See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342230828

Experimental Evaluation of Slip Resistance for Corrosion Resistant Metallized

Faying Surfaces in Steel Bridge Connections

Conference Paper · June 2013

CITATION READS

1 450

3 authors, including:

Albert Chiza Charles-Darwin Annan

Laval University Laval University
10 PUBLICATIONS 30 CITATIONS 96 PUBLICATIONS 679 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Developing a New Hybrid Multi-core Buckling-Restrained Brace Design for Enhanced Seismic Performance View project

Short-term slip tests carried out for - assemblies of plates painted with the three-layer system and Assembly of steel plates prepared according to SP6 procedure. View
project

All content following this page was uploaded by Charles-Darwin Annan on 07 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CSCE 2013 General Conference - Congrès général 2013 de la SCGC

Montréal, Québec
May 29 to June 1, 2013 / 29 mai au 1 juin 2013

Experimental Evaluation of Slip Resistance for Corrosion-Resistant

Metallized Faying Surfaces in Steel Bridge Connections
1 1 2
A. Chiza , C. D. Annan and E. Levesque
1
Department of Civil and Water Engineering, Université Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada
2
Structal-Bridges, a division of Canam Group, Québec

Abstract: The slip resistance is a critical factor influencing high strength bolted joint behaviour in steel
structures under repeated loading. The surface condition of the connected steel components, also known
as the faying surface, controls the level of the slip resistance. Design standards, such as the Canadian
Highway Bridge Design Code CAN/CSA S6-06 and the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
specifications, specify desired conditions for faying surfaces and associated slip coefficients for design
purposes. Currently, these standards do not address faying surface conditions that are metallized,
although steel bridge components are widely metallized to provide long-term protection against wear and
corrosion. This compels steel bridge fabricators to mask off all faying surfaces before metallizing, a
practice that is labour-intensive, time-consuming and costly. In this study, the resistance of slip-critical
joints in steel bridges with metallized faying surfaces are characterized in the light of the CAN/CSA-S6-06
standard. The mean slip coefficient is determined from a compression test regime and for varying
parameters of coating thickness, surface conditions, and bolt preload.

1. Introduction

The design of bolted connections may be governed by bearing on the connected material, shear in the
shank or thread plane of the fastener or the slip resistance of the contact (also known as faying) surfaces
of the connection. For bearing joints, the resistance is generally governed by bolts in shear or plates in
bearing against the bolts and the applied load is transmitted mainly through the bolt to the connected
plates. For dynamically loaded structures such as steel and composite bridges, the slip resistance of the
joints is almost always the critical criterion in design, since slip cannot be tolerated, particularly in the
serviceability limit state. Slip critical joints depend on friction between faying surfaces of the connected
parts to develop the required strength. The friction is developed by the clamping action of the bolts. Once
the friction resistance is overcome, the connected parts slip into bearing, which could produce intolerable
geometric changes and affect the stability of the structure.

The slip resistance is mainly governed by the bolt preload and the slip coefficient of the contact surfaces,
and can be expressed simply as:

[1]

where Vs is the slip resistance, k s is the coefficient of slip for the faying surfaces, nb is the number of bolts,
ns is the number of the slip planes, and Fb is the bolt preload. In the above expression, it is assumed that
the bolt preload is identical in all the bolts used in the slip-critical joint. The bolt preload results from the
nut being tightened against the resistance of the material that is being connected and its magnitude is

GEN-147-1
required in order to evaluate the slip resistance. The Research Council on Structural Connections (RCSC
2009) Specifications for Structural Joints using ASTM A325 or A490 Bolts specify a minimum bolt preload
equal to 70% of the tensile strength of the bolt for slip-critical connections.

The slip coefficient ks of the faying surfaces is critical in the evaluation of the slip resistance. Design
standards generally consider the influence of surface preparations and conditions of the faying surfaces
in achieving slip-critical joints using high strength fastener assemblies. The Canadian standard
CAN/CSA-S16-09 (CSA 2009) specifies slip coefficients for three faying surface conditions, namely clean
mill scale or blast-cleaned with Class A coatings; blast-cleaned or blast-cleaned with Class B coatings,
and Hot-dip galvanized with wire brushed surfaces. The corresponding slip coefficients are 0.33, 0.5 and
0.4 respectively. The AISC Specifications (AISC 2010) on the other hand provide mean slip coefficients
for two steel surface classes, namely unpainted clean mill scale or blast-cleaned with class A coatings (k s
= 0.30) and unpainted blast-cleaned surfaces or blast-cleaned surface with class B coatings (k s = 0.5).
Other standards such as the Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, Part 1.8: Design of Joints (2005)
describe similar surface conditions with their associated slip factors.

In general, coatings of faying surfaces are prohibited for slip-critical connections unless values of their slip
coefficients have been established as satisfactory following recommended testing procedure.
Consequently, in most practical cases, faying surfaces are masked off before applying a protective
coating to structural steel members (see Figure 1), and after assembling, touch-ups of exposed areas are
carefully made. On one hand, this exercise is highly laborious, time-consuming and very costly. On the
other hand, the unprotected faying surfaces may lead to severe corrosion and consequent separation of
the connected parts when faced by harsh environmental conditions. These issues can be addressed if
faying surfaces coated with the same protective treatment as in member surfaces are appropriately
characterized as satisfactory in the light of prevailing design standards for slip-critical joints. In other
words, large amount of work can be avoided if coated faying surfaces yield a slip coefficient equal to or
greater than that of the uncoated blast-cleaned counterpart. This depends on the characteristics of the
coating, including its formulation, thickness and method of application on the metal surface. Results of
short-term slip tests performed over the years for surfaces having different coating types and thicknesses
were collated and reported in the document, Guide to Design Criteria for Bolted and Rivets Joints (Kulak
et al. 2001). This guide is not only non-exhaustive but also, there have been new and improved
developments in the science and technology of metal surface protection after the publication of the guide.

Figure 1: Masking of faying surface in steel bridge girders

In the present study, the resistances of slip-critical joints with metallized faying surfaces are characterized
in the light of the CAN/CSA-S6-06 standard. The mean slip coefficients are determined from a
compression test regime and for varying parameters of coating thickness, surface conditions, and bolt
preload. A number of blast-cleaned uncoated faying surfaces were also tested as ‘control specimens’ to
validate the test set-up and also provide basis for assessing the influence of the metallizing. This paper
summarizes the results of the experimental work performed at Laval University, which was supported by
Structal-Bridges, a division of the CANAM group.

GEN-147-2
2. Metallized Coating of Steel Members

Many modern highway bridges have a design life requirement in excess of 75 years. Corrosion protection
in steel and composite bridges is a major concern that affects not only the life of the infrastructure but
may also be damaging to the environment. Re-blasting and recoating of steel surfaces is an expensive
exercise and so the performance of the protective coating is an important factor. In the past, some
protective coatings for steel bridge members required repainting in after only a few years. The coating
treatment functions solely by acting as a physical barrier between the environment and the substrate.
There are also associated major concerns about the effect of these coatings on the metallurgical structure
of the substrate, such as weld brittlement, overtempering and steel strength losses. In bolted joints
involving the use of high strength bolts, uncoated surfaces are susceptible to corrosion related problems
which may cause a reduction in the section area of materials in the joint and consequently reduce the
resistance of the joint.

Thermal spray coatings are a versatile and established means of protecting metals in a variety of
environments (Gerdeman and Hecht, 1972; Pawlowski, 1995). Metallizing, which involves the thermal
spray of zinc, aluminum or both on steel surfaces, is now widely used in the North American bridge
industry due to its longevity as a protective coating layer and inorganic character (SSPC/AWS/NACE,
2003; AWS, 1993). Metallized coatings bond almost instantly with the steel member with no drying time,
and are known to have no significant effect on its metallurgical structure (Pawlowski, 1995; Chang et al.
1999). By sacrificing itself through galvanic action it provides an efficient barrier to protect the steel
substrate from corrosion related problems (Teruo, 1999).

The corrosion protection of zinc metallizing is documented in a report funded by the American Welding
Society Subcommittee on Metallizing. This report summarizes evaluations of several test panels exposed
to different environment over a two decade period. The British Standards Institute also acknowledges the
effectiveness of zinc metallized coatings in the harshest environment in salt splash zones. Clearly,
elements such as surface preparation, thickness of coating, type of environment and the type and size of
structure are important when considering metallizing. There is also no limit to the size of structure that can
be metallized, unlike in the case of galvanizing.

The present research makes use of a thermal spray coating from a zinc wire applied through an electric
arc, typical of the shop practice of metallizing by Structal-Bridges. The steel substrate is prepared
according to the Society for Protective Coatings specification SSPC-SP 5 (white-metal finish).

3. Test Program

A series of compression tests was developed to determine the slip coefficient of metallized faying
surfaces under short-term static loading. The overall goal was to determine the slip resistance of slip-
critical connections with metallized faying surfaces, and to characterise this resistance in the light of the
Canadian standards, CAN/CSA-S6-06 and CAN/CSA-S16-09. The design of the test program was guided
by the Research Council on Structural Connections Specifications for Structural Joints using ASTM A325
or A490 Bolts (RCSC 2009) with some unique procedure and technique developed to effectively
assemble the specimens and carefully monitor the clamping force during testing. Overall, 36 specimens
were tested. Table 1 shows the parameters studied in the present work.

Each specimen was uniquely identified according to the variables shown in Table 1. For example,
specimen M-6m-70%-A refers to a metallized faying surface with coating thickness of 6 mils and with
burrs unremoved (A), which was tested under a bolt preload equal to 70% of the tension capacity of the
bolt. Similarly, SP5-0m-90%-S is a non-metallized faying surface blast-cleaned to SSPC-SP5 surface
profile with burrs removed, which was tested under a bolt preload of 90% of the bolt tension capacity. The
specimens with the blast-cleaned uncoated faying surfaces were used to control the test as several data
on this surface type already exists in the literature.

GEN-147-3
 Table 1: Test Variables

# Parameters Variables
SP6- blast cleaned to SP6
1 Faying surface SP5- blast cleaned to SP5
M- metallized
0m-Non-metallized
2 Thickness of coating 6m- 6 mils
12m- 12mils
70% - 70% of bolt tension capacity
Clamping force
3 90% - 90% of bolt tension capacity
S- without burrs
4 Presence of the burrs
A- with burrs

3.1 Plate specimens and preparation

Test specimens were assembled from steel plates fabricated in a machine shop from 5/8 inch thick
350AT cat.3 steel. The plate dimensions were in accordance with the RCSC specifications (2009). The
specimens consist of three identical steel plates clamped together using a 7/8 inch diameter ASTM A325
high strength bolts. A 15/16 inch bolt hole diameter allowed for sufficient clearance required for slip to
occur during testing. The test plates were fabricated and metallized under controlled conditions following
the process in real life practice. Thermal spray coating was applied from a zinc wire through an electric
arc. The surface treatment before metallizing was in accordance with the Canadian standard, CAN/CSA-
G189. The plates were then machined flat at one edge to facilitate compression test set-up and the
loading of the specimen.

The angular profile for each test plate after blast cleaning was measured in the shop to certify the
standard requirement for steel substrate of metallized surfaces. Table 2 shows the average angular
profile (in mils) for each specimen surface type tested. The profile for the blast-cleaned uncoated
specimens indicates the surface profile of the metallized plates. For all metallized plates, before the test
plates were assembled and tested, a Positector magnetic gage was used to measure the coating
thickness on each test plate in order to mate plates with similar average coating thickness. Readings
were taken at five different spots on each plate faying surface in accordance with the requirements of the
Society for Protective Coatings SSPC-PA 2 standard for metallized specimens, and the average
thickness determined. An independent professional body was tasked with these measurements, which
were carried out in the testing laboratory at Laval University.

Table 2: Specimen’s type

Surface preparation
Nominal
Specimen type coating
Average angular thickness [mils]
SSPC-SP6/SP10
profile [mils]

Blast-cleaned to SP6 SP6 2.6 0

Blast-cleaned to SP5 SP5 4.5 0

Metallized 12 mils SP5 4.5 12

Metallized 6 mils SP5 4.5 6

GEN-147-4
3.2 Specimen assembly and testing

The assembly of the plates to form specimens for testing is shown schematically in Fig. 2a. The specimen
consists of a double lap joint with one hole in each of the three identical plates. Fig. 2b shows a special
device fabricated to facilitate the assembling of the plates before testing, which also allows for the
creation of sufficient clearance in the bolt hole to permit a maximum slip of 1/16 inch to occur.

101.6 15.88 mm

Diameter 25.4
D=23.81

38.1

38.1

Cut edge

25.4

Machined edge

(a) (b)
Figure 2: Test specimen and plate assembly

It is essential to determine and control the amount of clamping force as it has significant influence on the
slip results. Common techniques for controlling the bolt preload include the bolt calibration method, use of
a hydraulic jack device, and the use of bolts with strain gages. These methods have differing degrees of
accuracy. In this research, the bolt preload was applied manually using a hand-held ratchet to recapture
field practice. However, the bolt pre-tensioning force was monitored from time of assembly through to the
end of testing by a carefully calibrated 500 kN Omega washer-type load cell installed in series with the
clamped test plate assembly. The calibration was made in accordance with the manufacturer’s
specification using the same MTS machine used for the testing. A special washer was fabricated and
used in series with the plate assembly to simulate the pressure transmitted on the test plates with a
structural washer. A spherical head on the test machine ensured uniform compression along the
machined edge of the middle plate.

The compression slip tests were performed on a 1500 kN MTS hydraulic Universal Testing Machine as
shown in Fig. 3. The specimen was carefully mounted on the testing machine in a way that permits
aligning the specimen in the testing machine to minimize any eccentric loading or slip. The applied
loading rate was 100 kN/minute. The relative displacement between the loaded middle plate and the two
rigid base side plates was measured using LVDT displacement transducers. This gives a measure of the
slip displacement in the connection. A data acquisition system was used to monitor and record the
applied loading and the associated slip. It also served to monitor the clamping force during the test. The
slip displacement was monitored on an X-Y plotter. The test was terminated when a significant amount of
slip was reached, typically greater than 1.5 mm.

GEN-147-5
 load
washer
nut special
Spherical washer #1 spherical bolt head
head washer

metallized
retainer

specimen

metallized

metallized
special
washer #2
bolt head
LVDTs washer
3 plates

Figure 3: Test set-up

4. Results and Discussions

A total of 36 short-term slip tests were performed in this study. For each variable studied, five identical
specimens were tested except for the blast-cleaned uncoated specimens where three identical tests were
carried out for each surface profile.

As described above, the bolt clamping or pre-tensioning force was monitored during the test as variation
in the clamping force could significantly affect the slip resistance. Table 3 shows the average amount of
short-term relaxation (expressed as a percentage of the initial bolt preload) observed during the static test
for each faying surface type studied. In general, the blast-cleaned uncoated surfaces fell within 1.0%
relaxation (reduction in clamping force), which agrees with the recommendation of Yura and Frank
(1985). In other words, it was possible to maintain the applied clamping force within -1.7 kN (for 70% bolt
preload) during the test until slip occurred. In the case of the metallized faying surfaces, however,
clamping force relaxation was greater, up to -3.4 % of the initial bolt preload. In general, it was much
higher for the 12 mils thick metallized coating than for the 6 mils, and also higher for the 90% clamping
force than the 70%. The presence of burrs does not appear to have significant influence on the amount of
clamping force reduction, with only a small increase over surfaces with the burrs removed. In order to
better understand the relaxation phenomenon (under service loading) and its effect on the connection slip
resistance, long term sustained loading tests would be useful.

Table 3: Short-term Relaxation of Clamping Force

Mean test
Specimen I.D.
relaxation [%]
SP6-0m-70%-S 0.88
SP5-0m-70%-S 0.82
M-6m-70%-S 1.05
M-12m-70%-S 1.62
M-6m-90%-S 1.85
M-12m-90%-S 3.45
M-6m-70%-A 1.06
M-12m-70%-A 2.79

GEN-147-6
The slip coefficient for a single specimen is obtained as:

[2]

where the number of slip planes equals 2 in the present tests and the clamping force is equal to 174 kN
for 70% of the tension capacity of the bolt (7/8” A325) and equal to 224 kN for 90% (7/8” A325) (Kulak,
2005).

Table 4 contains a summary of the slip coefficient values (columns 2-6) for the various tests carried out.
The arithmetic mean for each faying surface type and the associated standard deviations are also shown
in this table, in column 7 and column 8 respectively. In the majority of the slip test, the maximum slip load
occurred before a slip displacement of 0.5 mm was attained. The slip coefficient was evaluated based on
the maximum slip load. Figures 4 and 5 show typical load-slip displacement curves for each of the faying
surfaces investigated and for specimens with and without burrs. Figure 6 shows a comparison of slip
coefficient between the various parameters investigated, i.e. the metallized coating thickness, the bolt
preload and the effect of burrs.

Table 4: Slip Coefficients

Specimen I.D. μ1 μ2 μ3 μ4 μ5 μaverage S.D.

SP6-0m-70%-S 0.39 0.35 0.41 0.38 0.03
SP5-0m-70%-S 0.51 0.55 0.52 0.53 0.02
M-6m-70%-S 0.88 0.81 0.77 0.80 0.84 0.82 0.04
M-12m-70%-S 0.80 0.76 0.91 0.92 0.86 0.85 0.07
M-6m-90%-S 0.78 0.74 0.73 0.86 0.73 0.77 0.06
M-12m-90%-S 0.89 0.89 - 0.91 0.94 0.91 0.02
M-6m-70%-A 0.90 0.82 0.96 0.99 - 0.92 0.08
M-12m-70%-A 0.71 0.88 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.86 0.08

The average slip coefficients for the blast-cleaned uncoated faying surfaces (cleaned to SP 6 and SP 5)
were obtained as 0.38 (from a range of 0.35 to 0.41) and 0.53 (from a range of 0.51 to 0.55) respectively.
These coefficients qualify for the Canadian CAN/CSA-S6-06 standard specifications for class A and class
B faying surfaces which are respectively 0.33 and 0.5, and are well within the observed values for blast-
cleaned uncoated surfaces available in the literature.

The metallized coated faying surfaces yielded much higher slip factors than the standard specifications
for classes A, B or C. The least average slip coefficient was 0.77 representing the 6 mils thick metallized
coating with the burrs removed and under a clamping force equal to 90% of the bolt capacity in tension.
For the same amount of bolt preload, the slip coefficient for a 12 mils thick metallized coating without
burrs yielded a greater mean slip coefficient of 0.91. The standard deviations for the above mean values
were respectively 0.05 and 0.02. The increasing effect on the slip resistance associated with an increased
coating thickness was also evident for specimens without burrs under a clamping force of 70% of bolt’s
tension capacity. The increment is however less pronounced than in the specimens with the 90% bolt
preload. The mean slip coefficients for 6 mils and 12 mils metallized coating thickness were found to be
respectively 0.82 and 0.85, with corresponding standard deviations of 0.04 and 0.06.

Comparing the slip coefficient between specimens with and without burrs, it appears that the presence of
burrs has a slightly improved effect on the 6 mils metallized coated thickness than the 12 mils. The slip

GEN-147-7
coefficient for the 6 mils increased from 0.82 to 0.92, and that for the 12 mils coating thickness increased
from 0.85 to 0.86. The potential for improved slip resistance due to the presence of burrs has been
observed by Polyzois and Yura (1985) for uncoated surfaces. There is, however, no evidence of
improved slip resistance with increased metallized thickness when burrs are not removed. In fact, a slight
reduction of slip coefficient from 0.92 to 0.86 was observed.

Figure 4: Typical load-slip displacement for different surfaces with burrs removed

Figure 5: Typical load-slip displacement for different surfaces with burrs

GEN-147-8
 Figure 6: Comparison of slip coefficients for different faying surfaces

5. Conclusions

Exposed structural steel surfaces, particularly in bridge construction, require coating protection from
harsh environmental conditions to provide longevity while preserving structural integrity. In this context,
metallization is known to be an effective protection method. However, connection or faying surfaces of
friction joints are generally prohibited from coating because of the potential risk of reducing the slip
resistance of the joint, unless it is established by standard testing that a particular coated surface would
yield satisfactory performance based on the prevailing design specification. It is expensive and time
consuming to protect faying surfaces from being affected during coating of the steel member. Additionally,
the connection surfaces are exposed to damaging corrosion problems.

In this study, the slip resistance of slip-critical connections with zinc-metallized faying surfaces has been
investigated, and characterised in view of the Canadian standards for the design of steel structures. The
results clearly suggest improved slip resistance over uncoated blast-cleaned surfaces. Specific
observations made in the study have been summarised in the following.

1. The blast-cleaned uncoated surfaces cleaned to SSPC specifications for SP 6 and SP 5

classified respectively for class A and B of the Canadian standards for the design of steel
structures, with mean slip coefficients of 0.38 and 0.53 and corresponding standard deviations of
0.03 and 0.02.
2. The metallized faying surfaces yielded much higher slip resistance than the uncoated surfaces
with mean slip coefficient values ranging from 0.77 to 0.92 and within reasonable standard
deviations ranging from 0.02 to 0.08. Increase in metallized coating thickness from 6 mils to 12
mils, in general, resulted in improved slip resistance. The presence of burrs did not significantly
affect the slip resistance for metallized faying surfaces.
3. Compared with the blast-cleaned uncoated surfaced, the metallized coating surfaces yielded
significant clamping force reduction during the test, with the 12 mils thick coating giving the
maximum effect. Long term sustained loading tests would be useful to better understand the
relaxation phenomenon and its effect on the connection slip resistance.

GEN-147-9
 Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Structal-Bridges, a division of the CANAM Group, in a collaborative research
and development program with Laval University. The authors would like to express their deep gratitude
for the support.

References

AISC. 2010. Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC 360-10: An American National
Standard, American Institute of Steel Construction, INC, Chicago, USA.
ANSI/AWS C2.18-93. 1993. Guide for the protection of steel with thermal sprayed coatings of aluminum
and zinc and their alloys and composites, American Welding Society (AWS), Miami, FL.
Brookhart, G. C., Siddiqi, I. H., and Vasarhelyi D. D. 1968. Surface Treatment of High Strength Bolted
Joints, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 94, ST3.
CAN/CSA G189. 1992. Revêtement métalliques pulvérisés pour la protection contre la corrosion
atmosphérique, Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga.
CAN/CSA S16-09. 2009. Limit States Design of Steel Structures, Canadian Standards Association,
Mississauga.
CAN/CSA S6-06. 2006. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, Canadian Standards Association,
Mississauga.
CEN, EN 1993-1-8: Eurocode 3. 2005. Design of Steel Structures- Part 1-8: design of joints, European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
Chang, L. M., Zayed, T. and Fricker, J. D. 1999. Steel Bridge Protection Policy: Metalization of Steel
Bridges: Research and Practice, Publication FHWA/IN/JTRP-98/21-III. Joint Transportation Research
Program, Indiana Department of Transportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Gerdeman, D. A. and Hecht, N. L. 1972. Arc Plasma technology in Materials Science, Springer-Verlag,
206 pages.
Hojarczyk, S., Kasinski, J. and Nawrot, T. 1959. Load Slip Characteristics of High Strength Bolted
Structural Joints Protected from Corrosion by Various Sprayed Coatings, Proceedings, Jubilee
Symposium on High Strength Bolts, the Institution of Structural Engineers, London.
Kim, T. S., Lee, H. S., Yoo, J. H., Tae, S. H., Oh, S. H., Lim, Y. C., and Lee, S. B. 2011. Slip Coefficient in
High-Strength Bolt Joints Coated with Corrosion-Resistant Zn/Al Metal Spray Method, Taylor &
Francis Group, Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 26: 14–21.
Kulak, G. L., Fisher, J. W. and Struik, J. H. A. 2001. Guide to Design Criteria for Bolted and Riveted
Joints, 2nd Edition, Research Council on Structural Connections.
Kulak, G.L. 2005. High Strength Bolting for Canadian Engineers, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
Pawlowski, L. 1995. The Science and Engineering of Thermal Spray Coatings, Wiley, Chichester, United
Kingdom.
Polyzois, D. and Yura, J. A. 1985. Effect of Burrs on Bolted Friction Connections, Phil M. Ferguson
Structural Engineering Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin,
Report.
Research Council on Structural Connections (RCSC). 2009. Specification for Structural Joints Using
ASTM A325 or A490 Bolts, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois.
SSPC/AWS/NACE. 2003. Specification for the Application of Thermal Spray Coatings (Metallizing) of
Aluminum, Zinc, and Their Alloys and Composites for the Corrosion Protection of Steel, Joint
International Standard SSPC-CS 23.00/AWS C2.23M/NACE No. 12.
Teruo, K. 1999. The Status of Metal Spray Corrosion Resistance Method under Normal Temperature,
Japan Society of Corrosion Engineering, Japan.
Yura, J. A. and Frank, K. H. 1985. Testing Method to Determine the Slip Coefficient for Coatings Used in
Bolted Joints, Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction, Third Quarter. Pg. 151-
155.

GEN-147-10

View publication stats