orientations (longitudinal and transverse) are shown in Figure 5.54.
5.7.1 Orientation: Longitudinal
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) observations of the tensile fracture surface revealed
fracture to be essentially cup and cone type [Figure 5.60a]. Examination of the fracture
surface at higher allowable magnifications of the SEM revealed the transgranular region
to be flat, smooth and inlaid with a population of fine microscopic voids [Figure 5.60b].
Gradually approaching the region of overload, the fracture surface revealed shallow
dimples intermingled with both macroscopic and fine microscopic voids, features
reminiscent of locally acting ductile failure mechanisms [ Figure 5.60c ] . The region of
overload revealed a healthy population of ductile dimples intermingled with both
macroscopic and fine microscopic voids [Figure 5.60d]. These features are clearly
indicative of the dominance of “locally” acting ductile failure mechanisms at the fine
microscopic level.
119
5.7.2 Orientation: Transverse
Scanning electron microscopy observations of the deformed and failed tensile specimen
revealed essentially a cup and cone type of failure [ Figure 5.61a ] . Careful high
magnification observations of the flat region revealed an observable population of
voids of varying size intermingled with sizeable number of shallow, yet distinct,
dimples [Figure 5.61b]. High magnification observation of (b) revealed the occurrence
of microvoid coalescence to form microscopic cracks that traverse along the high angle
grain boundaries [Figure 5.61c]. The nature, morphology and distribution of both fine
microscopic and macroscopic voids are distinctly seen. The region of overload revealed
the presence of a healthy population of voids, of varying size and shape, and intermingled
with shallow pockets of dimples. These features are clearly indicative of the occurrence
of “locally” ductile failure mechanisms prior to fracture of the test specimen [Figure
5.61d].
5.8 Microscopic Mechanisms Governing Stress-Microstructure-
Deformation Interactions
During far field loading in tension, the gradual buildup of matrix dislocations
eventually results in their pile up at grain boundaries, grain boundary triple junctions
and the second-phase particles dispersed randomly through the microstructure. The
gradual concentration of stress at the “local” level does favor the early initiation of
fine microscopic voids at the second-phase particles dispersed through the
microstructure. This is particularly favored to occur when the ‘local’ strain caused by
the progressive build-up of dislocations at the matrix-second-phase particle interface
reaches a critical value (say σ**). Void nucleation at the coarse second-phase particle
120
is favored to occur immediately following yielding and at low values of plastic strain.
During far- field loading in simple uniaxial tension, a few of the second-phase particles
are favored to fracture on account of their intrinsic brittleness. This is aided by a gradual
lowering of the strain energy that is required for cracking. Since crack extension under
quasi-static loading is favored to occur at the high ’local’ stress intensities, the presence
of an observable number of both macroscopic and fine microscopic voids helps in
reducing the actual strain-to-failure associated with ductile fracture.
At the fine microscopic level, the formation and presence of a noticeable number
of voids of varying size transforms the deforming high carbon, low alloy content high
strength steel into a composite material at the fine microscopic level. Since the voids
are intrinsically softer than the hardened grains in the matrix, the “local” strain is
significantly elevated, both at and around the region of a microscopic void, thereby
enabling a condition that facilitates in a gradual increase in their volume fraction. Half
of a void is the shallow dimple that is observed in large numbers on the tensile fracture
surface.
5.9 Conclusions
Based on this study of the influence of test specimen orientation on hardness,
tensile properties and fracture behavior of this high carbon, low alloy content steel
following are the key findings:
1. Light optical micrographs reveal a microstructure that is rich in the micro-
constituent ferrite, i.e., the carbon depleted region. The grains are small in size
and of varying shape. The second-phase particles are randomly dispersed through
121
the microstructure.
2. The average value of micro-hardness for this high carbon, low alloy content
steel is 250 MPa in the longitudinal (L) orientation and 249 MPa in the transverse
(T) orientation. The macrohardness value, based on Rockwell B scale, gave an
average value of 432 MPa for the longitudinal (L) orientation and 434 MPa for
the transverse (T) orientation.
3. The elastic modulus of this carbon steel was higher in the transverse (T) direction
than in the longitudinal (L) direction. Both the yield strength and ultimate tensile
strength of this steel was higher in the transverse direction than in the longitudinal
direction.
4. The ductility, quantified by elongation over 12.5 mm gage length, was lower
in the transverse (T) direction [30 percent] than in the longitudinal (L) direction
[34 percent]. The decrease is commensurate with the higher strength of steel in
the transverse direction.
5. The presence of a population of voids of varying size, i.e., macroscopic and fine
microscopic, and a noticeable population of dimples of varying size is
indicative of the occurrence of ductile failure mechanisms at the fine microscopic
level.
6. Both low magnification and high magnification observations of the tensile fracture
surface confirms the role and/or influence of the microstructural constituents
in governing the fracture behavior of this steel at both the “global” and ‘local’
levels.
122
Figure 5.60 Scanning electron micrographs of the tensile fracture surface of the
longitudinal sample of A572, showing: (a) Overall morphology of failure, cup-and-cone
(b) Fine microscopic voids covering the transgranular fracture region (c) Shallow dimples
intermingled with voids of varying size in region immediate prior to overload (d) Ductile
dimples intermingled with macroscopic and fine microscopic voids in region of overload
123
Figure 5.61 Scanning Electron Micrographs of the tensile fracture surface of the
transverse sample of A572, showing: (a) Overall morphology of failure: cup-and-cone (b)
Transgranular region covered with voids of varying size and shallow dimples (c)
Microvoid coalescence to form microscopic crack that run along the grain boundaries (d)
Population of voids of varying size and shallow pockets of dimples on the overload
fracture surface
124
CHAPTER VI
HIGH CYCLE FATIGUE TESTING ON STRUCTURAL A572 GRADE 50 STEEL
6.1 Introduction
The results of a study aimed at understanding the extrinsic influence of test
specimen orientation, with respect to wrought alloy steel plate, on the stress-controlled
cyclic fatigue properties and fracture behavior of a structural steel is highlighted. The
alloy steel chosen was ASTM A572 grade 50 [80]. Samples of this alloy steel, prepared
from both the longitudinal and transverse orientations, were cyclically deformed over a
range of maximum stress and the corresponding number of cycles to failure (NF) was
recorded. The influence of test specimen orientation and intrinsic microstructural effects
on cyclic fatigue life and fracture behavior is presented and discussed. Overall, the
macroscopic fracture mode was essentially identical regardless of orientation of the
test specimen with respect to the wrought plate. The microscopic mechanisms
governing cyclic deformation, fatigue life and final fracture behavior is presented in light
of the mutually interactive influences of magnitude of applied stress, intrinsic
microstructural effects, orientation of test specimen, and deformation characteristics of
the key microstructural constituents.
125
6.2 Materials and Experimental Procedures
The high cycle fatigue testing procedure for testing the E8 samples in accordance
with the ASTM standards is discussed in this section.
6.2.1 Material and Test Specimen Preparation
The nominal chemical composition of structural ASTM A572, grade 50 [ 8 0 ]
steel chosen for this experimental investigation is summarized in Table 6.21. Due to the
presence of noticeable quantities of carbon and manganese, this steel is categorized as a
“high-carbon, low alloy” steel. This structural steel is considered to be a viable candidate
for beams used in bridges and trusses due to a combination of high strength, adequate
fracture toughness and fatigue resistance [96]. Due to the presence of carbon and other
alloying elements, such as manganese, phosphorous and sulfur, the strength and
hardenability properties of the chosen structural steel A572 arises from the formation,
presence and dispersion of few carbide particles in the microstructure. The carbide
particles not only contribute to enhancing the overall strength, but also provide good
resistance to high temperatures and even resistance to creep. Tensile and fatigue test
specimens were precision machined from plates of A572 alloy steel. The test specimens
were precision machined, such that the major stress axis was parallel to both longitudinal
and transverse directions of the as-provided plate. The cylindrical tests specimens, having
threaded ends, were machined in accordance with procedures detailed in Standard ASTM
E8 [89]. At the gage section, the test specimen measured 3.175 mm in diameter and 12.5
mm in length. In order to reduce the effect of surface irregularities, final surface
preparation was achieved by mechanically polishing the gage section of the test specimens
to remove any and all of the circumferential scratches and surface machining marks.
126
Table 6.21 Chemical composition of A572 steel (in weight percent)
Material C Mn P S
A572 0.25 1.35 0.04 0.05
Samples of the chosen high strength structural steel (taken from both the longitudinal
and transverse orientation of the as-provided plate) were prepared in accordance with
standard procedures used for metallographic preparation of metal samples (Figure 6.62).
This involved coarse polish of the samples using gradually finer grades of silicon carbide
(SiC) impregnated emery paper (i.e., 320-grit, 400-grit and 600- grit) followed by fine
polishing using 5 µm and 1.0 µm alumina-based polishing compound suspended in
distilled water, which acts as a lubricant. The as-polished sample was etched using a
solution mixture of nitric acid in methanol. Etching helped reveal the following: (a) the
grain boundaries, (b) morphology and size of the grains, and (c) other intrinsic features,
such as, location, size, morphology and distribution of second-phase particles through
the microstructure. The polished and etched samples were examined in an optical
microscope, over a range of magnifications, and photographed using standard bright
field illumination technique.
127
Figure 6.62 Optical micrographs showing microstructure of the alloy steel (A572) sample
in the orientations: Longitudinal, and Transverse
6.2.3 Mechanical Testing
Both the tensile and fatigue tests were performed on a fully automated,
servohydraulic INSTRON testing machine equipped with a 100kN load cell. All of the
tests were performed in the room temperature, laboratory air environment (T = 27 C,
Relative Humidity of 55 pct.). An axial 12.5mm gage length clip- on type extensometer
was attached to the test specimen at the gage section using elastic bands. The stress and
strain measurements parallel to the load line and the resultant mechanical properties were
provided as an output by the control unit of the test machine. The stress amplitude-
controlled high cycle fatigue tests were performed using a sinusoidal waveform and in
conformance with procedures outlined in ASTM: E466-07 [110]. All cyclic fatigue tests
were conducted at a constant frequency of 5 Hz, at a load ratio of 0.1 over a range of
stress amplitudes (Δσ /2) to determine the fatigue life (Nf). From the test results, the
following relationships were established:
a) Variation of fatigue life (Nf) with stress amplitude (∆σ/2)

128
b) Variation of fatigue life (Nf) with maximum elastic strain (σ max /E)
c) Variation of fatigue life (Nf) with ratio of maximum stress/yield stress (σmax / σyield)
d) Variation of fatigue life (Nf) with ratio of maximum stress/ultimate tensile strength
[σmax / σUTS]
6.2.4 Fracture and/or Failure-damage Analysis
Fracture surfaces of the cyclically deformed and failed test specimens of the chosen
structural steel (A572) were comprehensively examined in a scanning electron
microscope (SEM), over a range of allowable magnifications, to determine the
following: macroscopic fracture mode, and characterize the fine scale topography and
intrinsic features on the fatigue fracture surface with the objective of delineating the
microscopic mechanisms contributing to failure by fracture.
Samples for observation in the SEM were obtained from the cyclically deformed and
failed test specimens by sectioning parallel to the fracture surface.
6.3 Results & Discussion
This section includes the details of initial micrographs, S-N curves and the scanning
electron micrographs of the failed samples.
The optical microstructure of this high carbon, low alloy steel (A572), is shown in
Figure 6.62. The observed microstructure is typical of the chosen structural steel in that
it reveals the presence of ferrite (lighter shaded regions) and pearlite (dark patches) in
the microstructure. Both the ferrite and pearlite regions were near equiaxed shaped. As
is observed in several other ferrite-pearlite steels, the carbon content and nature of
129
processing spanning both primary processing and secondary processing, determine not
only the grain size but also other intrinsic features in the microstructure. The influence
of carbon on tensile and impact properties has been studied and documented in the
published literature [80]. The ultimate tensile strength gradually increases with an
increase in carbon content. This was attributed to an increase in volume fraction of the
micro-constituent pearlite in the microstructure. The pearlite on account of its high carbon
content has higher strength than the ferrite or “pure” iron regions. Thus, increasing the
volume fraction of pearlite has a beneficial influence in enhancing the strength of the
chosen structural steel [104].
6.3.2 Tensile Properties
The room temperature (27o C) tensile properties of the chosen structural steel A572
steel, for the two orientations (longitudinal and transverse), are summarized in Table 6.22.
The results summarized in this Table are the mean values based on duplicate tests. The
elastic modulus of this alloy steel was 217GPa in the longitudinal (L) orientation and
210 GPa in the transverse (T) orientation. The yield strength of the chosen test sample
was 436 MPa in the longitudinal (L) orientation and 496 MPa in the transverse (T)
orientation. The yield strength in transverse (T) orientation is 14 percent higher than the
yield strength in the longitudinal (L) orientation. For both the longitudinal (L) and
transverse (T) orientations, the ultimate tensile strength (σUTS) was noticeably higher than
the yield strength providing indications of the occurrence of strain hardening beyond
yield. The ultimate tensile strength (σUTS) in the transverse (T) orientation (566MPa) was
12 percent higher than in the longitudinal (L) orientation (503 MPa). The percentage
elongation, which measures ductility over a gage length of 12.5 mm, was 34 percent in
130
the longitudinal (L) orientation and 30 percent in the transverse (T) orientation. The
chosen structural steel (A572) performed better in strength and ductility in the
longitudinal (L) orientation than in the transverse (T) orientation. A comparison of the
engineering stress versus engineering strain curves for the two orientations is shown in
Figure 6.63.
Table 6.22 A compilation of the room temperature (T=250C) tensile properties of the
chosen alloy (A572) [Results are the mean values of several duplicate tests]
Orientation Elastic Yield UTS Elongatio Reductio

Modulus Strength n n in Area
Ksi GPa ks MP Ks MP (%) (%)
i a i a
Longitudina 31478 217. 63 436 73 503 34 44
l 0
Transverse 30484 210. 72 496 82 566 30 45
. 0
131
Figure 6.63 Influence of test specimen orientation on engineering stress versus
engineering strain response for alloy steel (A572) deformed in uniaxial tension at room
temperature (T=25°C)
6.3.3 Cyclic Stress-Amplitude Controlled Fatigue Response
The test results of the stress amplitude-controlled fatigue tests for both the
longitudinal (L) and transverse (T) orientations in the room temperature (27 C),
laboratory air environment (Relative Humidity = 55 pct.) are shown in Figure 6.64 as the
variation of fatigue life (Nf) with maximum stress (σmax). The curves in this figure reveal
a gradual increase in fatigue life (Nf) with decrease in maximum stress (σmax); a trend that
is shown by most ferrous metals and their composite counterparts.
In order to have a better understanding of the variation of stress (σ) with fatigue
life (Nf) of the chosen structural steel (A572), in the two orientations (Longitudinal
and Transverse), and from the standpoint of design, the variation of maximum stress
(σmax) with fatigue life (Nf) is plotted as the variation of maximum elastic strain [σmax/E]
132
with fatigue life (Nf). This is shown in Figure 6.65 and reveals a linear trend. At
equivalent values of maximum elastic strain [σmax/E] the transverse (T) orientation
revealed higher fatigue life than the longitudinal (L) orientation. This clearly reveals both
the role and contribution of intrinsic microstructural features in governing stress (σ) -
fatigue life (Nf) response as a function of test specimen orientation.
From a very liberal design engineering perspective the variation of ratio of
maximum stress to ultimate tensile strength [σmax/ σUTS] with fatigue life (Nf) is shown
in Figure 6.66 for samples that were cyclically deformed at a load ratio of 0.1. This
figure reveals that at equivalent values of the ratio, the longitudinal (L) orientation on
account of its lower ultimate strength has noticeably higher fatigue life than the test
specimen taken from the transverse (T) orientation due essentially to the higher tensile
strength in this direction.
From a very conservative design perspective the variation of fatigue life with the
ratio of maximum stress to tensile yield stress [σmax/ σyield] is plotted and shown in Figure
6.67. At equivalent values of the ratio of maximum stress to yield stress, at the chosen
load ratio of 0.1, the transverse (T) orientation revealed lower fatigue life than the
longitudinal (L) counterpart. This observation is commensurate with the higher yield
strength of the alloy in the transverse orientation.
133
Figure 6.64 Influence of test specimen orientation on variation of maximum stress (σmax )
with fatigue life (Nf) for alloy steel A572 when cyclically deformed at room temperature
(270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1
Figure 6.65 Influence of test specimen orientation on variation of maximum elastic strain
[σmax/E] with fatigue life (Nf) for alloy steel A572 when cyclically deformed at room
temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1
134
Figure 6.66 Influence of test specimen orientation on variation of maximum stress to
yield stress [σmax/ σYS] with fatigue life (Nf) for alloy steel A572 when cyclically
deformed at room temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1

ultimate tensile strength [σmax/ σUTS] with fatigue life (Nf) for alloy steel A572 when
cyclically deformed at room temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1
135
6.4 Cyclic Fracture Behavior- Longitudinal Orientation
Scanning electron micrographs of the fatigue fracture surface of the test specimen
taken from the longitudinal orientation and cyclically deformed at a maximum stress of
442 MPa and having a resultant fatigue life of 232,218 cycles is shown in Figure 6.68. The
overall morphology of failure at the macroscopic level was essentially normal, i.e.,
perpendicular to the far-field applied stress axis ( Figure 6.68a). High magnification
observation of (a) revealed fracture to be microscopically rough at the fine microscopic
level (Figure 6.68b). In the region of unstable crack growth immediately prior to
overload was observed a noticeable array of very fine microscopic cracks (Figure 6.68c).
High magnification observations revealed the region of unstable crack growth to be
relatively smooth and covered with fine microscopic voids that were elongated in the
direction of local shear deformation (Figure 6.68d). The presence of microscopic voids of
varying size is indicative of the occurrence of “locally” operating brittle failure
mechanisms.
The scanning electron microscopy observation of sample of this structural
steel, which was cyclically deformed at a lower maximum stress of 430 MPa and having
a fatigue life of 779,001 cycles, is shown in Figure 6.69. Overall fracture was normal
to the far-field stress axis ( Figure 6.69a ) . High magnification observations of the
fatigue region revealed a coplanar array of fine microscopic cracks in the region of stable
fatigue crack growth ( Figure 6.69b ) . The coplanar array of fine microscopic cracks is
indicative of “locally” operating brittle failure mechanisms. The region of overload
revealed an observable population of fine microscopic voids of varying sizes along with
pockets of shallow dimples. These features are indicative of the “locally” occurring
ductile failure mechanism.
136
6.4.1 Transverse Orientation
Scanning electron microscopy observation of the fatigue fracture surface of the
test sample that was cyclically deformed at a maximum stress of 464MPa with a resultant
fatigue life of 245,146 cycles is shown in Figure 6.70. The overall morphology was flat
and normal to the far-field stress axis revealing distinct regions of fatigue deformation
and overload, as is shown in Figure 6.70a . High magnification observation of the region
of crack initiation revealed fine microscopic cracks Figure 6.70b. High magnification
observations in the fatigue region revealed pockets of shallow striations intermingled
with both fine microscopic and macroscopic cracks. Due to the influence of “local” high
stress intensity, pockets of uniform striations were easily observed in the region of stable
crack growth. With a gradual decrease in maximum stress, the striations tend to disappear
and only a weak band remains indicating the direction of stable crack propagation. The
region of unstable crack growth prior to overload revealed an observable population of
fine microscopic cracks indicative of “locally:” brittle failure (Figure 6.70d).
Scanning electron micrographs of test sample of this alloy steel, which was cyclically
deformed at a lower maximum stress of 445 MPa with a resultant fatigue life of 505,081
cycles, is shown in Figure 6.71. The overall morphology was flat and bimodal (as shown
in Figure 6.71a), i.e., comprising of a smooth region representative of fatigue and a
microscopically rough region representing overload failure. High magnification
observation of the region of crack initiation and early microscopic crack growth revealed
it to be microscopically rough Figure 6.71b. The region of unstable crack growth prior to
overload revealed isolated macroscopic cracks intermingled with a noticeable number
of fine microscopic cracks Figure 6.71c . The region of overload revealed a sizeable
137
population of dimples intermingled with both macroscopic and fine microscopic voids
(Figure 6.71d). These features are clearly indicative of “locally’ occurring ductile failure
mechanisms.
6.5 Conclusions
This study was undertaken with the objective of understanding the specific role of test
specimen orientation on microstructure, tensile properties, cyclic high cycle fatigue
response and final fracture behavior of the chosen high strength low alloy steel A572,
that finds preferential selection and use for a spectrum of structural applications.
Following are the key findings:
1. Microstructure of the as-provided high strength steel revealed the presence of carbon
and alloy rich regions as clearly evident at low magnifications in an optical
microscope. The two key observed micro-constituents are ferrite (lighter shaded
regions) and pearlite (dark patches).
2. The elastic modulus of the chosen A572 alloy steel was 217 GPa in the longitudinal (L)
orientation and 210 GPa in the transverse (T) orientation. The yield strength of the
steel sample was 436 MPa in the longitudinal (L) orientation and 496 MPa in the
transverse (T) orientation. The yield strength in transverse (T) orientation was 14
percent higher than in the longitudinal (L) orientation. The ultimate strength of the
candidate steel (A572) was 566 MPa in the transverse (T) orientation and noticeably
higher than the ultimate tensile strength in the longitudinal (L) orientation (503 MPa).
Indications of strain hardening beyond yield are observable since the tensile strength
is much higher than the yield strength for both the longitudinal (L) and transverse (T)
orientations. The ductility of this steel was marginally higher in the longitudinal
138
orientation (34 pct.) than in the transverse orientation (30 pct.). The higher ductility is
commensurate with the lower strength of this steel in the longitudinal (L) orientation
3. Based on the variation of maximum stress with fatigue life (Nf), it reveals that for both
the longitudinal and transverse orientations, at a load ratio of 0.1, there was a uniform
decrease in fatigue life with an increase in maximum stress.
4. As a part of this study, the fatigue life was studied as a function of: (i) maximum elastic
strain, (ii) the ratio of maximum stress to yield stress, and (iii) the ratio of maximum
stress to ultimate tensile strength. At equivalent values of maximum elastic strain
[σmaximum /E] the transverse (T) orientation has higher fatigue life than the
longitudinal (L) orientation. Variation of ratio of maximum stress to ultimate tensile
strength with fatigue life reveals that at equivalent values of the ratio, the longitudinal
(L) orientation on account of its lower tensile strength has noticeably higher fatigue life
than the test specimen taken from the transverse (T) orientation due essentially to the
higher tensile strength in this direction. At equivalent values of the ratio of maximum
stress/yield stress, at the chosen load ratio of 0.1, the transverse (T) orientation revealed
lower fatigue life than the longitudinal (L) counterpart). This observation is
commensurate with the higher yield strength of the alloy in the transverse (T) orientation
5. SEM (Scanning Electron Microscopy) observation of the cyclically deformed and
failed fatigue fracture surfaces revealed noticeable variations in the nature, volume
fraction and presence of fine microscopic features. Both the longitudinal and
transverse orientations revealed only minimal difference in the overall morphology
of failure. The region of unstable crack growth revealed an observable population of
voids and dimples indicative of the ‘locally’ operating ductile failure mechanisms
139
for both the longitudinal (L) and transverse orientations. For test specimens taken
from the transverse orientation that were cyclically deformed, the region of crack
growth revealed pockets of fine and shallow striations reminiscent of “locally”
acting microplastic deformation.
140
Figure 6.68 Scanning electron micrographs of the longitudinal test sample of A572 steel
cylindrically deformed at a maximum stress of 442 MPa and a fatigue life of 232,218
cycles showing: (a) Overall morphology of failure normal to stress axis (b) High
magnification observation of the fatigue region showing microscopically rough fracture
surface (c) An array of fine microscopic cracks in the region of unstable crack growth. (d)
Elongated nature of microscopic voids in the region of unstable crack Growth prior to
overload
141
Figure 6.69 Scanning electron micrographs of the longitudinal test sample of A572 steel
cycles showing: (a) Overall morphology of failure normal to stress axis (b) Population of
shallow dimples intermingled with microscopic voids in the region of overload (c)
Coplanar array of fine microscopic cracks in region of unstable crack growth. (d) High
magnification of macro cracking in the fatigue region.
142
Figure 6.70 Scanning electron micrographs of the transverse test sample of A572 steel
cycles showing: (a) Overall morphology of failure (b) Fine microscopic cracks and some
macroscopic cracks (c) Coplanar array of fine microscopic cracks in region of unstable
crack growth. (d) High magnification of striations intermingled with microscopic cracks
and macro cracking in the fatigue region.
143
Figure 6.71 Scanning electron micrographs of the transverse test sample of A572 steel
cycles showing: (a) Overall morphology of failure (b) High magnification observation of
the region of stable crack growth. (c) High magnification of macro crack in the fatigue
region. (d) Population of shallow dimples intermingled with microscopic voids in the
region of overload
144
CHAPTER VII
EFFECT OF CORROSION ON THE TENSILE STRENGTH AND FATIGUE LIFE OF A572
STEEL
7.1 Introduction
Corrosion often occurs in structural steel as an electrochemical process which leads
to gradual mass loss over time under prolonged exposure to its surrounding corrosive
environment. Immediate effects of corrosion include reduction of the cross section which
in turn reduces the stiffness and load carrying capacity of the components in a structure
such as a bridge or a stiffened panel. However, like in other types of steel, A572 is also
vulnerable to the effects of corrosion owing to its chemical composition. This section will
include the details of tests conducted to determine the fatigue properties of A572 steel
after inducing uniform corrosion. Flat (rectangular dog-bone shaped) specimens
conforming to the specifications given in ASTM E8 standard are being used in this study.
A technique that was developed by the ASTM and General Motors (GM) called
GMW14872 [97] for a controlled corrosion process based on spray techniques is being
used to induce accelerated corrosion on the test specimens in an environmental chamber.
High cycle fatigue tests were conducted on corroded test specimens and compared with
as-new specimens. The influence of test specimen orientation and microstructural effects
on the fatigue life and fracture behavior were also studied.
145
Figure 7.72 The ASTM E8 test specimens
7.2 The GMW14872 Laboratory Corrosion Test
The GMW14872 procedure is an accelerated laboratory corrosion test that can be
used to evaluate the corrosion properties of selected metals [97]. Concentration of the salt
solution, temperature, and humidity are the three key factors that have been carefully
considered to be both important and governing in conducting an accelerated corrosion
test on metallic materials. This procedure [i.e. GMW14872] is an effective method to
cautiously evaluate different types of corrosion spanning the domains of general
(uniform) corrosion to crevice corrosion and including galvanic corrosion. This procedure
was performed, under cyclic conditions, in an environmental chamber (shown in Figure
7.73) using a controlled concentration of salt solution, temperature and humidity level.
The individual parameters can be varied, in an environmental chamber, so as to achieve
the desired level of corrosion in a reasonable period of time. The test was run in cycles,
with each cycle programmed to last for 24 hours. The required loss of material, if any,
experienced by the test specimens was obtained following a targeted exposure time to
the aggressive environment. In this study, two cycles of exposure times chosen are: (i) 7
days, and (ii) 14 days.
146
Figure 7.73 The test chamber used for artificially corroding A572 test specimens for
specified period under respective temperature and humidity controlled environment
The test is run in terms of a cycle. Each cycle represents 24 hrs. (1 day) of
testing. The required coupon mass loss is obtained by a targeted exposure time. In
this case, 5 cycles of exposure is carried out.
7.3 Salt solution preparation
The testing solution is prepared in percent (%) by mass as follows:
• Sodium Chloride (NaCl): 0.9
• Calcium Chloride (CaCl2): 0.1
• Sodium Bicarbonate (NaHCO3): 0.075
The sodium chloride (NaCl) used is of the reagent type or food grade. The calcium chloride
(CaCl2) used was also of the reagent type and the sodium bicarbonate chosen for purpose
of use was regular baking soda. The CaCl2 and NaHCO3 chemicals were dissolved
independently in water and then added to a solution of sodium chloride. The prepared
salt solution is stored in a spray bottle and later used to spray the required amount of
solution onto the surface of the coupons. Care should be taken to spray the solution as
uniform as possible.
147
7.4 Coupon initial cleaning
• The coupons are first washed with a required amount of acetone to remove
any dye or paint on the surface of the metal. This is followed by rinsing with
distilled water, drying the coupon with a lint free towel and light scrubbing.
• The samples will then have the surfaces touched up with 600 grit sand paper
to remove all oil, mill scale and/or corrosion products that could be currently
on them. After that, they need to be labeled, taped, thicknesses measured and
weighed.
• It is critical that all forming or preservation oils/lubes be removed prior to
exposure to allow for general/uniform corrosion of the coupon. This process
can be aided by using a commercial grade degreaser prior to methanol or
acetone clean.
7.5 Post-corrosion cleaning
According to ASTM [35], the procedures involved in cleaning the corrosion
product after the corrosion process can be mainly categorized as: mechanical, chemical
and electrolytic. However, the scope of this research is limited to chemical method of
removal of corrosion product.
An ideal procedure should remove only corrosion products and not result in removal of
any base metal. To determine the mass loss of the base metal when removing corrosion
products, replicate uncorroded control specimens should be cleaned by the same
procedure being used on the test specimen. By weighing the control specimen before and
after cleaning, the extent of metal loss resulting from cleaning can be utilized to correct
the corrosion mass loss.
148
• It is critical that all forming or preservation oils/lubes be removed prior to
exposure to allow for general/uniform corrosion of the coupon. This process
can be aided by using a commercial grade degreaser prior to methanol or
acetone clean.
7.6 Post-corrosion cleaning
According to ASTM [35], the procedures involved in cleaning the corrosion
product after the corrosion process can be mainly categorized as: mechanical, chemical
and electrolytic. However, the scope of this research is limited to chemical method of
removal of corrosion product.
An ideal procedure should remove only corrosion products and not result in removal of
any base metal. To determine the mass loss of the base metal when removing corrosion
products, replicate uncorroded control specimens should be cleaned by the same
procedure being used on the test specimen. By weighing the control specimen before and
after cleaning, the extent of metal loss resulting from cleaning can be utilized to correct
the corrosion mass loss.
Chemical procedures involve immersion of the corrosion test specimen in a
specific solution that is designed to remove the corrosion products with minimal
dissolution of any base metal. Several procedures are listed in ASTM. The choice of
chemical procedure to be used is partly a matter of trial and error to establish the most
effective method for a specific metal and type of corrosion product scale. C 3.2 corrosion
procedure was employed in this study for cleaning purposes. The description of this
cleaning procedure is shown in Table 7.23. The effect of different cleaning procedures
on the tensile strength of ASTM E8 cylindrical samples is shown in Figure 7.79.
149
Table 7.23 Chemical cleaning procedure for removal of corrosion products
Designation Material Solution Time Temperature Remarks
Caution
should be
50 g NaOH
exercised in
200g
the use of any
granulated zinc
Iron and 30 to 40 zinc dust
C 3.2 or zinc chips 80 to 900C
Steel mins since
Reagent water
spontaneous
to make 1000
ignition upon
mL
exposure to
air can occur.
7.7 Coupon Rack Preparation
Prior to the start of the test, the coupon rack was prepared with sufficient
coupons to monitor the test. For this particular test, two racks are used. The rack for the
rectangular coupons have angled slots to make sure that the test solution stays on the
surface without having it to run down which aids in a uniform corrosion of the metal.
The rack used for the cylindrical specimens is shown in Figure 7.74
Figure 7.74 The coupon racks
150
7.8 The GMW14872 Testing Procedure
The flow chart shown in Figure 7.75 describes the steps followed for the testing. The
cycle is repeated everyday as necessary until the test exposure requirements are met.
The testing can also be continued throughout weekends as well to decrease the overall
test time provided that the number of cycles and mass loss requirements are met.
For each salt mist application, use the spray apparatus was used to mist the
samples and coupons until all areas are thoroughly wet/dripping. The quantity of spray
applied should be sufficient to visibly rinse away salt accumulation left from previous
sprays. The first salt mist application occurs at the beginning of the ambient stage.
Each subsequent salt mist application should occur approximately an hour and a half
after the previous application in order to allow adequate time for test samples to dry. At
the end of each cycle (24 hrs), the coupons are removed from the testing chamber,
washed with De-ionized water (DI water) and sprayed with the testing solution and put
back into the chamber. The different stages as shown in the flow diagram is
automatically controlled by the testing chamber.
Figure 7.75 GMW14872 Test flow diagram [97]
151
7.9 Test Documentation
Pictures were taken along the corrosion process (Figure 7.76) whenever the
specimens were removed for cleaning process for keeping a catalogue. As seen in the
pictures, the ends of the specimens are taped with a corrosion resistant adhesive so that
the “grips” will be unaffected for the purpose of mechanical testing.
Figure 7.76 Test specimens in their as-new and corroded states.
7.10 Corrosion Rate
The corrosion rates were determined in accordance with the ASTM specifications
[35]. The initial total surface area of the specimen (making corrections for the areas
associated with mounting holes) and the mass lost during the test are determined. The
average corrosion rate may then be obtained theoretically as follows:
𝐊𝐊 ∗ 𝐖𝐖
𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂 𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑 =
𝐀𝐀 ∗ 𝐓𝐓 ∗ 𝐃𝐃
152
Where,
K = A constant (Refer Table 7.24)
T = Time of exposure in hours,
A = Area in cm2
W = Mass loss in grams, and
D = Density in g/cm3
Many different units are used to express corrosion rates. Table 7.24 gives the values of K
for expressing corrosion rate, depending on the units desired.
Table 7.24 Values of K for use in the ASTM corrosion rate equation
Corrosion Rate Units Desired Constant (K) in Corrosion Rate Equation
mils per year (mpy) 3.45 x 106
inches per year (ipy) 3.45 x 103
millimeters per year (mm/y) 2.87 x 102
micrometers per year (um/y) 8.76 x 104
picometers per second (pm/s) 8.76 x 107
The following are the corrosion rates of cylindrical and flat samples after they were
exposed to 7 days and 14 days respectively. As expected, the rates were comparatively
higher for 14 days exposure.
Cylindrical samples:
Average Corrosion Rate for Longitudinal specimen (7 days) = 0.026 ipy
153
Average Corrosion Rate for Transverse specimen (7 days) = 0.027 ipy
Flat samples:
7.11 Mechanical Testing
A series of uniaxial tensile and high cycle fatigue tests were performed on standard
ASTM cylindrical and rectangular specimens which were subjected to one week and two
week exposure within the GMW testing chamber respectively as described in the testing
procedure. During the study, the effect of testing orientation (longitudinal and
transverse) was also studied and presented. After the failure of these specimens, the
SEM (Scanning Electron Microscopy) micrographs of the failed specimens were made
use of to relate the pitting dimensions such as pit diameter and width.
The details of the tensile response in both orientations (longitudinal and transverse)
and high cycle fatigue response of A572 samples is discussed in this section.
7.12.1 Tensile Response
The tensile properties for both the longitudinal and transverse orientations for the
154
chosen structural steel, for the two different exposure times chosen, i.e., 7 days and 14
days, are summarized in Table 7.25. Results reported are the mean values based on
duplicate tests.
7.12.2 Fatigue Response
The S-N curves and the corresponding relationships were established for samples
exposed to 7 and 14 days respectively and compared with uncorroded specimens. The
variation of stress (σ) with fatigue life (Nf) for ASTM A572 steel, in the two orientations
[Longitudinal (L) and Transverse (T)] and the variation of maximum stress (σmax) with
fatigue life (Nf) are plotted as the variation of maximum elastic strain [σmax /E] with fatigue
life (Nf) for 7 and 14 days exposure. These are shown in Figure 7.85, Figure 7.86, Figure
7.89, Figure 7.90, Figure 7.93 and Figure 7.94. At equivalent values of maximum elastic
strain [σmax/E] the transverse (T) orientation has lower fatigue life than the longitudinal
(L) orientation for uncorroded specimens.
The variation of ratio of maximum stress to ultimate tensile strength [σmax/ σUTS]
with fatigue life (Nf) for all the specimens are shown in Figure 7.88, Figure 7.92 and
Figure 7.96 that were cyclically deformed at a load ratio of 0.1. This figure reveals that
at equivalent values of the ratio, the longitudinal (L) orientation on account of its lower
ultimate strength has noticeably higher fatigue life than the transverse (T) orientation.
The variation of fatigue life with the ratio of maximum stress to tensile yield stress [σmax/
σyield] are plotted and shown in Figure 7.87, Figure 7.91 and Figure 7.95. At equivalent
values of the ratio of maximum stress to yield stress, at the chosen load ratio of 0.1, the
transverse (T) orientation has lower fatigue life than the longitudinal (L) orientation.
Higher yield strength was observed in the transverse orientation.
155
For testing in laboratory air and the two chosen exposure times; that is, 7-day
exposure and 14-day exposure, the yield strength and ultimate tensile strength were fairly
consistent in both the longitudinal (L) and transverse (T) orientations. In both
orientations, i.e., L and T, the tensile strength was higher than the yield strength
indicating the occurrence of strain hardening beyond yield. The yield strength and tensile
strength of the chosen alloy steel marginally decreased in comparison to the values in
laboratory air (270C) following exposure for 7-days and 14-days to the aggressive
aqueous environment.
For a fixed exposure time to the environment, the elongation was fairly
consistent in both the longitudinal (L) and transverse (T) orientations. Time of exposure
to the aggressive aqueous environment was observed to have minimal influence on
ductility, quantified by elongation over gage length of 12.5 mm, of the chosen alloy
steel. Reduction in test specimen cross-section area, another measure of ductility, was
identical in both the longitudinal (L) and transverse (T) orientations, for a given exposure
time to the environment. Further, the reduction in test specimen cross-section area was
observed to decrease for both the longitudinal (L) and transverse (T) orientations with
increased exposure to the aggressive aqueous environment when compared to the value
obtained from tests done in laboratory air environment. Influence of exposure time to
environment on engineering stress versus engineering strain response for both the
longitudinal and transverse orientations are shown in Figure 7.77 and Figure 7.78.
156
600
500
Engineering Stress (MPa)

400
300
Uncorroded 7 Days
Exposure
200
100
14 Days
Exposure
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Engineering Strain
Figure 7.77 Engineering stress vs engineering strain for A572 longitudinal specimens
comparing the corroded specimens with the as-new sample
600
500
Engineering Stress (MPa)
400
300
Uncorroded
200 7 days exposure
14 days exposure
100
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Engineering Strain
Figure 7.78 Engineering stress vs engineering strain for A572 transverse specimens
comparing the corroded specimens with the as-new sample
157
Figure 7.79 Effect of ASTM cleaning procedures on the tensile strength of A572 steel
Table 7.25 Uniaxial tensile properties of Structural Steel A572 for the two different
exposure times and no-exposure
Elastic Yield Reduction

Exposure UTS Elongation
Modulus Strength in Area
Condition Orientation (%)
Ksi GPa ksi MPa Ksi MPa (%)
Longitudinal 30457 210 62 430 73 505 27 41
No
Exposure Transverse 30312 209 65 447 75 516 28 41
Longitudinal 30167 208 57 396 68 473 25 33

7-Day
Longitudinal 30167 208 60 416 72 495 26 23

14-Day
158
7.12.3 Tensile Fracture Behavior
The fracture characteristics of the chosen alloy steel exposed to corrosion is
studied in both orientations and discussed below in detail.
7.12.4 As-Provided: No Exposure to Environment
In both the longitudinal (L) orientation (Figure 7.80a) and transverse (T)
orientation (Figure 7.81a) scanning electron microscopy observations revealed
essentially a cup-and-cone morphology indicative of globally ductile failure. High
magnification observation of the fracture surface revealed isolated macroscopic cracks
intermingled with voids of varying size. In fact, formation of voids surrounded by
dimples of varying size and near-equiaxed shape was evident around the second-phase
inclusions (Figure 7.81b). These features are indicative of ‘locally’ operating brittle and
ductile failure mechanisms. The region of overload revealed a sizeable population of
voids of varying size along with dimples. During far-field loading, the very fine
microscopic voids coalescence to form fine microscopic cracks (Figure 7.80),
indicative of both ductile and brittle failure mechanisms.
7.12.5 Exposure to Corrosive Environment: 7 days
Following 7-day exposure to the chosen aggressive aqueous environment, both the
longitudinal (L) orientation (Figure 7.82a) and transverse (T) orientation (Figure 7.83a)
also revealed a typical cup-and-cone morphology of failure, indicative of globally ductile
failure. High magnification observation of the tensile fracture surface revealed an
observable population of voids of varying size and dimples adjacent to both the
macroscopic and fine microscopic cracks (Figure 7.82). These features are indicative
of “locally” operating ductile and brittle failure mechanisms. In the region approaching
159
overload the very fine microscopic voids coalesce to form macroscopic cracks. At
isolated regions through the fracture surface traces of corrosion-related debris was
evident (Figure 7.82).
7.12.6 Exposure to Corrosive Environment: 14 days
High magnification observation of the fracture surface of the test specimen
that was exposed 14-days to the chosen aggressive aqueous environment revealed a
distinct cup-and-cone morphology suggesting the dominance of globally ductile failure
Figure 7.83 and Figure 7.84. High magnification observation revealed a sizeable
population of voids with void growth and coalescence to form fine microscopic cracks
(Figure 7.84) and intermingled with dimples; features indicative of “locally” operating
brittle and ductile failure mechanisms. The region approaching overload revealed
microvoid coalescence to form microscopic crack and a sizeable population of dimples.
7.13 Stress-Environment-Microstructure Interactions
During far field loading in tension the coarse and intermediate size second-phase particles
distributed through the microstructure of this high strength alloy steel assists in the
early or premature initiation of fine microscopic voids. This is particularly favored to
occur when the local strain at the matrix (microstructure)-second-phase particle interface
reaches a critical value and is exacerbated by material- environment interactions, which
is referred as occurrence of corrosion of the surface at the fine microscopic level. The
initiation of void at the coarse second-phase particle occurs immediately following
yielding at low values of plastic strain. During far-field loading in simple tension several
of the second-phase particles either fractured or simply decohered on account of their
intrinsic brittleness. This is easily evident by material-environment interactions.
160
Continued or rapid extension of the crack is favored to occur at the prevailing high
stress intensities. The presence of a sizeable population of both macroscopic and fine
microscopic voids is detrimental to overall ductility of this alloy steel.
Since the voids are intrinsically softer than the hardened grains in the
microstructure, the local strain is significantly elevated both at and around the region of
a microscopic void enabling conditions that facilitate an increase in their volume fraction.
During continued loading in the tensile stress direction the fine microscopic voids tend
to gradually elongate. The elongated voids grow and eventually coalesce by the
mechanism of formation of void sheets resulting in fine microscopic cracks.
7.13 Conclusions
The following are the key highlights of this study aimed at investigating and
understanding the role of exposure to an aggressive aqueous environment on tensile
response of annealed alloy steel, which is widely chosen for use in structural
applications.
1 For the as-provided alloy there was little to no difference in yield strength and
tensile strength for both the longitudinal and transverse orientations. Further, the
ductility, quantified by elongation and reduction in cross-sectional area, was
identical in the two orientations.
2 For the longitudinal (L) orientation exposure of the alloy samples to the
aggressive aqueous environment resulted in only a marginal decrease in both yield
strength and ultimate tensile strength when compared to properties or strength of
the as-provided, unexposed condition. Elongation did reveal minimal difference
161
with exposure to the environment for 7 days and 14 days. There was an observable
decrease in reduction in area with increased time of exposure to the aggressive
aqueous environment.
3 For the transverse orientation both yield strength and tensile strength deceased
with increase in exposure time to the aggressive environment. The decrease in
yield strength was as high as 15 percent while the decrease in tensile strength
was as high as 10%. Increased exposure time to environment was observed to
have minimal influence on elongation. With increased exposure time to the
environment reduction in cross-section area revealed observable decrease when
compared with the as-provided unexposed material.
4 For a given orientation macroscopic fracture mode was essentially cup-and-
cone for both the unexposed and exposed samples, indicative of globally ductile
failure. At progressively higher magnifications the fracture surface revealed a
sizeable population of voids of varying size and dimples of varying shape
intermingled with isolated microscopic cracks. These features are indicative
of the predominantly prevalent locally ductile failure mechanisms with trace
amounts of brittle failure.
5 At a given value of maximum stress, test specimens taken from the Longitudinal
[L] orientation had noticeably lower cyclic fatigue life than the test specimens
machined from the transverse [T] orientation. This can essentially be attributed to
the presence and role of high angle and low angle grain boundaries and other
intrinsic microstructural constituents.
6 The noticeable Inferior high cycle fatigue resistance for the test specimens of the
162
alloy taken from the longitudinal [L] orientation when compared one-on-one with
the transverse [T] counterpart is evident at all values of the ratio, when taking the
ratio of maximum stress to yield stress, and maximum stress to ultimate tensile
strength of the chosen alloy steel (A572) in the specific orientation.
7 For test specimens taken from both the Longitudinal [L] and transverse [T]
orientations, that were exposed for 168 hours (7 days) to the environment prior to
cyclic fatigue testing, the test specimens taken from the longitudinal [L]
orientation of the alloy steel plate had an order of magnitude lower fatigue life
than the test specimens prepared from the transverse orientation.
8 For test specimens of alloy steel A572 taken from both the longitudinal [L] and
transverse [T] orientations and exposed for 14 full days to the aggressive
environment prior to cyclic fatigue testing, both orientations show a trend of
increase in fatigue life with decreasing in maximum stress.
163
Figure 7.80 Scanning electron micrographs of the tensile fracture surface of non-corroded
test sample of alloy steel A572 from longitudinal orientation showing: (a) A sizeable
population of voids of varying size and shape intermingled with dimples at higher
magnifications of the tensile fracture surface. (b) In the region of tensile overload
microvoid coalescence to form fine microscopic crack
164
Figure 7.81 Scanning electron micrographs of the tensile fracture surface of transverse
non-corroded sample of alloy steel A572 showing: (a) A sizeable population of fine
microscopic voids of varying size intermingled with dimples (b) Intergranular cracking
in the region prior to overload (c) Voids of varying size intermingled with dimples
covering the overload fracture surface
165
Figure 7.82 Scanning electron micrographs of the tensile fracture surface of sample of
longitudinal orientation of alloy steel A572 exposed to 7 days to the aggressive aqueous
environment and resultant degradation, showing: (a) Overall morphology of failure
indicative of globally ductile (b) High magnification observation of the region of fracture
surface revealing a network of fine microscopic cracks (c) Fine microscopic voids
coalesce to form a microscopic crack
166
Figure 7.83 Scanning electron micrographs of the tensile fracture surface of longitudinal
sample of A572 exposed for 14 days to the aggressive aqueous environment and resultant
degradation, showing: (a) A sizeable population of fine microscopic voids intermingled
with dimples observed on the tensile fracture surface at higher magnification. Features
indicative of locally ductile failure (b) High magnification observation of the region of
fracture surface prior to overload revealing void growth and eventual coalescence to form
fine microscopic cracks
167
Figure 7.84 Scanning electron micrographs of the tensile fracture surface of transverse
sample of A572 exposed for 14 days to the aggressive aqueous environmental
deterioration, showing: (a) High magnification observation of the tensile fracture surface
revealing an observable population of voids of varying size intermingled with an array of
dimples. (b) Formation of macroscopic voids at the coarse second-phase particles
distributed through the microstructure
168
(270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1 for uncorroded specimens.
temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1 for uncorroded specimens.
169
deformed at room temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1 for uncorroded specimens

cyclically deformed at room temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1 for uncorroded
specimens
170
(270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1 for specimens exposed to 7 days.
temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1 for specimens exposed to 7 days.
171
deformed at room temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1 for specimens exposed to
7 days

cyclically deformed at room temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1 for specimens
exposed to 7 days
172
(270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1 for specimens exposed to 14 days.
temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1 for specimens exposed to 14 days.
173
deformed at room temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1 for specimens exposed to
14 days

cyclically deformed at room temperature (270C) and at a load ratio of 0.1 for specimens
exposed to 14 days
174
CHAPTER VIII
COMPRESSION BUCKLING OF 7075-T6 ALUMINUM SKIN STIFFENED PANELS- A
FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH
8.1 Introduction
The 7075-T6 aluminum alloy due to its high strength is widely used as highly
stressed structural parts. These stiffened panels find applications on aircraft fittings, gears
and shafts, fuse parts and other commercial aircraft, aerospace and defense equipment.
Conventionally, rivets are used to join stiffeners to the skin. However, due to recent
developments, friction stir welding may be used as a replacement to riveted joints. Friction
stir welding being a relatively new joining technique in the aerospace industry, can be
extensively used to join high-strength aerospace aluminum alloys like 7075-T6 and
other metallic alloys which otherwise could be difficult to weld by conventional welding
techniques. This type of welding (Figure 8.97) was first introduced by TWI (The Welding
Institute) almost 14 years ago. Friction stir welding is a solid-state process i.e. the
objects are joined without reaching the melting point.
Various previous research performed on FSW to study the buckling behavior
evaluated the potential of FSW to replace riveting fabrication methods. The important
conclusion that these studies found were that the buckling load of FSW panels were
greater than that of riveted panels.
175
Based on the experimental procedure which has already been conducted on 7075-
T6 aluminum skin stiffened panels fabricated by friction stir welding, this particular
part of research focuses on the application of the finite element analysis to evaluate the
buckling behavior in an attempt to utilize the approach for skin stiffened panels.
In this chapter, linear buckling analysis t h a t was carried out using a standard
finite element analysis package on bent 7075-T6 aluminum sheets (stiffeners)
connected to a flat 7075-T6 aluminum sheet is described.
Two similar models were created, differing in the type of connection between
the bent and flat panels. The compression test results and the buckling modes of
the panels are presented in this section. The failure loads obtained from this finite
element procedure was compared with the experimental results. It was seen that the
failure loads of the friction stir welded test panels were within 5% as that obtained from
the experiments and the failure load of the riveted panel was within 3%. As a part of an
extended study, a sample hand calculation is included for compression of the skin
stiffened panel assuming with and without slender elements.
Figure 8.97 Friction stir welding technique diagram [114]
176
8.2 Finite Element/Test Panel
The finite element analysis procedure for the two stiffened panels is discussed in
details. Similar configuration is adopted as used in the experimental study. [114]
8.3 Element Type and Meshing
The numerical model presented here in this study has been developed in close lines
as that used in the actual experimental test. Since this study is centered on the comparison
between the friction stir welding and riveted connections, the contact properties are an
important part and will be discussed in detail in the section on “contact properties”.
Three models were analyzed, two with FSW and one with riveted connection. The
finite element analysis has been performed using the commercial software Abaqus. All
the components forming the panel are modeled using a shell element (S4) available in
the Abaqus library, accounting for the small thickness of the panels. Shell elements are
used to model structures in which one dimension, the thickness, is significantly smaller
than the other dimensions. The 4 in S4 indicates the number of nodes that each element
comprises of. S4 can be used for problems prone to membrane- or bending-mode, in areas
where greater solution accuracy is required, or for problems where in-plane and out-of
plane bending is expected as is the case in this study. Overview of the Finite element
models developed for this study together with their relevant coordinate systems
177
Figure 8.98 Typical cross-sectional details of one of the test panels
8.4 Boundary conditions and load arrangements
The details included in the FE model reflect as much as possible the boundary
conditions and load arrangements adopted when performing the lab experiment. Based
on the test arrangement used in the actual test, it can be seen that the test panels are
tested in similarity with a column tested for compression. In that, one end of the panels
is fixed and the other end is loaded vertically. The fixity in finite element analysis
indicates that the displacements and rotations are restrained in all two directions i.e. X,
Y and allowing it to move in the Z direction. As already discussed in the “element”
section, since the S4 element is used for the purpose of performing the Eigen value
buckling on the panel, edge loads are applied on the top edge of one of the ends of the
panel in the negative Z direction (along the direction of the panel). An initial application
load of 100 lb or 1 Kip is applied in order to obtain the initial buckling loads.
8.5 Contact properties
The adequacy and stability of a FE model describing the behavior of aluminum
panels comparing two connections, is highly influenced by the definition of adequate
contact properties between the flat and the bent panels. The two types of contacts
included in the FE model are outlined below.
178
In order to simulate the friction stir welding between the flat and the bent panels,
a small strip which was approximately half inch wide and equal to the length of the
panel was considered on both the surfaces where the panels would come in contact to each
other. Here, surface-to-surface interaction property available in Abaqus is used to
describe the interface (FSW) behavior between the flat and bent panels. Here an
important assumption is made where in, the material property of the FSW is same as
that of the both panels which will be discussed later under the sub-heading “summary
of material properties”. This is implemented using the HARD contact property to
closely depict action of the FSW. The TIE constraint is specified to connect both the
surfaces and to make them act as one during the analysis. Similar procedure is followed
for the simulation of riveting action too. But instead of tying the entire strip-length of the
surface, only certain nodes on both the surfaces are tied using a TIE constraint,
considering appropriate rivet spacing and diameter.
8.6 Design Equations
In this section, a summary of selected strength models that are deemed suitable
for design formats according to various literature review is presented. These strength
models are for longitudinally stiffened panels subjected to uniaxial compression
concurrent to the loading conditions used for this study of skin stiffened panels. The
following guidelines are used to calculate the limit states of a longitudinally stiffened
panel under uniaxial compression:
1. API (American Petroleum Institute) Bulletin 2V- Design of Flat Plate Structures
2. ABS (American Bureau of Shipping) 2004- Guide for Buckling and
Ultimate Strength Assessment of Offshore Structures
179
Nomenclature
American Petroleum Institute (API)
fu = ultimate limit state, psi
FY = minimum specified yield stress of material, psi
B = plate width, in
t = plate thickness, in
E = modulus of elasticity, psi
υ = Poisson’s ratio, 0.3 for steel
For more information, refer to API Bulletin 2V [116].
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS)
σ𝑥𝑥 =Calculated average compressive stress in longitudinal direction, psi
σ𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 =Critical buckling stress for uniaxial compression in the longitudinal direction, psi
Pr = proportional linear elastic limit of the structure, which may be taken as 0.6 for steel
σ𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = elastic buckling stress in the longitudinal direction, psi
k 𝑥𝑥 = 4 for l/b>1
D𝑥𝑥 = Flexural Rigidity in the longitudinal direction of the entire panel
D𝑌𝑌 = Flexural Rigidity in the transverse direction for plate only
I𝑋𝑋 = Moment of inertia of the stiffener with the effective plate in the longitudinal direction
α = aspect ratio of the whole plate = 2
E = modulus of elasticity, psi
σ0 = specified minimum yield point of plate = 50ksi for ASTM A572 plate
t 𝑥𝑥 = Equivalent thickness of the plate and stiffener in the longitudinal direction
S𝑥𝑥 = Spacing of stiffeners
180
t = Thickness of plate, in
A𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = Sectional area of stiffeners excluding the plate
For more information, refer to ABS (2004) [117].
A uniaxially stiffened panel subjected to an applied in-plane compressive stress
acting in the same direction as the stiffeners is considered here. The ultimate limit state
is reached when the applied in-plane compressive stress f equals fu. The allowable
in-plane compressive stress is obtained by dividing the limit state fu by the appropriate
Factor of Safety (FOS).
Ultimate Limit State (API)
𝑓𝑓𝑢𝑢 = 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 , 𝜆𝜆̅ < 0.5
𝑓𝑓𝑢𝑢 = 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 �1.5 − 𝜆𝜆̅�, 0.5 < 𝜆𝜆̅ < 1.0
0.5
𝑓𝑓𝑢𝑢 = 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 � �, 𝜆𝜆̅ > 1.0
𝜆𝜆̅
Where,
𝐵𝐵 1 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 12(1 − 𝑣𝑣 2 )
𝜆𝜆̅ = � � �
𝑡𝑡 𝜋𝜋 𝐸𝐸 𝑘𝑘
𝑘𝑘 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚. (𝑘𝑘𝑅𝑅 , 𝑘𝑘𝐹𝐹 )
𝑘𝑘𝑅𝑅 = 4𝑛𝑛2
Where, n= number of sub-panels (individual plates)
(1 + 𝛼𝛼 2 )2 + 𝑛𝑛Ƴ 1�
𝑘𝑘𝐹𝐹 = , 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖, 𝛼𝛼 ≤ (1 + 𝑛𝑛Ƴ) 4
𝛼𝛼 2 (1 + 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛)
2(1 + √1 + 𝑛𝑛Ƴ) 1�
𝑘𝑘𝐹𝐹 = , 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖, 𝛼𝛼 ≥ (1 + 𝑛𝑛Ƴ) 4
1 + 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛
181
Where,
𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠
𝛿𝛿 =
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
and,
12(1 − Ƴ2 ) 𝐼𝐼𝑠𝑠
Ƴ= � �
𝑡𝑡 3 𝑑𝑑
𝛼𝛼 = aspect ratio of whole panel,
Is = Moment of inertia of one stiffener about the axis parallel
to the plate surfaceat the base of the stiffener
t = plate thickness
d = spacing between stiffeners
Overall Buckling Limit State (ABS)
The overall buckling strength of the entire stiffened panels is to satisfy the following
equation with respect to the uniaxial compression:

2
σx
� � ≤1
ησgx
σex if σex ≤ Pr σ0
σgx = � σ0
σ0 �1 − Pr (1 − Pr ) if σex ≥ Pr σ0
σex
K x π2 (Dx Dy )1/2
σex =
txb2
(𝑆𝑆𝑥𝑥 𝑡𝑡 + 𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 )
𝑡𝑡𝑥𝑥 =
𝑆𝑆𝑥𝑥
𝜎𝜎𝑥𝑥 = 𝜂𝜂𝜎𝜎𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
Critical buckling load
182
Px = Asx σx
Figure 8.99 Typical finite element model for FSW and riveted connections.
8.7 Summary of material properties
The material properties used for 7075-T6 aluminum in the finite element
analysis is summarized in Table 8.26. As mentioned earlier, the material properties for
the connections i.e FSW and riveting are assumed to have the same properties as the
panel. The following data was obtained from a related theoretical work [118].
Table 8.26 Input for material properties in ABAQUS* [115]
183
Material Parameter Values
Compressive Yield Stress

69,000 psi
(fy)
7075-T6 Aluminum
Poisson’s ratio (µ) 0.33
Modulus of Elasticity (E) 10.5x106psi
8.8 Results
After performing a linear-Eigen value buckling analysis on both the models, the
following buckling loads were obtained and were compared with the experimental
results. The first buckling mode of each connection follows after the results summary
table. The accuracy of the results obtained from the finite element analysis depends on
the mesh refinement considered.
Table 8.27 Tabular column showing the comparison between FEA and
experimental analysis
Type of
Rivet FSW1 FSW2
Connection
Analysis Finite Finite Finite

Experiment Experiment Experiment
Type Element Element Element
Buckling
Load (Kip)
17.8 15 29 25 21 26.2
Difference
(%)
2.8 5.0 5.2
184
Figure 8.10 First Eigen Value buckling modes for (a) FSW1 panel (b) Riveted Panel (c)
FSW2 panel
185
Table 8.28 Comparison of critical buckling loads between finite element analysis,
experiment and design equations
Type of
Connection Rivet
Analysis Type
FEA Experiment API ABS
Buckling Load 17.8 15 22.8 27.83

(kip)
Type of Connection
FSW1
Analysis Type
Buckling Load (kip) 29 25 22.8 27.83
Type of Connection
FSW2
Analysis Type
Buckling Load (kip) 21 26.2 22.8 27.83
8.9 Conclusion
The conclusion derived from the above study was similar to that obtained
from the experimental work. The following are the important observations made:
1. The analysis demonstrated that the initial buckling load of FSW panels
was nearly found to be 12% greater than the corresponding riveted
panel. The experimental tests yielded an initial buckling load 17% greater
186
than the riveted panel.
2. The buckling mode/shape as obtained from the first mode of the analysis
was nearly the same, if not the exact buckling shape as obtained from the
experiment.
3. Performing finite element analysis for such study even before the actual
test set up, provides necessary information and acts as a predictor for any
future experiments. As a corollary, finite element analysis can be used as
a check to compare the results between the actual test and the simulation.
4. API and ABS limit states guidelines as highlighted in the design section
can be used to estimate the approximate buckling capacity of stiffened
panels under uniaxial compressive loads for friction stir welded panels
but not for riveted panels.
5. The difference in critical buckling loads calculated from API and ABS
assuming no connection fixtures, was within 5%. Comparing these
capacities with the finite element and experimental data, it can be
concluded that this difference exists when comparing the specimens with
the friction stir welding with the specimen with riveted connection as seen
from the results section.
*The hand calculation for compression of skin stiffened panels with slender elements
according to AISC steel manual is shown in Appendix.
187
CONCLUSIONS
Corrosion in steel structures and structural components is a serious issue facing the
construction industry at present due to the economic and financial burdens it poses. This
is all the more reason for safe assessment of corrosion affected steel structures and
structural components. This chapter summarizes the research conclusions obtained from
the different analyses and experiments performed on steel structural components, affected
by uniform and non-uniform corrosion. Analyses methods and charts developed in this
dissertation lead to the following conclusions:
• Simulation of the actual corrosion process itself is either difficult or impossible.
Throughout this research, specific degree of thickness reduction was determined
theoretically for simulating uniform or non-uniform corrosion in a cross section and
analyzing the same for strength assessment.
• Uniform corrosion modeling can be achieved by reducing the thicknesses of
individual structural members in a structure and evaluating the global effect on the
entire structural frame. Effect of uniform corrosion on the dynamic response was
observed and it is found that bracing members in a structure are more affected than
beams and columns as can be seen from the deterioration chart developed for I-
sections, angles and T-sections. The deterioration chart is a quick and safe way of
assessing the strength reduction of structural members of framed structures based on
the reduction in bending moment strength.
• A similar chart method was introduced for evaluating I-beams affected by non-
188
uniform corrosion. Different cases of deterioration depth and heights were considered
for evaluating the buckling capacity of end regions of beams. It was also observed
that, the failure modes rapidly change for same loading conditions depending on the
degree of pitting corrosion which is another form of non-uniform corrosion.
• There is little or no research data available for the effect of corrosion on the
mechanical properties of ASTM- A572, grade 50 steel. This research provides the
details of one such laboratory induced corrosion procedure called ‘GMW14872’
which is similar to the ASTM-B117 spray procedure. It was found that there was a
10% reduction in tensile strength for ASTM E8 longitudinal samples exposed to 7
days and nearly 20% reduction in tensile strength for samples exposed to 14 days.
For transverse specimens, a reduction of 5-8% in tensile strength was observed for 7
and 14 days respectively. However, the transverse specimens exhibited more ductility
compared to the longitudinal counterparts.
• Different ASTM cleaning procedures employed to clean the E8 samples, post-
corrosion also have an effect on the tensile strength. Compared to unocrroded
samples, a reduction of nearly 40% in tensile strength was observed when ASTM G1
C3.2 cleaning process was used.
• According to the cross section analyses, it was found that brittle fracture occurs for
specimens under the stresses nearly equal to the yield limit.
• The effective cross sections are reduced by the corrosion, and some flaws such as
corrosion pits could be produced, which greatly speed up the fatigue crack initiation,
percentage elongation and reduce the fatigue life of the material.
189
REFERENCES
1. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 2013 report card for America’s
infrastructure.
2. American Institute of Steel Construction. (AISC). (2005) Steel Construction

Manual in Unified 13th Edition, Chicago, IL.
3. Gallon MJ. (1993) ICI Engineering. Managing structural corrosion in chemical

plants. New Steel Construction; Feb. 1993.
4. Czarnecki, A. A. and Nowak, A. S. (2008). “Time-variant reliability profiles for

steel girder bridges.” Structural Safety, 30(1), pp. 49-64.
5. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/no10/defbr14.cfm
6. Oszvald. K (2013) “Analyses of Corroded Steel Angles under Eccentric

Loading”, Second Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering.
7. EN 1993-1-1:2005, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 1-1: General

rules and rules for buildings.
8. ICI Engineering, (1990) Procedure for: Condition categories for inspection of

plant structures and pipe bridges. Standards & Technical Information Services,
ICI Engineering, Cheshire, England; June 1990.
9. Corrosion Costs and Preventive Strategies in the United States. Retrieved

November 2, 2011, from www.nace.org/Publications/Cost-of-Corrosion-Study/.
NSBA, (2006) “Corrosion Protection of Steel Bridges”, Steel Bridge Design
Handbook, Chapter 23, National Steel Bridge Alliance, 2006.
10. NSBA, (2006) “Corrosion Protection of Steel Bridges”, Steel Bridge Design
Handbook, Chapter 23, National Steel Bridge Alliance, 2006.
11. AASHTO, (2002). AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges,

17th Edition, HB-17. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington DC, 2002.
190
12. J.M. Kulicki, Z.Prucz, D.F.Sorgenfrei, and D.R.Mertz. (1990) “Guidelines for
Evaluating Corrosion Effects in Existing Steel Bridges”, National Cooperative
Highway Research Program Report 333, NCHRP 1990.
13. ASM Handbook Volume 11: Failure Analysis and Prevention eBook
Publication | Published: January 01, 2002.
14. Kivisakk. U (2003), “Corrosion Test Methods for Stainless Steel Heat
Exchanger Tubing”, Licentiate Thesis, Department of Material Science and
Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, 2003.
15. Influence of some experimental parameters on uniform corrosion rates

measured for high alloyed steels, stainless steel world 99, Hague, pg 421, 1999.
16. Corrosion Engineering Handbook by “Mars Guy Fontana”, 1985.
17. Kayser, Jack R, Nowak and Andrzej S. (1988). “Capacity Loss Due to
Corrosion in Steel-Girder Bridges”, Journal of Structural Engineering, 1988,
pp. 1525-1537.
18. R. E. Melchers: Corrosion (NACE), 2003, 59, (4), 319–334.
22. Komp, M. E. (1987). "Atmospheric corrosion ratings of weathering steels—

Calculations and significance." Materials Performance, 26(7), 42-44.
23. Albrecht, P and Naeemi, A. H. (1984). "Performance of weathering steel in

bridges." Report 272, Nat. Cooperative Highway Res. Program, July 1984.
24. TSCF. Guidelines for the inspection and condition assessment of tanker
structure. Tanker Structure Co- operative Forum, 1993.
25. Caines. S, Khan. F and Shirokoff. J, (2013) “Analysis of pitting corrosion on steel
under insulation in marine environments”, Journal of Loss Prevention in Process
industries, pp 1466-1483, 2013.
26. ASTM G46 – 94 (2013), “Standard Guide for Examination and Evaluation of
Pitting Corrosion”.
27. A. Patnaik, X. Shan, M. Adams, T. S. Srivatsan, C.C. Menzemer and J. Payer,

(2014) “Isolating Corrosion Of Steel Plates Coupled With Titanium”, Advanced
Steel Construction Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 216-233 (2014).
191
28. Corrosion Control Plan for Bridges – A NACE International White Paper,
November 2012.
29. Erb, L., “Corrosion Control – Galvanic Table”, An On-line Resource, 2010.
30. www.termarust.com/resources/HUDSON.php.
31. Wang. G, Spencer. J and Elsayed. T (2003), “Estimation Of Corrosion Rates Of

Structural Members In Oil Tankers”, Proceedings of OMAE 2003 22nd
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering 8-13
June 2003, Cancun, Mexico.
32. Influence of some experimental parameters on uniform corrosion rates measured

for high alloyed steels, stainless steel world 99, Hague, pg 421, 1999.
33. Hahin. C, (1994) “Effects of Corrosion and Fatigue on The Load-Carrying

Capacity of Structural and Reinforcing Steel”, Illinois Department of
Transportation, 1994.
34. Boyd, W. K. and F. W. Fink, (1978) “Corrosion of Metals in Marine

Environments”, Metals and Ceramics Information Center, Battelle, Columbus
Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio. MCIC-78-37, March 1978.
35. ASTM G1-03 (2011), “Standard Practice for Preparing, Cleaning and Evaluating
Corrosion Test Specimens”.
36. Townsend H. E and Zoccola J. C. (1982) “Eight-year atmospheric corrosion

performance of weathering steel in industrial, rural and marine environments”.
Special Technical Publication 767, Pittsburg (PA): ASTM; 1982.
37. Komp, M. E. (1987). "Atmospheric corrosion ratings of weathering steels—

Calculations and significance." Materials Performance, 26(7), 42-44.
38. Park C. H and Nowak A. S. (1997) “Lifetime reliability model for steel girder
bridges”. In: Das PC, editor. Safety of bridges. London: Thomas Telford
Publishing; 1997.
39. Artur A. Czarnecki and Nowak A. S, (2008). “Time-Variant Reliability Profiles

for Steel Girder Bridges”, Journal of Structural Safety 2008: 49-64.
40. Nakai T, Matsushita H, Yamamoto N and Arai H (2004). “Effect of pitting

corrosion on local strength of hold frame of bulk carriers (1st report)”. Mar Struct
17:403–432.
41. Sumi Y (2008). “Strength and deformability of corroded steel plates estimated by
replicated specimens”. J Ship Prod 24–3:161–16.
192
42. Paik J. K, Lee J. M, Ko M. J (2003). “Ultimate strength of plate elements with
pit corrosion wastage”. J Eng Marit Environ 217:185– 200.
43. Paik J. K, Lee J. M, Ko M. J (2004). “Ultimate shear strength of plate elements

with pit corrosion wastage”. Thin Wall Struct 42:1161 1176.
44. Rahgozar, R. (1998). “Fatigue endurance of steel structures subjected to

corrosion", PhD Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol,
UK (1998).
45. Rahgozar, R. (2009). “Remaining capacity assessment of corrosiondamaged

beams using minimum curves", Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
Elsevier, 65, pp. 299-307 (2009).
46. Rahgozar, R. and Smith, J.W. (1997). “Fatigue endurance of steel structures
subjected to pitting corrosion", Proceeding of Fourth International Conference on
Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Iran, pp. 237–246.
47. Sarveswaran. V, Smith, J. W. and Blockley, D. I. (1998). “Reliability of

Corrosion-Damaged Steel Structures using Interval Probability Theory”
Structural Safety. Vol. 20, 1998, pp 237-255.
48. Ditlevsen. O. (1979). “Narrow reliability bounds for structural systems”. J. Struct.
Mech., ASCE 1979;7(4):453-72.
49. Chapkis D. T. (1967). “Simulation of pitting corrosion of hull plating under

static loading”. Trudy TSNIIMF, No. 82, 1967. p. 34–50.
50. Flaks V. Y. (1978). “Correlation of pitting corrosion of aluminum plates and

reduction of load-bearing capacity under tension”. Fiziko-Khimicheskaya
Mekhanika Materialov 1978; 14(1):89–93.
51. TSCF (1984). “Experimental and theoretical investigation of the strength of

corroded hull elements”. Project 300, Report No. 84-3438, Tanker Structure Co-
operative Forum, 1984.
52. Paik J. K, Lee J. M, Ko M. J. (2003). “Ultimate compressive strength of plate

elements with pit corrosion wastage”. Journal of Engineering for the Maritime
Environment 2003; 217(M4):185–200.
53. Daidola, J. C. Parente, J. Orisamolu and K. T. Ma. (1997). “Residual Strength

Assessment of Pitted Plate Panels, SSC-394, Ship Structure Committee.
54. Fukuda. M, Fujii. K, Nakayama. T and Matsui. S, (2011). “An Evaluation Method
for the Remaining Strength of a Plate Girder with Local Corrosion under
Sleepers", The Twelfth East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering
and Construction, 2011.
193
55. Basler. K, Yen. B. T. Mueller, J. A., and Thurlimann, B. (1960), “Web Buckling
Tests on Welded Plate Girders”, Bulletin No. 64, Welding Research Council,
New York.
56. Silva J. E, Garbatov Y and Guedes Soares C. (2013). “Ultimate strength

assessment of rectangular steel plates subjected to a random non-uniform
corrosion degradation”, Eng Struct 2013;52:295–305.
57. Silva J. E, Garbatov Y and Guedes Soares C. (2011). “Ultimate strength

assessment of ageing steel plates subjected to random non-uniform corrosion
wastage”, In: Guedes Soares C, Fricke W, editors. Advances in marine
structures. London (UK): Taylor & Francis Group; 2011. p. 213–20.
58. Tohidi. S and Sharifi. Y, (2015). “Empirical Modeling of Distortional Buckling

Strength of Half-Through Bridge Girders via Stepwise Regression Method”,
Advances in Structural Engineering September 2015 vol. 18 no. 9 1383-1397.
59. Matsumoto. M, Shirai. Y, Nakamura. I. and Shiraishi, N. (1989), “A Proposal

of effective Thickness Estimation Method of Corroded Steel Member”, Bridge
Foundation Engineering, vol. 23, No. 12, pp 19-25. (In Japanese).
60. Muranaka. A, Minata. O and Fujii. K, (1998), “Estimation of residual strength

and surface irregularity of the corroded steel plates”, Journal of Structural
Engineering, pp 19-25, Vol. 44A, pp.1063-1071, 1998.4. (In Japanese).
61. Appuhamy J. M. R. S, Ohga. M, Kaita. T, Fujii. K, and Dissanayake P. B. R,

(2011) “Development of Analytical Method for Predicting Residual
Mechanical Properties of Corroded Steel Plates”, International Journal of
Corrosion Volume 2011 (2011), Article ID 385083, 10 pages.
62. Ok. D, Pu. Y, and Incecik. A. (2007) “Computation of ultimate strength of

locally corroded unstiffened plates under uniaxial compression”. Mar Struct,
20:100114, 2007.
63. Paik J. K, Lee J. M and Ko. M. J, “Ultimate Compressive Strength of Plate

Elements with Pit Corrosion Wastage”, Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime
Environment 2003 217: 185.
64. Sugimoto. I, Kobayashi Y and Ichikawa. A, (2006) “Durability Evaluation

Based on Buckling Characteristics of Corroded Steel Deck Girders”, Aug
2006.
65. FEMA 302—National Earthquake Hazard Reductions Program (NEHRP)

Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and
Other Structures (NEHRP, 1997).
194
66. Mario. P, Structural Dynamics: Theory and Computation I by Mario Paz,
William Leigh.-5th ed. Kluwer academic publishers, Boston, USA.
67. Liu. T, Miyashita T and Nagai. M, (2011), “Analytical Study on Shear Capacity
of Steel I-Girderswith Local Corrosion nearby Supports”, The Twelfth East
Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction.
68. Griffith. M. (2012). “A Method to Assess the Reliability of a Structural Frame

System Subjected to Uniform Corrosion”. (Electronic Thesis or Dissertation).
Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/.
69. Bower. J. E, “Suggested Design guides for beams with Web Holes”, Journal of
Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. ST 11 Proc., Paper 8536 (Nov 1971)
pp. 2707-2728.
70. SAP2000. Computers and Structures, Inc. (2011). "Computers and Structures, Inc.
official website". Official website summary. Computers and Structures, Inc.
Retrieved December 4, 2011.
71. SPACEGASS V-12. “Structural Engineering Software”: I.T.S Integrated

Technical Software Pty Ltd (Victoria, Australia).
72. Lindt J. W, and Ahlborn T. M. “Development of Steel Beam End Deterioration

Guidelines” MDOT Research Report RC-1454, Jan., 2005.
73. Ahn J. H, Kim I. T, Kainuma. S, and Lee M. J (2013) “Residual Shear Strength of
Steel Plate Girder Due to Web Local Corrosion”, Journal of Constructional Steel
Research (2013), pp 198-212.
74. Sudo M, Hashimoto S and Kambe, S. (1983) “Niobium bearing ferrite-bainite high
strength hot rolled sheet steel, with improved ductility”, Transactions of the Iron
and Steel Institute of Japan. 1983 Vol. 23 (1), 303-310.
75. Sudo M, Masatoshi and Iwai T. (1983) “Deformation behavior and mechanical
properties of ferrite-bainite-marternsite (triphase) steel”, Transactions of the Iron
and Steel Institute of Japan. 1983 Vol. 23, 284-303.
76. Kim I.S, Rachel S and Dahl, W. (1987) “Effect of bainite on mechanical properties
of dual phase steels”, Journal of Steel Research, 1987 58, 186-190.
77. Choi B.Y, Krauss G and Matlock D.K. (1988) “Bainite formation and deformation
behavior in an intercritically annealed Fe-Mn-C steel, Scripta Metallurgica”, 1988
12, 1575-1580.
78. Jeong W. C, Matlock D.K and Krauss G. (1993) “Observation of deformation and
transformation behavior of retained austenite in a 0.14C-1.2Si-1.5Mn steel with
ferrite-bainite-austenite structure”, Materials Science and Engineering, Volume
165: Issue 1, 1993, 1-8
195
79. Cingara G.A. (2009) “Effect of martensite distribution on damage behavior in
DP600 dual phase steels”, Materials Science and Engineering, Volume 516: Issues
1–2, 2009, 7-16.
80. Metals Handbook: Properties and Selection: “Classification and designation of

Carbon and Low Alloy Steels,” Tenth Edition, ASM International, Materials
Park, Ohio, USA, 1990.
81. Phillips T.B, McCaffrey T.J. (1990) “Ultra High Strength Steels in Metals
Handbook, Volume 1”, Tenth Edition, American Society of Metals International.
Materials Park, Ohio, 430-440, 1990.
82. Zare A and Ekrami A. (2011) “Influence of martensite volume fraction on tensile
properties of triple phase Ferrite-Bainite-Martensite steels,” Materials Science and
Engineering, Volume 530, 2011, 440-445.
83. Liedl U, Traint S and Werner E.A. (2002) “An unexpected feature of the stress-
strain diagram of a dual-phase steel”, Computational Materials Science, 25(1-2),
2002, 122-128.
84. Leslie W. C (1981) “The Physical Metallurgy of Steels”, McGraw Hill Publishers,
New York, 1981, pp. 236-246.
85. Somerday B. P “Low Alloy ferritic Steels Tempered Fe-Cr=-Mo Alloys”, in

Hydrogen Compatibility of Materials, editors: C. San Marchi and B. P. Somerday
Sandia National Laboratories, Alburque, New Mexico, USA.
86. Birbaum H. K (1979) “Hydrogen Related failure mechanism in Materials,

Symposium of the Minerals”, Metals and Materials Society, Warredale, PA, USA,
1979, pp. 320-360.
87. Askeland D. R and Phulke P (2005) “The Science and Engineering of Materials”,
Fifth Edition, Thompson Publishers, USA, 2005, pp. 520.
88. Dieter G. E (1986) “Mechanical Metallurgy, Third Edition”, 1986, McGraw Hill
Publishers, pp. 400-420.
89. ASTM E8-2010: “Standard Test method for Tension Testing of Metallic
Materials,” American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM, Race Street,
Philadelphia, PA, 2010.
90. Fujikubo M, Yao T, Khedmati M. R, Harada M and Yanagihara D ( 2 0 0 5 )

“Estimation of Ultimate Strength of Continuous Stiffened Panel under Combined
Transverse Thrust and Lateral Pressure Part 1: Continuous Plate”, Marine
Structures 18 (2005), pp. 383-410.
196
91. Grondin G. Y, Chen Q, Elwi A. E and Cheng J. J (1998) “Stiffened Steel Plates
Under Compression and Bending”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 45,
1998, pp. 125-148.
92. Grondin G. Y, Chen Q and Elwi (2002) “Stiffened Steel Plates Under Uniaxial
Compression”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 58, 2002, pp. 1061-
1080.
93. Grondin G. Y, Chen Q, Elwi A. E and Cheng J. J (1999) “Buckling of Stiffened

Steel Plates-A Parametric Study”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 50,
1999, pp. 151-175.
94. Speich G. R, Dabkowski D. S and Porter L. F, (1973) “Strength and Toughness of

Fe-10Ni alloys containing C, Cr, Mo and Co”, Metallurgical Transactions
1973;4: pp. 303-315.
95. Olson G. B, Azrin M and Wright E. S, (1990) “Innovations in Ultra High Strength
Steel Technology”, Proceedings of the 34th Sagamore Army Materials
Conference, US Army Materials Technology Laboratory, Watertown, MA; 1990.
Pp. 3-65.
96. Davis J. R, “Metals Handbook Desk Edition, Second Edition”, ASM

International (1998), pp. 153-173.
97. GMW14872 Cyclic Corrosion laboratory Test, General Motors Corporation. Nov
2006.
98. Manigandan K, Srivatsan T. S, Quick T, Sastry S and Schmidt M. L, “Influence

of Microstructure and Load Ratio on Cyclic Fatigue and Final Fracture Behavior
of Two High Strength Steels”, Materials and Design 55 (2014), pp. 727-739.
99. R.P. Gangloff, Hydrogen-assisted cracking, in: I. Milne, R.O. Ritchie, B.

Karihaloo (Eds.), Comprehensive Structural Integrity, Environmentally Assisted
Failure, vol. 6, 2003, pp. 31–101.
100. Hodge J. M, Mogford I. L, Proceedings Institute Mechanical Engineers 96 (1979)

193.
101. Kalderon D, Proceedings Institute Mechanical Engineers 186 (1972) 341.
102. Liu C and Macdonald D. D, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology 119 (1997)
393.
103. Craig P. Przybyla, Rajesh P, Salajegheh N and McDowell D. L, (2010)

“Microstructure-Sensitive Modeling of High Cycle Fatigue”, International
Journal of Fatigue 3 (2010), pp. 512-525.
197
104. ASTM A572/ A572M-12, “Standard Specification for High-Strength Low-Alloy
Columbium-Vanadium Structural Steel”, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2012.
105. Kaufmann E. J, Metrovich, and Pense A. W, (2001) “Characterization of Cyclic

Inelastic Strain Behavior on Properties of A572 Gr. 50 and A913 Gr. 50 Rolled
Sections”, ATLSS Report No. 01-13, ATLSS, Leigh University, Bethlehem, PA
(2001).
106. Qi. W, Yiyi. C and Feng. Z, (2014) “Cyclic Loading Tests of High Strength Steel
under Large Inelastic Strains”, Journal of Building Structures 35 (2014), pp. 89-
94.
107. Pellissier G. E, (1968) “Effects of Microstructure on the Fracture Toughness of

Ultrahigh-Strength Steels”, Engineering Fracture Mechanics (1968), pp. 55-60.
108. Tomitya. Y and Okawa. T, (1993) “Effect of Microstructure on Mechanical

Properties of Isothermally Bainite transformed 300M Steel”, Materials Science
and Engineering, Vol 72, (1993), pp. 145-152.
109. ASTM Standards E-8-07, Standard Test Method for Uniaxial Tension Testing of
Materials, American S o c i e t y for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA,
USA, 2007R.
110. ASTM E466: Standard Test Method for Conducting Constant Amplitude Axial
Fatigue Tests on Metallic Materials, ASTM, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2002.
111. Bajer A. J, Laura E. J and Wei R. P (1965) “Structure and Properties of Ultrahigh
Strength Steelsz”, ASTM, STP 370, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1965, pp. 3-14.
112. Banerjee B. R (1965) “Structure and Properties of Ultrahigh Strength Steels”,

ASTM, STP 370, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA,
USA, 1965, pp. 94-109.
113. Dieter G. E (1986) “Mechanical Metallurgy, Third Edition, 1986, McGraw Hill
Publishers, , Boston (MA), USA, PP 410-430.
114. Patnaik A. K, Schurger. J, Streete. A, Allen C. D and Arbegast W. J,

“Compression buckling behavior of 7075-T6 Aluminum Skin Stiffened Panels
Fabricated by friction Stir Welding”, Paper No. 2005-01-3322, Proceedings of
the 2005 SAE Conference.
115. ABAQUS user's manual, version 6.8EF-2. Providence, RI, USA: Dassault
Systèmes Simulia Corp.; 2008.
198
116. API BULLETIN 2V (2004), “Design of Flat Plate Structures” (Washington,
D.C.: API Publishing Service).
117. American Bureau of Shipping (2004), “Guide For Buckling and Ultimate
Strength Assessment for Offshore Structures” (Houston, TX, American Bureau
of Shipping).
118. Military Handbook, “Metallic Materials and Elements for Aerospace Vehicle
Structures” MIL-HDBK-5H- 1998.
199
APPENDIX
Hand Calculation for Compression of Stiffened Panel with Slender Elements
A sample hand calculation for one of the sections, is shown here and the same
procedure can be followed for the other two sections as well. The following are the
material and geometric properties used for the purpose of calculations. The calculations
shown here are based on the formulas given in the AISC steel manual, assuming the
same procedure for aluminum as that for steel sections.
FY = 69 ksi
E = 10500 ksi
Geometric properties of the section are as follows:
d = 5.183"
bf = 1.514"
t f = 0.083"
h = 14.5"
t w = 0.083"
h0 = 14.5"
rx = 0.355"
ry = 2.496"
The area of cross section considered and moments of inertia in both the X and Y
200
directions are found from the ‘mass properties’ option in AUTOCAD and were as
follows:
A = 0.696 in2
IY = 4.172 in4
IX = 0.0846 in4
Since both ends are assumed to be fixed as was carried out in the analysis and in the
experiments,
K = 0.5
Slenderness Ratio:
KLY 0.5 ∗ 14.5 ∗ 12

= = 34.85
rY 2.496
π2 E π2 ∗ 10500
Fe = = = 85.225ksi > Fe(critical)
KLY 2 34.852
� �
rY
Elastic Critical torsional buckling stress:
IY ∗ h2 4.172 ∗ 14.52
Cw = = = 219.29in6
4 4
bt 3 (2 ∗ 1.514 ∗ 0.0833 ) + (14.5 ∗ 0.0833 ) + (2 ∗ 1.3 ∗ 0.0833 )

J=� =
3 3
= 0.003in4
π2 ECw 1
Fe(criitical) = � + GJ� = 69.07ksi
(KL)2 IX + IY
Here according to clause 3 of Sec E.7
b 1.514 EK C 10500 ∗ 0.35

= = 18.24 > 0.64� = 0.64� = 4.6707
t 0.083 FY 69
201
4
Kc = and shall not be taken less than 0.35 nor greater than 0.76.
h
�
tw
Therefore,
K C = 0.35
Therefore, the flanges of the panel are slender.
Determination of 𝑄𝑄𝑠𝑠
EK c 10500 ∗ 0.35
0.64� = 0.64� = 4.67
FY 69
EK C 10500 ∗ 0.35
1.17� = 1.17� = 8.538
FY 69
b EK C
> 1.17�
t FY
Therefore,
Q s = 1.0
Determination of 𝑄𝑄𝑎𝑎
h 14.5 E 10500
= = 174.7 > 1.49� = 1.49� = 18.38
t 0.083 Fy 69
Therefore, the web is slender.
Aeff
Qa =
A
Aeff = be t w + 2bf t f
E 0.34 E
be = 1.92� �1 − � � where b = h
f �b�t� f
202
Here f = fcr
KL E
= 34.85 < 4.71� = 72.62
r QFy
QFy
∴ Fcr = Q �0.658 Fa � Fy
1∗69
= 1 ∗ �0.65869.07 � 69
Fcr = 45.422 ksi = f
10500 0.34 10500

be = 1.92 ∗ 0.083� �1 − � �
45.42 �1.514�0.083� 45.42
be = 2.351"
Aeff = (2.351 ∗ 0.083) + (2 ∗ 1.514 ∗ 0.083) + (2 ∗ 1.3 ∗ 0.083)
Aeff = 0.662 in2
0.662
Qa = = 0.9515
0.6696
Q = Qa Qs
= 0.951 ∗ 1
Q = 0.951
Now,
E 10500 Kl
4.71� = 4.71� = 59.56 > = 34.85
QFy 0.951 ∗ 69 r
Again calculating 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 with actual “Q” value,
QFy
Fcr = Q �0.658 Fa � Fy
203
0.951∗69
= 0.951 ∗ �0.658 69.07 � 69
Fcr = 44.106 ksi
Therefore buckling load
Pn = Fcr ∗ Ag
= 44.106 ∗ 0.6696
Pn = 29.53 Kips
Dynamic Response of a Structural Steel Frame Subjected To Uniform Corrosion
As-new Cross Sectional Properties of Various shapes used in the Analysis:
I- d bft tft bfb tfb tw Original c/s area

section
AB01 6.37 3.50 0.10 6.00 0.18 0.10 2.04
AB11 6.50 6.00 0.28 6.12 0.32 0.25 5.11
AB21 6.50 6.00 0.28 6.12 0.32 0.25 5.11
AB31 6.50 6.00 0.28 6.12 0.32 0.25 5.11
AB41 12.62 6.50 0.69 6.50 0.69 0.62 16.06
AC01 6.37 6.12 0.42 6.12 0.42 0.25 6.56
AC02 6.37 6.12 0.28 6.12 0.37 0.25 5.41
AC11 6.37 6.12 0.42 6.12 0.42 0.25 6.56
AC12 6.37 6.12 0.42 6.12 0.42 0.25 6.56
AC21 6.37 6.12 0.42 6.12 0.42 0.25 6.56
AC22 6.37 6.12 0.42 6.12 0.42 0.25 6.56
AC31 6.375 6.125 0.426 6.125 0.420 0.250 6.564

AC32 6.375 6.125 0.426 6.125 0.420 0.250 6.564
AC41 6.375 6.125 0.426 6.125 0.420 0.250 6.564
AC42 6.375 6.125 0.426 6.125 0.420 0.250 6.564
BB01 6.500 6.125 0.420 6.125 0.420 0.250 6.560
BB21 6.500 6.125 0.420 6.125 0.420 0.250 6.560
204
BB41 16.500 7.000 0.775 7.000 0.775 0.500 18.325
BB71 24.000 9.250 0.625 9.250 0.625 0.875 31.469
BC01 7.875 6.438 0.350 6.500 0.385 0.500 8.326
BC02 7.563 6.219 0.360 6.219 0.385 0.500 8.042
BC11 7.875 6.438 0.350 6.500 0.385 0.500 8.326
BC12 7.563 6.219 0.360 6.219 0.385 0.500 8.042
BC31 7.875 6.438 0.350 6.500 0.385 0.500 8.326
BC32 7.938 6.500 0.350 6.500 0.313 0.500 7.944
BC51 8.000 6.500 0.400 6.500 0.400 0.500 8.800
BC52 8.000 6.500 0.400 6.500 0.400 0.500 8.800
CB01 6.438 6.000 0.431 6.000 0.431 0.281 6.739
CB21 6.438 6.000 0.431 6.000 0.431 0.281 6.739
CB41 6.500 6.000 0.400 6.000 0.400 0.250 6.225
CB61 12.500 6.313 0.550 6.313 0.550 0.500 12.644
CB71 24.000 9.250 0.625 9.250 0.625 0.875 31.469
CC01 8.000 6.438 0.385 6.438 0.385 0.500 8.572
CC02 8.000 6.438 0.385 6.438 0.385 0.500 8.572
CC11 9.938 6.500 0.325 6.500 0.250 0.500 8.419
CC12 7.938 6.500 0.250 6.500 0.250 0.500 6.969
CC31 8.000 6.500 0.400 6.500 0.405 0.500 8.830
CC32 8.000 6.500 0.400 6.500 0.405 0.500 8.830
CC51 8.000 6.438 0.410 6.438 0.410 0.500 8.869
CC52 8.000 6.438 0.410 6.438 0.410 0.500 8.869
CC61 8.000 6.438 0.410 6.438 0.410 0.500 8.869
CC62 8.000 6.438 0.410 6.438 0.410 0.500 8.869
CX61 6.500 6.000 0.360 6.000 0.360 0.250 5.765
CX62 6.500 6.000 0.360 6.000 0.360 0.250 5.765
DB01 6.500 6.063 0.431 6.063 0.431 0.188 6.286
DB21 6.500 6.125 0.420 6.125 0.420 0.250 6.560
DB41 6.500 6.125 0.420 6.125 0.420 0.250 6.560
DB61 12.500 6.313 0.550 6.313 0.550 0.500 12.644
DB71 24.000 9.250 0.625 9.250 0.625 0.875 31.469
DX61 6.500 6.000 0.360 6.000 0.360 0.250 5.765
DX62 6.500 6.000 0.360 6.000 0.360 0.250 5.765
EB01 6.500 6.000 0.280 6.125 0.320 0.250 5.115
205
EB21 6.500 6.000 0.280 6.125 0.320 0.250 5.115
EB41 12.625 6.500 0.694 6.500 0.694 0.625 16.045
FB01 6.375 6.000 0.380 6.000 0.320 0.250 5.619
FB21 6.375 6.000 0.380 6.000 0.320 0.250 5.619
FB41 12.625 6.500 0.694 6.500 0.694 0.625 16.045
GB01 6.375 6.000 0.380 6.000 0.320 0.250 5.619
GB21 6.375 6.000 0.400 6.000 0.280 0.250 5.504
GB41 6.500 6.000 0.390 6.000 0.400 0.250 6.168
GB61 12.500 6.313 0.550 6.313 0.550 0.500 12.644
GB71 24.000 9.250 0.625 9.250 0.625 0.875 31.469
GX61 6.500 6.000 0.360 6.000 0.360 0.250 5.765
GX62 6.500 6.000 0.360 6.000 0.360 0.250 5.765
HB3 12.625 6.500 0.694 6.500 0.694 0.625 16.045
HB4 6.500 6.000 0.280 6.125 0.320 0.250 5.115
HB5 6.500 6.000 0.280 6.125 0.320 0.250 5.115
HB6 6.500 6.000 0.280 6.125 0.320 0.250 5.115
HB7 6.500 6.000 0.280 6.125 0.320 0.250 5.115
Original C/s area

Angles L1 t1 L2 t2
AX01 2.000 0.280 2.000 0.265 1.0158
AX02 2.000 0.270 2.000 0.270 1.0071
AX21 (AX02) 2.000 0.270 2.000 0.270 1.0071
AX22 (AX02) 2.000 0.270 2.000 0.270 1.0071
BX11 (CX11) 3.000 0.250 5.000 0.250 1.9375
BX12 (CX11) 3.000 0.250 5.000 0.250 1.9375
CX11 3.000 0.250 5.000 0.250 1.9375
CX12 3.000 0.250 5.000 0.250 1.9375
DX11 (CX11) 3.000 0.250 5.000 0.250 1.9375
DX12 (CX11) 3.000 0.250 5.000 0.250 1.9375
EX11 (AX02) 2.000 0.270 2.000 0.270 1.0071
FX11 (AX02) 2.000 0.270 2.000 0.270 1.0071
GX11 (CX11) 3.000 0.250 5.000 0.250 1.9375
GX12 (CX11) 3.000 0.250 5.000 0.250 1.9375
AX31 (AX02) 2.000 0.270 2.000 0.270 1.0071
AX32 (AX02) 2.000 0.270 2.000 0.270 1.0071
AX41 (AX02) 2.000 0.270 2.000 0.270 1.0071
AX42 (AX02) 2.000 0.270 2.000 0.270 1.0071
BX31 (CX11) 3.000 0.250 5.000 0.250 1.9375
BX32 (CX11) 3.000 0.250 5.000 0.250 1.9375
206
CX31 (CX11) 3.000 0.250 5.000 0.250 1.9375
CX32 (CX11) 3.000 0.250 5.000 0.250 1.9375
DX31 (CX11) 3.000 0.250 5.000 0.250 1.9375
DX32 (CX11) 3.000 0.250 5.000 0.250 1.9375
EX31 (AX02) 2.000 0.270 2.000 0.270 1.0071
FX31 (AX02) 2.000 0.270 2.000 0.270 1.0071
GX31 (CX11) 3.000 0.250 5.000 0.250 1.9375
GX32 (CX11) 3.000 0.250 5.000 0.250 1.9375
CX51 (CX11) 3.000 0.250 5.000 0.250 1.9375
CX52 (CX11) 3.000 0.250 5.000 0.250 1.9375
DX51 (CX11) 3.000 0.250 5.000 0.250 1.9375
DX52 (CX11) 3.000 0.250 5.000 0.250 1.9375
GX51 (CX11) 3.000 0.250 5.000 0.250 1.9375
GX52 (CX11) 3.000 0.250 5.000 0.250 1.9375
Original C/s area

T-Sections bf tf L1 t1
AX11 5.500 0.460 4.625 0.360 4.195
AX12 5.500 0.465 4.625 0.369 4.264125
BX01 5.875 0.353 4.500 0.209 3.014375
BX02 6.000 0.365 4.450 0.250 3.3025
BX51 8.000 0.375 5.000 0.375 4.875
BX52 (BX51) 8.000 0.375 5.000 0.375 4.875
CX01 6.000 0.370 4.500 0.270 3.435
CX02 6.000 0.350 4.500 0.278 3.351
DX01 5.875 0.250 4.500 0.250 2.59375
DX02 6.000 0.375 4.500 0.250 3.375
GX01 (DX01) 5.875 0.250 4.500 0.250 2.59375
GX02 (DX02) 6.000 0.375 4.500 0.250 3.375
207
Reduced Cross Sectional Properties due to Uniform Corrosion
Reduced Geometric Dimensions
d
Tota
(Web bft tft bfb tfb tw I-
l
Hieg section
Heig
6.09 3.49745423 0.09745 5.9974542 0.17745 0.09745 6.372 AB01
5.90 5.99444879 0.27444 6.1194487 0.31444 0.24444 6.494 AB11
5.90 5.99444879 0.27444 6.1194487 0.31444 0.24444 6.494 AB21
5.90 5.99444879 0.27444 6.1194487 0.31444 0.24444 6.494 AB31
11.24 6.48714164 0.68314 6.4871416 0.68314 0.61214 12.612 AB41
5.53 6.11787062 0.41887 6.1178706 0.41287 0.24287 6.368 AC01
5.73 6.11912479 0.27412 6.1191247 0.36412 0.24412 6.369 AC02
5.53 6.11787062 0.41887 6.1178706 0.41287 0.24287 6.368 AC11
5.53 6.11787062 0.41887 6.1178706 0.41287 0.24287 6.368 AC12
5.53 6.11787062 0.41887 6.1178706 0.41287 0.24287 6.368 AC21
5.53 6.11787062 0.41887 6.1178706 0.41287 0.24287 6.368 AC22
5.53 6.11787062 0.41887 6.1178706 0.41287 0.24287 6.368 AC31
5.53 6.11787062 0.41887 6.1178706 0.41287 0.24287 6.368 AC32
5.53 6.11787062 0.41887 6.1178706 0.41287 0.24287 6.368 AC41
5.53 6.11787062 0.41887 6.1178706 0.41287 0.24287 6.368 AC42
5.66 6.11792262 0.41292 6.1179226 0.41292 0.24292 6.493 BB01
5.66 6.11792262 0.41292 6.1179226 0.41292 0.24292 6.493 BB21
14.96 6.98777942 0.76277 6.9877794 0.76277 0.48777 16.488 BB41
22.76 9.23487452 0.60987 9.2348745 0.60987 0.85987 23.985 BB71
7.14 6.42980945 0.34180 6.4918094 0.37680 0.49180 7.867 BC01
6.82 6.21076147 0.35176 6.2107614 0.37676 0.49176 7.555 BC02
7.14 6.42980945 0.34180 6.4918094 0.37680 0.49180 7.867 BC11
6.82 6.21076147 0.35176 6.2107614 0.37676 0.49176 7.555 BC12
7.14 6.42980945 0.34180 6.4918094 0.37680 0.49180 7.867 BC31
7.28 6.49223320 0.34223 6.4922332 0.30473 0.49223 7.930 BC32
7.20 6.49142080 0.39142 6.4914208 0.39142 0.49142 7.991 BC51
7.20 6.49142080 0.39142 6.4914208 0.39142 0.49142 7.991 BC52
5.58 5.99259321 0.42359 5.9925932 0.42359 0.27359 6.431 CB01
5.58 5.99259321 0.42359 5.9925932 0.42359 0.27359 6.431 CB21
5.70 5.99319409 0.39319 5.9931940 0.39319 0.24319 6.493 CB41
11.41 6.30273008 0.5397 6.3027300 0.5397 0.4897 12.490 CB61
22.76 9.23487452 0.60987 9.2348745 0.60987 0.85987 23.985 CB71
7.23 6.42959255 0.37659 6.4295925 0.37659 0.49159 7.992 CC01
7.23 6.42959255 0.37659 6.4295925 0.37659 0.49159 7.992 CC02
208
9.37 6.4924990 0.31749 6.492499 0.24249 0.49249 9.930 CC11
7.44 6.49318796 0.24318 6.4931879 0.24318 0.49318 7.931 CC12
7.20 6.49139151 0.39139 6.4913915 0.39639 0.49139 7.991 CC31
7.20 6.49139151 0.39139 6.4913915 0.39639 0.49139 7.991 CC32
7.18 6.42930089 0.40130 6.4293008 0.40130 0.49130 7.991 CC51
7.18 6.42930089 0.40130 6.4293008 0.40130 0.49130 7.991 CC52
7.18 6.42930089 0.40130 6.4293008 0.40130 0.49130 7.991 CC61
7.18 6.42930089 0.40130 6.4293008 0.40130 0.49130 7.991 CC62
5.78 5.99369854 0.35369 5.9936985 0.35369 0.24369 6.494 CX61
5.78 5.99369854 0.35369 5.99369854 0.35369 0.24369 6.49 CX62

5.64 6.05619622 0.42419 6.05619622 0.42419 0.18119 6.49 DB01
5.66 6.11792262 0.41292 6.11792262 0.41292 0.24292 6.49 DB21
5.66 6.11792262 0.41292 6.11792262 0.41292 0.24292 6.49 DB41
11.41 6.30273008 0.5397 6.30273008 0.5397 0.4897 12.49 DB61
22.76 9.23487452 0.60987 9.23487452 0.60987 0.85987 23.98 DB71
5.78 5.99369854 0.35369 5.99369854 0.35369 0.24369 6.49 DX61
5.78 5.99369854 0.35369 5.99369854 0.35369 0.24369 6.49 DX62
5.90 5.99444879 0.27444 6.11944879 0.31444 0.24444 6.49 EB01
5.90 5.99444879 0.27444 6.11944879 0.31444 0.24444 6.49 EB21
11.25 6.48716046 0.6811 6.48716046 0.6811 0.6121 12.61 EB41
5.68 5.9938171 0.37381 5.9938171 0.31381 0.24381 6.36 FB01
5.68 5.9938171 0.37381 5.9938171 0.31381 0.24381 6.36 FB21
11.25 6.48716046 0.6811 6.48716046 0.6811 0.6121 12.61 FB41
5.68 5.9938171 0.37381 5.9938171 0.31381 0.24381 6.36 GB01
5.70 5.99394410 0.39394 5.99394410 0.27394 0.24394 6.36 GB21
5.71 5.99325715 0.38325 5.99325715 0.39325 0.24325 6.49 GB41
11.41 6.30273008 0.5397 6.30273008 0.5397 0.4897 12.49 GB61
22.76 9.23487452 0.60987 9.23487452 0.60987 0.85987 23.98 GB71
5.78 5.99369854 0.35369 5.99369854 0.35369 0.24369 6.49 GX61
5.78 5.99369854 0.35369 5.99369854 0.35369 0.24369 6.49 GX62
11.25 6.48716046 0.6811 6.48716046 0.6811 0.6121 12.61 HB3
5.90 5.99444879 0.27444 6.11944879 0.31444 0.24444 6.49 HB4
5.90 5.99444879 0.27444 6.11944879 0.31444 0.24444 6.49 HB5
5.90 5.99444879 0.27444 6.11944879 0.31444 0.24444 6.49 HB6
5.90 5.99444879 0.27444 6.11944879 0.31444 0.24444 6.49 HB7
209
L1 (reduced) t1 (reduced) L2 (reduced) t2 (reduced) Angles
1.995244887 0.275244887 1.995244887 0.260244887 AX01
1.995238298 0.265238298 1.995238298 0.265238298 AX02
AX21
1.995238298 0.265238298 1.995238298 0.265238298 (AX02)
AX22
1.995238298 0.265238298 1.995238298 0.265238298 (AX02)
BX11
2.995280146 0.245280146 4.995280146 0.245280146 (CX11)
BX12
2.995280146 0.245280146 4.995280146 0.245280146 (CX11)
2.995280146 0.245280146 4.995280146 0.245280146 CX11
2.995280146 0.245280146 4.995280146 0.245280146 CX12
DX11
2.995280146 0.245280146 4.995280146 0.245280146 (CX11)
DX12
2.995280146 0.245280146 4.995280146 0.245280146 (CX11)
EX11
1.995238298 0.265238298 1.995238298 0.265238298 (AX02)
FX11
1.995238298 0.265238298 1.995238298 0.265238298 (AX02)
GX11
2.995280146 0.245280146 4.995280146 0.245280146 (CX11)
GX12
2.995280146 0.245280146 4.995280146 0.245280146 (CX11)
AX31
1.995238298 0.265238298 1.995238298 0.265238298 (AX02)
AX32
1.995238298 0.265238298 1.995238298 0.265238298 (AX02)
AX41
1.995238298 0.265238298 1.995238298 0.265238298 (AX02)
AX42
1.995238298 0.265238298 1.995238298 0.265238298 (AX02)
BX31
2.995280146 0.245280146 4.995280146 0.245280146 (CX11)
BX32
2.995280146 0.245280146 4.995280146 0.245280146 (CX11)
CX31
2.995280146 0.245280146 4.995280146 0.245280146 (CX11)
CX32
2.995280146 0.245280146 4.995280146 0.245280146 (CX11)
DX31
2.995280146 0.245280146 4.995280146 0.245280146 (CX11)
DX32
2.995280146 0.245280146 4.995280146 0.245280146 (CX11)
210
EX31
1.995238298 0.265238298 1.995238298 0.265238298 (AX02)
FX31
1.995238298 0.265238298 1.995238298 0.265238298 (AX02)
GX31
2.995280146 0.245280146 4.995280146 0.245280146 (CX11)
GX32
2.995280146 0.245280146 4.995280146 0.245280146 (CX11)
CX51
2.995280146 0.245280146 4.995280146 0.245280146 (CX11)
CX52
2.995280146 0.245280146 4.995280146 0.245280146 (CX11)
DX51
2.995280146 0.245280146 4.995280146 0.245280146 (CX11)
DX52
2.995280146 0.245280146 4.995280146 0.245280146 (CX11)
GX51
2.995280146 0.245280146 4.995280146 0.245280146 (CX11)
GX52
2.995280146 0.245280146 4.995280146 0.245280146 (CX11)
bf (reduced) tf (reduced) L1 (reduced) t1 (reduced) T-sections

5.492322534 0.452322534 4.617322534 0.352322534 AX11
5.492189532 0.457189532 4.617189532 0.361189532 AX12
5.869467514 0.347467514 4.494467514 0.203467514 BX01
5.99400907 0.35900907 4.44400907 0.24400907 BX02
7.992888403 0.367888403 4.992888403 0.367888403 BX51
BX52
7.992888403 0.367888403 4.992888403 0.367888403 (BX51)
5.993810811 0.363810811 4.493810811 0.263810811 CX01
5.993955628 0.343955628 4.493955628 0.271955628 CX02
5.870212275 0.245212275 4.495212275 0.245212275 DX01
5.99391069 0.36891069 4.49391069 0.24391069 DX02
GX01
5.870212275 0.245212275 4.495212275 0.245212275 (DX01)
GX02
5.99391069 0.36891069 4.49391069 0.24391069 (DX02)
211
Example of the macro code used in MS-Excel to find the reduced dimensions of
structural sections. Similar code was used for angles and T-sections.
Sub EightPerWide() EightPerWide Macro For i = 2 To 69
Cells(5 + i, 13).GoalSeek Goal:=Cells(5 + i, 9), ChangingCell:=Cells(5 + i, 14) Next i
End Sub
Sample hand calculation of the fundamental period and frequency of the structure.
1
Stiffness, K = = 70.358 𝐾𝐾�𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 or 70358.12 lb/in
0.014213
Mass,
W 354300 2
m= = = 917.87 lb − s �in
g 386
Natural Frequency,
K 70358.12
ωn = � =� = 8.755 rad/sec
m 917.87
1 70358.12 ∗ 386
𝑓𝑓 = � = 1.4 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
2𝛱𝛱 354300
1
Period, 𝑇𝑇 = = 0.714 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
𝑓𝑓
212

GowdaS - Dis (Final)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

GowdaS - Dis (Final)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

MULTI-SCALE EFFECTS OF CORROSION ON STEEL STRUCTURES

The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron

of the Requirements for the Degree

Advisor Department Chair

Co-Advisor Interim Dean of the College

Committee Member Dean of the Graduate School

Committee Member Date

Corrosion is a naturally occurring process which under favorable

environmental conditions, causes deterioration of metals when exposed to c o r r o s i v e

e n v i r o n m e n t f o r a n extended period of time. This time dependent factor related to

bridges are essentially made of structural members such as beams, compression

members and p l a t e girders. Ship structures are made up of a combination of steel

applications are susceptible to different types of corrosion depending on the environment

members. Without proper maintenance procedures, corrosion can cause needless

types of corrosion on the strength of structural members used in civil engineering

applications, forms the core objective of this research.

In order to achieve the desired objective of this research, a “multi-scale”

loading and boundary conditions. An accelerated corrosion procedure called GMW14872

A572 structural steel. T h i s f o r m s t h e m i c r o - l e v e l i n t h e m u l t i - s c a l e

a p p r o a c h . Scanning electron microscopy was employed to study the effects of

corrosion on the mechanical properties of steel samples by observing the optical

micrographs at high magnifications.

research. Their guidance on conducting this research was invaluable. I am indebted to

technician Dave McVaney and Mechanical Engineering laboratory technician Cliff.

Work is associated with the National Corrosion Center (NCERCAMP) at The

Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight.

I would also like to thank my colleagues and friends f o r t h e i r support at

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... xx

1.1 Problem Statement ..................................................................................................5

1.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Scope of this dissertation ........................................................................................ 7

2.1 Definition and Chemistry of Corrosion ................................................................. 8

2.2 Types of Corrosion .............................................................................................. 11

2.2.1 Uniform (General) Corrosion ........................................................................ 13

2.2.2 Non-Uniform Corrosion ................................................................................ 15

2.2.3 Pitting Corrosion ........................................................................................... 18

2.2.4 Crevice Corrosion .......................................................................................... 19

2.2.5 Galvanic Corrosion ........................................................................................ 21

2.4 Corrosion rate and factors influencing corrosion rate ........................................ 25

2.5 Influence of corrosion on Steel Structures .......................................................... 31

III EFFECTS OF CORROSION ON THE DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF STRUCTURAL

3.2 Objectives of this Chapter .................................................................................... 46

3.3 Background .......................................................................................................... 47

3.4 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 56

3.5 Reference (Uncorroded) Analysis ........................................................................ 65

3.6 Corroded State ...................................................................................................... 68

Modal Analysis ............................................................................................... 68

Linear Modal Time-History Analysis in SAP2000 (Progressive degrees of

3.8 Discussion of Results ........................................................................................... 74

3.9 Conclusions from this Chapter............................................................................. 76

IV NUMERICAL MODELING OF BEAMS SUBJECT TO NON-UNIFORM AND

4.2 Objective .............................................................................................................. 78

4.3 Finite Element Modeling...................................................................................... 78

4.3.1 End Beam Deterioration: ............................................................................... 79

4.4 Results and Discussion......................................................................................... 88

4.5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 100

V TENSILE STRENGTH OF STRUCTURAL A572 GRADE 50 STEEL…………..103

5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 103

5.2 Material .............................................................................................................. 106

5.3 Experimental Procedures.................................................................................... 108

5.3.1 Characterization of Initial Microstructure .................................................... 108

5.3.2 Microhardness Test ...................................................................................... 108