The Effect of the Shot Blasting Process on the Dynamic Response of Steel Reinforcement
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Experimental Procedure
2.1. Shot Blasting Procedure
- Olivine: a magnesium iron silicate that has a sandy structure. It does not contain free silica. It is the industrial mineral with the highest magnesium content;
- Glass beads: a non-metallic mineral abrasive made of soda glass.
Properties | Olivine | Glass Beads |
---|---|---|
Shape | sub angular to angular | Spherical |
Color | pale green | transparent, white |
Hardness (Mohs) | 6.5–7 | 6 |
Specific density (kg/dm3) | 3.3 | 2.5 |
Loose bulk density (kg/dm3) | 1.7 | 1.5–1.6 |
Grain sizes (microns) | 63–250 | 150–250 |
Chemical Components (%) | Olivine | Glass Beads |
---|---|---|
Al2O3 | 0.40–0.50 | <2.5 |
Fe2O3 | 7.30–7.60 | <0.5 |
SiO2 | 41.50–41.90 | 70.0–75.0 |
CaO | 0.05–0.10 | 7.0–12.0 |
MgO | 48.80–49.70 | <5.0 |
K2O | - | <1.5 |
Cr2O3 | 0.31–0.66 | - |
MnO | 0.05–0.10 | - |
NiO | 0.31–0.32 | - |
Na2O | - | 12.0–15.0 |
SO3 | - | <0.5 |
2.2. Accelerated Corrosion Method
2.3. Mechanical Tests
3. Experimental Results
3.1. Mass Loss
3.2. Results of Fatigue Tests
4. Fatigue Damage Index
5. Conclusions
- The loading history degraded the mechanical performance because fatigue damage accumulation reduced the recorded maximum stress and the service life for both steel categories. Accumulative damage due to fatigue loading should be considered in the seismic response of RC structures;
- Increases in the corrosion ratio and the strain amplitude significantly decreased fatigue life;
- The shot blasting process provides a time-log onset of corrosion, since compressive stresses are imposed on the external surface of steel bars, resulting in a limitation of the corrosion paths in the martensitic layer;
- Shot blasting benefits the service life of steel reinforcement, a fact that emerges from the recorded increase of service life in cyclic loading, for all cases of imposed deformation and corrosion exposure time;
- On the basis of the fatigue damage index QF, the outcomes indicated the better mechanical performance of shot blasted specimens vs. bare specimens, in the long term, for medium range imposed deformation.
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hou, B.; Li, X.; Ma, X.; Du, C.; Zhang, D.; Zheng, M.; Xu, W.; Lu, D.; Ma, F. The cost of corrosion in China. Mater. Degrad. 2017, 1, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP). 2021 IMPACT Canada: International Measures of Prevention, Application, and Economics of Corrosion Technologies Study for Canada; Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP): Houston, TX, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Marcus, P. Pour un monde durable: Journée mondiale de la corrosion, 24 April 2020. Matér. Tech. 2020, 108, N1. [Google Scholar]
- Apostolopoulos, C.A.; Koulouris, K. Corrosion Effect on Bond Loss between steel and concrete. In Structural Integrity and Failure; Oyguc, R., Tahmasebinia, F., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, W.; Song, X.; Gu, X.; Li, S. Tensile and fatigue behavior of corroded rebars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 34, 409–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Imperatore, S.; Rinaldi, Z.; Drago, C. Degradation relationships for the mechanical properties of corroded steel rebars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 148, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caprili, S.; Salvatore, W. Mechanical performance of steel reinforcing bars in uncorroded and corroded conditions. Data Brief 2018, 18, 1677–1695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andisheh, K.; Scott, A.; Palermo, A.; Clucas, D. Influence of chloride corrosion on the effective mechanical properties of steel reinforcement. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2019, 15, 1036–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, X.; Guo, H.; Zhou, B.; Zhang, W.; Jiang, C. Corrosion non-uniformity of steel bars and reliability of corroded RC beams. Eng. Struct. 2018, 167, 188–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Carlo, F.; Meda, A.; Rinaldi, Z. Numerical evaluation of the corrosion influence on the cyclic behaviour of RC columns. Eng. Struct. 2017, 153, 264–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koulouris, K.; Apostolopoulos, C.A. An Experimental Study on Effects of Corrosion and Stirrups Spacing on Bond Behavior of Reinforced Concrete. Metals 2020, 10, 1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanjari, K.Z.; Coronelli, D.; Lundgren, K. Bond capacity of severely corroded bars with corroded stirrups. Mag. Concr. Res. 2011, 63, 953–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Drakakaki, A.; Apostolopoulos, C.A.; Katsaounis, A.; Bjorn, H. Corrosion resistance and mechanical characteristics of dual-phase steel B500c, after shot blasting processes. Int. J. Struct. Integr. 2017, 8, 544–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drakakaki, A.; Apostolopoulos, C.A. The Mechanical Characteristics of B500c Dual Phase Steel Category, after Two Different Shot Blasting Processes. Mater. Sci. Eng. Adv. Res. Spec. 2017, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basdeki, M.; Apostolopoulos, C. The Effect of Shot Blasting Process on Mechanical Properties and Anti-Corrosive Behavior of Steel Reinforcement. Metals 2022, 12, 275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voorwald, H.J.C.; Silva, M.P.; Costa, M.Y.P.; Cioffi, M.O.H. Improvement in the fatigue strength of chromium electroplated AISI 4340 steel by shot peening Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 2009, 32, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caprili, S.; Moersch, J.; Salvatore, W. Mechanical Performance vs. Corrosion Damage Indicators for corroded steel reinforcing bars. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2015, 2015, 739625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Darwin, D.; Kahrs, J.T.; Locke, C.E., Jr. Evaluation of Corrosion Resistance of Type 304 Stainless Steel Clad Reinforcing Bars; SM Report No. 65; The University of Kansas Center for Research, Inc.: Lawrence, KS, USA, 2001; 76p. [Google Scholar]
- Sheng, G.M.; Gong, S.H. Investigation of low cycle fatigue behavior of building structural steels under earthquake loading. Acta Metall. Sin. Engl. Lett. 1997, 10, 51–55. [Google Scholar]
- Hua, J.; Fan, H.; Yan, W.; Wang, N.; Xue, X.; Huang, L. Seismic resistance of the corroded bimetallic steel bar under different strain amplitudes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 319, 126088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ouyang, X.S.; Luo, X.Y.; Wang, J. The fatigue properties and damage of the corroded steel bars under the constant-amplitude fatigue load. J. Vibroeng. 2019, 21, 988–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veerman, R.; van Breugel, K.; Koenders, E. Effect of Corrosion on the Fatigue Service-Life on Steel and Reinforced Concrete Beam. In Proceedings of the Fib Symposium, Copenhagen, Denmark, 18–20 May 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Fernandez, I.; Bairán, J.M.; Marí, A.R. Corrosion effects on the mechanical properties of reinforcing steel bars. Fatigue and σ-ε behavior. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 101, 772–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basdeki, M.; Apostolopoulos, C. Mechanical Behavior Evaluation of Tempcore and Hybrid Reinforcing Steel Bars via a Proposed Fatigue Damage Index in Long Terms. Metals 2021, 11, 834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdalla, J.A.; Hawileh, R.A.; Oudah, F.; Abdelrahman, K. Energy-based prediction of low-cycle fatigue life of BS 460B and BS B500B steel bars. Mater. Des. 2009, 30, 4405–4413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apostolopoulos, C.A.; Pasialis, V.P. Use of quality indices in comparison of corroded technical steel bars B500c and S500s on their mechanical performance basis. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 2325–2334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 8501-1:2007(en); Preparation of Steel Substrates before Application of Paints and Related Products—Visual Assessment of Surface Cleanliness, Part 1: Rust Grades and Preparation Grades of Uncoated Steel Substrates and of Steel Substrates after Overall Removal of Previous Coatings. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
- ASTM Standard B117; Standard Practice for Operating Salt Spray (Fog) Apparatus. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2003.
- ASTM Standard G1; Standard Practice for Preparing, Cleaning, and Evaluating Corrosion Test Specimens. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2011.
- Chakraborti, P.C.; Mitra, M.K. Microstructural response on the room temperature low cycle fatigue behaviour of two high strength duplex ferrite–martensite steels and a normalised ferrite–pearlite steel. Int. J. Fatigue 2006, 28, 194–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stolarz., J.; Foct, J. Specific features of two-phase alloys response to cyclic deformation. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2001, 319–321, 501–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nakajima, K.; Urabe, T.; Hosoya, Y.; Kamiishi, S.; Miyata, T.; Takeda, N. Influence of microstructural morphology and prestraining on short fatigue crack propagation in dual phase steels. ISIJ Int. 2001, 41, 298–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rajabinezhad, M.; Bahrami, A.; Mousavinia, M.; Seyedi, S.J.; Taheri, P. Corrosion-Fatigue Failure of Gas-Turbine Blades in an Oil and Gas Production Plant. Materials 2020, 13, 900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mousavinia, M.; Bahrami, A.; Rafiaei, S.M.; Rajabinezhad, M.; Taghian, M.; Seyedi, S.J. Root cause analysis of failure of bolts in the low pressure section of a gas turbine in an oil and gas production plant. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2020, 115, 104675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rivaz, A.; Mousavi Anijdan, S.H.; Moazami-Goudarzi, M.; Nazari Ghohroudi, A.; Jafarian, H.R. Damage causes and failure analysis of a steam turbine blade made of martensitic stainless steel after 72,000 h of working. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2022, 131, 105801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rivaz, A.; Mousavi Anijdan, S.H.; Moazami-Goudarzi, M. Failure analysis and damage causes of a steam turbine blade of 410 martensitic stainless steel after 165,000 h of working. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2020, 113, 104557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apostolopoulos, C.A.; Konstantopoulos, G.; Koulouris, K. Seismic resistance prediction of corroded S400 (BSt420) reinforcing bars. Int. J. Struct. Integr. 2018, 9, 119–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelestemur, O.; Yıldız, S. Effect of various dual-phase heat treatments on the corrosion behavior of reinforcing steel used in the reinforced concrete structures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 78–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Apostolopoulos, C.A.; Drakakaki, A.; Apostolopoulos, A.; Matikas, T.; Rudskoi, A.I.; Kodzhaspirov, G. Characteristic defects Corrosion Damage and Mechanical Behavior of Dual phase rebar. Mater. Phys. Mech. 2017, 30, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- Alexopoulos, N.D.; Apostolopoulos, C.A.; Papadopoulos, M.P.; Pantelakis, S.G. Mechanical performance of BStIV grade steel bars with regard to the long-term material degradation due to corrosion damage. Constr. Build. Mater. 2007, 21, 1362–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papadopoulos, M.P.; Apostolopoulos, C.A.; Alexopoulos, N.D.; Pantelakis, S.G. Effect of salt spray corrosion exposure on the mechanical performance of different technical class reinforcing steel bars. Mater. Des. 2007, 28, 2318–2328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alexopoulos, N.D.; Pantelakis, S.G. A new quality index for characterizing aluminum cast alloys with regard to aircraft structure design requirements. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 2004, 35, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apostolopoulos, C.A.; Koulouris, K.; Basdeki, M. Damage Parameters of Rebars in Marine Environment and Fatigue Life. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Materials, Systems and Structures (SMSS 2019), Rovinj, Croatia, 20–22 March 2019. [Google Scholar]
C (%) | S (%) | P (%) | Cu (%) | N (%) | Ceq (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.24 | 0.055 | 0.055 | 0.85 | 0.013 | 0.52 |
Description | International ISO 8501 | American SSPC-SP |
---|---|---|
White metal | Sa3 | SSPC SP5 |
Nearly white metal | Sa2.5 | SSPC SP10 |
Commercial blast | Sa2 | SSPC SP6 |
Brush-off blast | Sa1 | SSPC SP7 |
Corrosion Time | Corrosion Tests | Fatigue Tests | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bare | Shot Blasted | ||||||
±0.5% | ±0.75% | ±1.25% | ±0.5% | ±0.75% | ±1.25% | ||
Reference | - | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
30 d | 30 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
60 d | 30 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
90 d | 30 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
120 d | 30 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
75 | 75 | ||||||
Total | 120 | 150 |
Corrosion Time (Days) | Mass Loss (%) | |
---|---|---|
Bare | Shot Blasted | |
0 | - | - |
30 | 5.3 | 5.6 |
60 | 9.8 | 8.5 |
90 | 12.5 | 9.2 |
120 | 20.4 | 14.7 |
Strain | Type of Specimens | Corrosion Time | Mass Loss (%) | Cycles (N) | Energy Density Wd (MPa) | σmax (MPa) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
±0.5% | bare | 0 | - | 8410 | 5390.6 | 491.57 |
30 | 4.8 | 7317 | 3171.3 | 487.65 | ||
60 | 9.6 | 3720 | 1878.9 | 457.08 | ||
90 | 13.3 | 2343 | 1334.0 | 420.60 | ||
120 | 20.7 | 1393 | 1060.3 | 415.68 | ||
Shot blasted | 0 | - | 13,857 | 7118.5 | 486.48 | |
30 | 5.2 | 6832 | 3528.7 | 477.33 | ||
60 | 8.6 | 3868 | 2143.8 | 465.61 | ||
90 | 9.1 | 5064 | 2498.5 | 463.72 | ||
120 | 14.8 | 1955 | 1299.8 | 449.59 |
Strain | Type of Specimens | Corrosion Time | Mass Loss (%) | Cycles (N) | Energy Density Wd (MPa) | σmax (MPa) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
±0.75% | bare | 0 | - | 956 | 2820.0 | 491.57 |
30 | 5.7 | 573 | 1634.4 | 487.65 | ||
60 | 10.5 | 541 | 1371.7 | 457.08 | ||
90 | 12.2 | 438 | 1326.7 | 420.60 | ||
120 | 20.4 | 323 | 904.7 | 415.68 | ||
Shot blasted | 0 | - | 1023 | 2727.5 | 486.48 | |
30 | 5.7 | 732 | 2091.5 | 477.33 | ||
60 | 8.2 | 652 | 1777.4 | 465.61 | ||
90 | 9.5 | 627 | 1733.8 | 463.72 | ||
120 | 14.9 | 384 | 1082.3 | 449.59 |
Strain | Type of Specimens | Corrosion Time | Mass Loss (%) | Cycles (N) | Energy Density Wd (MPa) | σmax (MPa) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
±1.25% | Bare | 0 | - | 172 | 1649.3 | 575.14 |
30 | 5.6 | 155 | 1395.0 | 547.19 | ||
60 | 9.3 | 123 | 1041.6 | 525.11 | ||
90 | 11.9 | 105 | 883.9 | 484.37 | ||
120 | 20.0 | 113 | 930.2 | 433.01 | ||
Shot blasted | 0 | - | 178 | 1659.9 | 568.02 | |
30 | 5.7 | 168 | 1510.4 | 552.46 | ||
60 | 8.7 | 211 | 1192.0 | 522.58 | ||
90 | 9.1 | 155 | 1331.7 | 531.84 | ||
120 | 14.4 | 132 | 1093.1 | 472.27 |
Corrosion Time (Days) | QF (MPa) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bare | Shot Blasted | |||||
±0.5% | ±0.75% | ±1.25% | ±0.5% | ±0.75% | ±1.25% | |
0 | 5390.60 | 2819.99 | 1649.29 | 7118.46 | 2727.48 | 1695.92 |
30 | 939.37 | 181.86 | 650.11 | 652.01 | 639.31 | 844.60 |
60 | 198.13 | 149.88 | 201.32 | 121.06 | 439.27 | 514.68 |
90 | 69.95 | 157.53 | 165.19 | 232.98 | 251.99 | 500.37 |
120 | 18.58 | 16.54 | 149.05 | 20.90 | 30.43 | 304.18 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Basdeki, M.; Apostolopoulos, C. The Effect of the Shot Blasting Process on the Dynamic Response of Steel Reinforcement. Metals 2022, 12, 1048. https://doi.org/10.3390/met12061048
Basdeki M, Apostolopoulos C. The Effect of the Shot Blasting Process on the Dynamic Response of Steel Reinforcement. Metals. 2022; 12(6):1048. https://doi.org/10.3390/met12061048
Chicago/Turabian StyleBasdeki, Maria, and Charis Apostolopoulos. 2022. "The Effect of the Shot Blasting Process on the Dynamic Response of Steel Reinforcement" Metals 12, no. 6: 1048. https://doi.org/10.3390/met12061048