U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA)

FHWA NDE CENTER Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center 6300 Georgetown Pike McLean, Virginia, 22101

STEEL BRIDGE TESTING PROGRAM (SBTP) Crack Detection in Steel Bridges PHASE I INTERIM LABORATORY REPORT

Prepared by: FHWA NDE Center Frank Jalinoos Program Manager Laboratory Support Contractor, ESC, Inc. Staff: Shuang Jin, Ph.D., Senior Research Engineer Pranaam Haldipur, Ph.D., Research Engineer Raghu Satyanarayana, Ph.D., Contract Project Manager

Draft Final Report March 30, 2009

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to the following individuals for their contributions: ESC, Inc. personnel: Mr. John M. Hooks, Bridge Engineer; Mr. Richard A. Hale, Laboratory Technician; Mr. Ron Nelson, consultant; and Ms. Candace Dickerson, Resource Manager. Former laboratory support contractor Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. (WJE) staff members at the NDE Center who contributed in the first two years of this study: Mr. Mark Moore, Dr. Ali Rezai, Dr. Shuang Jin, Mr. Travis Green, and Mr. Brian Story. Dr. Paul Fuchs Fuchs Consulting, Inc. (FCI) Messrs. Larry Mullins and Mark Davis Davis NDE Phased array testing. Dr. Monty Mousier Matech EFS testing. Dr. David C Grundy Jentek Sensors Eddy Current array testing. Messrs. Richard Gostautas and Terry Tamutus from Physical Acoustics Corporation (PAC) for acoustic emission testing. The authors would also like to acknowledge the technical review and many helpful comments provided by the following individuals: FHWA- Turner-Fairbanks Drs. Fassil Beshah, Bill Wright, Justin Ocell, Joey Hartmann, and Ian Friedland. FHWA HQ Bridge Program Office Mr. Vasant Mistry. New York State Department of Transportation Dr. Sreenivas Alampalli.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 Research Objectives .................................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................................. 1 Fatigue Cracks in Steel Bridges ............................................................................................. 1 Need for Advanced NDE Technologies in Steel Bridge Inspections ....................................... 2 RESEARCH PLAN AND DELIVERABLES ............................................................................ 4 ACQUISITION OF NDE TECHNOLOGIES UNDER THE COMBINED SYNOPSIS/ SOLICITATION (CSS) ................................................................................................................ 5 CSS-Stage I ................................................................................................................................. 6 CSS-Stage II ............................................................................................................................... 6 Crack Detection Technologies ................................................................................................ 8 Crack Growth Detection Technologies ................................................................................... 8 PHASE I - LABORATORY EVALUATION ............................................................................ 8 Laboratory Test Specimens ........................................................................................................ 9 Crack Detection Specimens .................................................................................................. 10 Crack Growth Detection Specimens ..................................................................................... 11 Twin-Steel Plate Bridge Girder System: ............................................................................... 11 Laboratory Test Results ............................................................................................................ 12 Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................... 13 CRACK DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES ............................................................................. 14 Evaluation of Phased Array Ultrasonic (PAUT) System.......................................................... 14 Principles of PAUT ............................................................................................................... 14 Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................... 15 Laboratory Test Plan and Results......................................................................................... 15 Summary of Conclusions Based on the Laboratory Tests on PAUT System ........................ 23 Evaluation of Eddy Current (ET) Systems ............................................................................... 23 Principles of Eddy Current Inspection ................................................................................. 23 Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................... 24 Laboratory Test Plan and Results......................................................................................... 25 Summary of Conclusions Based on the Laboratory Tests on Eddy Current Systems ........... 30 CRACK GROWTH DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES ......................................................... 31 Evaluation of Electrochemical Fatigue Sensor (EFS) System.................................................. 31 Principles of EFS System ...................................................................................................... 31 Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................... 32 Laboratory Test Plan and Results......................................................................................... 34 Summary of Conclusions Based on the Laboratory Tests on EFS System ........................... 45 Evaluation of Acoustic Emission (AE) Inspection System ...................................................... 46 Principles of Acoustic Emission Technology ........................................................................ 46 Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................... 48 Laboratory Test Plan and Results......................................................................................... 48 Summary of Conclusions Based on the Laboratory Tests on AE System ............................. 53 COMPARISONS OF CRACK DETECTION AND CRACK GROWTH DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES ...................................................................................................................... 53 ii

Inspection of Butt-Weld Plates with Engineered Surface Cracks using Jentek MWM Array and PAUT Systems ................................................................................................................... 53 Detection and sizing of small flaws of < 1 mm (0.04in) in length......................................... 54 Detection and sizing of larger flaws of 1 mm (0.04 in) in length ...................................... 54 Inspection of Growing Surface Cracks using EFS and AE Systems ........................................ 57 PHASE II FIELD DEPLOYMENT, TESTING AND EVALUATION.............................. 60 WEB-BASED INFORMATIONAL DATABASE ................................................................... 60 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 60 APPENDIX A ..............................................................................................................................A1 APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................................. B1 APPENDIX C ..............................................................................................................................C1 APPENDIX D ..............................................................................................................................D1 APPENDIX E .............................................................................................................................. E1 APPENDIX F .............................................................................................................................. F1

iii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Condition rating statistics - Route 1 Bridge1. ................................................................. 3 Figure 2. Specimens used to evaluate crack detection capabilities of NDE systems. a) Typical butt joint specimen with CJP groove weld. b) butt-welds with typically well-bonded bridge coating. c) typical tee joint specimens with fillet weld butt joints. d) typical reentrant corner joint specimen with fillet welds. ........................................................................................... 10 Figure 3. Specimens used to evaluate crack monitoring capabilities of NDE systems. ............... 12 Figure 4. A sample output from OmniScan MX system for crack detection. ............................. 18 Figure 5. Olympus phased array probe with a refracting wedge. ................................................ 18 Figure 6. Composite scan details for butt-weld specimen NDE-26 with a surface flaw of length 1.02mm (0.04in).The flaw represents a conservative estimate for flaws that can be detected with confidence. .................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 7. a) MWM sensor and Encoder. b) Defectometer pencil-probe. .................................... 24 Figure 8. a) Scanning pattern b) Defectometer pencil-probe. ...................................................... 25 Figure 9. Results for specimen NDE 9 using the MWM system. a) C-scan images of variation in magnetic permeability with position with FA43 sensor: a1) At three frequencies superimposed. a2) At 1.0 MHz. a3) At 3.162 MHz. a4) At 10.0 MHz. b) Variation of magnetic permeability of line scan 2. c) 126 kHz scan with FA28 sensor of butt-weld specimen NDE-09 with a surface flaw of length 1.02mm (0.04 in). The lift-off C-scan image is at left and the corresponding permeability C-scan image is at right. ..................... 27 Figure 10. Eddy current sensor measuring crack growth on a compact-tension specimen showing example data from a 7-channel sensor. ................................................................................. 31 Figure 11. EFS system for inspecting multiple suspected crack locations. ................................. 33 Figure 12. Laboratory Test Plan. ................................................................................................. 34 Figure 13. Type of EFS sensor placements for C(T) specimens. ................................................ 35 Figure 14. Setting up the EFS system in the C(T) specimen Test No.4. ..................................... 36 Figure 15. Sample plots of monitored fatigue crack growth and predictions by EFS system. .... 37 Figure 16. Fatigue crack growth length and growth rates detected by the EFS system during the C(T) specimen tests (Test No.1 to Test No. 8). .................................................................... 38 Figure 17. EFS sensor placement and the growing fatigue crack predicted by the EFS system in the C(T) specimen Test No.10. ............................................................................................. 39 Figure 18. EFS sensor placements and the growing fatigue crack predicted by the EFS system in the C(T) specimen Test No.11. ............................................................................................. 40 Figure 19. EFS sensor placement and testing setup of the steel cruciform specimen on the MTS load frame. ............................................................................................................................ 41 Figure 20. Sensor placement and EFS prediction of the growing fatigue crack in Cruciform Test No.1....................................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 21. EFS sensor placement and setup in Cruciform Specimen Test No.2. ........................ 43 Figure 22. Twin-steel plate bridge girder system and a suspected crack in the steel girders. ..... 44 Figure 23. Fatigue crack growth on the top tip of the crack at the steel girder web predicted by EFS system (Girder Test No.1). ............................................................................................ 44 Figure 24. Kaiser and Felicity phenomenon. ............................................................................... 47 Figure 25. Sensor Highway II acquisition system. ...................................................................... 48 Figure 26. Typical C(T) specimen and the placement of AE sensors. ........................................ 49 Figure 27. a) Typical cruciform specimen. b) Linear placement of AE probes .......................... 50 iv

Figure 28. 2D planar plot of acoustic events detected on cruciform specimen CF-A9 ............... 51 Figure 29. Propagation of AE events and damage over time. ..................................................... 52 Figure 30. AE amplitude histogram plot...................................................................................... 53 Figure 31. C-scan sof butt-weld specimen NDE-22 with a surface flaw of length 1.02 mm (0.04 in). Permeability C-scan image at 126kHz using FA28 MWM array sensor is at the left. The C-scan image of the specimen using the PAUT system is on the right. ............................... 55 Figure 32. C-scans of a bridge coated butt-weld specimen NDE-12 with a surface flaw of length 10.16 mm (0.4 in). Permeability C-scan image at 126 kHz using FA28 MWM array system is at left. The C-scan image of the specimen using the PAUT system is on the right. ......... 55 Figure 33. C-scan sof butt-weld specimen NDE-22 with a surface flaw of length 30.48 mm (1.2 in). Permeability C-scan image at 126kHz using FA28 MWM array sensor is at the left. The C-scan image of the specimen using the PAUT system is on the right. .............................. 55 Figure 34. EFS and AE sensor placements in the Cruciform Specimen Test.............................. 57 Figure 35. Test setup for the Cruciform Specimen. ..................................................................... 58 Figure 36. Fatigue crack and crack surface resulting from the cruciform test. ........................... 58 Figure 37. Comparison of crack growth detections by EFS and AE systems in the cruciform test. ............................................................................................................................................... 59

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. SBTP research deliverables. ............................................................................................ 5 Table 2. Example CSS technical evaluation sheet. ........................................................................ 7 Table 3. List of selected vendors and technologies under CSS, Stage II....................................... 8 Table 4. List of Appendices for NDE Product Evaluations. ........................................................ 14 Table 5. Specifications for test specimen blocks used for PAUT evaluation. ............................. 16 Table 6. Results of initial laboratory evaluations of the PAUT system....................................... 20 Table 7. Results of the tests carried out with Defectometer and MWM array system using FA43 sensor. ................................................................................................................................... 28 Table 8. Tests of EFS system on C(T) specimens using single-frequency cyclic loads. .............. 36 Table 9. Tests on cruciform specimens using single-frequency cyclic loads. .............................. 41 Table 10. Comparison of flaw detection and sizing capabilities of MWM (FA28 sensor) array and PAUT systems................................................................................................................ 56

vi

INTRODUCTION In accordance with Section 5202(d) of Title V of SAFETEA-LU, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) Center at the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC) has been tasked to conduct a research study designated herein as the Steel Bridge Testing Program (SBTP). This multi-year study is designed to identify and evaluate nondestructive systems and/or techniques capable of detecting surface or subsurface cracks and growing cracks as small as 0.25 mm (0.01 in) in length or depth. Research Objectives The objective of this study is to facilitate the development and deployment of the nondestructive technologies that are capable of detecting surface or subsurface cracks, including growing cracks, in steel bridge structures. The focal point of the study is on steel bridge girders at fatigue prone and high-stress critical locations where the presence of growing cracks is critical. Locations at steel bridge girders with high concentrations of stress, particularly at steel weldments and sharp corners, are of interest. Background Fatigue Cracks in Steel Bridges According to 2007 statistics, there are approximately 600,000 bridges in the National Bridge Inventory (NBI). Approximately 190,000 (i.e., about 32%) of these bridges are defined as steel or steel continuous bridges. The majority of steel bridges in the United States are performing extremely well. The superstructures of steel bridges come in numerous shapes and sizes, including box girders, plate girders, trusses, arches, and rigid frames. All of these bridges are composed of numerous individual steel members that are connected by some combination of bolts, rivets, and welds. The most common problems with steel bridge superstructures are corrosion and cracking. In most cases, corrosion or corrosion byproducts on steel bridge members can be readily located, observed, and evaluated. However, the detection of cracks in steel bridge superstructures often requires more detailed inspections. Cracking in steel bridges that are in service is often caused by local material fatigue failure. Fatigue causes formation and propagation of a crack resulting from various loading conditions such as variable and cyclic loads. Fatigue cracks typically occur over a period of time and are dependent largely on effective stress range, frequency of cyclical loads, and structural detailing. Cracks may develop because of fatigue or poor detailing which exhibits high stress concentrations. A limited number of fatigue cracks may result in complete failure of a steel bridge member or the entire steel structure, however, the presence of fatigue cracks does not necessarily imply that the entire structure has exceeded its service life. Many fatigue cracks can be easily repaired by drilling holes at the tip of the cracks to stop crack propagation (if the driving force is removed). However, the presence of fatigue cracks complicates the evaluation of the projected life of bridge spans. Therefore, a determination must be made as to whether the cracks will continue to grow and become critical. If a crack is allowed 1

to continue propagating, fracture and rapid extension of the crack may occur and result in gross deformations or loss of serviceability of the structure or the cracked structural member. Fatigue cracks are of particular interest on bridges that cannot develop alternate load paths typically called fracture critical bridges. If unchecked, such fatigue cracks could result in partial or total collapse of the bridge structure. Although not usually visible in the field, fatigue crack surfaces are typically flat and smooth. However, in several isolated cases (e.g., failure of the Hoan Bridge in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in December 2000) fracture has occurred without fatigue. Fortunately, modern bridges are typically designed as redundant structures (i.e. they can develop alternate load paths). In addition, modern bridge steels are also required to have relatively high toughness in order to resist fracture. The most common measure of bridge steel toughness is obtained from Charpy V-notch testing. The FHWA now requires that highway bridges are inspected generally on a two-year basis (Routine Inspection). These biennial inspections are performed in accordance with the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS). The primary assessment method for the biennial NBIS inspections is based on visual inspection. Many cracks in steel bridge members are difficult to detect by visual inspection, especially when bridge coatings or corrosion products cover the crack. When cracks are identified, most States use only basic NDE techniques like dye penetrant (PT) and magnetic particle (MT) to obtain additional information. Visual inspection, PT, and MT require bridge access and only provide information about the crack at the time of inspection and testing. Need for Advanced NDE Technologies in Steel Bridge Inspections Since Visual Inspection (VI) method is, by far, the predominant nondestructive evaluation technique used in bridge inspections, the FHWA NDE Center initiated a comprehensive study to quantify the variability of VI for typical highway bridges1. Considering that VI may have limitations that affect its reliability, the research cited focused on a comprehensive study to examine the state of practice of the reliability of the VI method for highway bridges. Significant variability was observed in routine inspection tasks from one inspector to another and from one state to another for the same bridge. Figure 1 shows an example based on a study for condition rating frequency distribution between 49 inspectors for a steel US Route 1 Bridge. This four-span 335.28-m (1,100-ft) steel bridge has a superstructure of 1.83 m (6 ft) deep welded plate girders with variable-thickness flange plates. This bridge includes construction details and defective conditions that are typical of major steel highway bridges. This variability was most prominent in the assignment of condition ratings, but was also present in inspection documentation. The study concluded that, on an average, between four and five different condition rating values were observed for each primary component. Additionally, the researchers noted significant variability in close-up In-Depth Inspections that is required on fracture critical steel bridges. They noted that in-depth inspections are unlikely to correctly identify many of the specific types of defects for which this type of inspection is frequently prescribed. As an example, only 9 out of 49 (18%) inspectors correctly identified details containing small (but visible) weld crack indications and only 3 of the 42 (7%) inspectors correctly identified the implanted (visible) tack weld crack indication1. A number of factors such as inspection time, inspector comfort with access equipment and heights, structure complexity 2

and accessibility, inspector viewing of welds, and number of annual bridge inspections contributed to this variability.
40
35 34

35

Deck Superstructure Substructure

32

30

25 Frequency

20

15
10

13

10
4 5 4

5
0

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Condition Rating

Figure 1. Condition rating statistics - Route 1 Bridge1. Additionally, the researchers noted significant variability in close-up In-Depth Inspections that are required on fracture critical steel bridges. They noted that in-depth inspections are unlikely to correctly identify many of the specific types of defects for which this type of inspection is frequently prescribed. As an example, only 9 out of 49 (18%) inspectors correctly identified details containing small (but visible) weld crack indications and only 3 of the 42 (7%) inspectors correctly identified the implanted (visible) tack weld crack indication1. A number of factors such as inspection time, inspector comfort with access equipment and heights, structure complexity and accessibility, inspector viewing of welds, and number of annual bridge inspections contributed to this variability. Consequently, there is a growing consensus that VI needs to be complemented with more objective measures if accurate estimates of both component and overall system reliability are to be expected. As the infrastructure continues to age and with at least one well publicized bridge collapse in recent memory (i.e. I-35W in Minneapolis, Minnesota), bridge owners are interested in new inspection and monitoring techniques to ensure the continued safety of highway bridges.

RESEARCH PLAN AND DELIVERABLES Procurement of NDE Technologies The primary goal of the current research is the selection of several promising commercial or prototypical crack detection and crack growth detection technologies followed by their in-depth evaluation in the laboratory (Phase I) and in the field (Phase II). An additional goal is the development of a web portal containing summary evaluation of all technologies used in this evaluation. The research plan was implemented in cooperation with the FHWA using a two-tier solicitation plan: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation (CSS) used for the acquisition of commercial technologies. Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) Time and budget permitting, this solicitation plan (or similar) was to be used for the acquisition and/or evaluation of developmental products and/or system prototypes.

Evaluation of NDE Technologies A three (3) phase plan for evaluation was designed: Phase I - Laboratory Evaluations In-depth laboratory evaluation of technologies acquired through the CSS solicitation at the FHWA NDE Center. Phase II Field Evaluations Deployment by the NDE Center of promising technologies identified in Phase I to the field and tested and evaluated at various bridge sites around the country. Phase III - NDE Center Web Manual Development of a web-based informational database of all current, commercial state-of-the-art, developmental, and prototypical technologies and their associated capabilities for use by the bridge community. This includes technologies not evaluated under Phases I and II such as infrared thermography, radiography, and so forth.

The anticipated research deliverables are listed in Table 1. As shown in this table, a total of four (4) reports and a web-based manual will be prepared by the NDE Center as part of the SBTP. If budget and time permit, several other reports may also be prepared by outside agencies. In the next section, a brief summary of the acquisition of NDE technologies under the CSS solicitation is described.

Table 1. SBTP research deliverables. Research Plan Process CSS Stage I Literature review and initial screening.
(10 products were selected.)

Status Completed.

Research Product Internal NDE Center Report. Internal NDE Center Report.

Acquisition of Commercially Available Technologies

CSS Stage II Technology demonstration and final selection.

(5 products were selected.)

Completed.

Acquisition of System Prototypes Laboratory Evaluation of CSS technologies Field Deployment of CSS Technologies Web-Based Portal Comparing All Technologies

BAA (Time and budget permitting) Phase I

Not advertised.

Report(s) prepared by outside agencies. Internal NDE Center Report; may become an FHWA Published Report.

This Report.

Phase II

NDE Web Manual

Completion of the FHWA Published Report is targeted for Report. December 31, 2010. Incorporated as part of NDE Center Web Ongoing. Manual.

ACQUISITION OF NDE TECHNOLOGIES UNDER THE COMBINED SYNOPSIS/ SOLICITATION (CSS) On July 26, 2006, the FHWA announced a Combined Synopsis/ Solicitation (CSS) entitled Steel Bridges Testing Program for the acquisition of commercially available NDE systems. The objective of the CSS was to conduct a comprehensive screening of crack detection and crack growth detection technologies that are suitable for further laboratory assessment and field deployment. A summary of this acquisition is presented herein and the detailed selection process is presented in two internal FHWA NDE Center working documents. The evaluation of these commercially available crack detection technologies was conducted in two stages: CSS-Stage I Comprehensive literature review and screening of promising technologies with application to bridge inspection (most of these technologies are developed for applications other than bridges). Ten (10) different NDE products were selected for further evaluation and an internal report was completed documenting the selection process.

CSS-Stage II Demonstration of the ten (10) products chosen in Stage I at the NDE Center followed by final selection of 5 products for in-depth laboratory and field analyses. An internal laboratory report was created documenting the selection process.

CSS-Stage I A preliminary review of product literature submitted in response to the FHWAs CSS was conducted by evaluators to identify those products with the most potential for meeting the FHWAs requirements. The results from the preliminary literature review were used to select technologies for on-site demonstrations, presentations, and final selections in Stage II. Specific CSS selection criteria are listed in Table 2. Advantageous capabilities included ability to assess crack size, depth, orientation, crack growth rates, and requirements for removal of existing bridge coating. A critical capability was portability and ease of deployment in the field. Each product was also required to have at least one of the following characteristics: Capable of detecting both surface and subsurface cracks in steel. Require minimum, if any, surface preparation. Capable of implementation on uneven surfaces to detect cracks in crown, toe, or root of a steel weld. Ability to detect cracks through surface coatings or the rust coat on weathering steels.

CSS-Stage II During Stage II, companies with a total of ten (10) products meeting the CSS requirements were invited for on-site demonstrations and interviews at the TFHRC. Following this exercise, FHWA and NDE Center staff evaluated how well each product met the required characteristics and advantageous capabilities as defined by the CSS. Based on this evaluations, five (5) commercial technologies were selected under the CSS as shown in Table 3. The CSS technologies (Table 3) were further divided into the two groups: (1) crack detection technologies, and (2) crack growth detection technologies. Cracks in steel bridge structures are generally considered to be active or dormant. A dormant crack does not undergo changes in its geometric properties. However, an active crack is changing in length over time as loads are applied to the bridge structure. Ultimately, an active crack may reach a critical size and result in a fracture in the structure. Crack growth detection technologies may be able to estimate crack growth rates through either continuous monitoring or discrete measurements made over periodic time intervals.

Table 2. Example CSS technical evaluation sheet.

System No. Technology:

Capability
Yes No

Product Name: Manufacturer:

Graduated Rating 4 5 6 7 8 Comment 9 10

Capable of detecting surface cracks - Crack size - Depth of crack - Orientation of crack - Measure crack growth rates Capable of detecting subsurface cracks - Crack size - Depth of crack - Orientation of crack - Measure crack growth rates Require minimum surface preparation Implementation on uneven surfaces Detect cracks in crown of weld Detect cracks in toe of weld Detect cracks in root of weld Detect cracks through coatings Detect cracks on weathering steel Crack growth detection capability (capability to detect that a crack is growing - different from the ability to detect the presence of a crack. This characteristic relates to the ability to detect a change in crack size.)

Table 3. List of selected vendors and technologies under CSS, Stage II. VENDOR 1. Olympus NDT 2. JENTEK Sensors 3. Foerster Instruments 4. Material Technologies 5. Physical Acoustics PRODUCT OmniScan MX PAUT system MWM-Array Eddy Current Array Inspection System Defectometer 2.837 Eddy Current Portable Instrument Electrochemical Electrochemical Fatigue Fatigue Sensor (EFS) Acoustic Emission 16-Channel Highway (AE) II AE System TECHNOLOGY Ultrasonic Phased Array APPLICATION

Crack Detection Technology

Crack Growth Detection Technology

Crack Detection Technologies A crack detection technology, as defined by the FHWA NDE Center, is a nondestructive inspection technology that is able to detect the presence of a crack and its geometric characteristics in a structure. A cracks geometric characteristics can include its length, depth, and/or orientation. Crack detection technologies may also be used to estimate the crack growth rate by measuring the length of a crack growth at periodic time intervals. Crack Growth Detection Technologies A crack growth detection technology, as defined by the FHWA NDE Center, is a nondestructive inspection technology that is able to determine the state of a fatigue crack in a structure or structural member under common fatigue loadings. Cracks in steel bridges are generally considered to be either active or dormant. An active crack propagates over time under cyclic loadings. Active cracks, if not properly addressed, can result in a large fracture in a short time period. Dormant cracks, in general, do not propagate over time under cyclic loadings. These cracks may have already propagated to the point when the applied stresses are being redistributed to other parts of the structure. Crack growth detection technologies may also be used to estimate the crack growth rates for an actively growing crack. PHASE I - LABORATORY EVALUATION Phase I of this research work included laboratory evaluation of five (5) commercially available products selected as a result of the CSS. The goal was to determine, through systematic laboratory tests under controlled loading and environmental conditions, each products capabilities and its associated limitations. The laboratory tests were conducted in the FHWA NDE Center using several different types of test specimens and a full-scale, twin-steel plate bridge girder system. The specimens used in the tests represented various types of joint geometries, material thicknesses, coatings, and possible weld defects. In steel bridge structures, the types of weld defects often include cracks, slag inclusions, porosity, and lack of fusion.

NOTES: 1. Evaluation of the products under CSS is meant to be an evaluation study of representative technologies in the desired applications. The FHWA NDE Center does not endorse any such products. Results presented herein denote representative capabilities of each of the technologies. 2. Since in-depth evaluation of phased array, eddy current, and AE technologies has been previously performed by others, a greater amount of emphasis is placed in evaluating the EFS technology. Laboratory Test Specimens The laboratory testing program utilized several types of laboratory specimens fabricated to characterize typical fatigue cracks in connections or details in steel bridges. In order to represent different features of joint geometries, material thicknesses, coatings and weld defects, the laboratory test included the following different types of test specimens: Crack Detection Specimens 31 small-scale Flawtech with engineered defects. Dimensions 305 x 178 x 19 mm (12 x 7 x in). 26 Butt-Welded Steel Plate Specimens - V-groove butt-joint, full penetration. M270 Grade 36 and 50 steel. Uncoated specimens Coated specimens (bridge three coat system) High performance steel M270 Grade HPS70W and Weathering steel M270 Grade 50W specimens 4 T-Joint Fillet-Welded Steel Plate Specimens. M270 G36 Steel. Dimension 330 x 178 x 19 mm (13 x 7 x in) & 178 x 114 x 19 mm (7 x 4.5 x in). 1 T-Joint Fillet-Welded Steel Gusset Plate Specimen. M270 G36 Steel. Dimensions 381 x 381 x 25 mm (15 x 15 x 1 in) & 203 x 114 x 19 mm (8 x 4.5 x in) & 152 x 114 x 19 mm (6 x 4.5 x in). Crack Growth Detection Specimens 34 Compact Tension C(T) Specimens 12 Cruciform Specimens Full-Scale Steel Plate Girder with Various Weld Details M270 G36 steel. Dimensions 8.5 x 0.9 m (28 x 3 ft). It contains 4 fillet-welded gusset plates of 406 x 241 x 13 mm (16 x 9.5 x inches) and 4 fillet-welded transverse stiffeners 546 x 76 x 32 mm (21.5 x 3 x 1.25 inches).

Crack Detection Specimens Thirty-one (31) crack specimens professionally designed and fabricated by FlawTech, Inc. (hereinafter called as Flawtech specimens) were used in this study. Each specimen included one or more manufactured cracks. Figures 2 through 4 illustrate several of the crack specimens. The specimen base metal materials comply with AASHTO specifications for M270 G36 and M270 G50 steels. All fabrication and welding was performed in accordance with the American Welding Society (AWS) D1.5 Bridge Welding Code. The specimens used for evaluation of crack detection technologies included: 1) Typical buttweld specimen with CJP groove weld (Figure2a); 2) butt-welds with typically well-bonded bridge coating (Figure 2b); 3) typical tee joint specimens with fillet weld butt joints (Figure 2c); and, 4) typical reentrant corner joint specimen with fillet welds (Figure 2d). Crack geometries are varied based on the fatigue category and structural detail represented by each specimen. Detailed information about each crack specimen category is included in Appendix A.

Figure 2. Specimens used to evaluate crack detection capabilities of NDE systems. a) Typical butt joint specimen with CJP groove weld. b) butt-welds with typically well-bonded bridge coating. c) typical tee joint specimens with fillet weld butt joints. d) typical reentrant corner joint specimen with fillet welds.

10

Coated Specimens The purpose of coated specimens (shown in Figure 2b) is to provide realistic coated surfaces for evaluating the detection capabilities and limitations of candidate products over coatings. The specimens were initially coated with off-the-shelf black spray paint and later the spray paint was removed and replaced with a typical three coat bridge system. An organic zinc-rich primer, an epoxy intermediate, and a polyurethane topcoat by KTA-Tator was used. This coating was a mixture of KTA-Tators Carbozinc 859; Carboguard 893SG with optional (LT) cure, and Carbothane 133 LH products. This coating system is a well-established system and is commonly used by DOTs in the US. Weathering Specimens The weathering steel specimens have a protective oxide film also referred as a patina which is the natural permanent adherent protective rust layer inherent on weathering steel. The natural protective rust layer on weathering steel adheres permanently to the base metal and is less porous than the rust layers in conventional steels that disengage from base metal. Crack Growth Detection Specimens Compact Tension C(T) Specimens: The C(T) specimen is the most commonly used, standardized, fracture mechanics test specimen used to characterize crack initiation and crack growth under controlled loading conditions (Figure 3a). For this research project, a total of 32 C(T) specimens were used to evaluate the crack growth technologies. The compliance method defined by ASTM E647 was used by the NDE Center staff to monitor and calculate crack size. The crack growth length estimated by the compliance method is used in the comparison with the results from the tests of NDE crack growth detection products. Detailed information related to the C(T) specimens is also included in Appendix A. Cruciform Specimens: Since the C(T) specimen (Figure 3b) is very idealized and does not truly represent conditions that will be found on a bridge structure, a more realistic cruciform specimen was used. This specimen is welded together with a Category C weld detail and is the most common weld detail for bridges. This is a realistic geometry that more adequately tests the practicality of placing sensors on bridges. Twin-Steel Plate Bridge Girder System: Two steel plate girders were used to assemble a full-scale, twin-steel plate bridge girder system (Figure 3c) to provide realistic structural details and test conditions. Fabricated by Williams Bridge Company in 2001, the steel plate girders are 8.5 m (28 ft) long and 0.9 m (3 ft) deep with 0.3 m (1 ft) wide 19 mm (3/4 in) thickness top and bottom flange plates. The steel plate girders also have four (4) transverse stiffeners 546 x 76 x 32 mm (21.5 x 3 x 1.25 inches). They are fillet 11

welded to the 12.7 mm (1/2 in) thickness girder web. Fillet welds are typically 7.9 mm (5/16 in). The transverse stiffener geometries vary by location in order to accommodate several fatigue prone details such as full depth stiffeners, partial depth stiffeners, longitudinal stiffeners, and gusset plates. The 31.7 mm (1-1/4 in) thickness longitudinal stiffeners are 76 mm (3 in) wide and 546 mm (21-1/2 in) long. The 12.7 mm (1/2 in) thickness gusset plates are 241 mm (9-1/2 in) wide and 406 mm (16 in) long. The four (4) gusset plates were welded with 12.7 mm (1/2 in) CJP welds with a reinforcing fillet in order to improve fatigue prone performance. The girders were constructed using M270 G36 steel and have no surface protective coatings and have been stored indoors since 2001.

(a )

C(T) specimen

(b )

(c )

Cruciform specimen

Twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system

Figure 3. Specimens used to evaluate crack monitoring capabilities of NDE systems. Laboratory Test Results To evaluate the effectiveness of the selected crack detection products, uncoated, coated, and weathering Flawtech specimens, all with well defined existing flaws, were used in the laboratory tests. Similarly, to evaluate the effectiveness of the selected crack growth detection products in locating existing growing cracks (micro-plasticity or crack threading), a combination of C(T) specimens, cruciform specimens, and the twin-steel plate bridge girder system were used in the laboratory tests. For detecting crack growth, each specimen was subjected to controlled cyclic loads in order to create propagating cracks at known locations. The use of bridge loading was also investigated. A specially designed environmental chamber was also used along with the MTS test system to examine the effectiveness of each detection product under certain environmental (temperature) effects.

12

To support the laboratory tests for detecting crack growth, the NDE Center staff started several primary analysis efforts focusing on the C(T) specimens, cruciform specimens, and the twin steel bridge plate girder system. The goal was to identify the critical stress concentration areas in these test specimens and guide the placement of sensors during these tests. The LS-DYNA nonlinear finite element code was used in detailed modeling and dynamics simulation of these test specimens. Special fine meshing of the finite element model was used for the welds and joints. The material model of these steel specimen members uses the piece-wise elastic plastic failure model. Extensive computer simulations were performed to reveal the locations of the fatigue crack initiation and propagation sites in the C(T) and cruciform specimen tests. Simulations using nonlinear dynamics were used to reveal the critical stress concentration areas in the twin-steel plate bridge girder system and to locate the fatigue crack site. The detailed analysis is illustrated in Appendix B.
Evaluation Criteria

The Phase I evaluation process initially included a more general review of each technologys crack detection and crack growth detection capabilities. During this evaluation, the NDE Center staff used a variety of steel specimens in the laboratory tests in order to gain a sound understanding of each of the selected technologies as well as to examine the general strengths and weaknesses of each system. Initial evaluation criteria for these tests included:

the ability to detect cracks, crack growth, crack size and orientation; the sensitivity in detecting crack and crack growth; and the influence of geometry, coating, and environmental conditions on detection capabilities.

Subsequently, a more detailed assessment was performed with the intention of providing specific information relating to product capabilities, requirements, and limitations1. This information included the following studies:
1. Resolution Study - to assess the capabilities and limitations of the crack detection products in terms of the smallest detectable geometrical dimensions, in length and/or depth, of the cracks. 2. Detection Study - to assess the capabilities and limitations of the crack detection products to detect existing fatigue cracks in various conditions, such as surface cracks, subsurface or internal cracks with variable depth, or cracks over rough surfaces. Internal cracks are generally interpreted as subsurface cracks or absolutely internal. 3. Sensitivity Study - to assess the maximum sensitivity of crack growth detection products to measure the smallest crack growth length under cyclic loads by compliance method. 4. Geometry or Accessibility Effect Study - to assess the capabilities and limitations of both crack detection products and crack growth detection products to different geometrical details (such as butt-joints, tee-joints, lap joints, fillet welds, etc.) and inspection accessibilities.
The detailed assessment presented herein is intended to serve as a comparative evaluation of selected commercial technologies using highly representative steel specimens and typical steel bridge structural members. It does not include a probability of detection (POD) study which could be quite exhaustive due to variability involved.
1

13

5. Coatings Effect Study - to assess the capabilities and limitations of both crack detection and crack growth detection products over various kinds of common protective bridge coatings. The coatings can be described as paint-like bridge coatings or protective rustlayers in weathering steel members. The laboratory assessment includes a detailed review of the specific evaluation criteria based on results from laboratory tests, considering detailed steel bridge loading and environmental conditions. The detailed reports for laboratory tests associated with each NDE technology are included in appendices listed in Table 4. Appendices C through F are meant to serve as standalone reports. In addition, Appendix A presents detailed information on the test specimens and Appendix B details information on the computer analyses and simulations. Summary results for these technologies are discussed herein. The FHWA NDE Center definitions for cracks detailed in this report are as follows: Surface cracks - depth below the surface is 0 mm. Sub-surface cracks - depth below the surface is less than 2 mm (0.08 in). Internal cracks - depth below the surface is more than 2 mm (0.08 in).
Table 4. List of Appendices for NDE Product Evaluations. APPENDIX TECHNOLOGY Phased Array Ultrasonic C D E F VENDOR OLYMPUS NDT a) JENTEK Sensor, Inc. b) FOERSTER Instruments Material Technologies (MATEC) Physical Acoustics Corporation (PAC) APPLICATION

Eddy Current Electrochemical Fatigue Sensor (EFS) Acoustic Emission

Crack Detection Technology Crack Growth Detection Technology

CRACK DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES

Detection of cracks in steel highway bridges has been an area of great concern to the inspection and maintenance community. A series of test specimens were engineered and fabricated with flaws that typically mimic those encountered in steel bridge structures. Appendix A provides more details on the specimens and laboratory testing details are provided in Appendix C for the phased array system and Appendix D for the eddy current systems.
Evaluation of Phased Array Ultrasonic (PAUT) System Principles of PAUT

Phased array is an advanced ultrasonic crack detection technology capable of detecting both internal and surface cracks in a structure. The phased array systems are also able to detect weld defects such as slag, porosity, lack of fusion, and cracks. A phased array is an array of individual ultrasonic transducer elements each with its own connector where the excitation of the elements

14

can be individually controlled to electronically steer or focus the ultrasonic beam. The beam movement depends on the probe geometry and time multiplexing. There are two (2) major computer controlled beam scanning patterns: 1. Electronic Scanning scanning is performed by pulsing a group of elements electronically in sequence at a constant angle and along the length of the transducer. This is equivalent of a raster scan performed by a conventional UT transducer. 2. Sectorial Scanning (or Beam Steering) performed by delaying pulsing of each element electronically resulting in a wavefront propagating along an angle that is dependant on time delays between firings. Sectorial scanning is particularly useful in scanning where minimal footprint is necessary. Linear scans are performed along a single-axis parallel to the weld and raster scans are performed in an x-y back-and-forth motion. Combining linear scanning, sectorial scanning, and precision focusing leads to a practical combination of displays in top, side and end views. Phased array is extensively described in the literature. Appendix C provides a detailed description of the technology and the results of the laboratory evaluation performed for this report.
Instrumentation

Phase I laboratory evaluation were performed using the Olympus NDT OmniScan portable phased array unit designated as a 32/128 unit. This instrument is a high-end portable instrument capable of controlling phased array transducers or transducer combinations with as many as 128 elements and with instructions provided to 32 elements at any given beam formation. The phased array probe used in our laboratory evaluation was a 5L64 Olympus probe, which is a 5 MHz linear array probe with 64 available elements. As shown in Figure 5, the probe also utilized a refracting wedge intended nominally to generate a 55 shear wave. Phased array technology allows this system to be selectively operated from 30 to 70 for shear wave generation in this probe/wedge configuration.
Laboratory Test Plan and Results

All thirty-one (31) Flawtech specimens were used to evaluate the system. Specifications for specimens are provided in Table 5. Three criteria were used to determine the sensitivity and accuracy of these systems:

Ability to detect and size surface cracks in welds. Ability to detect and size sub-surface cracks. Ability to detect and size flaws in specimens with bridge coatings.

Figure 4 illustrates a sample output. A 2D position encoder, custom calibration block for focusing at longer distances, and grouping software are useful for advanced imaging capability.

15

Table 5. Specifications for test specimen blocks used for PAUT evaluation.
Depth Below Surface 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 1.52mm (0.06in) 1.98mm (0.078in) 1.98mm (0.078in) 2.03mm (0.08in) 2.03mm (0.08in) 2.03mm (0.080in) 1.09mm (0.043in) 2.11mm (0.083in) Reference to weld center line. 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.72mm (2.745in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.77mm (2.747in) 69.80mm (2.748in)

Block ID

Material

Type

Coating

Height 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 30.48mm (1.20in) 1.17mm (0.046in) 5.08mm (0.2in) 5.08mm (0.2in) 10.16mm (0.4in) 10.18mm (0.401in) 10.16mm (0.400) 30.45mm (1.2in) 30.48mm (1.20in) 5.03mm (0.198in) 1.06mm (0.042in) 10.16mm (0.4in) 2.03mm (0.08in) 10.16mm (0.4in) 10.16mm (0.4in) 1.01mm (0.040in) 2.01mm (0.079in)

Length 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.04mm (0.041in) 1.19mm (0.047in) 10.16mm (0.4in) 10.16mm (0.4in) 5.08mm (0.2in) 1.04mm (0.041in) 30.48mm (1.20in) 10.16mm (0.400in 10.16mm (0.40in) 10.01mm (0.394in) 1.01mm (0.04in) 30.53mm (1.202in) 3.07mm (0.121in) 30.48mm (1.2in) 5.08mm (0.20in) 1.09mm (0.043in) 3.02mm (0.119in)

NDE-26 NDE-9 NDE-11 NDE-24 NDE-22 NDE-29 NDE-11:1 NDE-10 NDE-12 NDE-10:1 NDE-28 NDE-27 NDE-25 NDE-23 NDE-3:1 NDE-1:1 NDE-4:1 NDE-6:1 NDE-8 NDE-7 NDE-5:1 NDE-2:1

A709-G50-W A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G50 A709-G50 A709-G-50-HP A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G50-HP A709-G50-W A709-G50 A709-G50 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36

BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP

BARE BARE BC BC BARE BARE BC BARE BC BARE BARE BARE BC BARE BARE BARE BARE BC BC BC BC BARE

BWP: Butt Weld Plate. TJP: Tee-Joint Plate. TGP: Tee-Gusset Plate. BC: Bridge Coating. 16

Table 5 (Continued). Specifications for test specimen blocks used for PAUT evaluation.
Block ID Material Type BWP NDE-19 A709-G36 BWP BWP NDE-18 A709-G36 BWP BWP NDE-20 NDE-13 NDE-14 NDE-15 NDE-16 A709-G36 BWP A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 TJP TJP TJP TJP TJP NDE-17 A709-G36 TJP TGP TGP NDE-21 A709-G36 TGP TGP BARE BARE BARE BARE BARE BC BARE BARE BARE BARE BARE BARE BC BC BARE Coating BC Depth Below Surface 3.00mm (0.118in) 3.00mm (0.118in) 6.09mm (0.24in) 5.02mm (0.198in) 5.25mm (0.207in) 6.17mm (0.243in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 3.05mm (0.120in) 4.11mm (0.162in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) Height 5.18mm (0.204in) 5.15mm (0.203in) 5.18mm (0.204in) 5.13mm (0.202in) 5.10mm (0.201) 5.05mm (0.199in) 1.12mm (0.044in) 2.06mm (0.081in) 5.21mm (0.205in) 10.41mm (0.401in) 5.11mm (0.201in) 4.90mm (0.193in) 5.18mm (0.204in) 5.11mm (0.201in) 5.13mm (0.202in) 5.08mm (0.2in) Length 10.36mm (0.408in) 10.29mm (0.405in) 10.18mm (0.401in) 10.16mm (0.400in) 10.10mm (0.398in) 10.15mm (0.396in) 1.09mm (0.043in) 3.05mm (0.12in) 10.16mm (0.4in) 30.45mm (1.199in) 10.11mm (0.398in) 10.19mm (0.401in) 3.30mm (0.13in) 5.03mm (0.198in) 10.29mm (0.405in) 10.41mm (0.41in) Reference to weld center line. 63.50mm (2.500in) 114.30mm (4.5in) 114.30mm (4.5in) 63.50mm (2.500in) 63.50mm (2.500in) 114.30mm (4.5in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 63.50mm (2.500in) 114.30mm (4.5in) -

BWP: Butt Weld Plate. TJP: Tee-Joint Plate. TGP: Tee-Gusset Plate. BC: Bridge Coating.

17

Figure 4. A sample output from OmniScan MX system for crack detection.

Figure 5. Olympus phased array probe with a refracting wedge.

Early assessment of the nominal configurations indicated that a linear scan of two test surfaces, at 55 shear wave encoded, using a small scan increment would be a useful primary detection approach. The instrumentation allowed for a second (up to eight could have been used) sectorial approach using a 40 to 70 sector as a compliment to the 55 shear. This was judged a good initial evaluation setting. Four scans were used on each weld coupon. Each scan used both a 55 shear linear and a 40 to 70 shear sector. Each was fully encoded over the length of the 31 specimens. The initial assessment for crack lengths was based on conventional amplitude-based methods. For the evaluation study, a distance-amplitude-correction using available standard based on 4.76 mm (3/16 in) drilled holes was used. Following distance amplitude correction, the American Welding Societies IIW Type 27 mm (1 .060 in) side drilled hole was used to set the reference level for unpainted surfaces. Figure 6 indicates a representative result. Complete test reports are presented in Appendix C. 18

Figure 6. Composite scan details for butt-weld specimen NDE-26 with a surface flaw of length 1.02mm (0.04in).The flaw represents a conservative estimate for flaws that can be detected with confidence.

19

A table of initial evaluations is presented below:

Table 6. Results of initial laboratory evaluations of the PAUT system.
Block ID NDE-26 NDE-9 NDE-11 NDE-24 NDE-22 NDE-28 NDE-11:1 NDE-10 NDE-12 NDE-10:1 NDE-29 NDE-27 NDE-25 Material A709-G50-W A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G50 A709-G50 A709-G50-HP A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G50-HP A709-G50-W A709-G50 Type BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP Coating BARE BARE BC BC BARE BARE BC BARE BC BARE BARE BARE BC Depth Below Surface 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) Length 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.17mm (0.046in) 10.16mm (0.4in) 10.16mm (0.4in) 10.16mm (0.4in) 30.48mm (1.20in) 30.48mm (1.20in) 30.48mm (1.20in) Measured Length 3.048mm (0.12in) 1.49mm (0.059in) 0.99mm (0.039in) 2.99mm (0.118in) < 2.03mm (< 0.080in) 3.05mm (0.12in) NA 10.5mm (0.413 in) 10.5/ 11.5mm (0.413/ 0.453in) 10mm (0.394in (LR) 0.394in (RL)) 38.5mm (1.516in) 38.5 mm (1.516in) 38.5mm (1.516in) Comments
Small flaw but detectable. No sizeable features seen. Readily detectable with linear scan, marginal with sector scan. Detectable linear and not with sector scan. Small flaw but detectable. No sizeable features seen. Small flaw but detectable. No sizeable features seen. Small flaw but detectable. No sizeable features seen. Possible detection with linear scan. Readily detectable with linear and sector scans. Readily detectable with linear and sector scans. Readily detectable with Linear, less so with S Readily detectable with linear and sector scans. Readily detectable with linear and sector scans Readily detectable with linear and sector scans.

BWP: Butt Weld Plate TGP: Tee-Gusset Plate

TJP: Tee-Joint Plate BC: Bridge Coating

20

Table 6 (continued). Results of Initial Laboratory Evaluations of the PAUT system.

Block ID NDE-23 NDE-3:1 NDE-1:1 NDE-4:1 NDE-6:1 NDE-8 NDE-7 NDE-5:1 NDE-2:1 Material A709-G50 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 Type BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP Coating BARE BARE BARE BARE BC BC BC BC BARE BC BC BARE BC BARE Depth Below Surface 0.00mm (0.00in) 1.52mm (0.06in) 1.98mm (0.078in) 1.98mm (0.078in) 2.03mm (0.08in) 2.03mm (0.08in) 2.03mm (0.080in) 2.06mm (0.081in) 2.11mm (0.083in) 3.00mm (0.118in) 4.04mm (0.159in) 5.02mm (0.198in) 5.26mm (0.207in) 6.1mm (0.24in) Length 30.48mm (1.20in) 10.01mm (0.394in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 30.53mm (1.202in) 3.07mm (0.121in) 30.48mm (1.2in) 10.16mm (0.4in) 1.09mm (0.043in) 3.02mm (0.119in) 10.36mm (0.408in) 10.29mm (0.405in) 10.16mm (0.400in) 10.11mm (0.398in) 10.19mm (0.401in) Measured Length 36.5mm (1.437in) 10.5mm (0.413in) NA too saturated NA too sat 10.5mm (0.413in) NA NA 10mm (0.394in) 10mm (0.394in) 10mm (0.394in) 12mm (0.472in) 10mm (0.394in) Comments
Readily detectable with linear and sector scans Readily detectable with linear and sector scans. Not readily detectable. Readily detectable with linear and sector scans. Not readily detectable. Possibly a miss located flaw. Readily detectable with linear and sector scans. Readily detectable with linear and sector scans. Intended flaw does not standout remarkably from noise. Not readily detectable. Possible miss located flaw.

NDE-19 NDE-19 NDE-18 NDE-20 NDE-18

This may be a small sub surface flaw readily detectable both S and E.
Readily detectable with linear and sector scans. Readily detectable with linear and sector scans. Readily detectable with linear and sector scans. Flaws detected but well away from surface.

BWP: Butt Weld Plate TGP: Tee-Gusset Plate

TJP: Tee-Joint Plate BC: Bridge Coating

21

Table 6 (continued). Results of Initial Laboratory Evaluations of the PAUT system.

Block ID NDE-20 NDE-13 NDE-14 NDE-15 NDE-16 Material A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 Type BWP TJP TJP TJP TJP TJP NDE-17 A709-G36 TJP TGP NDE-21 TGP A709-G36 TGP TGP BARE BARE BARE BARE BARE Coating BC BARE BARE BARE BARE BARE Depth Below Surface 6.17mm (0.243in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 3.05mm (0.120in) 4.11mm (0.162in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) Length 10.06mm (0.396in) 1.09mm (0.043in) 3.05mm (0.12in) 10.16mm (0.4in) 30.45mm (1.199in) 10.11mm (0.398in) 10.19mm (0.401in) 3.30mm (0.13in) 5.03mm (0.198in) 10.29mm (0.405in) 10.41mm (0.41in) Measured Length 11.5mm (0.453in) 2mm (0.079in) 4.49mm (0.177in) 15mm (0.591in) too saturated 7mm (0.276in) 10.5mm (0.413in) 3.3 mm (0.130 in) NA 9.9 mm (0.390 in) 10.9 mm (0.429 in) Comments
Readily detectable with linear and sector scans. Possible detection, fillet weld geometry requires interpretation. Poor contact LR1. Detection with Linear scan (RL1.5) Readily detectable with linear and sector scans Readily detectable with linear and sector scans. Readily detectable with linear and sector scans. Readily detectable with linear and sector scans.

Readily detectable with linear and sector scans.

BWP: Butt Weld Plate TGP: Tee-Gusset Plate

TJP: Tee-Joint Plate BC: Bridge Coating

22

Summary of Conclusions Based on the Laboratory Tests on PAUT System

This research examined PAUT system to detect weld cracks in structural steel components typically used in steel bridges. Phase I laboratory evaluation of PAUT indicated a practical detection threshold of about 1 mm (0.04 in). The system is moderately sensitive to defect geometry but this sensitivity is less than those for traditional ultrasonic testing technologies due to the increased number of transducers. The detection capability of the PAUT system was not significantly affected by the presence of well bonded and relatively thin coatings (0.31 mm - 12 mils or less). The OmniScan system used in this study represents a typical PAUT system. The manufacturer claims that OmniScan is a rugged, easy to use, field-proven test system. There are several configurations of the unit. Based on current evaluation, desired features for field application include a fully configured 32/128 coupled with encoding and grouping features. Advanced software packages, such as TomoView, may be useful for enhancing equipment operation (e.g. advanced focal laws) and for more advanced back-office analysis. With proper scan planning, actual field implementation of phased array ultrasonics (PAUT) can be achieved. However, those assigned with the actual scan plan preparation will require advanced qualifications. Many of the more simple geometries, such as in-plane butt welds and tee joints, may have their scan plans prescribed by experts for field application.
Evaluation of Eddy Current (ET) Systems

This research examines two commercially available eddy current systems to detect cracks induced in welds in structural steel components typically used in bridge structures. Eddy Current (ET) technology has been effectively used in the aerospace and nuclear industries to locate and size defects. The possibility of using these systems for steel bridge testing has been explored as a part of this study. The technology is available in a low cost, small, portable form, and instantaneous test results are possible. These characteristics make it advantageous for field testing. However, the challenge of inspecting materials exists where magnetic properties vary spatially, the surface is irregular, and the ability of the eddy current probes to inspect surfaces with coatings typically applied to bridges. Two eddy current inspection systems (Jentek Sensors and Foerster-Defectometer) were evaluated in this study.
Principles of Eddy Current Inspection

Eddy currents are alternating electrical currents, usually of high frequency, which can be induced to flow in any metallic section. The change induced in their flow pattern is indicative of the presence of cracks or other discontinuities in the materials under inspection. Eddy current probes are available in a large variety of shapes and sizes. The probes are classified by the configuration and mode of operation of the test coils. The mode of operation of a probe generally falls into one of three categories: absolute, differential, and reflection. Absolute probes generally have a single test coil that is used to generate the eddy currents and sense changes in the eddy current field. Differential probes have two active coils usually wound in opposition. When the two coils are over a flaw-free area of test sample, there is no differential signal 23

developed between the coils since they are both inspecting identical material. However, when one coil is over a defect and the other is over a uniform section of the material microstructure, a differential signal is produced. Reflection probes have two coils similar to a differential probe, but one coil is used to excite the eddy currents and the other is used to sense changes in the test material. The physics behind the eddy current inspection technology and the probe characteristics of the two inspection systems used for this study are discussed in detail in appendix D.
Instrumentation

Two ET systems have been evaluated as a part of steel bridge testing program. Both systems, Jentek MWM array and Foerster-Defectometer, are suitable for scanning small areas of interest that are known to represent locations where cracks typically initiate. The size of the probe/sensor plays a vital role in determining a suitable size of the scan area. Figure 7a and 7b show the MWM sensor (with encoder) and defectometer probes used for this study. MWM Array system (JENTEK Sensors): The MWM array system developed by Jentek Sensors is an advanced eddy current inspection system. The MWM is a thin and conformable sensor that incorporates both eddy current type sensing and magnetic induction sensing methods to measure both conducting and magnetic properties of nonferrous and ferrous metals. Two MWM array sensors were used to evaluate this eddy current inspection system. A 7-channel probe FA43 sensor was used for initial evaluation. This was followed by inspections with a 37-channel FA28 sensor. Defectometer system (Foerster): The DEFECTOMETER 2.837 developed by Foerster Instruments, is a portable battery operated eddy current instrument that is used for detecting surface flaws in conductive materials (metals). In-depth description of the instrumentation and the test protocols are described in Appendix D.

Figure 7. a) MWM sensor and Encoder. b) Defectometer pencil-probe.

24

Laboratory Test Plan and Results

Due consideration was given to abilities and limitations of the eddy current technology and the test specimens were engineered with flaws that typically mimic those encountered in steel bridge structures. Three criteria were used to determine the sensitivity and accuracy of these systems:

Ability to detect surface cracks in welds. Ability to detect sub-surface cracks. Ability to detect flaws in specimens with bridge coatings.

Nineteen (19) manufactured flaw specimens containing engineered cracks were used to evaluate the system. The specimen set included 19 samples with butt welds and 5 Tee-joint plates with engineered flaws. The welds were fabricated such that the engineered cracks of specific length and depth were incorporated in them. High-strength, low-alloy structural steel (ASTM A709/AASHTO M270 grade 50, 50W and 50HP) and structural carbon steel (ASTM A709-G36 /AASHTO M270) plates were used as the base material for specimens. The specimen set comprised of flaws of different geometries, location and surface preparation (bridge coatings). A raster pattern scanning scheme was used to scan all the specimens using the two eddy current probes. The scan area was chosen based on the prior knowledge of the engineered crack locations. Detailed scans were carried out on the selected specimens using the two eddy current inspection systems. Representative results indicating the positive detection of an engineered crack (specimen NDE-9) are shown in Figures 8 and 9. Figure 8a shows the scanning pattern used for inspection with the defectometer system. The eddy current response from the defectometer pencil probe is shown in Figure 8b. The changes in the signal amplitude are observed as the probe is moved from the weld metal onto the crack and then to the base metal. A typical high amplitude signal at the location of the crack is observed. The results are sensitive to the speed of scanning and any lift-off during the scan. The results can also be affected by the difference in conductivity between base metal, weld deposit, and heat affected zones.

Figure 8. a) Scanning pattern b) Defectometer pencil-probe.

25

Two MWM sensors were used to inspect the NDE-9 butt-weld specimen. FA43 sensor was used to perform the scans with MWM array system for the initial setup. The FA43 sensor is a 7channel probe, 0.35 wide and 0.036 height scanning area and an operating frequency range of 1 KHz to 25 MHz. A second scan was carried out using the FA28 sensor. The FA28 MWM array has 37 sensor elements spaced 1.02mm (0.04 in) apart and has scan width of 37.6mm (1.48 in). For the scans with FA28 array, 6 frequencies were acquired: 39.8 kHz, 126 kHz, 398 kHz, 1.26 MHz, 3.98 MHz, and 12.6 MHz. The FA28 was angled 45 to the weld for all scans of the welded specimens. The results of the scan with the MWM sensor FA43 are shown in Figure 9. The variations of magnetic permeability with position which are comparable to conventional C-scan images at four frequencies are shown in Figure 9 a1 through a4. The significant changes in the magnetic permeability data at 1MHz from scan line 2 are indicative of the presence of a crack as shown in Figure 9 b. The location and the size of the crack derived from the scan are in good agreement with the crack geometry from the fabrication designs. In Figure 9c, the plot on the left side shows the lift-off as a function of position and the plot on right side shows the changes in magnetic permeability using the FA28 sensor. Tables 7 and 8 summarize the results of eddy current inspection of specimens used in this evaluation.

26

b)

c)

c)

Figure 9. Results for specimen NDE 9 using the MWM system. a) C-scan images of variation in magnetic permeability with position with FA43 sensor: a1) At three frequencies superimposed. a2) At 1.0 MHz. a3) At 3.162 MHz. a4) At 10.0 MHz. b) Variation of magnetic permeability of line scan 2. c) 126 kHz scan with FA28 sensor of butt-weld specimen NDE-09 with a surface flaw of length 1.02mm (0.04 in). The lift-off Cscan image is at left and the corresponding permeability C-scan image is at right.

27

Table 7. Results of the tests carried out with Defectometer and MWM array system using FA43 sensor.
Block ID NDE-9 NDE-11 NDE-10 NDE-12 NDE-3:1 NDE-1:1 NDE-4:1 NDE-2:1 NDE-19 NDE-18 NDE-20 NDE-13 NDE-14 NDE-15 NDE-16 NDE-17 Type BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP TJP TJP TJP TJP TJP Coating Bare BC Bare BC Bare Bare Bare Bare BC Bare BC Bare Bare Bare Bare Bare Depth Below Surface 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 1.52mm (0.06in) 1.98mm (0.078in) 1.98mm (0.078in) 2.11mm (0.083in) 3.00mm (0.118in) 5.02mm (0.198in) 5.26mm (0.207in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 3.05mm (0.120in) Length 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 10.16mm (0.4in) 10.16mm (0.4in) 10.01mm (0.394in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 30.53mm (1.202in) 3.02mm (0.119in) 10.36mm (0.408in) 10.16mm (0.400in) 10.11mm (0.398in) 1.09mm (0.043in) 3.05mm (0.12in) 10.16mm (0.4in) 30.45mm (1.199in) 10.11mm (0.398in) Width 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 5.08mm (0.2in) 5.08mm (0.2in) 5.03mm (0.198in) 1.07mm (0.042in) 10.16mm (0.4in) 2.01mm (0.079in) 5.18mm (0.204in) 5.13mm (0.202in) 5.11mm (0.201) 1.12mm (0.044in) 2.06mm (0.081in) 5.21mm (0.205in) 10.19mm (0.401in) 5.11mm (0.201in) Reference to weld center line 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.80mm (2.748in) 63.50mm (2.500in) 63.50mm (2.500in) 63.50mm (2.500in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 63.50mm (2.500in) Able to detect flaw with Defectometer system Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Able to detect flaw with MWM Array system Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No NE* No No No No No NE*

Material A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G36

BWP: Butt Weld Plate

TJP: Tee-Joint Plate BC: Bridge Coating *NE: Not examined 28

Table 7 (continued). Results of the tests carried out with MWM array system using FA28 sensor.
Block ID NDE-26 NDE-9 NDE-11 NDE-24 NDE-22 NDE-28 NDE-10 NDE-12 NDE-29 NDE-27 NDE-25 NDE-23 Material A709-G50-W* A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G50 A709-G50 A709-G50-HP* A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G50-HP* A709-G50-W* A709-G50 A709-G50 Type BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP Coating Bare Bare BC BC Bare Bare Bare BC Bare Bare BC Bare Depth Below Surface 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) 0.00mm (0.00in) Length 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 10.16mm (0.4in) 10.16mm (0.4in) 30.48mm (1.20in) 30.48mm (1.20in) 30.48mm (1.20in) 30.48mm (1.20in) Width 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 1.02mm (0.04in) 5.08mm (0.2in) 5.08mm (0.2in) 1.02mm (0.04) 10.16mm (0.40in) 10.16mm (0.40in) 10.16mm (0.40in) Reference to weld center line. 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) 69.85mm (2.750in) Estimated Threshold Length Not detected 1.52mm (0.06in) 3.81mm (0.15in) Not detected 1.27mm (0.05in) Not detected 10.92mm (0.43in) 12.95mm (0.51in) 33.01mm (1.30in) 31.49mm (1.24in) 5.08mm and 2.79mm (0.20in and 0.11in) 35.31mm (1.39in)

BWP: Butt Weld Plate

BC: Bridge Coating

29

Summary of Conclusions Based on the Laboratory Tests on Eddy Current Systems

Two eddy current inspection systems were evaluated for the detection of fatigue cracks. The hand held Defectometer system (2.837) is suitable for rapid inspection of surface cracks in bare metals; however they were not effective for weld inspection or in the heat affected zone. The inability of the Defectometer system to distinguish the Heat-affected zone (HAZ) noise from the crack signal poses a major problem and can lead to false positives. The results using the FA43 Jentek sensor/encoder assembly gave a mixed response. This was due to the design of the encoder that posed problems in scanning the test specimens and the lack of repeatability of the scan results. However, the results from the scans performed with an updated version of the encoder and the sensor FA28 are promising. The FA28 sensor has a wider scan area, and an extended choice of operating frequencies in the lower kHz range and the encoder is designed to perform scans without any significant lift-off effects. The results indicate that the presence of bridge coating has little or no effect on the inspection capabilities of the system. The system is well suited for the detection of surface cracks (depth below the surface is 0mm) with different geometric details. The FA28 sensor has been able to detect majority of the surface flaws of varying lengths (1 mm to 30 mm). The system has an ability to determine a flaw as small as 1.02mm (0.04 in).
Measuring Crack Growth by Periodic Inspection

One alternative for measuring crack growth is by measuring a crack at periodic intervals. The Jentek system utilizes special eddy current array sensors which are particularly suitable in this application. The sensor is fabricated on flexible circuit board material and is designed and characterized for the particular materials and defects to be measured (i.e. defect depth, orientation, material type, coating type / thickness). A seven-channel eddy current array sensor was used to measure a growing crack on a compact tension specimen. Responses from all seven channels are measured over time to monitor the growth of the crack (shown in Figure 10). A limited number of tests have been carried out to determine this capability of the Jentek MWM array system. A more detailed investigation on this aspect will be carried out in the phase II of the SBTP program.

30

Figure 10. Eddy current sensor measuring crack growth on a compact-tension specimen showing example data from a 7-channel sensor. CRACK GROWTH DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES Evaluation of Electrochemical Fatigue Sensor (EFS) System

The Electrochemical Fatigue Sensor (EFS) system provided by Material Technologies, Inc. (Matech) is a nondestructive inspection system for detecting actively growing fatigue cracks in dynamically loaded steel structures. The EFS system was selected among promising crack growth detection technologies for further tests in Phase I of this research project. Emphasis was placed on testing the EFS system using highly representative steel specimens and typical bridge structural members. A detailed report on the laboratory EFS tests is given in Appendix E.
Principles of EFS System

The EFS system uses fundamental electrochemical principles. During the inspection, the area covered by each sensor is anodically polarized to form a protective, passive film on the area of interest. The polarizing voltage produces a base DC current in such an electrochemical cell. 31

When the structure is subjected to cyclic stress, the fatigue process will cause micro-plasticity and strain localization on a very fine scale. The resulting EFS transient currents are thus associated with the cyclic changes in the electrical layers at the interface of the metal and the EFS electrolyte. The transient currents possess the same frequency as that of the mechanical stress, but also have a complex phase relationship. As fatigue damage develops, the crack induces localized plasticity at different parts of the fatigue cycle. When this happens, the current flow within the EFS cell varies in a complex relation to the stress field and the resulting AC current will be superimposed on to the base DC current. The fatigue crack induced plasticity can introduce higher harmonic components into the transient EFS current. Depending on the structural material, the load conditions, and the state of fatigue damage in the structure, the transient current within the cell will contain information on the status of the fatigue crack damage. The current changes from the two electrochemical cells associated with the possible crack growing activity and/or possible micro-plasticity are collected for analysis. The signals from both the crack measurement (CM) sensor and the reference (R) sensor are compared with each other by signal processing algorithms to determine if fatigue crack propagating activity is present in the steel metal. An EFS system can be used to inspect multiple suspected crack locations in a steel bridge as shown in figure 11.
Instrumentation

The EFS instrumentation consists of the sensor, the electrolyte, and the potentiostat.

Sensors have a contact adhesive on one side for attachment to the structure. The open area in the middle of the sensor holds the electrolyte. Prior to testing, the sensor is filled with electrolyte. The stainless steel mesh, sandwiched between the upper and lower sensor sections, acts as a sensor electrode. The electrolyte is a proprietary, water-based solution. The potentiostat data link (PDL) is an electronic device that controls the voltage difference between the working electrode and a reference electrode. During an EFS inspection, both electrodes are contained within the electrochemical cell. The specific variable controlled by the potentiostat is the cell potential and the measured variable is the cell current. The potentiostat has been custom-designed to control the voltage and also to measure the current flow between the working and reference electrodes. During testing, the working electrode is the structure and the reference electrode is the sensor electrode which is sandwiched within the sensor (i.e., the stainless steel mesh).

Each EFS sensor installation location consists of a pair of electrolyte filled EFS (CM sensor and R sensor) connected to the PDL unit. The system can communicate wirelessly with a base station by a computer for data acquisition and analysis. During testing, the CM sensor must be placed over the crack tip and the R sensor must be placed over the nearby metal area close to the crack measurement sensor that has the same level of the surface stress. The sensor containers must be filled with the electrolyte through the sealed filler and vent tubes. Figure 11 provides a snapshot of EFS system. The predictions by the EFS system are given by the quantitative evaluations of Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference based on sensor data.

32

C ra ck L o ca tio n # 1

a pair of EFS sensors

PDL #1

C ra ck L o ca tio n # 2

w ireress w ir e le s s co m m u n ica tio c o m m u n ic a tio nn

PDL #2

a pair of EFS sensors

C ra ck L o ca tio n # N

Base Station and C om puter

a pair of EFS sensors

PDL #N

vent tube

EFS electrolyte

stainless steel mesh electrode

V
steel surface
adhesive back surface fill tube
containner adhesive back surface

by a PDL

An electrochemical cell is formed by a volumn of EFS electrolyte when the voltage is applied through the steel mesh electrode

a PD L

a pair of EFS sensors The base station and the laptop computer

Figure 11. EFS system for inspecting multiple suspected crack locations.

33

Laboratory Test Plan and Results

The laboratory tests were conducted to evaluate EFS systems ability to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. detect small surface cracks and qualitatively assess crack growth. identify micro-plasticity as it materializes. detect growing cracks of any length and orientation. detect cracks in crown, toe, or root of welds. assess minimum surface preparation requirements in bridge inspections. assess its suitability in different environmental conditions for field deployment.

Numerical simulations of the growing fatigue cracks and the associated stress fields were conducted to determine the sensor placements. The tests on C(T) specimens were conducted by applying cyclic loads under three different temperatures. The tests on cruciform specimens included two different sizes of the EFS sensor and three types of EFS sensor placements. The tests on the twin-steel plate bridge girder system included three suspected fatigue crack locations including the web plate of the bridge girder, the girder-stiffness plate welds, and the girdercrossbeam connection plate welds. These three are typical fatigue crack locations of concern in steel bridge inspections. Figure 3 shows the two test specimen types and the twin-steel plate bridge girder system. Detailed geometric and material descriptions of all three types of test specimens used in these laboratory tests are included in Appendix A. The comprehensive test results are reported in Appendix E. The following sections illustrate representative test results. Additional EFS tests on these specimens and steel girders by broad band bridge loads are currently planned to be conducted in Phase II of this research project. Figure 12 shows the laboratory test plan (the shaded area represents the laboratory test tasks planned or scheduled to be performed along with the field tests in the upcoming Phase II of this research project).
PLAN FOR LABORATORY TEST OF THE EFS SYSTEM

EFS System
Three Types of Steel Specimens (Test Specimen Configuration)
C (T ) Specimens

Two Types of Dynamic Loads ( Single Freq. and / or Broad Band )

Multiple Temperature Settings (Environmental Effects)

Temperature Settings
1.7 C, 21.1 C and 43.3 C (35 F, 70 F and 110 F)
o o o o o o

Sensor Placement

MTS Load Frame Single Freq. Cyclic Loads 88.96KN (20 kips) Broad-band bridge loads MTS Load Frame Single Freq. Cyclic Loads 88.96KN (20 kips) Broad-band bridge loads

Cruciform Specimens
Sensor Placement

Lab Ambient Temperatures

4.4 C and 21.1 C (40 F and 70 F)
o o o o

Twin Steel Plate Bridge Girder Testing System

Sensor Placement

MTS Load Frame Single Freq. Cyclic Loads 978.6KN (220 kips) Broad-band bridge loads

Lab Ambient Temperatures

4.4 C and 21.1 C (40 F and 70 F)
o o o o

Figure 12. Laboratory Test Plan.

34

Tests using C(T) Specimens

Standardized C(T) specimens were used in the study. The intent of using this type of specimens in the laboratory tests was to construct a sound test bed where the fatigue crack growth and its growth rate could be controlled and monitored. The compliance method, defined by ASTM E647, was used to monitor and calculate crack growth size. The crack growth length was monitored during the test by a clip gage and was used to compare the crack growth detection results obtained from the EFS system.

.
p r e c r a c k tip
p re cra ck tip

crack sensor reference sensor

crack direction

reference sensor crack sensor

crack direction

Type #1

Type # 2

Figure 13. Type of EFS sensor placements for C(T) specimens.

The simulation results indicated that the placement of the EFS reference sensor over the lowstress field area should be avoided. The EFS reference sensor should be placed within the same stress field as the crack measurement sensor. Consideration was given during the laboratory tests to address this sensitivity issue. The tests on C(T) specimens under laboratory controlled loads included preparing the C(T) specimens, creating pre-cracks, and installing EFS sensors. Two types of sensor placement configurations (see Figure 13) were considered. Most tests on the C(T) specimens were performed using the Type #1 sensor placement while fewer number of tests employed the Type #2 sensor placement. The purpose of the different placements was to identify possible influence of the sensor placement on the detection ability of the EFS system. The detailed test setup, test results and analysis obtained from each test of the EFS system on C(T) specimens (Test No.1 to Test No.11 in Table 8) are presented in Appendix E. Figures 14 and 15 illustrate the test setup and the analysis of test results in crack sensor area (Region A) for the C(T) Specimen Test No.4. Figure 16 summarizes the results from the EFS system, based on test numbers 1 to 8. The results from these tests under a wide range of loading cases and temperatures illustrate that the EFS system can detect small surface fatigue crack growth in the CM sensor area.

35

Table 8. Tests of EFS system on C(T) specimens using single-frequency cyclic loads.
Test No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EFS sensor placement type # 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 Min-Max load KN (kips) 4.45-48.93 (1.0-11.0) 2.67-24.91 (0.6-5.6) 4.45-44.48 (1.0-10.0) 4.45-44.48 (1.0-10.0) 3.56-35.14 (0.8-7.9) 3.11-30.24 (0.7-6.8) 4.45-44.48 (1.0-10.0) 4.00-38.70 (0.9-8.7) 3.56-34.71 (0.8-7.8) 2.24-20.02 (0.5-4.5) Frequency (Hz) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 2.0 2.0 15.0 2.0 Temperature setting O C ( OF) Normal 21 (70) Normal 21 (70) Normal 21 (70) High 43.33 (110) High 43.33 (110) Low 43.33 (110) Low 1.67 (35) Low 1.67 (35) Normal 21 (70) Normal 21 (70) Normal 21 (70) & Low 1.67 (35)

Test System MTS MTS MTS MTS + Environmental Chamber MTS + Environmental Chamber MTS + Environmental Chamber MTS + Environmental Chamber MTS + Environmental Chamber MTS + Environmental Chamber MTS + Environmental Chamber MTS + Environmental Chamber

11

2.24-20.02 (0.5-4.5)

1.0-4.0

Figure 14. Setting up the EFS system in the C(T) specimen Test No.4.

36

G ro w ing C rack P red icted by E F S P o tential G row ing C rack P redicted by E F S N ot G row ing P redicted b y E F S

Grack Growth Length (mm)

reference sensor

crack sensor

10

Monitored Crack Growth

8

Region A

maximum crack growth length in the CM sensor area 7.9375 mm (0.3125in)

reference sensor

A pre-crack length
12.7mm (0.5in) crack sensor

0 0.01

0.1 Time (hour)

Grow ing C rack Predicted by EFS

steel plate of the C(T) specimen fatigue crack growing direction

pre-crack

Energy Ratio or Spectrum Difference

Potential G rowing C rack Predicted by EFS N ot Grow ing Predicted by EFS

Energy Ratio
10.0

Spectrum Difference

7.9375 mm (0.3125in)
reference sensor

12.7mm (0.5in)

crack growth within the CM sensor area (Region A) crack sensor

5.0

Region A

fatigue crack growth direction

pre-crack 12.7mm (0.5")

steel plate

fatigue crack growth length 52.832 mm (2.08")

0.0 0 1 2 3

Time (hour)

(a) monitored fatigue crack length

(b) prediction by EFS system in region A

Figure 15. Sample plots of monitored fatigue crack growth and predictions by EFS system.

The test results revealed that the energy ratios evaluated by the EFS system under high temperature conditions may often have a higher level (shown in Appendix E) than those under lower temperature conditions. Since the EFS system essentially uses a fixed threshold for prediction of growing crack, the rapid change in the Energy Ratio in these situations may not fully represent the actual trends of the crack growth involved. For these long period tests, for example, Test No.2, Test No.3, Test. No.5 and Test. No.8 as shown in Appendix E, noticeable drying out of the electrolyte in the crack sensor was also observed.

37

6 0 .0

5 0 .0

Crack Growth (mm)

4 0 .0

3 0 .0

2 0 .0

1 0 .0

T T T T T T T T
0 .0 2 .0 4 .0 6 .0 8 .0 1 0 .0 1 2 .0

est est est est est est est est

N N N N N N N N

o .1 o .2 o .3 o .4 o .5 o .6 o .7 o .8

0 .0 1 4 .0

E n la r g e d p lo t f o r C M s e n s o r a r e a (R e g io n A )

T im e ( h o u r )

8 .0 7 .0

G ro w in g C ra c k s p re d ic te d b y E F S N o t G ro w in g o r P o te n tia l G ro w in g C ra c k p re d ic te d b y E F S

Crack Growth (mm)

6 .0 5 .0 4 .0 3 .0 2 .0 1 .0 0 .0 0 .0 1 .0 2 .0 3 .0 4 .0 5 .0
T est T est T est T est T est T est T est T est N o .1 N o .2 N o .3 N o .4 N o .5 N o .6 N o .7 N o .8
O

( 2 1 .1 C ) O ( 2 1 .1 C ) O ( 2 1 .1 C ) O ( 4 3 .3 C ) O ( 4 3 .3 C ) O ( 4 3 .3 C ) O ( 1 .6 7 C ) O ( 1 .6 7 C )

T im e ( h o u r )

Figure 16. Fatigue crack growth length and growth rates detected by the EFS system during the C(T) specimen tests (Test No.1 to Test No. 8).

As a special case, C(T) specimens were tested under low frequency cyclic loading and different temperature conditions. These tests (#10 and #11) used Type 1 sensor placement, however, the edge of the crack sensor was placed at the location of the pre-crack tip as shown in Figures 17 and 18 instead of the sensor being centered on the pre-crack tip. The focus was to examine the capability of the EFS system to detect fatigue crack growth in steel plates subject to low frequency cyclic loading conditions (i.e., primary frequency range < 5 Hz) that simulate real bridge loads. In C(T) specimen Test No.10, a constant extension load plus a sinusoidal cyclic load were applied under a controlled temperature. The fatigue crack growth was monitored by using a clip gage. The test took a total of 16.21 hours to record the fatigue crack that grew to a length of 22.86 mm (0.9 in). As shown in Figure 17, the crack propagation within the crack sensor area 38

started at 9.6774 mm (0.381 in) and ended at 22.86 mm (0.9 in). This figure shows that the EFS system incorrectly predicted a Growing Crack as soon as the test started, even though the crack tip was outside the EFS crack sensor area (i.e., when the crack tip reached 9.6774 mm from the edge of the sensor). However, the EFS system gave correct results when the crack tip grew into the EFS crack sensor area (i.e., the crack tip location was beyond 9.6774 mm from the edge of the sensor). Although the fatigue crack was essentially propagating in a linear manner within the crack sensor area, the Energy Ratio did not illustrate a direct correlation to the corresponding crack growth rate.
G row ing C rack Predicted by EFS P otential G row ing C rack Predicted by EFS N ot G row ing Predicted by EFS

8.0 7.0
9.6774 mm 12.7 mm (0.5") Pre-crack (0.381")

Energy Ratio Monitored Fatigue Crack Growth

22.86 mm (0.9 in)

24.0 20.0

Energy Ratio

42.18 mm (1.661")

5.0 4.0

CM Sensor Area

16.0 12.0

total crack growth 22.86 mm (0.9")

9.6774 mm (0.381 9.6774 mm (0.381 in)

3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

8.0 4.0 0.0 16.0

Hour Figure 17. EFS sensor placement and the growing fatigue crack predicted by the EFS system in the C(T) specimen Test No.10.

The C(T) specimen Test No.11 also used the same sensor placement as in the Test No.10. The test was performed with the MTS+ Environmental Chamber system using 2 different loadtemperature settings during a continuous testing period (Phase A - Phase B, see Figure 18). In Phase A, a constant load of 2.22 KN (0.5 kips) plus a 1.0 Hz sinusoidal cyclic load of amplitude 11.12 KN (2.5 kips) at a controlled temperature of 20.0 oC (68 oF) were applied. In Phase B, the same cyclic load at a controlled temperature of 1.67 oC (35 oF) was applied. The total time frame for the monitored crack growth length of 18.034 mm (0.71 in) was about 48.87 hours. Figure 18 illustrates that the results show a Growing Crack from the very beginning of the test, even though the fatigue crack did not reach the EFS crack sensor area. It appears again that prior to the crack reaching crack sensor area, both EFS sensors acted as crack sensors. For this test, the EFS system gave correct predictions when the crack grew into the crack sensor area. Similar to the previous test, it was observed that the Energy Ratio did not have a consistent correlation to the corresponding crack growth process.

39

Crack Length (mm)

6.0

It was also observed that during the initial 2.2 hours of the Phase B testing period under low temperature (1.67 oC) and the same cyclic loadings as in Phase A, the crack propagated at an extremely reduced growth rate. It appears that the EFS system correctly predicted growing crack during this transition toward a near-zero growth rate during this period. Subsequently, the crack had almost no actual growth (i.e., not observed by the clip gage with the accuracy range of 0.0254 mm (0.001 in)) during the remaining 22.21 hours. However, the Energy Ratios incorrectly predicted the growing crack for this period (false positive).

12.7 mm (0.5') pre-crack

9.6774 mm (0.381")

Phase A (1Hz, 68 F o ): 15.748 mm (0.62") Phase B (1Hz, 35 F o ): 2.286 mm (0.09")

Crack
Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Potential Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Not Growing Predicted by EFS

14.0 12.0

Energy Ratio Monitored Fatigue Crack Growth

20.0

18.034 mm (0.71") 15.748 mm (0.62")

Phase B
Phase A

Energy Ratio

10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.0

9.6774 mm (0.381")

10.0

5.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

Hour

Figure 18. EFS sensor placements and the growing fatigue crack predicted by the EFS system in the C(T) specimen Test No.11. Tests using Cruciform Specimens

The cruciform specimen (Figure 3) presents a more realistic case of a structural member with welds and was used in the laboratory tests to examine the capabilities of the EFS system. The NDE Center staff utilized an advanced Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) meshless modeling technique provided by the LS-DYNA package to simulate steel fatigue crack initiation in the cruciform specimens. The numerical simulation reveals that rapid fatigue crack damage may occur along the section of the welded steel plate, and not just within the weld metal. This factor has been considered in the laboratory tests using the cruciform specimens. Three types of EFS sensor placement and two different sizes of EFS sensors were considered in the initial tests. 40

Crack Length (mm)

15.0

From these tests, it was evident that although the larger EFS sensors covered a large area of steel welds and each sensor detected live load stresses, they did not offer advantages over using the smaller EFS sensors on the cruciform specimens. Extensive tests under laboratory controlled loads were conducted in the FHWA NDE Center (see examples in Table 9). These tests used the cyclic loads composed of a base extension load in addition to a single frequency sinusoidal load. Figure 19 shows the typical EFS sensor placement on a cruciform specimen and the test setup using MTS system.

Figure 19. EFS sensor placement and testing setup of the steel cruciform specimen on the MTS load frame. Table 9. Tests on cruciform specimens using single-frequency cyclic loads.
Test No. 1 2 3 4 # of PDL Channels 8 4 8 8 Min-Max load KN (kips) 4.45-111.2 (1.0-25.0) 4.45-111.2 (1.0-25.0) 4.45-133.4 (1.0-30.0) 4.45- 97.86 (1.0-22.0) Frequency (Hz) 4.0 4.0 15.0 15.0 Temperature setting O C ( OF) Normal 21 (70) Normal 21 (70) Normal 21 (70) Normal 21 (70)

Test System MTS MTS MTS MTS

Cruciform specimen results for test numbers 1 and 2 are presented here. Test No.1 (Figure 20) used a total of eight PDL channels. A surface notch was added to the cruciform specimen at the top welded tab location T1 to initialize a fatigue crack during the test. The laboratory controlled 4.0 Hz cyclic loading condition was applied for this test. The fatigue crack growth was initiated at section T1-T3 and took a total of 13.69 hours until the complete failure (break) of the cruciform specimen. 41

Figure 20 shows the Energy Ratio plot from the sensor data collected from PDL70 and PDL75 channels during this test. The results illustrate that the EFS system was able to detect the crack growth from the beginning of the test period. It was observed that the EFS crack sensor that was directly placed over the surface notch, as measured by PDL70 channel, predicted the crack growth continuously during the testing period. The EFS sensor, as measured by PDL75 channel, only reported the crack growth during the last two hours of the testing period. The inspection of the cracked specimen reveals that the fatigue crack propagated from side T1 to side T2 during the final stages of the test.
CM: Crack Measurement Sensor RS: Reference Sensor
TOP TOP

Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Potential Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Not Growing Predicted by EFS

T1: PDL 70 CM RS

T3: PDL 75 RS CM

Notch

B1: PDL 72 CM RS

B3: PDL 77 RS CM

CM RS B2: PDL 73

RS CM B4: PDL 79

Energy Ratio

CM RS T2: PDL 71

RS CM T4: PDL 76

10.0

PDL70 PDL71 PDL72 PDL73 PDL75 PDL76 PDL77 PDL79

1.0

BTM

BTM

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

Hour

Figure 20. Sensor placement and EFS prediction of the growing fatigue crack in Cruciform Test No.1.

Cruciform Specimen Test No. 2 used four PDL channels. Figure 21 shows the EFS sensor placement and the Energy Ratio plot from the sensor data collected from these PDL channels. The controlled load applied included a constant extension load plus a 4.0 Hz sinusoidal cyclic load. The test took a total of 48.16 hours for the fatigue crack to grow at the section of B1-B3 and finally break the cruciform specimen. It can be seen from this figure that the sensor data from PDL77 channel indicated crack growth during the first 4 hours of the testing period. For the PDL72 channel, it had correctly predicted the crack growth activity when the crack tip reached its crack sensor covered area. The inspection of the cracked specimen revealed that the fatigue crack had propagated from side B3 to side B1. Figure 21 also shows potential crack growth and micro-plasticity activity at another location (PDL79) in the specimen.

42

PD72
C M : C rack M easu rem en t S en so r R S : R eferen ce S e n so r
TOP
TOP

PD77 PD79

PD73

G r o w i n g C r a c k P r e d i c te d b y E F S

B 1: PD L 72 CM RS

B 3: PD L 77 CM RS

P o t e n ti a l G r o w in g C r a c k P r e d i c t e d b y E F S N o t G r o w in g P r e d ic t e d b y E F S

3 .5
CM RS B 2: PD L 73 CM RS B 4: PD L 79

3 .0

PD L72 PD L73 PD L77 PD L79

Energy Ratio

2 .5 2 .0 1 .5 1 .0 0 .5 0 10 20 30 40 50

BTM

BTM

H our

Figure 21. EFS sensor placement and setup in Cruciform Specimen Test No.2. Tests using Twin-Steel Plate Bridge Girder System

The laboratory setup at the FHWA TFHRC Structures Lab for the twin-steel plate bridge girder system and one of the suspected crack locations in the steel girder is shown in Figure 22. Detailed information about this steel plate bridge girder testing system is given in Appendix A. Numerical simulations using LS-DYNA were conducted for the steel girders with all structural members in place. These simulations highlighted the critical, or hot spot, areas within the steel plate girders. Several of these hot spots might result in significant effective stress concentrations that could result in fatigue crack initiations. These locations included the welds on the web plate, the girder- stiffness plate, and the girder-cross beam connection plate. Tests on the twin-steel plate bridge girder system included applying a downward static load plus 1.0 Hz cyclic loads. Three suspected fatigue crack locations (see Appendix E) were evaluated. All three tests were performed under the laboratory ambient temperature. The fatigue crack growth, if present, was monitored and the EFS sensor data was collected for analysis.

43

a suspected crack location

Figure 22. Twin-steel plate bridge girder system and a suspected crack in the steel girders.

Figure 23 shows an existing crack at the steel girder web plate and the prediction by the EFS system for this crack location. Both the top tip and the bottom tip of this crack location were monitored by EFS sensor pairs. The prediction of the top crack tip is shown by the Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference plot in this figure. It was observed that the fatigue crack growth activity was detected by the EFS system at an early stage and the EFS system continuously reported the correct prediction Growing Crack in the CM sensor area. For the bottom tip location of this suspected crack, the EFS system did not detect any crack growth activity. This prediction by the EFS system was confirmed by the monitored data.
F a ti g u e c r a c k t i p

Reference Sensor Crack Sensor Crack Sensor Reference Sensor

Growing Crack Predicted by EFS

Energy Ratio or Spectrum Difference

8.0

Potential Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Not Growing Predicted by EFS

Energy Ratio

Spectrum Difference
22.0 20.0

Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Potential Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Not Growing Predicted by EFS

Monitored Crack Growth

6.0
Crack Growth (mm)

18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.01

4.0

2.0

Crack growth detected by EFS at the initial time stage

0.10 1.00 10.00

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0

Time (Hour)

Time (hour)

Figure 23. Fatigue crack growth on the top tip of the crack at the steel girder web predicted by EFS system (Girder Test No.1).

44

Three suspected fatigue crack locations were evaluated by testing the twin steel plate bridge girder system. The test results show that the EFS system performed quite well in detecting growing crack activity for the top crack tip and also not growing for the bottom crack tip at the girder web plate location. The second location inspected was at the bridge girder-stiffness plate welds. The EFS system detected mixed Not Growing and Growing Crack predictions. This was later clarified to be due to a bad weld (not a fatigue crack) at that location that might have contributed to the strange behavior. The third location inspected was at the bridge girdercrossbeam plate welds. At this location, the EFS system correctly detected Not Growing during the entire process. The predictions were all verified from the data monitored at these locations. These tests performed on the twin steel bridge girders, illustrated that the EFS system could detect small surface fatigue crack growth. It could also be argued that that the EFS system may pick up certain indications when the bridge steel weld has small surface defects. The test results indicated that the EFS system can effectively detect fatigue crack growth as soon as it was initiated. During these tests, however, it was also noticed that the EFS sensor only lasted for about 1 to 3 days under the laboratory testing environment before the electrolyte dried up.
Summary of Conclusions Based on the Laboratory Tests on EFS System

In general, the EFS system can successfully detect small, surface growing fatigue cracks in cyclic loaded steel structures provided that the crack tips are correctly identified and enclosed by the crack measurement (CM) sensor and the reference sensor is placed at a location with a similar level of live load stress field as CM. However, in the field, if the crack tip is mislocated (by visual inspection or NDT) or the reference sensor is wrongly identified (for example, due to access limitations), the EFS system may result in false positive identification. The space limitation in the field may also affect surface preparation for the EFS sensor installations at corner welds and those hard to reach steel structural connections. The EFS system can detect with high sensitivity small growing surface fatigue cracks with a wide range of growth rates in cyclic loaded steel structures. However, it cannot quantitatively give the measurement of the crack growth rates. It was also not possible to meaningfully correlate and assess the changes in the slope of energy ratio with crack growth rates. As such, the EFS data can determine the state of a crack (growing vs. not growing) and not crack growth rates or conclusively determine whether a given crack is growing faster or slower than another. Laboratory results indicated that the energy ratios were generally lower in low temperature settings than in high temperature settings; therefore, care must be taken in interpreting results obtained from different climatic conditions. It was also observed that the EFS sensors could not be left in place for use in long-term or continuous monitoring. The electrolyte gel generally dries up between 1 and 3 days depending on the ambient temperature and crack opening status. The EFS system can potentially be used to detect unknown surface fatigue cracks in the steel structural members. However, care must be taken to identify suspected fatigue cracks on the weld toe or crown since EFS can incorrectly interpret weld imperfections as growing fatigue

45

cracks. Care also must be taken in interpreting significant small level of the energy ratio (<<2) since the two EFS sensors may switch their functionalities. The EFS system can potentially be used in assessing crack growth activity after remedial repairs. However, if stop holes are used, extreme care must be taken to avoid leaking of electrolyte gel into the hole during placement of the cracks sensors.
Evaluation of Acoustic Emission (AE) Inspection System

Acoustic emission is a very versatile, non-invasive way to gather information about a material or structure. It is essentially a passive approach of hearing sound waves generated by the stresses in a material. The out-of-plane displacements created by the sound waves (typically on the order of picometers or smaller) are detected and converted to a voltage by piezoelectric transducers; computerized equipment is used to measure and record the resulting voltage vs. time information. Acoustic Emission Technology (AET) can potentially predict early failure of structures. Furthermore, whole structure can be monitored from a few locations while the structure is still in operation. AET has been widely used to inspect and monitor pipelines, pressure vessels, aircraft, and a variety of composite and ceramic components. It is also used in process control applications such as monitoring welding processes. Welded details in bridges are critical in determining the integrity of the structure. Fatigue cracks in steel bridges typically originate at weld locations. This study evaluated the viability of acoustic emission technology and instrumentation that can fit into the inspection and evaluation process used in steel bridge inspection program. The instrumentation used for this study was a commercially available package of acoustic emission measurement system from Physical Acoustic Corporation.
Principles of Acoustic Emission Technology

Acoustic Emission Technology (AET) refers to generation of transient elastic waves during rapid release of energy or redistribution of stresses from localized sources within a material. The source of these emissions in metals is closely associated with the dislocation movement accompanying plastic deformation and with the initiation and extension of cracks in a structure under stress. When a structure is subjected to an external stimulus (change in pressure, load, or temperature), localized sources trigger the release of energy, in the form of stress waves, which propagate to the surface and are recorded by sensors. Other sources of Acoustic Emission (AE) are melting, phase transformation, thermal stresses, cool down cracking and stress build up, twinning, fiber breakage, and fiber-matrix debonding in composites. Detection and analysis of AE signals can supply valuable information regarding the origin and importance of a discontinuity in a material. AET is based on the detection and conversion of high frequency elastic waves emanating from the source to electrical signals. This is accomplished by directly coupling piezoelectric transducers on the surface of the structure under test and loading the structure. The output of the piezoelectric sensors (during stimulus) is amplified through a lownoise preamplifier, filtered to remove any extraneous noise to be further processed. AET deals with dynamic processes or changes in a material. It is therefore suitable for monitoring active features (e.g. crack growth). The ability to discern between active and passive defects is an attractive feature especially in monitoring steel bridge structures since the presence 46

of cracks in any material is inevitable and the rate of growth of these cracks is of prime concern. However, it is possible for flaws to go undetected altogether if the loading is not high enough to cause an acoustic event. In addition, there is very minimal surface preparation required to mount AE sensors. The main shortcoming of AE systems is that they can only qualitatively gauge the extent of damage contained in a structure. In order to obtain quantitative results about size, depth, and overall acceptability of a part, other NDT methods are necessary. Another drawback of AE stems from loud service environments which contribute extraneous noise to the signals. For successful applications, signal discrimination and noise reduction are crucial. The sources of AE in a structure subjected to fatigue can be due to emissive particles (e.g. nonmetallic inclusions) at the origin of the crack tip. Since these particles are less ductile than the surrounding material, they tend to break more easily when the metal is strained, resulting in an AE signal. The second source is the propagation of the crack tip that occurs through the movement of dislocations and small-scale cleavage produced by tri-axial stresses. Plastic deformation is the primary source of AE in loaded metallic structures. An important phenomenon governs the generation of AE when the deformation of a material is due to different loading patterns; this phenomenon is the Kaiser Effect. Load levels that have been previously exerted on a material do not produce AE activity. Discontinuities created in a material do not expand or move until that former stress is exceeded. The load versus AE plot in Figure 24, gives an insight on the Kaiser effect. As the object is loaded, acoustic emission events accumulate (segment AB). When the load is removed and reapplied (segment BCB), AE events do not occur again until the load at point B is exceeded. As the load exerted on the material is increased again (BD), AEs are generated and stop when the load is removed. However, at point F, the applied load is high enough to cause significant emissions even though the previous maximum load (D) was not reached. This phenomenon is known as the Felicity Effect. This effect can be quantified using the Felicity Ratio, which is the load where considerable AE resumes, divided by the maximum applied load (F/D).

Figure 24. Kaiser and Felicity phenomenon.

47

Instrumentation

The Sensor Highway (SH) II Smart Remote AE data acquisition system provided by Physical Acoustic Corporation (PAC) was evaluated as a part of this research study. The SH-II system provides up to 16 high speed AE monitoring channels and up to 16 additional parametric input channels. A set of resonant sensors, each with built-in 26dB preamplifiers and a resonant frequency of 150 kHz, was used in this study. A schematic illustration of the system is shown in Figure 25.

Figure 25. Sensor Highway II acquisition system.

The system performs all the tasks of data collection, full signal processing, analysis and alarming for standalone, surveillance monitoring, 24 hours a day. Processing of the data is performed with the AEwin for Sensor Highway Smart Monitor Software. The software and data processing is through a menu based system which allows the users to create specific layouts and define the various criteria for recording of the incoming AE signals. A description of the system setup and the data analysis software is detailed in Appendix F of this report.
Laboratory Test Plan and Results

Three representative steel specimens were selected to evaluate the AE system and determine the ability of the system to track fatigue crack growth in common steel members used in bridge structures. The specimens included standard compact tension C(T) specimens, cruciform specimens, and a full scale twin-steel plate bridge girder system.
Standard Compact Tension or C(T) Specimens

The tests on standard C(T) specimens of structural steel (A572-G50) were carried out by applying a 2Hz sinusoidal cyclic tension load that ranged from 4.448 KN (1kip) to 44.48 KN (10 kips) using a 89 KN (20 kips) MTS system. The crack growth was monitored using a standard MTS clip gage (accuracy of 0.25 mm or 0.01 in). The C(T) specimens were fatigued to extend the crack to a total length of 25.4mm (1 in). Figure 26, shows the location of three AE sensors instrumented on the C(T) specimen and fourth sensor (not shown in the figure) was mounted onto the MTS actuator to eliminate the noise generated from the MTS system. Analysis of the 48

data collected from these tests do not reflect any significant AE activity due to the fatigue crack initiation or the crack growth in these C(T) specimens. The physical principles behind the lack of AE activity at low threshold of 35dB in C(T) specimens is not completely understood and further tests are scheduled to better understand this phenomenon.

Figure 26. Typical C(T) specimen and the placement of AE sensors. Cruciform Specimens

Cruciform specimens represent a typical weld steel structural member in common steel bridges. Transverse cruciform fillet-welded joints are essential parts of welded structures and are generally classified into load-carrying and non-load-carrying joints. The cruciform specimens used in the tests have a Category C weld detail which is the most common type of weld detail for steel bridges. The cruciform specimens were subjected to cyclic tension loading using a 445 KN (100 kips) MTS system. The loading conditions were varied to determine the response of the AE system and its ability to effectively detect the growth of fatigue cracks on the weld details.

49

Figure 27. a) Typical cruciform specimen. b) Linear placement of AE probes on cruciform specimens.

The cruciform specimens were instrumented with a total of four AE sensors as shown in Figure 27b. Three of the AE sensors were set up in a linear pattern along the top and bottom welds of the cruciform specimen. A fourth AE sensor was used as guard sensor to filter out unrelated/mechanical AE activity coming from outside the area of interest. A threshold setting of 35 dB was used to increase the sensitivity of the AE system in detecting cracking in the cruciform specimens. Analysis of the data collected from the tests indicate the ability of the system to detect and locate AE activity during the initiation of the fatigue crack and the active crack propagation in the cruciform specimens. The result from one of the tests on cruciform specimens is discussed in this section of the report. The cruciform specimen designated as CFA9 was instrumented with a notch (10.16 mm / 0.4 in long, 2.54 mm / 0.1 in wide and deep) at the surface location T1 (see Figure 28). The testing was carried out over a period of approximately 13.69 hrs under a 4Hz sinusoidal cycle load (approximately 197,200 cycles). The load for each cycle ranged from 4.45 KN (1kip) to 111 KN (25 kips). A fatigue crack initiated and grew during this time period and finally caused the fracture of the specimen at the top weld location (T1). Figure 28 shows the 2D location plot of all the AE data collected during the testing period. It can be seen that the distribution of AE events are located along a line representing the existence of a crack. The occurrence of significantly higher number of AE events between the channels 8 and 9 in comparison to those between the channels 9 and 11, indicate a high possibility of a growing crack at the top weld locations T1 and T2 . Detailed analysis of this AE data has been described in Appendix F.

50

Notch

Figure 28. 2D planar plot of acoustic events detected on cruciform specimen CF-A9 Twin-Steel Plate Bridge Girder System

The twin-steel plate bridge girder system was used in the laboratory tests to evaluate the capabilities of the SH II system in detecting fatigue cracks in steel plate bridge girders. The girder was instrumented with a total of 8 AE sensors. The sensor placement was configured to incorporate a 2D planar array around the crack of interest with five sensors. In addition, three sensors were instrumented as guard sensors to graphically filter out unrelated/mechanical AE noise coming from outside the area of interest. The sensors were mounted with hot melt glue as acoustic couplant and involved little or no surface preparation. The coupling of the sensors was tested using the standard Hsu-Nielsen source test or the pencil lead break test. The steel girder was subjected to a cyclic load in the range from 13.3 KN (3 kips) to 280 KN (63 kips) at 51

frequency of 0.5 Hz. The AE data was acquired over a period of 25 hrs and 23 mins, during which the crack was estimated to have grown 15.9 mm (5/8 in) based on Visual, Magnetic particle and Dye penetrant inspections. The 2D location plots (shown in Figure 29.) of all the AE data collected during the testing period can be used to track the increase of located AE events in time.

Figure 29. Propagation of AE events and damage over time.

The analysis of the AE data can also be associated with metallurgical and mechanical sources. In general, the source of the AE amplitude from frictional noise sources, such as the fretting of crack faces and mechanical rubbing of the girder and roller supports will produce lower amplitude, lower energy, and higher duration events. Conversely, cracking in metal may produce higher amplitude (+65dB), higher energy and shorter duration events. Figure 30 shows the AE amplitude histogram plot of all the AE hits recorded by sensors 1-5. The plot indicates that the majority of the AE hits had amplitudes between 40 and 55dB. This type of distribution is commonly caused by mechanical friction between two surfaces. In the case of the girder, this would represent the fretting, or rubbing of the crack faces, caused by the cyclic loading from 13.3 KN (3 kips) to 280 KN (63 kips). Detailed analysis of the AE data and the effect of variation of load are described in appendix F of this report.

52

Figure 30. AE amplitude histogram plot. Summary of Conclusions Based on the Laboratory Tests on AE System

The SH II system is a viable tool for inspection of fatigue crack growth. It provides an immediate indication of the response and behavior of a material under stress, intimately connected with damage and failure. The results from C(T) tests were not encouraging; the factors affecting strength of the AE signals are not completely understood for the C(T) specimens. The results from the tests on cruciform specimens and on the full-scale twin-steel plate bridge girder system were promising. The AE system was able to track the initiation and the growth of the fatigue crack in these test specimens successfully. Advantages of using the SH II system are that it does not require access to the whole examination area, can continuously detect crack growth activity, has capabilities for on-line monitoring, and no necessity for scanning the whole structural surface. However, there are some shortcomings in the SH II system; it can only estimate the location of the crack and is not geared towards measuring the geometry of the crack. Therefore, this technology has to be used in conjunction with other NDT methods in order to size the defects and obtain other quantitative information.
COMPARISONS OF CRACK DETECTION AND CRACK GROWTH DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES Inspection of Butt-Weld Plates with Engineered Surface Cracks using Jentek MWM Array and PAUT Systems

Inspection of the butt-weld specimens with cracks of known geometry were carried out using two NDE technologies to evaluate their detection and flaw sizing capabilities. A comparison of the results using the Jentek`s MWM array (using FA28 sensor) and PAUT system is discussed herein. The effect of bridge coating on the inspection capabilities has also been taken into consideration in this comparison.

53

Detection and sizing of small flaws of < 1 mm (0.04in) in length

It appears that for specimens with surface cracks smaller than 1 mm (0.04in) in length, the two systems are almost at their detection threshold. The PAUT system is able to locate the smaller flaws of 1 mm (0.04 in) in length but tends to overestimate its size. The presence of well bonded bridge coating has more pronounced effect on the Jentek MWM array system. Specimens with bridge coating and small sized flaws were typically not detected using the MWM array system. It should also be noted that the cracks engineered by Flawtech, especially those that are 1 mm (0.04 in) in length, can have some fabrication errors in accurately implanting flaws of such size. Taking these aspects into consideration, a more concentrated effort towards the sizing aspects of the two systems can yield better results.
Detection and sizing of larger flaws of 1 mm (0.04 in) in length

Both systems were successful in locating surface cracks 1 mm (0.04 in) in length. At these ranges of crack lengths, the presence of well bonded bridge coating appears to not significantly affect the flaw detection capabilities of the two systems. The initial estimates of flaw sizes typically tend to overestimate the size of these flaws. This is more prominent in the estimates from PAUT system compared to those from the Jentek MWM array system. These estimates of the flaw sizes are approximate and not in perfect agreement with the intended size of the engineered cracks. The advantage of the PAUT system is its ability to detect sub-surface and internal cracks. In addition to the information about the length of the flaws, the depth at which the flaws occur and the height of the flaws can also estimated using the PAUT system. The Jentek MWM array system is focused towards detection of surface cracks. The results of the scans using the 7 channel MWM array FA43 were not encouraging. However, the inspections carried out with the 37 channel MWM array FA28 are promising and have led to better repeatability, detection, and estimation of the flaw sizes. A comparison C-scan images from the inspection carried out on a butt-weld specimen NDE-22 is shown in Figure 31. The plot on the right side is the C-scan image of the specimen with the PAUT system. The plot on the left side is the C-scan image of the specimen with Jentek MWM array (sensor FA28). Both systems were successful in locating and sizing this flaw 1.02mm (0.04 in) in length. Similar comparisons of the C-scan images from the two systems are shown in Figure 32 and Figure 33 for the bridge coated butt-weld specimen NDE 12 and butt-weld specimen (without coating) NDE 23 respectively.

54

Figure 31. C-scan sof butt-weld specimen NDE-22 with a surface flaw of length 1.02 mm (0.04 in). Permeability C-scan image at 126kHz using FA28 MWM array sensor is at the left. The C-scan image of the specimen using the PAUT system is on the right.

Figure 32. C-scans of a bridge coated butt-weld specimen NDE-12 with a surface flaw of length 10.16 mm (0.4 in). Permeability C-scan image at 126 kHz using FA28 MWM array system is at left. The C-scan image of the specimen using the PAUT system is on the right.

Figure 33. C-scan sof butt-weld specimen NDE-22 with a surface flaw of length 30.48 mm (1.2 in). Permeability C-scan image at 126kHz using FA28 MWM array sensor is at the left. The C-scan image of the specimen using the PAUT system is on the right.

A table summarizing the results from the two inspection systems is shown below in Table 10.

55

Table 10. Comparison of flaw detection and sizing capabilities of MWM (FA28 sensor) array and PAUT systems.
Block ID NDE-26 NDE-9 NDE-11 NDE-24 NDE-22 NDE-28 NDE-10 NDE-12 NDE-29 NDE-27 NDE-25 NDE-23 Material A709-G50-W A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G50 A709-G50 A709-G50-HP A709-G36 A709-G36 A709-G50-HP A709-G50-W A709-G50 A709-G50 Type BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP Coating Bare Bare BC BC Bare Bare Bare BC Bare Bare BC Bare Depth Below Surface 0.00 mm (0.00 in) 0.00 mm (0.00 in) 0.00 mm (0.00 in) 0.00 mm (0.00 in) 0.00 mm (0.00 in) 0.00 mm (0.00 in) 0.00 mm (0.00 in) 0.00 mm (0.00 in) 0.00 mm (0.00 in) 0.00 mm (0.00 in) 0.00 mm (0.00 in) 0.00 mm (0.00 in) Length 1.02 mm (0.04 in) 1.02 mm (0.04 in) 1.02 mm (0.04 in) 1.02 mm (0.04 in) 1.02 mm (0.04 in) 1.02 mm (0.04 in) 10.16 mm (0.4 in) 10.16 mm (0.4 in) 30.48 mm (1.20 in) 30.48 mm (1.20 in) 30.48 mm (1.20 in) 30.48 mm (1.20 in) Estimated Length using MWM system Not detected 1.52 mm (0.06 in) 3.81 mm (0.15 in) Not detected 1.27 mm (0.05 in) Not detected 10.92 mm (0.43 in) 12.95 mm (0.51 in) 33.01 mm (1.30 in) 31.49 mm (1.24 in) 5.08 mm and 2.79 mm (0.20 in and 0.11 in) 35.31 mm (1.39 in) Estimated Length using PAUT system 3.048 mm (0.12 in) 1.49 mm (0.059 in) 0.99 mm (0.039 in) 2.99 mm (0.118 in) < 2.03 mm (< 0.080 in) 3.05 mm (0.12 in) 10.5 mm (0.413 in) 10.5/ 11.5 mm (0.413/ 0.453 in) 38.5 mm (1.516 in) 38.5 mm (1.516 in) 38.5 mm (1.516 in) 36.5 mm (1.437 in)

56

Inspection of Growing Surface Cracks using EFS and AE Systems

The sensor placements for the tests on the EFS system (Cruciform Test No.1 in Appendix E) and the AE system (Appendix F) are shown in Figure 34. Eight (8) EFS PDL channels (PDL70, PDL75, PDL71, PDL76, PDL72, PDL77, PDL73 and PDL 79) were placed on this cruciform specimen. Three (3) AE sensor channels were used simultaneously to collect AE activities. A surface notch (see details in each appendix) was added to the cruciform specimen at the top welded tab location T1 in order to initialize the fatigue crack during the test. The test setup for this cruciform specimen using the MTS load frame is shown in Figure 35. A constant load of 4.45 KN (1.0 kips) plus a 4.0 Hz sinusoidal cyclic load of amplitude 53.4 KN (12 kips) was applied. The test was performed under laboratory ambient temperature of 21oC (70 oF) and took a total of 13.69 hours before the specimen broke (Figure 36). The data sets collected by the EFS system and the AE system (see Appendix E and Appendix F for details) are presented in Figure 62 to illustrate detection capabilities of each of the technologies.
CM: EFS Crack Measurement Sensor RS: EFS Reference Sensor
TOP

TOP

AE Sensor 8
T 1: P D L 70 CM RS T 3: P D L 75 RS CM

N otch

CM RS T 2: P D L 71

RS CM T 4: P D L 76

AE Sensor 9

B 1: P D L 72 CM RS

B 3: P D L 77 RS CM

CM RS B 2: P D L 73

AE Sensor 10
BTM

RS CM B 4: P D L 79

BTM

AE Sensor

Figure 34. EFS and AE sensor placements in the Cruciform Specimen Test.

57

PDL70 PDL71 PDL72

PDL75 PDL76
PDL77 PDL79 AE Sensor Channel 9

AE Sensor Channel 8

PDL73

AE Sensor Channel 10

Figure 35. Test setup for the Cruciform Specimen.

(a)

(b)

Fatigue Crack Initiation Location

Crack Growing Direction Final Fracture Area

Figure 36. Fatigue crack and crack surface resulting from the cruciform test.

58

Figure 37(a) illustrates the Energy Ratio plot from the sensor data collected from PDL70 and PDL75 channels of the EFS system. Figure 37(b) illustrates the distribution of acoustic events detected by AE system. Comparing information in this figure illustrates some common and distinctive features of each crack growth detection technologies.
M a j o r A E a c tiv it y d e t e c te d b y A E M in o r A E a c tiv ity d e te c te d b y A E G ro w in g C ra c k P re d ic te d b y E F S P o te n tia l G r o w in g C r a c k P r e d ic te d b y E F S N o t G r o w in g P r e d ic te d b y E F S

(a)

PDL70 PDL75

Final Fracture Captured by Both AE and EFS Crack Initiation Captured by EFS

Energy Ratio

10

0
(b)

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

Seconds

AE Events

Figure 37. Comparison of crack growth detections by EFS and AE systems in the cruciform test.

From this test, it was observed that both the EFS system and the AE (SH II) system could be useful tools in the inspection of fatigue crack growth in steel bridge structures. They both can provide clear indication of material failure and damage in dynamically loaded steel structures caused by fatigue crack growth. 59

The limited testing does not lend credit to any argument that declares that one technology is better than the other. However, it was observed that (Figure 37) the EFS system, compared with the AE system, is sensitive to detecting fatigue crack initiation and small crack growth during the early stages of testing (<1.5 hour). AE system detected minor activity during the first 4 hours of testing. The tests indicated that the AE system took almost twice as long before registering major activity. Thus, comparatively it appears that the EFS system is more sensitive in detecting small crack growth in steel bridge structures. On the other hand, Figure 37 illustrates that the AE system has the ability to track the history of crack growth activity. Thus, it appears that the AE system has a potential advantage of being used as a local or global crack growth monitoring tool in steel bridge structures.
PHASE II FIELD DEPLOYMENT, TESTING AND EVALUATION

Efforts under this phase of the research will facilitate deployment of the candidate technologies to the field and testing on various bridge sites around the country. The details of this phase of the research will be planned after the laboratory testing phase is completed. However, in cooperation with the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT) one candidate field site, Patroon Island Bridge, has been identified and a detailed numerical analyses is planned as described in Appendix B. Other candidate bridges include some steel bridges close to the NDE Center, including US Route 1 Bridge.
WEB-BASED INFORMATIONAL DATABASE

Finally, in addition to the in-depth analyses of selective NDE technologies in this report, a webbased informational database will be developed to provide detailed information on current commercially available, state-of-the-art, developmental, and prototype technologies and their associated capabilities. This database will be available to bridge owners and inspectors to meet their bridge inspection, evaluation, and safety needs by facilitating proper and cost-efficient mitigation and repair strategies. The database will contain a comparative analysis of all crack detection technologies in a capability matrix type format.
REFERENCES

1. Reliability of Visual Inspection for Highway Bridges, Volume I: Final Report, Moore, M., Phares, B.M, Graybeal, B.A., Rolander, D.D., Washer, G.A. Federal Highway Administration, Publication No. FHWA-RD-01-020, June 2001.

60

APPENDIX A SPECIMENS USED IN LABORATORY EVALUATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 SPECIMEN SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1 Crack Detection Specimens ........................................................................................................ 1 Crack Growth Detection Specimens ........................................................................................... 1 Full-Scale Twin Steel Plate Girder Testing System ................................................................... 2 CRACK DETECTION SPECIMENS ............................................................................................ 2 Design and Fabrication of the FlawTech Specimens .................................................................. 2 Bare Metal Specimens ................................................................................................................ 2 Coated Specimens ....................................................................................................................... 5 Weathering Steel Specimens....................................................................................................... 5 High Performance Steel Specimens ............................................................................................ 6 CRACK GROWTH DETECTION SPECIMENS .......................................................................... 6 Load Mechanism ......................................................................................................................... 6 Compact Tension C(T) Specimens .......................................................................................... 8 Design and Fabrication of the C(T) Specimens .................................................................... 12 Fatigue Pre-cracking C(T) Specimens .................................................................................. 13 C(T) Specimen Fabricated at the FHWA.............................................................................. 13 Cruciform Specimens................................................................................................................ 15 Design of Cruciform Specimens ........................................................................................... 15 Cruciform Specimen Grips ................................................................................................... 16 Twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system ........................................................................... 16 Bridge Steel Plate Girder Specimen Identification ............................................................... 16 Pre-cracking Bridge Girder Specimens ................................................................................ 19 Bridge Girder Specimen Cracks ........................................................................................... 24

ii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure A1. FlawTech specimen layout with manufactured defect. ............................................... 2 Figure A2. Typical butt joint specimen with a CJP groove weld. ................................................. 3 Figure A3. Typical tee joint specimen with fillet welds. ............................................................... 4 Figure A4. Typical reentrant corner joint specimen with fillet welds. .......................................... 4 Figure A5. Typical coated specimen. ............................................................................................ 5 Figure A6. Typical weathering steel specimen. ............................................................................. 6 Figure A7. MTS load frame 89 KN (20 kips)............................................................................. 7 Figure A8. MTS load frame 890 KN (200 kips) . ....................................................................... 8 Figure A9. Schematic diagram of C(T) specimen. ........................................................................ 9 Figure A10. AutoCAD drawings of MTS grips clevis and pin assembly. ............................... 10 Figure A11. AutoCAD drawings of MTS grips clevis and pin space / knife edge................... 11 Figure A12. Layout of 2T/(3/8)T C(T) specimen on steel plate. ................................................. 12 Figure A13. C(T) specimen for pin of 0.24W (+0.000W/-0.0005W) diameter. ......................... 13 Figure A14. Typical C(T) specimen. ........................................................................................... 14 Figure A15. Pre-cracking C(T) specimen (clip gage shown used for measuring crack growth rate). .............................................................................................................................................. 14 Figure A16. Typical cruciform specimen. ................................................................................... 15 Figure A17. Cruciform specimen grips. ...................................................................................... 16 Figure A18. Detail of steel plate girder Specimen A. .................................................................. 17 Figure A19. Details of twin-steel plate bridge girder Specimen B. ............................................. 18 Figure A20. Steel plate girder Specimen B. ................................................................................ 18 Figure A21. Full scale bridge girder specimens with stiffeners and gusset plates. ..................... 19 Figure A22. Schematic of girder layout. ...................................................................................... 20 Figure A23. Hydraulic actuator. .................................................................................................. 21 Figure A24. Load cell closeup. .................................................................................................... 22 Figure A25. Actuator clevis and plate. ........................................................................................ 22 Figure A26. Load Frame. ............................................................................................................. 23 Figure A27. Bearings close-up. ................................................................................................... 23 Figure A28. Micro-profiler controls. ........................................................................................... 24 Figure A29. Girder pre-cracks. .................................................................................................... 24

iii

LIST OF TABLES Table A1. Parameters for monitoring force range in the actuators. ............................................. 21

iv

SPECIMENS USED IN LABORATORY EVALUATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Phase I of the Steel Bridge Testing Program included the laboratory evaluation of the technologies selected from Stage I of the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation (CSS) issued by FHWA. The laboratory evaluation included applying these NDE technologies under controlled conditions to pre-designed and carefully fabricated specimens. In addition, these technologies were tested on a full-scale twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system which was prepared by pre-cracking under carefully monitored laboratory conditions. The laboratory testing utilized several types of laboratory specimens fabricated to characterize typical fatigue cracks in connections or details in steel bridges. In order to represent different features of joint geometries, material thicknesses, coatings and weld defects, the laboratory test included different types of test specimens that are described in this Appendix. SPECIMEN SUMMARY Crack Detection Specimens The following specimens were used for evaluating technologies for detecting cracks. Some of these specimens were later coated using bridge paint and tested. In addition, specimens from weathered steel were also manufactured for this project. 31 small-scale Flawtech with engineered defects. Dimensions 305 x 178 x 19 mm (12 x 7 x in). o 26 Butt-Welded Steel Plate Specimens single V-groove butt-joint, full penetration. M270 Grade 36 and M270 Grade 50 steel. Uncoated specimens Coated specimens (bridge three coat system) High performance steel M270 Grade HPS70W and Weathering steel M270 Grade 50W specimens o 4 T-Joint Fillet-Welded Steel Plate Specimens. M270 G36 Steel. Dimension 330 x 178 x 19 mm (13 x 7 x in) & 178 x 114 x 19 mm (7 x 4.5 x in). o 1 T-Joint Fillet-Welded Steel Gusset Plate Specimen. M270 G36 Steel. Dimensions 381 x 381 x 25 mm (15 x 15 x 1 in) & 203 x 114 x 19 mm (8 x 4.5 x in ) & 152 x 114 x 19 mm (6 x 4.5 x in)

Crack Growth Detection Specimens The following specimens were used to evaluate crack growth detection technologies: 34 Compact Tension C(T) Specimens 12 Cruciform Specimens

A1

Full-Scale Twin Steel Plate Girder Testing System The following full-scale twin steel plate girder with various weld details was included for evaluating all five technologies. M270 G36 steel. Dimensions 8.5 x 0.9 m (28 x 3 ft) o Contains 4 fillet-welded gusset plates of 406 x 241 x 13 mm (16 x 9.5 x in) and 4 fillet-welded transverse stiffeners 546 x 76 x 32 mm (21.5 x 3 x 1.25 in).

CRACK DETECTION SPECIMENS FHWA has used FlawTech, Inc. to manufacture flaws (cracks) for this project. Henceforth, the crack detection specimens manufactured by FlawTech, Inc. are called FlawTech specimens. Design and Fabrication of the FlawTech Specimens Considerable amount of planning and preparation went into designing the pre-manufactured cracks and the type of steel to be used. Figure A1 shows representative layout for one of the FlawTech specimens.

Figure A1. FlawTech specimen layout with manufactured defect. Bare Metal Specimens Thirty one (31) crack specimens were professionally designed and fabricated by Flaw Tech, Inc. Each specimen has one or more manufactured cracks. Figures A2-A4 illustrate several of the A2

crack specimens. The specimen base metal complies with AASHTO specifications for M270 G36 and M270 G50 steels. All fabrication and welding was performed in accordance with the American Welding Society (AWS) D1.5 Bridge Welding Code. The crack specimens were grouped into five (5) categories based on crack location (surface crack or internal crack) and weldment geometry (butt joints and tee joints). Crack geometries were varied based on the fatigue category and structural detail represented by each specimen.

Figure A2. Typical butt joint specimen with a CJP groove weld.

A3

Figure A3. Typical tee joint specimen with fillet welds.

Figure A4. Typical reentrant corner joint specimen with fillet welds.

A4

Coated Specimens The purpose of coated specimens (Figure A5) is to provide realistic coated surfaces for evaluating the detection capabilities and limitations of candidate products over coated surfaces. The specimens were initially coated with off-the-shelf black spray paint and later the spray paint was removed and replaced with a typical three coat bridge system. An organic zinc-rich primer, an epoxy intermediate, and a polyurethane topcoat by KTA-Tator was used. This coating was a mixture of KTA-Tators Carbozinc 859; Carboguard 893SG with optional (LT) cure, and Carbothane 133 LH products. This coating system is a well-established and commonly used system by DOTs in the US.

Figure A5. Typical coated specimen. Weathering Steel Specimens The weathering steel specimens (Figure A6) are intended for use in the evaluation of the detection capabilities and limitations of candidate technologies over the protective oxide film, also referred to as a patina, which is the natural permanent adherent protective rust layer inherent on the weathering steel. The natural protective rust layer on the weathering steel adheres permanently to the base metal and it is less porous than the rust layers in conventional steels that disengage from base metal.

A5

Figure A6. Typical weathering steel specimen. High Performance Steel Specimens High-performance steel (HPS) has optimal balance of mechanical properties like strength, toughness, ductility, weldability, corrosion resistance, and formability to give maximum performance in bridge structures while remaining cost-effective. Bridge engineers have preferred high-performance steel on account of its high toughness and better weldability. ASTM A709-grade 50HP specimens have been used as representative samples of the high-performance steel for the purpose of this study. CRACK GROWTH DETECTION SPECIMENS Load Mechanism For this study, the NDE Center used C(T) specimens and Cruciform specimens along with twinsteel plate bridge girder testing system. A 89 KN (20 kips) MTS load frame was used for testing C(T) and Cruciform specimens and a 890 KN (200 kips) MTS was used for testing bridge girders. The MTS load frames are shown in the following pages (Figures A7-A8):

A6

Figure A7. MTS load frame 89 KN (20 kips)

A7

Figure A8. MTS load frame 890 KN (200 kips) . Compact Tension C(T) Specimens The C(T) specimens were designed by the NDE Center in accordance with the relevant ASTM standard. However, these specimens are proportionally larger in geometric size than conventional C(T) specimens normally tested in the past. The specimens are 3/8 in. thick and 8 in. wide. The reason for the modified (larger) C(T) specimen design is to have sufficient surface area on the specimen to mount the detection sensors as well as to minimize the edge effects. The C(T) specimens were fabricated from A572 Grade 50 steel. Figure A8 shows the schematic diagram of the C(T) specimen.

A8

0.25 W 2 HOLES

PRE-CRACK

0.275 W

0.6 W

C L
0.275 W 0.6 W

a
W 1.25 W B B=W 2

Figure A9. Schematic diagram of C(T) specimen.

C(T) specimen testing is the most standardized fracture mechanics test specimen used to characterize crack initiation and crack growth under controlled loading conditions. For this research project, a total of 34 C(T) specimens were used to evaluate the crack growth technologies. The compliance method defined by ASTM E647 was used by the NDE Center staff to monitor and calculate crack size. The crack growth length estimated by the compliance method was used to compare the results from the tests conducted using NDE crack growth detection technologies. The modified C(T) specimens require modified MTS grips. As such, the NDE Center has prepared an Auto CAD drawing for the new MTS grips. Figures A10 and A11 show the drawings of the grips.

A9

Figure A10. AutoCAD drawings of MTS grips clevis and pin assembly.

A10

Figure A11. AutoCAD drawings of MTS grips clevis and pin space / knife edge.

A11

Design and Fabrication of the C(T) Specimens The C(T) specimens were fabricated and machined at the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC) Machine Shop. These specimens were cut out from a large steel plate. The typical layout of the steel plate and the rolling direction of the plate are shown below (Figure A12).

Figure A12. Layout of 2T/(3/8)T C(T) specimen on steel plate.

In each of the specimens, a notch was designed to start a crack. The holes were made to grip the specimen in an MTS machine. In addition, screw holes were designed on the edge (Figure A13, Note 2) for holding clip gage, if necessary. The design of the C(T) specimens is shown in the drawing below.

A12

Figure A13. C(T) specimen for pin of 0.24W (+0.000W/-0.0005W) diameter. Fatigue Pre-cracking C(T) Specimens To create a fatigue pre-crack, all C(T) specimens undergo a low level cyclic loading. The fatigue pre-crack was created by NDE Center personnel according to standard fracture testing procedures. The fatigue pre-crack is considered equivalent to a natural crack and results in specimens having a sharp flaw at the tip of the machined notch. The C(T) specimens allow for control over the crack growth rate, because the surface is flat, the crack tip location is known, and the loading is very consistent (high single-frequency sinusoidal loading input). Specimens were designed to have a large area to permit easy placement of sensors. C(T) Specimen Fabricated at the FHWA The following figures show a representative C(T) specimen (Figure A14) and a C(T) specimen that has been sanded down to the bare metal (Figure A15) for sensor placement and that is being pre-cracked. The clip gage shown is typically used for measuring crack growth rate.

A13

Figure A14. Typical C(T) specimen.

Figure A15. Pre-cracking C(T) specimen (clip gage shown used for measuring crack growth rate).

A14

Cruciform Specimens Since the C(T) specimen is very idealized and does not represent conditions found on a bridge structure, a more realistic cruciform specimen was used. This specimen is a Category C weld detail and is probably the most common weld detail for bridges. This is a realistic geometry that more adequately tests the practicality of placing sensors on bridges. Design of Cruciform Specimens The Cruciform Specimens that were used in the TFHRC Structures Laboratory were obtained for testing in this study. The dimensions of the specimen are 1cm (3/8in) thick straight steel plate that is approximately 457mm x 76mm (18in x 3in). The welded tabs are 10mm (3/8in) thick and have the dimensions 76mm x 51mm (3in x 2in). A typical cruciform specimen is shown below (Figure A16).

Figure A16. Typical cruciform specimen.

A15

Cruciform Specimen Grips The grips and the MTS setup are shown in Figure A17.

Figure A17. Cruciform specimen grips. Twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system As a supplement to the Steel Bridge Testing Program, one of the goals of the NDE Center was to experiment with selected NDE technologies to locate cracks on full-scale steel bridge girders, in the laboratory, under simulated service conditions. Bridge Steel Plate Girder Specimen Identification Two steel plate girders were used to assemble a full-scale, twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system to provide realistic structural details and test conditions. Fabricated by Williams Bridge Company in 2001, the steel plate girders are 8.5 m (28 ft) long and 0.9 m (3 ft) deep with 0.3 m (1 ft) wide 19 mm (3/4 in) thickness top and bottom flange plates. The steel plate girders have four (4) transverse stiffeners 546 x 76 x 32 mm (21.5 x 3 x 1.25 in). They are fillet welded to the 12.7 mm (1/2 in) thick girder web. Fillet welds are typically 7.9 mm (5/16 in). The transverse stiffener geometries vary by location in order to accommodate several fatigue prone details such as full depth stiffeners, partial depth stiffeners, longitudinal stiffeners, and gusset plates. The 31.7 mm (1-1/4 in) thick longitudinal stiffeners are 76 mm (3 in) wide and 546 mm (21-1/2 in) long. The 12.7 mm (1/2 in) thick gusset plates are 241 mm (9-1/2 in) wide and 406 mm (16 in) long. The four (4) gusset plates were welded with 12.7 mm (1/2 in) CJP welds with a reinforcing A16

fillet in order to improve fatigue prone performance. Figures A18 to A20 illustrate the several potential fatigue prone locations. The girders were constructed using M270 G36 steel and have no surface protective coatings. The appearance of the surface of the specimens is consistent with general corrosion. The specimens were stored unprotected in an indoor laboratory with poor environmental control since 2001. Not much information was available regarding the designation, specification, heat number, melting practice, last mechanical working, last heat treatment, or chemical composition. There is no data available on mechanical properties and no surface preparation was involved. The details of the two girders are presented in Figures A18-A20.

Figure A18. Detail of steel plate girder Specimen A.

A17

Figure A19. Details of twin-steel plate bridge girder Specimen B.

Figure A20. Steel plate girder Specimen B.

A18

Pre-cracking Bridge Girder Specimens The NDE Center intended to accomplish this by inducing cracks on two 8.5 m (28 ft) steel plate girders subject to fatigue loading. The initiation of cracks is accelerated by the installation of longitudinal stiffeners and gusset plates in areas where the stress intensity is likely high. The gusset plates from each girder are connected together to induce out of plane stresses in addition to primary bending (Figure A21). The fatigue test was developed and constructed with the help of engineers at the TFHRC Structures Laboratory. The schematic of the girder layout is shown in Figure A22.

Figure A21. Full scale bridge girder specimens with stiffeners and gusset plates. Pre-cracking Testing Sequence: The test program called for the beams to be subjected to a constant amplitude uniaxial load. As one beam is fatigued the other is left stationary. Since no out-of-plane stresses have been noted the girders were stressed simultaneously. The tests were run in a laboratory with an average temperature of 21C (70F). The following testing sequence was followed: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Fatigue North girder until cracks are formed End North girder cycling Cycle South girder until cracks form End South girder cycling Position the North girder on its side Post-tension the North girder to the strong floor Cycle the North girder connection plates to induce out of plane distortion until cracks form

A19

8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

End cycling of North girder connection plates Position the South girder on its side Post-tension the South girder to the strong floor Cycle the South girder connection plates to induce out of plane distortion until cracks form End of test

RADIUSED GUSSET SQUARE GUSSET LONGITUDINAL STIFFENER

GIRDER A

GIRDER B

Figure A22. Schematic of girder layout. Dynamic Stresses: The original test plan called for out of plane stresses induced by the attachment of braces to the shelf plates. This set up would provide a pulling force on the shelf plate. Cracks at the tips of the shelf plates were to be expected. Primary bending stresses were the only stresses involved in fatigue. As one beam was cycled the stationary beam deflected to the point that there was virtually no stress induced by the bracing system. Out of plane stresses were to be developed at the completion of the current test.

A20

Dynamic Force Monitoring: The force range in the actuator is monitored through the DC Conditioner. Table A1 shows the parameters that were used: Table A1. Parameters for monitoring force range in the actuators. Maximum Minimum Peak = 444.8 KN (100 kips) Valley = 66.7 KN (15 kips) Pmin = 66.7 KN (15 kips ) Load Ratio Pmax = 444.8 KN (100kips)
Pmin 15 = = 0.15 Pmax 100 ~1,000,000 cycles R=

Stress Ratio

Fatigue Life or Cycles to End of Test

Startup and Hydraulics Operation Verification 20000 cycles @ 0.5Hz Test Frequency Typical Frequency Remaining weekday cycles @ 1 Hz Remaining weekend cycles @ 0.75 Hz

Loading Components and Mechanism: The hydraulic actuator provides a maximum force of 890 KN (200 kips) with a static and dynamic maximum stroke of 152.4 mm (6 in) and is shown in Figure A23 below:

Figure A23. Hydraulic actuator.

A21

The load cell is attached between the hydraulic actuator and the actuator clevis. The load cell has a 890 KN (200 kips) capacity and is shown below (Figure A24):

Figure A24. Load cell closeup. The 203-mm (8-in) square clevis and plate provide for the transfer of load from the actuator to the girder as shown below (Figure A25):

Figure A25. Actuator clevis and plate.

A22

The two-post load frame as shown below (Figure A26) is capable of handling 890 KN (200 kips) loads.

Figure A26. Load Frame. The girders are simply supported. The bearings consist of a 152 mm (6 in) diameter roller, a 50.8-mm (2-in) thick cradle plate with a 12.7-mm (0.5-in) radius, a 101.6-mm (4-in) bottom plate, and a 425.5-mm (16.75-in) I- Beam (Figure A27).

Figure A27. Bearings close-up.

A23

The loading is controlled through a micro-profiler shown below (Figure A28):

Figure A28. Micro-profiler controls. Bridge Girder Specimen Cracks Figure A29 shows some of the pre-cracks that were induced in the girders at the TFHRC Structures Laboratory:

Figure A29. Girder pre-cracks.

A24

APPENDIX B NUMERICAL ANALYSIS AND COMPUTER SIMULATION SUPPORTING THE STEEL BRIDGE TESTING PROGRAM (SBTP)

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY ...................................................................................................... 1 SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................ 1 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND..................................................................................................... 2 LS-DYNA Software.................................................................................................................... 2 Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis ............................................................................................. 2
Model Geometry................................................................................................................................................... 3 Constitutive Material Models ............................................................................................................................... 3 Structural Connections......................................................................................................................................... 4 Boundary Conditions ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Dynamic Loads .................................................................................................................................................... 4

Computing Facility ..................................................................................................................... 4 Analysis and Dynamics Simulation ............................................................................................ 5 NUMERICAL MODELING AND SIMULATION OF FATIGUE CRACKING IN LABORATORY TESTING OF NDE TECHNOLOGIES ............................................................. 6 Numerical Modeling and Analysis of Compact Tension (C(T)) Specimens .............................. 6 Numerical Modeling and Analysis of Cruciform Specimens ..................................................... 9 Numerical Modeling and Analysis of Twin-Steel Plate Bridge Girder .................................... 11 DEVELOPING BRIDGE MODELS FOR DYNAMICS SIMULATION TO............................. 14 SUPPORT PHASE II FIELD TESTING OF NDE TECHNOLOGIES ....................................... 14 Numerical Modeling of Steel Bridges ...................................................................................... 14 Highway Traffic Flow Bridge Loads ........................................................................................ 15 Sample Bridges Considered ...................................................................................................... 15
Standard AASHTO steel bridge ......................................................................................................................... 15 US Route.1 Bridge over the Occoquan River ..................................................................................................... 16 Reston Bridge (VA Rt.7 Reston Bridge over VA Rt. 287) ................................................................................... 18 Van Buren Road Bridge over Quantico Creek ................................................................................................... 19 Patroon Island Bridge across the Hudson River in Albany, NY ........................................................................ 21 Woodrow Wilson Bridge across the Potomac River (VA-MD). ......................................................................... 26

CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................... 28 0B

LIST OF FIGURES Figure B1. FHWA NDE Center parallel computer connected to TRACC/ANL cluster ................ 5 Figure B2. Computer simulation of bridge nonlinear dynamics..................................................... 6 Figure B3. Typical Compact Tension (C(T)) Specimen and its finite element model. ................. 7 Figure B4. Sample plot of the simulated growing fatigue crack and the effective stress .............. 8 Figure B5. Sample plot of the simulated fatigue crack propagation and the associated effective stress field in a dynamically loaded C(T) Specimen. ............................................................. 8 Figure B6. The steel cruciform specimen with four welded tabs. ................................................. 9 Figure B7. Numerical model of the cruciform specimen used for analyzing stress fields ........... 10 Figure B8. Critical effective stress field in the cruciform specimen by SPH analysis. ............... 10 Figure B9. The twin- steel plate bridge girder testing system for laboratory tests. ..................... 11 Figure B10. Possible fatigue crack initiation sites in the welds of the steel plate girders. .......... 11 Figure B11. LSDYNA model for the twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system.................... 12 Figure B12. Sample of fine meshing on welds on the twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system in the LS-DYNA model. ........................................................................................... 12 Figure B13. LS-DYNA simulation of the stress field at the girder web plates. .......................... 13 Figure B14. LS-DYNA simulation of the stress field around the girders stiffness plate. .......... 13 Figure B15. LS-DYNA simulation of the stress field around the girder-cross beam connection plate. ...................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure B16. The procedure to simulate traffic flow loads to bridges utilizing ............................. 15 Figure B17. Nonlinear finite element model of the standard AASHTO steel bridge. .................. 16 Figure B18. The U.S. Route 1 Bridge over the Occoquan River.................................................. 17 Figure B19. The VA Rt.7 Reston Bridge over VA Rt. 287 .......................................................... 19 Figure B20. The location of the Van Buren Road Bridge. ........................................................... 19 Figure B21. Van Buren Road Bridge. .......................................................................................... 20 Figure B22. The Patroon Island Bridge on I-90 over the Hudson River. .................................... 21 Figure B23. Sample of fatigue crack damage in the Patroon Island Bridge. ................................ 22 Figure B24. Sample plots of the Patroon Island Bridge geometries. ............................................ 23 Figure B25. Sample plots of the Patroon Island Bridge geometries. ............................................ 24 Figure B26. Sample plots of the Patroon Island Bridge geometries. ............................................ 24 Figure B27. Sample plots of the finite element meshing of the truss connection and ................. 25 Figure B28. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge across the Potomac River. ....................................... 26 Figure B29. The bascule draw V-pier structure in the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. ...................... 26 Figure B30. Sample plots of the nonlinear FE model of the bascule draw V-pier ...................... 27

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Advanced computer simulation technique has been applied to numerical analysis of the dynamically loaded steel specimens and bridge girders in the Phase I (Laboratory Test and Evaluation) of this research project. Extensive numerical modeling and dynamic simulation of six typical bridges subjected to highway traffic flow loads are to be conducted to support the upcoming field tests at the bridge sites. These include four steel plate girder bridges (the standard AASHTO steel bridge, the US Rt.1 Bridge over the Occoquan River, the VA Rt.7 Reston Bridge over VA Rt. 287, the Van Buren Road Bridge over Quantico Creek), one steel trusses bridge (the I-90 Patroon Island Bridge crossing the Hudson River in Albany, NY) and one steel box girder bascule draw bridge (the I-495 Woodrow Wilson Bridge across the Potomac River). The numerical modeling of these bridges used the LS-DYNA nonlinear finite element code and Thinkmate parallel computers equipped in the FHWA NDE Center. The extensive computer simulation utilized the cluster computer in the Transportation Research Analysis Computing Center (TRACC) located at the Argon National Laboratory. Numerical simulation results will be used to assist the cost-effective tests in the upcoming bridge field investigations in the Phase II (Field Deployment, Testing and Evaluation) of this research project. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY The objective of these numerical analysis studies was to reveal the critical stress field distribution in the steel bridge structural members to support the tests of the suitability of the non-destructive evaluation (NDE) technologies for field deployment in bridge inspections.The numerical analysis in this study involves the following nonlinear finite element modeling and dynamic simulation for describing growing cracks and critical locations in steel bridges: (a) Growing fatigue cracks and dynamic stress fields in C(T) specimens. (b) Growing fatigue cracks and dynamic stress fields in cruciform specimens. (c) Critical high stress fields for fatigue cracking in steel plate bridge girders. (d) Critical high stress fields for fatigue cracking in steel bridges. The initial focus of this numerical analysis work has been placed on the nonlinear finite element modeling and fatigue crack propagation simulation of these highly representative steel testing specimens, including conventional C(T) specimens, cruciform specimens, and a specially designed twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system, along with various loading conditions used in laboratory tests. Significant efforts have been devoted to develop a nonlinear finite element bridge model for computer simulations to support the planned field tests on bridge sites in the Phase II work in this research project. SCOPE This study is intended to apply advanced nonlinear dynamics analysis to steel bridge members and structures to reveal the potential critical areas of fatigue crack initiation and limiting stress distributions to support the tests and evaluations of various NDE technologies during this research project.

B1

TECHNICAL BACKGROUND LS-DYNA Software The finite element program used for this study is LS-DYNA (Livermore Software Technology Corporation), an explicit Lagrangian finite element program that solves three dimensional, dynamic, nonlinear and large displacement problems. It was chosen because of its powerful capabilities in advanced modeling of nonlinear dynamics behavior, which are essential to the current studies and analyses LS-DYNA has several features that allow for the analysis of a variety of engineering problems. In the past, LS-DYNA has been widely used in several research fields such as aerospace structures, civil structures, automotive crash analysis, metal forming and stamping, etc. It has a library of over eighty constitutive material models ranging from the very basic elastic material to complex orthotropic composite materials. Several material models are available to model time dependent nonlinear material plasticity behaviors. LS-DYNA also has a large selection of finite element types that can be used together to model the different geometries of the structural components. The LS-DYNA code allows for simulating different dynamic loads. Some of the options for modeling loadings include concentrated load, surface contact load, dynamic pressure, and base accelerations. Connections such as bolts and welds can also be modeled using features in the code like nodal set constraints, rigid body constraints, and Spotwelds. LS-DYNA also has the capability of modeling fixed boundary conditions. Translational and rotational degrees of freedom of the nodes can be constrained in three-dimensional space along one or more of the global axes as well as arbitrary axes. The most advanced capability of LS-DYNA is its contact algorithm. Several types of contact interfaces, such as surface-to-surface, nodes to surface, nodes tied to surface, and surface tied to surface contacts, can be defined in LS-DYNA. A trade-off limiting factor, however, in using the LS-DYNA code is computational time. Due to the nature of the explicit time integration scheme used in the code, a small time step has to be used to obtain a convergent solution to the problem. The time step is also controlled by the element size and material properties. This leads to large computation time for long duration problems. A typical time step for bridge models is in the order of 1.0E-5 CPU seconds and the simulation time duration is in the order of 100 CPU seconds. Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis In order to develop accurate, reliable finite element representations of the test steel specimens or the full size steel bridge structures, several key features in modeling such bridge structural members need to be addressed.. In particular, these include: 1. Component geometry involved in the steel bridge structural members, 2. Constitutive material model invoked in the analysis of such structures, 3. Structural connections among various components in the steel bridge structures, 4. Complex boundary conditions, and 5. Dynamic loading conditions involved in the analysis of such steel bridge structures.

B2

It is noted that a major source that causes significant discrepancy between the analytical results of the bridge model and the real behavior of the bridge is due to the ignorance of many detailed structural contents in the bridge structure. It is important to include accurate geometry representation of these components. Another important aspect is the material properties involved. A real bridge structure can undergo significant nonlinear behavior either locally or globally due to plastic deformation, time varying dependencies of the materials, and aging degradation of the structural properties. In order to ensure that a finite element bridge model can capture this nonlinear behavior in dynamics analyses, adequate constitutive material models needed to be assigned to each structural component in the bridge. The structural connections, such as bolts and welds, add both local and global rigidity to the bridge structure. Therefore, they also have to be correctly incorporated in the computer model. In addition, since we are dealing with the nonlinear dynamics of bridge structures, a correct modeling of the dynamical loads to a real bridge structure is also critical. The following provides a description of the methodology in developing nonlinear finite element models for the testing specimens and steel bridges. Model Geometry In this study, the detailed geometry of the test specimens and the main bridge components is incorporated into the finite element model. The detailed geometry presentation has a significant effect on the accuracy of the bridge response. Without such a detailed geometry description, the overall physical characteristics of the steel bridge components, i.e. mass, inertia, center of gravity, and stiffness of the structural members, would not be correctly represented and the areas of stress concentration caused by particular geometrical profiles of the bridge structural member might be misrepresented. Another reason for using the real geometry to model main bridge structural components is to ensure that bucking and torsional deformations of these components, such as the out-of-plane deformations for steel bridge girders, can be properly predicted. The geometry and mesh of these test specimens and bridge structures are created using FEMAP. The steel test specimens used in the laboratory tests are all modeled by solid elements. In modeling of full-scale bridges, the girders and cross frame beams are represented in the finite element models using either solid elements or shell elements with the given thicknesses. The concrete deck and the wearing surface are represented by using solid elements. The size of the mesh is carefully chosen such that the computation time is minimized without sacrificing accuracy. The detailed geometry representation allows for an improved ability to provide an accurate response prediction of the steel bridge structure. Constitutive Material Models Another important characteristic in developing a robust finite element model of steel bridge structural member is to select the appropriate constitutive material formulation for the bridge components. When subjected to gravity and traffic loads, the bridge components can undergo nonlinear deformations. These nonlinearities can be attributed by plastic deformations or time varying dependency of the structural material. To capture these nonlinearities in the finite element model, each component of the bridge structure has been cautiously considered and given an appropriate constitutive model.

B3

Structural Connections One of the important aspects in bridge model developments is the manner by which the structural members and parts are interconnected. In this study, several connections are introduced to model the bolts and the welds within the bridge structure. These connections can introduce localized areas of stress concentration and discontinuities in the structure. Choosing the correct connection type and location are very critical in ensuring appropriate behavior of the bridge structure. LS-DYNA has provided several options for choosing types of connections. These include: joints, spotwelds, nodal set constraints, rigid body constraints, welds, and various types of tied contact interfaces. Rigid body constraints and spotwelds are the most frequently used connections in LS-DYNA. They create a rigid body link between two or more nodes. These connections are primarily used to replicate the bolts in the finite element model of the physical bridge and they are incorporated here to represent the connections among the different cross frame members, the stiffeners, and the girders. Boundary Conditions In nonlinear finite element bridge models, the bridge is connected to the piers through rollers and bearing devices. Each roller device limits the relative motion between the girder and the pier to only one rotation about the lateral axis of the bridge girder. The bearing device, on the other hand, allows for translation motion along the longitudinal direction of the bridge girder. These devices support both the bridge weight and the moving traffic loads. It is therefore crucial to accurately represent these devices in the bridge structure. This was achieved in the finite element model by including the real geometry of these devices. Dynamic Loads Dynamic loads applied to the steel test specimens used in the laboratory tests, such as C(T) specimens, cruciform specimens and steel plate girder testing systems, used the same settings as involved in the laboratory tests (Appendix E). For these bridge models, the applied loads will include two types of loading conditions: a static loading associated with its own weight (gravity loading) and a dynamic loading due to moving vehicle traffic flow loads. In our finite element model of the bridge structure, gravity loads are incorporated by invoking the base acceleration option in LS-DYNA. This acceleration is introduced at the initial time of the simulation hence causes some initial oscillations. To eliminate these oscillations, a treatment is used before applying the moving traffic loads to allow the oscillations due to gravity to die out. Computing Facility The computing facilities in the NDE Center included 2 Thinkmate parallel computers, each with 16 processors and high-end graphics. Advanced software included LS-DYNA and FEMAP/NX for nonlinear finite element modeling, analysis and simulation. The parallel computers in the FHWA NDE Center are also connected to the cluster computer (521 cpus) in the Transportation Research Analysis Computing Center (TRACC) located at the Argon National Laboratory for extensive computer simulation tasks (Figure B1).

B4

NDE Center parallel computer

Figure B1. FHWA NDE Center parallel computer connected to TRACC/ANL cluster for extensive nonlinear dynamics simulation of bridge structures. Analysis and Dynamics Simulation As previously mentioned, the main reason for developing the numerical models of the steel test specimens and these full-scale nonlinear finite element bridge models is to provide an improved ability to use numerical models in dynamic analyses and simulations to verify the effectiveness of various NDE technologies for steel bridge inspections. The goal is to provide improved understanding about the detailed mechanisms of structure damage in a bridge. To test this ability, damage can be introduced at certain locations in the finite element bridge model and the results are compared with the testing data from the bridge. The damage is introduced by simulation of the crack propagation in the structural members or by weakening the overall stiffness in certain location in the bridge structure. Figure B2 shows the general concept of using computer simulation of bridge nonlinear dynamics for research in steel bridge testing, NDE validation and structural health monitoring applications.

B5

Simulation of Dynamic Loads

Ambient Traffic Flow Loads
PDP Process Arrival Rate Vehicle Class Vehicle Speed Car-Flowing Axial Weight

Dynamic Load Condition Inputs

Traffic Flow
LSDYNA LOAD CURVES

Environmental Loads Wind Loads Rain Loads

LSDYNA NLFE Bridge Model Real Geometry Mesh Optimization Material Property Connections Constraints

Other Environmental Loads (such as thermal and hydraulic loads)

Refine Bridge Model

Bridge Response Data

Nonlinear System Identification

Analysis of Bridge Response for Damage Detection and SHM Critical Stress Area Fatigue Cracking
Figure B2. Computer simulation of bridge nonlinear dynamics.

Bridge Field Data

NUMERICAL MODELING AND SIMULATION OF FATIGUE CRACKING IN LABORATORY TESTING OF NDE TECHNOLOGIES Numerical Modeling and Analysis of Compact Tension (C(T)) Specimens C(T) specimens (Figure B3) are the most standardized specimen used in fracture mechanics and fatigue crack growth tests to characterize fatigue crack initiation and growth under controlled dynamic loading conditions. In the laboratory tests performed in the FHWA NDE Center during this research project, a total of 32 C(T) specimens were used to evaluate the two crack growth technologies. Detailed geometric and material descriptions of the C(T) specimens used in these laboratory tests are included in Appendix A. Numerical simulation of the growing fatigue crack under laboratory controlled dynamic loading conditions and analysis of the associated critical stress field in the C(T) specimen was conducted using the LS-DYNA nonlinear finite element analysis code. As shown in Figure B5, highly dense meshing has been used to describe the critical solid steel body along the expected crack growth direction. The material property of the steel plate was introduced by using the piecewiseB6

elastic-plastic material mode with fatigue failure from the LS-DYNA material library. Computer simulations are performed by applying a single-frequency cyclic load force (1.0 Hz or 2.0 Hz single frequency sinusoidal wave with 9.0 KN magnitude) in addition to a 4.0 KN static extension load force to the C(T) specimen finite element model. Fatigue crack propagations in the C(T) specimen are simulated using the feature provided by LS-DYNA in which the element failure occurs when its maximum nonlinear strain exceeds the threshold of material fatigue failure. Figures B4 - B5 illustrate an example of the simulated fatigue crack growth and its associated effective stress field when the crack propagates along the center line of in a dynamically loaded C(T) specimen. The observations from both Figures B4 and B5 indicated that the high effective stress area around a growing fatigue crack is usually located at the immediate front of the crack tip and also the immediate side areas along the crack propagating direction.

the pre - crack

Finite element mesh of the CT specimen

Figure B3. Typical Compact Tension (C(T)) Specimen and its finite element model.

B7

the low effective stress area

Figure B4. Sample plot of the simulated growing fatigue crack and the effective stress field in a dynamically loaded C(T) Specimen.

Effective stress field of the loaded CT specimen

the rapid varying, low effective stress area

Figure B5. Sample plot of the simulated fatigue crack propagation and the associated effective stress field in a dynamically loaded C(T) Specimen. B8

However, for such a simple single-frequency cyclic loading condition there is a small surface area varying ahead along the crack propagating direction where the effective stress could be much lower than that around the crack tip. This simulation illustrated that in the tests of the EFS system using the C(T) specimens placement of the EFS reference sensor over a low stress field area (2/3 magnitude lower than the high stress area) should be avoided. Numerical Modeling and Analysis of Cruciform Specimens The cruciform specimen, as shown in Figure B7, is a more realistic type of testing specimen. This cruciform specimen has a CategoryC weld detail which is the most common type of weld detail for steel bridges. Detailed geometry and material information relating to the cruciform specimen used in this test is given in Appendix A. Figure B7 shows the sample plot of the numerical model of this cruciform, welded steel plate. The NDE Center staff utilized an advanced meshless modeling technique to simulate steel fatigue cracking initiation in the cruciform specimens in order to illustrate the critical stress field distributions in this type of steel specimen during the laboratory tests. Specifically, a Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) meshless approach provided by the LS-DYNA software package was used in this analysis. The specimens were subjected to a cyclic tension load. This indicated that the main mechanism of the fatigue crack initiation is due to accumulated material fatigue damage and rapid fatigue crack damage may occur along the section of the welded steel plate, rather than only within the weld metal.

Figure B6. The steel cruciform specimen with four welded tabs.

B9

Figure B7. Numerical model of the cruciform specimen used for analyzing stress fields

rapid alternation of effective stress close to m aterial fatigue failure level appears in this crosssection

Figure B8. Critical effective stress field in the cruciform specimen by SPH analysis.

B10

Numerical Modeling and Analysis of Twin-Steel Plate Bridge Girder The twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system (Figure B9) design by the staff at the FHWA TFHRC Structures Lab was used in the laboratory tests of the capacity of the various crack growth detection technologies. Figure B10 shows the possible fatigue crack initiation sites in the welds of the steel plate girders. The detailed geometry and material information about the steel plate bridge girders used in this test were given in Appendix A. During the test, the steel plate bridge girders was subjected to a downward static load of 44.48 KN (10 kips) plus a 1.0 Hz cyclic loads of 124.51 KN (28 kips) magnitude. The twin-steel plate bridge girder was subjected to a three point bending condition during the dynamic loading process.

Figure B9. The twin- steel plate bridge girder testing system for laboratory tests.

Figure B10. Possible fatigue crack initiation sites in the welds of the steel plate girders. B11

To obtain information regarding the stress field distribution in the twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system used in this test, the steel girders together with all related steel cross beams and bolts were modeled using LS-DYNA code. Special fine meshing was also used for modeling critical locations of welds and joints. Figures B11 and B12 illustrate the LS-DYNA nonlinear finite element model for this twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system. Dynamic simulations were performed with the load set-up of the twin steel girders connected by cross beams and subjected to cyclic loading at the top mid-span location of one girder.

Figure B11. LSDYNA model for the twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system.

Figure B12. Sample of fine meshing on welds on the twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system in the LS-DYNA model. B12

Figure B13. LS-DYNA simulation of the stress field at the girder web plates.

Figure B14. LS-DYNA simulation of the stress field around the girders stiffness plate.

B13

Figure B15. LS-DYNA simulation of the stress field around the girder-cross beam connection plate. Figures B13, B14, and B15 show the results evaluated by LS-DYNA nonlinear dynamics simulations. These numerical simulations highlighted the critical, or hot spot, areas within the steel plate girders when they are subjected to the given dynamic loads. Several of these hot spots result in significant effective stress concentrations that reach the level very close to the ultimate strength of the steel materials and could result in fatigue crack initiations. This information was used to aid the installation of the EFS system for detecting crack growth in the steel bridge testing system during this test.

DEVELOPING BRIDGE MODELS FOR DYNAMICS SIMULATION TO SUPPORT PHASE II FIELD TESTING OF NDE TECHNOLOGIES Numerical Modeling of Steel Bridges Extensive numerical modeling and dynamics simulation of three groups of two typical bridges eachsubjected to highway traffic flow loads are being conducted to support the upcoming field tests at the bridge sites. These include: (1) Four AASHTO steel bridges of different span length and structural constructions: (2) A large steel trusses bridge: I-90 Patroon Island Bridge in Albany, NY), and (3) A bascule draw bridge with steel box girders: I-95 Woodrow Wilson Bridge (VA-MD). Extensive numerical modeling of these bridges was performed using the LS-DYNA nonlinear finite element code and the Thinkmate parallel computers equipped in the FHWA NDE Center. The computer simulation of these steel bridges subjected to ambient traffic flow loads will use the cluster computer in Transportation Research Analysis Computing Center (TRACC) at the Argon National Laboratory. Numerical simulation results will be used to assist the cost-effective tests in the upcoming bridge field investigations in the Phase II (Field Deployment, Testing and Evaluation) of this research project.

B14

Highway Traffic Flow Bridge Loads The bridge loads due to dynamic moving traffic flow are incorporated into the simulation of the finite element bridge models using concentrated nodal forces with appropriate load curves. To simulate this moving load, load curve time histories for LS-DYNA input are assigned to the nodes in the path of the vehicle motion. This method was found to be very effective in modeling the moving traffic loads. The Poisson Distributed Pulse (PDP) process (Eq.1 and Figure B16) is used to simulate continuous traffic flow loads applied to highway bridge structures with variable arrival rates and vehicle types.

(t ) = Yk ,l (t k ,l )
k =1 l =1

N (t ) M k

Eq.(1)

Vehicle class index

[1]

Reference histogram from traffic data

Vehicles travel at mean arrival speed of the traffic flow Traffic flow direction

Vehicles start traveling at non-identical speeds

Vehicle stars deceleration Vk

Vk (t)

Vk1

Vk1(t)

Gate distance
Lb LS

dt t

HIGHWAY BRIDGE

[2] occurrence of the vehicle

Determine the acceptance of this simulation

Gate location

Figure B16. The procedure to simulate traffic flow loads to bridges utilizing the information from AADT and WIM data A PDP process is a non-Gaussian process. The procedure to simulate ambient traffic flows included the use of the information in the annual average daily traffic (AADT) and Weigh-inMotion (WIM) data. Figure B16 illustrates the sample algorithm for simulation of ambient traffic flow loads. Sample Bridges Considered Standard AASHTO steel bridge The standard AASHTO steel bridge is the most popular single-span steel girder bridge in the US. A detailed nonlinear finite element (FE) model of a standard AASHTO steel bridge, as shown in Figure B17, has been developed. The bridge model represents a standard AASHTO two-lane steel girder bridge with a span length of 40 m (139 ft.) and a width of 9.3 m (30.5118 ft.). The model consists of 144 parts (4 girders and 21 cross frame sections) and approximately 40,000 elements and was created for use with the LS-DYNA nonlinear explicit FE code. Some important practical aspects involved in the modeling of such highway bridges included structural connections, material properties, boundary and dynamic loading conditions. Extensive simulations were conducted using the Thinkmate parallel computer in the FHWA NDE Center to determine the bridge structural response under dynamic loadings. The resulting data sets from these simulations are used in the software development of the broad-band bridge load simulation in laboratory tests.

B15

Figure B17. Nonlinear finite element model of the standard AASHTO steel bridge. Figure B17 presents portions of the design drawing of a typical two-lane standard full-size highway bridge. The bridge has a span length of 40 m and a width of 9.3 m. The bridge deck is made by reinforced concrete of 0.25 m (9.84252 in)- thick covered with a 0.05 m (1.9685 in)thick asphalt wearing surface. The deck is supported by four I-shaped steel girders, which are positioned 2.44 m (8.00525 ft.) apart along the lateral direction. In the longitudinal direction, each girder consists of three sections. The two-end sections have a 12.7 mm (0.5 in)-thick top flange, a 17.5 mm (0.688976 in) - thick web, and 15.9 mm (0.625984 in) - thick bottom flange. The middle section has a thicker, 25.4 mm (1.0 in), bottom flange. Plate stiffeners are welded to the web and flanges of the bridge girders and located 6.6 m (21.6535 ft.) apart along the longitudinal direction. Except for the first and the last stiffeners, which are 17.5 mm (0.688976 in) thick, all other stiffeners are 9.5 mm (0.374016 in) -thick. Also, there are cross frames placed between the girders to increase their lateral buckling stiffness. The bridge has a total of 21 cross frames, seven between each pair of girders. Each cross frame consists of three L-shaped steel beams. Two of them are placed diagonally and one is placed horizontally. The two diagonal beams are bolted at the ends to four steel plates, which in turn are bolted to the girder stiffeners. Two T-shaped steel gussets are connected to the lower portion of the girders to support the cross frame. The horizontal beam of the cross frame is connected to the lower steel plates. US Route.1 Bridge over the Occoquan River The U.S. Route 1 Bridge over the Occoquan River is located 28 miles south of FHWA's Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center in McLean, Virginia and approximately 1/2 mile east of I-95 at Mile Post 161.5. The bridge, identified as Structure 029-1924, is owned and maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). The structure has an overall length of B16

approximately 335.28 m (1,100 ft.) and width of 12.192 m (40 ft.), and is separated into two independent structures at Pier 4 by an expansion joint. The roadway width is 10.9728 m (36 ft.) with two, 3.556 m (11 foot 8 inches) wide traffic lanes. A 1.651 m (5 foot 5 inch) and 2.2352 m (7 foot 4 inch) shoulder are provided on the east and west sides of the roadway, respectively. The bridge was constructed in 1975. The 335.28 m (1101.71 ft.) structure is divided into two independent, four span structures as shown in Figure B18. The roadway is 10.97 m (35.9908 ft.) wide, accommodating two lanes of traffic and two shoulders.

(a). Overall view of bridge (foreground)

(b). View of superstructure

Figure B18. The U.S. Route 1 Bridge over the Occoquan River. B17

Each span measures approximately 37.0 m (121.391 ft.) with a vertical clearance varying from 1 m (3.28084 ft.) to 18 m (59.0551 ft.). The superstructure consists of 1.83 m (6.00394 ft.) deep welded plate girders with variable thickness flange plates. Girder construction includes welded transverse and longitudinal stiffeners, bolted angle diaphragms, bolted and welded flange transitions, and an in-plane lateral bracing system comprised of WT members attached to lateral gusset plates, which are welded to the girder webs near the bottom flange. The superstructure framing is composite with a 235 mm (9.25197 in) thick cast-in-place, conventionally reinforced concrete deck which is overlaid with a 6 mm (0.23622 in) thick epoxy resin with embedded fine aggregate. The Route 1 Bridge includes construction details and defect conditions that are typical of major steel highway bridges. Overall, the bridge is in good condition with only minor deterioration. However, there are crack indications located at the weld toe of some Category E details. In this study, the nonlinear finite element model for this steel bridge will be developed during the Phase II work (Field Evaluation of Selected Technologies) of this research project and computer simulation will be performed to reveal critical locations within this steel bridge to provide information for in-depth inspection of potential fatigue crack damages in this bridge. Reston Bridge (VA Rt.7 Reston Bridge over VA Rt. 287) The VA Rt.7 Reston Bridge over VA Rt. 287 shown in Figure B19 has a long 38.1 m (125 ft) simply supported main Span and high ADT traffic. The bridge has in stay-in-place (SIP) deck forms with 5 steel girder system and is considered being near initiation of degradation with NBI ratings 7:7:7 (Deck:Superstructure: Substructure). This bridge will also be modeled with LSDYNA nonlinear finite element code for extensive computer simulation in the Phase II work ((Field Evaluation of Selected Technologies) of this research project. The numerical simulation results will be used to assist the instrumentation of the monitoring system on this bridge and provide the base-line condition information for long-term bridge performance monitoring.

(a ). Overall view of the VA Rt.7 Reston Bridge over VA Rt. 287 (foreground)

B18

(b ). View of superstructure

Figure B19. The VA Rt.7 Reston Bridge over VA Rt. 287 Van Buren Road Bridge over Quantico Creek The Van Buren Road Bridge over Quantico Creek, shown in Figures B20 and B21, was constructed around 1960 and consists of three spans, each simply supported with a span length of 18.29 m (60.0066 ft.). The overall bridge is 55.65 m (182.579 ft.) long and 8.53 m (27.9856 ft.) wide. The bridge deck is 175 mm (6.88976 in) thick, cast-in-place reinforced concrete supported by four wide flange stringers, which act compositely with the deck. The steel stringers are reinforced with tapered-end, welded, cover plates. The superstructure is supported by reinforced concrete piers and abutments founded on spread footings or steel H-piles.

V an Buren R oad Bridge

Figure B20. The location of the Van Buren Road Bridge.

B19

Figure B21. Van Buren Road Bridge. The average daily-traffic on the Van Buren Road Bridge is minimal. The deck has significant delaminations throughout the length of the deck. Additionally, some of the bearings appear to be locked in the expanded configuration with evidence of continued bearing plate sliding. Several crack indications can also be noted along weld toes. Aside from these deficiencies, the structure is in good condition. This bridge will also be modeled with LS-DYNA nonlinear finite element code for extensive computer simulation in the Phase II work ((Field Evaluation of Selected Technologies) of this research project. B20

Patroon Island Bridge across the Hudson River in Albany, NY The Patroon Island Bridge (Figure B22) is located in New York (NY) state on Interstate Route 90 over the Hudson River. The bridge carries high traffic volumes and is owned by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). This large steel truss bridge was built in 1970s and extensively modified in 1992. The main structure of the Patroon Island Bridge now contains three traffic lanes in each direction. The three largest spans are supported by a total of four bridge piers (spans 4 to 6 and piers 4 to 7). The bridge structure very similar to the I-35W bridge that collapsed in August 2007. In particular, the bridge has concrete deck supported by a total 520 box steel members connected by bolted steel connection plates. The truss members and connection plates have different thicknesses by design. In addition, previous repairs and major modifications have also changed or modified the thickness of a certain number of the steel cross beams at multiple locations.

Figure B22. The Patroon Island Bridge on I-90 over the Hudson River. The bridge has been rated as generally in good condition. However, inspections of this bridge in recent years (2006) have discovered fatigue cracks in steel floor beams and truss members (Figure B23). Although crack arrest measures have been implemented, the NYSDOT is concerned about potential hidden structural damage. The NDE Center will utilize advanced numerical analysis and large scale computer simulations to provide detailed technical information to aid the Phase II work (Field Evaluation of Selected Technologies) of the planned tests on this bridge. The analysis will be focused on determining the most critical structural members. After this analysis, the NYSDOT and NDE Center will install a structural health monitoring (SHM) system.

B21

Figure B23. Sample of fatigue crack damage in the Patroon Island Bridge. The NDE Center has high performance computing (HPC) capacity based on the combination of LS-DYNA software and two Thinkmate multi-processor parallel computers connected to the 512 CPU Cluster at the Transportation Research and Analysis Computing Center, Argonne National Laboratory. This computing capacity allows the NDE Center to perform extensive numerical analysis and computer simulation of this steel bridge behavior. For the Patroon Island Bridge, analysis efforts will include the following: 1. Develop a full-scale, real geometry, highly detailed nonlinear finite element bridge model for extensive analysis of the steel bridge dynamics and behavior under various loading conditions (traffic and environmental). 2. Use of advanced computer simulations in focused studies to reveal potential hot spots or critical areas within this type of steel bridge structure. These hot spots may constitute critical dynamic stress concentrations resulting in fatigue cracks under high traffic volume. 3. Using the computer simulation results, the NDE Center will evaluate the effectiveness of the previously selected NDE techniques to detect cracks. Simulation results will also provide information to help with the production of an efficient and cost effective SHM system for truss bridges. The detailed numerical modeling of this steel truss bridge has been focused on real geometry descriptions for every structural member, followed by highly detailed 3D finite element modeling. Information available from the original bridge design plans and bridge modification plans were used to develop the analysis model. The 3D solid modeling and pre-processing used FEMAP code. Every structural member in this full size, real geometry bridge model will be meshed by the optimal meshing algorithm in FEMAP using the features of LS-DYNA in extensive computer simulations. The nonlinear finite element model of this steel trusses bridge consists about 2 million elements and 6000 structural parts.

B22

The material properties of each structural member will also be carefully considered based on available project documents. To capture and describe the fracture dynamics behavior due to fatigue cracks in steel structural members, steel materials will be elastic-plastic with failure. Bridge loading conditions will include the combined bridge gravity loads and bridge dynamical traffic loads. In particular, the bridge static loading condition is applied simultaneously with multi-lane traffic loads. The traffic flow loads are applied to the bridge deck surface and are simulated using the PDP process previous developed by TFHRC for simulating multilane weight-in-motion vehicle flows. Results provided by extensive computer simulation will be used to investigate potential global or local unsteady conditions and to reveal critical hot spots of potential structural damage and fatigue cracking for bridges of similar design. Previously developed chaos theory analysis techniques will be used to reveal these locations. In particular, the CTBR computer program, previously developed by TFHRC, will be used to analyze the steel bridge response data from both field testing and computer simulations. This work will illustrate the nonlinear chaotic behavior that can produce strong irregular stress fields resulting in steel cracks.

Figure B24. Sample plots of the Patroon Island Bridge geometries.

B23

Figure B25. Sample plots of the Patroon Island Bridge geometries.

Figure B26. Sample plots of the Patroon Island Bridge geometries. B24

(a) a truss connection in the Patroon Island Bridge

(b) a bridge bearing device in the Patroon Island Bridge

Figure B27. Sample plots of the finite element meshing of the truss connection and the bearing device in the Patroon Island Bridge. The NDE Center has partially completed the overall geometry model. The model contains about 2 million solid elements, 6000 structural parts which form approximately 520 box steel truss members, 528 truss plates, 700 cross beams, 1400 connection plates, 16 bridge bearings, 4 bridge footings, plus the concrete bridge deck, fences, barriers and a massive number of steel bolts. Figures B24 to B26 illustrate portions of the bridge model geometry. Figure B27 shows some of the finite element meshing for structural members in this steel truss bridge.

B25

Woodrow Wilson Bridge across the Potomac River (VA-MD). The Woodrow Wilson Bridge across the Potomac River on the Washington DC Capital Beltway is the longest bascule draw bridge in the United States. The new bascule draw bridge consists of an innovative V-pier design and multiple spans. Figures B28 and B29 shows portions of its design drawing and typical bascule draw V-pier structure. The focus of this nonlinear bridge model development was placed on the detailed modeling of several critical V-piers and spans. These include: precise geometry of concrete deck, bascule leafs, V-piers; nonlinear load dependencies of the materials; structural connections among different steel frame members, stiffeners, and box girders; and dynamical loading conditions in this bascule draw bridge.

Figure B28. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge across the Potomac River.

V-pier steel box girder

Figure B29. The bascule draw V-pier structure in the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.

B26

Figure B30. Sample plots of the nonlinear FE model of the bascule draw V-pier structure in the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. The NDE Center has completed the overall geometry model for this bascule draw V-pier, steel box girder bridge. An extensive meshing task is being conducted in the Phase II work of this research project. The bridge model for the bascule draw V-pier bridge structure will contain about 4 million solid elements and 4000 structural parts, plus the concrete bridge deck, fences, barriers and a very large number of steel bolts. Figure B30 illustrate portions of the bridge model geometry and some of the finite element meshing for structural members in this bridge. Extensive computer simulation will also be conducted to investigate potential global or local unsteady conditions and to reveal critical hot spots of potential structural damage and fatigue cracking for this bridge. Previously developed nonlinear chaos theory analysis techniques will also be used to reveal these locations and to analyze the steel bridge response data from both field testing and computer simulations. This work will illustrate the nonlinear chaotic behavior that can produce strong irregular stress fields resulting in steel cracks.

B27

CONCLUSIONS In Phase I (Laboratory Test and Evaluation) of this research project, advanced computer simulation technique has been applied to numerical analysis of dynamically loaded steel specimens and bridge girders. The objective of these numerical analyses works was to reveal the critical stress field distribution in the steel test specimens and bridge structural members to support the laboratory tests of the suitability of the non-destructive evaluation (NDE) technologies. The initial focus of this numerical analysis has been placed on nonlinear finite element modeling and fatigue crack propagation simulation of these highly representative steel testing specimens, including conventional C(T) specimens, cruciform specimens, and a specially designed twinsteel plate bridge girder testing system, along with various loading conditions used in laboratory tests. The numerical analysis in this study involved the nonlinear finite element modeling and dynamic simulation for describing growing fatigue cracks and dynamic stress fields in C(T) specimens, growing fatigue cracks and dynamic stress fields in cruciform specimens, and critical high stress fields for fatigue cracking in steel plate bridge girders. Significant efforts have been and will be continuously devoted to developing nonlinear finite element bridge models for computer simulations to support planned field tests on bridge sites in Phase II of research project. Extensive numerical modeling and dynamic simulation of six typical bridges subjected to highway traffic flow loads are to be conducted to support the upcoming field tests at the bridge sites. These include four AASHTO steel bridges (the standard AASHTO steel bridge, the US Rt.1 Bridge over the Occoquan River, the VA Rt.7 bridge over VA Rt. 287, the Van Buren Road Bridge over Quantico Creek), one steel truss bridge (the I-90 Patroon Island Bridge) and one steel box girder bascule draw bridge (the I-495 Woodrow Wilson Bridge). The numerical modeling of these bridges used the LS-DYNA nonlinear finite element code and two Thinkmate parallel computers equipped in the FHWA NDE Center. The extensive computer simulation will utilize the cluster computer in Transportation Research Analysis Computing Center (TRACC) located at the Argon National Laboratory. Numerical simulation results will be used to assist the cost-effective tests in the incoming bridge field investigations in the Phase II (Field Deployment, Testing and Evaluation) of this research project.

B28

APPENDIX E EVALUATION OF ELECTROCHEMICAL FATIGUE SENSOR (EFS) SYSTEM

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY ...................................................................................................... 1 SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................ 1 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND..................................................................................................... 2 Basic Concept ............................................................................................................................. 2 EFS Sensor Installation ............................................................................................................... 4 EFS Data Acquisition and Analysis............................................................................................ 4 Criteria for Laboratory Analysis ................................................................................................. 8 LABORATORY TEST PLAN ....................................................................................................... 8 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS .............................................................................................. 11 Compact Tension (C(T)) Specimens ........................................................................................ 11 Numerical Simulation and Analysis of Sensor Placements .................................................. 11 Tests of the EFS System by Laboratory Controlled Loads and Environmental Effects........ 14 Summary of Test Results and Findings ................................................................................. 75 Cruciform Specimens ............................................................................................................... 78 Numerical Simulation and Analysis of Sensor Placements .................................................. 79 Test of the EFS Sensor Placement ........................................................................................ 80 Tests of the EFS System Using Cruciform Specimen............................................................ 86 Summary of Test Results and Findings ............................................................................... 107 Twin-Steel Plate Bridge Girder .............................................................................................. 108 Numerical Simulation and Analysis of Sensor Placements ................................................ 112 Test of the EFS System by Controlled Single Frequency Cyclic Loads .............................. 114 Summary of Test Results and Findings ............................................................................... 129 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 130 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 131 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 134 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 136

LIST OF FIGURES Figure E1. Base EFS system. ......................................................................................................... 2 Figure E2. EFS sensor.................................................................................................................... 3 Figure E3. EFS System for Inspecting Multiple Crack Locations................................................. 5 Figure E4. EFS PDL setup and data collection software: PDL_Controller. ................................ 6 Figure E5. EFS data analysis software: EFS_Analyzer. ................................................................ 7 Figure E6. Laboratory Test Plan ................................................................................................... 10 Figure E7. Typical Compact Tension (C(T)) Specimen. ............................................................. 11 Figure E8. Sample plot of the simulated growing fatigue crack and the effective stress field in a dynamically loaded C(T) Specimen...................................................................................... 12 Figure E9. Sample plot of the simulated fatigue crack propagation and the associated effective stress field in a dynamically loaded C(T) Specimen. ........................................................... 13 Figure E10. Type of EFS sensor placements for C(T) specimens. ............................................... 15 Figure E11. Surface preparation of a C(T) specimen. ................................................................. 18 Figure E12. Installing EFS sensors on a C(T) specimen. ............................................................ 19 Figure E13. Initial C(T) specimen setup. ..................................................................................... 20 Figure E14. Initial EFS test with 1Hz cyclic load by MTS. ........................................................ 21 Figure E15. Frequency domain plots from the initial test at 10.0 Hz cyclic load by MTS. ........ 22 Figure E16. EFS sensor placement and fatigue crack in Test No.1. ............................................ 23 Figure E17. Monitored crack growth length in Test No.1. .......................................................... 24 Figure E18. Sample frequency domain plots from sensor data in Test No.1. ............................. 24 Figure E19. Crack growth predicted by EFS in Test No. 1. ........................................................ 25 Figure E20. Energy ratio and spectrum difference in Test No. 1. ............................................... 26 Figure E21. Maximum crack growth length within the CM sensor in Test No.1........................ 26 Figure E22. Crack growth predicted within the CM sensor area in Test No.1. ........................... 27 Figure E23. Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference evaluated for the crack growth within the CM sensor area in Test No.1................................................................................................. 27 Figure E24. EFS sensor placement and fatigue crack growth in Test No.2. ............................... 28 Figure E25. MTS setup for EFS system test in Test No.2. .......................................................... 29 Figure E26. Maximum crack growth length within the CM sensor area and monitored............. 30 Figure E27. Sample frequency domain plots from sensor data in Test No.2. ............................. 31 Figure E28. Sample frequency domain plots from sensor data in Test No.2. ............................. 32 Figure E29. Fatigue crack growth predicted in Test No.2. ........................................................... 33 Figure E30. Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference in Test No.2 .............................................. 33 Figure E31. Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference within the CM sensor area in Test No.2. .. 34 Figure E32. EFS sensor placement and fatigue crack growth in Test No.3. ................................ 35 Figure E33. Maximum crack growth length within the CM sensor area and .............................. 36 Figure E34. Sample frequency domain plots from sensor data in Test No.3. ............................. 37 Figure E35. Fatigue crack growth predicted by EFS in Test No.3. ............................................. 38 Figure E36. Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference in Test No.3. ............................................. 39 Figure E37. Fatigue crack growth within the CM sensor area in Test No.3................................ 40 Figure E38. Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference within the CM sensor area ........................ 40 Figure E39. EFS sensor placement in Test No.4. ........................................................................ 41 Figure E40. EFS test using the MTS and Environmental Chamber system. ............................... 42 Figure E41. Monitored growth of the fatigue crack length in Test No.4..................................... 42

Figure E42. Sample frequency domain plots from sensor data in Region A (Test No.4). ........... 44 Figure E43. Sample frequency domain plots from sensor data in Region B (Test No.4). ........... 45 Figure E44. Sample frequency domain plots from sensor data in Region C (Test No.4). .......... 46 Figure E45. EFS predictions of the growing fatigue crack in Test No.4. .................................... 47 Figure E46. EFS predictions in Test No.4. .................................................................................. 48 Figure E47. EFS sensor placement and the fatigue crack in Test No.5. ...................................... 49 Figure E48. Monitored fatigue crack growth length in Test No.5. ............................................... 49 Figure E49. Sample frequency domain plots in Test No.5. .......................................................... 50 Figure E50. EFS prediction of the growing fatigue crack in Test No.5. ...................................... 50 Figure E51. Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference in Test No.5. ............................................. 51 Figure E52. EFS sensor placement and the fatigue crack in Test No.6. ...................................... 52 Figure E53. Monitored fatigue crack growth in Test No.6. .......................................................... 52 Figure E54. Sample frequency domain plots in Test No.6. .......................................................... 53 Figure E55. EFS prediction of the growing fatigue crack in Test No.6. ..................................... 54 Figure E56. Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference in Test No.6. ............................................. 54 Figure E57. EFS sensor placement and the fatigue crack in Test No.7. ...................................... 55 Figure E58. Monitored fatigue crack growth in Test No.7. ......................................................... 56 Figure E59. Sample frequency domain plots in Test No.7. ......................................................... 56 Figure E60. EFS prediction of the growing fatigue crack in Test No.7. ..................................... 57 Figure E61. Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference in Test No.7. ............................................. 57 Figure E62. Monitored fatigue crack growth in Test No.8. ......................................................... 58 Figure E63. EFS sensor placement and the fatigue crack in Test No.8. ....................................... 59 Figure E64. Sample frequency domain plots in Test No.8. ......................................................... 60 Figure E65. EFS prediction of the growing fatigue crack in Test No.8. ..................................... 60 Figure E66. Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference in Test No 8. ............................................. 61 Figure E67. EFS sensor placements in Test No.9. ....................................................................... 62 Figure E68. EFS sensor placements corresponding to PDL Channels for detecting fatigue crack growth in Test No.9. ............................................................................................................. 63 Figure E69. EFS prediction of the growing fatigue crack in Test No.9. ..................................... 63 Figure E70. Sample frequency domain plots for PDL78 in Test No.9. ....................................... 64 Figure E71. Sample frequency domain plots for PDL74 in Test No.9. ....................................... 65 Figure E72. EFS sensor placements in Test No.10. ..................................................................... 66 Figure E73. C(T) specimen and EFS sensor placement in Test No.10........................................ 66 Figure E74. Sample frequency domain plots in Test No.10. ....................................................... 68 Figure E75. Sample frequency domain plots in Test No.10. (cont.) ........................................... 69 Figure E76. EFS prediction of the growing fatigue crack in Test No.10. ................................... 70 Figure E77. The load-temperature settings and the growing fatigue crack in Test No.11. ......... 72 Figure E78. Sample frequency domain plots in Test No.11. ....................................................... 73 Figure E78. Sample frequency domain plots in Test No.11. (cont.) ........................................... 74 Figure E79. EFS prediction of the growing fatigue crack in Test No.11. ................................... 75 Figure E80. Growth of the fatigue crack length and growth rates detected during the C(T) specimen tests (Test No.1-Test No. 8). ................................................................................. 76 Figure E81. The steel cruciform specimen with four welded tabs. ............................................. 78 Figure E82. Numerical model of the cruciform specimen used for analyzing stress fields ........ 79 Figure E83. Critical effective stress field in the cruciform specimen by SPH simulation. ......... 80 Figure E84. Installing the EFS sensors on a cruciform specimen. .............................................. 81

Figure E85. Testing setup of the steel cruciform specimen with EFS sensors on the MTS load frame. .................................................................................................................................... 82 Figure E86. Live-load stress output with two EFS sensors close together (EFS sensor placement type #1). ................................................................................................................................ 83 Figure E87. Live-load stress output with two EFS sensors placed farther apart ......................... 84 Figure E88. Larger EFS sensor used to cover weld areas on cruciform specimen ...................... 85 Figure E89. EFS analysis result for the 88.96 KN (20 kips) peak-to-peak ................................. 85 Figure E90. EFS sensor placement in the Cruciform Specimen Test No. 1. ............................... 87 Figure E91. Test setup for the Cruciform Specimen Test No. 1.................................................. 88 Figure E92. Fatigue crack resulting from the Cruciform Test No. 1. .......................................... 88 Figure E93. Sample frequency domain plots by PDL70 channel in Cruciform Test No.1. ........ 89 Figure E94. Sample frequency domain plots by PDL75 channel in Cruciform Test No.1. ........ 90 Figure E95. EFS prediction of the growing fatigue crack in Cruciform Test No.1. .................... 91 Figure E96. EFS sensor placement in the Cruciform Specimen Test No.2. ................................ 92 Figure E97. Test setup for the Cruciform Specimen Test No. 2.................................................. 92 Figure E98. Fatigue crack resulting from the Cruciform Test No. 2. .......................................... 93 Figure E99. Sample frequency domain plots by PDL72 channel in Cruciform Test No.2. ........ 94 Figure E100. Sample frequency domain plots by PDL77 channel in Cruciform Test No.2. ...... 95 Figure E101. EFS prediction of the growing fatigue crack in Cruciform Test No.2. .................. 96 Figure E102. EFS sensor placement in the Cruciform Specimen Test No.3. .............................. 97 Figure E103. Test setup for the Cruciform Specimen Test No. 3................................................ 97 Figure E104. Fatigue crack resulting from the Cruciform Test No. 3. ........................................ 98 Figure E105. Sample frequency domain plots by PDL70 channel in Cruciform Test No.3. ...... 99 Figure E106. Sample frequency domain plots by PDL77 channel in Cruciform Test No.3. .... 100 Figure E107. EFS prediction of the growing fatigue crack in Cruciform Test No.3. ................ 101 Figure E108. EFS sensor placement in the Cruciform Specimen Test No.4. ............................ 102 Figure E109. Test setup for the Cruciform Specimen Test No. 4.............................................. 102 Figure E110. The fatigue crack resulting from the Cruciform Test No. 4................................. 103 Figure E111. Sample frequency domain plots by PDL70 channel in Cruciform Test No.4. .... 104 Figure E112. Sample frequency domain plots by PDL75 channel in Cruciform Test No.4. .... 105 Figure E113. EFS prediction of the growing fatigue crack in Cruciform Test No.4. ................ 106 Figure E114. Twin- steel plate bridge girder testing system for laboratory tests. ..................... 108 Figure E115. Twin- steel plate bridge girder testing system for laboratory tests. ..................... 109 Figure E116. Suspected crack location in the twin- steel plate bridge girder............................ 109 Figure E117. Possible fatigue crack initiation sites in the welds of the steel plate girders. ...... 110 Figure E118. EFS sensors and PDL units as installed on suspected fatigue crack sites............ 111 Figure E119. LSDYNA model for the twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system. ............... 112 Figure E120. Sample of fine meshing on welds on the twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system in the LS-DYNA model. ......................................................................................... 112 Figure E121. LS-DYNA simulation of the stress field at the girder web plates. ...................... 113 Figure E122. LS-DYNA simulation of the stress field around the girders stiffness plate. ...... 113 Figure E123. LS-DYNA simulation of the stress field around the girder-cross ........................ 114 Figure E124. Suspected fatigue crack location in the steel girder web plate. ........................... 115 Figure E125. EFS setup for inspecting the suspected fatigue crack .......................................... 116 Figure E126. Sample frequency domain plots by EFS system in Girder Test No.1.................. 117

Figure E127. Fatigue crack growth in the twin-steel plate bridge girders in Girder Test No.1 (steel plate bridge girder web crack). .................................................................................. 121 Figure E128. Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference in Girder Test No.1 (steel plate bridge girder web crack). ............................................................................................................... 121 Figure E129. Sensor placements in EFS tests in Girder Test No.2 ........................................... 122 Figure E130. Sample frequency domain plots for Girder Test No.2 ......................................... 123 Figure E131. Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference in Girder Test No.2. .............................. 125 Figure E132. The suspected fatigue crack location and the sensor placement at the girdercrossbeam plate welds in Girder Test No.3. ....................................................................... 126 Figure E133. Sample frequency domain plots for Girder Test No.3 ......................................... 127 Figure E134. Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference for Girder Test No.3. ............................ 129

LIST OF TABLES Table E1. EFS tests on C(T) specimens using single-frequency cyclic loads. ............................ 16 Table E2. EFS tests on C(T) specimens using broad-band bridge loads. .................................... 17 Table E3. EFS tests on cruciform specimens using single-frequency cyclic loads. .................... 86

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Electrochemical Fatigue Sensor (EFS) system from Material Technologies, Inc. (Matech) is designed to detect small growing fatigue cracks in steel structures, a desirable feature that would be useful for steel bridge inspection and bridge condition monitoring. The EFS system was selected by the FHWA NDE Center as one of the candidates among promising crack growth detection technologies for further tests in Phase I (Laboratory Test and Evaluation) of this research project. The objective of Phase I testing was to fully evaluate and verify the suitability of the EFS system for field deployment in bridge inspections. Optimal operation of the EFS system for data acquisition and analysis was evaluated followed by extensive laboratory tests on the EFS system using several steel specimens. A summary of findings and recommendations are presented in this Appendix. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY This study is intended to assess the crack growth detection capabilities and limitations of the Electrochemical Fatigue Sensor (EFS) system. The laboratory evaluation involved the following in order to fully assess the true capabilities of the Electrochemical Fatigue Sensor (EFS) system for detecting small growing cracks in steel bridges: (a) (b) (c) (d) Its capability of detecting growing surface fatigue cracks and crack growth rates. Its capability of detecting growing cracks of any length and orientation. Its capability of detecting cracks in the steel weld (crown, toe, or root). Special requirements for surface preparation and environmental conditions.

Based on the above criteria, the laboratory test plan for the EFS system at the FHWA NDE Center consisted of several testing regimens in order to determine if the EFS system does meet the desired requirements. The focus of this laboratory evaluation centered around testing the EFS system using highly representative steel specimens and typical structural members, including conventional C(T) specimens, cruciform specimens, and a specially designed twinsteel plate bridge girder, along with various laboratory controlled loading and environmental conditions. The capabilities of the EFS system to detect growing cracks in steel bridge structures were assessed based on findings from the laboratory tests. This evaluation will be extended to field steel bridges in Phase II of the research. SCOPE This study is intended to assess the crack growth detection capabilities and limitations of the Electrochemical Fatigue Sensor (EFS) system.

E1

TECHNICAL BACKGROUND Basic Concept The Electrochemical Fatigue Sensor (EFS) System developed by Matech is a nondestructive fatigue crack inspection system for detecting actively growing fatigue cracks in dynamically loaded steel structures. Micro-plasticity related changes occur in the steel structures that may lead to crack propagation. The EFS system uses electrochemical principles to reveal and thereby detect the presence of actively growing fatigue cracks in the area of interest. In particular, the EFS is a method to determine if a known fatigue crack is actively growing or if an unidentified growing fatigue crack is present in the inspection area. A base EFS system, shown in Figure E1, consists of a pair of electrolyte filled EFS sensors (i.e., a crack measurement (CM) sensor and a reference (R) sensor) connected to a Potentiostat Data Link (PDL) unit that can apply a constant polarizing voltage between the structure and the sensor. It communicates wirelessly with a base station via a computer for data acquisition and analysis. Each EFS sensor is composed of a flexible, adhesive backed container with the associated stainless steel mesh electrode. The crack measurement (CM) sensor must be placed over the crack tip and the reference (R) sensor must be placed over a nearby metal area close to the crack measurement sensor that has the same level of surface stress. The sensor containers must be filled with the EFS electrolyte through a sealed filler and vent tubes. The PDL applies a constant voltage to each sensor

EFS sensor

PDL unit
w ireless com munication
EFS sensor

Base Station and Computer

a PDL

a pair of EFS sensors

The base station and the laptop computer

Figure E1. Base EFS system.

E2

through a stainless steel mesh electrode to the electrolyte and forms an electro-chemical cell for each sensor that confines an enclosed area over the steel surface (Figure E2). The electrochemical conditions for each EFS sensor are designed to induce a stable, passive oxide film on the surface of the material. During the inspection, the area covered by each sensor is anodically polarized to form a protective, passive film on the area of interest. The polarizing voltage produces a base DC current in such an electrochemical cell. When the structure is subjected to cyclic stress, the fatigue process will cause micro-plasticity and strain localization on a very fine scale. Dislocations (half panes of atoms) in metallic materials will travel through the material to the surface during elastic loading. When these dislocations get pinned, or stuck, the atoms start to break apart at the bonds instead of traveling through the material. Since the plastic zone or deformation often occurs right before crack initiation and propagation, the plastic deformation during cyclic loads gives rise to cyclic slip and exposes new metallic atoms to the

vent tube

EFS electrolyte

stainless steel mesh electrode

V
steel surface
adhesive back surface fill tube
containner adhesive back surface

by a PDL

An electrochemical cell is formed by a volumn of EFS electrolyte when the voltage is applied through the steel mesh electrode

Figure E2. EFS sensor. E3

passivating voltage. The interaction between the cyclic slip and the passivating process causes repeated alterations to the passive films. These alterations, including both dissolution and repassivating processes, give rise to transient currents. The resulting EFS transient currents are thus associated with the cyclic changes in the electrical layers at the interface of the metal and the EFS electrolyte. The transient currents possess the same frequency as that of the mechanical stress, but also have a complex phase relationship. As fatigue damage develops, the crack induces localized plasticity at different parts of the fatigue cycle. When this happens, the current flow within the EFS cell varies in a complex relation to the stress field and the resulting AC current will be superimposed on to the base DC current. The disruption of the surface oxide film by the cyclic slip due to these plasticity effects causes an additional component of transient current to that of the elastic current. The fatigue crack induced plasticity can introduce higher harmonic components into the transient EFS current. Depending on the structural material, the load conditions, and the state of fatigue damage in the structure, the transient current within the cell will contain information on the status of the fatigue crack damage. The current changes from the two electrochemical cells associated with the possible crack growing activity and/or possible micro-plasticity are collected for analysis. The signals from both the crack measurement (CM) sensor and the reference (R) sensor are compared with each other by signal processing algorithms to determine if fatigue crack propagating activity is present in the steel metal. EFS Sensor Installation EFS sensor installation on a steel structure inspection area requires a clean, bare metal surface. After paint or any dirt has been removed from the inspection area and the metal surface is cleaned with acetone, the sensors can be installed by simply removing the self-adhesive backing and pressing the sensors firmly in place. The two sensors should be installed over the location of interest with the CM sensor being located directly over the area of the crack tip and the R sensor being placed close to the CM sensor in a location with approximately the same stress field. In field application, the PDL unit can be attached magnetically to the steel structure close to the sensor placement. Connections from each PDL unit to its two associated EFS sensors are made with a cable with two clip leads and one ground wire on the other end. Once the PDL unit is attached nearby to the steel structure, the ground wire can be attached to the metal surface of the inspected steel structural member with a magnet. Note that the EFS sensors are intended for one-time usage only (1-3 days) and can be disposed of or replaced thereafter if continued monitoring is required. EFS Data Acquisition and Analysis As shown in Figure E3, multiple PDL units can be set-up and operated using only one base station. That is, a single EFS base station can simultaneously communicate with multiple PDL units, each connecting two EFS sensors, for monitoring multiple suspected crack locations. Each PDL unit contains an embedded computer board to provide data acquisition capabilities and a wireless data link. The wireless signal translations established between the PDL units and the remote EFS base station - laptop computer system can be utilized in real time to set up the bias, gain, and data acquisition rate for each PDL to determine if each sensor is functioning properly.

E4

As stated before, each EFS sensor directly confines an enclosed area of the metal surface in a steel structural member. Its connection to the PDL forms an electrochemical cell at that area and permits it to supply the signal about the transient current changes for the EFS systems data acquisition and analysis. The signals from each pair of sensors (i.e., the CM sensor and the R sensor) will be compared and analyzed by signal processing algorithm provided by the computer software to assess the presence of possible fatigue crack growth activity in the metal member.
Crack Location #1
PDL #1

Crack Location # 2

wireress w ireless communication com m unication

PDL #2

Crack Location # N

Base Station and Computer

PDL #N

Figure E3. EFS System for Inspecting Multiple Crack Locations. For a structural member subject to single frequency, cyclic loads, the frequency domain output from each EFS sensor has two main components. The first component always exhibits a large magnitude directly proportional to the live-load strain. The second component, responding only due to the presence of an active crack, often has a much smaller magnitude. These two components in the frequency domain output from each EFS sensor must be separated in order to identify an active growing crack. It is for this reason that the EFS system uses two EFS sensors to inspect a crack location and the second sensor is used as a reference. By principle, the reference sensor must be placed over an area that experiences the same base level of live load stresses as the measurement sensor over a crack. Data from the two sensors can then be used to separate the above two main components. In an ideal single-frequency cyclic loading situation, both sensors exhibit a similar level of live load stress response and the difference between the two sensor signals will be used to detect the crack growth activity. Wireless communications were used to trigger the data acquisition process and the collected data was stored locally on the PDL units. For each pair of the EFS sensors, an EFS data set corresponding to a particular dynamic loading condition for an inspected crack location will be E5

collected during a specified time period. The data sets can be downloaded from each PDL wirelessly through the EFS base station to the computer for data archiving and analysis. Note that if the EFS sensor pairs were installed at multiple crack inspection locations multiple data sets can be collected for each of these locations. Full technical details about the EFS system and its operational procedures for data acquisition are given in the User Manual provided by Matech. Matech also provided two separate custom software packages for use with the EFS system. The first software package, PDL_Controller, is used for setting up PDL units and performing data acquisition and retrieval (Figure E4). The second software package, EFS_Analyzer, consists of various time and frequency domain signal processing algorithms used to analyze the collected data sets and predict the activity of the crack growth (Figure E5). The data series collected from both the crack measurement (CM) sensor and the reference (R) sensor are examined using this analysis software with built-in custom algorithms and graphic displays. The main analysis results are given by the quantitative evaluations based on Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference.

Figure E4. EFS PDL setup and data collection software: PDL_Controller.

E6

Figure E5. EFS data analysis software: EFS_Analyzer. The Energy Ratio, by definition, is the ratio of the area under the Crack Measurement (CM) sensor frequency domain spectrum curve to the area under the Reference (R) sensor frequency domain spectrum curve. For either the case of single- frequency cyclic loads or the case of more complex, broad-band dynamic loads, the prediction for an actively growing crack is made when the Energy Ratio is found to be greater than 2.0. An Energy Ratio below the level of 1.57 generally indicates no occurring micro-plasticity and no crack growth activity. The transition from the micro-plasticity to the potential occurrence of an active growing crack in the steel member is predicted quantitatively by Energy Ratios in the range of 1.57-1.94. This situation indicates an elevated risk for future crack initiation in the inspection area and therefore continued monitoring of that particular location should be done. The Spectrum Difference is an additional statistically calculated quantity used to determine the similarity between the two sensor signals for detecting crack growth activity in the inspection area when the energy ratio found is below the crack growth threshold 2.0. However, in all cases an in-depth analysis of the plotted signal is often required in order to more precisely determine if the frequency content and amplitude of the crack measurement sensor signal really indicate crack growth behavior. A common indication of an active growing crack is that the reference (R) sensor signal should be similar to the crack measurement (CM) sensor signal in primary frequency component associated with the live load but with lower amplitude. It is also noted that for these structural members at lower stress levels, evaluation based on the magnitudes of the signal may become a more important approach in detecting potential growing fatigue crack activity. Matechs EFS_Analyzer software uses both the Energy Ratio and the Spectrum Difference to derive its analysis that the crack is a Growing Crack, a Potential Growing Crack or Not Growing at the time of inspection.

E7

Criteria for Laboratory Analysis It is intended to examine the capabilities of the Electrochemical Fatigue Sensor (EFS) system in detecting small growing fatigue cracks (normally as small as 0.254mm, or 0.01 in.) for steel bridge inspections. As such, the laboratory testing of the EFS system in this study included evaluation of its abilities to: (a). detect small surface cracks and qualitatively assess crack growth. (b). identify occurring micro-plasticity and growing fatigue crack activity. (c). detect growing cracks of any length and orientation. (d). detect cracks in crown, toe, or root of the weld. (e). meet minimum surface preparation in bridge inspections. (f). work under different environmental conditions for field deployment. The FHWA NDE Center staff initially examined several test setups to illustrate if the EFS system meets necessary steel bridge inspection requirements. In particular, extensive tests of the EFS system performed in the FHWA NDE Center include three major tasks: 1. Tests using multiple representative steel specimens and also realistic bridge steel girder members including: conventional C(T) specimens, cruciform specimens and a twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system, to assess the ability of the EFS system to detect growing cracks in steel bridges. 2. Tests utilizing laboratory controlled loading conditions including: various single frequency cyclic loads and the broad-band bridge live loads based on highway bridge ambient traffic flow loads. Available MTS systems with controlled loads were used in the laboratory tests of the EFS system. 3. Tests using laboratory controlled environmental conditions including: various temperature settings representing climatic conditions in practical bridge inspection environments. The Environmental Chamber, a unique device developed by TFHRC, was utilized in the tests to create the desired temperature conditions. LABORATORY TEST PLAN The evaluation criteria for the laboratory tests of the EFS system, as illustrated in the previous section, emphasized the important subject concerns about the effectiveness of the EFS system to detect active growing cracks in typical steel bridges. The FHWA NDE Center staff addressed the following laboratory test plan for these important measurements: 1. Three types of steel test specimen were used in the tests to assess the ability of the EFS system to detect potential growing fatigue cracks in common steel members. These included: 32 conventional C(T) specimens, 20 cruciform specimens and a full scale, twinsteel plate bridge girder system.

E8

2. Two types of dynamic load conditions have been considered. These included: the simple single-frequency cyclic loads and the general broad-band bridge dynamic loads based on collected highway bridge ambient traffic flow loads. 3. Three temperature settings, utilizing the environmental chamber equipped in TFHRC, are used in the controlled laboratory tests for those small steel specimens (C(T) specimens) in order to determine the capacity and limitations of the EFS system in bridge field inspection environments. 4. Factors affected by the EFS sensor placement and crack growth rate are also considered. The intent of these tests is to reveal as much as possible the EFS systems actual capability to detect realistic fatigue crack growth in typical highway steel bridge structures. The tests started with the simple, idealized test using C(T) specimens to verify the basic EFS system operations and its ability to detect growing fatigue cracks. The tests then progressed to representative bridge welds using cruciform specimens. Furthermore, the tests of the EFS system were performed on realistic bridge steel members using the twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system. More indepth tests will also be performed in incoming field tests on highway bridge sites. Figure E6 shows the laboratory test plan (the shaded area represents the laboratory test tasks planned or scheduled to be performed along with the extensive field tests on the real steel bridges in the incoming Phase II of this research project).

E9

PLAN FOR LABORATORY TEST OF THE EFS SYSTEM

EFS System
Three Types of Steel Specimens (Test Specimen Configuration)
C (T ) Specimens

Two Types of Dynamic Loads ( Single Freq. and / or Broad Band )

Multiple Temperature Settings (Environmental Effects)

Temperature Settings
1.7 C, 21.1 C and 43.3 C (35 F, 70 F and 110 F)
o o o o o o

Sensor Placement

MTS Load Frame Single Freq. Cyclic Loads 88.96KN (20 kips) Broad-band bridge loads MTS Load Frame Single Freq. Cyclic Loads 88.96KN (20 kips) Broad-band bridge loads

Cruciform Specimens
Sensor Placement

Lab Ambient Temperatures

4.4 C and 21.1 C (40 F and 70 F)
o o o o

Twin Steel Plate Bridge Girder Testing System

Sensor Placement

MTS Load Frame Single Freq. Cyclic Loads 978.6KN (220 kips) Broad-band bridge loads

Lab Ambient Temperatures

4.4 C and 21.1 C (40 F and 70 F)
o o o o

Figure E6. Laboratory Test Plan

E10

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Compact Tension (C(T)) Specimens C(T) specimens (Figure E7) are the most commonly used, standardized, specimens in fracture mechanics and fatigue crack growth tests to characterize fatigue crack initiation and growth under controlled dynamic loading conditions. In the laboratory tests performed in the FHWA NDE Center during this research project, a total of 32 C(T) specimens were used to evaluate the two crack growth technologies. The intent of using this type of specimen was to construct a sound test bed where growth of the fatigue crack and its growth rate could be well controlled and monitored. This type of specimen represents an ideal case where a crack grows in a flat steel plate. C(T) specimens also provide a large area to permit easy placement of EFS sensors. For laboratory tests, this is an idealized specimen because its surface is flat, the crack tip location is known, and the dynamic loads can be controlled consistently. The compliance method, defined by ASTM E647, was used to monitor and calculate crack growth size. The crack growth length obtained from the monitoring will be used in the comparison of the crack growth detection results predicted by the EFS system from the tests. Detailed geometric and material descriptions of the C(T) specimens used in these laboratory tests are included in Appendix A.

the pre - crack

Figure E7. Typical Compact Tension (C(T)) Specimen. Numerical Simulation and Analysis of Sensor Placements Numerical simulation of the growing fatigue crack under laboratory controlled dynamic loading conditions and analysis of the associated critical stress field in the C(T) specimen was performed using the LS-DYNA nonlinear finite element analysis code. As shown in Figure E8, highly dense meshing has been used to describe the critical solid steel body along the expected crack growth direction. The material property of the steel plate was introduced by using the piecewiseelastic-plastic material mode with fatigue failure from the LS-DYNA material library. Computer simulations are performed by applying a single-frequency cyclic load force (1.0 Hz or 2.0 Hz single frequency sinusoidal wave with 9.0 KN magnitude) in addition to a 4.0 KN static extension load force to the C(T) specimen finite element model. Fatigue crack propagations in the C(T) specimen are simulated using the feature provided by LS-DYNA in which the element E11

Finite element mesh of the CT specimen

Effective stress field of the loaded CT specimen

the low effective stress area

Figure E8. Sample plot of the simulated growing fatigue crack and the effective stress field in a dynamically loaded C(T) Specimen. failure occurs when its maximum nonlinear strain exceeds the threshold of material fatigue failure. Figure E8 illustrates an example of the simulated fatigue crack growth and its associated effective stress field in a dynamically loaded C(T) specimen.

E12

the rapid varying, low effective stress area

Figure E9. Sample plot of the simulated fatigue crack propagation and the associated effective stress field in a dynamically loaded C(T) Specimen. Figure E9 shows the general pattern of the effective stress field around the tip of a growing fatigue crack when the crack propagates along the center line of the C(T) specimen. The observations from both Figures E8 and E9 indicate that the high effective stress area around a growing fatigue crack is usually located immediately in front of the crack tip and also at the areas immediately to the side along the direction of crack propagation. However, for such a simple single-frequency cyclic loading condition, there is a small surface area varying ahead along the crack propagating direction where the effective stress could be much lower than that around the crack tip. This simulation illustrated that in the tests of EFS system using the C(T) specimens placement of the EFS reference sensor over the low stress field area (2/3 magnitude lower than the high stress area) should be avoided as indicated in Figure E8. The EFS reference sensor shall be placed over the nearby area of the crack tip as close as possible. Initial laboratory test of the EFS system also indicated sensitivities relating to the placement of EFS measurement and reference sensors. The EFS manual briefly mentions that the reference sensors must be placed over an area having the same level of live-load stresses as experienced by the crack measurement sensor. It was after the initial test that the significance of sensor placement became apparent.

E13

It is known from previous sections that the signal sensed by the EFS sensor has two main components. The first component is directly proportional to live-load strain and is large in magnitude. The second component has a much smaller magnitude and is due to the presence of an active crack. These two components must be separated in order to detect an active crack. The EFS system uses data from the two sensors to separate the two main components and the difference of these two sensor signals represents a crack signal. This requirement makes placement of the EFS sensors important. The proper reference sensor placement can generally be met when the EFS sensor has the size small enough to be contained within the high stress area close to the measurement sensor. However, care must be taken in some practical conditions where the high stress area may be highly concentrated around the crack tip. Due to this concern, the issue of proper sensor placement is considered in the laboratory tests of the EFS system. Tests of the EFS System by Laboratory Controlled Loads and Environmental Effects The tests of the EFS system using C(T) specimens under laboratory controlled loads included the following general tasks: 1. Preparing the C(T) specimens: clean the surface, draw a grid line for an initial pre-crack length, place strain gage on each specimen for MTS safety control and install MTS clipgage for monitoring and measuring the fatigue crack propagations. Creating pre-cracks on each C(T) specimen: run MTS under laboratory controlled cyclic loads to create the pre-cracks and allow the fatigue crack tip to reach the grid line on each C(T) specimen. Installing EFS sensors on C(T) specimens and running under laboratory controlled loads for testing the ability of the EFS system to detect a growing fatigue crack in the C(T) specimens.

2.

3.

The sensor placement considered two types of configurations (see Figure E10): Type #1: The crack measurement (CM) sensor over the crack tip and the reference (R) sensor next following the crack propagation direction. Type #2: The crack measurement (CM) sensor over the crack tip and the reference (R) sensor next at either the right-hand or the left-hand side of the CM sensor. Type #3: The crack measurement (CM) sensor over the crack tip and the reference (R) sensor at a distance from the CM sensor. Most tests on C(T) specimens were performed using the Type #1 sensor placement and only a few of tests used the Type #2 and Type #3 sensor placements. The purpose of the different placements was to reveal possible influence of the sensor placement that may affect the detection ability of the EFS system.

E14

p r e c r a c k tip

p r e c r a c k tip

crack s ensor
reference sensor
crack direction

reference sensor crack s ensor

crack direction

T yp e # 1

T yp e # 2

p r e c r a c k tip

crack s ensor
crack direction

reference sensor
T yp e # 3

Figure E10. Type of EFS sensor placements for C(T) specimens. Tests of the EFS system using the C(T) specimens by laboratory controlled dynamic loads and environmental effects included: 1. Tests of the EFS system using C(T) specimens under MTS controlled, singlefrequency cyclic loads (Table E1), focused on identifying the key capabilities of the EFS system for detecting growing fatigue cracks at different growth rates. These single-frequency cyclic load conditions included different levels of cyclic load amplitudes along with low level of frequency in order to initiate the required fatigue crack to grow in the loaded C(T) specimens and also to allow precise monitoring of crack growth length along the crack growth direction. 2. Tests for controlled loads on C(T) specimens using the Environmental Chamber and MTS testing system together with the controlled single-frequency cyclic loads (see also Table E1), focused on identifying the key capabilities of the EFS system for detecting fatigue crack growth and growth rate when the inspection environment is subjected to certain temperatures. 3. Tests of the EFS system using C(T) specimens under MTS controlled, broad-band bridge loads (Table E2), focused on identifying the key capabilities of the EFS system for detecting fatigue crack growth at different growth rates when the steel members are subjected to realistic bridge loads.

E15

Table E1. EFS tests on C(T) specimens using single-frequency cyclic loads. EFS sensor placement type # 1 1 1 1 Min/Max load KN(kips) 4.45-48.93(1.0-11.0) 2.67-24.91(0.6-5.6) 4.45-44.48(1.0-10.0) 4.45-44.48(1.0-10.0) Frequency (Hz) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Temperature setting o C( oF) Normal 21(70) Normal 21(70) Normal 21(70) High 43.33(110) High 43.33(110) Low 43.33(110) Low 1.67(35) Low 1.67(35) Normal 21(70) Normal 21(70) Normal 21(70) & Low 1.67(35)

Test No. 1 2 3 4

Test System MTS MTS MTS MTS + Environmental Chamber MTS + Environmental Chamber MTS + Environmental Chamber MTS + Environmental Chamber MTS + Environmental Chamber MTS + Environmental Chamber MTS + Environmental Chamber MTS + Environmental Chamber

3.56-35.14(0.8-7.9)

2.0

3.11-30.24(0.7-6.8)

0.5

4.45-44.48(1.0-10.0)

2.0

4.00-38.70(0.9-8.7)

2.0

1&3

3.56-34.71(0.8-7.8)

15.0

10

2.24-20.02(0.5-4.5)

2.0

11

2.24-20.02(0.5-4.5)

1.0-4.0

The broad-band bridge loads used in the laboratory tests of the EFS system were created using software developed by the NDE Center. The goal is to create broad-band loading signals to control the MTS machine in such tests that will stimulate realistic rapid up-loading and unloading patterns in actual steel bridge structural members due to ambient traffic flows on highway bridges. Bridge loading data sets collected in the past from several typical steel bridge structures were used to reveal the broad-band spectrum distribution natures. The software reads the collected bridge load data sets and identifies its spectrum distribution in the frequency domain. The bridge load spectrum is then converted to streaming analog signal outputs through

E16

a D/A translator to control the MTS loads used in the tests. Such broad-band bridge loads include different levels of bridge live load capacities in certain frequency ranges. Close monitoring of the crack growth is necessary during tests under such conditions. Note that the testing of EFS system using broad-band bridge loads had not been completed when this report was written. The results from these tests will be reported under Phase II of this research project. Table E2. EFS tests on C(T) specimens using broad-band bridge loads. Test No. 12 13 14 15 EFS sensor placement Type # 1 1 1 1 Min-Max load KN(kips) 4.45-48.93(1.0-11.0) 2.67-24.91(0.6-5.6) 4.45-44.48(1.0-10.0) 4.45-44.48(1.0-10.0) Frequency range (Hz) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Temperature setting o C( oF) Normal 21.11(70) Normal 21.11(70) Normal 21.11(70) High 43.33(110) High 43.33(110) Low 43.33(110) Low 1.67(35)

Test System MTS MTS MTS MTS + Environmental Chamber MTS + Environmental Chamber MTS + Environmental Chamber MTS + Environmental Chamber

16

3.56-35.14(0.8-7.9)

2.0

17

3.11-30.24(0.7-6.8)

0.5

18

4.45-44.48(1.0-10.0)

2.0

(Note: tests in Table E2 are planned in the Phase II of this research project) The detailed test setup and the results obtained from each test on C(T) specimens (Test No.1-Test No.8) using controlled loading and environmental condition are given below. The initial setup of the EFS test equipment is illustrated first. Conditions of the test on individual C(T) specimens and the analysis of test results from each test are described. The last portion of this section gives the summary of observations and findings from these laboratory tests. The initial setup of the EFS test equipment is illustrated below. Figure E11 shows the general task for preparing C(T) specimens for laboratory tests of the EFS system. In particular, the surface of each C(T) specimens was cleaned by an angle grinder with a sanding wheel to remove existing rust over the inspection area. The exposed metal surface is then cleaned by using acetone. After the surface of the inspection area in a C(T) specimen has been cleaned, a Crack Measurement (CM) sensor is installed over the area that contains the crack tip and the Reference (R) sensor is installed over the area next to the CM sensor depending on the reference sensor placement configuration, i.e., either along or parallel to the crack propagation direction, as shown in Figure E12. Both EFS sensors are then filled with the electrolyte gel and sealed properly.

E17

Figure E11. Surface preparation of a C(T) specimen. Figure E13 shows the initial test setup of a C(T) specimen with EFS sensors on the MTS test equipment and the thermal stress measuring on a compact tension specimen. The Stress Photonics system with a thermal camera was used to capture images for mapping the stress distribution on a specimen. This system uses the thermoeleastic effect to relate changes in stress to changes in temperature. Since the thermal elastic effect is very small, a very sensitive thermal camera is needed to collect images correlated to the dynamic loads on the specimen. Figure E13(b) illustrates the thermal stress measuring on a compact tension specimen where the color is proportional to the level of the stress distribution. The area around the crack tip (red in the image) shows the highest stresses. After a few hours dynamic loading applied by the MTS with low 4.448 KN (1.0 kips) extension load plus a 11.1206 KN (2.5 kips) amplitude, 1.0 Hz sinusoidal load, fatigue crack growth was observed in the test C(T) specimen. The data collected by the PDL unit were transferred from the base station to a laptop computer for analysis. The EFS_ analyzer software predicted the actual fatigue crack growth activity in the C(T) specimen by showing the multiple harmonic peaks in addition to the live-load frequency component. Figure E14 shows the typical plots from such an analysis for this initial test of the EFS system in detecting a growing fatigue crack in a C(T) specimen. In particular, it can be seen from Figures E14 and E15 for different load conditions that the sensor data are shown by the analysis software by two distinctive signals: Crack measurement (red curve) and Reference measurement (green curve). The EFS_ analyzer software can pick up a section of the time series from sensor signals and convert it to a frequency domain plot. The frequency domain plot shows harmonic components with smaller peaks in addition to the live-load frequency component in the crack signal. The prediction is made by computing the Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference based on these selected signals. In this initial test, the Growing Crack is correctly predicted when a fatigue

E18

crack is actually observed during the entire process of the initial test setup. The detailed results for the C(T) specimen tests listed in the Table E1 are given below.

(a) installing the EFS sensors on the C(T) specimen

(b) filling the electrolyte gel and sealing the EFS sensors
Figure E12. Installing EFS sensors on a C(T) specimen.

E19

(a) setting up the EFS system on a C(T) specimen

(b) the thermal stress system measuring on a compact tension specimen

Figure E13. Initial C(T) specimen setup.

E20

Prediction is made by evaluating Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference

A section of time signal is selected for analysis

Multiple harmonic peaks appear in the spectrum plot indicating the crack growing activity

Spectrum peaks for CM (red) and R (white) sensors corresponding to load frequency

Figure E14. Initial EFS test with 1Hz cyclic load by MTS.

E21

Figure E15. Frequency domain plots from the initial test at 10.0 Hz cyclic load by MTS.

E22

Test No. 1: The test of the EFS system on this C(T) specimen used Type 1 sensor placement and a constant extension load of 4.45 KN (1.0 kips) plus a 2.0 Hz sinusoidal cyclic load of amplitude 24.47 KN (5.5 kips). The test was performed under laboratory ambient temperature 21.11 oC (70 oF).

Figures E16 (a) and E16 (b) show the test setup for the EFS sensors installed on this C(T) specimen using the MTS system. The C(T) specimen has a pre-crack of length 12.7 mm (0.5 in) along the center line of the test specimen. Growth of the fatigue crack in the test was monitored by using the MTS clip gage. The laboratory controlled loading condition along with the laboratory ambient temperature was invoked during this test process. The test took a total of 1.48 hours to allow the fatigue crack to grow to a length of 60.325 mm (2.375 in) in the C(T) specimen (Figure E16.(c)). The data sets collected by the EFS system consist of 2 files, each stored consecutively for a 1- hour time period of monitored data from the EFS sensors. Figure E17 shows the total fatigue crack growth length monitored during this test by the MTS clip gage. Figure E18 illustrates the sample frequency domain plots from the sensor data collected during this test. In particular, by using the EFS_Analyzer software sensor time histories of 200 seconds in length were selected consecutively from the collected data. The analysis was performed to compute Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference. Figures E18(a)-(d) illustrated that the EFS system can start to detect the crack growth from the initial stage of the time period (t=100s-200s) when additional harmonic components occur with increased peak level. The results indicated that the EFS system can continuously predict growth of the fatigue crack during the test.

(b ) placement of EFS sensors

( a ) C(T) specimen A1 on MTS for test of EFS ( c ) the fatigue crack as result of the test

Figure E16. EFS sensor placement and fatigue crack in Test No.1.

E23

crack tip

crack direction

reference sensor

T ype # 1

crack sensor

steel plate of the C(T) specimen

pre-crack 12.7mm (0.5in)

reference sensor

crack sensor

fatigue crack growth direction crack growth length

pre-crack 12.7mm (0.5in)

steel plate

60.325 mm (2.375in)

Figure E17. Monitored crack growth length in Test No.1.

t = 1 0 0 .0 ~ 2 0 0 .0 se c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 6 .6 9 6 1 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 1 .8 5 4 7 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

(a )

(b)

t = 6 0 0 .0 ~ 8 0 0 .0 se c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 8 .8 5 4 9 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 3 .2 9 2 3 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

(c )

t = 3 0 0 0 .0 ~ 3 2 0 0 .0 se c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 1 3 .1 5 1 6 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 1 4 .1 1 9 2 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

(d )

t = 5 0 0 0 .0 ~ 5 2 0 0 .0 se c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 5 .4 2 8 6 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 5 .4 4 1 0 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

Figure E18. Sample frequency domain plots from sensor data in Test No.1.

E24

Figure E19 shows the results predicted by the EFS system based on evenly and consecutively selected sensor time histories of 200 seconds in length from the collected data series. Note that the selection of the sensor time history at the beginning stage t <100 seconds was chosen to be small so that the analysis reveals the initial transition stage, i.e., from not growing to potential growing to growing crack, during the first 100 seconds EFS sensor data. The curve monitored crack growth shows the actual fatigue growth monitored by the MTS clip gage during the test. The color shaded areas in the plot indicate the different predictions resulting from the EFS_Analyzer analysis from the sequentially selected sensor data time sections. In particular, the light blue, the light yellow and the light green colored areas indicate, respectively, the predictions by the EFS system from the test as Not Growing, Potential Growing Crack and Growing Crack. From Figure E19 that the EFS system can start to correctly predict fatigue crack growth activity in the inspected area on the C(T) specimen at the very beginning stage of the test (around t=50 seconds). The initial period when the system detected not growing took less than 30 seconds. The transition period from detecting potential growing to growing crack in this test lasts less than 10 seconds. For this test, it was observed that once the EFS detected the growing crack activity it can continuously predict growth of the fatigue crack in any of the remaining time stages. Figure E20 shows the plot of the energy ratio and the spectrum difference evaluated from the time stages selected from the sensor data during this test. It was observed that both quantities were increased quickly and steadily during the initial time stage period t<200 seconds.
Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Potential Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Not Growing Predicted by EFS

Grack Growth Length (mm)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.01

Monitored Crack Growth

0.1 Time (hour)

Figure E19. Crack growth predicted by EFS in Test No. 1.

E25

G ro w in g C rack P red icted b y E F S

Energy Ratio or Spectrum Difference

P o ten tial G ro w in g C rack P red icted b y E F S N o t G ro w in g P red icted b y E F S

2 0 .0

E n erg y R atio
1 5 .0

S p ectru m D ifferen c e

1 0 .0

5 .0

0 .0 0 1000 2000 3000 T im e (s) 4000 5000

Figure E20. Energy ratio and spectrum difference in Test No. 1.

reference sensor

crack sensor

maximum crack growth length in the CM sensor area 7.9375 mm (0.3125in)

reference sensor

A pre-crack length
12.7mm (0.5in)
crack sensor

steel plate of the C(T) specimen

fatigue crack growing direction 7.9375 mm (0.3125in)

pre-crack

12.7mm (0.5in)

crack growth within the CM sensor area (Region A)

Figure E21. Maximum crack growth length within the CM sensor in Test No.1.

E26

G r o w in g C r a c k P r e d ic te d b y E F S

P o te n tia l G r o w in g C r a c k P re d ic te d b y E F S N o t G r o w in g P r e d ic te d b y E F S

10

Grack Growth Length (mm)

M onitored C rack G row th

Region A
6

0 0 .0 1

0 .1 T im e (hour)

Figure E22. Crack growth predicted within the CM sensor area in Test No.1.
Growing Crack Predicted by EFS

Energy Ratio or Spectrum Difference

Potential Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Not Growing Predicted by EFS

10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0 200 400 600 800 Time (sec.) 1000 1200

Energy Ratio

Spectrum Difference

Region A

Figure E23. Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference evaluated for the crack growth within the CM sensor area in Test No.1.

E27

It was noted that Figures E19 and E20 illustrate the analysis results for the predictions by the EFS system during the total length 60.325 mm (2.375 in) of the crack growth in this test. However, since the crack sensor was placed by centering with the pre-crack tip the maximum crack growth length within the crack sensor area, noted by the region A, is 7.9375 mm (0.3125 in) as shown in Figure E21. After the growing crack tip crossed the edge of the area covered by crack sensor, the crack sensor will cover a section of the crack length entirely crossing the sensor area. Since this test was designed to determine only the capacities of the EFS system when the crack sensor was placed over a suspected crack tip, the main inspection area of interest was the crack growth region A. The predictions by the EFS system for growth of the fatigue crack length in this important stage (region A) by this test are shown by Figures E22 and E23. The analyses of the predictions by the EFS system during the C(T) specimen tests for the case of fatigue crack growing beyond the crack sensor area are given in the discussions in Test No. 4.
Test No. 2: The test of the EFS system on this C(T) specimen used Type 1 sensor placement and a constant extension load of 2.67 KN (0.6 kips) plus a 2.0 Hz sinusoidal cyclic load of amplitude 24.91 KN (2.8 kips). The test was performed under laboratory ambient temperature 21.11 oC (70 oF).

Figure E24 shows the C(T) specimen, the EFS sensor placement and growth of the fatigue crack length after this test. Figure E25 illustrates the test setup for the EFS sensors installed on this specimen using the MTS system. The C(T) specimen has a pre-crack of length 12.7 mm (0.5 in) along the center line of the test specimen. Growth of the fatigue crack was monitored by using the MTS clip gage. The laboratory controlled loading condition along with the laboratory ambient temperature was invoked during this test process. The test took a total of 13.85 hours to allow the fatigue crack to grow to a length of 52.832 mm (2.08 in) in the C(T) specimen (Figure E26). The data sets collected by the EFS system consist of 14 files, each stored consecutively in 1- hour time periods of monitored data from the EFS sensors.

Figure E24. EFS sensor placement and fatigue crack growth in Test No.2.

E28

Figure E25. MTS setup for EFS system test in Test No.2.

Figures E27 and E28 show the sample frequency domain plots from the sensor data collected during this test. The sensor time histories of 200 seconds in length were selected consecutively from the collected data for the analysis. Figures E27 and E28 illustrate that for this test the EFS system can also start to detect the crack growth from the initial stage of the time period (t=100s200s) and can continuously predict the fatigue crack growing during the first 9.5 hours of the test. It was found that for this test the electrolyte in the EFS sensor had dried out noticeably. Figure E29 shows the predicted results by the EFS system based on the sensor time histories of 200 seconds in length that are evenly and consecutively selected from the entire collected data series. The selection of the length of sensor time history at the beginning stage t <100 seconds was chosen to be small so that the analysis can reveal the initial transition stage to growing crack, during the first 100 seconds of EFS sensor data. The curve monitored crack growth shows the actual fatigue growth monitored by the MTS clip gage during the test. The color shaded areas in the plot indicate the different predictions resulting from the EFS_Analyzer analysis from the sequentially selected sensor data time sections. The light blue, the light yellow and the light green colored areas indicate, respectively, the predictions by the EFS system from the test as Not Growing, Potential Growing Crack and Growing Crack. E29

reference sensor

crack sensor

maximum crack growth length in the CM sensor area 7.9375 mm (0.3125in)

reference sensor

A pre-crack length
12.7mm (0.5in)

crack sensor

steel plate of the C(T) specimen fatigue crack growing direction

pre-crack

7.9375 mm (0.3125in)

12.7mm (0.5in)

reference sensor

crack growth within the CM sensor area (Region A) crack sensor

fatigue crack growth direction

fatigue crack growth length 52.832 mm (2.08")

pre-crack 12.7mm (0.5")

steel plate

Figure E26. Maximum crack growth length within the CM sensor area and monitored total fatigue crack growth length in Test No.2.

Figure E29 illustrated that the EFS system can start to correctly predict growth of the fatigue crack activity in the inspected area at the very beginning stage of the test (around t=40 seconds). The initial period when the system detected not growing took about 30 seconds. The transition period from detecting potential growing to growing crack in this test lasted less than 10 seconds. For this test, it was observed that once the EFS detected the growing crack activity it can continuously predict growth of the fatigue crack in any of the remaining time stages during the first 9.5 hour time period. Figure E30 shows the plot of the energy ratio and the spectrum difference evaluated from the time stages selected from the sensor data during this test. It was observed that both quantities were increased quickly and steadily during the initial time stage period t<200 seconds.

E30

(a)

t = 100.0~200.0 sec.

Energy Ratio = 8.57 Spectrum Difference =3.42 Predict: Growing Crack

(b)
t = 1400.0~1600.0 sec.

Energy Ratio = 8.45 Spectrum Difference =3.59 Predict: Growing Crack

(c)
t = 7000.0~7200.0 sec.

Energy Ratio = 8.34 Spectrum Difference =6.33 Predict: Growing Crack

(d )
t = 7200.0~7400.0 sec.

Energy Ratio = 7.95 Spectrum Difference =5.83 Predict: Growing Crack

Figure E27. Sample frequency domain plots from sensor data in Test No.2.

E31

(a )

t = 1 1 0 0 0 .0 ~ 1 1 2 0 0 .0 sec.

E nergy R atio = 5.19 S pectrum D ifference = 5.02 P redict: G row ing C rack

(b)

t = 1 6 2 0 0 .0 ~ 1 6 4 0 0 .0 sec.

E nergy R atio = 2.90 S pectrum D ifference = 4.62 P redict: G row ing C rack

(c )

t = 2 1 6 0 0 .0 ~ 2 1 8 0 0 .0 sec.

E nergy R atio = 2.59 S pectrum D ifference = 5.09 P redict: G row ing C rack

(d )

t = 2 5 4 0 0 .0 ~ 2 5 6 0 0 .0 sec.

E nergy R atio = 1.97 S pectrum D ifference =3.24 P redict: P otential G row ing C rack

(e)

t = 3 0 6 0 0 .0 ~ 3 0 8 0 0 .0 sec.

E nergy R atio = 1.7902 S pectrum D ifference =3.2473 P redict: N ot G row ing

Figure E28. Sample frequency domain plots from sensor data in Test No.2.

E32

G ro w in g C rack P red icted b y E F S

Energy Ratio or Spectrum Difference

P o ten tial G ro w in g C rack P red icted b y E F S N o t G ro w in g P red icted b y E F S

Energy Ratio
10.0

Spectrum D ifference

5.0

0.0 0 2 4 6 8 Tim e (hour) 10 12

Figure E29. Fatigue crack growth predicted in Test No.2.

G ro w in g C ra c k P re d ic te d b y E F S
P o te n tia l G ro w in g C ra c k P red ic te d b y E F S N o t G ro w in g P re d ic te d b y E F S

Grack Growth Length (mm)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 .0 1

M onitored Crack G row th

0 .1

1 Tim e (hour)

10

Figure E30. Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference in Test No.2

E33

reference sensor

crack sensor

steel plate of the C (T ) specimen

fatigue crack grow ing direction 7.9375 mm (0.3125")

pre-crack 12.7mm (0.5")

crack grow th within the C M sensor area (Region A)

G ro w in g C ra c k P re d ic te d b y E F S P o te n tia l G ro w in g C ra c k P re d ic te d b y E F S N o t G ro w in g P re d ic te d b y E F S

10

Grack Growth Length (mm)

M o n ito re d C ra c k G ro w th
8

Region A

0 0 .0 1

0 .1 T im e (h o u r)

G r o w in g C r a c k P r e d ic te d b y E F S
P o te n tia l G r o w in g C r a c k P r e d ic te d b y E F S

Energy Ratio or Spectrum Difference

N o t G r o w in g P r e d ic te d b y E F S

E n e rg y R a tio
1 0 .0

S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e

R egion A
5 .0

0 .0 0 1 2 3

T im e (h o u r)

Figure E31. Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference within the CM sensor area in Test No.2.

E34

Test No. 3: The test of the EFS system on this C(T) specimen used Type 1 sensor placement and a constant extension load of 4.45 KN (1 kips) plus a 2.0 Hz sinusoidal cyclic load of amplitude 20.02 KN (4.5 kips). The test was performed under laboratory ambient temperature 21.11 oC (70 oF).

Figure E32 shows the test equipment setup for the EFS system installed on the C(T) specimen using the MTS system, the EFS sensor placement and growth of the fatigue crack length after this test. The C(T) specimen has a pre-crack of length 12.7 mm (0.5 in) along the center line of the test specimen. Growth of the fatigue crack was monitored by using the MTS clip gage. The laboratory controlled loading condition along with the laboratory ambient temperature was invoked during this test process. The test took a total of 8.42 hours to allow the fatigue crack to grow to a length of 53.086 mm (2.09 in) in the C(T) specimen (Figure E32). The data sets collected by the EFS system consist of 9 files, each stored consecutively in 1- hour time periods of monitored data from the EFS sensors. Figure E34 show the sample frequency domain plots from the sensor data collected during this test. The sensor time histories of 200 seconds in length were selected consecutively from the collected data for analysis. Figure E35 shows the predicted inspection results by the EFS system based on the sensor time histories of 200 seconds in length consecutively selected from the collected data series.

Figure E32. EFS sensor placement and fatigue crack growth in Test No.3.

E35

reference sensor

crack sensor

maximum crack growth length in the CM sensor area 7.9375 mm (0.3125in)

reference sensor

A pre-crack length
12.7mm (0.5in)

crack sensor

steel plate of the C(T) specimen fatigue crack growing direction 7.9375 mm (0.3125 in)

pre-crack

12.7 mm (0.5in)

reference sensor

crack growth within the CM sensor area (Region A) crack sensor

fatigue crack growth direction total crack growth length 53.086 mm (2.09 in)

pre-crack 12.7 mm (0.5 in)

steel plate

Figure E33. Maximum crack growth length within the CM sensor area and monitored total fatigue crack growth length in Test No.3.

The length selection of sensor time history at the beginning stage t<100 seconds was chosen to be small so that the analysis can reveal the initial transition stage toward to the state of growing crack. The curve monitored crack growth shows the actual fatigue growth monitored by the MTS clip gage during the test. The color shaded areas in the plots indicate the different predictions by EFS_Analyzer analysis from the consecutively selected sensor data time history sections. The light blue, the light yellow and the light green colored areas indicate, respectively, the predictions by the EFS system as Not Growing, Potential Growing Crack and Growing Crack.

E36

t = 5 0 .0 ~ 1 0 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 1 .5 1 5 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 1 .2 5 4 9 P r e d ic t: P o te n tia l G r o w in g C r a c k

t = 1 0 0 .0 ~ 2 0 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 3 .9 7 1 2 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 4 .2 6 2 4 P r e d ic t: G r o w in g C r a c k

t = 1 8 0 0 .0 ~ 2 0 0 0 .0 s e c .

E S P P

n e r p e c r e d r e d

g y R a tio = tr u m D if f e ic t: G r o w i ic t: G r o w i

5 .4 7 2 6 r e n c e = 8 .4 5 2 8 n g C r a c k n g H a r m a lic

t = 2 2 0 0 .0 ~ 2 4 0 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 5 .3 9 4 1 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 1 2 .2 5 1 7 P r e d ic t: G r o w in g C r a c k

t = 3 8 0 0 .0 ~ 3 6 0 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 2 .8 7 2 5 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 3 .7 7 2 9 P r e d ic t: G r o w in g C r a c k

t = 7 2 0 0 .0 ~ 7 4 0 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 1 .8 8 4 4 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .0 0 0 4 P r e d ic t: P o te n tia l G r o w in g C r a c k

t = 8 8 0 0 .0 ~ 9 0 0 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 1 .8 6 4 5 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .1 2 2 4 P r e d ic t: N o t G r o w in g

t = 1 0 8 0 0 .0 ~ 1 1 0 0 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 0 .3 4 5 7 1 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 1 .8 6 4 9 P r e d ic t: N o t G r o w in g

t = 1 8 0 0 0 .0 ~ 1 8 2 0 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 0 .5 4 1 1 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .4 6 1 7 P r e d ic t: N o t G r o w in g

Figure E34. Sample frequency domain plots from sensor data in Test No.3.

E37

Figure E35 illustrates that for this test the EFS system can correctly detect the crack growth from the initial stage of the time period (around t=200 seconds) and can continuously predict the fatigue crack growth during the next 4 hour period of the test. The initial period when the system detected not growing took about 30 seconds. The transition period from detecting potential growing to growing crack in this test lasted less than 10 seconds. For this test, it was observed that once the EFS detected the growing crack activity it can continuously predict fatigue crack growth in any of the remaining time stages during the next 4 hours time period.

Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Potential Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Not Growing Predicted by EFS

Grack Growth Length (mm)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.01

Monitored Crack Growth

0.1

10

Time (hour)
Figure E35. Fatigue crack growth predicted by EFS in Test No.3.

Figure E36 shows the energy ratio and the spectrum difference evaluated from the time stages selected from the sensor data during this test. It was observed that both quantities were increased rapidly to a level larger than 2.0 during the initial time stage period t<200 seconds. After 4 hours of testing, the energy ratio was dropped significantly to a level below 2.0. However, the spectrum difference was kept around the level 2.0. It was found that for this test the electrolyte in the EFS sensors had dried out noticeably. E38

G row ing C rack Predicted by EFS Potential G row ing C rack Predicted by EFS N ot G row ing Predicted by EFS

Energy Ratio or Spectrum Difference

Energy Ratio

Spectrum Difference

10.0

5.0

0.0 2 4 6 Time (hour) 8 10

Figure E36. Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference in Test No.3.

Figure E37 shows EFS predicted fatigue crack growth within the CM sensor area (Region A). The corresponding energy ratio and the spectrum difference evaluated for these time stages are shown in Figure E38. It can be seen that for this test the EFS system can correctly detect crack growth length as small as 0.254 mm (0.01 in) from the very beginning stage of the time period (around t=200 seconds) and can continuously predict fatigue crack growth during the next 4 hour period of the test. The initial period when the system detected not growing took about 30 seconds. The transition period from detecting potential growing to growing crack in this test lasted less than 170 seconds. For this test, it was observed that once the EFS detected the growing crack activity it could continuously predict growth of the fatigue crack in the CM sensor region during the rest time stages.

E39

reference sensor

crack sensor

steel plate of the C(T) specimen

fatigue crack growing direction 7.9375 mm (0.3125")

pre-crack 12.7mm (0.5")

crack growth within the CM sensor area (Region A)

10.0

Grack Growth Length (mm)

Monitored Crack Growth

8.0

6.0

Region A Region A Region A

Growing Crack Predicted by EFS
Potential Growing Crack Predicted by EFS

4.0

2.0

Not Growing Predicted by EFS

0.0 0.01 0.1 Time (hour) 1

Figure E37. Fatigue crack growth within the CM sensor area in Test No.3.
Growing Crack Predicted by EFS

Energy Ratio or Spectrum Difference

15.0

Potential Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Not Growing Predicted by EFS

Energy Ratio

Spectrum Difference

10.0

Region A

5.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Time (hour) 0.8 1.0

Figure E38. Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference within the CM sensor area in Test No. 3.

E40

Test No. 4: The test of the EFS system on this C(T) specimen (shown in Figure E39) used Type 1 sensor placement, a constant extension load of 4.45 KN (1 kips) plus a 2.0 Hz sinusoidal cyclic load of amplitude 20.02 KN (4.5 kips) and the Environmental Chamber controlled temperature setting 43.33 oC (110 oF).

Figure E39. EFS sensor placement in Test No.4.

Figure E40 shows the equipment setup for the EFS system installed on the C(T) specimen using the MTS+ Environmental Chamber system. The C(T) specimen has a pre-crack of length 12.7 mm (0.5 in) along the center line of the test specimen. Growth of the fatigue crack was monitored by using the MTS clip gage. The laboratory controlled loading condition along with the temperature setting given above was applied during this test. The test took a total of 8.64 hours to record growth of the fatigue crack to a length of 50.038 mm (1.97 in) in this C(T) specimen (Figure E41). The data sets collected by the EFS system consist of 9 files, each sequentially stored in 1- hour time periods of monitored data from the EFS sensors. The sensor time histories of 200 seconds in length were selected consecutively from the collected data for analysis. Here, as shown in Figure E42, three regions were considered. Region A denotes the crack growth in the CM sensor covered area. Region B denotes the crack growth length beyond the CM sensor area and before the R sensor area. The last region, Region C, indicates the crack growth beyond the R sensor area until the total length. Figures E42, E43 and E44 show the sample frequency domain plots from the sensor data collected during this test for each of these regions. These frequency domain plots are evaluated by the sensor time histories of 200 seconds in length consecutively selected from the collected data series. The length selection of sensor time history at the beginning stage t <100 seconds was chosen small so that the analysis could reveal the initial transition stage toward to the state of growing crack.

E41

Figure E40. EFS test using the MTS and Environmental Chamber system.

reference sensor

crack sensor

steel plate of the C(T) specimen

pre-crack 12.7mm (0.5")

reference sensor

crack sensor

fatigue crack growth direction total fatigue crack growth length 50.038mm (1.97")

pre-crack 12.7mm (0.5")

steel plate

Figure E41. Monitored growth of the fatigue crack length in Test No.4.

E42

In the time period indicated by Figure E42, the frequency domain plots show that the crack signal was detected by showing the increased peak levels of additional harmonic components along with the fatigue crack propagations in the Region A during this time period. The predictions by the EFS system illustrated at the beginning time period of t=25-50 seconds. as Not Growing. Then, from the time period of t=50-75 seconds the EFS system detected Growing Harmonic. Starting from the time period of t=70-100 seconds the EFS system predicted Potential Growing Crack and Growing Crack thereafter during the rest of the time period in the Region A. Figure E43 shows the sample frequency domain plots when the crack propagated in the Region B. During this time period, the crack signal still shows higher level peaks than the reference sensor signal. There are some higher level sub-harmonic components in the low frequency region showing the increased nonlinear fracture behavior in the regions. The reference signal was essentially kept at the same distribution with no additional harmonic components appearing. Dramatic changes were observed from Figure E44 in which the live-load frequency component in the reference signal began to increase and exceed the level of crack signal along with noticeable harmonic components. The crack signal at this time period, on the other hand, had reduced harmonic components while essentially keeping its sub-harmonic component distribution. Figure E45 (a) shows the predictions by the EFS system for growth of the fatigue crack in the Region A. As illustrated before, the curve monitored crack growth shows the actual fatigue growth monitored by the MTS clip gage during the test. The color shaded areas in the plots indicate the different predictions by EFS_Analyzer analysis from the consecutively selected sensor data time history sections. The light blue, the light yellow and the light green colored areas indicate, respectively, the predictions by the EFS system as Not Growing, Potential Growing Crack and Growing Crack.

E43

reference sensor

reference sensor

crack sensor

crack sensor

maximum crack growth length in the CM sensor area 7.9375 mm (0.3125in)

pre-crack length
12.7mm (0.5in) pre-crack length

C
reference sensor

12.7mm (0.5in)
crack sensor

steel plate of the CT specimen

fatigue crack growing direction 7.9375 mm (0.3125 in)

pre-crack
12.7mm (0.5 in)

crack growth within the CM sensor area (Region A)

t = 2 5 .0 ~ 5 0 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 0 .3 8 6 1 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = P re d ic t: N o t G ro w in g

1 .2 1 0 4

t = 5 0 .0 ~ 7 5 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 1 .1 5 5 7 S p e c tru m D iff e r e n c e = 2 .3 5 4 1 P re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

t = 7 5 .0 ~ 1 0 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 1 .5 0 8 3 S p e c tru m D iff e r e n c e = 2 .3 3 3 9 P re d ic t: P o te n tia l G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 1 7 5 .0 ~ 2 0 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 3 .3 4 6 S p e c tru m D if fe re n c e = 5 .7 0 7 9 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 3 7 5 .0 ~ 4 0 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 1 .9 6 0 5 S p e c tru m D iff e r e n c e = 3 .2 8 4 7 P re d ic t: P o te n tia l G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 1 6 2 5 .0 ~ 1 6 5 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 2 .2 9 6 3 S p e c tr u m D if fe re n c e = 3 .9 6 4 8 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 6 4 2 5 .0 ~ 6 4 5 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 4 .5 2 5 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 3 .6 9 4 8 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

Figure E42. Sample frequency domain plots from sensor data in Region A (Test No.4).

E44

reference sensor

crack sensor

steel plate of the CT specimen

fatigue crack growing direction

pre-crack

19.05 mm (0.75")
fatigue crack growing beyand the CM sensor area and before reaching the R sensor area (Region B)

t = 6425.0~6450.0 sec.

E n e rg y R a tio = 4 .5 2 5 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 3 .6 9 4 8 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 11625.0~11650.0 sec.

E n e rg y R a tio = 3 .4 6 1 1 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 2 .1 0 0 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k P re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

t = 16925.0~16950.0 sec.

E n e rg y R a tio = 2 .0 4 8 1 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 2 .1 9 4 3 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

Figure E43. Sample frequency domain plots from sensor data in Region B (Test No.4).

It is seen from this figure that in this test the EFS system can correctly detect crack growth activity from the very beginning stage of the time period (around t=100-200 seconds) and can continuously predict fatigue crack growth activity in the remaining time stages during this test period. Figure E45 (b) shows the predictions by the EFS system for growth of the fatigue crack in both Region B and region C. It illustrated that the EFS system predicts the crack growth activity solely based on the value of Energy Ratio obtained. It can be seen from this figure that the energy ratio dropped to below 2.0 level at about t=8280s (2.3 hours) time stage. Any prediction made after that time stage was reported as Not Growing which indicated no fatigue crack growth activity. This test, however, actually had a crack propagating through or into the sensor areas. The EFS system correctly predicted the crack growth activity in the CM sensor area (Region A) but not correct predictions for other two regions.

E45

reference sensor

crack sensor

fatigue crack growing direction

23.06 mm (0.91")

pre-crack

steel plate

crack growing within and beyond the R sensor area (Region C)

t = 16325.0~16350.0 sec.

E n e rg y R a tio = 4 .5 2 5 S p e c tru m D iff e re n c e = 3 .6 9 4 8 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 1 6 7 2 5 .0 ~ 1 6 7 5 0 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 2 .5 2 1 3 S p e c tru m D iffe r e n c e = 3 .3 2 8 1 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 1 6 9 5 0 .0 ~ 1 6 9 7 5 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 1 .4 6 7 5 S p e c tru m D iff e re n c e = 2 .0 1 3 9 P re d ic t: N o t G ro w in g

t = 2 5 2 7 5 .0 ~ 2 5 3 0 0 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 1 .1 3 2 7 S p e c tru m D iff e re n c e = 2 .5 1 3 9 P re d ic t: N o t G ro w in g

t = 3 1 0 0 0 .0 ~ 3 1 0 2 5 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 0 .8 8 5 3 S p e c tru m D iff e re n c e = 2 .3 4 1 2 P re d ic t: N o t G ro w in g

Figure E44. Sample frequency domain plots from sensor data in Region C (Test No.4).

E46

G row ing C rack P redicted by E FS Potential G row ing C rack Predicted by E FS N ot G row ing P redicted by E FS

1 0 .0

Grack Growth Length (mm)

9 .0 8 .0 7 .0 6 .0 5 .0 4 .0 3 .0 2 .0 1 .0 0 .0

M onitored C rack G row th

(a )

R egion A

0 .1

1 .0

T im e (hour)
G ro w in g C ra c k P re d ic te d b y E F S P o te n tia l G ro w in g C ra c k P re d ic te d b y E F S N o t G ro w in g P re d ic te d b y E F S

Grack Growth Length (mm)

50 40 30 20 10 0 2 3

M o n ito re d C ra c k G ro w th

(b )

R egions B and C

T im e (h o u r)
Figure E45. EFS predictions of the growing fatigue crack in Test No.4.

E47

G ro w in g C ra c k P re d ic te d b y E F S P o te n tia l G ro w in g C ra c k P re d ic ted b y E F S N o t G ro w in g P re d ic te d b y E F S

Energy Ratio or Spectrum Difference

10

Energy Ratio

Spectrum Difference

0 0.0 0.1 1.0

Time (hour)
Figure E46. EFS predictions in Test No.4.

Test No. 5: The test of the EFS system on this C(T) specimen used Type 1 sensor placement and a constant extension load of 3.56 KN (0.8 kips) plus a 2.0Hz sinusoidal cyclic load of amplitude 17.57 KN (3.95 kips). The test was performed using the Environmental Chamber controlled temperature 43.33 oC (110 oF ). The equipment setup for the EFS system installed on the C(T) specimen using the MTS+ Environmental Chamber system was the same as shown in Figure E40. The C(T) specimen had a pre-crack of length 12.7mm (0.5 in) along the center line of the C(T) specimen. Growth of the fatigue crack was monitored by using the clip gage. The laboratory controlled loading condition along with the temperature setting was applied during this test process. The test took a total of 16.29 hours to record growth of the fatigue crack length of 51.0286 mm (2.01 in) in this C(T) specimen (Figures E47 and E48). The data sets collected by the EFS system consist of 17 files, each holds 1 hour time period of sequentially monitored data from the EFS sensors.

Figure E49 shows the sample frequency domain plots obtained during this test. The EFS system predicted the Potential Growing Crack at the time period stage t=1400-1600 seconds and correctly predicted the Growing Crack thereafter. Figures E50 and E51 gave the predictions and the Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference evaluated by EFS system during the Test No.5. It illustrated that the Energy Ratio appeared to reach a significantly higher level than those previous C(T) specimen tests under ambient laboratory temperatures.

E48

Figure E47. EFS sensor placement and the fatigue crack in Test No.5.

cra ck tip

crack s ensor
reference sensor

crack direction
reference sensor
T yp e # 1

crack sensor

steel plate of the CT specimen

pre-crack 12.7mm (0.5")

crack sensor

reference sensor

fatigue crack growth direction

pre-crack

steel plate

fatigue crack growth length 51.0286mm (2.01")

12.7mm (0.5")

Figure E48. Monitored fatigue crack growth length in Test No.5.

E49

t = 1 0 0 0 .0 ~ 1 2 0 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 0 .9 0 2 S p e c tr u m D if fe r e n c e = 0 .2 3 3 9 P re d ic t: N o t G ro w in g

t = 1 4 0 0 .0 ~ 1 6 0 0 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 1 .5 6 9 S p e c tr u m D if fe re n c e = 0 .5 9 4 2 P re d ic t: P o te n tia l G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 2 5 0 0 0 .0 ~ 2 5 2 0 0 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 3 .8 2 4 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 1 .1 3 4 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

Figure E49. Sample frequency domain plots in Test No.5.

Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Potential Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Not Growing Predicted by EFS

4 0 .0

Grack Growth Length (mm)

M o n ito re d C ra c k G ro w th
3 0 .0

2 0 .0

1 0 .0

0 .0 0 .1

1 .0 T im e (h o u r)

1 0 .0

Figure E50. EFS prediction of the growing fatigue crack in Test No.5.

E50

G ro w in g C rack P red icted b y E F S P o ten tial G ro w in g C rack P red icted b y E F S N o t G ro w in g P red icted b y E F S

Energy Ratio or Spectrum Difference

120

Energy Ratio

Spectrum Difference

100

80

60

40

20

0 0.1 1 10

Time (hour)
Figure E51. Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference in Test No.5.

Test No. 6: The test of the EFS system on this C(T) specimen used Type 2 sensor placement and a constant extension load of 3.11 KN (0.7 kips) plus a 2.0Hz sinusoidal cyclic load of amplitude 13.57 KN (3.05 kips). The test was performed using the Environmental Chamber controlled temperature 43.33 oC (110 oF ). The equipment setup for the EFS system installed on the C(T) specimen using the MTS+ Environmental Chamber system was the same as shown in Figure E40.

The C(T) specimen had a pre-crack of length 12.7 mm (0.5 in) along the center line of the C(T) specimen. Growth of the fatigue crack was monitored by using the clip gage. The laboratory controlled loading condition along with the temperature setting was applied during this test process. The test took a total of 1.87 hours to record the fatigue crack growth to a length of 12.8346 mm (0.5053 in) in this C(T) specimen (Figures E52 and E53). The data sets collected by the EFS system consist of 16 files, each holding a 15-minute time period of sequentially monitored data from the EFS sensors. Figure E54 shows the sample frequency domain plots obtained during this test. The EFS system predicted Growing Crack at the beginning time period stage t=400-600 seconds and correctly reported Growing Crack thereafter during the test. Figures E55 and E56 illustrated the

E51

predictions of the Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference evaluated by the EFS system during the Test No.6. It illustrated that the Energy Ratio appeared not to reach the same as high level as the C(T) specimen test in Test No. 5 under the same temperature setting

Figure E52. EFS sensor placement and the fatigue crack in Test No.6.

c r a c k tip

cra ck senso r r e fe r e n c e s e n s o r

c r a c k d ir e c tio n

reference sensor (behide)

Type

# 2

crack sensor (front)

steel plate of the CT specimen

pre-crack
12.7mm (0.5")

reference sensor (behide)

fatigue crack growth direction

crack sensor (front)

pre-crack 12.7mm (0.5")

steel plate

fatigue crack growth length 12.8346 mm (0.5053")

Figure E53. Monitored fatigue crack growth in Test No.6.

E52

.
t = 4 0 0 .0 ~ 6 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 1 .1 6 7 7 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 0 .1 7 4 3 P re d ic t: N o t G ro w in g

t = 6 0 0 .0 ~ 8 0 0 . 0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 9 .2 2 3 2 S p e c tr u m D if fe r e n c e = 3 .1 3 3 9 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 8 0 0 .0 ~ 9 0 0 . 0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 8 .1 4 5 6 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 2 .9 8 3 0 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 2 5 0 0 .0 ~ 2 7 0 0 . 0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 1 0 .6 9 4 6 S p e c tr u m D if fe r e n c e = 3 .7 7 9 9 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 5 2 0 0 .0 ~ 5 4 0 0 . 0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 6 .2 6 5 8 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 2 .0 6 3 4 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

Figure E54. Sample frequency domain plots in Test No.6.

E53

G ro w in g C rack P red icted b y E F S

1 5 .0

P o ten tial G ro w in g C rack P red icted b y E F S N o t G ro w in g P red icted b y E F S

Grack Growth Length (mm)

M o n ito r e d C ra c k G r o w th

1 0 .0

5 .0

0 .0 0 .1 1 .0 T im e ( h o u r )

Figure E55. EFS prediction of the growing fatigue crack in Test No.6.
G ro w in g C rack P red icted b y E F S P o ten tial G ro w in g C rack P red icted b y E F S N o t G ro w in g P red icted b y E F S

Energy Ratio or Spectrum Difference

1 5 .0

Energy Ratio

Spectrum D ifference

1 0 .0

5 .0

0 .0 0 .1 1 .0

Tim e (hour)
Figure E56. Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference in Test No.6.

E54

Test No. 7: The test of the EFS system on this C(T) specimen used Type 2 sensor placement and a constant extension load of 4.45 KN (1.0 kips) plus a 2.0 Hz sinusoidal cyclic load of amplitude 20.02 KN (4.5 kips). The test was performed using the Environmental Chamber controlled temperature 1.67 oC (35 oF). The equipment setup for the EFS system installed on the C(T) specimen using the MTS+ Environmental Chamber system is the same as shown in Figure E40. The C(T) specimen has a pre-crack of length 12.7 mm (0.5 in) along the center line of the C(T) specimen. The fatigue crack growth was monitored by using the MTS clip gage. The laboratory controlled loading condition along with the temperature setting was applied during this test process. The test took a total of 9.20 hours to record the fatigue crack growth to a length of 15.5194 mm (0.611 in) in this C(T) specimen (Figures E57 and E58). The data sets collected by the EFS system consist of 8 files, each holding a 30-minute time period of sequentially monitored data from the EFS sensors. The analysis results shown in Figures E59-E61 were used in comparison with other test results.

Figure E57. EFS sensor placement and the fatigue crack in Test No.7.

E55

c r a c k tip

crack sensor
refere n c e sen so r

crack direction
Type # 2

crack sensor (front)

reference sensor (behide) fatigue crack growth direction

steel plate of the CT specimen pre-crack 12.7mm (0.5")

fatigue crack growth length 15.5194 mm (0.611")

Figure E58. Monitored fatigue crack growth in Test No.7.

t = 1 0 0 .0 ~ 1 5 0 .0 s e c .
s e c .
E n e r g y R a t i o = 1 . 0 3 2 6 S p e c t r u m D i f f e r e n c e = 1 . 7 5 2 S p e c t r u m D i f f e r e n c e = 0 . 2 6 5 8 N o P r e d P c r te : d i c t : t G r ot wG i rn o g w i n g i N o

n e r g y

a t i o

0 . 2 7 3 4

5 0 .0 ~ 8 0 .0

t =

4 0 0 .0 ~ 6 0 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a t i o = 2 . 9 9 9 6 S p e c t r u m D i f f e r e n c e = 1 . 7 2 4 6 P r e d i c t : G r o w i n g C r a c k

t =

3 4 0 0 .0 ~ 3 6 0 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a t i o = 4 . 2 6 0 7 S p e c t r u m D i f f e r e n c e = 2 . 1 7 0 8 P r e d i c t : G r o w i n g C r a c k

t =

1 0 6 0 0 .0 ~ 1 0 8 0 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a t i o = 4 . 0 8 7 4 S p e c t r u m D i f f e r e n c e = 1 . 8 8 2 2 P r e d i c t : G r o w i n g C r a c k

t =

1 6 0 0 0 .0 ~ 1 6 2 0 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a t i o = 4 . 3 3 1 6 S p e c t r u m D i f f e r e n c e = 1 . 8 4 9 2 P r e d i c t : G r o w i n g C r a c k

Figure E59. Sample frequency domain plots in Test No.7.

E56

G row ing C rack Predicted by EFS Potential G row ing C rack Predicted by EFS N ot G row ing Predicted by EFS

20

Grack Growth Length (mm)

M o n ito r e d C r a c k G r o w th
15

10

0 0 .1 1 T im e ( h o u r ) 10

Figure E60. EFS prediction of the growing fatigue crack in Test No.7.
G row ing C rack Predicted by EFS Potential G row ing C rack Predicted by EFS N ot G row ing Predicted by EFS

Energy Ratio or Spectrum Difference

E n e rg y R a tio

S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e

5 .0

0 .0 0 .1 1 .0 1 0 .0

T im e (h o u r)

Figure E61. Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference in Test No.7.

E57

Test No. 8: The test of the EFS system on this C(T) specimen used Type 1 sensor placement and a constant extension load of 4.0 KN (0.9 kips) plus a 2.0 Hz sinusoidal cyclic load of amplitude 17.35 KN (3.9 kips). The test was performed using the Environmental Chamber controlled temperature 1.67 oC ( 35 oF). The equipment setup for the EFS installed on the C(T) specimen using the MTS+ Environmental Chamber system was the same as shown in Figure E40. The C(T) specimen has a pre-crack of length 12.7 mm (0.5 in) along the center line of the C(T) specimen.

The fatigue crack growth was monitored by using the clip gage. The laboratory controlled loading condition along with the temperature setting was applied during this test process. The test took a total of 16.34 hours to record the fatigue crack growth to a length of 15.5194 mm (2.0023 in) in this C(T) specimen (Figures E62 and E63). The data sets collected by the EFS system consist of 16 files, each holding a 15-minute time period of sequentially monitored data from the EFS sensors. The analysis results shown in Figures E64-E66 were also used in comparison with other test results.

cra ck tip

crack s ensor
reference sensor

crack direction

reference sensor

T ype # 1

crack sensor

steel plate of the CT specimen

pre-crack 12.7mm (0.5")

reference sensor

crack sensor

fatigue crack growth direction

fatigue crack growth length 50.038mm (1.97")

pre-crack 12.7mm (0.5")

steel plate

Figure E62. Monitored fatigue crack growth in Test No.8.

E58

Figure E63. EFS sensor placement and the fatigue crack in Test No.8.
E n e r g y R a t i o = 0 . 4 5 2 5 3 S p e c t r u m D i f f e r e n c e = 0 . 1 7 0 4 P r e d i c t : N o t G r o w i n g

6 0 .0 ~ 1 0 0 .0

s e c .

2 0 0 .0 ~ 4 0 0 .0

s e c .

E n e r g y R a t i o = 4 . 0 8 1 1 S p e c t r u m D i f f e r e n c e = 1 . 7 1 7 7 P r e d i c t : G r o w i n g C r a c k

9 0 0 0 .0 ~ 1 0 8 0 0 .0

s e c .

E n e r g y R a t i o = 4 . 7 4 6 7 S p e c t r u m D i f f e r e n c e = 2 . 2 1 3 0 P r e d i c t : G r o w i n g C r a c k

1 6 2 0 0 .0 ~ 1 8 0 0 0 .0

s e c .

E n e r g y R a t i o = 5 . 4 5 2 5 S p e c t r u m D i f f e r e n c e = 3 . 7 4 0 1 P r e d i c t : G r o w i n g C r a c k

2 1 6 0 0 .0 ~ 2 3 4 0 0 .0

s e c .

E n e r g y R a t i o = 4 . 4 0 8 3 S p e c t r u m D i f f e r e n c e = 4 . 9 2 7 5 P r e d i c t : G r o w i n g C r a c k

2 7 0 0 0 .0 ~ 2 8 8 0 0 .0

s e c .

E n e r g y R a t i o = 4 . 0 2 3 4 S p e c t r u m D i f f e r e n c e = 3 . 9 1 6 1 P r e d i c t : G r o w i n g C r a c k

E59

Figure E64. Sample frequency domain plots in Test No.8.

Growing Crack Predicted by EFS
Potential Growing Crack Predicted by EFS

Not Growing Predicted by EFS

60.0

Grack Growth Length (mm)

M onitored Crack G row th

50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0.1

1.0 Tim e (hour)

10.0

Figure E65. EFS prediction of the growing fatigue crack in Test No.8.

E60

Growing Crack Predicted by EFS

Potential Growing Crack Predicted by EFS

Not Growing Predicted by EFS

Energy Ratio or Spectrum Difference

Energy Ratio

Spectrum Difference

10.0

5.0

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0

Time (hour)
Figure E66. Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference in Test No 8. Test No. 9: The C(T) specimen has a pre-crack of length 12.7 mm (0.5 in) along the center line of the C(T) specimen. The test of the EFS system on this C(T) specimen used Type 1 and Type 3 sensor placements for each side of the steel specimen, but with the container edge of each crack sensor being placed at the location of the pre-crack tip as shown in Figures E67 and E68. A constant extension load of 3.56 KN (0.8 kips) plus a 15.0 Hz sinusoidal cyclic load of amplitude 15.575 KN (3.5 kips) was applied to test the capacity of the EFS system for detecting fatigue crack growth in fast up-loading and un-loading dynamic conditions. The test was performed using the Environmental Chamber controlled temperature 21oC (70 oF). The equipment setup for the EFS installed on the C(T) specimen using the MTS+ Environmental Chamber system was the same as shown in Figure E40.

E61

0.5 Pre -crack

0.381

Monitored crack length: 0.581"

1.661

0.6

0.381

p re cra ck tip

p r e c r a c k tip

crack s ensor
reference sensor

crack s ensor
crack direction

crack direction

reference sensor
T ype # 3
crack sensor

T yp e # 1

reference sensor

steel plate of the CT specimen

fatigue crack pre-crack growth direction

reference sensor

crack sensor

12.7mm (0.5")

fatigue crack growth length 14.7574 mm (0.581")

Figure E67. EFS sensor placements in Test No.9.

E62

Crack sensor

Crack sensor

Reference sensor

Reference sensor

PDL 78

PDL 74

Figure E68. EFS sensor placements corresponding to PDL Channels for detecting fatigue crack growth in Test No.9.
Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Potential Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Not Growing Predicted by EFS

35 30 25

16.0 14.0

PDL 78 PDL 74 Monitored Crack Length

14.76 mm (0.581 in)

9.6774 mm (0.381 in)

10.0 8.0

20 15 6.0 10 5 0 0.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.8

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Hour
Figure E69. EFS prediction of the growing fatigue crack in Test No.9.

Similar to previous tests, the fatigue crack growth was monitored by using the clip gage. The laboratory controlled loading condition along with the temperature setting was applied during the test process. The test took a total of 0.79 hours to record growth of the fatigue crack to a length

Crack Length (mm)

CM Sensor Area

12.0

Energy Ratio

E63

of 14.7574 mm (0.581 in) in this C(T) specimen (Figures E67 and E68). Note that the crack growth length within the crack sensor (CM) area was beginning from 9.6774 mm (0.381 in) to the end at 14.7574 mm (0.581 in) as shown in Figure E69. The data sets collected by the EFS system consist of 2 files, each holding a 60-minute time period of sequentially monitored data from the EFS sensors. The analysis results and the sample frequency domain plots of the sensor signals are shown in Figures E69-E71. Figure E69 shows that for both sensor placement types used in this test the EFS system predicted Growing Crack from the very beginning stage of the inspection time period, even though when the fatigue crack had not reached the EFS crack sensor area (i.e., crack length<9.6774 mm). It appeared in this test that before the crack length reaches 9.6774 mm (0.381 in) the EFS sensors in each PDL channels acted both as crack sensors and the predictions by the EFS system during this period cannot be viewed as reliable. For this test, however, the EFS system does give correct predictions when the crack propagated into the crack sensor (CM) area (i.e., crack growth length > 9.6774 mm).
E n e r g y R a t i o = 2 0 .5 8 4 9 S p e c t r u m D i f f e r e n c e = 1 .7 7 6 5 P r e d i c t : G r o w i n g C r a c k

t = 1 0 0 .0 ~ 1 6 0 .0 s e c .

t = 5 0 0 .0 ~ 5 6 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a t i o = 1 4 .0 8 8 4 S p e c t r u m D i f f e r e n c e = 1 .1 5 9 0 5 P r e d i c t : G r o w i n g C r a c k

t = 1 0 0 0 .0 ~ 1 0 6 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a ti o = 1 6 .3 6 4 6 S p e c t r u m D if f e r e n c e = 1 .7 5 7 0 P r e d i c t : G r o w in g C r a c k

t = 2 5 0 0 .0 ~ 2 5 6 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a t i o = 4 .1 5 2 4 S p e c t r u m D i f f e r e n c e = 1 .4 7 8 5 P r e d i c t : G r o w i n g C r a c k

t = 2 6 0 0 .0 ~ 2 6 6 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a t i o = 4 .4 0 0 9 S p e c t r u m D i f f e r e n c e = 1 .4 6 2 1 P r e d i c t : G r o w i n g C r a c k

Figure E70. Sample frequency domain plots for PDL78 in Test No.9.

E64

t = 1 0 0 .0 ~ 1 6 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 1 0 .6 9 4 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 1 .6 6 6 0 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 5 0 0 .0 ~ 5 6 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 1 0 .9 4 2 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 1 .8 6 1 4 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 1 0 0 0 .0 ~ 1 0 6 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 1 0 .5 7 1 7 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 2 .2 3 3 5 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 2 5 0 0 .0 ~ 2 5 6 0 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 1 4 .0 2 2 S p e c tr u m D if f e re n c e = 1 .8 7 7 8 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 2 6 0 0 .0 ~ 2 6 6 0 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 1 6 .2 2 1 S p e c tr u m D if f e re n c e = 1 .7 4 7 6 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

Figure E71. Sample frequency domain plots for PDL74 in Test No.9.

E65

Test No. 10: The test of the EFS system on this C(T) specimen used Type 1 sensor placement, but with the container edge of the crack sensor being placed at the location of the pre-crack tip as shown in Figures E72 and E73.

0.5 Pre-crack 0.381

Monitored crack growth 22.86 mm (0.9")

1.661 0.6

p r e c r a c k tip

crack sensor
reference sensor
crack direction

0.381

Type #1

reference sensor

crack sensor

steel plate of the CT specimen

fatigue crack growth direction

pre-crack

fatigue crack growth length 12.7mm (0.5") 2 2 .8 6 m m (0 .9 ")

Figure E72. EFS sensor placements in Test No.10.

C rack se n s o r

R eferen ce s en so r

Figure E73. C(T) specimen and EFS sensor placement in Test No.10

E66

The focus was to exam the capacity of the EFS system for detecting fatigue crack growth in steel plates subject to low frequency cyclic loading conditions (i.e., primary frequency range < 5 Hz) as commonly observed from steel bridge vibration loads. A constant extension load of 2.224 KN (0.5 kips) plus a 2.0 Hz sinusoidal cyclic load of amplitude 8.8964 KN (2.0 kips) was applied. The test was performed using the Environmental Chamber controlled temperature 21oC (70 oF). The equipment setup for the EFS system installed on the C(T) specimen using the MTS+ Environmental Chamber system was the same as shown in Figure E40. The C(T) specimen has a pre-crack of length 12.7 mm (0.5 in) along the center line of the C(T) specimen. Growth of the fatigue crack was monitored by using the clip gage. The laboratory controlled loading condition along with the temperature setting was applied during this test process. The test took a total of 16.21 hours to record growth of the fatigue crack to a length of 22.86 mm (0.9 in) in this C(T) specimen (Figure E75). The crack growth within the crack sensor area was beginning from 9.6774 mm (0.381 in) to the end at 22.86 mm (0.9 in). The data sets collected by the EFS system consist of 17 files, each holding a 60-minute time period of sequentially monitored data from the EFS sensors. The sample frequency domain plots of the sensor signals and the analysis results are shown in Figures E74 and E75. Figure E75 shows that the EFS system in this test predicted Growing Crack from the very beginning stage of the testing time period, even though when the fatigue crack had not reached the EFS crack sensor area (i.e., when crack length<9.6774 mm). It appears again in this test that the EFS sensors acted both as crack sensors before the crack length reaches 9.6774 mm (0.381 in) and the predictions by the EFS system during this period cannot be viewed as reliable. For this test, however, the EFS system gave correct predictions when the crack grows into the EFS crack sensor area (i.e., crack growth length > 9.6774 mm as shown in Figure E75). It is also observed in this test that although the fatigue crack was propagating essentially linearly within the crack sensor area during the testing time period the Energy Ratio computed by EFS_Analyzer software did not have a direct correlation to the corresponding crack growth process.

E67

t = 5 0 0 .0 ~ 5 6 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 1 .6 4 2 2 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .4 9 4 6 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 3 0 0 0 .0 ~ 3 0 6 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 2 .0 5 7 7 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .8 3 0 6 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 3 6 0 0 .0 ~ 3 6 6 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 4 .1 4 7 6 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 2 .0 5 1 1 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 7 2 0 0 .0 ~ 7 2 6 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 4 .3 2 7 8 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .0 6 3 3 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 1 0 8 0 0 .0 ~ 1 0 8 6 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 4 .4 1 0 7 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 2 .0 7 8 1 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

Figure E74. Sample frequency domain plots in Test No.10.

E68

t = 3 2 4 0 0 .0 ~ 3 6 0 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 5 .8 5 3 7 S p e c tru m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .2 0 6 1 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 3 6 0 0 0 ~ 3 9 6 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 5 .9 2 0 6 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 2 .2 1 6 2 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 3 9 6 0 0 ~ 4 3 2 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 6 .4 4 8 8 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 3 .9 6 5 6 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 4 3 2 0 0 .0 ~ 4 6 8 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 6 .7 5 6 6 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 3 .7 7 4 3 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 4 6 8 0 0 .0 ~ 5 0 4 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 6 .2 9 9 4 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 4 .1 1 7 9 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

Figure E75. Sample frequency domain plots in Test No.10. (cont.)

E69

9.6774 m m (0.381") 42.18 mm (1.661")

12.7 mm (0.5") Pre-crack total crack grow th 22.86 m m (0.9")

G r o w in g C r a c k P r e d ic t e d b y E F S P o t e n tia l G r o w in g C r a c k P r e d ic te d b y E F S N o t G r o w in g P r e d ic te d b y E F S

8.0 7.0 6.0

Energy Ratio Monitored Fatigue Crack Growth

22.86 m m (0.9 in)

24.0 20.0

Energy Ratio

5.0 4.0

CM Sensor Area

16.0 12.0

9.6774 mm (0.381 9.6774 m m (0.381 in)

3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

8.0 4.0 0.0 16.0

Hour
Figure E76. EFS prediction of the growing fatigue crack in Test No.10.

Crack Length (mm)

E70

Test No. 11: The C(T) specimen used in this test has a pre-crack of length 12.7 mm (0.5 in) along the center line of the C(T) specimen. The test of the EFS system on this C(T) specimen used Type 1 sensor placement, but with the container edge of the crack sensor being placed at the location of the pre-crack tip as shown in Figure E76. The equipment setup for the EFS installed on the C(T) specimen using the MTS+ Environmental Chamber system was the same as shown in Figure E40. The test was performed using 2 different load-temperature settings during a continuous testing period (Phase A - Phase B) as illustrated in Figure E76. In Phase A, a constant extension load of 2.224 KN (0.5 kips) plus a 1.0 Hz sinusoidal cyclic load of amplitude 11.1206 KN (2.5 kips) and the Environmental Chamber controlled temperature 20.0 oC (68 oF) were applied. In Phase B, the same sinusoidal cyclic load along with the Environmental Chamber controlled temperature 1.67 oC (35 oF) was applied. The total time frame for the crack growth length of 18.034 mm (0.71 in) was about 48.87 hours. Growth of the fatigue crack was monitored by using the clip gage.

The data sets collected by the EFS system during this test consist of 50 files, each holding a 60minute time period of sequentially monitored data from the EFS sensors. The sample frequency domain plots of the sensor signals and the analysis results are shown in Figures E77-E78. Figure E78 shows that the EFS system in this test predicted Growing Crack from the very beginning stage of the testing time period, even though when the fatigue crack was not reached the EFS crack sensor area (i.e., crack length<9.6774 mm). It appears again in this test that before the crack reached the crack sensor area the EFS sensors acted both as crack sensors and the predictions by the EFS system during this period cannot be reliable. For this test, the EFS system gave correct predictions when the crack grows into the crack sensor area (i.e., crack growth length > 9.6774 mm). In a manner similar to the previous test, it was observed in this test that for those time stages when the fatigue crack was propagating almost linearly the Energy Ratio computed by EFS_Analyzer software did not have a consistent correlation with respect to the corresponding crack growth process. It was also observed that during the beginning 2.2 hours in the Phase B testing period under low temperature (1.67 oC) and the same cyclic loadings the crack was propagated with rapidly reduced growth rate for the first two hours. The EFS system correctly predicted growing crack during this transition change toward a near-zero growth rate in this period. Since then, during the remaining 22.21 hours the crack had the actual growth less than the clip gage can detects (<0.0254 mm or 0.001 in). However, the Energy ratio evaluated by EFS_Analyzer software continuously predicted the growing crack during the remaining low temperature, no-growth testing period, although it dropped significantly. Note that the above test result indicated a nogrowth period (lasting almost 22 hours) for the crack originally observed as growing. The reasons for causing this behavior are currently still under investigation since they may relate to many physical factors involved in test specimen, instruments used, or other phenomenon, such as work hardening usually happened in testing of steel materials, and so on. More in-depth test will be planned to ensure the correctness of this particular test and will be reported late in details.

E71

12.7 mm (0.5') pre-crack

9.6774 mm (0.381")

Phase A (1Hz, 68 F o ): 15.748 mm (0.62") Phase B (1Hz, 35 F o ): 2.286 mm (0.09")

Crack

Figure E77. The load-temperature settings and the growing fatigue crack in Test No.11.

E72

t = 0 .0 ~ 6 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 1 .7 9 3 6 S p e c tr u m D iffe re n c e = 1 .6 4 8 8 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 3 6 0 0 .0 ~ 7 2 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 3 .6 6 2 4 S p e c tr u m D iffe re n c e = 1 .3 6 9 7 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 7 2 0 0 .0 ~ 1 0 8 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 3 .6 3 4 1 S p e c tr u m D iffe re n c e = 1 .3 7 4 5 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 1 0 8 0 0 .0 ~ 1 4 4 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 3 .6 3 4 5 S p e c tr u m D iffe re n c e = 1 .3 8 8 3 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 1 4 4 0 0 .0 ~ 1 8 0 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 3 .6 3 6 9 S p e c tr u m D iffe re n c e = 1 .3 7 2 5 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

Figure E78. Sample frequency domain plots in Test No.11.

E73

t = 7 2 0 0 0 .0 ~ 7 5 6 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 1 0 .2 1 7 3 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 3 .7 6 9 9 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 7 5 6 0 0 ~ 7 9 2 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 1 0 .7 3 1 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 9 .7 2 4 1 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 7 9 2 0 0 .0 ~ 8 2 8 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 4 .2 7 9 9 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .2 5 0 8 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 8 2 8 0 0 .0 ~ 8 6 4 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 5 .4 8 5 2 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 1 .9 3 7 7 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 8 6 4 0 0 .0 ~ 9 0 0 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 1 0 .6 8 5 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 1 .8 8 5 1 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

Figure E79. Sample frequency domain plots in Test No.11. (cont.)

E74

Growing Crack Predicted by EFS

Potential Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Not Growing Predicted by EFS

14.0 12.0

Energy Ratio Monitored Fatigue Crack Growth

20.0

18.034 mm (0.71") 15.748 mm (0.62")

Phase B Phase A

Energy Ratio

10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.0

9.6774 mm (0.381")

10.0

5.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

Hour
Figure E80. EFS prediction of the growing fatigue crack in Test No.11. Summary of Test Results and Findings

In the laboratory tests, C(T) specimens were used under controlled loading and environmental conditions to evaluate EFS Systems crack growth detection technology. The monitored crack growth was used in the comparison of the crack growth predicted by the EFS system. Numerical simulation of the growing fatigue crack in the loaded C(T) specimen was also conducted to reveal the critical stress field around the growing crack tip. Computer simulation indicated that in the laboratory tests of the EFS system on C(T) specimens placement of the reference sensor over the low stress area should be avoided as shown in Figure E8. Tests of the EFS system using C(T) specimens considered the first two types of sensor placements (Figure E10) along with various laboratory controlled cyclic loads and temperatures (Table E1) in order to identify the key capabilities of the EFS system in detecting fatigue crack growth and growth rates. The last three tests were specially conducted to reveal the ability of the EFS system in dealing with low temperature environmental condition while the EFS crack sensor was not placed directly over the known fatigue crack tip. Figure E80 summarizes the capacity of the EFS system, based on the tests No.1 to No.8, to detect growing fatigue cracks at different growth rates in steel plate C(T) specimens. The curves

Crack Length (mm)

E75

15.0

60.0

50.0

Crack Growth (mm)

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.5 No.6 No.7 No.8

0.0 14.0

Enlarged plot for CM sensor area (Region A)

Time (hour)

8.0 7.0

Growing Cracks predicted by EFS Not Growing or Potential Growing Crack predicted by EFS

Crack Growth (mm)

6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0

O

Test No.1 (21.1 C) O Test No.2 (21.1 C) O Test No.3 (21.1 C) O Test No.4 (43.3 C) O Test No.5 (43.3 C) O Test No.6 (43.3 C) O Test No.7 (1.67 C) O Test No.8 (1.67 C)

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Time (hour)
Figure E81. Growth of the fatigue crack length and growth rates detected during the C(T) specimen tests (Test No.1-Test No. 8).

E76

in Figure E80 represent the results of the monitored crack growth observed from these C(T) specimen tests that covered a wide range of loading cases and temperatures. The enlarged figure in Figure E80 illustrates that, as long as the reference sensor was placed over an area that experiences the same level of live load stress as the crack sensor (CM) does and the crack sensor was placed over the known crack tip, the EFS system can detect a small growing fatigue crack with a wide range of growth rates in the CM sensor area. It was also confirmed during these tests that the EFS system works with temperatures ranging from 1.67 oC (35 oF) to 43.33 oC (110 oF) and this covers the possible climatic conditions at most bridge inspection sites. The test results revealed that the energy ratio evaluated by the EFS system under high temperature conditions may have a much higher level (shown by Figure E51 in Test No.5, Figure E56 in Test No.6 and Figure E79 in Test No.11) than those by tests under lower temperature conditions. This may raise concerns about potential false-positive predictions in summer and/or the potential false-negative predictions in winter for growing cracks. The EFS system uses a fixed threshold in its evaluation of the energy ratio for prediction of growing cracks. However, as observed during the tests, the change in the energy ratio may not fully represent the actual trend of the crack growth. In particular, the laboratory test of the EFS system using C(T) specimens used controlled crack growths and growth rates. However, it was not possible to find convincing results to indicate a direct correlation between the energy ratio results and the corresponding crack propagation process. Test No.11 also indicated that the EFS system may possibly give incorrect predictions when temperature has dropped significantly. For these long period tests, for example, Test No.2, Test No.3, Test. No.5 and Test. No.8, noticeable drying out of the electrolyte in the crack sensor was observed at the final stages of the inspection period. It was also noted in the initial test that higher frequency cyclic loads (>4.0 Hz) for the C(T) specimen can sometimes squeeze the electrolyte in the crack sensor from the throughthickness cracks and cause the sensor to dry out even more quickly. Tests of the EFS system using C(T) specimens by two different sensor placement types have verified that as long as the reference sensor was placed over an area that experiences the same level of live load stress as the crack sensor does the EFS system can detect small growing fatigue cracks with virtually any orientation in the CM sensor area. The analysis software, however, can predict if a crack is not growing or potential growing or growing, and cannot provide quantitative measurement information about the crack growth length and the crack growth rate for the particular inspection. It was also observed during the analysis of EFS data sets using the EFS_analyzer software that, although it has an embedded algorithm to find the Best predictions from given length of time history data sets, the PDL_controller software provides only a limited number (50) for creating files to collect the EFS data sets. For an inspection with long time history data sets, the prediction by the EFS_analyzer software cannot take advantage of the embedded algorithm to give information about the early transition states when the crack initiated and began to grow and propagate. In this situation, manual selection of shorter sections of time history from the given data sets usually cannot give the unbiased best predictions. Other problems in using the analyzer software were also noticed during the test data analysis. A significant improvement of the analysis software and its automation are required for practical bridge inspections.

E77

Cruciform Specimens

Since the C(T) specimen is only a highly idealized experimental sample for an engineering test of fatigue crack propagation in steel plates and it does not fully represent the true loading conditions in common steel bridge structures, a more realistic type of steel testing specimen, a cruciform specimen as shown in Figure E81, was also used in the laboratory tests to examine the capabilities of the EFS system. This cruciform specimen has a Category C weld detail (the most common type of weld detail for steel bridges) and a geometry that allows more adequate tests of the EFS system on fatigue cracks in welded steel plates. Detailed geometry and material information relating to the cruciform specimen used in this test is given in Appendix A.

Figure E82. The steel cruciform specimen with four welded tabs.

E78

Numerical Simulation and Analysis of Sensor Placements

Figure E82 shows the sample plot of the numerical model of this cruciform, welded steel plate. The NDE Center staff utilized an advanced meshless modeling technique to simulate steel fatigue cracking initiation in the cruciform specimens in order to illustrate the stress field distributions in this type of steel specimen in guiding the study of the EFS sensor placement during the laboratory tests. Specifically, a Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) meshless approach provided by the LS-DYNA nonlinear finite element software package was used in the analysis. The specimens were subjected to a cyclic tension load. The applied cyclic tension load results in the peak effective stress in a cross section of the welded steel plate (as shown in Figure E83) in a range close to the steel yield stress while alternating its direction along with the dynamic changes of the cyclic loads. This indicated that the main mechanism of the fatigue crack initiation in this type of steel specimen is due to accumulated material fatigue damage. This SPH meshless simulation illustrated results very consistent with recent lab tests. The numerical analysis result also revealed that the fatigue crack damage may occur along the particular section (as shown in Figure E83) of the welded steel plate, rather than only within the weld metal. This important factor has been considered in the laboratory tests of the EFS system using the cruciform specimens. The initial tests of the EFS system using this type of cruciform steel specimen were first conducted to study the EFS sensor placement on this type of welded steel members.

Figure E83. Numerical model of the cruciform specimen used for analyzing stress fields

E79

r a p i d a lt e r n a t i o n o f e f f e c t i v e s t r e s s c lo s e t o m a t e r i a l f a t i g u e f a i lu r e le v e l a p p e a r s i n t h i s c r o s s s e c t i o n

Figure E84. Critical effective stress field in the cruciform specimen by SPH simulation. Test of the EFS Sensor Placement

Extensive tests of the EFS system using laboratory controlled single frequency cyclic loads covering a range of bridge vibration frequency contents were conducted to reveal the capacity of the EFS system for detecting growing fatigue cracks in steel bridge members. The initial tests of the EFS system using the cruciform steel specimen were focused to study the EFS sensor placement on this type of welded steel members. Figures E84 and E85 show the installation of the EFS sensors on a cruciform specimen and the testing setup of a cruciform specimen with EFS sensors on the MTS test equipment. The first step in this laboratory test on the cruciform specimen was to examine the actual liveload stress field responses detected by the EFS sensors in those areas away from the welds. Two different sizes of the EFS sensor were considered. The smaller EFS sensor is the same as those applied to previous C(T) specimen tests. The larger EFS sensor (as shown in Figure E88), on the other hand, has a significantly larger sensor area capable of covering a relatively large surface area over the section composed by steel plate and welds. Referring to the information obtained from numerical simulation of the fatigue crack propagation in this type of steel cruciform specimens, three types of the EFS sensor placement as shown in the following sections were initially studied. In particular, the EFS sensors were placed on the cruciform specimen at different locations and different sizes of EFS sensor were used in these initial tests. This study reveals that the sensor placement, as shown in Figure E84, can be best used in the laboratory tests of EFS system on such cruciform specimens.

E80

Figure E85. Installing the EFS sensors on a cruciform specimen.

E81

Figure E86. Testing setup of the steel cruciform specimen with EFS sensors on the MTS load frame.

E82

EFS Sensor Placement Test No. 1: The first sensor placement set-up, as shown in Figure E86, used a crack sensor at the top of the cruciform specimen near a weld area and a reference sensor immediately below this crack sensor near the middle of the specimen. The live-load stress detected by both EFS sensors appeared to be close to the same magnitude. The corresponding EFS analysis software correctly identifies these signals as resulting from an inspection area with no crack.

Figure E87. Live-load stress output with two EFS sensors close together (EFS sensor placement type #1). EFS Sensor Placement Test No. 2: This sensor placement used the bottom EFS sensor as a reference to replace the previous reference sensor on the middle of the plate. Since the crack sensor and the reference sensor in this sensor placement were not placed closely together, the live load stresses detected by EFS sensors were significantly different. It was also observed that, as shown in Figure E87, in this case the EFS analysis software incorrectly interpreted the responses from the EFS system as resulting from a crack.

E83

Figure E88. Live-load stress output with two EFS sensors placed farther apart (EFS sensor placement type #2). EFS Sensor Placement Test No. 3: In this sensor placement (Figure E88), larger EFS sensors were used on the welds of the cruciform specimen in order to cover as much of the steel weld surface as possible. This large EFS sensor has the approximate dimensions of 44.45 mm (1-3/4 in) long and 66.675 mm (2-5/8 in) wide with a sensor area of 50.8 mm (2 in) long by 19.05 mm (3/4 in) wide.

Example data from testing using a 88.96 KN (20 kips) peak-to-peak sinusoidal load input of 10.0 Hz is shown below (Figure E89). It was observed that although the EFS sensor covered a large area over the steel welds and each sensor detected the live load stresses, the sensors essentially performed the same as in the EFS sensor placement Type #2. In both placement types, the reference sensor was placed over the surface where the live-load stress may differ in sign and direction from that experienced by the crack sensor even when their magnitudes could be close. The EFS sensor placement on the cruciform specimens should avoid this.

E84

Figure E89. Larger EFS sensor used to cover weld areas on cruciform specimen (EFS sensor placement type #3).

Figure E90. EFS analysis result for the 88.96 KN (20 kips) peak-to-peak sinusoidal loads at 10 Hz (EFS sensor placement type #3).

E85

The three different EFS sensor placement tests indicated that for tests of the EFS system using the cruciform specimens the reference sensor should be placed close to the areas where the EFS crack sensor is located. A good reference sensor placement can be either immediately below the crack sensor near the middle of the specimen or, simply, immediately next to the crack sensor along the same intersection line (shown in Figure E84) of the specimen In the following tests, the sensor placement shown in Figure E84 was used. Currently, extensive tests of the EFS system using the cruciform specimens under laboratory controlled load are being conducted in the FHWA NDE Center. The capacity of the EFS system for detecting fatigue crack growth in bridge steel girder structures subject to real world bridge loading conditions due to highway traffic flows will also be investigated in the incoming phase of this steel bridge testing program. Specifically, in addition to single-frequency cyclic loads, it is also considered to introduce broadband bridge ambient traffic flow loads in the incoming laboratory tests of the EFS system using these cruciform specimens. These tests will further reveal the real behavior of the EFS system in detecting growing fatigue cracks in these highly representative steel members. Since this steel specimen was considered as having a high strength in the welds, significantly longer time will needed in order to have a fatigue crack initiated. The current laboratory test has encountered the issue on proper configuration of the EFS system in order to collect the sensor data right before the fatigue crack initiated and thereafter. In addition, due to the limitation of the PDL_Controller software the number of sensor data sets was restricted to a certain number and the space to store these data sets in each PDL units was also limited. Current long duration tests also indicated the problem that the PDL software could lose certain data files during the data acquisition processes, i.e., a few of data file can be found to be missing when the test was completed.
Tests of the EFS System Using Cruciform Specimen

These tests, listed in Table E3, used the laboratory controlled cyclic loads composed by a base extension load of 4.448 KN (1.0 kip) in addition to a single frequency sinusoidal load with the amplitude 46.706 KN (10.5 kips), 53.379 KN (12kips) or 64.500 KN (14.5 kips) and the frequency 4.0 Hz or 15.0Hz.
Table E3. EFS tests on cruciform specimens using single-frequency cyclic loads. Test No. # of PDL Channels Min-Max load KN(kips) Frequency (Hz) Test System Temperature setting o C( oF) Normal 21(70) Normal 21(70) Normal 21(70) Normal 21(70)

1 2 3 4

8 4 8 8

4.45-111.2(1.0-25.0) 4.45-111.2(1.0-25.0) 4.45-133.4(1.0-30.0) 4.45-97.86 (1.0-22.0)

4.0 4.0 15.0 15.0

MTS MTS MTS MTS

E86

Cruciform Specimen Test No. 1: The test of the EFS system on this cruciform specimen used the sensor placement as shown in Figure E90. Eight PDL channels (PDL70, PDL75, PDL71, PDL76, PDL72, PDL77, PDL73 and PDL 79) of the EFS system were used in this test. A surface notch of the length 10.16 mm (0.4 in), the width 2.0mm (0.0787 in) and the depth 2.0mm (0.0787 in) has been added to the cruciform specimen at the top welded tab location T1 in order to initialize the fatigue crack during the test.

Figure E91 shows the test setup using the MTS system. The laboratory controlled loading condition by a constant extension load of 4.45 KN (1.0 kips) plus a 4.0 Hz sinusoidal cyclic load of amplitude 53.3787 KN (12 kips) was applied in this test. The test was performed under laboratory ambient temperature 21oC (70 oF). Growth of the fatigue crack was created during this test at the section of T1-T3. The test took a total of 13.69 hours to allow the fatigue crack to grow and finally break the cruciform specimen (Figure E92). The data sets collected by the EFS system consist of 112 files (14 files for each PDL channel), each stored consecutively for a 1hour time period of monitored data from the EFS sensors.
CM: Crack Measurement Sensor RS: Reference Sensor
TOP TOP

T1: PDL 70 CM RS

T3: PDL 75 RS CM

Notch

CM RS T2: PDL 71

RS CM T4: PDL 76

B1: PDL 72 CM RS

B3: PDL 77 RS CM

CM RS B2: PDL 73

RS CM B4: PDL 79

BTM

BTM

Figure E91. EFS sensor placement in the Cruciform Specimen Test No. 1.

E87

PDL70
PDL71 PDL72

PDL75
PDL76

PDL77

PDL73

PDL79

Figure E92. Test setup for the Cruciform Specimen Test No. 1.

Figure E93. Fatigue crack resulting from the Cruciform Test No. 1.

E88

Figures E93 and E94 illustrate the sample frequency domain plots from the sensor data collected from PDL70 and PDL75 channels during this test. The analysis was performed to compute Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference by using the EFS_Analyzer software. Figure E95 illustrates that the EFS system can start to detect crack growth from the initial stage of the testing time period (t=2000s) when additional harmonic components occur with increased peak level. The results also indicated that the EFS system can continuously predict growth of the fatigue crack during this test. It was observed that the EFS sensors by PDL70 channel, where the crack sensor was directly placed over the surface notch, predicted the crack growth continuously during the testing period. On the other hand, the EFS sensors by PDL75 channel reported the crack growth during the last two hours of the testing period. The inspection of the cracked specimen reveals that the fatigue crack possibly propagate from the side T1 to the side T2 (see Figures E90 and E92) during the final stages of the testing period.

t = 0 .0 ~ 6 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a t i o = 1 .1 3 2 9 S p e c t r u m D i f f e r e n c e = 2 .1 4 4 4 P r e d i c t : N o t G r o w i n g

t =

5 0 0 .0 ~ 5 6 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a t i o = 1 .1 8 7 2 S p e c t r u m D i f f e r e n c e = 2 .2 4 5 2 P r e d i c t : N o t G r o w i n g

t = 2 0 0 0 .0 ~ 2 0 6 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a t i o = 1 .5 2 4 1 S p e c t r u m D i f f e r e n c e = 4 .0 1 3 1 P r e d i c t : P o t e n t i a l G r o w i n g C r a c k

t = 3 5 6 0 .0 ~ 3 5 9 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a t i o = 2 .0 0 9 0 S p e c t r u m D i f f e r e n c e = 4 .9 2 7 4 P r e d i c t : G r o w i n g C r a c k

t = 7 1 3 0 .0 ~ 7 1 6 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a t i o = 2 .4 5 3 7 S p e c t r u m D i f f e r e n c e = 5 .4 2 1 7 P r e d i c t : G r o w i n g C r a c k

Figure E94. Sample frequency domain plots by PDL70 channel in Cruciform Test No.1.

E89

t = 5 9 0 .0 ~ 6 2 0 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 1 .1 9 4 0 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 2 .9 5 4 3 P re d ic t: N o t G ro w in g

t = 3 9 5 1 0 .0 ~ 3 9 5 5 0 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 1 .4 5 8 8 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 1 .7 9 1 8 P re d ic t: N o t G ro w in g

t = 4 6 0 8 0 .0 ~ 4 6 1 2 0 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 9 .6 3 7 0 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 4 .9 1 6 8 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 4 6 0 7 0 .0 ~ 4 6 1 1 0 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 2 .0 0 9 0 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 4 .9 2 7 4 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 4 6 1 1 0 .0 ~ 4 6 1 5 0 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 9 .2 9 7 1 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 4 .7 8 5 0 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

Figure E95. Sample frequency domain plots by PDL75 channel in Cruciform Test No.1.

E90

G ro w in g C ra ck P re d icted b y E F S P o te n tial G ro w in g C rack P re d icted b y E F S N o t G ro w in g P re d icted b y E F S

1 0 .0

Energy Ratio

PD L70 PD L71 PD L72 PD L73 PD L75 PD L76 PD L77 PD L79

1 .0

0 .0

2 .0

4 .0

6 .0

8 .0

1 0 .0

1 2 .0

H our
Figure E96. EFS prediction of the growing fatigue crack in Cruciform Test No.1. Cruciform Specimen Test No. 2: This test used the sensor placement as shown in Figure E96. Four PDL channels (PDL72, PDL77, PDL73 and PDL 79) of the EFS system were used in this test. Figure E97 shows the test setup using the MTS load frame system. The laboratory controlled loading condition by a constant extension load of 4.45 KN (1.0 kips) plus a 4.0 Hz sinusoidal cyclic load of amplitude 53.3787 KN (12 kips) was applied in this test. The test was also performed under laboratory ambient temperature 21oC (70 oF). The test took a total of 48.16 hours to allow the fatigue crack to grow at the section of B1-B3 and finally break the cruciform specimen (Figure E98). The data sets collected by the EFS system consist of 200 files (50 files for each PDL channel), each stored consecutively for a 1- hour time period of monitored data from the EFS sensors. Figures E99 and E100 illustrate the sample frequency domain plots from the sensor data collected from PDL72 and PDL77 channels during this test. The analysis was also performed to compute Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference.

Figure E101 illustrates that the PDL77 channel of the EFS system can start to detect the crack growth from the first 4 hours of the testing time period when additional harmonic components occur with increased peak level. For the PDL72 channel of the EFS system, it had correctly predicted the crack growth activity when the crack tip reached its crack sensor covered area.

E91

C M : C ra c k M e a su re m e n t S e n so r R S : R e fe re n c e S e n so r TOP TOP

B1: PD L 72 CM RS

B3: PD L 77 CM RS

CM RS B2: PD L 73

CM RS B4: PD L 79

BTM

BTM

Figure E97. EFS sensor placement in the Cruciform Specimen Test No.2.

PD72

PD77 PD79

PD73

Figure E98. Test setup for the Cruciform Specimen Test No. 2.

E92

Crack Sensor Location (PDL77)

B3

B1
Crack Sensor Location (PDL72)

Figure E99. Fatigue crack resulting from the Cruciform Test No. 2.

At the final stage of the testing time period when the cruciform specimen was completely broken due to the crack propagation, both channels showed the prediction of growing crack. The inspection of the cracked specimen revealed that the fatigue crack had propagated from the side B3 to the side B1 (see Figure E98) and the final separation of the steel plate in the cruciform specimen was accompanied by a small section of fracture cracking. Figure E101 also illustrates that the PDL79 channel of the EFS system had detected certain potential crack growing and micro-plasticity activities at the B4 location of the cruciform specimen during the testing time period. This indicated that the location covered by PDL79 sensor channel might be a potential location of fatigue crack growth.

E93

t = 0 .0 ~ 6 0 . 0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 0 .7 8 4 6 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 1 .9 8 3 4 P re d ic t: N o t G ro w in g

t = 4 9 0 .0 ~ 5 3 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 1 .2 4 3 2 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 5 .5 5 1 4 P re d ic t: N o t G ro w in g

t = 1 4 7 0 4 0 .0 ~ 1 4 7 0 8 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 1 .5 5 9 2 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 5 .1 7 8 7 P re d ic t: P o te n tia l G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 1 5 7 0 0 .0 ~ 1 5 7 4 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 2 .0 3 7 7 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 4 .9 1 2 0 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 1 7 2 0 7 0 .0 ~ 1 7 2 1 1 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 3 .8 7 1 7 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 3 .9 0 8 0 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

Figure E100. Sample frequency domain plots by PDL72 channel in Cruciform Test No.2.

E94

t = 1 1 1 8 0 0 ~ 1 1 2 1 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 2 .7 5 4 3 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 9 .2 7 1 7 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 2 0 6 9 0 .0 ~ 2 0 7 2 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 1 .5 8 0 8 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 6 .0 4 0 0 P re d ic t: P o te n tia l G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 1 4 7 5 6 0 .0 ~ 1 4 7 6 0 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 1 .3 1 8 5 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .2 8 6 9 P re d ic t: N o t G ro w in g

t = 1 5 3 5 1 0 .0 ~ 1 5 3 5 5 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 2 .1 0 8 7 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 7 .8 1 4 8 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 1 5 6 0 9 0 .0 ~ 1 5 6 1 3 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 1 .3 3 3 0 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .4 9 1 8 P re d ic t: N o t G ro w in g

Figure E101. Sample frequency domain plots by PDL77 channel in Cruciform Test No.2.

E95

G r o w in g C r a c k P r e d ic te d b y E F S P o te n tia l G r o w in g C r a c k P r e d ic te d b y E F S N o t G r o w in g P r e d ic te d b y E F S

3 .5 3 .0

PD L72 PD L73 PD L77 PD L79

Energy Ratio

2 .5 2 .0 1 .5 1 .0 0 .5 0 10 20 30 40 50

H our
Figure E102. EFS prediction of the growing fatigue crack in Cruciform Test No.2. Cruciform Specimen Test No. 3: This test used the sensor placement as shown in Figure E102. Eight PDL channels (PDL73, PDL79, PDL72, PDL76, PDL71, PDL75, PDL70 and PDL 77) of the EFS system were used in the test. Figure E103 shows the test setup using the MTS load frame system. The laboratory controlled loading condition by a constant extension load of 4.45 KN (1.0 kips) plus a 15.0 Hz sinusoidal cyclic load of amplitude 64.4992 KN (14.5 kips) was applied in this test. The test was also performed under laboratory ambient temperature 21oC (70 o F). Growth of the fatigue crack was observed at the section B2-B4 of the cruciform specimen during this test. The test took a total of 4.77 hours to allow the fatigue crack to grow and finally break the cruciform specimen (Figure E104). The data sets collected by the EFS system consist of 40 files (5 files for each PDL channel), each stored consecutively for a 1- hour time period of monitored data from the EFS sensors. Figures E105 and E106 illustrate the sample frequency domain plots from the sensor data collected from PDL70 and PDL77 channels during this test. The analysis was performed to compute Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference by using the EFS_Analyzer software.

Figure E107 illustrated that both channels (PDL70 and PDL77) of the EFS system predicted not growing during the first 4 hours of the testing period. However, when the crack tip propagated into the crack sensor areas, both PDL70 and PDL77 channels the EFS system correctly detected growing crack continuously at the final stage of the testing period (t >4.2 hour).

E96

CM : Crack M easurement Sensor RS : Reference Se nsor

PDL70

PDL75

TOP

TOP

T1: PDL 73 CM RS

T3: PDL 79 RS CM

PDL71

PDL76

CM RS T2: PDL 72

RS CM T4: PDL 76

PDL72

B1: PDL 71 CM RS

B3: PDL 75 RS CM

PDL73

PDL79

CM RS B2: PDL 70

RS CM B4: PDL 77

BTM

BTM

Figure E103. EFS sensor placement in the Cruciform Specimen Test No.3.

Figure E104. Test setup for the Cruciform Specimen Test No. 3.

E97

Figure E105. Fatigue crack resulting from the Cruciform Test No. 3.

E98

t = 9 0 .0 ~ 1 3 0 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 1 .1 0 4 4 S p e c tr u m D if fe r e n c e = 0 .8 3 0 6 P re d ic t: N o t G ro w in g

t = 7 4 0 .0 ~ 7 8 0 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 1 .0 5 9 7 S p e c tr u m D if fe r e n c e = 0 .5 6 1 1 P re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

t = 1 6 0 9 0 .0 ~ 1 6 1 3 0 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 0 .8 1 0 9 S p e c tr u m D if fe r e n c e = 2 .4 5 8 8 P re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

t = 1 6 5 4 0 .0 ~ 1 6 5 8 0 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 2 .3 0 1 8 S p e c tr u m D if fe r e n c e = 6 .0 2 8 3 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 1 6 5 8 0 .0 ~ 1 6 6 2 0 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 3 .4 1 6 7 S p e c tr u m D if fe r e n c e = 3 .8 1 2 9 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

Figure E106. Sample frequency domain plots by PDL70 channel in Cruciform Test No.3.

E99

t = 1 6 2 0 ~ 1 6 6 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 1 .3 2 5 1 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 0 .6 2 2 8 P re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

t = 2 0 6 9 0 .0 ~ 2 0 7 2 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 1 .5 8 0 8 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 6 .0 4 0 0 P re d ic t: P o te n tia l G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 1 5 3 5 1 0 .0 ~ 1 5 3 5 5 0 .0 s e c . t = 1 1 2 5 0 .0 ~ 1 1 2 9 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 1 .2 8 0 4 a o 1 0 = S Ep n e r r uy mR D t ii f f e=r e2n. c e 8 70 . 6 2 4 5 e c tg = o n c PS r p e c c rt u m r D w f i n g e H ca er m 7 . 8 i 1 4 8 e d i t : G o i fe r n P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 1 2 3 8 0 .0 ~ 1 2 4 2 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 1 .2 7 7 4 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 0 .6 2 2 1 P re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

t = 1 6 5 6 0 .0 ~ 1 6 6 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 2 .9 7 5 3 S p e c tr u m D if fe r e n c e = 1 5 .7 7 1 2 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

Figure E107. Sample frequency domain plots by PDL77 channel in Cruciform Test No.3.

E100

G ro w in g C rack P red icted b y E F S P o ten tial G ro w in g C rack P red icted b y E F S N o t G ro w in g P red icted b y E F S

4.0 3.5 3.0

Energy Ratio

2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0

PDL79 PDL77 PDL76 PDL75 PDL73 PDL72 PDL71 PDL70

Hour
Figure E108. EFS prediction of the growing fatigue crack in Cruciform Test No.3. Cruciform Specimen Test No. 4: This test used the sensor placement as shown in Figure E108. Eight PDL channels (PDL70, PDL75, PDL71, PDL76, PDL72, PDL77, PDL73 and PDL 79) of the EFS system were used in this test. Figure E109 shows the test setup using the MTS load frame system. The laboratory controlled loading condition by a constant extension load of 4.45 KN (1.0 kips) plus a 15.0 Hz sinusoidal cyclic load of amplitude 46.7063 KN (10.5 kips) was applied in this test. The test was performed under laboratory ambient temperature 21oC (70 oF). Growth of the fatigue crack was observed at the section T1-T3 of the cruciform specimen during the test. The test took a total of 9.35 hours to allow the fatigue crack to grow and finally break the cruciform specimen (Figure E110). The data sets collected by the EFS system consist of 80 files (10 files for each PDL channel), each stored consecutively for a 1- hour time period of monitored data from the EFS sensors. Figures E111 and E112 illustrate the sample frequency domain plots from the sensor data collected from PDL70 and PDL75 channels during this test. The analysis was performed to compute Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference by using the EFS_Analyzer software and the results were shown in Figure E113.

E101

CM: Crack Measurement Sensor RS: Reference Sensor TOP

P D L70 P D L71

TOP

T1: PDL 70 RS CM
P D L75

T3: PDL 75 RS CM

P D L76

RS CM T2: PDL 71

RS CM T4: PDL 76

P D L72

P D L77

B1: PDL 72 RS CM
P D L73 P D L79

B3: PDL 77 RS CM

RS CM B2: PDL 73

RS CM B4: PDL 79

BTM

BTM

Figure E109. EFS sensor placement in the Cruciform Specimen Test No.4.

Figure E110. Test setup for the Cruciform Specimen Test No. 4.

E102

T1

T3

Figure E111. The fatigue crack resulting from the Cruciform Test No. 4.

E103

t = 1 2 0 0 .0 ~ 1 2 4 0 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 0 .9 3 1 8 S p e c tr u m D if fe r e n c e = 3 .7 8 5 0 P r e d ic t: N o t G r o w in g

t = 3 2 8 0 .0 ~ 3 3 2 0 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 0 .9 6 2 5 S p e c tr u m D if fe r e n c e = 4 .1 0 1 2 P r e d ic t: N o t G r o w in g

t = 1 5 6 3 0 .0 ~ 1 5 6 7 0 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 1 .1 0 1 1 S p e c tr u m D if fe r e n c e = 1 9 .1 2 0 3 P r e d ic t: N o t G r o w in g

t = 3 1 7 0 0 .0 ~ 3 1 7 4 0 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 1 .0 6 5 9 S p e c tr u m D if fe r e n c e = 9 .2 4 0 6 P r e d ic t: N o t G r o w in g

t = 3 2 3 5 0 .0 ~ 3 2 3 8 0 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 1 .6 4 4 6 S p e c tr u m D iff e re n c e = 2 .6 1 6 7 P re d ic t: P o te n tia l G ro w in g C r a c k

Figure E112. Sample frequency domain plots by PDL70 channel in Cruciform Test No.4.

E104

t = 6 0 0 ~ 6 4 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 6 .2 8 7 8 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 6 .2 6 5 4 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 7 0 0 .0 ~ 7 4 0 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 5 .0 3 2 8 S p e c tr u m D if fe r e n c e = 1 3 .4 9 5 8 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 3 5 2 0 .0 ~ 3 5 6 0 .0 s e c .

E n e rg y R a tio = 4 .7 2 4 7 S p e c tr u m D if fe r e n c e = 1 2 .5 3 1 4 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 5 8 3 0 .0 ~ 5 8 7 0 .0 s e c .

E n e r g y R a tio = 1 .4 4 0 3 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .0 5 6 6 P re d ic t: N o t G ro w in g

t = 3 2 0 4 0 .0 ~ 3 2 0 8 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 1 .5 5 5 4 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 4 .0 3 9 2 P re d ic t: P o te n tia l G ro w in g C ra c k

Figure E113. Sample frequency domain plots by PDL75 channel in Cruciform Test No.4.

E105

G ro w in g C ra c k P re d ic te d b y E F S

P o te n tia l G ro w in g C ra c k P re d ic te d b y E F S N o t G ro w in g P re d ic te d b y E F S

6.0 5.0

Energy Ratio

4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

P D L70 P D L79 P D L77 P D L76 P D L75 P D L73 P D L72 P D L71

Hour
Figure E114. EFS prediction of the growing fatigue crack in Cruciform Test No.4.

Figure E113 illustrated that the PDL75 channel of the EFS system detected the crack growth from the initial stage of the testing time period (t<1000s) when additional harmonic components occurred with increased peak level. For the PDL70 channel of the EFS system, it only detected the crack growth activity during the final stage of the testing period. It was observed that the energy ratio evaluated by the EFS_Analyzer software yields significant small values during the time period 2.3 hour < t < 2.6 hour . This indicated that during this time period the reference sensor and the crack measurement sensor had essentially altered their roles. A correct treatment should be to reverse them in the analysis (i.e., use the original reference sensor signal as the crack signal and replace the reference signal by the original crack sensor signal). However, the Version 1.04 EFS_Analyzer caused the computer to crash when it dealt with this situation. The results shown in Figure E113 also illustrated that other channels (PDL79, PDL77 and PDL76) indicated the predictions of Potential Growing Crack within a wide range (2 hour < t < 9 hour) of the testing period. This illustrated that the EFS system can also predict other locations of possible potential fatigue crack growth or occurring micro-plasticity in such a steel cruciform specimen. The visual inspection of the cracked specimen revealed that the fatigue crack had possibly propagated from the side T3 to the side T1 (see Figures E108 and E110).

E106

Summary of Test Results and Findings

In laboratory tests of the EFS system, a total of 13 cruciform specimens were used under various controlled loading conditions to evaluate the capabilities of the EFS system. Numerical simulation of the growing fatigue crack in loaded cruciform specimens was initially conducted to reveal the critical sections in the specimen that may most likely initiate fatigue crack in such specimens. Computer simulation results indicated that in the laboratory tests of the EFS system using cruciform specimens, the situations as shown in the Sensor Placement Tests No.2 and 3 should be avoided. The tests of the EFS system using cruciform specimens used the sensor placement shown in Figure E84 and the controlled cyclic loads with frequencies 4 Hz and 15 Hz. The selection of loading frequency considered coverage of frequency ranges encountered in realworld bridge load environments ( 5 Hz ). Extensive tests of the EFS system were conducted to identify the key capabilities of the EFS system in detecting fatigue crack growth in such welded steel plate structural members. The previous sections, Cruciform Specimen Tests No. 1-4, gave the details of four typical tests (see Table E3). It was confirmed during these tests on welded steel plate cruciform specimens subject to singlefrequency cyclic loads that as long as the EFS sensors have correctly been placed over the inspection area with known crack tip the EFS system can essentially perform well to detect fatigue crack growth. In particular, among these tests using the cruciform specimens the EFS system was able to capture every actual occurring crack growth at those particular locations. However, some questions remain to be clarified. For example, in Cruciform Specimen Tests No. 1, the crack sensor in the PDL70 channel was placed over the notch and that channel continuously predicted growth of the fatigue crack. Noted that the actual crack in this test was propagated crossing the entire CM sensor area during the testing period. However, the prediction (shown in Figure E95) by the EFS system was not able to illustrate the information differed by when the crack tip propagated before, within or beyond the CM sensor area. On the other hand, in this test the crack sensors of both PDL70 and PDL75 channels were placed right at the opposite surface locations of the welded steel plate. However, the PDL75 channel did not indicate crack growth over most test periods, except for the last hour period as the propagating crack caused the specimen broken completely. This result indicted that the EFS system cannot detect subsurface crack growth activity in such welded steel plates. Another problem was observed from Cruciform Specimen Tests No.4 in which the fatigue crack propagated along the section T1-T3 in the specimen and it shall be predicted by PDL75 and PDL70 channels. It was observed however that the PDL75 channel predicted the growing crack in the first hour of the testing period but not in the remaining. The PDL70 channel, however, indicated significant small (<<1.0) energy ratio during the beginning hours. In this test, the crack sensors of both channels were placed at the mirror locations where the reference sensor of the other channel was. Thus, the role of the crack sensor in one of the PDL channel can be changed for EFS signal analysis if a cross-thickness crack propagation occurred. However, the attempt by switching the signal channel for analysis was failed due to the crash problem by EFS_Analyzer software. Apparently, the improvement of the analysis software will definitely be required.

E107

Twin-Steel Plate Bridge Girder

The twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system was used in the laboratory tests in order to fully reveal, as much as possible, the capability of the EFS system to detect real fatigue cracks in steel plate bridge girders. Figure E114 shows the preliminary laboratory design by the FHWA TFHRC Structures Lab for the twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system used in this test. Figure E115 illustrates the laboratory setup of this twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system by the FHWA NDE Center. The detailed geometry and material information about the steel plate bridge girders used in this test were given in Appendix A. During the test, the steel plate bridge girders were subjected to a downward static load of 44.48 KN (10 kips) plus a 1.0 Hz cyclic loads of 124.51 KN (28 kips) magnitude. The twin-steel plate bridge girder was subjected to a three point bending condition during the dynamic loading process.

Figure E115. Twin- steel plate bridge girder testing system for laboratory tests.

E108

Figure E116. Twin- steel plate bridge girder testing system for laboratory tests.

Figure E117. Suspected crack location in the twin- steel plate bridge girder.

E109

Figure E116. Suspected crack location in the twin- steel plate bridge girder (continued).

Figure E118. Possible fatigue crack initiation sites in the welds of the steel plate girders.

E110

Figure E119. EFS sensors and PDL units as installed on suspected fatigue crack sites.

Figures E116 and E117 illustrate the suspected crack location in the twin- steel plate bridge girder testing system. These locations, including the locations of possible fatigue cracks in the steel web plate of the bridge girder, welds of the girder plate and stiffness, as well as welds of the girder cross beam connection plate and girder web plate, were the focus for laboratory tests of the EFS system using the twin- steel plate bridge girder testing system. Figure E118 shows the EFS sensors and the PDL units installed on these suspected fatigue crack sites in the steel plate girders during this test.

E111

Numerical Simulation and Analysis of Sensor Placements

To obtain information regarding the stress field distribution in the twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system used in this test, the steel girders together with all related steel cross beams and bolts were modeled using LS-DYNA code. Special fine meshing was also used for modeling critical locations of welds and joints. Figures E119 and E120 illustrate the LS-DYNA nonlinear finite element model for this twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system. Dynamic simulations were performed with the load set-up of the twin steel girders connected by cross beams and subjected to cyclic loading at the top mid-span location of one girder.

Figure E120. LSDYNA model for the twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system.

Figure E121. Sample of fine meshing on welds on the twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system in the LS-DYNA model.

E112

Figure E122. LS-DYNA simulation of the stress field at the girder web plates.

Figure E123. LS-DYNA simulation of the stress field around the girders stiffness plate.

E113

Figure E124. LS-DYNA simulation of the stress field around the girder-cross beam connection plate.

Figures E121, E122 and E123 show the results evaluated by LS-DYNA nonlinear dynamics simulations. In these plots, the rapid change of the effective stress fields (red iso-surfaces) indicated areas that are close to the steel material yield stress. These numerical simulations highlighted the critical, or hot spot, areas within the steel plate girders when they are subjected to the given dynamic loads. Several of these hot spots result in significant effective stress concentrations that reach a level very close to the ultimate strength of the steel materials and could result in fatigue crack initiations. This information has been used to aid the installation of the EFS system for detecting crack growth in the steel bridge testing system during this test.
Test of the EFS System by Controlled Single Frequency Cyclic Loads

For this twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system, the tests of the EFS system included inspections for three suspected fatigue crack locations: 1. Girder Test No. 1. A suspected fatigue crack location at the web plate of the steel girder, as shown in Figure E124, was inspected. 2. Girder Test No. 2. A suspected fatigue crack location at the welds of girder-stiffness plate, as shown in Figure E129, was inspected. 3. Girder Test No. 3. A suspected fatigue crack location at the welds of girder-cross beam connection plate, as shown in Figure E118, was inspected.

E114

The following sections illustrate the detailed test results from each test conducted on the twinsteel plate bridge girder testing system by the FHWA NDE Center. In particular, all three tests were performed with controlled cyclic loads with the MTS reaction floor jack loading system as described above. The temperatures for these tests were the laboratory ambient temperature of about 21 oC ( 70 oF). Any fatigue crack growth, if present, was closely and manually monitored. The sensor data were collected from each test from each of the inspection locations for analysis. The analysis results for each test are shown in the following sections.
Girder Test No.1: This test inspected a suspected fatigue crack location at the web plate of the steel girder as shown in Figure E124. The installation of the EFS system on this particular crack location is illustrated in Figure E125. Both the top tip and the bottom tip of this suspected fatigue crack location were monitored by EFS sensor pairs. Figure E126 shows sample frequency domain plots by the EFS system in Girder Test No.1 collected for the top tip location of the suspected crack, indicating fatigue crack activity during the test process.

Figure E127 shows the predictions by the EFS system for the top tip location of the suspected crack at the steel girder web plate. Fatigue crack growth activity corresponding to the monitored the crack growth was detected at the very early time stage after 5.10 minutes of loading. After the initial crack growth had been detected, the EFS system continuously reported the correct prediction Growing Crack as the actual fatigue crack propagated in the CM sensor area with a total 1.0 mm of crack growth length. Figure E128 illustrates the Energy Ratio and the Spectrum Difference collected by the EFS system during the inspection of the top tip location of the suspected crack. For the bottom tip location of this suspected crack, the EFS system did not detect any crack growth activities during the entire test process. The actual monitoring of this bottom tip location had confirmed that the bottom tip location was not growing during the test.

Fatigue crack tip

Fatigue crack tip

Figure E125. Suspected fatigue crack location in the steel girder web plate.

E115

Reference Sensor Crack Sensor Crack Sensor Reference Sensor

Figure E126. EFS setup for inspecting the suspected fatigue crack location in the steel girder web plate.

E116

t = 1 0 0 .0 ~ 2 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 0 .0 9 9 3 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 0 .0 7 4 8 P re d ic t: N o t G ro w in g

t = 1 4 0 0 .0 ~ 1 6 0 0 .0 s e c .
E S P P n e r g y R a tio = 5 .9 1 5 3 p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .2 4 8 0 re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

t = 7 0 0 0 .0 ~ 7 2 0 0 .0 s e c .
E S P P n e r g y R a tio = 5 .1 7 6 6 p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .3 0 9 8 re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

t = 1 0 6 0 0 .0 ~ 1 0 8 0 0 .0 s e c .
E S P P n e r g y R a tio = 5 .2 5 6 0 p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .2 8 8 3 re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

t = 1 4 2 0 0 .0 ~ 1 4 4 0 0 .0 s e c .
E S P P n e r g y R a tio = 5 .4 1 6 7 p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .2 0 0 8 re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

t = 1 7 8 0 0 .0 ~ 1 8 0 0 0 .0 s e c .
E S P P n e r g y R a tio = 5 .5 9 0 2 p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .1 9 6 0 re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

Figure E127. Sample frequency domain plots by EFS system in Girder Test No.1 (steel plate bridge girder web crack)

E117

t = 2 1 4 0 0 .0 ~ 2 1 6 0 0 .0 s e c .
E S P P n e rg y R a tio = 5 .8 0 8 5 p e c tru m D iff e r e n c e = 2 .2 3 0 9 re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

t = 2 5 0 0 0 .0 ~ 2 5 2 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 5 .5 9 8 0 S p e c tru m D iff e r e n c e = 2 .0 2 1 9 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 2 8 6 0 0 .0 ~ 2 8 8 0 0 .0 s e c .
E S P P n e rg y R a tio = 5 .3 0 6 2 p e c tru m D iff e r e n c e = 2 .1 6 5 6 re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

t = 3 2 2 0 0 .0 ~ 3 2 4 0 0 .0 s e c .
E S P P n e rg y R a tio = 5 .6 5 4 8 p e c tru m D if fe re n c e = 2 .1 1 0 1 re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

t = 3 5 8 0 0 .0 ~ 3 6 0 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 5 .4 2 9 5 S p e c tru m D iff e r e n c e = 2 .0 0 7 2 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 3 9 4 0 0 .0 ~ 3 9 6 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 5 .6 2 5 2 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 2 .2 5 7 4 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

Figure 126. Sample frequency domain plots by EFS system in Girder Test No.1 (steel plate bridge girder web crack) (cont.).

E118

t = 4 3 0 0 0 .0 ~ 4 3 2 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 6 .1 5 3 9 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 2 .1 4 0 4 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 4 6 6 0 0 .0 ~ 4 6 8 0 0 .0 s e c .
E S P P n e rg y R a tio = 6 .4 2 8 5 p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 1 .9 8 7 2 re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

t = 5 0 2 0 0 .0 ~ 5 0 4 0 0 .0 s e c .
E S P P n e r g y R a tio = 6 .9 1 4 9 p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .0 6 4 9 re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

t = 5 3 8 0 0 .0 ~ 5 4 0 0 0 .0 s e c .
E S P P n e rg y R a tio = 6 .8 7 7 7 p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 2 .0 6 3 5 re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

t = 5 7 4 0 0 .0 ~ 5 7 6 0 0 .0 s e c .
E S P P n e rg y R a tio = 6 .9 6 2 4 p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 2 .0 8 4 2 re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

t = 6 1 0 0 0 .0 ~ 6 1 2 0 0 .0 s e c .
E S P P n e rg y R a tio = 6 .6 3 2 3 p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 2 .0 7 4 4 re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

Figure E126. Sample frequency domain plots in Girder Test No. 1 (steel plate bridge girder web crack) (continued).

E119

t = 6 4 6 0 0 .0 ~ 6 4 8 0 0 .0 s e c .
E S P P n e r g y R a tio = 6 .6 3 2 3 p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .0 7 4 4 re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

t = 6 8 2 0 0 .0 ~ 6 8 4 0 0 .0 s e c .
E S P P n e r g y R a tio = 6 .3 9 4 0 p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .2 2 1 4 re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

t = 7 1 8 0 0 .0 ~ 7 2 0 0 0 .0 s e c .
E S P P n e r g y R a tio = 6 .1 5 4 6 p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .2 6 7 7 re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

t = 7 5 4 0 0 .0 ~ 7 5 6 0 0 .0 s e c .
E S P P n e r g y R a tio = 5 .7 1 5 5 p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .3 2 0 5 re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

t = 8 2 6 0 0 .0 ~ 8 2 8 0 0 .0 s e c .
E S P P n e r g y R a tio = 5 .6 9 2 2 p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .3 2 9 7 re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

t = 8 9 8 0 0 .0 ~ 9 0 0 0 0 .0 s e c .
E S P P n e r g y R a tio = 5 .4 5 9 3 p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .4 4 7 0 re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k re d ic t: G ro w in g H a rm o n ic

Figure E126. Sample frequency domain plots in Girder Test No. 1 (steel plate bridge girder web crack) (continued).

E120

Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Potential Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Not Growing Predicted by EFS

22.0 20.0

Monitored Crack Growth

Crack Growth (mm)

18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0

Crack with growth rate 0.1652 mm/KCycle detected by EFS

1.00 10.00

0.0 0.01 0.10 Crack growth detected by EFS at the initial time stage 0.2 mm

Time (Hour)

Figure E128. Fatigue crack growth in the twin-steel plate bridge girders in Girder Test No.1 (steel plate bridge girder web crack).
Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Potential Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Not Growing Predicted by EFS

Energy Ratio or Spectrum Difference

8.0

Energy Ratio

Spectrum Difference

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0

Time (hour)

Figure E129. Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference in Girder Test No.1 (steel plate bridge girder web crack).

E121

Girder Test No. 2: This test inspected a suspected fatigue crack location at the girder-stiffness plate welds. Figure E129 shows the location of this suspected crack and the installation of the EFS system on this particular suspected crack location. Only the top tip of this suspected fatigue crack location was monitored by a pair of EFS sensors because the space limitation of that location does not allow the additional pair of EFS sensor to be installed. Figure E130 shows the sample frequency domain plots from the EFS system collected in Girder Test No.2 during the inspection process for this location of girder-stiffness plate welds. Figure E131 shows the corresponding Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference during this test process. It can be seen from Figure E130 that the live load frequency peak was not clearly shown in these frequency domain plots.

S usp ected crack

R eference sensor
C rack sensor

Figure E130. Sensor placements in EFS tests in Girder Test No.2 (girder-stiffness plate welds).

E122

t = 1 0 0 .0 ~ 2 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 0 .8 6 0 1 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 0 .1 5 4 3 P r e d ic t: N o t G r o w in g

t = 8 0 0 .0 ~ 8 3 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 2 .0 9 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 4 .7 5 8 7 P r e d ic t: G r o w in g C r a c k

t = 1 0 0 0 .0 ~ 1 2 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 0 .8 5 9 9 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 0 .1 5 5 3 P r e d ic t: N o t G r o w in g

t = 2 2 0 0 .0 ~ 2 4 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 2 .0 9 2 2 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 4 .5 7 8 9 P r e d ic t: G r o w in g C r a c k

t = 3 4 0 0 .0 ~ 3 6 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 2 .4 3 5 5 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 6 .3 0 1 3 P r e d ic t: G r o w in g C r a c k

t = 4 6 0 0 .0 ~ 4 8 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 2 .2 2 9 3 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 5 .9 5 7 3 P r e d ic t: G r o w in g C r a c k

Figure E131. Sample frequency domain plots for Girder Test No.2 (steel plate bridge girder -stiffener welds).

E123

t = 5 8 0 0 .0 ~ 6 0 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 3 .1 3 2 5 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 8 .7 5 3 6 P re d ic t: G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 7 0 0 0 .0 ~ 7 2 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 1 .1 8 4 0 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 1 .4 9 2 4 P re d ic t: N o t G ro w in g

t = 8 2 0 0 .0 ~ 8 4 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 1 .1 2 0 0 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .6 7 6 8 P re d ic t: N o t G ro w in g

t = 9 4 0 0 .0 ~ 9 6 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 0 .9 8 0 5 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 1 .8 5 5 0 P re d ic t: N o t G ro w in g

t = 1 0 6 0 0 .0 ~ 1 0 8 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 1 .1 1 9 2 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .2 8 4 9 P re d ic t: N o t G ro w in g

t = 1 6 4 0 0 .0 ~ 1 6 6 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 1 .0 5 2 0 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .4 9 5 4 P re d ic t: N o t G ro w in g

Figure E130. Sample frequency domain plots for Girder Test No.2 (steel plate bridge girder -stiffener welds) (continued).

E124

Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Potential Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Not Growing Predicted by EFS

Energy Ratio or Spectrum Difference

10.0

Energy Ratio

Spectrum Difference

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0 0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Time (hour)

Figure E132. Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference in Girder Test No.2.

The predictions by the EFS system illustrated Not Growing for the initial time stage t=100-200 seconds, and then Growing Crack from the time stage t=800-830 seconds. After that, the EFS system predicted Not Growing again for the time stage t=1000-1200 seconds and then Growing Crack for the time stages thereafter until the time stage t=5800-6000 seconds. The in-depth check for this suspected location found that this location was actually a bad weld (a hollow hole in the weld connected by several small surface gaps) in the weld itself, not a fatigue crack in the steel welds. The results from this inspection indicated that the EFS system may predict crack growth activity when the EFS sensors cover some suspected location where certain weld defects (not a growing fatigue crack) exist. For this situation, an in-depth investigation of this location was often needed in order to further confirm if a growing fatigue crack was present in that area.
Girder Test No. 3: This test inspected a suspected fatigue crack location at the girdercrossbeam plate welds. Figure E132 shows the location of this suspected crack at the girdercrossbeam plate welds and the installation of the EFS system on this particular suspected crack location. Only the top tip of this suspected fatigue crack location was monitored by a pair of EFS sensors. Figure E133 shows the sample frequency domain plots from the EFS system

E125

collected in Girder Test No.3 during the inspection process. Figure E134 illustrates the corresponding Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference during this test process. It can be seen that the live load frequency peaks for both the crack and the reference sensors are clearly shown in these frequency domain plots. The predictions by the EFS system illustrated Not Growing for a few time stages and Potential Growing Crack for most time stages in the entire testing process. This is clearly illustrated in Figure E134 in which the energy ratios were mostly located in the range between 1.57 and 1.94 and were below that level only during a few time stages. The predictions by the EFS system indicated no fatigue crack growth activities in this inspection location. This was consistent with the manually monitored result for this suspected crack location since no actual crack growth was found from the monitoring.

Reference sensor

Crack sensor

Figure E133. The suspected fatigue crack location and the sensor placement at the girdercrossbeam plate welds in Girder Test No.3.

E126

t = 1 0 0 .0 ~ 2 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 1 .0 6 8 5 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 0 .1 0 8 4 P re d ic t: N o t G ro w in g

t = 8 0 0 .0 ~ 8 3 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 1 .7 7 9 2 S p e c tru m D if fe re n c e = 2 .5 0 7 2 P re d ic t: P o te n tia l G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 1 0 0 0 .0 ~ 1 2 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 1 .0 5 5 9 S p e c tr u m D iff e r e n c e = 0 .0 8 1 1 P re d ic t: N o t G ro w in g

t = 2 2 0 0 .0 ~ 2 4 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 1 .8 2 0 2 S p e c tru m D if fe re n c e = 2 .1 0 1 1 P re d ic t: P o te n tia l G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 3 4 0 0 .0 ~ 3 6 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 1 .3 9 4 2 S p e c tru m D if fe re n c e = 2 .2 3 2 1 P re d ic t: P o te n tia l G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 5 8 0 0 .0 ~ 6 0 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 1 .6 8 5 9 S p e c tru m D if fe re n c e = 1 .9 2 5 7 P re d ic t: P o te n tia l G ro w in g C ra c k

Figure E134. Sample frequency domain plots for Girder Test No.3 (steel plate bridge girder-crossbeam plate welds).

E127

t = 1 7 6 0 0 .0 ~ 1 7 8 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 1 .7 1 5 6 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 2 .0 9 3 2 P re d ic t: P o te n tia l G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 1 8 8 0 0 .0 ~ 1 9 0 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 1 .6 7 3 2 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 1 .9 7 8 3 P re d ic t: P o te n tia l G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 2 0 0 0 0 .0 ~ 2 0 2 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 1 .3 5 1 2 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .4 1 5 5 P re d ic t: N o t G ro w in g

t = 2 1 2 0 0 .0 ~ 2 1 4 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 1 .5 5 8 5 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 2 .1 4 7 0 P re d ic t: P o te n tia l G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 2 2 4 0 0 .0 ~ 2 2 6 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e r g y R a tio = 1 .7 9 3 4 S p e c tru m D iffe re n c e = 2 .1 1 7 4 P re d ic t: P o te n tia l G ro w in g C ra c k

t = 2 3 6 0 0 .0 ~ 2 3 8 0 0 .0 s e c .
E n e rg y R a tio = 1 .3 3 9 2 S p e c tr u m D if f e r e n c e = 2 .3 1 6 7 P re d ic t: N o t G ro w in g

Figure E133. Sample frequency domain plots for Girder Test No.3 (steel plate bridge girder-crossbeam plate welds) (continued).

E128

Growing Crack Predicted by EFS

Energy Ratio or Spectrum Difference

3.0

Potential Growing Crack Predicted by EFS Not Growing Predicted by EFS

Energy Ratio

Spectrum Difference

2.0

1.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Time (hour)

Figure E135. Energy Ratio and Spectrum Difference for Girder Test No.3. Summary of Test Results and Findings

During the tests of the EFS system on the twin steel plate bridge girder test system, three suspected fatigue crack locations were inspected. These included a suspected crack location at the web plate of the bridge girder, a suspected crack location at the bridge girder- stiffness plate welds, and a suspected crack location at the bridge girder-crossbeam plate. These are all typical locations of concern in steel bridge fatigue crack inspections. Numerical simulation of the twin steel plate bridge girder testing system corresponding to cyclic load was conducted to guide the placement of the EFS sensors. The test result (Girder Test No. 1) shows that the EFS system performed quite well in detecting growing crack activity for the top crack tip at that bridge girder web plate location and it also correctly predicted not growing for the bottom crack tip at that same web plate location. As shown by Figures E127 and E128 in Girder Test No.1, the EFS can effectively detect small surface fatigue crack growth in the steel bridge girder web plate. The second suspected crack location inspected (Girder Test No.2) was located at the bridge girder- stiffness plate welds. Numerical simulation indicated a large area of high dynamic stress field around the upper corner of the welds. This information indicated that the EFS reference E129

sensor should be placed on the upper location close to the crack sensor rather than the lower location. During the inspection process, the EFS detected mixed Not Growing and Growing Crack predictions. This was later clarified to be due to a series small surface gaps connected to a small hollowed volume in the steel weld itself that cause strange behavior and caused the EFS sensors to collect response data as shown in Figure E130. Thus, the predictions made by the EFS system in this case may not be valid. It was illustrated, however, that the EFS system may pick up certain indications when the bridge steel weld has certain defects. The third suspected crack location inspected (Girder Test No.3) was located at the corner welds of the steel girder and the crossbeam connection plate. This is a common critical location in steel bridges. In this test, the EFS system correctly detected Not Growing during the entire inspection process. The prediction was verified by the monitored result for that suspected crack location. It shows that the EFS system can reliably detect if the inspected location does not have active growing fatigue crack. Tests of the EFS system on the twin steel plate bridge girder testing system illustrated the ability of the EFS system to detect fatigue crack growth in typical steel bridge girders subjected to cyclic loads. Figures E127 and E128 indicated that the EFS system can effectively detect fatigue crack growth as small as 0.2 mm (0.0079 in) with fatigue crack growth rates as small as 0.1652 mm/KCycle (0.0065 in/KCycle) at the initial time stage (t= 1400-1600 seconds) of the inspection and virtually any small size of fatigue crack growth thereafter. During these tests, it was also noticed that the EFS sensor usually can only last for about 1-3 days under the laboratory testing environment. After that time period of testing, the sensors dry out quickly.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Phase I work in this research project involved the laboratory test and evaluation of the Electrochemical Fatigue Sensor (EFS) system from Material Technologies, Inc. (Matech) in order to assess its ability to detect small, growing cracks in steel bridges. The evaluation criteria included revealing its ability to detect growing surface fatigue cracks of any length, orientation and growth rates, its ability to detect cracks in steel welds, and the special requirements related to EFS sensor installation and bridge inspection conditions. To illustrate if the EFS system does meet the desired requirements, the FHWA NDE Center staff worked on extensive tests of the EFS system using highly representative steel specimens and typical steel bridge structural members. Various laboratory controlled loading and environmental conditions were applied to these tests utilizing the available MTS load frame and Environmental Chamber. These laboratory controlled loading and environmental conditions in the current tests included different cyclic loadings at low frequencies for producing desired fatigue crack growth with a wide range of crack growth rates and various temperature settings. Numerical simulation of the growing fatigue crack and analysis of the associated stress field were also conducted to guide the sensor placements in the tests. The monitored crack growth and growth rates were used in the comparison of the predictions by the EFS system. The test of the EFS system using C(T) specimens applied single-frequency cyclic loads along with three different temperatures. The test of the EFS system on cruciform steel plate-weld tabs

E130

specimens included two different sizes of the EFS sensor and three types of EFS sensor placements. Furthermore, during the tests of the EFS system on the twin-steel plate bridge girder testing system, three suspected fatigue crack locations including the web plate of the bridge girder, the girder-stiffness plate welds, and the girder- crossbeam connection plate welds, were inspected; all are typical concerned locations in steel bridge inspections. The extensive tests of the EFS system in detecting fatigue crack growth in C(T) specimens, cruciform specimens and twin-steel plate girder system by broad-band bridge loads are currently being conducted or planned to be conducted along with the tests at bridge sites in Phase II of this research project. The detailed test results and research findings will be reported after these studies have been done.
Conclusions

The following conclusions are based on Phase I laboratory test and evaluation presented in this appendix: 1. Detection of Growing Cracks in Steel Structure. In general, the EFS system can successfully detect small, surface growing fatigue cracks in cyclic loaded steel structures provided that the crack tips are correctly identified and enclosed by the crack measurement (CM) sensor. Conventional visual inspection and/or other NDT methods (such as dye penetrate, magnetic particles, eddy current or ultrasonic) are recommended for use first to identify suspected crack and crack tip locations. Tests on C(T) specimens illustrated that the EFS system can reliably detect small surface growing fatigue crack with a wide range of the crack grow rates in the CM sensor covered area (see Figure E80). Test results from the cruciform specimens also show that the EFS system essentially performed well in detecting growing crack activity for the actually occurring cracks at the steel plate-tab welded locations and predicted correctly not growing for other locations without growing cracks. Test results from the inspection of suspected crack locations in the twin-steel plate girders also show that the EFS system performed quite well in detecting growing crack activity for the top crack tip at the bridge girder web plate and predicted correctly not growing for the bottom crack tip at that web plate location. The tests indicated that for this highly realistic bridge girder structure the EFS system can detect fatigue crack growth as small as 0.2 mm (0.0079 in), see Figure E127. For reliable EFS detections, however, the reference (R) sensor must be placed in a region of similar level of live load stress field. This requirement may often be difficult to assess in real bridge members under field conditions. 2. Sensor Placement Requirement. For reliable EFS detections, the crack measurement (CM) sensor shall enclose the identified crack tip and the reference sensor shall be placed in a region that experiences similar level of live load stress field. The requirement for the reference sensor placement may often be difficult to assess in real bridge members under field conditions. Our tests indicated that if the crack sensor was placed close to but not enclose the crack tip (for example, incorrect crack tip identification) or the reference sensor was placed at incorrect location (for example, due to access limitations in the bridge field) the EFS system may predict false positive growing crack information.

E131

3. Detection of Crack Growth Rates. The EFS system can detect small, growing fatigue cracks with a wide range of growth rates in cyclic loaded steel structures provided that the crack tips are enclosed by the crack measurement (CM) sensor. However, although the EFS system can detect cracks with a wide range of growth rates it cannot quantitatively give a measurement of the crack growth rate. Tests on C(T) specimens illustrated that the EFS system can detect small growing fatigue cracks with a wide range of growth rates in the CM sensor covered area as shown in Figure E80. Inspection of the twin-steel girders also show that the EFS system can detect, in the CM sensor covered area, growing fatigue cracks with a growth rate as small as 0.1652 mm/KCycle (0.0065 in/KCycle) at the initial time stage of the inspection and virtually any small fatigue crack growth thereafter (see Figure E127). In all tests performed, however, it was not possible to meaningfully correlate and assess the changes in the slope of energy ratio with crack growth rates based on the EFS sensor data, even though the actual crack growth rates were known by defined test set-up and monitoring. 4. Detection of Growing Cracks on Welds. When space permits, EFS sensors can be installed directly on the weld area for identifying growing cracks in a steel weld (crown, toe, or root). However, care must be taken in identifying suspected fatigue cracks on the weld toe or crown since the EFS can incorrectly interpret weld imperfections as growing fatigue cracks. Tests on the steel plate girder-stiffener welds in the twin-steel plate girders illustrated that during the process in detecting cracks in the steel weld the EFS delivered mixed Not Growing and Growing Crack predictions. 5. Detection of Unknown Cracks. The EFS system can be used to detect unknown surface fatigue cracks in the steel structural members provided that one of the EFS sensors covers the crack tip and the crack is actively growing. However, in this situation, care must be taken in interpreting significant small level of the energy ratio (<<2) since the two EFS sensors may be switch their functionalities. 6. Detection of Growing Cracks of any size or orientations. In general, the EFS system can detect growing small fatigue crack of and size or orientation provided that the crack tips are enclosed by the crack measurement (CM) sensor. This is verified by our tests of the EFS system using C(T), cruciform specimens and steel girder with different sensor placement types for detection of cracks with different sizes and orientations. 7. Detection of Occurring Micro-Plasticity. In general, the EFS system can sensitively detect occurring micro-plastic behavior. According to the manufactures guidelines, a growing crack is identified by energy ratios greater than 2.0 and the occurring micro-plasticity may be identified with energy ratios between 1.57 and 1.94. This assessment, however, appears to be empirically based. Care must be taken in interpreting results based on energy ratios as the energy ratios appear to be a function of observation window size that correlates the energy ratios to the degree of crack growth by a fixed threshold (i.e., energy ratios between 1.57 and 1.94 for occurring micro-plasticity). Tests on C(T) specimens ( Test No. 5) illustrated that the EFS system can have the higher level of energy ratios under high temperature conditions. In this situation, the detection of occurring micro-plasticity from the energy ratio levels below 2.0 at the beginning time stage of the inspection may be difficult. Tests on C(T) specimens under low temperature conditions (Test No. 7 to Test No. 11) illustrated that the

E132

EFS system can generally have the lower level of energy ratios. In this situation, the detection of occurring micro-plasticity may be not sensitive. Under normal temperature conditions, the EFS can reliably detect the occurring micro-plasticity in the steel structural members. Tests on the twin-steel plate girders (Girder Test No.3) under the laboratory ambient temperature condition illustrated that the EFS can correctly predict the Not Growing and Potential Growing Crack for most time stages in the entire testing process while the energy ratios stayed mostly below the level 2.0. The monitored crack growth result verified this correct prediction. 8. Sensitivity on Environmental Conditions. Based on experimental tests by C(T) specimens (Test No.1 to Test No.11) and by the twin-steel plate girders (Girder Test No.1 to Girder Test No.3), it has been confirmed that the EFS system can correctly identify growing fatigue cracks under temperatures ranging from 1.67 oC (35 oF) to 143.33 oC (110 oF) and this covers most climatic conditions at bridge inspection sites. However, it was again observed that the energy ratios detected by the EFS system will be generally lower in value in low temperature settings than in high temperature settings. Therefore, care must be taken in interpreting results obtained from different climatic seasons. 9. Requirement for Surface Preparation in Field Inspections. Installing EFS sensors requires removing paint or rust over the steel metal. This can generally be done with a little effort if the access space in the inspection environment permits. It was observed however that for corner welds and those hard to reach steel structural connections in the bridge sites it may be somewhat difficult to have adequate access to clean the surface for the EFS sensor installations. 10. Capability for Continuous Monitoring. It was observed that the EFS sensors cannot be left in place for use in long-term or continuous monitoring. The electrolyte gel generally dries up between 1-3 days depending on the ambient temperature and crack opening status. It was observed during the laboratory tests that the EFS sensor lasts only about 2-3 days under the laboratory testing environment. After that time period of testing, the sensor will dry out quickly. However, cracks, if present, can be periodically monitored by installing new sensors at different time intervals. As noted above, however, care must be taken in interpreting data from extreme temperature ranges. Also, for fast growing cracks which can quickly propagate and cross over beyond the CM sensor area in a short period of time the predictions by the EFS system may be misleading or false-positive (see Test No. 4). This is mainly due to improper analysis by the software in this situation. 11. Capability for Post-Remediation Assessment. The EFS system could potentially be used to assess crack growth activity after remediation. However, if stop holes are used, extreme care must be taken to avoid leaking of electrolyte into the hole during placement of the cracks sensors. Initial tests on C(T) specimens illustrated that the electrolyte gel in the CM sensor will leak through the crack in fast up-loading and un-loading situations arising from significant cyclic loads. 12. Detection of Subsurface Cracks. It was initially observed that the EFS system is not successful in detection of subsurface cracks unless the cracks are extremely close to the surface (e.g. less than 1.0 mm (0.04 in)). Test results from the cruciform specimens also

E133

show that the EFS system essentially does not have the ability to detect growing crack activity if the EFS sensors have not enclosed a growing surface crack. In conclusion, based on completed laboratory tests and evaluations, the EFS system is a promising non-destructive evaluation technology that could be applied to inspect multiple suspected crack locations in a highway steel bridge and give a real time indication of crack growth activity for each location. The laboratory tests performed at the FHWA NDE Center illustrated that the EFS system performed quite well in the crack measurement (CM) sensor covered area to detect growing surface fatigue crack in various test steel specimens and in bridge girder locations. However, a reliable prediction can only be obtained when the crack propagates within the CM sensor covered area. Further tests of EFS system by broad-band bridge loads in both laboratory and bridge sites are needed to assess the ability of the EFS system to effectively detect growing fatigue crack with different crack growth rates. The upcoming tests in Phase II of this research project will deal with these topics and detailed findings will be reported. In particular, continued tests of the EFS system using broad-band bridge loads on highly representative steel testing specimens will be conducted. Scheduled laboratory tests will include continued tests of the EFS system using broad-band bridge loads on C(T) specimens and fatigue testing of the cruciform specimens to initiate crack propagation and collect EFS sensor data for optimum data acquisition and test procedures used in inspection of such steel weld structures. More in-depth studies and tests will also be performed in planned field tests on various highway bridge sites. A group of steel highway bridges, including the most popular standard ASSTO steel bridges, the steel bridges in Star Testing Bridges and several signature bridges (the Patroon Island Bridge_ steel trusses bridge and the Woodrow Wilson Bridge_ steel box girder bascule draw bridge), has been selected for different stages of field tests. Upcoming research efforts in Phase II of this project for the tests of the EFS system will include: development of software for simulation of bridge broad-band loads in laboratory tests complete analysis and simulation to identify fatigue crack patterns and critical locations in steel bridges to guide the field tests field tests of the EFS system on multiple high traffic volume, low condition rating steel bridges The capabilities of the EFS system in steel bridge inspections will be assessed more in-depth based on findings from laboratory tests and planned field tests on bridge sites.
Recommendations Limitations

It was observed that the EFS system tested in this study has the following limitations: Setup of sensors takes some practice. Placing sensors along welds is quite difficult and the sensors typically do not adhere to the surface very well. This can potentially lead to leaks and incoherent EFS signals. The operator/inspector must know the location of the crack tip fairly precisely and must know the stress distribution around the measurement area.

E134

The operator/inspector must be able to place a second sensor in an area that experiences the same live stress level as the crack measurement sensor does. Reliable prediction is available only for detecting crack growth in the crack measurement (CM) sensor covered area. Quantitative predictions for crack growth rate are not possible. Detection of subsurface growing cracks is not possible.

Equipment Assessment Software Improvements: The following software limitations and improvements need to be addressed.

Cannot access raw data to a file for processing in other software. Can only view in EFS_Analyzer program. Saved data does not contain time stamps. The data file has a time stamp corresponding to its written time in the storage, but the data in EFS_Analyzer program gives only by the starting time of the file (i.e. always starts at 0 seconds). It is difficult to determine events within the time period of data sets. It is unable to collect data in more than 50 data files as soon as the program starts. This would be very useful for computing best predictions based on the sequential sensor time history data in short lengths by the embedding algorithm. Analyzer program is very slow with large data sets. There are some bugs in the EFS controller software. Data sets are not collected sometimes due to reasons not understood completely. Collected data sets may be missing due to unknown reasons. Maximum data collection time is limited to 100 minutes at 200 Hz. Wireless data transfer from the PDL to a PC/laptop is not reliable and takes a long time, especially when large data sets are being downloaded. Often data sets are missing with wireless data transfer. An alternate option is to remove the SD cards from each of the PDL units used for the test; however, the naming convention associating data sets to the PDL units is lost when reading data directly from the SD cards.

Hardware Improvements: The following hardware limitations and improvements need to be addressed.

Cable Connection: Sensor cable connections could lead to intermittent data and cause a potentially unstable setup. Slight bumps or pulls on cables could alter signals and/or make sensor data invalid. Ground wires and magnet placement could lead to intermittent signals. Overall Base Station Design: The external AC cord is not well made. The shrink wrap around connectos does not appear to be water-tight. There is no external AC power indicator. It is not possible to tell if the system is operating unless the enclosure is opened. The enclosure is also difficult to access with the side mounting frame. Components are poorly mounted inside the enclosure. There is a power strip with a transformer/power supply that is not secured. This pulls out during transport or repeated vibrations. There is a network switch that is not securely mounted. In addition, many other cables and wires do not have strain relief measures which may lead to failure after extended use. There is an on/off switch E135

on the main power strip in the enclosure. This could get turned off (bumped). Need a power strip that is always on for reliability. Overall PDL Units Design: Enclosure does not appear to be water-tight. There are external screws on the enclosure that mount internal items (allowing moisture entry). These screws are not countersunk. These will work loose over time. Aluminum mounting plate that holds magnets is very thin. These plates were already bent at initial delivery. Mounting magnets are weak. The on/off switch is not locking. This could be easily turned off accidentally. The battery charger connector is not sealed or covered.

REFERENCES

Electrochemical Fatigue Sensor Users Guide, Material Technologies, Inc. Dec.5, 2007 A Better Look inside Steel bridges, V. Speed, Bridges, April 2006 The Electrochemical Fatigue Sensor (EFS), C. Laird, Penn Engineering, September 2006 The Electrochemical Fatigue Sensor: A Revolutionary Detector of Growing Fatigue Cracks for the Bridge Industry, B. Phares, Material Technologies, Inc. 2007 The Electrochemical Fatigue Sensor System, Material Technologies, Inc. January 2007 Active Fatigue Crack Inspection on Stationary Railroad Assets Using the Electrochemical Fatigue Sensor, Material Technologies, Inc. June 2006 Active Fatigue Crack Inspection on Two UDOT Bridges on I-15 at the Spanish Fork Interchange Using the Electrochemical Fatigue Sensor, Material Technologies, Inc. November 21, 2006 Active Fatigue Crack Inspection on Three Pennsylvania DOT Bridges Using the Electrochemical Fatigue Sensor, Material Technologies, Inc. November 20, 2006 Active Fatigue Crack Inspection on the New Jersey Department of Transportation Manahawkin Bay Bridge Using the Electrochemical Fatigue Sensor, Material Technologies, Inc. December 20, 2006 Fracture Mechanics _ Fundamentals and Applications, T.L. Anderson, 2005, CRC Taylor &Francis, New York.

E136