ADVANCED MATERIALS & PROCESSES | OCTOBER 2025 18 of anchor shafts and fan plates for anchors AA (unexposed), B, and BB (wildfire-exposed) was measured using a coating thickness gauge, with representative images shown in Fig. 8 and summarized results in Table 1. A comparative analysis was conducted to assess whether wildfire exposure caused any degradation or thinning of the galvanized coating. The measurements revealed generally consistent thickness across all anchors, indicating no significant loss of the protective zinc layer due to fire. One higher-than-expected reading at anchor BB was likely due to surface deposits or contaminants affecting the measurement rather than a true variation in coating thickness. Wall thickness measurement using an ultrasonic gauge. Ultrasonic measurements were taken to assess the wall thickness of the web and flange sections of I-beam-shaped anchors AA (unexposed), B, and BB (wildfire-exposed), as shown in Fig. 9, with results summarized in Table 2. A comparative analysis evaluated whether wildfire exposure caused any material loss that could affect structural performance. Wall thickness values across all three anchors were found to be consistent, with no significant thinning observed. These findings indicate that the wildfire exposure did not compromise structural integrity of the anchor shafts. In-situ hardness test. Vickers hardness testing was conducted on the flanges of I-beam-shaped anchors AA (unexposed), B, and BB (wildfire- exposed) using a portable hardness tester. To access the base metal, flange surfaces were ground to expose the underlying carbon steel, and zinc-rich paint was applied afterward to protect the exposed areas. A representative image of the testing is shown in Fig. 10, and the recorded values are summarized in Table 3. A comparative analysis revealed consistent hardness values across all three anchors with no significant abnormalities observed. These results indicate that wildfire exposure did not adversely affect the material hardness or structural integrity of the anchors. SEM/EDS analysis. A small strand sample from a wire rope at anchor BB TABLE 2 — WALL THICKNESS, in. Location Flange thickness Web thickness Anchor AA 0.386 0.337 0.196 0.189 Anchor B 0.364 0.348 0.182 0.189 Anchor BB 0.347 0.382 0.173 0.188 Fig. 9 — Photographs showing wall thickness of anchor BB (I-beam): (a) Wall thickness at web; and (b) wall thickness at flange. (b) (a) TABLE 3 — VICKERS HARDNESS, HV Location 1 2 3 4 5 Average hardness Anchor AA 102 101 102 93.2 101 100 Anchor B 118 100 98.3 87.9 101 101 Anchor BB 102 113 91.4 121 108 107 Fig. 10 — Photographs showing Vickers hardness values of anchor AA (flange). Fig. 11 — Small strand sample from wire rope at anchor BB removed for examination.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTYyMzk3NQ==