Ministry of Higher Education & Fourth Year

Scientific Research
University of duhok First semester-2021
College of Engineering
Department of Mechanics Date 4/ 11 / 2021

Assessment Of Mechanical Properties Of Reinforcing steel used

Contruction Works At F.C.T,Abuja

BY

Apeh Abah Joseph, Dept of Building, F.U.T,Minna, Nigeria

Review By

Arsalan Jamal Hussein

Lecturer

Miss.Sundis

2021
 Review

The review surveyed the mechanical properties (Yield pressure, extreme ductile
stress and pliability) of supporting steel (ribbed bars) utilized in development
works in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, Nigeria with the end goal
of finding out degree of similarity with (BS 4449) code requirements .The test
tests got from Deidei market, Abuja ,were created from four distinct
organizations (coded A, B, C, D) in the previous government capital and its
bordering states. The examples (10mm, 12mm, 16mm and 20mm) measurement
bars were exposed to rigidity test utilizing an all Inclusive testing machine and a
digitl lvenier calliper .Test results showed that the yield pressure of organization
(A) items are 320, 350, 405 and 410N/mm2 for 10mm, 12mm, 16mm and 20mm
bars which is less than BS 4449 detail of 460N/mm2 .The comparing esteems
for a definitive pliable pressure are 420, 440, 480 and 508N/mm2 as against BS
4449 worth of 510N/mm2 . Aside from 10mm bars, the results of the
organization are less flexible since their malleability is under 12% least
indicated by BS 4449. For organization (B) items tried, just 16mm what's more,
20mm bars adjust to BS 4449 principles and the items are genuinely pliable. For
organization (C), the yield pressure of their tried items doesn't adjust to BS 4449
standard. However their definitive malleable , stress esteems adjust to code
detail none meet the code's base 12% extension demonstrating that their items
are less flexible. For organization (D) items, 10mm and 12mm bars missed the
mark concerning BS 4449 detail as far as yield and extreme stress esteems
however they are sufficiently pliable while for 16mm and 20mm bars that adjust
to code determinations, notwithstanding, are less bendable. These outcomes
have sweeping outcomes on development works. In this light, it is unequivocally
proposed that the piece of the components and the kind of combination utilized
in the creation of steel in these organizations be evaluated.

Ayininuola and Olalusi (2004) when they set up that the utilization of low
quality and unacceptable steel poles are among the causes of building
disappointment in Nigeria .

Kankam and Asamoah (2002) took the review to one more aspect when they
chipped away at the strength and malleability qualities of supporting steel
processed from salvaged materials. Their physical and substance properties were
inspected and tracked down that the trademark elasticity is excessively high with
very little lengthening prompting restricted malleability contrasted and standard
gentle and high return steel.
 Review

Ndiaye et al (2002) working in the same bearing explored the properties of

Senegalese steel processed from salvaged materials also, set up that they show
poor welding and bowing capacities.

Arum and Babatola (2006) recognized causes of building disappointments to

incorporate among others, oversight by inadequate staff, poor quality control,
and amateurish lead.

Arum (2008) additionally examined the degree of conformance to applicable

worldwide and nearby arrangements of ribbed steel bars utilized in Nigeria’s
structural concrete practice.

Kareem (2009) dealt with the pliable furthermore, substance examination of

chose steel bars delivered in Nigeria. Tests were gathered from the quality
control unit of Oshogbo steel moving Company.

Ayodele (2009) on assessment of role(s) of support in the breakdown of

structures in Nigeria. His discoveries were acquired through an organized talk
with managed to steel fixers or iron drinking sprees and perception of steel work
on building locales of private structure proprietors in Ondo province of Nigeria.
The information was gotten from forty- eight building projects ranging from one
storey to two storeys. The study revealed that 60-75% of reinforcements used in
various structural elements (Columns,Beams, Slabs) were 11.5mm diameter size
for 12mm diameter bars. Also, up to 75% of projects studied utilized three
numbers (3nos) .

Obikwelu (2010) inspected the mechanical properties of intercritically

toughened steel extinguished in SAE motor oil at room temperature . The
samples were heat treated at 750, 760, 770, 780 and 790EC for 1hr in a
laboratory muffle furnace and quenched to room temperature in SAE engine oil.
They were further subjected to a low temperature tempering at 150EC for 1hr
and air cooled to room temperature. The results revealed that strength and
hardness values increased from 512.29N/mm2 at 750EC to 674.62N/mm2 at
790EC for strength but ductility and notch impact toughness decreased from
12.18% at 750EC to 7.42% at 790EC for ductility and from 9.08N/mm2 at
750EC to 5.55J/cm2 at 790EC for notch impact toughness.
 Review

Ejeh and Jibrin (2012) inspected the tractable conduct of building up steel bars
utilized in the Nigeria development Industry so as to find out the degree of
similarity with pertinent guidelines . A total of thirteen (13) companies operating
in Nigeria were considered and nineteen (19) samples, thirteen (13) were locally
produced in Nigeria, while six (6) were imported was used. A total of 190
specimens were tested for strength and ductility. Test results showed that eleven
(11) samples failed to meet the requirements of BS 4449 in respect of the
characteristic strength while in terms of ultimate / yield stress ratio, only one (1)
out of the nineteen (19) samples failed as prescribed by the code .The draw-back
of this study is that the test samples is narrow in scope in terms of size of bars.
Only a single bar size is used for each company.

SampleCollection and Preparation

The examples were gathered from Deidei market, FCT, Abuja and created from
four , native Companies code named A, B, C also, D individually. Their
significant wellspring of unrefined components is salvaged materials. For each
organization, four bars (10mm, 12mm, 16mm and 20mm) were randomly
chosen and for each bar size ten (10nos) test specimens were prepared which led
to a total of 160 samples. Each specimenis 500mm long with a gauge length.
Each specimen diameter is measured in three places and average diameter is
obtained as diameter for the bar. specifications, and after fracture, the yield and
ultimate strength, characteristic strength and percentage elongation were
calculated.

The results of the tensile tests are presented in figures Stress and Strain
curved
 Review

Tensile Tests
The consequences of the Tensile tests, demonstrating the yield pressure,
extreme pressure, strain solidifying proportion , for company A – D are as
shown in table i below.

Table 1: Yield stress, Ultimate tensile stress and strain hardening ratio .

Company Bar Yield Ultimate Strain

(mm) stress stress hearding
(n/mm2 (n/mm2) ratio
)

10 320 420 1.31

12 350 440 1.26
A 16 405 480 1.19
20 410 508 1.24

10 418 573 1.37

12 412 574 1.39
B 16 480 660 1.38 Table 2: Characteristic
20 450 660 1.47 Strength Test Results with
measured diameters
10 370 500 1.28
12 382 520 1.36
C 16 400 550 1.38 COMPANY Nominal Bar dia.(mm)
Measured Bar dia(mm)
Characteristic Strength(N/mm2)
201 450 600 1.33 10
10 280 350 1.25 9.43
12 350 430 1.23 317.68
D 16 520 678 1.30 A 12
11.88
20 500 650 1.30
346.67
16
15.24 403.27
20 20.21 407.32

10 10.15 415.05
B 12 11.37 408.91
16 16.02 477.44
20 20.17 447.56

10 10.65 387.44
C 12 10.90 378.82
16 16.27 397.56
20 19.68 422.00
 Review

10 9.66 275.56
D 12 11.00 346.79
16 16.08 514.82
20 20.05 496.90

Table 3: Percentage Elongation values for Company Products

COMPANY Bar dia.(mm) Percentage Elongation

10 11.90
A 12 10.30
16 9.98
20 9.36

10 10.20
B 12 11.00
16 10.30
20 11.50

10 10.10
C 12 10.80
16 9.93
20 11.00

10 13.90
D 12 11.00
16 5.93
20 2.75

Percentage Elongation From the percentage prolongation esteems (table3) the

outcome for company A, B show that just one of their item met code
determination while for company D , two (16mm and 20mm bars) met code
requirements. For company C products, none met code value in terms of
percentage elongation. As a whole, the products of the company are apparently
brittle since only 25 percent of the products met minimum 12% elongation value
as specified by BS 4449 .

Percentage Elongation The percentage elongation values for each company

products (table 3) were calculated using the relation:
% El = Lf - LoX 100
Lo
whereLf = final gauge length at fracture,
Lo = Original gauge length before application of force.
Engineering Stress () is the quotient of load (F) and area (A). The units of
stress are normally pounds per square inch (psi).
 Review

 = F/ A

where:
: is the stress (psi)
F: is the force that is loading the object (lb)
A: is the cross sectional area of the object (in2 )

When stress is applied to a material, the material will deform. Elongation is

defined as the difference between loaded and unloaded length.
∆𝑙 = L – Lo
where:
∆ :is the elongation (ft)
L: is the loaded length of the cable (ft)
Lo: is the unloaded (original) length of the cable (ft)

Strain is the concept used to compare the elongation of a material to its original,
undeformed length. Strain () is the quotient of elongation (e) and original
length (L0). Engineering Strain has no units but is often given the units of in/in
or ft/ft.

𝜀 = ∆𝑙/ 𝐿0

where:

: is the strain in the cable (ft/ft)

∆𝑙: is the elongation (ft)
Lo; is the unloaded (original) length of the cable (ft)

Example: Find the strain in a 75 foot cable experiencing an elongation of

one inch.

Solution:

Strain()= e(ft) / Lo(ft) = 1in* (1ft/121n) / 75ft =0.00111 ft/ft

Stress-Strain Diagrams and Material Behavior

Stress and strain are calculated from easily measurable quantities (normal load,
diameter, elongation, original length) and can be plotted against one another as
in Figure 2. Such StressStrain diagrams are used to study the behavior of a
material from the point it is loaded until it breaks. Each material produces a
different stress-strain diagram. Point 1 on the diagram represents the original
undeformed, unloaded condition of the material. As the material is loaded, both
stress and strain increase, and the plot proceeds from Point 1 to Point 2. If the
 Review

material is unloaded before Point 2 is reached, then the plot would proceed back
down the same line to Point 1. If the material is unloaded anywhere between
Points 1 and 2, then it will return to its original shape, like a rubber band. This
type of behavior is termed Elastic and the region between Points 1 and 2 is the
Elastic Region. The Stress-Strain curve also appears linear between Points 1 and
2. In this region stress and strain are proportional. The constant of
proportionality is called the Elastic Modulus or Young's Modulus (E). The
relationship between stress and strain in this region is given by Equation.
E=  /  OR = E*
where:
: is the stress (psi)
E: is the Elastic Modulus (psi)
: is the strain (in/in) 

End
From the aftereffects of the elastic test directed what's more, the investigations
and perceptions conveyed out the accompanying ends were made:

1.the steel results of the company contemplated, their trademark strength

esteems when contrasted with BS 4449: 1997 guidelines are low for high
malleable steel which is 460N/mm2 least esteem. Something like nineteen
percent of the examples were above code particular.

2.The trademark strength upsides of the examples for the organizations

contemplated (80%) are comparable or takes after that of gentle steel. This is not
awkward to say that the items are really gentle steel yet introduced as high
return steel and transparently sold on the lookout.

3.Every one of the fortifications considered had strain solidifying proportion

which conformed to code particulars hypothetically however really are less
pliable.

4. Only about Nineteen (19%) of the samples have percentage elongation which
 Review

complies with code values.

5. More than eighty (80%) percent of the sample design strength were below
code specifications.

6. Considering the design and characteristic strengths of high tensile steel, the
bulk of steel in the market at F.C.T, Abuja which are used in construction work
are actually mild steel but presented as high yield steel. The Nigeria Industrial
standard (NIS) and the standard organization of Nigeria (SON) should intensify
their efforts so as to correct this anomaly.

REFERENCES
1. Alabi, A.G.F and Onyeji L.I; (2010) Analysis and Comparative Assessment
of Locally Produced reinforcing steel bars for structural purposes; USEP –
Journal of Research Information in Civil Engineering, vol. 7, no 2, 2010, pp 49
– 60.
2. Arum, C. (2008) “Verification of Properties of concrete reinforcement bars.
Nigeria as a case study; Journal of Indoor and built environment by SAGE
publications, pp 370 – 376.
3. Arum, C and Babatola, J.O (2006); Failure of Building structures, causes and
preventive measures; Proced. of the Technical session, Annual engineering
week of the Nigerian society of engineers, Prospects and challenges of
Engineering practice in Nigeria, Akure, pp 50 – 61.

4. Ayodele, E.O (2009): Collapse of Buildings in Nigeria – Roles of

reinforcement; Continental Journal of Environmental sciences, vol. 3, Wilolud
online journals, pp 1 – 6.

5. Akindele, M.A (2002): Investigations into tensile strength and ductility of

Reinforcement steel produced in Nigeria”; An M.eng (unpublished ) Thesis in
Civil Engineering (structures), Federal University of Technology, Minna,
Nigeria.

6. Ayininuola, G.M and OLALUSI, O.O (2004): Assessment of Building

Failures in Nigeria; Case study of lagos and Ibadan; African journal of Science
and Technology, science and technology series, vol. 5, no 1, pp 73 – 78; 2004.
7. Balogun, S.A; LAWAL, G.I. SEKUNOWO, O.I and ADEOSUN, S.O;
(2011); Influence of finishing temperature on the mechanical properties of
conventional hot rolled steel bar; Journal of Engineering and Technology
research, vol. 3, no 11, pp 307 – 313, 2011. Available online at
http://www.academic journals.org/JETR.

8. Balogun, S.A; SEKUNOWO, O.I and ADEOSUN, S.O; (2009): Challenges

 Review

of Producing Quality construction steel barsin west Africa: Case study of

Nigeria steel Industry; Journal of Minerals and Materials Characterization and
engineering, Vol. 8, no 4, pp 283 – 292.

9. British standards Institutions, BS 4449 (1997): Carbon steel bars for the
reinforcement of concrete”, London, pp 1 – 17.

10. Chukwudi, B.C and Onyeka, J.O (2010): Assessment of the Quality of steel
rods available in Onitsha market; In view of the Role of poor quality rods in
Building failures in Nigeria; Pacific Journal of science and technology, vol. 11,
no 1, pp 55 – 59,

11. EJEH, S.P and JIBRIN, M.U (2012): Tensile tests on Reinforcing steel bars
in the Nigerian Construction Industry; IOSR Journal of Mechanical and civil
Engineering (IOSR – JMCE), vol. 4, no 2 2012, pp 06 -12. Obtainable at
http://www.iosrjournals.org

12. Kankam, C.K and Adom- Asamoah, M. (2002): Strength and ductility
characteristics of Reinforcing steel bars milled from scrap metals; Journal of
Materials and design, vol. 23, pp 537 – 545; Obtainable from