International

Journal of Civil Engineering

and OF
Technology
ISSN 0976 AND
6308 (Print),
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
CIVIL(IJCIET),
ENGINEERING
ISSN 0976 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 11, November (2014), pp. 01-10 IAEME

TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)

ISSN 0976 6308 (Print)

ISSN 0976 6316(Online)
Volume 5, Issue 11, November (2014), pp. 01-10
IAEME: www.iaeme.com/Ijciet.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2014): 7.9290 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com

IJCIET
IAEME

STUDY OF MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF THE

AVAILABLE BRANDS OF STEEL REINFORCEMENT IN
KURDISTAN - IRAQ
Dr. Samal Mohammed Rashied,

Dr. Rizgar Amin Agha

Faculty of Engineering-University of Sulaimani, Kurdistan Region of Iraq

ABSTRACT
There are more than one brand of steel rebars are currently used in kurdistan. This is mainly
due to industry demands for lower cost material rather than structural attributes. Two main groups of
rebars (whose names are not permitted to be disclosed) have been considered in this study relating to
their origins of manufactures which are classified as recognized origins and non-recognized origins.
Some brands of recognized origins are manufactured locally in Sulaimani and Hawler and others are
imported regularly. Although there are brands were imported in past known as non-recognized
origins but they are still in use. It is necessary for a structural engineer to have a sufficient
knowledge about the property and quality of the available steel rebar used in design. This is to avoid
any unexpected failure or distortions. This paper considered these brands to investigate their elastic
properties and their applicability to take sufficient role in reinforced concrete structure. In this study,
the ultimate strength, yield strength, percentage elongation at fracture, steel rebar having diameters
10 mm, 12 mm, 16 mm and 20 mm were tested and compared according to ACI, EC2 and BS4449.
The minimum requirements by design recommendations are almost agreed for static load but failed
to cases of dynamic action such as earthquake when they do not achieved the ductility requirements
in terms of Rm / Re between 1.15 and 1.35% but achieved reasonable elongation percentage. The
conclusion made for more cautious in design for high ductility details of the steel rebar used.
Keywords: Ultimate Strength, Yield Strength, Stress-Strain, Elongation, Ductility, Grade of Steel,
Bar Diameter, Bar Deformation.
INTRODUCTION
Steel bars are commonly used for reinforcement of concrete structures. This is to reinforce
concrete in tension, compression, and shear .It works in axial tension or compression in structural
members. To obtain this role, the rebar should possess sufficient properties, geometries and
suitability in making a compatible composite member with concrete.
1

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 11, November (2014), pp. 01-10 IAEME

Flexural design is ductile type which depends on the amount and type of rebars.
The satisfied flexural design required an earlier warning in terms of cracks before failure is
happened. It is well understood that concrete can not provides such warning as it is a brittle material
with a limit of strain equal to 0.0035. It is steel with a higher strain which gives enough ductility
allows for that depending to its type and amount. The under reinforced design provides rebars to
maintain the yielding in the same time of reaching the maximum strain in concrete.
Then, the steel rebars should posses such properties and limits for safety use including the
ultimate strength, yield strength, elongation at fracture, mass per meter length and stress ratio. The
geometries which provide the proper bonding with the surrounding concrete are bar size and surface
deformation of ribs and space between ribs and the resistance against corrosion which maintain
durability of the structural member.
One of the sources of producing rebar steel is from scarp materials as an attempt to create a
good sustainability. There are systems in USA and Europe to make steel and they provide code
numbers for all types of scarps. One of these brands used in this study is from scrap but without
referring to any code by these systems. It is understood that the rebar from scrap materials that they
do not provide the same quality as specified for basic materials.
The composition of these brands is not available as their sources were not possible to be
known. Therefore the ductility of these brands is not specified here. According to BS 4449 [1] there
are two categories for ductility known as 460A and 460B. These two types give the differences in the
elongation at fracture as the 460B has more elongation by 5%.
There are international standards in the world specify the properties and quality of rebar
steels like ASTM A 615/A 615M, A 706/A 706M [2],BS 4449 and EC2 (BS EN 10080) [3] . Both
ACI 318 [4]and EC2 [5] are generally written assuming reinforcement to be deformed (ribbed). ACI
318 allows plain round bars to be used only in spirals, while for EC2 some national annexes give
limited recommendations for plain round bars.
ACI 3.5.3.1a is a section for specification of deformed and plain billet-steel bars for concrete
reinforcement ASTM A615 M. It covers billet steel deformed bars that are currently the most
widely used type of steel bar in reinforced concrete construction in the United State and marked with
the letter S for type of steel. In ACI 318 there are two general grades for bars - f y = 60000 psi (420
MPa) and f y = 80000 psi (550 MPa). EC2 has three classes of reinforcement (A, B and C) -as shown
in table (1)- all of which are required to have at least minimum relative rib areas f R ,min which vary
with bar size as follow:
= 5 or 6 mm f R ,min = 0.035, = 6.5 to 12 mm f R ,min = 0.040, and = > 12 mm f R ,min = 0.056.
Table (1): Grade of steel reinforcement
Group
ACI
EC2
(1)
1
Grade 300
(1)
2
Grade 420
Class C( B450) (3)
Grade 420(2)
3
Grade 520(1)
Class A (B500) (3)
Class B (B500) (3)
(1)
Conforming to AASTM A 615/A615M
(2)
Conforming to AASTM A 706/A706M
(3)
Conforming to prEN1008-2005

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 11, November (2014), pp. 01-10 IAEME

According to EC2, the properties required for each of the three classes are in terms of
1)

Characteristic yield or proof strength ( f yk )

2)

Minimum value of ( f t / f y )k where f t = maximum stress

3)

Characteristic (distributed) strain at maximum force ( UK )

The requirements are shown in table (2) and are as follow:

Class A

f yk - 400 to 600 MPa ( f t / f y )k 1.05, UK 2.5%

Class B

f yk - 400 to 600 MPa ( f t / f y )k 1.08, UK 5.0%

Class C

f yk - 400 to 600 MPa ( f t / f y )k 1.15 and 1.35%

For all 3 classes there are bend and bend/rebend test requirements
Beeby [6] explained the steel properties requirements that in BS449-1997, an only measure to
ductility was defined by the elongation to failure, but in the amended BS4449 there are two ductility
classes are defined as 460A and 460B.These classes, in addition to the elongation to failure, have the
same requirements as Class A and Class B in EC2.
In EC2, Class A is the only grade can be used where the moment re-distribution is less than
20% and may not be used for plastic analysis. Class B can be used for the moment re-distribution up
to 30% and in the case of plastic analysis but Class C is for the cases taken by Class B and is
required for seismic condition in the structure.
Table (2): Mechanical properties of group 2 and 3
Attributes
ASTM
EC2
615M

Tensile strength

Yield strength (min.)

706M
Class C: Ratio of Ultimate to
yield strength should be

620-G2
690-G3

550

420-G2
520 -G3

420

Class A: the ratio is 1.05

Class B :the ratio is 1.08

Yield strength (max.)

Elongation

10mm16mm
20mm
25mm
32mm

540
G2-9,G3=0
G2-9,G3=7
G2-8,G3=7
G2-7,G3=6

1.15 and 1.35

G2-14
G2-14
G2-12
G2-12

Note: "G" is based on the groups' identification in table (1)

Class C:450
Class A and B:500
Class C=7.5
Class A =2.5
Class B =5.0

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 11, November (2014), pp. 01-10 IAEME

The British Standard for reinforcing steels (BS 4449) has been revised to consider the three
ductility classes of EC2. The characteristic yield strength has also been increased from 460 MPa to
500 MPa. The three grades introduced in BS 4449:2005 are B500A, B500B and B500C.
The strength of rebars is defined by two limits the elastic limit or yield strength and the
ultimate tensile strength. But this is not sufficient to specify the performance of rebar steel in
concrete without its ductility when overcomes the brittleness of concrete.
The ductility gives ability to the structure to redistribute moments and this well addressed by
ACI, EC 2 and CEB-FIP. EC2 2 allows the redistribution of moments as a function of the ductility
class of the steel. It allows redistribution up to 20%ductility for class A, and 30% redistribution for
classes B and C. This is more governs where the structure experiences any cyclic loading where
there is not possible to calculate the loadings precisely due to the nature of the loads and
redistribution of moments is envisage in these cases. The physical property of rebar, which is
responsible for ductility, is its elongation. The ductility refers to ability if dissipating energy and
large deformation.
In EC2:

Class A steel is not suitable for seismic regions, or for plastic theory design and the permissible
amount of redistribution of moments from elastic values is less than for classes B and C.

Class B steel is not normally for use in seismic regions, and the rotation capacity for plastic
design is lower than that of Class C.

So far as the design of reinforcement for shear and/or torsion is required:

ACI 318 applies a limit f y = 60000 psi (420 MPa), which is intended to provide a control on
the widths of inclined cracks, but a higher value of 80000 psi (550 MPa) is allowed for shear, but not
for torsion, if the reinforcement is of welded deformed wire (mesh or fabric). The commentary says
this allowance is based on test results. In the case of reinforcement for torsion, so far as I can see,
the (425MPa) limit applies only to the stirrups and the part of the longitudinal reinforcement required
for torsion.
EC2 does not have any special limits on stresses for shear and torsion reinforcement, except
for the design limit f ywd ,eff = 250 + 0.25d (in MPa for d in mm), which corresponds to f ywd ,eff = 1.15
(250 + 0.25d). This is intended to allow for the very short anchorage lengths in shallow slabs. So
far as serviceability is concerned EC2 relies on the detailing requirements for shear and torsion
reinforcement. For flexural reinforcement the effect of high bar stresses on deflections can be taken
into account in the calculations for deflections.
Bashu et al. [7] reviewed the characteristics of three types steel rebars used in India in
reinforced concrete structure which were MS, CTD and TMT. The review includes bond with
concrete, ductility and the effects of manufacturing of hot and cold process on these characters. They
made a comparison of specifications by current standards of some countries like USA, European
nations (EN), Australia/New Zealand and Russian Federation (RF). They believe that a maximum
limit for yield strength is desirable to be specified in standards used for earthquake-resistant design.
The absence of such a maximum limit may lead to brittle failure (shear) of the structure.
They found that the requirements of elongation specified in IS 1786 is in line with other
international specifications for Fe 415 and Fe 500 grades from ductility consideration. Fe 550 grade
steel falls short of it. IS 1786 does not guarantee the requirement of minimum ratio of tensile
strength to minimum yield strength for inelastic deformability as are the cases of ASTM
4

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 11, November (2014), pp. 01-10 IAEME

A706/A706M. Moreover, IS1786 does not specify both the minimum and maximum yield strengths
for safeguarding against brittle shear failure. Therefore, they explained that is not possible for direct
comparison on elongation as different countries have different specifications for testing elongation.
The writers studied the efficiency of rebars from scrap materials which called re-roll rebars. This is
because more than 50 percent of the rebars in India are manufactured from scrap rails, automobile
scrap, defense scrap, ship breaking or discarded structures. They conclude that a careful control on
using scrap metal is necessary to obtain the required quality of rebars.
S.A. Reddi and S. Bhuvanesh [8] studied the reinforcement quality assurance and quality and
describe the certification and validation aspects. They endorse on the fact that the performance of the
structure gets affected seriously if the reinforcement in concrete is not of proper quality. Reddi et al.
explained the existing of only Fe 415 steel grade in India causes a problem of heavily congested
reinforcement leading to low quality structures. Also, there is no requirements for ductility is
addressed in the IS(Indian Standard). They also reported that the allowance of 0.3 percent of carbon
content in rebar composition by Indian Standard, whereas the international limit is 0.25percent,
caused the corrosion in many cases.
J. A. Shayan R. Peiris and Ramal V. Coorey [9] studied reinforcing steel bars used in Sir
Lanka. They tested four popular brands of steel having diameters 10 mm, 12 mm, 16 mm and 20 mm
and they compared the mechanical properties to each others based on standards in Sir Lanka like the
ultimate strength, yield strength, percentage elongation at fracture, mass per meter length and stress
ratio. They found that the steel reinforcement becomes less ductile when it is manufactured by work
hardening, then the ultimate strength increases.
Shayan et al. concluded that for the same brand the steel diameter did not show any influence
on ultimate strength and elongation. Also, for the same bar diameter there is not the same trend of
changing in ultimate strength and elongation.
H.Li, A.j Deeks, I.Liu and X. Su [10] Compared the steel reinforcement used in China and
Australia .They tested a series of steel reinforcements which having a similar chemical composition
with the diameters of 10,12,16, 18 and 25mm for Chinese steel and with the diameters of 10, 12, 16,
20 and 24mm for Australian steel. The obtained values for yield stress, tensile strength, steel yield
ratio and elongations for both brands were larger than the corresponding values provided in Chinese
standard GB 1499.2-2007 and Australian standard AS/NS 4671:2001. Both brands achieved the
requirements for 500MPa steel reinforcement. Chinese bars achieved an elongation of larger than10
and the steel yield ratio greater than 1.20 while the Australian average value of elongation and steel
ratio were 8.17 and 1.15 respectively which are below the Chinese values. The average yield stress
and ultimate tensile strength of all Chinese bars were 533.3MPa 680.76MPa and 556.8MPa and
646.4MPa for Australian bars. The higher values in Chinese bars were due to the higher percentage
of carbon. The ductility of Australian bars is somewhat lesser than Chinese bars due to containing
higher percentage of phosphorus and sulphur.
C. K. Kankam and M.A. Asamoah [11] studied the behavior of mild steel bar made from
scraps to investigate the flexural behavior in reinforced concrete beams. One hundred specimens
were randomly selected from several local steel manufacturing companies in Ghana. The carbon
contents were between 0.20-0.30. The ultimate strengths averaged between 500- 560 MPa and the
percentage elongations were between 9.6-11.8. The type of failure indicates brittle behavior of the
steel. Twelve beams were tested and reinforced with different percentages of steel in tension and
compression. The concrete beams were designed as under-reinforced, However, the beams failed in a
brittle manner with very little increased deflection prior to fail. They concluded that the strength of
locally produced steel bars is not reliable. And recommend that the building codes of practice should
place an upper limit value on the yield stress of the produced steel.

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 11, November (2014), pp. 01-10 IAEME

Bachmann [12] conducted a comprehensive monolithic tests on slender reinforced concrete

walls and he concluded that a significant percentage of European rebar particularly those with a
small bar diameter than 16mm, exhibits poor ductility. This is due to assessing small strain
hardening ratio Rm / R p and the elongation AG at maximum force.

TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A series of tensile tests have been performed on four brands of the most available steel rebars
with recognized origins and rebars with non-recognized origin used in construction in Kurdistan. The
selected bar diameters are 10, 12, 16 and 20mm, although samples of 10mm for brand C, D and E,
16mm diameter for brand D and 20mm diameter for brand C were not available in the time of this
study. Three samples of each diameter have been tested and the average value of results has been
taken for this study. The selections were made carefully for all samples, as they were inspected for
all types of defect and clean from any type of lubricant.
The bonding specification in terms of deformation is not included in this study, as it is better
to conduct a appropriate tests to investigate their bonding resistance in concrete prisms.
The tests were carried out on straight rebars using a digital universal testing machine.
The out put of results for mechanical properties are taken from the machine and shown in
table(4) which are the measured diameters, the ultimate strength ( Rm ), yield strength ( R P 0.2 ),
percentage elongation at fracture ( AG ), and stress ratio ( Rm / RP 0.2 ) were determined. The upper yield
strength was determined for rebars showing the 0.2 percent proof stress ( R P 0.2 ).
Table (3) and Figs (1-3) show the results of yield stress, ultimate stress and elongation in a
relationships to the bar diameters of all brands. It is clearly found that all values of yield stress
( R P 0.2 ) and ultimate tensile strength ( Rm ), are larger than the corresponding values recommended
by EC2, but only all the yield strength values except bars of brand C having 12mm diameter, are
within the specification for G3-ASTM standard. The tensile strength for rebars with all diameters in
brand A was larger than ASTM values. In brand B only rebars with diameter of 12 and 20 reached
above ASTM values and in brand C only bar diameter of 16 and in brand C only bar diameter of 12
reached above ASTM. The values for not recognized origin bars are all above ASTM values. Thus
all tested brands with all diameters met the EC2 requirements for Class B 500MPa reinforcement
rebar as the elongations were above 5% and the Rm / RP 0.2 were 1.11 which is above 1.08.
For ASTM requirements, brand A with all diameters, diameter of 12 and 20 in brand B,
diameter of16 in brand C and diameter of 12 in brand D achieved the code requirements for G3.
While the rest of tested bars should be classified as G2.
Table (3) shows measured diameters of steel bars and it was found that some of them are
smaller than the nominal diameter where it is assumed in the design. The implication with this
differences is designed structural member will be provided with lesser reinforcement and it is
dangerous in a particular case and position.

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 11, November (2014), pp. 01-10 IAEME

Brand

Table (3): Tensile properties for the available brands in Kurdistan

Nominal
Area
Measured Measured
RP 0.2
Rm
AG
2
Diameter
Diameter
Area
mm
(%)
(MPa ) (MPa )
(mm)
(mm)
mm 2

10

78.5

9.8

75.7

638

709

13.3

1.11

12

113.0

11.8

108.6

577

701

15.8

1.11*

16

201.0

16.0

201.5

649

720

15.0

1.11

301.3

621

689

20.0

1.11

(1)

20

314.0

19.6

10

78.5

9.9

77.4

589

656

19.3

1.11

12

113.0

11.8

16

Rm
RP 0.2

201.0

20

314.0

10

78.5

109.7

692

769

14.1

1.11

15.8

(2)

196.5

613

680

19.8

1.11

20.0

(3)

313.4

682

757

17.5

1.11

105.5

519

622

14.3

1.11*

12

113.0

16

201.0

15.9

198.0

663

736

19.2

1.11

20

314.0

10

78.5

12

113.0

12.1

113.0

642

714

18.5

1.11

16

201.0

20

314.0

20.1

317.2

503

598

21.2

1.11

10

78.5

12

113.0

11.6(5)

104.9

663

736

16.3

1.11

201.0

15.8

(6)

196.7

590

655

19.5

1.11

19.9

(7)

311.8

664

737

17.8

1.11

16
20

314.0

11.6

(4)

Rm is the ultimate strength, RP 0.2 is the percent proof stress and AG is the percentage elongation after
fracture.
Note: For yield strength Re the 0.2 percent proof stress RP 0.2 was determined.
A-D is brand with recognized origin
E is for bars with not-recognized origin.
(1-7) are steel diameters which are below the standard diameters by 1%
* the ratio of one sample is above the other two samples and makes the average to be above 1.11 by
11%
The values in italic are failed to satisfy the minimum requirement by ASTM specification
From Figs.(4) , it can observed that for each bar diameter there is a sole brand has the highest
stress A for 10mm,B for 12mm and C for 16mm and 20mm . The non-recognized brand (E) has
values between the recognized bars except in 20mm. Although, the elongations for all brands are
within the limits by the codes but Brand B showed higher elongation for 10mm and 16mm and
lowest for 12mm and 20mm.
7

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 11, November (2014), pp. 01-10 IAEME
750

Yield Strength(MPa)

700
650
A
600

B
C

550

D
E

500
450
400
8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

(mm )

Fig.(1): the relationships between the yield strength and bar diameters for different brands

Ultimate Strength(MPa)

800

750

700

A
B

650

C
D

600

550

500
8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

(mm )

Fig.(2): the relationships between the ultimate strength and bar diameters for different brands
22

Elongation(% )

20

18

A
B

16

C
D

14

12

10
8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

(mm )

Fig.(3): the relationships between the elongation and bar diameters for different brands
Note: A, B, C and D are brands of recognized origins of reinforcement steels E is for not-recognized
origin of reinforcement steels
The different specifications by codes of practice make a difficult comparison on elongation
and stress ratio for ductility assessment. The ensuring of minimum stress ratio is required by EC2 but
not specified by ASTM 615 M, is important in evaluating the maximum strength capacity of
members where it should be different from its yield strength. It is rather significant for seismic
condition which required a higher value than other cases to guarantee the inelastic phase in the
assumed failure mechanism in the design.

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 11, November (2014), pp. 01-10 IAEME

The difficulties in obtaining the compositions of these imported and manufactured locally
steel bars, lead to be unsuccessful in recognizing the main reasons and reaching for any
recommendation to overcome these inadequacies.
According to EC2, all recognized and not-recognized brands do not meet the limits for stress
ratio value between 1.15 and 1.35% for Class C. This means these brands are not suitable for
seismic condition which is the case in Kurdistan where in the higher seismic zone according to the
UBC map and values. The dangerous with this is it makes the structure brittle and unsafe in the
occasion of any types of dynamic loading occurrence like wind, explosion and earthquake.
According to Uniform Building Code (UBC 1997) [13] Iraq (Baghdad) is within zone 3 but
Iran (Tabriz) is within zone 4 in Table 16-1 from Code. However, Kudistan city of Sulaimani, Arbil
are within Zone II and Dihok is within zone III in Iraqi Seismic Code 1997.
AlSianwi et al. [14] presented the seismic design regionalization of Iraq and found that the
seismic design parameters increases towards the east, northeast and north of Iraq where Kurdistan is
located , see the brown color as shown in Fig.(5).

Fig.(5): Seismic intensity map of Iraq 1900-1988 (duplicated from AlSinawi et al.(14))
Kurdistan is on the border of Iran and on the same seismic line of Tabriz, therefore the zone 4
is applied. The implication of this new value is the existing value in Iraqi Seismic Code is not valid
anymore in the design. This means the structural design needs to apply the seismic zone factor for
zone 4 equals to 0.4 which is much larger than 0.07 for Sulaimani and 0.09 for Arbil in Iraqi
Code. [15]

CONCLUSION
There are various brands of steel rebars are currently in construction use in Kurdistan of Iraq.
Two main groups of rebars have been considered in this study, which are classified as recognized
and non-recognized origins. Tensile tests were conducted on four diameters of 10, 12, 16 and 20 mm
from each brand depending on their availability in local bar market. The elastic properties and their
applicability to take sufficient role in reinforced concrete structure are investigated and compared to
the specifications by ACI, EC2 and BS449. The minimum requirements by design recommendations
are almost agreed for static load and elongations. Therefore all brands of recognized and nonrecognized origins are classified as G3 and Class B by ASTM and EC2 respectively. For cases of
9

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 11, November (2014), pp. 01-10 IAEME

dynamic action such as earthquake, all brands are failed to achieve the ductility requirements in
terms of Rm / Re between 1.15 and 1.35%. It could be recommended that brand A (10mm), B
(12mm) and C (for 16 and 20) is preferred in structural design elements.. Also, there are differences
between nominal (where usually design based on it) and the actual cross sectional area when were
measured. In the light of these investigations, it is clearly required more cautious in design for the
provided area and high ductility details of the steel rebar used.
In order to obtain a better evaluation of these brands, it may be a comprehensive test program
is required.

REFERENCES
[1]
[2]

[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]

[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]

BS 4449:1997 Carbon steel bars for the reinforcement of concrete. British Standards
Institution, 2008.
American Society for Testing of Materials (2003): AASHTO No. M 31 Standard
Specifications for Deformed & Plain Billet Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement:
A615/A615M- 03a
CEN-European Standard prEN 10080, Steel for the reinforcement of concrete Weldable
reinforcing steel 2005.
ACI 318-11, Building code requirements for structural concrete, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2011
Eurocode 2, Design of concrete structures, Part 1-1, General rules and rules for buildings, EN
1992-1-1, CEN, Brussels, Dec 2004.
A.W. Beeby,Why We Need Ductility in Reinforced Concrete Structure, Report of Grdae
500C Reinforcement by Celsa Steel Group, UK, Sep.2005, 28pp.
C. P. Bahsu, P. Shylamoni and A. D. Roshan,Characterisation of steel reinforcement for RC
structures: An overview and relate issues. The India Concrete Journal Jan. 2004.
S.A. Reddi and S. Bhuvanesh, Reinforcement quality assurance and certification and
validation aspects. The Indian Concrete Journal, Jan. 2004.
J. A. Shayan R. Peiris and Ramal V. Coorey, Study of Elastic Properties of Reinforcing Steel
Bars. Proceedings of the Technical Sessions, 26 (2010) 67-74. Institute of Physics
Sri Lanka.
H.Li, A.j Deeks, I.Liu and X. Su, Comparison of Chinese and Australian 500MPa reinforcing
steel. Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.10, No.2. 2010, pp.137-144.
C. K. Kankam and M.A. Asamoah, Strength and ductility characteristics of reinforcing steel
bars milled from scrap metals. Materials and Design, No.23, (2002), p.537545.
H. Bachmann, Problems Relevant to Poor Ductility Properties of European Reinforcing Steel.
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ( ETH), 2000, 9pp.
Uniform Building Code, Volume 2, Structural Engineering Design Provisions, 1997.
International Conference of Building Official, Whittier, California.1997.
S.A.Alsinawi and Z.O. Al-Qasrani, Earthquake Hazards Considerations for Iraq. Fourth
International Conference of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, May 2003, Tehran.
Seismic Design Code of Iraq, Iraqi board for Seismic Design of Building, Baghdad, 1997.

10