metals

Article
Failure Analysis of High Strength Galvanized Bolts
Used in Steel Towers
Jose Alberto Álvarez 1, *, Roberto Lacalle 1,2 , Borja Arroyo 1 , Sergio Cicero 1
and Federico Gutiérrez-Solana 1
1 LADICIM (Laboratory of Materials Science and Engineering), University of Cantabria, ETS. Ingenieros de
Caminos, Av/Los Castros 44, Santander 39005, Spain; lacaller@unican.es (R.L.); arroyob@unican.es (B.A.);
ciceros@unican.es (S.C.); gsolanaf@unican.es (F.G.-S.)
2 Inesco Ingenieros, CDTUC módulo 9, Av/Los Castros 44, Santander 39005, Spain
* Correspondence: alvareja@unican.es; Tel.: +34-942-20-22-61; Fax: +34-942-20-18-18

Academic Editor: Hugo F. Lopez

Received: 26 May 2016; Accepted: 7 July 2016; Published: 13 July 2016

Abstract: This paper analyses the failure of three bolts used in the structural connections of a
number of steel towers located in northern Europe. The analysis comprises optical and scanning
electron microscopy, microstructural and hardness analysis, mechanical testing and structural
integrity assessments. The three bolts present very similar failure processes, with a circumferential
external crack that led to the final failure. The morphology of the crack propagation is typical of
Hydrogen-Induced Stress Corrosion Cracking (HISCC), with mixed intergranular-transgranular
micromechanisms, tearing processes and secondary cracking. The cracks then grew subcritically until
they reached their critical size. Quench cracking or fatigue processes have been ruled out.

Keywords: bolt; crack; hydrogen induced cracking; FAD

1. Introduction
This paper analyses the failure of several high strength bolts used in the connection between
the different stretches composing structural steel towers operating on the coast of northern Europe.
The bolts were prestressed before being put into service and started to fail after two months of
operation. All of them were in galvanised conditions in order to have better corrosion behaviour.
Three of these bolts were received at the Laboratory of Materials Science and Engineering of the
University of Cantabria (LADICIM) in order to determine the cause or causes of the failures.
The literature gathers a number of documents analysing the failure of in-service high strength
galvanised bolts. Boyd and Hyler [1] demonstrated how galvanising generates both a significant
reduction of the resistance of bolts against Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) and Hydrogen
Embrittlement (HE) for similar bolts to the ones analysed here. Townsend [2] analysed the influence of
the material hardness on the HE of AISI-4140 steel bars, and established a limit of around 350 HV as
an acceptance criterion. The same author defines the possible sources of hydrogen during galvanising
and describes how the galvanising itself acts as an impenetrable layer that prevents the hydrogen
from escaping.
Other authors (e.g., [3–8]) have analysed those aspects related to the micromechanisms of crack
generation and propagation, as well as the processes explaining these phenomena, which are basically
Liquid Metal Embrittlement, Quench Cracking and Hydrogen-Induced Cracking.
The analysis performed here has also taken into account the reference standards for the structural
application of bolts. These documents [9–15] include recommendations for both the fabrication and
the design stages, and emphasise the need to perform analyses into the possible effects of hydrogen on
this kind of bolt.

Metals 2016, 6, 163; doi:10.3390/met6070163 www.mdpi.com/journal/metals

 Metals 2016, 6, 163 2 of 14

Metals 2016, 6, 163  2 of 14 
With all this, Section 2 gathers a description of both the components being analysed and the
experimental and analytical programmes performed, Section 3 presents the corresponding results,
With  all  this,  Section  2  gathers  a  description  of  both  the  components  being  analysed  and  the 
Section 4 provides a discussion about the findings and the possible causes of the failures, and Section 5
experimental and analytical programmes performed, Section 3 presents the corresponding results, 
gathers the final conclusions.
Section 4 provides a discussion about the findings and the possible causes of the failures, and Section 
5 gathers the final conclusions. 
2. Materials and Methods

2. Materials and Methods 
2.1. Description of the Bolts 
Three of the bolts that had experienced a previous failure were received at the LADICIM in order
2.1. Description of the Bolts 
to determine the possible causes of such failures. The bolts had identical geometries, with a metric size
of Three 
56 mmof  the  bolts 
(M56), classthat 
10.9,had  experienced 
following a  previous 
UNE-EN-ISO failure 
898-1 were 
[9] and received  at 898-2
UNE-EN-ISO the  LADICIM  in 
[10], and were
order to determine the possible causes of such failures. The bolts had identical geometries, with a 
fabricated with steel 42CrMo4 following UNE-EN-10027-1 [16] (equivalent to AISI 4140), the nominal
metric size of 56 mm (M56), class 10.9, following UNE‐EN‐ISO 898‐1 [9] and UNE‐EN‐ISO 898‐2 [10], 
composition being gathered in Table 1. The bolts had the following identification:
and were fabricated with steel 42CrMo4 following UNE‐EN‐10027‐1 [16] (equivalent to AISI 4140), 
‚ Bolt A, batch 1, material 42CrMo4
the nominal composition being gathered in Table 1. The bolts had the following identification:   
‚ Bolt B, batch 2, material 42CrMo4
 Bolt A, batch 1, material 42CrMo4 
‚ Bolt C, batch 3, material 42CrMo4
 Bolt B, batch 2, material 42CrMo4 
 Bolt C, batch 3, material 42CrMo4 
Table 1. Nominal composition of steel 42CrMo4 [16] (% weight).
Table 1. Nominal composition of steel 42CrMo4 [16] (% weight). 
C Si Mn P S Cr Mo
C  Si  Mn P S Cr Mo 
0.38–0.45 ď0.4 0.6–0.9 ď0.025 ď0.035 0.90–1.20 0.15–0.3
0.38–0.45  ≤0.4  0.6–0.9  ≤0.025  ≤0.035  0.90–1.20  0.15–0.3 

As an example, Figure 1 shows bolt B at reception.

As an example, Figure 1 shows bolt B at reception. 

 
Figure 1. Bolt B at reception, showing the failure section. 
Figure 1. Bolt B at reception, showing the failure section.

During  the  fabrication  process,  the  three  bolts  were  first  forged  and  then  subjected  to  a 
During the fabrication process, the three bolts were first forged and then subjected to a subcritical
subcritical  annealing  followed  by  quenching  and  tempering.  Finally,  the  bolts  were  hot‐dip 
annealing followed by quenching and tempering. Finally, the bolts were hot-dip galvanised. Table 2
galvanised. Table 2 gathers the data of the thermal treatments, after which the bolts should present 
gathers the data of the thermal treatments, after which the bolts should present tempered martensite
tempered  martensite  on  the  surface  and  a  combination  of  tempered  martensite  and  bainite  in  the 
on the surface and a combination of tempered martensite and bainite in the inner material.
inner material.   
   
Metals 2016, 6, 163 3 of 14

Table 2. Data of the thermal treatments.

Quenching Tempering Oil

Bolt Time (min) Time (min)
Temperature (˝ C) Temperature (˝ C) Temperature (˝ C)
A 855 180 570 180 90
B 855 180 555 180 90
C 855 180 560 180 90

The mechanical properties of the material being analysed should follow the specifications
established by UNE-EN-ISO 898-1 [9], which are shown in Table 3. The bolts were put into service
after the application of a 1280 kN preload. Here, it should be noted that failures occurred after two
months of operation, not during the application of the preload.

Table 3. Specifications for 42CrMo4 material following UNE-EN-898-1 [9].

Property Min Max

Tensile strength, Rm (MPa) 1040 -
Proof stress 0.2%, Rp0.2 (MPa) 940 -
Strain under max. load (L0 = 5d0 ) (%) 9 -
Reduction of area, Z (%) 48 -
Charpy Energy (´20 ˝ C) 27 -
Hardness Brinell, HB 326 355
Surface hardness HV 0.3 - 390

2.2. Experimental and Analytical Procedure

The procedure performed here with the aim of determining the cause or causes of the failures
comprises the following steps:

‚ Visual inspection and macrographic analysis

‚ Chemical composition
‚ Microstructural analysis
‚ Hardness measurements
‚ Mechanical tests
‚ Fractographic analysis
‚ Structural integrity assessment of the fractured bolts

The analyses were performed on the three bolts, with totally analogous results in all of them.
Thus, for the sake of simplicity, the results presented below will be focussed on bolt A.

3. Results
This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description
of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can
be drawn.

3.1. Visual Inspection and Macrographic Analysis

The failure sections of the three bolts presented two clearly different areas: a smooth one all along
the external perimeter, and a quasi-circular rough area located in the centre. This appearance has been
previously reported in a number of similar failures (e.g., [1]), where the smooth area was related to
subcritical crack propagation processes and the rough central area was identified as the final resistant
ligament with the presence of ductile micromechanisms. As an example, Figure 2 shows the fracture
surface of bolt A at both the head and the shank.
Metals 2016, 6, 163 4 of 14
Metals 2016, 6, 163  4 of 14 

Metals 2016, 6, 163  4 of 14 

 
Figure 2. Fracture surfaces at reception of bolt A. (a) Head; (b) shank.
Figure 2. Fracture surfaces at reception of bolt A. (a) Head; (b) shank. 
 
3.2. Chemical Composition 
3.2. Chemical Composition
Figure 2. Fracture surfaces at reception of bolt A. (a) Head; (b) shank. 
A  chemical  analysis  was  performed  using  optical  emission  spectroscopy,  with  the  results 
A chemical analysis was performed using optical emission spectroscopy, with the results shown
shown  in  Table  4.  It  can  be  observed,  by  comparison  to  Table  1,  that  the  chemical  composition 
3.2. Chemical Composition 
in Table 4. It can be observed, by comparison to Table 1, that the chemical composition satisfies the
satisfies the nominal composition of steel 42CrMo4. 
nominal composition of steel 42CrMo4.
A  chemical  analysis  was  performed  using  optical  emission  spectroscopy,  with  the  results 
shown  in  Table  4.  It  can  be  observed,  by  comparison  to  Table  1,  that  the  chemical  composition 
Table 4. Chemical composition of the steel 42CrMo4 being analysed (% weight). 
satisfies the nominal composition of steel 42CrMo4. 
Table 4. Chemical composition of the steel 42CrMo4 being analysed (% weight).
C  Si  Mn P S Cr Mo 
0.42  Table 4. Chemical composition of the steel 42CrMo4 being analysed (% weight). 
0.27  0.80  ≤0.025  ≤0.035  1.10  0.22 
C Si Mn P S Cr Mo
C  0.42 Si  0.27
3.3. Microstructural Analysis  Mn0.80 P
ď0.025 S
ď0.035 1.10 Cr 0.22 Mo 
0.42  0.27  0.80  ≤0.025  ≤0.035  1.10  0.22 
The  bolts  were  sectioned  as  shown  in  Figure  3.  Two  sections  (identified  as  1  and  2)  were 
3.3. Microstructural Analysis
obtained from each shank: the first piece contained the fracture section, while the second section was 
3.3. Microstructural Analysis 
used to analyse the material microstructure in two different locations (samples 2.1 and 2.2, as shown 
The bolts were were 
sectioned as shown in Figure 3. Two sections (identified as 1 and 2) were obtained
The  bolts 
in Figure 3).    sectioned  as  shown  in  Figure  3.  Two  sections  (identified  as  1  and  2)  were 
from each shank: the first piece contained the fracture section, while the second section was used
obtained from each shank: the first piece contained the fracture section, while the second section was 
to analyse the material microstructure in two different locations (samples 2.1 and 2.2, as shown in
used to analyse the material microstructure in two different locations (samples 2.1 and 2.2, as shown 
Figurein Figure 3). 
3).  

Figure 3. Sectioning of the shaft (bolt A). (a) Sections 1 and 2; (b) samples 2.1 and 2.2 taken from
Section 2; (c) samples 2.1 and 2.2 mounted.
Metals 2016, 6, 163  5 of 14 
Metals 2016, 6, 163  5 of 14 

Figure  3.  Sectioning  of  the  shaft  (bolt  A).  (a)  Sections  1  and  2;  (b)  samples  2.1  and  2.2  taken  from 
MetalsFigure 
2016, 6, 3. 
163Sectioning  of  the  shaft  (bolt  A).  (a)  Sections  1  and  2;  (b)  samples  2.1  and  2.2  taken  from 
5 of 14
Section 2; (c) samples 2.1 and 2.2 mounted. 
Section 2; (c) samples 2.1 and 2.2 mounted. 

Samples 
Samples 2.1  and
and  2.2  were
were  polished and and  etched in in  3% nital
nital  solution.  The
The  corresponding 
Samples  2.1
2.1  and  2.2
2.2  were  polished
polished  and etchedetched  in 3%3%  nital solution.
solution.  The  corresponding
corresponding 
microstructures were obtained along a radius of section 2. Figure 4 shows the results obtained in the 
microstructures were obtained along a radius of Section 2. Figure 4 shows the results obtained
microstructures were obtained along a radius of section 2. Figure 4 shows the results obtained in the 
centre (sample 2.1) and from the surface (sample 2.2) of section 2. It can be observed that the centre 
in the centre (sample 2.1) and from the surface (sample 2.2) of Section 2. It can be observed that
centre (sample 2.1) and from the surface (sample 2.2) of section 2. It can be observed that the centre 
of  the 
the section 
centre of the(Figure 
section 4a)  presents 
(Figure tempered 
4a) presents martensite 
tempered together 
martensite with  with
together bainite,  whereas 
bainite, the 
whereas
of  the  section  (Figure  4a)  presents  tempered  martensite  together  with  bainite,  whereas  the 
microstructure 
the microstructureon  the 
on surface 
the of  of
surface the  bolt 
the is isbasically 
bolt basically tempered 
tempered martensite. 
martensite. This 
This agrees 
agrees with 
with the 
the
microstructure  on  the  surface  of  the  bolt  is  basically  tempered  martensite.  This  agrees  with  the 
material specification. 
material specification.
material specification. 

  
Figure 4. Microstructures observed in bolt A. (a) Centre of the section (sample 2.1); (b) sub‐surface 
Figure 4. Microstructures observed in bolt A. (a) Centre of the section (sample 2.1); (b) sub-surface
Figure 4. Microstructures observed in bolt A. (a) Centre of the section (sample 2.1); (b) sub‐surface 
material (sample 2.2). 
material (sample 2.2).
material (sample 2.2). 

The heads of the three bolts were also cut (see Figure 5) into three sections (named 3, 4 and 5). 
The heads of the three bolts were also cut (see Figure 5) into three sections (named 3, 4 and 5).
The heads of the three bolts were also cut (see Figure 5) into three sections (named 3, 4 and 5). 
Different 
Different samples  were  obtained 
from from 
Sectionsection  4  toin  order  theto  analyse  the  microstructure.
corresponding 
Different samples
samples were obtained
were  obtained  from  4 in order
section  4  in analyse
order  to  corresponding
analyse  the  corresponding 
microstructure. 
This was analysedThis  was  analysed 
at different at 
pointsat  different 
(Adifferent  points 
to D, as shown (A  to  D,  as  shown  in  Figure  6).  In  all  cases, 
microstructure.  This  was  analysed  points  in
(A Figure 6). shown 
to  D,  as  In all cases, tempered
in  Figure  martensite
6).  In  all  cases, 
tempered martensite was found to be the dominant microstructure, with bainite in the centre of the 
was found to be the dominant microstructure, with bainite in the centre of the section (point D, see
tempered martensite was found to be the dominant microstructure, with bainite in the centre of the 
section (point D, see Figure 7). 
Figure 7).
section (point D, see Figure 7). 

  
Figure 5. Quartering of the head (bolt A). 
Figure 5. Quartering of the head (bolt A). 
Figure 5. Quartering of the head (bolt A).
Metals 2016, 6, 163 6 of 14
Metals 2016, 6, 163  6 of 14 

 
Figure 6. 
Figure  Quartering of 
6. Quartering  of section 
Section 4 4 (bolt 
(bolt A) 
A) with 
with the 
the identification 
identification of 
of the 
the different 
different samples 
samples and 
and the 
the
location of the points where the microstructure was analysed.
location of the points where the microstructure was analysed. 

 
Figure 7. Microstructure observed in the head of bolt A (sample 4.3, point D). 
Figure 7. Microstructure observed in the head of bolt A (sample 4.3, point D).

3.4. Hardness Measurements 
3.4. Hardness Measurements
Hardness measurements were performed on both section 2 (all along the radius of the shank) 
Hardness measurements were performed on both Section 2 (all along the radius of the shank)
and section 4. For this purpose, a Vickers microdurometer was used, applying a load of 1 kg for 10 s 
and Section 4. For this purpose, a Vickers microdurometer was used, applying a load of 1 kg for 10 s
(following [17]). Figure 8 shows the results along the mentioned radius, while Figure 9 presents a 
(following [17]). Figure 8 shows the results along the mentioned radius, while Figure 9 presents a
schematic of the hardness measurements performed in section 4, where four paths were analysed: 
schematic of the hardness measurements performed in Section 4, where four paths were analysed:  
‚ Path I: all along the half‐width of the bolt head, approximately in the middle of the thickness. 
Path I: all along the half-width of the bolt head, approximately in the middle of the thickness.
‚ Path II: from the fracture surface to the head upper surface, all along the thickness of the bolt 
Path II: from the fracture surface to the head upper surface, all along the thickness of the bolt head.
head. 
‚ Paths III and IV: following 45˝ with the fracture surface and starting from the points (on the
 Paths  III and  IV: following  45°  with  the  fracture surface  and  starting  from  the points  (on  the 
fracture surface) where the bolt head and the bolt shank originally met.
fracture surface) where the bolt head and the bolt shank originally met.   
 
Metals 2016, 6, 163 7 of 14
Metals 2016, 6, 163  7 of 14 
Metals 2016, 6, 163  7 of 14 

 
 
Figure 8. Hardness measurements along the radius of the bolt shank (bolt A). The dotted line shows 
Figure 8. Hardness measurements along the radius of the bolt shank (bolt A). The dotted line shows
Figure 8. Hardness measurements along the radius of the bolt shank (bolt A). The dotted line shows 
the the trend line. 
trend line.
the trend line. 

 
 
Figure 9. Hardness measurements (HV1) in the bolt head (bolt A). 
Figure 9. Hardness measurements (HV1) in the bolt head (bolt A). 
Figure 9. Hardness measurements (HV1) in the bolt head (bolt A).
The results reveal an average hardness value between 350 and 370 HV1 in paths I, II and III, and 
The results reveal an average hardness value between 350 and 370 HV1 in paths I, II and III, and 
slightly lower than 350 in path IV. In any case, the hardness values observed in the bolt head are 
The results reveal an average hardness value between 350 and 370 HV1 in paths I, II and III, and
slightly lower than 350 in path IV. In any case, the hardness values observed in the bolt head are 
higher than those measured along the radius of the bolt shank (which vary from 300 HV1 up to 350 
slightly lower than 350 in path IV. In any case, the hardness values observed in the bolt head are higher
higher than those measured along the radius of the bolt shank (which vary from 300 HV1 up to 350 
HV1). 
thanHV1). 
those measured along the radius of the bolt shank (which vary from 300 HV1 up to 350 HV1).
3.5. Tensile Tests 
3.5.3.5. Tensile Tests 
Tensile Tests
Tensile  tests  were  performed  following  UNE‐EN‐ISO  6892‐1:2010  [18].  More  precisely,  one 
Tensile 
Tensile
tensile  tests
test  tests 
were
was  were  performed 
performed
performed  following 
following
to  characterise  UNE‐EN‐ISO 
UNE-EN-ISO
each  6892‐1:2010 
6892-1:2010
bolt.  The  tensile  [18]. 
[18]. More
specimens  More  precisely, 
precisely,
were  taken  oneone 
from  tensile
the 
tensile  test  was  performed  to  characterise  each  bolt.  The  tensile  specimens  were  taken 
testcentre of the shank, along its longitudinal direction, with a nominal diameter of 14 mm. The results 
was performed to characterise each bolt. The tensile specimens were taken from the centre of the from  the 
centre of the shank, along its longitudinal direction, with a nominal diameter of 14 mm. The results 
shank, along its longitudinal direction, with a nominal diameter of 14 mm. The results are shown
in Table 5. It can be observed that the results satisfy the requirements of the material specification
(Table 3).
 Metals 2016, 6, 163  8 of 14 
Metals 2016, 6, 163  8 of 14 

are 2016,
Metals shown  in  Table  5.  It  can  be  observed  that  the  results  satisfy  the  requirements  of  the  material 
6, 163 8 of 14
are  shown  in  Table  5.  It  can  be  observed  that  the  results  satisfy  the  requirements  of  the  material 
specification (Table 3). 
specification (Table 3). 
Table 5. Results of the mechanical tests performed on the bolts.
Table 5. Results of the mechanical tests performed on the bolts. 
Table 5. Results of the mechanical tests performed on the bolts. 
Property  Property A A BB C C 
Property  A B C 
Tensile strength, R m (MPa) 
Tensile strength, Rm (MPa)
1101  1101
1106 
1106 1117
1117 
Tensile strength, R m (MPa)  1101  1106  1117 
Proof stress 0.2%, Rp 0.2 (MPa) 
Proof stress 0.2%, Rp0.2 (MPa) 1001  1001 1002 
1002 1011 1011 
Proof stress 0.2%, Rp 0.2 (MPa)  1001  1002  1011 
Strain under max. load (L0 = 5dload
Strain under max. (L0 = 5d0 ) (%)
0) (%)  15.6  15.6 13.8
13.8  13.9 13.9 
Strain under max. load (L  = 5d ) (%) 
Reduction of area, Z (%)
0 0 15.6  56.0 13.8 
52.0 52.0 13.9 
Reduction of area, Z (%)  56.0  52.0  52.0 
Reduction of area, Z (%)  56.0  52.0  52.0 
3.6.3.6. Fractographic Analysis 
Fractographic Analysis
3.6. Fractographic Analysis 
The fracture surfaces of the three bolts were analysed in a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM).
The fracture surfaces of the three bolts were analysed in a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). 
The fracture surfaces of the three bolts were analysed in a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). 
Images were taken from different areas of the fracture surfaces, as shown in Figure 2b (points “a” to 
Images were taken from different areas of the fracture surfaces, as shown in Figure 2b (points “a”
Images were taken from different areas of the fracture surfaces, as shown in Figure 2b (points “a” to 
to “e”) for bolt A. The most significant observations are shown in Figure 10: the perimeter of the section 
“e”) for bolt A. The most significant observations are shown in Figure 10: the perimeter of the
“e”) for bolt A. The most significant observations are shown in Figure 10: the perimeter of the section 
(i.e., 
section points  “a”,  “b”, 
(i.e., points and  and
“a”, “b”, “c”) “c”)
presented  a  mixed 
presented fracture 
a mixed surface 
fracture combined 
surface combinedwith  a  predominant 
with a predominant
(i.e.,  points  “a”,  “b”,  and  “c”)  presented  a  mixed  fracture  surface  combined  with  a  predominant 
intergranular fracture with transgranular tearing and secondary cracking (Figure 10a). This confirms 
intergranular fracture with transgranular tearing and secondary cracking (Figure 10a). This confirms
intergranular fracture with transgranular tearing and secondary cracking (Figure 10a). This confirms 
a subcritical crack propagation process prior to final fracture; the inner part of the fracture surface 
a subcritical crack propagation process prior to final fracture; the inner part of the fracture surface
a subcritical crack propagation process prior to final fracture; the inner part of the fracture surface 
(i.e., points “d” and “e”) reveals a ductile fracture with multiple microvoids, corresponding to the 
(i.e., points “d” and “e”) reveals a ductile fracture with multiple microvoids, corresponding to the
(i.e., points “d” and “e”) reveals a ductile fracture with multiple microvoids, corresponding to the 
remnant ligament of the section at failure. 
remnant ligament of the section at failure.
remnant ligament of the section at failure. 

 
 
Figure 10. Fracture surface of bolt A. (a) Point “b”; (b) point “d”.
Figure 10. Fracture surface of bolt A. (a) Point “b”; (b) point “d”. 
Figure 10. Fracture surface of bolt A. (a) Point “b”; (b) point “d”. 

Figure 11, taken at point “c”, shows the galvanising layer with an important presence of cracks. 
Figure 11, taken at point “c”, shows the galvanising layer with an important presence of cracks.
Figure 11, taken at point “c”, shows the galvanising layer with an important presence of cracks. 
Cracks are also observed in the interface between the galvanising layer and the base material of the 
Cracks are also observed in the interface between the galvanising layer and the base material of the
Cracks are also observed in the interface between the galvanising layer and the base material of the 
bolt, with multiple initiation points. 
bolt, with multiple initiation points.   
bolt, with multiple initiation points. 

 
 
Figure 11. Zone “c” of the fracture surface, showing subcritical crack growth starting at the interface
between the base material and the galvanising layer.
Metals 2016, 6, 163  9 of 14 

Figure 11. Zone “c” of the fracture surface, showing subcritical crack growth starting at the interface 
Metals 2016, 6, 163 9 of 14
between the base material and the galvanising layer. 

The profile of the fracture surface was also analysed using optical microscopy. As an example, 
The profile of the fracture surface was also analysed using optical microscopy. As an example,
Figure 12 shows some significant results. Figure 12a corresponds to an area located in the external 
Figure 12 shows some significant results. Figure 12a corresponds to an area located in the external
perimeter,  near
perimeter, near  point
point  “b”.
“b”.  A 
A brittle 
brittle aspect 
aspect with 
with secondary 
secondary cracks 
cracks emerging 
emerging from  the  primary
from the primary 
quasi‐plane crack path can be observed, proof of the HISCC mechanism; Figure 12b corresponds to 
quasi-plane crack path can be observed, proof of the HISCC mechanism; Figure 12b corresponds
an area around point “d”, revealing a much more ductile behaviour. 
to an area around point “d”, revealing a much more ductile behaviour.

 
Figure 12. Profile of the fracture surface in bolt A: (a) Brittle aspect of the external perimeter (the red 
Figure 12. Profile of the fracture surface in bolt A: (a) Brittle aspect of the external perimeter (the red
circumference shows secondary cracking); (b) ductile aspect of the inner area. 
circumference shows secondary cracking); (b) ductile aspect of the inner area.

3.7. Structural Integrity Assessment 
3.7. Structural Integrity Assessment
This  section
This section  presents
presents  the
the  structural
structural  integrity
integrity  assessment
assessment  ofof  the
the  analysed
analysed  bolts
bolts  using
using  Failure
Failure 
Assessment  Diagrams  (FADs)  [19,20].  For  a  given  structural  component  containing 
Assessment Diagrams (FADs) [19,20]. For a given structural component containing a crack, the FADs a  crack,  the 
FADs present a simultaneous assessment of both the fracture and plastic collapse processes by using 
present a simultaneous assessment of both the fracture and plastic collapse processes by using two
two normalised parameters, K
normalised parameters, Kr andr and L r, whose expressions are (e.g., [19,20]): 
Lr , whose expressions are (e.g., [19,20]):
K
KKr r“ K I  
KI (1) 
(1)
Kmat
mat

P
LLr r“   (2)
(2) 
PLL
where P is the applied load, PL is the plastic collapse load, KI is the stress intensity factor, and Kmat is
where P is the applied load, PL is the plastic collapse load, KI is the stress intensity factor, and Kmat is 
the material fracture resistance measured by the stress intensity factor (e.g., KIC , KJC , etc.). Lr may also
the material fracture resistance measured by the stress intensity factor (e.g., KIC, KJC, etc.). Lr may also 
be expressed by the following Equation (3), which is totally equivalent to Equation (2) [19]:
be expressed by the following Equation (3), which is totally equivalent to Equation (2) [19]: 
σ
Lr “ σref (3)
Lr  σref
Y   (3) 
σY
where σref is the reference stress and σY is the material yield stress.
where σ ref is the reference stress and σY is the material yield stress.   
Lr evaluates the structural component situation against plastic collapse, and Kr evaluates the
L r  evaluates  the  structural  component  situation  against  plastic  collapse,  and  Kr  evaluates  the 
component against fracture, with the assessed component being represented by a point of coordinates
component  against  fracture,  with  the  assessed  component  being  represented  by  a  point  of 
(K r , Lr ). Once the component assessment point is defined through these coordinates, it is necessary to
coordinates (K r, Lr). Once the component assessment point is defined through these coordinates, it is 
define the component-limiting conditions (i.e., those leading to final failure). To this end, the Failure
Assessment Line (FAL) is defined, so that conditions 
necessary  to  define  the  component‐limiting  (i.e.,  those 
if the assessment leading 
point to  final 
is located failure). the
between To FAL
this 
end, the Failure Assessment Line (FAL) is defined, so that if the assessment point is located between 
and the coordinate axes, the component is considered to be under safe conditions, whereas if the
the FAL and the coordinate axes, the component is considered to be under safe conditions, whereas 
assessment point is located above the FAL, the component is considered to be under unsafe conditions.
if the assessment point is located above the FAL, the component is considered to be under unsafe 
The critical situation (failure condition) is that in which the assessment point lies exactly on the FAL.
conditions. The critical situation (failure condition) is that in which the assessment point lies exactly 
Figure 13 shows an example with the three different possible situations when performing fracture
on  the  FAL. 
initiation Figure  13  shows  an  example  with  the  three  different  possible  situations  when 
analyses.
performing fracture initiation analyses. 
Metals 2016, 6, 163 10 of 14
Metals 2016, 6, 163  10 of 14 

 
Figure 13. Approximate measurement of the external perimeter. Bolt A. 
Figure 13. Approximate measurement of the external perimeter. Bolt A.

In  practice,  structural  integrity  assessment  procedures  (e.g.,  [19,20])  provide  approximate 
In practice, structural integrity assessment procedures (e.g., [19,20]) provide approximate
solutions to the FAL, which are generally defined through the tensile properties of the material. As 
solutions to the FAL, which are generally defined through the tensile properties of the material.
an  example,  Option  1  of  the  FITNET  FFS  Procedure  for  those  materials  that  do  not  have  a  yield 
As an example, Option 1 of the FITNET FFS Procedure for those materials that do not have a yield
plateau (continuous yielding), is defined by the following equations [20]: 
plateau (continuous yielding), is defined by the following equations [20]:

   
1/ 2
Kr  f (´Lr )  1  0.5  L¯
2r
2

´1{2 ´0.3  0.7  exp μ´L6r , L6 ¯¯
r ≤ 1  (4) 
Kr “ f pLr q “ 1 ` 0.5 pLr q 0.3 ` 0.7 ˆ exp ´µLr , Lr ď 1 (4)
N ‐1
K r  f ( Lr )  f  1   LN´1
r
2 N , 1 < Lr ≤ Lrmax  (5) 
Kr “ f pLr q “ f p1q ˆ Lr 2N , 1 ă Lr ď Lrmax (5)
“ ` ˘ ‰
µ “ min 0.001
μ  min 0.001  E

ˆ
 E{σ y
ˆ/ σ y ; 0.6 

˙  
; 0.6 (6) (6)
σy
N “ 0.3 1 ´ (7)
 σ y  σu
N  0.3  1    (7) 
 σ σy ` σu
Lrmax “ 0.5 u  (8)
σy
σ  σ
Lr max  0.5
ˆ y u˙
1  ´1{2 (8) 
f p1q “ λ ` σy (9)
2λ
1/ 2
where σy , σu and E are the proof stress,  1the ultimate tensile strength and the elastic
modulus, respectively. f (1)   λ     (9) 
 2λ 
In any case, in order to complete the structural integrity assessment of the bolts, it is necessary
where  σy,  σseveral
to quantify u  and  E  are  the  proof 
parameters: the stress,  the  (a),
crack size ultimate  tensile load
the applied strength  and  the
or stress, the  material
elastic  modulus, 
fracture
respectively. 
resistance (Kmat ), and the material tensile properties.
In any case, in order to complete the structural integrity assessment of the bolts, it is necessary 
Concerning the crack size, the results shown above (at both the macro- and microscopical levels)
to  quantify  several 
reveal that the fracture parameters:  the  crack 
surfaces present size  (a), zones:
two distinct the  applied  load smooth
an external or  stress,  the  material 
perimeter fracture 
corresponding
resistance (K
to mat), and the material tensile properties. 
a mixed fracture surface combining a predominant intergranular fracture with transgranular tearing,
and anConcerning 
internal area the with
crack  size, presence
a clear the  results  shown micromechanisms.
of ductile above  (at  both  the Themacro‐ 
externaland  microscopical 
perimeter seems
levels)  reveal  that  the  fracture  surfaces  present  two  distinct  zones:  an  external 
to correspond to subcritical crack propagation prior to final failure, and it has been macroscopically smooth  perimeter 
corresponding 
marked out in theto  a  mixed 
three fracture 
bolts, surface 
as shown combining 
in Figure 14 for a  predominant 
the particular caseintergranular 
of bolt A. Thefracture  with 
extension
transgranular tearing, and an internal area with a clear presence of ductile micromechanisms. The 
(thickness) of this perimeter, corresponding to the crack size at failure, generally varies between
external perimeter seems to correspond to subcritical crack propagation prior to final failure, and it 
11.5 mm and 16.5 mm, although it may be punctually lower.
has been macroscopically marked out in the three bolts, as shown in Figure 14 for the particular case 
Metals 2016, 6, 163  11 of 14 

of  bolt  A.  The  extension  (thickness)  of  this  perimeter,  corresponding  to  the  crack  size  at  failure, 
Metals 2016, 6, 163 11 of 14
generally varies between 11.5 mm and 16.5 mm, although it may be punctually lower. 

 
Figure 14. FAD analysis (initiation) showing three possible situations: A, safe conditions; B, critical
Figure 14. FAD analysis (initiation) showing three possible situations: A, safe conditions; B, critical 
condition; C, unsafe conditions.
condition; C, unsafe conditions. 

Regarding the applied load, and following the information provided by the property, the bolts
Regarding the applied load, and following the information provided by the property, the bolts 
were subjected to a preload of 1280 kN before being put into service. It is also known that failures took
were subjected to a preload of 1280 kN before being put into service. It is also known that failures 
place after several
took  place  weeks weeks 
after  several  of service, so the bolts
of  service,  didbolts 
so  the  not fail during
did  theduring 
not  fail  application of the preload.
the  application  of  the 
Moreover, six Charpy specimens were machined from the bolts. Three of the specimens were
preload. 
machined from the external part of the bolt section, and the other three were obtained from the centre
Moreover, six Charpy specimens were machined from the bolts. Three of the specimens were 
(in all cases,
machined  from  thethe 
longitudinal direction
external  part  of  the of thesection, 
bolt  Charpyand specimens
the  other  coincided
three  were with the longitudinal
obtained  from  the 
axle of (in 
centre  the bolt shank).the 
all  cases,  The Charpy tests
longitudinal  were performed
direction  following
of  the  Charpy  ISO 148-1:2011
specimens  [21]. with 
coincided  The test
the 
temperature was ´20 ˝ C, considering the possibility of working conditions at low temperatures and
longitudinal axle of the bolt shank). The Charpy tests were performed following ISO 148‐1:2011 [21]. 
also to
The  compare
test  the obtained
temperature  results
was  −20  °C, with the material
considering  the specifications
possibility  of  (Table 3). Theconditions 
working  average values of
at  low 
the Charpy energy were 69 J and 72 J, respectively, for the external material and the core of the bolt.
temperatures and also to compare the obtained results with the material specifications (Table 3). The 
This little difference agrees with the small differences found in the corresponding microstructures
average values of the Charpy energy were 69 J and 72 J, respectively, for the external material and 
and core 
the  hardness measurements.
of  the  Nevertheless,
bolt.  This  little  difference in agrees 
both cases thethe 
with  results
small aredifferences 
well beyond the material
found  in  the 
specification (Table 3). BS7910:2005 [19] provides a formulation that allows the fracture resistance to be
corresponding microstructures and hardness measurements. Nevertheless, in both cases the results 
correlated
are  from Charpy
well  beyond  measurements:
the  material  specification  (Table  3).  BS7910:2005  [19]  provides  a  formulation  that 
allows the fracture resistance to be correlated from Charpy measurements: 
” a ı
Kmat “ p12 Cv ´ 20qp25{Bq0.25 ` 20 (10)
Kmat  (12 Cv  20)(25 / B)0.25   20   (1) 
 
where Cv is the Charpy energy of the material and B is the thickness of the component (here, the
where 
diameter Cv is  the bolts).
of the Charpy energy  of  the material and B 
The resulting estimations of Kmat is are
the 85.1
thickness 
MPa¨ m of 1/2
the 
incomponent 
the external(here,  the 
material
diameter of the bolts). The resulting estimations of K
and 86.9 MPa¨ m 1/2 in the middle of the bolt. This little mat are 85.1 MPa∙m 1/2
difference justifies,  in the external material and 
for the sake of simplicity,
86.9 MPa∙m 1/2 in the middle of the bolt. This little difference justifies, for the sake of simplicity, the 
the use of the lower value in the FAD assessments shown below.
use of the lower value in the FAD assessments shown below. 
Finally, tensile properties have been taken from the material   specifications (Table 3). Therefore, a
yieldFinally, tensile properties have been taken from the material specifications (Table 3). Therefore, 
stress of 940 MPa and an ultimate tensile strength of 1040 MPa have been considered. Given the
a yield stress of 940 MPa and an ultimate tensile strength of 1040 MPa have been considered. Given 
results obtained in the tensile tests, which are 6%–8% higher than those required in the specification,
the  results 
this is obtained 
a slightly in  the  assumption.
conservative tensile  tests,  which  are  6%–8%  higher  than  those  required  in  the 
specification, this is a slightly conservative assumption. 
With all these data, it is already possible to perform the structural integrity (FAD) assessment.
With all these data, it is already possible to perform the structural integrity (FAD) assessment. 
Here, software VINDIO 1.1 has been used, which is based on the KI and PL (or σref ) solutions provided
Here,  software  VINDIO 
by BS7910:2005 [19] and the has  been FFS
1.1  FITNET used,  which  is 
Procedure based 
[20], andon  thethe 
FAL KI solutions
and  PL  (or  σref)  solutions 
provided by the
provided by BS7910:2005 [19] and the FITNET FFS Procedure [20], and the FAL solutions provided 
FITNET FFS Procedure (now coincident with those gathered in the newest version of BS7910 [19]).
by the FITNET FFS Procedure (now coincident with those gathered in the newest version of BS7910 
Two situations have been analysed:
[19]). Two situations have been analysed: 
‚ Circumferential flaw in the round bar (Figure 15), the crack size (a) being 11.5 mm (as a lower
value of the size of the external smooth area). The corresponding critical load is determined.
 value of the size of the external smooth area). The corresponding critical load is determined.   
 Circumferential flaw in the round bar, the applied load being 1280 kN (equal to the preload). 
Thus, the critical crack size is determined.   
 Preload of 1280 kN, considering a bolt of M56 and class 10.9, leads to an axial stress of the tower 
Metals 2016, 6, 163 
Metalsbolt of 671 MPa, clearly under the level at yield stress (900 MPa). 
2016, 6, 163 12 of 14 
12 of 14

 Circumferential flaw in the round bar (Figure 15), the crack size (a) being 11.5 mm (as a lower 
‚ value of the size of the external smooth area). The corresponding critical load is determined. 
Circumferential flaw in the round bar, the applied load being 1280 kN (equal to the preload).   Thus,
 Circumferential flaw in the round bar, the applied load being 1280 kN (equal to the preload). 
the critical crack size is determined.
Thus, the critical crack size is determined.   
‚ Preload of 1280 kN, considering a bolt of M56 and class 10.9, leads to an axial stress of the tower
 Preload of 1280 kN, considering a bolt of M56 and class 10.9, leads to an axial stress of the tower 
bolt of 671 MPa, clearly under the level at yield stress (900 MPa).
bolt of 671 MPa, clearly under the level at yield stress (900 MPa). 

 
Figure 15. Idealisation of the bolt section and the crack geometry. 

Figure 16 shows the corresponding reults obtained for analysis Option 1 [19,20], which defines 
the  FAL  from  both  the  yield  stress  and  the  ultimate  tensile  strength    of  the  material  (Equations 
(4)–(9)). In the first analysis (Figure 16a), the critical load is 5908 kN, which is noticeably lower than 
Figure 15. Idealisation of the bolt section and the crack geometry.
Figure 15. Idealisation of the bolt section and the crack geometry. 
the applied preload. This discards that the notion that the external smooth area found in the fracture 
section  corresponds 
Figure 16 showsto  thea corresponding
pre‐existing  crack  (e.g.,  quench  forcracking),  given  that, 
Figure 16 shows the corresponding reults obtained for analysis Option 1 [19,20], which defines 
reults obtained analysis Option in  such 
1 [19,20], whicha  case,  the 
defines
the  FAL  from  both  the  yield  stress  and  the  ultimate  tensile  strength  of  the 
application of the preload (1280 kN) would have caused the failure of the bolts. The discarding of  material  (Equations 
the FAL from both the yield stress and the ultimate tensile strength of the material (Equations (4)–(9)).
(4)–(9)). In the first analysis (Figure 16a), the critical load is 5908 kN, which is noticeably lower than 
quench  cracking 
In the first analysisis (Figure
also  supported  by  the 
16a), the critical lack 
load is of 
5908zinc 
kN,deposits 
which isin  the  surface 
noticeably lowerof  than
the  pre‐existing 
the applied
the applied preload. This discards that the notion that the external smooth area found in the fracture 
cracks.   
preload. This
section  discards that
corresponds  the notion crack 
to  a  pre‐existing  that the external
(e.g.,  quench smooth
cracking), area
given found
that, in
in  the
such fracture section
a  case,  the 
The second analysis (Figure 16b) provides a critical defect of 4.2 mm. This corresponds to the 
corresponds
application of the preload (1280 kN) would have caused the failure of the bolts. The discarding of  of
to a pre-existing crack (e.g., quench cracking), given that, in such a case, the application
maximum crack size in the bolts during the application of the preload (larger cracks would also have 
the preload
quench (1280 kN)is would
cracking  have caused
also  supported  thelack 
by  the  failure of the
of  zinc  bolts. The
deposits  discarding
in  the  surface  of ofthe 
quench cracking is
pre‐existing 
caused failure). 
also supported
cracks.    by the lack of zinc deposits in the surface of the pre-existing cracks.
The second analysis (Figure 16b) provides a critical defect of 4.2 mm. This corresponds to the 
maximum crack size in the bolts during the application of the preload (larger cracks would also have 
caused failure). 

 
Figure 16. FAD analysis of the bolts: (a) critical load (Pcc) for a 11.5 mm crack size (a); (b) critical crack 
Figure 16. FAD analysis of the bolts: (a) critical load (P ) for a 11.5 mm crack size (a); (b) critical crack
 
size (a ) for a 1280 kN load (P).
size (acc) for a 1280 kN load (P). 
Figure 16. FAD analysis of the bolts: (a) critical load (Pc) for a 11.5 mm crack size (a); (b) critical crack 
size (a
4. Discussion 
The second c) for a 1280 kN load (P). 
analysis (Figure 16b) provides a critical defect of 4.2 mm. This corresponds to the
maximum crack size in the bolts during the application of the preload (larger cracks would also have
The  results  shown  above  suggest  that  there  has  been  a  subcritical  crack  propagation  process 
4. Discussion 
caused failure).
from  the The 
time  at  which 
results  the  preload 
shown  above  suggest was  applied 
that  there  to  the 
has  been  final  failure 
a  subcritical  crack of  the  bolts, 
propagation  when  the 
process 
from  the  time  at  which  the  preload  was  applied  to  the  final  failure  of  the  bolts,  when  the 
4. Discussion
The results shown above suggest that there has been a subcritical crack propagation process from
the time at which the preload was applied to the final failure of the bolts, when the (approximately)
circumferential cracks reached the size shown in Figure 13. Considering the morphology of the
fracture micromechanisms, the small time lapse between the application of the preload and the failures,
Metals 2016, 6, 163 13 of 14

the nature of the steel used in the bolts (high strength steel), and the sequence of treatments performed
on the bolts (thermal treatments, galvanising, preload), it can be concluded that the most probable
cause of failure was Hydrogen-Induced Stress Corrosion Cracking (HISCC). Other possible causes
of cracking, such as fatigue, may be ruled out due to both the short time period during which the
bolts were in service and the small effects of variable loads on these kinds of prestressed components.
Quench cracking has also been ruled out due to both the absence of zinc deposits in the fracture surface
and the lack of failures during the application of the preloads.
Here, it should also be noted that crack propagation increased the compliance of the bolts. Thus,
the acting preload was decreasing as long as the crack size was increasing, until a given moment in
which the acting load and the critical load converged and failures took place (a = 11.5–16.5 mm).
Finally, following the literature [2], this kind of steel, with the hardness values measured here,
presents critical stress intensity factors for (hydrogen-governed) stress corrosion cracking (KIscc ) in
the range of 20–30 MPa¨ m1/2 , and crack propagation rates in the order of 10´6 –10´7 m/s. For the
case being analysed, KIscc would be achieved for crack sizes around 1 mm. In the case of pre-existing
cracks of 1 mm (or larger), the time to reach the critical value would be in the order of several hours,
which is much lower than the time between the application of the preload and the failure of the
bolts. This indicates that the pre-existing cracks were lower than 1 mm, and most of the time during
which the bolts were operating corresponded to the incubation time of such cracks, after which they
propagated until failure.
With all this, the crack propagation process is composed of several stages: the first one corresponds
to the rupture of the zinc layer, after which a galvanic pair is formed. This facilitates the initiation
of the cracks in the base material, just below the coating. Once the cracks have been generated, they
propagate due to Hydrogen-Induced Cracking mechanisms until they reach their critical size for the
load sustained by the bolts.

5. Conclusions
This paper analyses the failure of three bolts used in the structural connections of a number
of steel towers located in northern Europe. It has been observed that the three analysed bolts
present very similar failure processes, with a circumferential external crack that led to the final failure.
The morphology of the crack propagation is typical of Hydrogen-Induced Stress Corrosion Cracking
(HISCC), with mixed intergranular-transgranular micromechanisms, numerous tearing processes and
secondary cracking. The cracks then grew subcritically until they reached their critical size.
The high strength steel of the bolts presents high susceptibility to Stress Corrosion Cracking and
Hydrogen-Induced Cracking phenomena when it is subjected to thermal treatments that, as in the
case here analysed, generate hardness values around (and above) 350 HV. Under such conditions,
the critical stress intensity factor for hydrogen-controlled stress corrosion cracking processes (KIscc ) is
drastically reduced, facilitating the initiation and subsequent propagation of cracks.
Quench cracking or fatigue processes have been ruled out given that, in the first case, the failures
would have occured during the application of the preloads and/or the in absence of zinc deposits on
the fracture surface; in the second case, the in-service time and the stress conditions in the bolts do not
justify any fatigue process.

Author Contributions: All the authors have contributed in the experimental tasks and analysis of the results.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Boyd, W.K.; Hyler, W.S. Factors affecting environmental performance of high-strength bolts. J. Struct. Div.
1973, 99, 1571–1588.
2. Townsend, H.E. Effects of Zinc Coatings on the Stress Corrosion Cracking and Hydrogen Embrittlement of
Low-Alloy Steel. Metall. Trans. A 1975, 6, 877–883. [CrossRef]
Metals 2016, 6, 163 14 of 14

3. Timmins, P.F. Solutions to Hydrogen Attack in Steels; ASM International: Materials Park, OH, USA, 1997.
4. Levy, E. Cracking of an alloy steel bolt. In Handbook of Case Histories in Failure Analysis; Esakul, K.A., Ed.;
ASM International: Materials Park, OH, USA, 1992; Volume 1, pp. 303–304.
5. Kerns, G.E. Fractures of hot dip galvanized steel anchor bolts in chemical plant construction project.
In Handbook of Case Histories in Failure Analysis; Esakul, K.A., Ed.; ASM International: Materials Park,
OH, USA, 1992; Volume 1, pp. 328–331.
6. Baggerly, R.G. Hydrogen-assisted Stress cracking of carburized and zinc plated SAE Grade 8 wheel studs.
In Handbook of Case Histories in Failure Analysis; Esakul, K.A., Ed.; ASM International: Materials Park, OH,
USA, 1992; Volume 2, pp. 396–400.
7. Levy, E. Hydrogen embrittlement delayed failure of a 4340 steel draw-in bolt. In Handbook of Case Histories in
Failure Analysis; ASM International: Materials Park, OH, USA, 1992; Volume 2, pp. 401–404.
8. Carpio, J.; Casado, J.A.; Álvarez, J.A.; Méndez, D.; Gutiérrez-Solana, F. Stress corrosion cracking of structural
steels immersed in hot-dip galvanizing baths. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2010, 17, 19–27. [CrossRef]
9. Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación. Características Mecánicas de los Elementos de Fijación de
Acero al Carbono y Acero Aleado. Parte 1: Pernos, Tornillos y Bulones con Clases de Calidad Especificadas. Rosca de
Paso Grueso y Rosca de Paso Fino; UNE-EN-ISO 898-1:2010; AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2010.
10. Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación. Características Mecánicas de los Elementos de Fijación
de Acero al Carbono y Acero Aleado. Parte 2: Tuercas con Valores de Carga de Prueba Especificados. Rosca de Paso
Grueso; UNE-EN-ISO 898-2:2010; AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2010.
11. Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación. Conjuntos de Elementos de Fijación Estructurales de Alta
Resistencia Para Precarga. Parte 2: Ensayo de Aptitud a la Precarga; UNE-EN-ISO 14399-2:2009; AENOR: Madrid,
Spain, 2009.
12. Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación. Elementos de Fijación. Recubrimientos por Galvanización
en Caliente; UNE-EN-ISO 10684:2006; AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2006.
13. Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación. Eurocódigo 3: Proyecto de Estructuras de Acero;
UNE-EN-ISO 1993-1-8:2011; AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2011.
14. Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación. Uniones Atornilladas Estructurales sin Precarga. Parte 1:
Requisitos Generals; UNE-EN-ISO 15048-1:2008; AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2008.
15. Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación. Tuercas Hexagonales Autofrenadas de Acero. Propiedades
de Funcionamiento. Ensayos de Par y Fuerza de Apriete y par de Autofrenado; UNE-EN-ISO 2320:2009; AENOR:
Madrid, Spain, 2009.
16. Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación. Sistemas de Designación de Aceros. Parte 1: Designación
Simbólica; UNE-EN-10027-1:2006; AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2006.
17. American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Test Method for Knoop and Vickers Hardness of Materials;
ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2011.
18. Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación. Materiales Metálicos. Ensayo de Tracción. Parte 1:
Método de Ensayo a Temperatura Ambiente; UNE-EN-ISO 6892-1:2010; AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2010.
19. British Standards. Guide to Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic Structures; British
Standards: London, UK, 2013.
20. GKSS Forschungszentrum. FITNET Fitness-for-Service (FFS) Procedure; Kocak, M., Webster, S., Janosch, J.J.,
Ainsworth, R.A., Koers, R., Eds.; GKSS Forschungszentrum: Geesthacht, Germany, 2008; Volume 1.
21. Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación. Materiales Metálicos. Ensayo de Flexión por Choque con
Péndulo Charpy. Parte 1: Método de Ensayo; ISO 148-1:2011; AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2011.

© 2016 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).