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

net/publication/276454303

Mechanical Properties of Welded Deformed Reinforcing Steel Bars

Article · May 2015

DOI: 10.14500/aro.10059

CITATION READS

1 878

1 author:

Ghafur H. Ahmed
Erbil polytechnic university
5 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

segmental bridge box girders View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ghafur H. Ahmed on 17 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

28 http://dx.doi.org/10.14500/aro.10059

Mechanical Properties of Welded Deformed

Reinforcing Steel Bars
Ghafur H. Ahmed
Department of Highway Engineering, Technical Engineering College, Hawler Polytechnic University
Erbil, Kurdistan Region of F.R. Iraq

 reinforcement for several reasons, as for anchors, dowels or

Abstract— Reinforcement strength, ductility and bendability lap splices. Welding also be may require in composite
properties are important components in design of reinforced structural steel and reinforced concrete structures and during
concrete members, as the strength of any member comes mainly alterations in reinforced concrete or repairs in building. In all
from reinforcement. Strain compatibility and plastic behaviors
cases considerations such as stress level in the bars,
are mainly depending on reinforcement ductility. In construction
practice, often welding of the bars is required. Welding of consequences of failure and heat damage to existing concrete
reinforcement is an instant solution in many cases, whereas due to welding operations needs precautions and special
welding is not a routine connection process. Welding will cause restrictions must be placed both on the type of steel used and
deficiencies in reinforcement bars, metallurgical changes and re- the welding procedures (Omer, et al., 1999; Marten, 2004;
crystallization of microstructure of particles. Weld metal Franchi and Crespi, 2007; ACI 318, 2011).
toughness is extremely sensitive to the welding heat input that
For structural steel construction purposes welding is a very
decreases both of its strength and ductility. For determining the
effects of welding in reinforcement properties, 48 specimens were effective means to connect two or more pieces of materials
tested with 5 different bar diameters, divided into six groups. together (Wai, and Eric, 2005; AWS A3.0M, 2010). Whereas,
Investigated parameters were: properties of un-welded bars; welding of reinforcing bars result in metallurgical changes that
strength, ductility and density of weld metal; strength and reduce yield and ultimate strength, ductility, toughness and
ductility reduction due to heat input for bundled bars and bendability (Serna, et al., 2002; Hakansson, 2002; Nikolaou
transverse bars; welding effect on bars’ bending properties;
and Papadimitriou, 2004; CRSI, 2004; Nurnberger, 2005).
behavior of different joint types; properties of three weld groove
shapes also the locations and types of failures sections. Results During welding process, there is an interference of many
show that, strength and elongation of the welded bars decreased factors that are all combined in the same time, factors and
by (10-40%) and (30-60%) respectively. Cold bending of welded actions mainly effect welding may be mechanical, geometrical
bars and groove welds shall be prevented. and chemical properties of reinforcement bars and welding
electrodes, thermochemical and electrochemical actions,
Index Terms— Deformed bar, heat input, strength and thermal stresses and welding fusion pressure and heat.
ductility reduction, welding, weld groove.
Considering all of the mentioned actions means, there is still
unknown reaction of the welded bars during and after welding
has been finished; the unknowns shall be found by
I. INTRODUCTION
experimental evidence and research (Kim, et al., 1987; Alk,
In the second half of the nineteenth century, the possibility of Savvopoulos. and Dimitrov, 2001; Franchi and Crespi, 2007).
using reinforcement bars to reinforced concrete was found
(Nilson, H., Darwin, D. and Dolan, W., 2004). From that time
to now, thousands of studies have been performed on the II. SCOPE OF THE WORK
reinforcement bars for determining the best performance of
Welding of deformed reinforced bars ASTM A615-09b
reinforcement in the concrete. In many cases of concrete
(2009) tested according to ASTM A370-10 (2010) having
building construction, it is required to weld concrete
diameters 8-25mm subjected to tensile stress. Clean bars, non-
corroded nor coated, plain bars were excluded. Welding
______________________________________________________________ procedure and welding electrodes must be according to AWS
ARO, The Scientific Journal of Koya University
A5.1M (2012). Welding thickness is the filled space between
Volume III, No 1(2015), Article ID: ARO.10059, 12 pages
DOI: 10.14500/ARO.10059 the ribs of the two bundled or lapped bars and both faces.
Received 31 October 2014; Accepted 15 March 2015 Length and width of welding varies according to the bar
Regular research paper: Published 10 May 2015 diameter and the case studied.
Corresponding author’s e-mail: [email protected]
Copyright © 2015 Ghafur H. Ahmed. This is an open access article
distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License.

ARO p-ISSN: 2410-9355, e-ISSN: 2307-549X

http://dx.doi.org/10.14500/aro.10059 29

III. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE 𝜓𝑤 : factor used to modify development length for welded
In concrete building construction, sometimes it is required deformed wire reinforcement in tension, fy (MPa): yield
to weld concrete reinforcement for several reasons, like: strength of the welded bar. db (mm):nominal diameter of bar
headed anchors or dowels in footing, lap splices in slabs, and, s (mm): is the spacing between the bars to be developed.
beams, columns or staircases, also may be in composite
ACI 318-11 12.18 & 12.15
structural steel-reinforced concrete structures. In residential
Lap splice required same length for welded and un-welded
houses projects, the engineers permit to weld metal doors or
when provided reinforcement is less than double of that
windows to the main beam or column reinforcement. It is
required by analysis (class B), for provided area more than
common to weld reinforcement ties, stirrups and splices in
double of required by analysis (class A), welded splices
seismic resistance buildings for post ultimate behaviors
require 30% more length, bars of diameters larger than 16mm
(Omer, et al., 1999; ACI 318, 2011). As welding of
shall be increased by 50% (12.19). The overlap measured
reinforcement is used in construction, therefore it is of great
between outermost cross wires of each reinforcement sheet
interest for designers and site engineers to have
shall be not less than 50 mm (12.18.1). The total tensile force
comprehensive idea, that how the welding will affect the
that can be developed at each section must be at least twice
mechanical properties of the welded bars interim of
that required by analysis, and at least 140 MPa times the total
weldability, bendability, toughness and ductility (Omer, et al.,
area of reinforcement provided (12.15.5.3).
1999; Achillopoulou, Pardalakis and Karabinis, 2013).
ACI 318-11 12.17
For column splices, butt welding can be applied but when
IV. PROBLEM STATEMENT
stress level in the bars is (≤ 0.5fy) for class A and B depending
In many cases, it is necessary to weld to existing reinforcing on area, whereas stress level is (> 0.5fy) shall be class B,
bars in a structure. It should be determined if precautions are which is increased in splice length by 30%.
in order, based on considerations such as stress level in the From the above comparisons, the following principles can
bars, consequences of failure, and heat damage to existing be drawn, to prevent bond failure between weld metal and
concrete due to welding operations (ACI 318, 2011). Welding reinforcing bar;
of bars should be performed in accordance with AWS D1.4 1) Shorter development length or splice required, means
(2011), whereas welding of wire or welded wire reinforcement stronger bond provided.
to reinforcing bars or structural steel elements is not covered 2) Smaller fy leads to smaller ψw then shorter bond length
by AWS D1.4 (2011). If such welding are required on a required, means stronger bond exist, i.e. smaller fy leads
project, the requirements or performance criteria for this to stronger bond in welded bars, for constant other
welding should specified, the potential loss of yield strength parameters.
and ductility achieved when reinforcement is heated by 3) Smaller bar diameters, smaller ψw, shorter bond length
welding (Omer, et al., 1999; Popovic, et al., 2010; ACI 318, required, stronger bond exist.
2011). These potential concerns are not an issue for machine 4) Cross bars can carry a stress component in tensioned bars,
and resistance welding as used in the manufacture of welded so the bond length can be reduced, whereas for the same
plain and deformed wire reinforcement covered by ASTM length, the bond for welded bars with cross bars is
A1064M-10 (2010). stronger.
5) Cross bars less than 50 mm away from critical section are
not effective and their mechanical properties also will be
V. WELDING DEFORMED REINFORCING BARS IN ACI 318 disturbed, due to the welding heat input.
CODE (2011) 6) When stress levels are low (0.5fy) in the bar, butt welding
For understanding the code special considerations regarded which is relatively weak welding type for reinforcing bars
to welding, the code provisions for welded and un-welded is permitted, means technical welding always over that
deformed reinforcement shall be compared. For this purpose stress level i.e. 0.5fy is 275MPa, 260MPa and 210MPa for
the following cases can be discussed: G550, G520 and G420 respectively.
7) Minimum length of welding stated in ACI 318 (2011) is
ACI 318-11 12.7 & 12.2 50mm. Developed welded section shall transfer at least
development length of welded bars is development length of double required by analysis or 140MPa, i.e. minimum
un-welded bars times welding factor (ψw), see (1), the factor is possible welded strength is 140MPa.
always (1.0), except when across bar exist in development
length and this bar is at least 50mm away from critical section.
VI. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
𝑓 −240 5𝑑𝑏 Experimental program illustrate the materials used, testing
𝜓𝑤 = ( 𝑦 ≥ ) ≤ 1.0 (1) machines and the parameters investigated in the present
𝑓𝑦 𝑠
research.

ARO p-ISSN: 2410-9355, e-ISSN: 2307-549X

30 http://dx.doi.org/10.14500/aro.10059

A. Materials 10 (2010) and welding procedure was according to AWS D1.4

Commonly used materials in construction projects were used (2011) for all the bars welded, the welding consist of single
for the data to be really reflecting the true practical case. pass and double welded faces (Hakansson, K., 2002), with
filling the space between ribs, and one bar diameter left un-
Welding Electrodes welded for both welded ends.
Welding electrodes were manufactured by Golden Bridge
welding materials group, Tianjin Yanqiao welding materials Group-1: Normal tests (15 specimens)
co. ltd, of type J38.12, with Ø3.2mm and 350mm length, For determining the normal reinforcement mechanical bar
conformed to GB/T 5117-2012, GB E4313 and AWS A5.1 properties, yield strength, ultimate strength, elongation and
E6013 as well as ISO 9001. The properties of the electrodes bending. Also the nominal parameters were measured, like:
are shown in Table I. diameter, area, perimeter, mass, deformation and rib
dimensions. Bar diameters were 8, 10, 12, 16 and 25mm, three
specimens for each of the bar diameters were averaged.
TABLE I
PROPERTIES OF THE WELDING ELECTRODES E6013 AND AWS A5.1M (2012)
SPECIFICATIONS Group-2: Welding strength (9 specimens)
Chemical composition of deposition metal (%) Three specimens for each of the bar diameters: 8, 12 and 25
Element (%) C Mn Si S P mm were used for finding the welding strength. For this
≤ purpose 10 mm length between two straight end bars was
Manufacturer test ≤ 0.12 0.30-0.60 ≤ 0.35 ≤ 0.035
0.040 filled with melted pure weld, having the same bar cross
Specification ≤ 0.20 ≤ 1.20 ≤ 1.00 - - sectional area. Since the welding has not a homogeneous
Mechanical Properties of Deposition Metal matrix of particles, and it may be changed by specimen size
Parameter Fy Fu Elongation Impact value, effect, three specimens were averaged for each diameter.
(MPa) (MPa) (%) KV2 (J) (0°)
460-
Manufacturer test 340
540
18-26 50-75 Group-3: Strength and ductility reduction (9 specimens)
Specification ≥ 330 ≥ 430 ≥ 17 ≥ 47 For investigating the effects of welding inputted heat, two
bars in each of 10, 12 and 16 mm diameters were welded
together for double face full length (500 mm) except a gap of
Reinforcement Bars 20, 100 and 200 mm was remained un-welded in the center of
Deformed concrete reinforcing bars were used and tested the bar. The group must determine the results of failure
according to ASTM A370-10 (2010). The measured location and its distance away from welding edge, reduction in
parameters and the tested properties of the bars compared to yield and ultimate strengths and as well as elongations.
ASTM A615-09b (2009) were shown in Table II and Table
III, respectively. Group-4: Transverse bars (3 specimens)
To study the effects of transverse reinforcement bars (like
B. Machines and Tools BRC mesh), three 16mm bars were tested having transverse
16mm cross bars with 150mm length. For first specimen one
Tensile Testing machine bar was welded in the center of tension, second specimen have
Material Testing Equipment – Yuksel Kaya Makina, 600 two bars 50 mm away from the center and the third specimen
kN capacity and 0.1 kN resolution. has three welded bars, one in the center and another’s are
100mm away from the center (ASTM A184M, 2005). All bars
Bending test machine were welded in the four contact points (i.e. right, left, top and
Universal Testing Machine – Controls, test range Ø6 to bottom).
Ø32mm.
Group-5: Bend test (9 specimens)
Welding Machine For understanding the effects of the welding on the
AC Arc Welder- BX1-1000, 3-Phase model, dual mode properties of reinforcement bars subjected to bending test,
voltage 220V and 380V, Current 180-1000 A. three bars with 8, 12 and 25mm diameters and 700mm length,
were tested by three ways, normal, lap welded and link
Weighing Balance welded. Welding length in the both cases was 100mm.
CWT22 Dikomsan; 30kg capacity and 0.1g resolution.
Group-6: weld groove shape (3 specimens)
Vernier Caliper For investigating the best end cut shape before welding,
Mechanical Vernier; 200 mm capacity and 0.02 mm 16mm bars were tested for three section cuts, namely straight
resolution. ends, square (ǁ) shape, bevel (I/) shape and (V) shape. Inclined
surfaces were 45° from vertical edge and the welding lengths
C. Investigated Parameters
were 32mm (Omer et al., 1999; Wai, C. and Eric, M., 2005).
Mechanical tests were performed according to ASTM 370-

ARO p-ISSN: 2410-9355, e-ISSN: 2307-549X

http://dx.doi.org/10.14500/aro.10059 31

VII. WELDING AND WELDABILITY As the technical welding is a sensitive process, the welder
The welds made by the welding machines are electric shall have an experience of the welding parameters like
resistance welds. This type of weld results from a fusion polarity, porosity, penetration, surface condition, welding
process that uses a combination of pressure and heat generated sequence (Omer et al., 1999) and the factors that effect of
by electric impulses. In other words, the intersections of the producing best aspect and performance welding; in present
steel bars and the welding electrodes are fused together. No study the welder has an experience of 31 years of welding.
foreign matter is introduced in the welding process (Omer, et Performance of the welding is directly related to the amount of
al., 1999; CRSI, 2004). heat input during welding process, energy input depend on the
Welding electrodes are classified to several hundred types factors shown in Eq.2 (GLA, 2000; Marten L., 2004; Popovic
(AWS A5.1, 2012); each kind has been specified for et al., 2010). Low heat input produce a porous weld and weak
strength/welding position/coating material. In this work and bonding, whereas overheating effect reversely on the strength
similar studies (Nikolaou and Papadimitriou, 2004), and ductility of the welded bars, optimum E value is 0.7
electrodes of E6013 type were used which means: E indicates kJ/mm (Omer, 1999; Popovic, et al., 2010).
that this is an electrode. 60 indicate how strong this electrode
is when welded, measured in (ksi). 1 Indicates in what E=0.06(U×I×T)/Lw (2)
welding positions it can be used (flat, horizontal, vertical,
overhead). 3 Indicates the coating, penetration, and current E: Energy (heat) inputted (kJ/mm), U: welding voltage (Volts),
type used. I: welding current (AMP), T: welding time (min), Lw: weld
E6013 coating is rutile potassium, with light penetration, length (mm).
current type: AC/DC (Weld-D-Arc, 2013). All position Thermochemical and electrochemical composition changes
welding titanium low hydrogen type electrodes with ferrous are greater at a low than at a high welding speed.
powder in the coating. It has high welding efficiency, smooth Electrochemical reactions are enhanced by higher, total
appearance, stable arc and negligible spatter loss (Lincoln E., current flow per unit volume of weld metal. Thermochemical
2014). reactions at a low welding speed are enhanced by higher
In general, the strength of the electrode used should equal temperatures and longer reaction time before solidification
or exceed the strength of the steel being welded (AWS (Kim et al., 1987; Bohler W. 2005).
D1.4M, 2011). Finished welds should be inspected to ensure When welding of reinforcing bars is required, the
their quality. Inspection should be performed by qualified weldability of the steel and compatible welding procedures
welding inspectors. A number of inspection methods are needs to be considered. The provisions in AWS D1.4 welding
available for weld inspections, including visual inspection, the code cover aspects of welding reinforcing bars, including
use of liquid penetrants, magnetic particles, ultrasonic criteria to qualify welding procedures (ACI 318, 2011). For
equipment, and radiographic methods (Omer, et al., 1999; Wai steel bars, the carbon equivalent shall be calculated in Eq.3,
and Eric, 2005; AWS A3.0M, 2010). using the chemical composition shown in the mill test report
The used welding type was SMAW (Shielded Metal Arc (Omer, et al., 1999; AWS D1.4M, 2011; EN 1011-1/A1,
Welding). SMAW is an arc welding process with an arc 2010).
between a covered electrode and the weld pool (Nurnberger, CE = %(C) + %(Mn/6) (3)
2005; AWS A5.1M, 2012; James, 2013). The process is used
with shielding from the decomposition of the electrode CE: Carbon Equivalent (%), C: carbon content (%), Mn:
covering, without the application of pressure, and with filler Manganese (%).
metal from the electrode (Bohler, 2005). SMAW is often used
for bar-bar welding (Nikolaou and Papadimitriou, 2004) and For the used electrodes in this study CE range is 0.17-0.22.
it is filler material could be E6013 (AWS A5.1M, 2012). The If CE is less than 0.53, the reinforcement is intrinsically
minimum allowed preheat and interpass temperature is 27°C, weldable, if larger, then the hard and brittle microstructural
whereas, best performance for preheat temperature is 150°C constituents may be formed, these constituents may be
for Ø19mm and smaller, and 260°C for Ø22mm and larger detrimental for good behavior of steel to dynamic loading
(AWS D1.4M, 2011). Welding shall not allow below 4°C. In (Nikolaou and Papadimitriou, 2004; Elijah, 2010). Weldability
cold weathers preheating to reach to at least 27°C shall be is improved by decreasing the carbon content, increasing the
applied. Cool down rate shall not exceed 55°C/hour (AWS nickel content and by stabilization (Nurnberger, 2005;
A3.0, 2010; Lincoln E., 2014). Increasing in welding speed Popovic, et al., 2010).
decreases the welding heat input and chance of formation of
defects in weld metal. Whereas, decreasing the welding speed
increases the hardness and yield strength of the base metal VIII. TEST RESULTS
(Bahman and Alialhosseini, 2010); therefore, the travel speed The results for groups of reinforcement bars numbered 1, 2, 3,
of 15-45 cm/min is recommended (AWS A3.0, 2010; Lincoln, 4, 5 and 6 are shown in Tables II & III, IV, V&VI, VII, VII
2014). and IX, respectively.

ARO p-ISSN: 2410-9355, e-ISSN: 2307-549X

32 http://dx.doi.org/10.14500/aro.10059

TABLE II
TEST RESULTS OF G1: MEASURED PARAMETERS VS. ASTM A615-09B LIMITATIONS
nominal dimensions* deformation requirements (mm)
Bar des. nominal mass diameter cross sectional area perimeter maximum average minimum average maximum
No. (kg/m) (mm) (mm2) (mm) spacing height gap**
test spec. test spec. test spec. test spec. test spec. test spec. test spec.
8 0.399 0.394 8.0 8.0 50.8 50 25.3 25.1 4.60 5.6 0.69 0.32 1.20 3.1
10 0.595 0.560 9.8 9.5 75.8 71 30.9 29.9 6.32 6.7 0.50 0.38 1.46 3.6
12 0.850 0.844 11.7 12.0 108.3 113 36.9 37.7 7.66 8.4 0.69 0.48 1.60 4.6
16 1.573 1.552 16.1 15.9 203.6 199 50.6 49.9 9.66 11.1 0.94 0.71 2.50 6.1
25 3.963 3.973 25.4 25.4 504.8 510 79.6 79.8 15.64 17.8 1.37 1.27 3.24 9.7

* The nominal dimensions of a deformed bar are equivalent to those of a plain round bar having the same mass per meter as the deformed bar.
** Chord of 12.5 % of nominal perimeter.

TABLE III
TEST RESULTS OF G1: TESTED PARAMETERS VS. ASTM A615-09B SPECIFICATION
Bar designation Yield strength (MPa) Tensile strength (MPa) Elongation (%) Bending Sample Grade
No. test spec. test spec. test spec. (inner roller diameter, bending angle)
8 675.4 550 782.8 725 11.7 7 Pass: Ø32,180° G550
10 689.8 550 820.3 725 10.9 7 - G550
12 617.6 550 742.2 725 17.2 7 Pass: Ø44, 180° G550
16 447.5 420 654.0 620 17.7 9 - G420
25 552.7 420 667.1 620 17.6 8 Pass: Ø128, 180° G420

TABLE IV
TEST RESULTS OF G2, WELD METAL MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
Bar Mass of weld Guaranteed yield
Diameter Nominal weld Weld density Yield strength Ultimate Combined
des. per 10mm strength & Bar stress
(mm) area (mm2) (kg/m3) (MPa) Strength MPa Elongation (%)
No. (g) level
8 8.07 51.12 4.03 7883 409.5 539.5 2.6
409.5
8 8.03 50.62 3.97 7843 7863 527.9 475.4 576.3 558.3 1.9 2.2
(0.61fy bar)
8 8.06 51.00 4.01 7863 488.7 559.2 2.1
12 11.76 108.56 8.56 7885 392.1 563.3 3.1
392.1
12 11.72 107.83 8.42 7809 7850 411.7 415.4 428.5 503.4 2.5 2.8
(0.63fy bar)
12 11.74 108.19 8.50 7857 442.5 518.3 2.7
25 25.30 502.47 39.27 7815 356.3 395.1 4.9
280.3
25 25.30 502.47 39.23 7807 7824 315.8 317.5 446.2 432.9 5.6 5.4
(0.51fy bar)
25 25.36 504.86 39.63 7850 280.3 457.3 5.6

TABLE V
TEST RESULTS OF G3, STRENGTH REDUCTION
Yield Load Ultimate Load
Bar Un-welded double welding single bar double welding single bar
un- reduced un- reduced
des. center gap bar resisted resisted bar resisted resisted
welded strength welded strength
No. (mm) welded load* load welded load* load
(kN) (%) (kN) (%)
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
10 20 52.3 73.1 12.6 30.3 42.1 62.2 100.1 17.2 41.5 33.3
10 100 52.3 79.3 13.6 32.9 37.1 62.2 105.9 18.2 43.9 29.4
10 200 52.3 91.2 15.7 37.8 27.7 62.2 115.0 19.8 47.6 23.5
12 20 66.9 109.5 16.3 46.6 30.3 80.4 138.8 20.7 59.1 26.5
12 100 66.9 112.2 16.7 47.8 28.6 80.4 140.9 21.0 60.0 25.4
12 200 66.9 119.1 17.7 50.7 24.2 80.4 148.4 22.1 63.2 21.4
16 20 91.1 174.8 19.8 77.5 14.9 131.1 249.0 28.1 110.5 15.7
16 100 91.1 175.9 19.9 78.0 14.4 131.1 253.8 28.7 112.6 14.1
16 200 91.1 177.6 20.1 78.8 13.5 131.1 260.8 29.5 115.7 11.7
* Calculated from the true applied stress, which is uniformly distributed over the bars and the welded area.

ARO p-ISSN: 2410-9355, e-ISSN: 2307-549X

http://dx.doi.org/10.14500/aro.10059 33

TABLE VI
TEST RESULTS OF G3, DUCTILITY REDUCTION AND FAILURE DATA
variables Elongation welded strength Grade
Bar un-welded un- welded vs. welded length in failure location Yield Ultimate
reduction
des. center gap welded specification half of tension from weld edge strength strength normal welded*
No. (mm) (%) (%) (%) range (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa)
10 20 10.9 04.2 < 11 61.5 90 50 399.6 547.3 550 Fail
10 100 10.9 05.0 < 11 54.1 50 51 433.9 579.0 550 Fail
10 200 10.9 06.1 < 11 44.0 00 45 498.5 627.8 550 Fail
12 20 17.2 06.7 < 12 61.0 90 48 430.2 545.6 550 Fail
12 100 17.2 08.2 < 12 52.3 50 45 441.3 553.9 550 Fail
12 200 17.2 10.3 < 12 40.1 00 48 468.0 583.4 550 Fail
16 20 17.7 07.1 < 12 59.9 90 40 380.7 542.8 420 Fail
16 100 17.7 09.7 < 12 45.2 50 42 383.1 553.2 420 Fail
16 200 17.7 12.2 > 12 31.1 00 52 387.1 568.4 420 G280
* Most welded bars failed because of the reduced elongations were not conformed to the specification limit.

TABLE VII
TEST RESULTS OF G4, TRANSVERSE REINFORCEMENT
Yield Strength (MPa) Ultimate Strength (MPa) Elongation (%)
Bar des. No. No. of cross bars
uw w w/uw r (%) uw w w/uw r (%) uw w w/uw r (%)
16 1 447.5 446.5 1.00 0.2 654.0 657.8 1.01 - 0.6 17.7 10.2 0.58 42.4
16 2 447.5 442.6 0.99 1.1 654.0 648.3 0.99 0.9 17.7 10.1 0.57 42.9
16 3 447.5 445.5 1.00 0.5 654.0 651.8 1.00 0.3 17.7 10.3 0.58 41.8

uw: un-welded, w: welded, r: reduction. The (-) sign means that the value has been increased. The transverse bars were spaced 100 mm c/c.

TABLE VIII
TEST RESULTS OF G5, REINFORCEMENT BENDING
Bar des. No. Test variable Sample Grade Inner roller diameter Hook angle Result Failure mode
8 Normal G550 Ø32 mm 180° Pass Perfect bend, No cracks
8 Lap connected G550 Ø32 mm 180° Pass Perfect bend, No cracks
8 Link connected G550 Ø32 mm 180° Fail Bar rupture, weld failure
12 Normal G550 Ø44 mm 180° Pass Perfect bend, No cracks
12 Lap connected G550 Ø44 mm 180° Pass Perfect bend, No cracks
12 Link connected G550 Ø44 mm 180° Fail Bar rupture, weld failure
25 Normal G420 Ø128 mm 180° Pass Perfect bend, No cracks
25 Lap connected G420 Ø128 mm 180° Fail Bar deeply cracked
25 Link connected G420 Ø128 mm 180° Fail Welding bond failure

TABLE IX
TEST RESULTS OF G6, WELD GROOVE SHAPE
Bar Weld un-welded welded welded/un-welded Reduction (%)
Groove
des. length Yield Ultimate Elongation Yield Ultimate Elongation
shape Yield Ultimate Elongation Yield Ultimate Elongation
No. mm (MPa) (MPa) (%) (MPa) (MPa) (%)
16 32 Square 447.5 654.0 17.7 251.1 317.8 1.6 0.56 0.49 0.09 43.9 51.4 91.0
16 32 Bevel 447.5 654.0 17.7 332.1 388.3 3.5 0.74 0.59 0.20 25.8 40.6 80.2
16 32 Vee 447.5 654.0 17.7 391.9 479.0 5.1 0.88 0.73 0.29 12.4 26.8 71.2

IX. ANALYSIS OF THE TEST RESULTS metal bond strength, whereas during tensile test, such heights
will produce points of stress concentration. Therefore the
Group-1: Normal Tests maximum spacing of deformations restricted by specification,
In normal test results each data point is the average of three as by increasing such points the tensile stress will better
test specimens. All tested parameters are conformed to distribute over the bar length.
specifications, except in case of 12 and 25mm bars, the
nominal area are less by 5mm2. Bar deformations can have an Group-2: Weld metal mechanical properties
important role in welded bars, because height of deformation In ASD (allowable stress design), the strength of welds is
and ribs will increase the total contact area for bar and welding expressed in terms of allowable stress. In LRFD (load and

ARO p-ISSN: 2410-9355, e-ISSN: 2307-549X

34 http://dx.doi.org/10.14500/aro.10059

resistance factor design), the design strength of welds is taken 2004; Wai, and Eric, 2005; AWS A3.0M, 2010; Popovic, et
as the smaller of the design strength of the base material al., 2010), high heat input result in low strength, low hardness
(expressed as a function of the yield stress of the material) and and low toughness, whereas low heat input (≤ 60°C) will give
the design strength of the weld electrode (expressed as a risk of hydrogen cracking in the weld (Scott, 1999;
function of the strength of the electrode EXX). These Hakansson, 2002).
allowable stresses and design strengths are summarized in
Table X (AISC-LRFD, 2005; Wai and Eric, 2005). During
design using ASD, the computed stress in the weld shall not 500

Yield Strength (MPa)

exceed its allowable value. During design using LRFD, the 450 Yield
design strength of welds should exceed the required strength
400
obtained by dividing the load to be transmitted by the effective
area of the welds (Omer et al., 1999; Franchi, A. and Crespi, 350
P., 2007). y = -8.642x + 532.77
300
R² = 0.9676
In Table X, the guaranteed allowable stresses from test 250
results are so close to the allowable stresses for smaller bars 5 10 15 20 25 30
with a little deviation for Ø25mm, which refers to the non- weld diameter (mm)
homogeneous matrix of weld metal particles and for size (a) Yield strength
effects. ACI 318 (2011, pp. 47 & 219) stated that deformed 600

Ultimate Str. (MPa)

wire larger than Ø16mm is treated as plain wire because tests Ultimate
550
show that Ø20mm wire will achieve only approximately 60
percent of the bond strength in tension. 500

450
y = -6.7186x + 599.27
400 R² = 0.9402
TABLE X
ALLOWABLE TENSILE STRESS FOR THE WELDED BARS 350
Allowable 5 10 15 20 25 30
Design
tensile Ø8 mm Ø12 mm Ø25 mm weld diameter (mm)
method
stress (b) Ultimate strength
0.6fyb 405.2 370.6 331.6
ASD 10
0.5fub 391.4 371.1 333.6
0.9fyb 607.9 555.8 497.4 Elongation
LRFD 8
Elongation (%)

0.9fyw 427.9 373.9 285.8

y = 0.186x + 0.6462
Allowable stress on 6
391.4=0.58fyb 370.6=0.60fyb 285.8=0.52fyb R² = 0.9987
the welded bars
Guaranteed allowable 4
409.5=0.61fyb 392.1=0.63fyb 280.3=0.51fyb
stress from test results
2
fyb: bar yield strength, fyw: weld metal yield strength, fub: bar ultimate strength.
0
5 10 15 20 25 30
weld diameter (mm)
The strength of the weld metal varies inversely with cross- (c) Elongation
sectional area (Shultz and Jackson, 1973), as shown in Fig. 1–
7900
a and Fig. 1-b, especially for the yield strength which decrease
7880 Density
in a steeper slope. The case is referring to have more weak
Density (kg/m3)

points in a larger sample. Reducing strength for constant 7860

density material means, the material is going to be more
7840
ductile, with increased elongation (Fig.1-c). Density of the
y = -2.1708x + 7878.3
weld metal is near to 7850 kg/m3 of reinforcement bars (Fig. 7820
R² = 0.9835
1-d), also for the strength, whereas ductility is much smaller. 7800
This smaller original ductility with the heat input effects, will 5 10 15 20 25 30
produce a brittle welded reinforcement bars in the welding weld diameter (mm)
points (Omer, et al., 1999; Popovic, et al., 2010). (d) Density

Fig. 1. Results of G2: weld material properties vs. weld diameter

Group-3: Strength and ductility reduction
Theoretically, the strength results for this group
reinforcement bars must at least as strong as double of the In Fig. 2 the reduction in the yield and ultimate strength is
normal un-welded single bars, if the resistance provided by the mostly depend on the bar diameter and the welded length.
additional area of weld is ignored, but it is clear in Table V When the bar diameter is less the effects of the welding heat is
and Table VI that the strength is decreased. Actually the appeared more which leads to more strength reduction
reduction is caused by the heat input during welding (CRSI, (Popovic, et al. 2010; Achillopoulou, Pardalakis and

ARO p-ISSN: 2410-9355, e-ISSN: 2307-549X

http://dx.doi.org/10.14500/aro.10059 35

Karabinis, 2013). When the welding length is increased there 50

is more heating effects and the strength reduction is more. The WLTR=90mm
45 WLTR=50mm
reduction ratio in the yield strength is always more than that in

Yield Srength Reduction (%)

the ultimate strength. Research stated 30% reduction in yield 40 WLTR=00mm

and 10% reduction in ultimate strength shall be expected 35

(Scott, 1999).
30
In Fig. 2-c the reduction in the elongation is so large 31-
62% (Nikolaou and Papadimitriou, 2004) stated as 50%), in 25
which the remained post weld elongation is no more
20
conformed to the specification limits as shown in Table VI.
Reduction in elongation leads to decrease the failure time from 15
yield point until the ultimate strength and then failure, so the 10
plastic range safety is decreased and sudden failures should be 8 10 12 14 16 18
expected. Bar Diameter (mm)
The mentioned welding heat effects will gradually reduce (a) Yield strength
when the bar diameters are of larger sizes, when the bar
diameter is larger the generated welding weakening heat can’t 50
WLTR=90mm
penetrate to the core of the bar like the smaller bars. This fact 45

Ultimate Strength Reduction (%)

WLTR=50mm
can be seen in the failure section as in the smaller bars (like
40 WLTR=00mm
10 mm) the boundary between the bars’ surface and the
welding can’t be separated, whereas in the larger bars (like 16 35
mm) the separation line can be seen easily, in more simple 30
words, the welding heat input caused re-crystallization of the
particles for smaller bar diameters (Omer, et al., 1999; 25
Popovic, et al., 2010). 20

15
Group-4: Transverse bars
Welding of crossing reinforcing bars can lead to local 10
embrittlement of the steel (ACI 318, 2011; AWS D1.4M, 8 10 12 14 16 18
2011) and during tension test the bar will rupture in the point Bar Diameter (mm)
directly to the edge of welding. The inputted heat of welding (b) Ultimate strength
is the cause for this local weakening (Hakansson, 2002; CRSI, 80
2004; Nurnberger, 2005). For the same reason ACI 318 (2011, WLTR=90mm
75
pp. 219) had not permitted reduction in welded development WLTR=50mm
70
Elongation Reduction (%)

length and welded splice, when a cross bar exist less than WLTR=00mm
65
50mm from critical section. This case is different from cold
welding for deformed welded wire meshes or mats 60
manufactured in mill that has not considerable changes in 55
properties caused by welding (ASTM A184M, 2005; ACI 318, 50
2011). 45
The term "tack welding" has become firmly established and 40
embedded in building codes and in design and construction 35
specifications to describe the connection of crossing bars by 30
small arc welds (CRSI, 2004). Tack welding can seriously 8 10 12 14 16 18
weaken a bar at the point welded by creating a metallurgical Bar Diameter (mm)
notch effect. This operation can be performed safely only (c) Elongation
when the material welded and welding operations are under
Fig. 2. Results G3: reduction s vs. different bar diameters for different WLTR
continuous competent control, as in the manufacture of welded (weld length in tension range, between grips).
wire reinforcement (Omer, et al., 1999; Serna, et al., 2002;
Nikolaou and Papadimitriou, 2004; ACI 318, 2011). During
preparation of test samples in this group, the welding was well The test simulation is different from reaction of transverse
controlled considering (continuous competent control); bars during loading in a real structure, because there is already
therefore the test results shown in Table VII and Fig. 3 are of stresses in the cross bars and it is required complex procedure
negligible reduction in yield and ultimate strengths. The to consider three dimensional stress analyses. But the purpose
reduction in ductility was around 40% of original elongation, of the investigation is determining pure effects of the welding
but the retained elongation (10%) is still conformed to due to the tack welds and to avoid interference of stresses in
specification requirements (9% min.). the cross bars. In the other side tests demonstrate that cross

ARO p-ISSN: 2410-9355, e-ISSN: 2307-549X

36 http://dx.doi.org/10.14500/aro.10059

reinforcement rarely yields during a bond failure (ACI 318, and visible surface cracks; whereas the lapped welded bars
2011, pp.211). can’t resist relatively large bending load in case of 25mm
diameter bars, the case was different for small diameters (like
8 and 12mm) as they were passed from the test. In case of
50 linked welded bars all the bars were failed to bend, because of
the un-connected main bars together, so the critical point was
40 Yield at the center of the bar, therefore the high stresses leads to
Yield Strength Reduction (%)

bond failure between weld. In fact the outer part from neutral
30 axis of the bar was subjected to tensile stress, which is directly
related to the elongation limits of the bars. Whereas the
20
reduced elongations due to the heat of welding (shown in
10 Table VI, VII and IX, will not permit the outer surface of the
bar to extend like the un-welded bars, this will cause the
0 rupture of the bars and welding, and then a brittle failure was
happened (Serna, et al., 2002).
-10 Welded wire reinforcement can be used for stirrups and ties.
0 1 2 3 4
The wire at welded intersections does not have the same
No of cross bars
uniform ductility and bendability as in areas that were not
(a) Yield strength heated. These effects of the welding temperature are usually
dissipated in a distance of approximately four bar diameters
50 (ACI 318, 2011) or the effect may extend to 100mm from the
Ultimate weld toe (AWS A3.0M, 2010). Tests have shown that ASTM-
40
Ultimate Str. Reduction (%)

A615 G280 & G420 reinforcing bars can be cold bent and
30 straightened up to 90 degrees at or near the minimum
diameter. If cracking or breakage is encountered, heating to
20 maximum temperature of 820°C may avoid this condition for
the remainder of the bars (ACI 318, 2011, pp.90).
10

0 Group-6: Weld groove shape

Welded connections are connections whose components are
-10 joined together primarily by welds. Welds can be classified
0 1 2 3 4 according to: the types of welds (groove welds, fillet welds,
No of cross bars plug welds, and slot welds), the positions of the welds
(b) Ultimate strength (horizontal welds, vertical welds, overhead welds, and flat
welds) and the types of joints (butt, lap, corner, edge, and tee)
80 (Omer, et al., 1999; AISC, 2005; Wai, and Eric, 2005).
The test results of this group are shown in Table IX and Fig. 4,
70 Elongation by noting the strength of the groove shapes, easily it can be
Elongation Reduction (%)

concluded that the V-shaped groove will be the most strong

60 type, and the state may be justified by the principle of: the
larger contacted surface between the bar and weld metal, gives
50 larger effective bonding area, thus stronger bond had been
produced.
40
The groove welds chosen were used in welding of an
informal construction projects, and their strength may be still
in the range of permitted levels by AISC code (2005) for low
30
0 1 2 3 4 stress level not exceeding 0.5fy especially for V-shape.
No of cross bars Whereas these types of welding shall be completely avoided
for alterations in reinforced concrete using SMAW welding,
(c) Elongation for quality works (Lincoln E., 2014), because of the brittle
joints, which leads to sudden rupture of the bars or welds, may
Fig. 3. Results of Group 4: No of cross bars vs. reduced parameters be before appearing visible cracks in concrete (Choi, et al.,
2013). The reason is the reduction in elongation of the joint;
other welding methods like flash butt pressure welding or
Group-5: Bending of reinforcement
robot welder showed accepted results (Hakansson, 2002;
The results of this group are shown in Table VIII, normal
Nurnberger, 2005; Chvertko, Skachkov and Chvertko, 2011).
bars were passed perfectly from the test without local angles

ARO p-ISSN: 2410-9355, e-ISSN: 2307-549X

http://dx.doi.org/10.14500/aro.10059 37

60 difficult because inspection of the welds is rather arduous

(Omer, et al., 1999; Wai and Eric, 2005). As a result it is
Yield
50 recommended to connect reinforcement bars using fillet weld
to have horizontal or overhead welding positions with edge,
Yield S. Reduction (%)

40 lap or linked lap joints with cross-sections shaped V-flare

perpendicular to tensile force (Bohler, 2005).
30

20
X. FAILURE PLANES AND EXPLANATORY IMAGES
10 Images shown in Fig. 5 can explain more aspects of welding
heat input, failure sections and critical points during the tensile
0 test and the bending tests.
Square Bevel Vee
Butt Shape

(a) Yield strength XI. CONCLUSIONS

60
1) The strength of welding metal is directly related to the
size of weld bead and thickness, increasing welding area 2
Ultimate
50 and 10 times, the yield strength will decrease 13% and
33%, respectively. Weld metal density is same as for
Ultimate S. Reduction (%)

40 carbon steel bars about 7850 kg/m3.

2) The strength and elongation of the welded base metal
30 decreased by (10-40%) and (30-60%) respectively,
depending on the weld size. To avoid catastrophic failure
20
in concrete structures, the stress level in welded bars shall
10 not exceed 0.5fy of the bars.
3) Technical welding of transverse bars has negligible
0 effects in strength of the bars, whereas it should be
Square Bevel Vee determined that precautions regards to ductility are in
Butt Shape order, as elongation may reduce by 40%. Therefore,
reducing the heat input to the minimum allowable is
(b) Ultimate strength
preferred.
100 4) Cold bending of the welded bars shall be prevented
Elongation
especially for bar diameters of 16mm or more, or else the
90
bar shall be heated at least to 160°C prior to bending.
Elongation Reduction (%)

5) Groove welds shall be prevented, as these types of welds

will not provide the required elongation which will reduce
80
by (70-90%), therefore groove welds will fail more likely
as brittle materials than ductile steel bars.
70

60
XII. RECOMMENDATIONS

50 1) Welding may be required in many cases in reinforced

Square Bevel Vee concrete construction, therefore it is important for
Butt Shape designers and site engineers to have comprehensive
information about metallurgical changes of base metal
(c) Elongation caused by welding.
Fig. 4. Results of Group 6: weld groove shape (parallel to tensile force) vs. 2) Technical welding (which is not common in Kurdistan)
reduced parameters. shall be performed by professional welder or expert
welders for critical locations; under continuous competent
Although fillet welds are generally weaker than groove control. It shall be inspected and tested, before casting of
welds, they are used more often because they allow for larger the surround concrete.
tolerances during erection than groove welds. Groove welds 3) It is recommended to connect reinforcing bars using fillet
are expensive to make and they do not provide much weld to have flat and overhead welding positions with
reliability in transmitting tensile stresses perpendicular to the edge, lap or linked lap joints with cross-sections shaped
faying surfaces. Furthermore, quality control of such welds is V-flare perpendicular to tensile force direction.

ARO p-ISSN: 2410-9355, e-ISSN: 2307-549X

38 http://dx.doi.org/10.14500/aro.10059

Test bars 25/16/12/10/8mm Heat input during welding Bars Measuring’s

Welding Electrodes E6013 Prepared Bars (all) Fillet weld, V-flare lap joint

Failures of G2, 8,12,25mm

Failures of G2 25mm bars Failure of a specimen in G3

Failure sections in G3 Prepared bars G4 Failure planes for G4

Prepared for bending Lapped 8mm in bend test pass/fail specimens-bend test

Crack/bond failure in bend test Prepared/failure bars in G6 Tensile testing machine

Fig. 5. Failure of specimens and explanatory images

ARO p-ISSN: 2410-9355, e-ISSN: 2307-549X

http://dx.doi.org/10.14500/aro.10059 39

REFERENCES Germanischer Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft, 2000. GL-00 Materials and

Welding: Design, Fabrication and Inspection of Welded Joints, July 2000, II,
Achillopoulou, D., Pardalakis, T. and Karabinis, A., 2013. Investigation of Part 3, Chapter 2. Hamburg-Germany: GL.
Force Transfer Mechanisms in Retrofitted RC Columns With RC Jackets
Containing Welded Bars Subjected to Axial Compression. In: 4th ECCOMAS Hakansson, K., 2002. Weld metal properties for extra high Strength Steels,
Thematic Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Ph.D. Thesis: The Royal Institute of Technology.
Earthquake Engineering, Kos Island, 12–14 June 2013, Greece.
James, F., 2013. SMAW Facilitator’s Guide, Lincoln Foundation: Lincoln
Alk, A., Savvopoulos, P. and Dimitrov L., 2001. Design Problems in Lap Global Inc.
Welded Joints of Reinforcing Steel Bars, Greece: Department of Mechanical
Engineering and Aeronautics, University of Patras. Kim, J., Frost R., Olson D. and Biander, M., 1987. Effect of Electrochemical
Reactions on Submerged Arc Weld Metal Compositions, journal of Welding
American Concrete Institute, 2011. ACI318-11 Building Code Requirements research supplement, April 1990, Center for Welding Research. Department
for Structural Concrete and Commentary, USA: 38800 Country Club Drive of Metallurgic Engineering, Colorado School of Mines (paper presented in the
Farmington Hills, MI 48331, ACI. 68th annual AWS meeting, Chicago, held march 1987), pp.447-453.
American Institute of Steel Construction, 2005. AISC-LRFD Specification for Lincoln E., 2014. Welding Guide: Stick Electrode Properties and
Structural Steel Building: Load & Resistance Factor Design, Chicago, AISC. Techniques, [online] Available at:
< http://www.lincolnelectric.com> [Accessed: June 2014].
American Society for Testing and Material, 2010. ASTM A1064M-10
Standard Specification for Steel Wire and Welded Wire Reinforcement, Plain Marten L., 2004. The Avesta Welding Manual, Practice and Products for
and Deformed, for Concrete, USA: ASTM International. Stainless Steel Welding, Sweden: Avesta Welding AB, Edita Vastra Aros.
American Society for Testing and Material, 2005. ASTM A184M-05 Nikolaou, J. and Papadimitriou, G., 2004. Mechanical Properties of Lap-
Standard Specification for Welded Deformed Steel Bar Mats for Concrete Welded Reinforcing Steel Bars used for Repairing Damaged Reinforced
Reinforcement, USA: ASTM International. Concrete Structures, Journal of materials and structures, V37, (Dec. 2004),
pp.698-706.
American Society for Testing and Material, 2010. ASTM A370-10 Standard
Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products, USA. Nilson, H., Darwin, D. and Dolan, W., 2004. Design of Concrete Structures,
13th edn.: McGraw Hill Companies.
American Society for Testing and Material, 2009. ASTM A615M-09b
Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Carbon-Steel Bars for Nurnberger, U., 2005. Stainless Steel Reinforcement – A Survey, Otto-Graf
Concrete Reinforcement, 09b edn., USA: ASTM International. Journal, 16, pp.111-138.

American Welding Society, 2010. AWS A3.0/A3.0M-10 Standard Welding Omer, W., Scott, R., Duane, K. and Marie, Q., 1999. Fabricators and
Terms and Definitions: AWS. Erectors; Guide to Weld Steel Construction: James F. L., Arch Weld
Foundation.
American Welding Society, 2012. AWS A5.1/A5.1M:12 Specification for
Carbon Steel Electrodes for Shielded Metal Arc Welding, AWS. Popović, O., Prokić, R., Burzić, M. and Milutinović, Z., 2010. The Effect of
Heat Input on the Weld Metal Toughness of Surface Welded Joint, Faculty of
American Welding Society, 2011. AWS D1.4/D1.4M:11 Structural Welding Mechanical Engineering. In: 14th International Research/Expert Conference
Code-Reinforcing Steel: AWS. ”Trends in the Development of Machinery and Associated Technology”,
Mediterranean Cruise, 11-18 September 2010, University of Belgrade, Serbia.
Bahman, A. and Alialhosseini, E., 2010, Change in Hardness, Yield Strength
and UTS of Welded Joints Produced In ST37 Grade Steel, Indian Journal of Scott R. F., 1999. Key Concepts in Welding Engineering: a Look at Heat
Science and Technology, 3(12), pp.1162-1164. Input, Welding Innovation Journal, 16 (1).
Bohler Welding, 2005. Welding Guide, Schwei B Technik Austria, [online] Serna, M., Puente, I., Clemos, I. and Lopez, A., 2002. Failure of Steel-
Available at: <http://www.boehler-welding.com> [Accessed: June 2014]. Concrete Connection at the Kursaal Auditorium, Spain: Department of
Structural Engineering, University of Navarra. ASCCS-Kursaal-EN.
Choi, E., Park, S., Cho, B. and Hui, D., 2013. Lateral reinforcement of welded
SMA rings for reinforced concrete columns, Journal of Alloys and Shultz, B. L. and Jackson, C. E., 1973. Influence of Weld Bead Area on Weld
Compounds, 677(1), pp.756-759. Metal Mechanical Properties, Welding Research Supplement, Department of
Welding Engineering, The Ohio State University, pp.26-37.
Chvertko,Y., Skachkov, I. and Chvertko, P., 2011. Technology of flash-butt
welding of reinforcement bars in construction of structures of monolithic The European Nations Standard, 2010. EN 1011-1/A1:10 welding -
reinforced concrete, Ukraine: National Technical University of Ukraine Kyiv recommendations for welding of metallic materials - part 1: general guidance
Polytechnic Institute. for arc welding: EN.
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, 2004. CRSI, Assembling Reinforcing Wai, C. and Eric, M., 2005. Steel Structures, in Handbook of Structural
Bars by Fusion Welding in the Fabricating Shop, 933 N. Plum Grove Rd., Engineering, Structural Design Section II. : CRC Press Taylor & Francis
Schaumburg, Illinois 60173-4758: CRSI. Group, NW Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742, pp.4.1-4.103.
Elijah K., 2010. Development of Constitution Diagram for Dissimilar Metal Weld-D-Arc, 2013. Welding Electrode Classification, [online] Available
Welds in Nickel Alloys and Carbon and Low-Alloy Steel, M.Sc. Thesis: The at: <http://www.red.d.arc.com> [Accessed: August 2014].
Ohio State University.
Franchi, A. and Crespi, P., 2007. Some Recent Results of the Research on
Steel Rebar, Italy: Department of Structural Eng., Politecnico of Milano,
ECSC Research Program.

ARO p-ISSN: 2410-9355, e-ISSN: 2307-549X

View publication stats