International Journal of Steel Structures Online ISSN 2093-6311

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-019-00236-0 Print ISSN 1598-2351

Investigation of Mechanical Properties of Ribbed Reinforcement Steel

Bars: A Case Study on Ethiopian Construction Industry
Tariku Achamyeleh1,2 · Yusuf Şahin3 

Received: 8 August 2018 / Accepted: 10 April 2019

© Korean Society of Steel Construction 2019

Abstract
This paper presents the annual report of the mechanical properties of ribbed reinforcement bars from construction sites tak-
ing projects as the case in and around Amhara, Ethiopia. Both imported and locally produced re-bars are used in the analysis
without consideration of their varieties in the quality of the two sources. This paper focused on only with reinforcement
bars of diameter 8, 10, 12 and 16 mm that accounted for 67% of the total tests. Using Universal Testing Machine, strength
properties such as ultimate tensile strength (UTS), yield strength (YS), percentage elongation at fracture (%) and linear mass
density property (kg/m) of steel reinforcing bars were analyzed for rebar diameters of 10, 12, 8 and 16 mm. Moreover, the
results were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results showed that the mean values of YS and UTS
of all diameters surpassed the standard values recommended limit set by BS449: 1997 and ASTMA706. In addition, the
mean values of percentage elongations for all tested steel products surpassed the 12% limit recommended by BS 449, 10%
by ASTM A706 for all diameters. However, the mean mass per length values for 8, 10, 12 and 16 mm were below standard
values set by ASTM A615/A615M. Furthermore, ANOVA indicated that the reinforced bars appeared to be dissimilar in
terms of UTS and YS with 95% confidence, but the reinforced bars were similar to the elongation percentage.

Keywords  Reinforced steel bar · Ultimate tensile strength · Yield strength · Elongation · Mass-per-length

1 Introduction same; this associated with excellent bendability property

makes steel the best material as reinforcement in the con-
Steel is the common name for a large family of iron-carbon crete structures (Tunde and Olawumi 2016).
alloys, which are easily malleable after the molten stage. Reinforcing steel bars play a key role as a construction
Steels are commonly made from iron, coal and limestone material whose properties must be known for the users
(Higgins,1993). Steel is the time proven match for reinforc- before being applied for design or construction purposes
ing concrete structures. Reinforced concrete structure is because they are mainly used in construction projects such
designed on the principle that steel and concrete act together as building, bridges and furniture industries. Steel reinforc-
to withstand induced forces. The properties of thermal ing bars available in the Ethiopian market are obtained both
expansion for both steel and concrete are approximately the from internal and external sources. A complete understand-
ing and knowledge of the real behavior of construction
materials is of prime importance for the proper behavior of
* Yusuf Şahin
yusuf.sahin@neu.edu.tr engineered structures. The mechanical and physical proper-
ties of structural materials are expected to meet the demand
Tariku Achamyeleh
tarikuachamyeleh.asress@neu.edu.tr of the fundamental assumptions underlying structural codes
of practice on which designs are based on effective utiliza-
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Applied tion. There are several factors affecting the causes of failure
Sciences, Near East University, 99138 Nicosia, Cyprus or collapsed of the building systems such as the structural
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty failure, faulty design or implementation, use of substandard
of Technology, Debre Tabor University, Debre Tabor, steel rods, excessive loading, rainstorm and improper drain-
Ethiopia
age in the construction industry (Ayininuola and Olalusi
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Near East 2004). There are some mechanical properties that determine
University, Near East Boulevard, 99138 Nicosia, Cyprus

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 International Journal of Steel Structures

the behavior of reinforcement for concrete such as yield split tensile and flexural strength properties of M30 grade
strength, ultimate strength, Young’s modulus of elasticity, mix. It was indicated that increase in fiber dosages resulted
Poisson’s ratio and percentage elongation (Charles and Mark in increase of split tensile strength/compressive and flex-
2002). They investigated the physical and chemical proper- ural strength. Ocheric and Ibe (2017) studied the mechanical
ties of reinforcing steel bars milled from scraps. The mean properties of 12 mm ribbed steel bars from three different
yield strengths for bars from three plants were 490, 370 and heat treatment numbers. The higher strength and hardness
340 MPa. For hot-rolled low-carbon steel and hot-rolled were obtained for the sample containing 0.38%C. However,
low-alloy steel, the stress–strain curve in Fig. 1 is recorded. the percentage elongations for all the tested steel bars sur-
The curve exhibits an initial linear elastic portion (segment passed the 12% recommended by BS and 10% recommended
Oa). The stress corresponding to point a is called the pro- by ASTM A706. Joshua et al. (2018) obtained the data on
portional limit. In segment ab, the strain increases a little bit some mechanical properties and cost of steel rebar’s in the
faster than the stress although it is not very obvious in the construction industry with 12 mm diameter. This data may
figure. After point b, the strain increases a lot with little or be used to improve their quality and to develop a safety
no increase in the corresponding stress. The curve extends factor for the local steel bar when used for the design of
nearly horizontally to point c. Segment bc is called the yield reinforced concrete. Kolawole and Akanni (2012) studied
plateau. After point c, the stress again increases with the the chemical compositions and the microstructures of rein-
strain until point d. The stress corresponding to the highest forcing steel bars provided from three different collapsed
point d is the ultimate strength of steel bars. Segment cd is building sites. The carbon contents of steel bars were in
the stain-hardening range. After point d, the strain increases close to Nst-65-Mn standard, but were higher than BS4449
rapidly accompanied by the area reduction of the weakest and ASTM706 standards. The sulphur and phosphorus
cross section, i.e., necking, and finally fracture occurs at contents were higher than all standards while Mn contents
point e (ASTM and Gu et al. 2016). of steel bars were found to be lower. The brittleness could
Mechanical properties of the steel bars are very interest- be because of the formation of FeS and ­Fe3P compound
ing and complex subject, thus it has been studied with num- (Sanmbo et al. 2009). Adeleke et al. (2018) evaluated the
bers of studies in literature. Awofadeju et al. (2015) inves- mechanical behavior of 10, 12, and 16 mm diameter rebar.
tigated the elemental analysis, tensile and hardness test on The average yielding strength for the 10, 12, and 16 mm
the steel bars in accordance with ASTM A706. This study re-bars was about 410.59, 404.62, and 373.13 MPa, respec-
covered the elemental composition analysis and mechani- tively, while the average ultimate tensile strength for the re-
cal properties of 12 mm and 16 mm diameter reinforced bars was 667.73, 544.80, and 556.16 MPa, respectively. In
steel rods of locally produced and imported. Arum (2008) both cases there was a decreasing trend in behavior with
investigated the mechanical properties of 12 mm steel rod. increase in diameter. Alo et al. (2017) assessed the mechani-
The results exhibited that recognizable steel satisfied both cal and chemical property of locally produced (by Federated
local and ISO requirements for strength and ductility. How- steel and Land Craft Industrial) and imported (from Brazil
ever, non-recognizable steel satisfied the local specifica- and Ukraine) constructional steels. It is reported that the
tion when used mild steel, but it failed to satisfy the above mean yield strengths for federated steel, Land craft, Bra-
requirements for high-yield ribbed bars. Rao et al. (2016) zil and Ukraine steels were 660, 510, 440, and 420 MPa,
studied the influence of steel fiber dosage on compressive, respectively, whereas the ultimate tensile strength were
799.49, 708.30, 538.51, and 544.81 MPa, respectively.
The literature reviews above have indicated that some
studies performed on the mechanical properties of reinforced
steel bars at various testing conditions (Adeleke et al. 2018;
Sanmbo et al. 2009;Alabi and Onyeji 2010; Kareem 2009;
Ejeh and Jibrin 2012). However, there are limited num-
bers of studies on steel bars of 8 mm and 12 mm (Alo et al.
2017; Arum 2008; Rao et al. 2016, Ocheric and Ibe 2017).
Nevertheless, effects of temperature, corrosion and carbon
contents highly determine the mechanical properties of rein-
forced steel bars (Wu et al. 2019; Guo et al. 2009; Li and
Wang 2013; Sezer et al. 2015; Bangi et al. 2014)
The purpose of this work, therefore, is to investigate the
mechanical properties of reinforcing bars that are used for
the construction industry in Ethiopian market, analyze the
Fig. 1  Stress–strain curves for steel bars with a yield plateau strength and ductility properties obtained from the tensile

13
International Journal of Steel Structures

tests and verify the extent of their conformance with the The remaining length is for gripping at both ends. Then,
specifications of some standards. Moreover, analysis of vari- each specimen was subjected to tension in accordance with
ance is carried out to determine the effects of diameters on the BS4449:1997 provisions, and after fracture, the yield
the mechanical properties. and ultimate strengths as well as percentage elongation were
calculated. Strength properties were analyzed including ulti-
mate tensile strength (UTS), yield strength (YS), percentage
2 Materials and Methods elongation (%) and mass per length (kg/m) steel reinforcing
bars. A photograph of the specimen during tensile test and
2.1 Sample Collection and Preparation specimen’s fracture are presented in Fig. 2.

Sample of steels of grade 60 or 460 by ASTM A615 and BS 2.1.1 Tensile Tests

4449:1997, respectively, were collected from different con-
struction projects by the contractor and supervisor, jointly, Steel is used for construction industries as concrete rein-
upon their contract agreement. The steel bars comprising of forcement structures in any type of construction. The tests
different diameters ranging from 6 to 32 mm were consid- were conducted at the Material Testing Laboratory of
ered as these samples represent the most widely used bar Mechanical Engineering Department in Debre Tabor Uni-
sizes of local concrete reinforcement usage. In each samples versity according to the provision of ASTM E8/E8M-13a.
three random specimens of 1000 mm length were collected. The tensile testing machine capacity ranges from 6 to 32 mm
The number of samples from each diameter depends on the diameter samples. The maximum possible applied force of
contractors request based on their demand for a specific rein- the machine is 300KN but calibrated up to 250KN. 5000KN
forcement in a particular project site and the frequencies are Load Cell manufactured by MATEST with a Model C140-09
summarized in Table 2. Each specimen consisted of a length was used. The elongation of the steel samples was measured
of 500 mm for tensile testing as full cross sectional specimen by using the original sample length and the final length at
is 200 mm gauge length required by ASTM A615/A670. fracture. When we inputted these two lengths, the computer

Fig. 2  Tensile test using univer-

sal testing machine

13
 International Journal of Steel Structures

software, which is integrated with tensile testing machine Table 1  Frequencies of sample varieties
would automatically give us the elongation considering the Diameter Frequency (no) Percentage (%) Summative
elongation formula (Formula 3).The experiment was contin- (mm)
ued until the specimen fractured and the necking diameter
10 44 19.64 19.64
was recorded. From the tests, the Ultimate tensile strength,
12 40 17.86 37.50
Young’s Modulus, Percentage elongation, and Fracture
8 37 16.52 54.02
stress were determined. The tensile strength was calculated
16 31 13.84 67.85
using the following formula (Olsen et al. 2007). Other prop-
14 26 11.61 100
erties were calculated from these fundamental parameters.
20 24 10.71
Pmax 32 8 3.57
UTS = (1)
Ao 24 7 3.13
30 6 3
where Pmax is maximum load applied and, Ao is original
6 4 1.79
cross sectional area
The yield strength or proof stress
Yield Load Table 2  Summary of the mechanical testing results
YS = (2)
Nominal Area
Diam- Mean yield Mean ultimate Mean Mean mass/
The percentage elongation after fracture is given as eter stress (MPa) tensile stress elongation length (kg/m)
(mm) (MPa) (%)
lu − l o
𝜀= (3) 8 629.9317 746.8476 13.5729 0.3895
lo
10 607.9332 696.5025 13.6740 0.6114
where ­lo and l­u are original and final lengths, respectively 12 562.8613 678.6960 15.9263 0.8768
while ε is a unit elongation at fracture. Mass balance and 16 566.3677 682.1277 16.2871 1.5541
rulers are used to collect the mass and length of the samples,
respectively.

tensile testing results in terms of bar diameters of 8, 10, 12

2.1.2 Analysis of Experiment and 16 mm are shown in Tables 3 and 6, respectively.
The mean yield strength values obtained for 8, 10, 12 and
The experiment is a one factor one level experiment type in 16 mm diameter re-bars are 629.9317, 607.9332, 562.8613,
which the yield stress, ultimate tensile stress, elongation and and 566.3677, respectively. These values are quite above
mass per length for each sample are separately investigated the standard limit of 460 N/mm2 set by BS449; 1997 and
using the analysis of variance (ANOVA). In the ANOVA, 415 N/mm2 set by ASTM A706. The mean ultimate tensile
one factor design is adopted (Roy 1990). strength values obtained for 8, 10, 12 and 16 mm diameter
rebar were 746.8476, 696.5025, 678.6960, and 682.1277,
respectively. The UTS values of all the steel samples tested
were higher than the recommended limit of 600 N/mm2 by
3 Experimental Results and Discussion BS449: 1997 and limit of 580 N/mm2 by ASTM A706. The
strength values of 8, 10, 12, and 16 mm reinforcing bars
3.1 Mechanical Properties used in the country conformed to the standards in terms
of yield strength and ultimate tensile strength. This might
The tensile test results are necessary for the computation be an indication that the re-bars contained proper carbon
of the characteristics of the tensile strength, yield strength as high percent carbon contributes to high strength in steel
as well as the ductility properties. Total 224 experiments products (Alabi and Onyeji 2010). The mean YS decreased
were conducted with three sets of samples for each re-bars with increasing the diameter of the bars. The diameters of
of diameters 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 20, 24, 30 and 32 mm using 8, 10, 12 and 16 mm showed an average decrease of 3.49%,
Universal Testing Machine. The summary of frequency of 10.64% and 10.09, respectively. In a similarly, the mean
the tests was summarized in Table 1. This paper focused UTS also decreased about 6.74, 9.12 and 8.66% for 10, 12
on only with reinforcement bars of diameter 8, 10, 12 and and 16 mm, respectively. These decreases in YS and UTS
16 mm that accounted for 67% of the total tests. The mean could be attributed to defaulting in the microstructure of the
values of YS, UTS, elongation and mass per length for all mild steel. The summary of the YS and UTS is plotted in
tests in each diameter are shown in Table 2. Details of these comparison with ASTM and BS standards in Fig. 3. The YS

13
International Journal of Steel Structures

Table 3  Average test results for diameter of 8 mm bar in the microstructure of the steels. There were good agree-
Yield stress (MPa) Ultimate tensile Elongation (%) Mass/
ments with some other works carried out previously (Alo
stress (MPa) length et al. 2017; Adeleke et al. 2018, Charles and Mark 2002).
(kg/m) However, the present study indicated that average YS and
UTS were about 46% and 16% higher for three diameters
801.6700 822.3000 10.5000 0.3760
(10, 12 and 16 mm) than that of recent study (Adeleke et al.
665.0000 728.0000 12.0000 0.3850
2018). Means YS for 10, 12 and 16 mm bars were measured
479.3000 692.3000 16.2000 0.3900
at 490, 370 and 340 MPa (Charles and Mark 2002), which
656.3000 722.0000 12.8000 0.3950
were quite lower than our results because corresponding
760.6700 813.0000 11.5000 0.3880
values the same diameters were about 608, 563, 566 MPa,
493.6700 609.6700 22.3000 0.3800
respectively. These present results were also comparable
523.3000 660.6700 14.0000 0.3750
with another works (Alo et al. 2017; Kolawole and Akanni
716.3000 812.3000 10.0000 0.4550
2012). Firat (2016) investigated the yielding and ultimate
693.0000 804.3000 11.2000 0.4050
stresses for diameters ranging from 8 to 32 mm for 8151
637.6700 726.6700 11.6700 0.3810
reinforcement steel samples. The mean yielding strength val-
658.3000 726.0000 13.0000 0.3960
ues for 8, 10, 12, and 16 mm were 494.05, 490.02, 484.75
786.6700 990.0000 13.0000 0.3770
and 480.45, respectively. The mean ultimate strength values
857.3000 925.6700 11.2000 0.3640
for 8, 10, 12, and 16 mm were 600.42, 592.65, 598.02, and
662.0000 714.0000 8.0000 0.3800
599.72, respectively. Wu et al. (2019) investigated the effects
667.3000 739.0000 15.3000 0.4170
of corrosion on mechanical properties of reinforced concrete
618.6700 710.0000 14.5000 0.3830
combined with action of sustained load. They studied a 20
730.6700 779.3000 11.0000 0.3650
stirrup members; half ordinary and half epoxy coated steel
646.3130 724.3000 14.2000 0.3830
bars, exposed under axial compression to both sustained load
630.0000 731.3000 17.3000 0.3960
and corrosion. Their results revealed that the average yield
636.0000 701.6700 16.2000 0.4040
strength and ultimate strength for ordinary steel bar were
694.0000 765.0000 8.5000 0.3870
424.2 MPa and 587.9 MPa, respectively, whereas the aver-
597.6700 658.6700 12.3000 0.3850
476.0000 674.0000 13.3000 0.4200
age yield strength and ultimate strength for epoxy coated
481.0000 726.0000 20.3000 0.3740
steel bar were 468.7 MPa and 630.3 MPa, respectively. On
492.6700 707.0000 20.3000 0.3730
the contrary, the elongation showed a minimal decrement
560.6700 759.0000 12.6700 0.4060
from 28.4 to 27.5% between ordinary and epoxy coated steel
589.3000 749.0000 19.8300 0.4120
bars.
745.6700 800.3000 7.2000 0.3910
The mean values of the percentage elongation at frac-
580.3000 747.6700 14.5000 0.3860
ture for all the tested steel products of diameters 8, 10, 12,
368.0000 722.0000 21.5000 0.3930
and 16 mm were 13.5729, 13.6740, 15.9263, and 16.2871,
498.3000 685.6700 14.3000 0.3770
respectively. These values surpassed the 12% limit recom-
745.3000 836.6700 9.1700 0.3937
mended by BS 449, 10% by ASTM A706 and for all diam-
613.6700 718.3000 10.0000 0.3814
eters. The mean mass per length values of 8, 10, 12, and
607.3000 688.6700 10.3000 0.3888
16 mm re-bars were 0.3895, 0.6114, 0.8768 and 1.5541,
546.3000 711.6600 21.1600 0.3788
respectively. These values are below standard values set by
695.3000 772.3000 13.5000 0.3910
ASTM A615/A615M and BS4449. The values set by ASTM
712.3000 779.0000 7.5000 0.3815
for 10, 12 and 16 mm diameters were 0.617, 0.888 and 1.578,
630.3744 746.8476 13.5730 0.3896
respectively. However, mass per length for 8 mm re-bars was
not set by ASTM. The values set by BS4449 for 8, 10, 12
and 16 mm diameters were 0.395, 0.616, 0.888 and 1.579,
respectively. In case of the elongation and mean mass/length,
and UTS for both ASTM and BS449 standards exhibited a considerable increases were obtained with increase in the
stable behavior with changing the bar’s diameter. However, diameter of the bars. For example, the average increases in
in our case, bar diameters of 12 mm, 14 mm, 16 mm were mean mass/length were about 56.97, 125.1 and 298.99% for
constant, but both values were found to be greater than those diameter of 10, 12, and 16 mm, respectively. These increases
of the standards. Other interesting point was that there was a were due to increasing the cross-sectional area of the steel
decreasing trend with decreasing the diameters of the bars, bars. In other words, it can be evidenced that the steel bars
which resulted in increasing the YS and UTS more or less with larger diameters had a more ductility than those of the
linear way significantly due to having a less amount of flaws others (Tables 3, 4, 5, 6).

13
 International Journal of Steel Structures

Fig. 3  Comparison of YS and
UTS against ASTM and BS
standards

3.2 Analysis of Variance in Table 8b, the computed F is greater than the critical F

value from Table 12 for ­f.05 (1, 36) i.e., 4.10. Hence with
Though the set values for the given diameters of reinforce- 95% confidence, the reinforced bars appeared to be dissimi-
ment bars were discussed in the section above, it is relevant lar. The apparent data spread contributed to 80.7% for the
to validate each set of data with its statistical reliability. The sample variability. In the ANOVA of elongation percentage,
ANOVA table was used to compare the computed variance the computed F value for F-cal, 0.41 was much less than the
ratio value (F-cal) with the critical F-table value when con- critical F-table value from for ­f.05 (1, 36) i.e., 4.10. There-
sidering F.05 (f1, f2) at 95% confidence level. The ANOVA fore with 95% confidence, the reinforced bars appeared to
Table for the one factor design is presented in Table 7 (Roy be similar. The apparent data spread contributed negatively
1990). In this table, f­ 1 = number of degrees of freedom of the to the sample variability, whereas the remaining 101.62%
numerator (column), ­f2 = number of degrees of freedom of variation was caused by other factors.
the denominator (row), F = Fisher value, is the ratio of total
variance to the error variance and 0.05 = significance level.
The F value obtained in the analysis was compared with the 3.2.2 ANOVA Table for 10 mm Diameter Samples
value from the standard F-tables for a given statistical level
of significance. This ratio was used to measure the signifi- Similarly, for the reinforcement steels of diameter 10 mm,
cance of the factor under the investigation with respect to yield stress, ultimate tensile stress and elongation percentage
the variance of all the factors. results were analyzed with ANOVA method. These results
of YS, UTS and % elongation were listed in Table 9a–c,
3.2.1 ANOVA Table for 8 mm Diameter Samples respectively. From the ANOVA of yield stress, the computed
value for F­ cal = 188.2 was greater than the critical F-table
The reinforcement steels of diameter 8 mm yield stress, ulti- value taken from Table 12 for f­ .05 (1, 43) i.e., ~ 4.00 (Roy
mate tensile stress and elongation percentage results were 1990). Thus, with 95% confidence, there was a significant
presented using ANOVA. Table 8a–c indicated the ANOVA difference for the reinforced bars. The apparent data spread
results in terms of yield stress, ultimate tensile stress, and contributed to 80.97% to the sample variability, whereas the
elongation percentage, respectively. remaining 19.03% variation was caused by other factors.
From the ANOVA of yield stress, the computed value for Table 9c indicated the ANOVA result of elongation percent-
­Fcal value, 104.24 was greater than the critical F-table value age. From this table, the computed F value for ­Fcal = 0.37 was
from Table 12 for ­f.05 (1, 36) i.e., 4.10 (Roy 1990). Hence, less than the critical F-table value for ­f.05 (1, 43) i.e., 4.10.
with 95% confidence, the reinforced bars appeared to be dis- Hence with 95% confidence, the reinforced bars appeared to
similar. The apparent data spread contributes about 73.6% to be similar. The apparent data spread contributed negatively
the sample variability whereas the remaining 26.38% varia- to the sample variability whereas the remaining 101.46%
tion was caused by other factors. For ultimate tensile stress variation was caused by other factors.

13
International Journal of Steel Structures

Table 4  Average test results for diameter of 10 mm bar Table 5  Average test results for diameter of 12 mm bar
Yield stress (MPa) Ultimate tensile Elongation (%) Mass/ Yield stress (MPa) Ultimate tensile Elongation (%) Mass/
stress (MPa) length stress (MPa) length
(kg/m) (kg/m)

600.6700 718.3000 16.0000 0.6250 670.6700 762.6700 11.5000 0.9060

583.6700 703.0000 17.0000 0.6280 569.6700 688.6700 17.6700 0.8620
600.6700 718.3000 16.0000 0.6250 580.3000 644.6700 13.3000 0.8980
559.0000 648.3000 14.6700 0.5900 554.3000 656.0000 17.2000 0.8770
610.6700 683.6700 14.6700 0.5980 601.0000 700.6700 10.6700 0.8820
714.6700 784.3000 8.3000 0.5860 432.0000 643.0000 23.3000 0.8550
620.6700 687.3000 12.6700 0.5820 515.0000 623.0000 15.3000 0.8610
602.3000 667.3000 15.5000 0.5840 514.6700 681.3000 12.8000 0.8600
641.3000 714.6700 11.8000 0.5980 602.3000 697.3000 14.0000 0.8640
625.0000 730.3000 11.8000 0.6030 528.6700 626.3000 16.2000 0.8810
624.6600 729.3300 8.1660 0.5840 588.6700 695.3000 14.6700 0.8780
623.3000 702.0000 7.3000 0.5780 593.6700 665.3000 14.5000 0.8620
816.6700 862.6700 7.3000 0.6230 420.6700 570.3000 25.0000 0.8770
733.3000 847.6700 6.0000 0.6230 647.6700 739.6700 13.0000 0.9310
598.6700 652.0000 12.8000 0.6010 676.6700 775.0000 13.6700 0.9470
537.3000 716.3000 13.6700 0.6890 576.3000 683.6700 14.8000 0.8700
584.6700 656.3000 14.5000 0.5740 605.3000 703.3000 11.5000 0.8850
574.6700 657.3000 15.3000 0.5920 560.3000 680.3000 14.3000 0.8610
708.6700 798.6700 12.6700 0.6120 637.0000 710.6700 16.2000 0.9050
515.6700 583.0000 14.0000 0.6070 635.0000 716.3000 17.2000 0.9290
515.0000 593.6700 13.8000 0.6100 567.6700 697.3000 12.2000 0.9120
717.0000 767.3000 11.5000 0.6230 509.6700 670.6700 16.0000 0.8780
619.0000 696.3000 16.3000 0.6050 444.0000 620.6700 19.5000 0.9150
584.0000 669.0000 15.6700 0.6060 576.3000 661.0000 13.0000 0.8700
613.6700 685.3000 16.0000 0.6030 587.3000 666.3000 13.0000 0.8750
589.3000 686.6700 13.0000 0.6010 432.3000 581.0000 25.8300 0.8600
637.3000 735.0000 21.2000 0.6500 427.6700 576.3000 28.2000 0.8630
642.0000 737.0000 16.5000 0.7040 589.0000 688.6700 14.8300 0.8570
597.3000 665.0000 16.5000 0.6000 563.3000 631.6700 12.6700 0.8740
499.3000 590.3000 24.5000 0.6020 537.0000 669.0000 13.3000 0.8780
638.0000 758.6700 12.8000 0.6040 735.5000 828.0000 17.0000 0.8870
625.6700 720.3000 17.3000 0.6010 587.3000 762.0000 14.5000 0.8630
675.6700 739.3000 13.2000 0.5980 546.6700 645.0000 14.8000 0.9060
534.0000 658.3000 12.0000 0.5940 412.3000 666.3000 17.1700 0.8170
460.0000 656.6700 14.8000 0.6260 599.3000 715.0000 24.8000 0.7630
354.0000 478.6700 19.3000 0.7260 435.6700 643.3000 15.0000 0.8253
632.6700 708.6700 11.3000 0.6110 671.0000 755.0000 12.5000 0.8990
615.0000 715.6700 16.6000 0.6111 578.0000 643.3000 13.3000 0.8884
651.0000 737.6700 12.0000 0.5990 639.0000 713.6700 15.0000 0.8807
638.6700 734.0000 11.8300 0.6225 565.6700 650.3000 17.6700 0.8710
598.3000 627.3000 10.6700 0.6131 562.8613 678.6960 15.9263 0.8768
606.6700 671.0000 13.6700 0.5855
643.6700 699.6700 10.3000 0.6080
585.6700 654.0000 10.8000 0.5950
607.9332 696.5025 13.6740 0.6114
3.2.3 ANOVA Table for 12 mm Diameter Samples

In a similar way, for the reinforcement steels of diameter

12  mm, yield stress, ultimate tensile stress and elonga-
tion percentage results were calculated using ANOVA and

13
 International Journal of Steel Structures

Table 6  Average test results for diameter of 16 mm bar tabulated in Table 10a–c, respectively. From the ANOVA
Yield stress (MPa) Ultimate tensile Elongation (%) Mass/ of yield stress in Table 10a, the computed value for Fcal, 70
stress (MPa) length was greater than the critical F-table value from Table 12 for
(kg/m) ­f.05 (1, 39) i.e., ~ 4.08. Thus with 95% confidence, there was
a significant difference for the reinforced bars. The apparent
736.6700 793.3000 11.5000 1.6280
data spread contributed about 63.3% to the sample variabil-
550.3000 647.3000 18.0000 1.5350
ity whereas the remaining 36.7% variation was caused by
570.3000 741.0000 17.2000 1.5590
other factors. Similarly, ultimate tensile stress in ANOVA
656.3000 817.0000 14.3000 1.5460
Table 10b showed that the computed F was greater than the
534.0000 692.3000 16.0000 1.6090
critical F-table value for the same confidence. Hence, the
529.0000 673.0000 15.8000 1.5480
reinforced bars appeared to be dis-similar. The apparent
572.0000 672.6700 15.5000 1.5400
data spread contributed about 67.7% to the sample variabil-
570.6700 641.0000 15.3000 1.5530
ity whereas the remaining 32.3% variation was caused by
572.3000 676.3000 16.5000 1.5400
other factors. From the Table 10, the computed value for
523.0000 632.0000 17.5000 1.5530
Fcal = 8.7 was greater than the critical F-table value for ­f.05
654.3000 825.6700 17.2000 1.4900
(1, 39) i.e., ~ 4.08. Therefore with 95% confidence, there was
587.6700 666.3000 17.3000 1.5530
a significant difference for the reinforced bars. The apparent
507.6700 683.3000 18.6700 1.5560
data spread contributed about 16.15% to the sample vari-
616.3000 708.6700 14.2000 1.5700
ability, whereas the remaining 83.85% variation was caused
597.6700 701.3000 14.0000 1.5400
by other factors.
555.3000 623.6700 14.0000 1.5880
555.6700 700.3000 13.8000 1.5590
3.2.4 ANOVA Table for 16 mm Diameter Samples
603.0000 699.3000 16.0000 1.6220
606.3000 688.3000 13.2000 1.5870
Similarly, for the reinforcement steels of diameter 16 mm of
601.0000 709.6700 13.6700 1.5600
yield stress, ultimate tensile stress and elongation percent-
550.0000 697.3000 16.3300 1.5560
age results were calculated using ANOVA and tabulated in
527.6700 624.0000 19.2000 1.5390
559.3000 691.3000 25.0000 1.5730
Table 11, respectively. From the ANOVA of yield stress in
492.0000 620.0000 19.0000 1.5050
Table 11, the computed value for F ­ cal, 92.79 was greater
604.0000 683.0000 15.3000 1.6010
than the critical F-table value from Table 12 for f­ .05 (1, 30)
568.0000 693.6700 15.3000 1.5390
i.e., 4.17. Hence with 95% confidence, the reinforced bars
373.6700 550.0000 27.8000 1.4920
appeared to be dissimilar. The apparent data spread con-
518.6700 639.6700 14.8300 1.5640
tributed about 74.75% to the sample variability whereas the
560.6700 651.0000 15.6700 1.5330
remaining 25.25% variation was caused by other factors.
594.0000 693.0000 16.0000 1.5020
Similarly, ANOVA for ultimate tensile stress showed
510.0000 610.6700 10.8300 1.5369
that the computed F was greater than the critical F-table
566.3677 682.1277 16.2871 1.5541
value for the same confidence. Hence, the reinforced bars
appeared to be dis-similar. The apparent data spread con-
tributed about 66.6% to the sample variability whereas the
remaining 33.35% variation was caused by other factors.
In the above table, the computed value for ­Fcal, 14.4 was
greater than the critical F-table value for f­ .05 (1, 30) i.e.,

Table 7  Generalized ANOVA Source of variation Degree of Sum of Variance Variance ratio Pure sum Percent contrib.
table freedom squares of squares

Mean (m) fm Sm Vm = Sm/fm Vm/Ve Sm − Ve S′m/ST

Errors (e) fe Se Ve = Se/fe – Sm + Ve S′e/ST
Total (T) fT ST

f = degree of freedom; n = total number of results; ­fT = total degree

∑n of freedom = n − 1; ­Ybar = mean values
of the results =  i=1 Yi  ; ­ST = sum of squares of the total results =  i=1 (Yi − Y0 )2  ; ­Sm = sum of squares of the
∑n
mean = n(Ȳ − Y0 )2  ; ­Se = sum of squares of the errors = ST − Sm; ­VT = variance of the total = ST/fT; ­Vm = vari-
ance of the mean = Sm/fm; ­Ve = variance of the errors = Se/fe; ­Fm = variance ratio of the mean = Vm/Ve;
S′m = pure sum of squares for the mean = Sm − Ve; S′e= pure sum of squares for the errors = Sm + Ve

13
International Journal of Steel Structures

Table 8  ANOVA table of 8 mm diameter for yield stress, ultimate tensile strength and elongation percentage
Source of vari- Degree of free- Sum of squares, S Variance, V Variance ratio, F-cal Pure sum of Percent contri-
ation dom, f squares, S’ bution, P (%)

(a). ANOVA table for yield stress

Mean 1 1,074,015 1,074,015 104.239 1,063,712 73.62
Errors 36 370,918.9 10,303.3 1 381,222.2 26.38
Total 37 1,444,934 39,052.27
(b). ANOVA table for ultimate tensile strength
Mean 1 797,875.7 797,875.7 156.001 792,761.2 80.73
Errors 36 184,122.9 5114.526 1 189,237.5 19.27
Total 37 981,998.6 26,540.5
(c) ANOVA table for elongation percentage
Mean 1 6.747027 6.747027 0.4109 − 9.67309 − 1.18
Errors 36 591.1242 16.42012 1 607.5443 101.62
Total 37 597.8712 16.15868

Table 9  ANOVA table of Source of Degree of Sum of squares, S Variance, V Variance ratio, ­Fcal Pure sum Percent contri-
10 mm diameter for yield stress, variation freedom, f of squares, bution, P (%)
ultimate tensile strength and S′
elongation percentage
(a) ANOVA table for yield stress
Mean 1 962,906 962,906 188.2055 957,789.7 80.96
Errors 43 219,998.6 5116.248 1 225,114.9 19.03
Total 44 1,182,905 26,884.2
(b) ANOVA table for ultimate tensile strength
Mean 1 409,760.2 409,760.2 98.09841 405,583.2 68.81
Errors 43 179,612.4 4177.032 1 183,789.4 31.18
Total 44 589,372.6 13,394.83
(c) ANOVA table for elongation
Mean 1 4.676144 4.676144 0.36557 − 8.11524 − 1.46
Errors 43 550.0295 12.79138 1 562.8209 101.46
Total 44 554.7057 12.60695

Table 10  ANOVA table of Source of Degree of Sum of squares, S Variance, V Variance ratio, ­Fcal Pure sum Percent contri-
12 mm diameter for yield stress, variation freedom, f of squares, bution, P (%)
ultimate tensile strength and S′
elongation percentage
(a) ANOVA table for yield strength
Mean 1 423,217.9 423,217.9 70.0485 417,176.1 63.32
Errors 39 235,629.4 6041.78 1 241,671.2 36.68
Total 40 658,847.3 16,471.18
(b) ANOVA table for ultimate tensile stress
Mean 1 247,722.4 247722. 84.8050 244,801.3 67.69
Errors 39 113,922.1 2921.08 1 116,843.2 32.31
Total 40 361,644.5 9041.11
(c) ANOVA table for elongation percentage
Mean 1 148.4253 148.4253 8.7045 131.3739 16.15
Errors 39 665.0048 17.05141 1 682.0562 83.85
Total 40 813.4301 20.33575

13
 International Journal of Steel Structures

Table 11  ANOVA table of Source of Degree of Sum of squares, S Variance, V Variance ratio, ­Fcal Pure sum of Percent contri-
16 mm diameter for yield stress, variation freedom, f squares, S’ bution, P (%)
ultimate tensile strength and
percentage elongation (a) ANOVA table for yield stress
Mean 1 350,736.7 350,736.7 92.7894 346,956.8 74.75
Errors 30 113,397.6 3779.919 1 117,177.5 25.25
Total 31 464,134.3 14,972.07
(b) ANOVA table for ultimate tensile stress
Mean 1 209,093.7 209,093.7 62.94743 205,772 66.65
Errors 30 99,651.6 3321.72 1 102,973.3 33.35
Total 31 308,745.3 9959.527
(c) ANOVA table for elongation percentage
Mean 1 162.1556 162.1556 14.40582 150.8994 30.19
Errors 30 337.6878 11.25626 1 348.944 69.81
Total 31 499.8434 16.12398

4.17. Thus, with 95% confidence, there was a consider- of 8, 10 and 12 mm bars should be offered for further
able difference for the reinforced bars. The apparent data investigations and usages in construction industry. From
spread contributed about 30.2% to sample variability. The the ANOVA of UTS and YS for 95% confidence, the
reinforcement bars of diameters, 6, 14, 20, 24, 30 and reinforced bars appeared to be dissimilar. However, the
32 can be avoided from further investigations. Instead of reinforced bars appeared to be similar for the elongation
those diameters, the diameters of 8, 10 and 12 mm bars percentage.
can be offered for further investigations and usages in the
construction industry. 4.1 Recommendation

The regulatory bodies such as Quality and Standards

Authority of Ethiopia (QSAE), Ethiopian Standards
4 Conclusions Agency (ESA) and Regional supervision offices should
put effort on enforcing the compliance of the reinforce-
The mechanical properties of reinforcement bars from ment steel bars with the standard by the manufacturers.
construction sites taken from both imported and locally
imported re-bars were investigated and compared with
the BS and ASTM standards. The experimental results 4.2 Future Work
showed that the mean values of UTS and YS of all 8, 10,
12, and 16 mm diameters was found to be over the stand- The current investigation reported that compiling mate-
ard values set by BS 449, and ASTM A706. In addition, rial tests from different contractors were conducted by
the mean values of percent of elongation (%) of 8, 10, 12 Mechanical Engineering Material’s Testing Facility of
and 16 mm diameter re-bars surpassed the standard values Debre Tabor University. Additionally, comparative studies
set by BS 449, and ASTM A706. 8, 10, 12 and 16 mm of locally produced and imported reinforced bars can be
diameter re-bars conform to the standards set by ASTM done by identifying the sources and critically investigating
and BS for their intended use. In contrast to above, the the test values, which can incorporate the additional tests
mean mass per length values of all samples were found to such as material composition test and three-point-bending
be below the standard values set by ASTM. Furthermore, test.
it is indicated that reinforcement bars of 6, 14, 20, 24, 30
and 32 mm were not used too much, instead the diameters

13
International Journal of Steel Structures

Table 12  F-table versus F
­ .05 (f1, F2 F1
f2), 95% confidence (Roy 1990)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 …

1 161.4 199.5 215.71 224.5 230.16 233.99 236.77 241.88 …

2 18.5 19.0 19.61 19.24 19.29 19.33 19.35 19.39
3 10.10 9.55 9.27 9.11 9.01 8.94 8.88 8.78
4 7.70 6.94 6.59 6.38 625 6.16 6.09 5.96
5 6.60 5.78 5.40 5.19 5.05 4.95 4.87 4.73
6 5.98 5.14 4.75 4.53 4.38 4.28 4.20 4.06
7 5.59 4.73 4.34 4.12 3.97 3.86 3.78 3.63
8 5.31 4.46 4.06 3.83 3.68 3.58 3.50 3.34
9 5.11 4.25 3.86 3.63 3.48 3.37 3.29 3.13
10 4.96 4.10 3.70 3.47 3.32 3.21 3.13 2.91
11 4.84 3.98 3.58 3.35 3.20 3.09 3.01 2.78
12 4.77 3.88 3.49 3.25 3.10 2.99 2.91 2.68
13 4.66 3.80 3.41 3.17 3.02 2.91 2.83 2.60
14 4.60 3.73 3.34 3.11 2.95 2.84 2.76 2.60
15 4.54 3.68 3.28 3.04 2.90 2.79 2.70 2.54
16 4.49 3.63 3.23 3.00 2.85 2.74 2.65 2.49
17 4.45 3.59 3.19 2.94 2.81 2.60 2.61 2.44
18 4.41 3.55 3.15 2.92 2.77 2.66 2.57 2.41
19 4.38 3.52 3.12 2.89 2.74 2.62 2.54 2.37
20 4.35 3.49 3.09 2.86 2.71 2.60 2.51 2.34
21 4.32 3.46 3.07 2.84 2.68 2.57 2.42 2.32
22 4.30 3.44 3.04 2.81 2.66 2.55 2.46 2.29
23 4.27 3.42 3.02 2.79 2.64 2.52 2.44 2.27
24 4.25 3.40 3.00 2.77 2.62 2.50 2.42 2.25
25 4.24 3.38 2.99 2.75 2.60 2.49 2.40 2.23
26 4.22 3.36 2.97 2.74 2.58 2.47 2.38 2.22
27 4.21 3.35 2.96 2.72 2.57 2.45 2.37 2.20
28 4.19 3.34 2.94 2.71 2.55 2.44 2.39 2.19
29 4.18 3.32 2.93 2.70 2.54 2.43 2.34 2.17
30 4.17 3.31 2.92 2.68 2.53 2.42 2.33 2.16
40 4.05 3.21 2.83 2.60 2.44 2.33 2.24 2.07
100 4.00 3.15 2.75 2.52 2.36 2.25 2.16 1.91
150 3.84 2.99 2.60 2.37 2.21 2.09 2.00 1.83

f1 = number of degrees of freedom of the numerator; f2 = number of degrees of freedom of the denominator

References American Association State Highway and Transportation Officials

Standard AASHTO No.: M 31, Designation: A615/A615 M-15a
(2015).
Adeleke, A. A., Odusote, J. K., Ikubanni, P. P., Lasode, O. A., Agboola,
American Association State Highway and Transportation Officials
O. O., Ammasi, A., et al. (2018). Dataset on the evaluation of
Standard AASHTO No.: T68, Designation: E8/E8 M-13a (2013).
chemical and mechanical properties of steel rods from local steel
Arum, C. (2008). Verification of properties of concrete reinforcement
plants and collapsed building sites. Data in Brief, 21, 1552–1557.
bars: Nigeria as a Case Study. Indoor and Built Environment,
Alabi, A. G. F., & Onyeji, L. I. (2010). Analysis and comparative
17(4), 370–376.
assessment of locally produced reinforcing steel bars for struc-
ASTM. (1973). Annual book of ASTM standards, part 4 (standards for
tural purposes. Journal of Research Information in Civil Engi-
deformed steel bar are A 615-72, A 616-72, A 617-72). Philadel-
neering, 7(2), 49–60.
phia: American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 684–699.
Alo, F. I., Atanda, P. O., Daniyan, A. A., Abodunrin, O. W., & Olu-
Awofadeju, A. S., Adekiigbe, A., Akanni, A. O., & Adeyemo, B. G.
wasegun, K. M. (2017). An assessment of imported and local
(2015). Evaluation of locally produced and imported reinforced
constructional steel in nigeria: analysis by one-way ANOVA.
steel rods for structural purposes in Nigerian market. International
International Journal of Materials Engineering, 7(3), 45–51.
Journal on Recent Development in Engineering and Technology,
3(8), 81–84.

13
 International Journal of Steel Structures

Ayininuola, G. M., & Olalusi, O. O. (2004). Assessment of building 807–809, 2735–2738. https:​ //doi.org/10.4028/www.scient​ ific.​ net/
failures in Nigeria: Lagos and Ibadan case study. African Journal amr.807-809.2735.
of Science & Technology, 5(1), 73–78. Ocheric, C., & Ibe, L. O. (2017). Comparative assessment of locally
Bangi, J. O., Maranga, S. M., & Mutuli, S. M. (2014). Effect of heat produced reinforcing steel bars for structural purposes: 12 mm
on mechanical properties and microstructure of reinforcing steel steel bars from Delta Steel Company (DSC)”, Warri-Nigeria as
bars made from local scrap. In Proceedings of 2014 international a Case Study. Journal of Powder Metallurgy and Mining, 6(1),
conference on sustainable research and innovation, Vol. 5, pp. 1000159.
291–295. Olsen, S. E., Tangstad, M., & Lindstad, T. (2007). History of manga-
British Standards Institution. (1997). BS4449: Specification for carbon nese: Production of manganese ferro alloys. Trondheim: Tapir
steel bars for the reinforcement of concrete, BSI. Academic Press.
Charles, K. K., & Mark, A. (2002). Strength and ductility characteris- Rao, N. S., Rao, P. M., & Jagadeesh, P. (2016). Experimental evalua-
tics of reinforcing steel bars milled from scrap metals. Elsevier: tion of strength properties of steel fiber reinforced concrete. Asian
Materials and Design, 23, 537–545. Journal of Civil Engineering (BHRC), 17(4), 487–494.
Ejeh, S. P., & Jibrin, M. U. (2012). Tensile tests on reinforcing steel Roy, R. (1990). A primer on the Taguchi method. New York, Library
bars in the Nigerian construction industry. Journal of Mechanical of Congress.
and Civil Engineering, 4(2), 6–12. Sanmbo, N., David, E., Samson, A., & Olatunde, B. (2009). Challenges
Firat, F. K. (2016). Mechanical properties of reinforcing steel in R/C : of producing quality construction steel bars in West Africa: Case
Uncertainty analysis and proposal of a new material factor. Arab study of Nigeria steel industry. Mineral & Materials Characteri-
Journal of Science and Engineering. https​://doi.org/10.1007/ zation & Engineering, 8, 289–292.
s1336​9-016-2077-7. Sezer, Gİ., Sezer, A., & Yazıcı, Ş. (2015). Evaluation of high tempera-
Gu, X., Jin, X., & Zhou, Y. (2016). Basic principles of concrete struc- ture effects on concrete-reinforcement bar bond using automated
tures. Berlin: Springer. digital image processing. Indian Journal of Engineering and
Guo, J., Wang, Y., He, X., Yang, S., Shang, C., & Wang, L. (2009). Materials Sciences, 22(5), 581–586.
Effect of carbon content on mechanical properties and weather Tunde, A., & Olawumi, B. A. (2016). Investigation into the strength
resistance of high performance bridge steels. Journal of Iron characteristics of reinforcement steel rod in sokoto market, sokoto
and Steel Research International, 16(6), 63–69. https​://doi. state Nigeria. International Journal of Latest Research in Engi-
org/10.1016/s1006​-706x(10)60029​-5. neering and Technology, 2(2), 66–69.
Higgins, R. A. (1993). Engineering metallurgy (6th ed.). New York: Wu, X., Chen, L., Li, H., & Xu, J. (2019). Experimental study of the
Wiley. mechanical properties of reinforced concrete compression mem-
Joshua, O., Olusola, K. O., Oyeyemi, K. D., Ogunde, A. O., Amusan, bers under the combined action of sustained load and corrosion.
L. M., Nduka, D. O., et al. (2018). Data of the properties of rebar Construction and Building Materials, 202, 11–22. https​://doi.
steel brands in Lagos, Nigerian market used in reinforced concrete org/10.1016/j.conbu​ildma​t.2018.12.156.
applications. Data in Brief, 17, 1428–1431.
Kareem, B. (2009). Tensile and chemical analyses of selected steel bars Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
produced in Nigeria. AU Journal of Technology, 13(1), 29–33. jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Kolawole, O. J., & Akanni, A. A. (2012). Analysis of properties of
reinforcing steel bars: Case study of collapsed building in Lagos,
Nigeria. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 204–208, 3052–3056.
Li, P., & Wang, Y. (2013). Effect of corrosion on mechanical prop-
erties of rebar HRB400. Advanced Materials Research,

13