Judd Galloway App of Hi Perf Mat to Bdgs

Download
Share  Add to  Flag Embed
Uploaded from authorPOINTLite
Views:
 
Category: Entertainment
     
 
License:   All Rights Reserved

Presentation Description

No description available.

Comments

Presentation Transcript

Application of High Performance Materials to Bridges: 

Application of High Performance Materials to Bridges Strength Evaluation of MMFX By Judd Galloway Advisor: Professor Michael J Chajes Chair of the CE Dept. University of Delaware Funded by: NSF - REU

Outline: 

Outline Introduction Test Methods Results Conclusions Recommendations for Future Research

Introduction: Development of MMFX: 

Introduction: Development of MMFX A new microcomposite steel reinforcement Corrosion Resistant (75 yr) Stronger (110ksi) Ductile Failure mode

Introduction to MMFX : 

Introduction to MMFX Corroded rebar in Bridge Decks

Introduction: Research Focus Strength Evaluation & Composite Behavior: 

Introduction: Research Focus Strength Evaluation & Composite Behavior From Bridge Decks to Floor Beams and Girders

Test Methods: Strength Testing: 

Test Methods: Strength Testing Tensile Test Generate a stress vs. strain diagram Flexure Test Reinforced Concrete Beams MMFX, Clad, Normal (A615)

Test Methods: Beam Design: 

Test Methods: Beam Design Resulted in 4 in. x 6in. x 60 in (5ft) beams

Test Methods: Beam Design: 

Test Methods: Beam Design Beam reinforcement 1 # 6 stainless steel clad rebar 1 # 6 normal A615 steel rebar 1 #6 MMFX rebar 3 #4 MMFX rebar 1 #4 A615 rebar

Test Methods: 3 point bending: 

Test Methods: 3 point bending All specimens were monotically loaded to failure

Test Methods: Tensile Test: 

Test Methods: Tensile Test A615 MMFX

Test Methods: Concrete Strength: 

Test Methods: Concrete Strength Compression testing average fc’ = 6000 psi

Results: Tensile Test: 

Results: Tensile Test

Results: Tensile Test: 

Results: Tensile Test fy = 153.5 ksi fy = 61.2 ksi A615 MMFX Stress (ksi) Strain (%)

Slide14: 

Graph of the Load vs. Strain generated from 3 point bending tests of reinforced concrete beams MMFX design yield line strain = 3800 MMFX experimental yield line strain = 3100

Results: 3 point bending: 

Results: 3 point bending

Conclusions: 

Conclusions More evaluation of test data needs to be conducted MMFX is stronger in tension and in flexure than A615 Direct substitutions of MMFX for A615 is not recommended The yield stress and ultimate stress in concrete beams reinforced with MMFX might be significantly different.

Future Research: 

Future Research More Tensile and Strength Testing Investigate the magnetism as a means of non-destructive evaluation

Acknowledgements: 

Acknowledgements Thanks to Gary Wenczel and Danny Richardson Thanks to Dr. Chajes The End