Skip to main content
Log in

Effect of specimen gauge reduction on uniaxial tension properties of reinforcing steel

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Iron and Steel Research International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials (ASTM E8) mandates a specimen gauge reduction for obtaining the tensile properties of reinforcing steel bars. The standard outlines the specimen preparation requirements and methods to ensure that test results well represent the material properties. On the other hand, some codes differ regarding the approach to specimen preparation. They do not apply gauging, for both deformed and plain steel bars. Thus, the effect of specimen gauge reduction on the tensile properties of reinforcing steel bars was evaluated, and the interconnection of properties to the layer hardness was analysed. The experiment governed a range of deformed hot-rolled bar sizes, tested in tension using precision instruments. The Rockwell hardness test was implemented layerwise on the specimen’s cross section, and the hardness number (HRC) was measured as a function of the layer distance to the centre. A finite element model was constructed to study the stress concentrations induced by a constant indentation, simulating the HRCs, and to numerically construct the stress–strain relationship of ungauged steel bars based on the core properties and the section HRC relationship. Scanning electron microscopy readings were performed to visually and chemically justify the results. It was shown that the specimen gauge reduction significantly influenced the resulting stress–strain behaviour of the material, and the yield and ultimate strengths were reduced. It was also demonstrated that the hardness response is proportional to the distance to the specimen’s axes. The corresponding yield and ultimate strengths thus increased accordingly, from the inner to the outer layers of the bar. Testing a gauged specimen will therefore result in lower strength than that of an ungauged steel bar.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. M. Rund, R. Procházka, P. Konopík, J. Džugan, H. Folgar, Procedia Eng. 114 (2015) 410–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. ASTM E8: ASTM International, Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic materials, BS EN ISO 6892-1-2016, BSI Standards Publication, 2016.

  3. V.J. Matjeke, G. Mukwevho, A.M. Maleka, J.W. van der Merwe, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 430 (2018) 012044.

    Google Scholar 

  4. H. Liu, P. Fu, H. Liu, D. Li, Materials 11 (2018) 583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. O. Keleşternur, M.H. Kelestemur, S. Yildiz, J. Iron Steel Res. Int. 16 (2009) No. 3, 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. J. Zottis, C.A.T.S. Diehl, A. da Silva Rocha, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 7 (2018) 469–478.

  7. F. Tariq, P. Bhargava, Constr. Build. Mater. 190 (2018) 551–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. S.R. Low, NIST Recommended practice guide: Rockwell hardness measurement of metallic materials, Special Publication (NIST SP)-960-5, 2001.

  9. J.F. Song, S. Low, D. Pitchure, A. Germak, S. DeSogus, T. Polzin, H.Q. Yang, H. Ishida, G. Barbato, Metrologia 34 (1997) 331–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. U.E. Azra, B.R. Nayak, M. Appaiah, Mater. Today 5 (2018) 2605–2608.

    Google Scholar 

  11. A.C. Fischer-Cripps, Surf. Coat. Technol. 291 (2016) 314–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. G. Barbato, M. Galetto, A. Germak, F. Mazzoleni, in: Conference Proceedings HARMEKO, Turin, Italy, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  13. X. Liu, W. Shang, C. He, R. Zhang, B. Wu, Measurement 128 (2018) 455–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. A.R. Khalifeh, A.D. Banaraki, H.D. Manesh, M.D. Banaraki, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 712 (2018) 232–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. N. Koga, M. Suzuki, O. Umezawa, Procedia Manuf. 15 (2018) 1656–1662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. P. Zhang, S.X. Li, Z.F. Zhang, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 529 (2011) 62–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. J.T. Busby, M.C. Hash, G.S. Was, J. Nucl. Mater. 336 (2005) 267–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. M. Tiryakioğlu, J.S. Robinson, M.A. Salazar-Guapuriche, Y.Y. Zhao, P.D. Eason, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 631 (2015) 196–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. M. Gaško, G. Rosenberg, Mater. Eng. 18 (2011) 155–159.

    Google Scholar 

  20. E.J. Pavlina, C.J. Van Tyne, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 17 (2008) 888–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Y.L. Shen, N. Chawla, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 297 (2001) 44–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Triwiyono.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Triwiyono, A., Han, A., Aryanto, A. et al. Effect of specimen gauge reduction on uniaxial tension properties of reinforcing steel. J. Iron Steel Res. Int. 27, 964–971 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42243-020-00458-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42243-020-00458-1

Keywords

Navigation