IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Study of factors affecting bond behavior
Variability of chemical analysis of reinforcing bar between stainless steel rebar and
concrete
produced in Saudi Arabia Qingfu Li, Qunhua Xiang, Jinwei Wang et
al.

- Characterization of single-mode multimode

To cite this article: A. Salman and F. Djavanroodi 2018 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 348 012015 single-mode fiber optic sensors for steel
rebar corrosion monitoring in NaCl and
simulated concrete pore solutions
Fujian Tang, Jiangwei Qin, Els Verstrynge
et al.
View the article online for updates and enhancements. - An experimental investigation of innovative
bridge columns with engineered
cementitious composites and Cu–Al–Mn
super-elastic alloys
F Hosseini, B Gencturk, S Lahpour et al.

This content was downloaded from IP address 27.34.24.131 on 26/06/2023 at 02:58

International Conference on Materials Engineering and Applications IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 348 (2018) 012015 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/348/1/012015
1234567890‘’“”

Variability of chemical analysis of reinforcing bar produced in

Saudi Arabia

A. Salman1, F. Djavanroodi2

1Department of Civil Engineering, Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University, Al

Khobar, KSA
2Department of Mechanical Engineering, Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University, Al
Khobar, KSA
E-mail: fdjavanroodi@pmu.edu.sa

Abstract: In view of the importance and demanding roles of steel rebar’s in the reinforced
concrete structures, accurate information on the properties of the steels is important at the
design stage. In the steelmaking process, production variations in chemical composition are
unavoidable. The aim of this work is to study the variability of the chemical composition of
reinforcing steel produced throughout the Saudi Arabia and asses the quality of steel rebar’s
acoording to ASTM A615. 68 samples of ASTM A615 Grade 60 from different manufacturers
were collected and tested using the Spectrometer test to obtain Chemical Compositions.
EasyFit (5.6) software is utilized to conducted statistical analysis. Chemical compositions
distributions and, control charts are generated for the compositions. Results showed that some
compositions are above the upper line of the control chart. Finally, the analyses show that less
than 3% of the steel failed to meet minimum ASTM standards for chemical composition.

1. Introduction
Conventional reinforced concrete is a composite material of reinforcing steel bars embedded in a
hardened concrete matrix. The accurate information on the properties of the reinforcing steels as a
construction material is important at the design or construction stage. There are many codes which
specify the limits on the properties and testing procedures of the steel rebar. These are ASTM A615,
BS4449, ISO 6935-2 etc. Saudi Arabia have adopted ASTM A615 standard [1] for the steel rebar
testing. Reinforcing bars tests in most construction sites have been restricted to tensile and bend tests
with little or no information about chemical composition as they relate to the structural performances
of the bars.
Chemical composition variations in producing reinforcing steel bars are unavoidable. Table 1 gives the
list of chemical ingredients that influences the property of steel rebar’s [2]. Carbon is the main
strengthening element that participates in two strengthening mechanisms, solid solution and second
phase formation (cementite). Although carbon increasing the strength (mainly the tensile TS), but on
the other hand decrease the ductility and Hardness, in addition to affecting the weldability [3]. The
carbon equivalent represents the contribution of carbon and other elements to the formation of
structures susceptible of hydrogen embrittlment during welding. In the carbon equivalent diagram
(Figure 1) the transformation is schematically represented. The rebar steels moved from a region of
optimum-medium weldability to region of high risk weldability. The ASTM A615 reflects this
problem and explicitly excludes the weldbality. Other properties of the rebar are compromised when
the carbon steel with medium carb on content is used for fabricating rebar. Among these is the elastic -

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
International Conference on Materials Engineering and Applications IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 348 (2018) 012015 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/348/1/012015
1234567890‘’“”

plastic behavior. Most theories of concrete reinforced structure design considers that the steel in the
structure deforms elastically and then it will yield plastically at constant stress. The elastic –perfectly
plastic behavior of the steel is assumed by most of the model or code for earthquake resistance
construction. Metallurgically, hot rolled plain low carbon steel (carbon content less than 0.3 wt. %)
produces steel with near elastic-perfectly plastic behavior (i.e. stress – strain curve with wide Luders
deformation after yielding). One method to fabricate steel rebar with high strength combined with high
ductility, weldability and toughness is Tempcore process. In this method hot rolled deformed bars are
quenched at the end of rolling mill by applying high pressure jets of cold water on the red hot steel
surface. This process hardens a crust near the steel surface while the bar core remains with high
ductility. This procedure produces steel with low carbon, high strength, high ductility, good weldable
property and tough material [4].

Table 1. Influence of different chemical ingredients in steel on properties of rebars [2]

Chemicals Property Effects on the Rebar’s

Carbon (C) Hardness, Higher carbon contributes to the tensile strength of steel, that
strength, is, higher load bearing capacity and vice versa. Lower carbon
weldability and content less than 0.1 percent will reduce the strength. Higher
brittleness carbon content of 0.3 percent and above makes the steel bar
unweldable and brittle.
Manganese Strength and yield Higher manganese content in steel increases the tensile
(Mn) strength strength and also the carbon equivalent property.
Sulphue (S) It is impurity in Presence of sulphur should be limited. Presence of higher
steel which sulphur makes the bar brittle during twisting, as higher sulphur
increases its content brings the hot shot problem during rolling
brittleness.
Phosphorus It is an impurity Higher phosphorus content contributes to the increase in
(P) which increases strength and corrosion resistance properties but brings
strength brittleness due to the formation of low euctoid phosphicles in
brittleness the grain boundary. Also lowers the impact and value at
subzero temperature level (transition temperature).
Copper (Cu) Strength and Being a pearlite stabiliser, it increases the strength and
corrosion resistance corrosion property
resistance
Chromium Weldability and Present as an impurity from the scrap and influences carbon
(Cr) corrosion equivalent; weldability and increases corrosion resistance
resistance property.
Carbon Hardness, tensile This property is required to set the cooling parameters in TMT
Equivalent strength and (Thermo mechanically treated) process and a slight variation in
(CE or Ceq) weldability carbon equivalent may alter the physical properties. In case of
CTD (Cold twisted deformed) bars, carbon equivalent has a
maximum limit of 0.42 percent but there is no lower limit
prescribed. As such, as long as the chemical composition and
physical properties of raw materials are within specified limits,
the variation in carbon equivalent as in the case of TMT bars.

2
International Conference on Materials Engineering and Applications IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 348 (2018) 012015 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/348/1/012015
1234567890‘’“”

Figure 1. Carbon – carbon equivalent diagram indicating the area of optimum weldability, regular
and high risk of cold crack formation [4].

There has been number of statistical studies dealing specifically with the variability of the mechanical
properties of reinforcing steel [5-17]. In these studies, variations in yield and tensile strengths were
examined. These variations were believed to be caused by variation in the rolling practices and quality
control measures used by different manufacturers, as well as possible variations in cross-sectional area,
steel strength, and rate of loading. On the other hand there has been very few studies on variability of
chemical composition reinforcing steel [18, 19]. Jibrin and Ejeh [19] studied the Chemical
composition of reinforcing steel in the Nigerian Construction Industry. A total of 14 companies
supplied nineteen samples were tests. Most of the bars showed absence of some element such as
Molybdenum, Vanadium, etc which is a strength and coefficient of weldability determinants BS4449.
Also, it is shown that the high percentage of elements such as Silicon and Phosphorus impacted
negatively on the strength and deformation characteristics of the bars.
Saudi Arabia’s steel demand has made the country one of the largest consumer in the GCC region. The
country also accounts for significant number of construction activities in the Middle-East region [20].
The purpose of this study is to assess the quality of rebar’s manufactured in KSA. The tasks to deliver
these objectives will cover the chemical composition testing of the rebars produced from the steel
manufacturing plants in the KSA and to derive and investigate the relevant parameters related to the
quality of reinforcing bars. This paper reports on the variability of the chemical composition of
reinforcing steel produced throughout the Saudi Arabia by experimentation and asses the quality of
steel rebar’s which satisfy the minimum requirements established by ASTM International A615.
Samples ASTM A615 Grade 60 from different manufacturers were collected and tested using the
Spectrometer test to obtain Chemical Compositions. A statistical analysis of bar Chemical
Composition is conducted.
2. Experimental method
Samples of steel bars ASTM A615 Grade 60 were collected and labeled from eight local steel
manufacturing companies in Saudi Arabia as shown in Table 2. Sixtey eight specimens were randomly
selected from the manufactures stockpiled. All the samples were prepared and tested for the chemical
properties of the steel using a Spectrolab Foundry Master X-lin analytical instrument. These tests were
performed at three different laboratories namely Saudi Arabia standard organization, SABIC and
Imperial College London.

Table 2: List of steel rebars manufactures

Usaimi SABIC Al Rajhi Al Ittefaq Jazira Watania Taybah Al Yamamah
US HA RA IT JA WA TA YA

3
International Conference on Materials Engineering and Applications IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 348 (2018) 012015 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/348/1/012015
1234567890‘’“”

3. Results and discusion

The chemical analysis of the tests carried on the steel samples shows that the steel bars from these
manufacturers possessed percentage average Carbon, Phosphors, Sulphuer, Copper, Chromium,
Manganese and Carbon Equivalent contents of 0.26, 0.02, 0.013, 0.079, 0.061, 0.852 and 0.402,
respectively. EasyFit 5.6 is utilized to obtain necessary statistical results. Table 3 and includes a
summury of statistical analysis of chemical compositions. Figure 2 shows full statisctal results of the
ten chemical compositions. These compositions follow different types of continuous distributions as
depicted in Figure 2. Mean, standard deviation, and other statistical functions are determined
according to distribution type. Carbon (C) Copper (Cu), and Manganese (Mn) follow Generalized
Extreme Value distribution; Phosphorus (P) follows Log-Logistic distribution; Sulphur (S) follows
Log-Pearson distribution; Chrome (Cr) follows Weibull distribution, Molybdenum (Mo) follows
Generalized Pareto distribution; Nickel (Ni) follows Fatique Life distribution; Vanadium (V) follows
Johnson SB distribution; Silicon (Si) follows Gamma distribution; and Carbon Equivalent (C.E.)
follows Dagum. Carbon (C) is the only composition that has left skewed, the other compositions have
right sekewed. Phosphorus (P) has highet value of coefficient of variation (CV), which is a function of
mean and standard deviation. While, Carbon (C) has the lowest value of CV.
Furthermore, control charts are generated for each chemical composition to verify samples that are
below 3 sigma or more than 3 sigma, as shown in Figure 3. Carbon (C), Sulphur (S), Molybdenum
(Mo), Vanadium (V), and Manganese (Mn) , and Carbon Equivalent (C.E.) are 100% validation. All
values between the upper control line (UCL) and the lower control line (LCL). One sample has
Copper (Cu) upper the control line, the validation of Phosphorus (P) is 98%. Finally, two samples
have Phosphorus (P), Chrome (Cr), Nickel (Ni), and Silicon (Si) more than the upper control line, the
validation of the previous four chemical compositions are 97%. These results are considered
acceptable according to ASTM standards.
The result of Spectormeter tests with statistical analysis on steel rebar chemical composition are
shown in Table 3. The ASTM A615 does not specify any restriction on Carbon content; the only
restriction is on the phosphorus content with a maximum of 0.06 %.and 0.075% from the heat of steel
and the product, respectively. The analyses shows that out of the 68 test performed only two samples
did not meet the standard i.e. less than 3% of the steel failed to meet minimum ASTM standards for
chemical composition. The statistical analysis including the values of maximum, minimum, average,
median and standard deviation for each element is calculated and shown in Table 3. The carbon
equivalan was calculated using the following equation [21].

Table 3. Statistical analysis of Chemical Composition of A 615 Grade 60 steel rebar’s

Elements C% P% S% Cu% Cr% Mo% Ni% V% Si% Mn% C.E.
Generali Generali Generali Dagum
Generali
Distribution zed Log- Log- zed Fatique Johnson zed
Weibull zed Gamma
Type Extreme Logistic Pearson Extreme Life SB Extreme
Pareto
Value Value Value
k,α, β,
Parameters k, σ, μ α, β, γ α, β, γ k, σ, μ α, β, γ k, σ, μ α, β, γ γ, δ, λ ξ α, β, γ k, σ, μ
γ
Maximum 0.35 0.211 0.03 0.3 0.39 0.03 0.27 0.012 0.50 1.45 0.60
Minimum 0.098 0.004 0.004 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.17 0.37 0.21
Mean 0.2 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.06 0.008 0.04 0.004 0.26 0.85 0.41
Standard
0.05 0.03 0.007 0.06 0.06 0.007 0.04 0.003 0.07 0.23 0.07
deviation
Coefficient
of Variation 19% 168% 56% 82% 109% 89% 89% 75% 27% 28% 19%
(CV)
Skewness Left Right Right Right Right Right Right Right Right Right Right
Validation of
Control
100 % 97 % 100 % 98% 97% 100% 97% 100% 97% 100% 100%
Chart
(± 3 σ )

4
International Conference on Materials Engineering and Applications IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 348 (2018) 012015 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/348/1/012015
1234567890‘’“”

Moreover, it shows that chemical compositions among samples is not normally distributed which
indicates variability among manufacturers row material used for producing rebar’s. It is evident that,
for most bars sizes of A 615 Grades 60, the mean for the chemical composition is not situated at the
midpoint of the data range, indicating non-normal distributions.
4. Conclusion, recommendations and benefits
Chemical composition tests conducted on 68 samples of locally manufactured steel reinforcing rebar’s
in Saudi Arabia. The analysis of the steel bars from these manufacturers possessed percentage average
Carbon, Phosphors, Sulphuer, Copper, Chromium, Manganese and Carbon Equivalent contents of 0.26,
0.02, 0.013, 0.079, 0.061, 0.852 and 0.402, respectively. Also it is shown shown that less than 3% of
the steel failed to meet minimum ASTM standards for chemical composition. It is evident that, for
most bars sizes of A 615 Grades 60, the mean for the chemical composition is not situated at the
midpoint of the data range, indicating non-normal distributions, therefore, the characteristic chemical
composition of locally produced steel bars is not consistent. The following recommendation and
benefits can be deduced from this study.
1. The results are very important for the long term financial stability and mechanical viability and
structural safety for this sector in KSA
2. Saudi Arabia Standard organization board should make sure, the standard given by them is strictly
observed by all the local producers.
5. References:
[1] ASTM A 615/M615 -15. Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Carbon-Steel Bars for
Concrete Reinforcement. ASTM standards, Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and
Materials.
[2] C. B. Prabir, P. Shylamoni and A. D. Roshan, “Characterization of steel reinforcement for RC
structures: An overview and related issues” Jan. 2004, The Indian Concrete Journal page 19-30
[3] F. K. Hajeri-Al, Presentation on carbon content in steel rebar’s, Saudi Arabia Standard
Organization. 2015.
[4] J.L. Morán-López, , J. M. Sánchez, “Advanced Topics in Materials Science and Engineering”
Springer Science & Business Media, 1993.
[5] F Djavanroodi, A Salman. “Variability of Mechanical Properties and Weight for Reinforcing Bar
Produced in Saudi Arabia”. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Volume
230, Issue 1, Pages 012002
[6] F Djavanroodi, B Omranpour, M Sedighi [2012]. “Artificial neural network modeling of ECAP
process”. Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 28 (3), 276-281.
[7] C.K. Kankam, M. Adom-Asamoah. “Shear strength of concrete beams reinforced with steel bars
milled from scrap metals”. J Mater Des 2006;27:928–34.
[8] MH Shaeri, M Shaeri, MT Salehi, SH Seyyedein, F Djavanroodi [2015]. “Microstructure and
texture evolution of Al-7075 alloy processed by equal channel angular pressing”. Journal of
Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China Volume 25 Issue 5 Pages 1367-1375.
[9] D. E. Allen,“Statistical Study of the Mechanical Properties of Reinforcing Bars,” Building Res.
Note No. 85, Division of Building Res., National Res. Council, Ottawa, Canada, Apr., 8 pp.
[10] S. A. Mirza and J. G. MacGregor, “Variability of Mechanical Properties of Reinforcing Bars,”
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 105, May, pp. 921-937, 1979.
[11] A. S.Nowak, and M. M. Szerszen, “Calibration of Design Code for Building (ACI 318): Part 1-
Statistical Models for Resistance,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 100, May-June, pp. 377-382,
2003.
[12] M. Bournonville, J. Dahnke, and D. Darwin, , “Statistical Analysis of The Mechanical Properties
and Weight of Reinforcing bars” Structural Eng. and Eng. Materials, SL Report 04-1, 2004
[13] M. U. Jibrin, S. P. Ejeh, “Chemical Composition of Reinforcing Steel Bars in the Nigerian
Construction Industry” Int. J. of Civil & Environmental Eng. IJCEE-IJENS Vol:13 No:01, Feb.
2013
[14] C.P. Joshi, and R. Ranganathan, “Variations in strength of reinforcing steel bars,” Journal of the
Institution of Engineers (India): Civil Engineering Division, Vol. 68, No. 6, 1988,pp. 309-312.

5
International Conference on Materials Engineering and Applications IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 348 (2018) 012015 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/348/1/012015
1234567890‘’“”

[15] S. Akyz, and M.Uyan, “Study on the reinforcing steel bars used in Turkey,”
TeknikDergi/Technical Journal of Turkish Chamber of Civil Engineers, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1992, pp.
136-138.
[16] A.M. Arafah, “Statistics for concrete and steel quality in Saudi Arabia,” Magazine of Concrete
Research, Vol. 49, No. 180, 1997, pp. 185-193.
[17] C. Galasso, E. Cosenza, and G. Maddaloni, “Statistical analysis of reinforcing steel properties for
seismic design of RC structures,” Proc. of the 14th European Conf. on Earthquake Eng, Ohrid,
Macedonia, 2010, pp. 3715-3722.
[18] W. T. Lim, “Statistical Analysis of Reinforcing Steel Properties,” Master’s Thesis, University of
Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, June 1991, 151 pp.
[19] M. U. JIBRIN, S. P. EJEH, “Chemical Composition of Reinforcing Steel Bars in the Nigerian
Construction Industry” International J. of Civil & Environmental Eng. IJCEE-IJENS Vol:13
No:01.
[20] http://www.metalsteelsaudi.com/?page_id=17
[21] ASTM A706/A706M - 2014, Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Low-Alloy Steel
Bars for Concrete Reinforcement. ASTM standards, Philadelphia: ASTM.

Acknowledgment:
This research was supported by Prince Mohammad Bin Fahad University. The support is greatly
acknowledged. We are also thankful to Dr. M. M. Al Motari at Saudi Arabia Standard Organization
(SASO), Dr K. F. Al-Hajeri, Mr M. Yaghoub at SABIC and Mr. H. M. Dowla at Al Ittifaq steel for
providing their laboratories and assistance for the project. Their support is greatly acknowledged.
Finally, we thank I. Babbili1; I. Ansari1; R. Al-Roqaiti1; O. Qassar2; N. Qahtani1; S. Aladhyani1; A.
Alunaiz1; M. Almatrook1; M. Najar3, A. Asiz1 for their valuable input and assistance.

6
International Conference on Materials Engineering and Applications IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 348 (2018) 012015 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/348/1/012015
1234567890‘’“”

(a) Carbon (C): Generalized Extreme Value (b) Phosphorus (P): Log-Logistic

(c) Sulphur (S): Log-Pearson (d) Copper (Cu): Generalized Extreme Value

(e) Chrome (Cr): Weibull (f) Molybdenum (Mo): Generalized Pareto

7
International Conference on Materials Engineering and Applications IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 348 (2018) 012015 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/348/1/012015
1234567890‘’“”

(g) Nickel (Ni): Fatique Life (h) Vanadium (V): Johnson SB

(i) Silicon (Si): Gamma (j) Manganese (Mn) : Generalized Extreme Value

(k) Carbon Equivalent (C.E.): Dagum

Figure 2. Statistical analysis of chemical compositions

8
International Conference on Materials Engineering and Applications IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 348 (2018) 012015 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/348/1/012015
1234567890‘’“”

0.8

0.6
C%
C%

0.4
Average (C%)
0.2
UCL
0 LCL
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67
Sample No.

(a) Carbon (C): 100%

0.2
Carbon (%)

0.1 P%
Avg. P (%)
0 UCL
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67
LCL
-0.1
Sample No.

(b) Phosphorus (P): 97%

0.04

0.03
Carbon (%)

S%
0.02
Avg.S (%)
0.01
UCL
0 LCL
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67
-0.01
Sample No.

(c) Sulphur (S): 100%

0.25
Carbon (%)

Cu%
Avg.Cu(%)
0.05
UCL
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67
-0.15 LCL
Sample No.

(d) Copper (Cu): 98%

9
International Conference on Materials Engineering and Applications IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 348 (2018) 012015 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/348/1/012015
1234567890‘’“”
Carbon (%)

0.25 Cr%
Avg. Cr(%)
0.05
UCL
1 3 5 7 9 1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567
-0.15 LCL
Sample No.

(e) Chrome (Cr): 97%

0.025
Carbon (%)

Mo%
Avg. (Mo%)
0.005 UCL
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 LCL
-0.015
Sample No.

(f) Molybdenum (Mo): 100%

0.3

0.2
Carbon (%)

Ni%
0.1 Avg. (Ni%)
UCL
0
1 3 5 7 9 1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567 LCL
-0.1
Sample No.

(g) Nickel (Ni): 97%

0.014

0.009
Carbon (%)

V%

0.004 Avg. V(%)

UCL
-0.001
1 3 5 7 9 1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567 LCL

-0.006
Sample No.

(h) Vanadium (V): 100%

10
International Conference on Materials Engineering and Applications IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 348 (2018) 012015 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/348/1/012015
1234567890‘’“”

0.5
0.4
Carbon (%)

0.3 Si%
0.2 Avg. Si(%)
0.1 UCL
0
LCL
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67
Sample No.

(i) Silicon (Si): 97%

1.5
Carbon (%)

1 Mn%

0.5 Avg.Mn(%)
UCL
0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 LCL
Sample No.

(i) Manganese (Mn): 97%

0.7
0.6
Carbon (%)

0.5
0.4 C.E.(%)
0.3 Avg. C.E.(%)
0.2
UCL
0.1
0 LCL
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67
Sample No.

(j) Carbon Equivalent (C.E.) : 100%

Figure 3. Control charts of chemical compositions

11