TEMPERING PROCESS OF BARS

After the intensive cooling, the bar is exposed to air and the core re-heats the
quenched surface layer by conduction, therefore tempering the external martensite.
When the bars are taken out of the cooling system, the heat flows from the core to
the outer surface, further tempering of the bars, which helps them attain a higher
yield strength. The resulting heat-treated structure imparts superior strength and
toughness to the bars. Cooling process is illustrated below:

The pre-determined cooling of the bar periphery transforms the peripheral structure
to martensite and then annealed through the heat available at the core. The
peripheral and core temperature difference finally equalises at around 600 0C and
the resultant bar structure is of tempered martensite at the periphery and of fine-
grained ferrite-pearlite at the core.

Generally speaking, the resultant soft core forms about 65-75 per cent of the area
(depending upon the desired minimum yield strength) and the rest is the hardened
periphery. The equalizing temperature together with the final rolling
temperature is the most important parameter to achieve the required
mechanical properties.
Finally, when the bar is discharged on to the Cooling Beds, the remaining austenite

Page 1 of 9
transforms into a very fine-grained pearlite structure.
The figure below illustrates a typical TMT bar manufacturing process:

After this process of thermo mechanical treatment, a dark etched peripheral rim of
tempered martensite and a grey core of ferrite pearlite get formed. The
tempered martensite surface layer is very hard while the microstructure of the core is
a very fine-grained ferrite and pearlite which is quite soft. The result is a structure
with a high yield strength combined with high ductility.

Microstructure of TMT bar showing Tempered Martensite Rim

peripheral rim of tempered martensite &

Page 2 of 9
 core of ferrite pearlite get formed

Ferrite-Pearlite core
TMT bars are also known as 'Quenched and Tempered rebars', because of the
quenching and tempering processes involved in making the bars.
The production of quality TMT bar depends on three major factors - quality of raw
materials, a properly designed and automated mill, and a well-designed quenching
and tempering technology.
TMT bars having uniform and concentrated hardened periphery and the softer core
will have the desired tensile strengths coupled with high elongation as required in
seismic zones. Depending on the size and grade, rebars with hardened periphery
of about 15 to 30 per cent of the cross sectional area of the bar are ideal for
civil constructions (constructions of houses, offices, etc.)

TMT is an acronym for the phrase ‘thermo-mechanical treatment’. The Bureau of

Indian Standards while issuing the code IS: 1786-1985 (reaffirmed 2004) used this
phrase while mentioning that
‘Technological advances during the last few years in the field of deformed bar
production have helped in meeting all the above requirements together. Microalloying
with Nb, V, Ti and B in combination or individually, and thermomechanical treatment
process are worth mentioning in this field’
IS 1786 (reaffirmed 2004) in its clause 3.1.3 specifies that “ The steel bars/wires for
concrete reinforcement shall be manufactured by the process of hot-rolling. It may be
followed by a suitable method of cooling and/or cold working.”
The technological advances referred to in the IS code must have been (most
probably) the two patented “quenching & tempering” processes (viz. ‘Tempcore’ and

Page 3 of 9
‘Thermex’) developed in Europe. It should be pointed out that these processes are
post-rolling operations and no mechanical treatment is involved whatsoever.
Instead they obtain the unique properties in the rebars by “quenching and tempering”
as explained earlier.
Thus, no mechanical treatment is involved in the technological advances referred to
by B.I.S. However, many major steel firms started vigorous publicity of their
“TMT” rebars even though they were NOT manufactured from “Quenching and
Tempering” technology which does not involve any mechanical treatment .
Provisions of new IS 1786: 2008 are applicable to “ Hot-rolled steel without
subsequent treatment, or to hot-rolled steel with controlled cooling and tempering
and to cold-worked steel”. The production process is at the discretion of
manufacturer.
Thus the new IS 1786: 2008 is now referring to technology of “Quenching and
Tempering” in a relatively more explicit way.
Every rolling mill involves thermal and mechanical treatment. So, even as-rolled
bars, which do not undergo any quenching and tempering process, can legally be
termed as "TMT" bars. Nothing stops them from claiming this and selling their
products as ‘TMT’ bars even when they do not employ any “quenching and
tempering” process.
No action can be taken against such mills even though they produce bars that have
Yield Strengths of only about 250 N/mm2. A few mills take care not to state the yield
strength of their bars and instead merely market them as "TMT" rebars. So, they
cannot be held responsible if the civil engineers buy such bars under the mistaken
belief that they are purchasing a superior product.
The discerning customer must not blindly just ask for ‘TMT’ bars merely
because it is fashionable to do so today or because it is in vogue, so to speak. He
cannot and should not assume that he is buying a product superior than the old rusty
CTD rebars. All rebars must be purchased based on the properties of yield
strength, tensile strength and elongation values.
Many civil engineers, even today, assume that ‘TMT’ bars have yield strength of 415
N/mm2 but better elongation than CTD bars. He should know that nothing in the
current laws or regulations prevents the rolling mill to just sell untreated and
untwisted deformed bars as TMT bars - even though the strength can be as low as

Page 4 of 9
only 300 N/mm2.
The basic objective of this major technological advance would be defeated if India
takes to the ‘TMT’ rebars as produced in the country today. No major advantage
would accrue to the civil engineer if they continue to use Fe 415 grade rebars as
defined by IS 1786-1985 by merely choosing ‘TMT’ Fe 415 bars in place of the old
CTD Fe 415 bars.
Therefore all civil engineers need to be cautioned about blindly specifying 'TMT'
bars. They should instead specifically ask for bars in terms of Yield Strength, Stress
Ratio, and Elongation.
Enough damage has already been done by use of the label ‘TMT’ and there is now
an urgent need to use the correct phrase “Quenching & Tempering” as used globally
– or any other suitable phrase which cannot be exploited by persons who do not
have the proper technology – if we are to limit further damage.

Advantages
(i) Better Safety of structures: because of higher Strength combined with higher
Ductility.
(ii) Easy working at site: owing to better Ductility and Bendability. Pre-welded
meshes can be made to eliminate manual binding at site. Reduces construction and
fabrication time.
(iii) Resists fire: Unlike Tor steel/ CTD Reinforcement bars, TMT bars have high
thermal stability. They are the preferred choice when elevated temperatures of 400-
6000 C may be encountered (Chimneys, fires).
(iv) Resists corrosion: The TMT process gives the bar superior strength and anti-
corrosive properties. Controlled water-cooling prevents the formation of coarse
carbides, which has been cited as the main cause for the corrosive nature of
common bar.
Another reason for better corrosion resistance is the absence of surface stresses
caused by the cold twisting process.
(v) Formability: Due to very high elongation values and consistent properties
through out the length of bar, TMT rebars have excellent workability and bendability.
(vi) Earthquake resistance: The soft ferrite-pearlite core enables the bar to bear
dynamic and seismic loading. TMT bars have high fatigue resistance to Dynamic/

Page 5 of 9
Seismic loads due to its higher ductility quality. This makes them most suitable for
use in earthquake prone areas.
(vii) Malleability: TMT bars are most preferred because of their flexible nature
(viii) Fine welding features: TMT rebars (having low carbon content) can be used
for butt and other weld joints without reduction in strength at the weld joints.
(ix) Bonding strength: External ribs running across the entire length of the TMT bar
give superior bonding strength between the bar and the concrete. Fulfils Bond
requirements as per IS: 456/78 and IS: 1786/85.
(x) Cost-effective: A high tensile strength and better elongation value gives you
great savings, Reduced Transportation Costs. .
The figures of these savings as given in SAIL website are reproduced below:

Saving in Steel when using SAIL TMT or SAIL TMT-HCR

(HCR: High Corrosion Resistant)

Grade ® Fe 415 Fe 500 Fe 550

Saving in steel compared to IS-2062 40% 44% 47%

plain bar

Saving in steel compared to IS- . 14% 19%

1786/ Fe 415 CTD

* In case of doubly reinforced beams using M15 and M20 grades of cement.
Applications
TMT bars find wide applications in different spheres:
General purpose concrete re-enforcement structures
Bridges
Flyovers
Dams
High rise buildings
Industrial structures
Concrete roads
Underground structures
SAIL in its website lists out following application areas:

Page 6 of 9
Specification Application Special Qualities

SAIL TMT General concrete Excellent bendability, good

reinforcements in high rise weldability and high fatigue
buildings, bridges and other resistance on dynamic
concrete structures loading

SAIL TMT HCR*(i.e. Construction exposed to In addition to above this has

High Corrosion coastal, marine or high corrosion resistance
Resistant) underground environment properties

The next developmental thrust was on reduction in the quantity of steel used in
RCC through the development of high strength rebars of 500 N/mm2 - a
persistent demand from civil engineers.
The steel industry first developed, in the late 1960s, the cold twisted deformed
(CTD) rebars generally in the yield strength range of around 400 N/mm 2 with
elongation values of 14-15%. Since high strength was achieved at the cost of
ductility, higher strength CTD bars did not gain global acceptance as elongation
values dropped to 12 % or less. The demand of civil engineers for rebars of yield
strength 500 N/mm2 with good ductility & weldability remained unfilled. The other
drawback of CTD rebars was that the surface stresses due to twisting led to a high
corrosion rate.
Europe, where the CTD process was developed, gave up its use in the 1970s, a
few years after its development. But in India, the story was different. Introduced in
1970, the CTD bars gained a strong foothold despite the findings in Europe. The
closed market conditions prevailing at that time helped matters in this regard - it
appears that we only appreciated the significant savings from use of CTD bars of
415 N/mm2 and ignored the drawbacks. Mr. R. N. Raikar, President of the India
Chapter of the American Concrete Institute, at his opening remarks in the seminar on
‘Reinforcement – Today & Tomorrow’ held in Mumbai in June 2003, lamented that
“fewer repairs were required in buildings prior to the use of CTD bars. Today, the
repair of buildings has become a specialised industry”.

Page 7 of 9
The objective of guaranteed minimum 500 N/mm2 yield strength with adequate
ductility for seismic zones was finally met through the development of the
“Quenching & Tempering” technology in early 1980s.
Two such processes were developed in Europe, Thermex and Tempcore, and both
received world patents – and global acceptance amongst the civil engineers because
it met all their requirements. The steel mills all over have increasingly resorted to
these unique technologies and demand for such rebars continues to increase.
Round plain steel ruled over this industry up to sixties. In 1967, tor steel (trade
name for deformed bars) was introduced in India and due to its advantageous
properties, it completely replaced the mild steel except a few situations where acute
bending was required in higher diameters of steel bars.
Tor steel, called grade Tor-40, with its characteristic strength of 415N/sq mm proved
to be much economical than the conventional mild steel having a strength of 250
N/sq. mm only. While is a very small difference in their price-range, Tor steel is
almost 65% stronger than mild steel and thus directly affects economy in RCC
works.
Tor steel thus took over the scene in seventies and maintained its supremacy till
nineties. Europe, where the CTD process was developed, gave up its use in the
1970s, a few years after its development. But in India, the story was different.
Introduced in 1970, the CTD bars gained a strong foothold in India despite the
findings in Europe. The closed market conditions prevailing at that time helped
matters in this regard - it appears that we only appreciated the significant savings
from use of CTD bars of 415 N/mm2 and ignored the drawbacks. Mr. R. N.
Raikar, President of the India Chapter of the American Concrete Institute, at his
opening remarks in the seminar on ‘Reinforcement – Today & Tomorrow’ held in
Mumbai in June 2003, lamented that “fewer repairs were required in buildings prior
to the use of CTD bars. Today, the repair of buildings has become a specialised
industry”.
One reason for delay in adopting this superior technology in India was the delay in
amendment to Code IS 13920 for bars permitted to be used in seismic zones 3,
4 & 5. IS 13920 (before its amendment in March’02) stipulated that “ Steel
reinforcement of grade Fe 415 (see IS 1786:1985) or less only shall be used.” The
reason apparently was that the IS 1786: 1985 specified minimum value of elongation

Page 8 of 9
as 12% & 8 % for Fe 500 & Fe 550 respectively; whereas this value was 14.5% for
Fe 415 grade. This barred the use of Grade Fe-500 (& higher grade) even
though they were available in the country with 18 per cent elongation since
past 15-20 years.
It was only in March 2002 that an amendment no 2 was issued to IS 13920 which
stipulated that “….high strength deformed steel bars, produced by thermo-
mechanical treatment process, of grades Fe 500 & Fe 550, having elongation more
than 14.5% and conforming to other requirements of IS 1786:1985 may also be used
for the reinforcement.”
This delay only helped extend the life of CTD bars in India and as such it could not
benefit from the introduction of superior quality rebars of higher strength and greater
safety than CTD bars. Even so, many civil engineers were not aware of this
amendment till as late as mid-2003.
However, the last decade has seen an extensive use of TMT steel and corrosion
resistance steel thereby ushering in greater economy and longer life for RCC
structures. However, a bit of awareness on the part of civil engineers would certainly
help in better harnessing of benefits from technological advances made in this field.
This article aims at just that.

Page 9 of 9