See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269370643

Study of the Tempcore Process for the Production of High Resistance

Reinforcing Rods

Article  in  Materials Science Forum · February 2007

DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.537-538.533

CITATIONS READS

11 3,532

5 authors, including:

D. I. Martínez Constanza Lizcano

Autonomous University of Nuevo León Santo Tomás University
29 PUBLICATIONS   233 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Martha Guerrero Rafael Colás

Autonomous University of Nuevo León Autonomous University of Nuevo León
83 PUBLICATIONS   519 CITATIONS    265 PUBLICATIONS   2,387 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Análisis experimental del torneado de alta velocidad del acero AISI 1045 View project

High Silicon Steels for electrical applications View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rafael Colás on 09 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Materials Science Forum Vols. 537-538 (2007) pp. 533-540
online at http://www.scientific.net
© (2007) Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland

Study of the Tempcore Process for the Production of High Resistance

Reinforcing Rods

O. Niño1, D. Martínez1, C. Lizcano2, M. Guerrero-Mata1, R. Colás1

1
Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, FIME, Pedro de Alba s/n, Cd. Universitaria,
66451 San Nicolás de los Garza, Nuevo León. México.
2
Hylsa S.A. de C.V. Munich 101, San Nicolás de los Garza Nuevo León, México.
a
dorairma@fime.uanl.mx

Keywords: Tempcore process, finite element modelling, mechanical properties, phase

transformation.

Abstract The process known as Tempcore is used to produce high resistance rods by the formation
of a surface layer of quenched and tempered martensite that surrounds a core made of ferrite and
pearlite. Such a mixed structure is result of processing hot rolled rods through waters headers that
reduce the temperature at the surface below that for the transformation into martensite. This
structure is tempered by the heat flowing from the core of the rod, which transforms into ferrite and
pearlite while the rod is in the cooling beds. Such processing produces a significant increase in yield
and ultimate tensile strength, while maintaining adequate ductility. The economic advantages of this
process are huge in comparison with those that require alloying elements or further metal working
to improve mechanical properties. A series of experimental trials were carried out in a pilot plant in
which parameters such as reheating temperature, water flow and processing time were varied to
study their effect on the mechanical properties of carbon steel rods and on the structures formed in
the bars. The study is being complemented by the thermal modelling by the finite element method.

Introduction

The Centre de Recherches Métallurgique (CRM.), at Liege, Belgium, developed in 1974 a process
known as Tempcore to increase the yield stress and ultimate tensile strength of low alloy steel
reinforcing bars without impairing their ductility. The process consists in the local surface
quenching of rods coming out from the hot rolling mill, followed by the self-tempering of the
martensite formed [1-3]. The process can be divided into three stages. The first one consists in the
rapid cooling for a short period of time of the reinforcing bar emerging from the last rolling stand to
promote the transformation of austenite into martensite at the surface. The second stage is the self-
tempering of the martensite from the heat flowing from the centre of the bar, and the third one
consists in the transformation of the remaining austenite into a mixture of fine pearlite and ferrite.
The variety of microstructures from centre to surface enhance the mechanical properties of the bars
[3,4].
The operational parameters that affect this process are the temperature and the end of
rolling, the cooling rate, and time, during rapid cooling, and the chemical composition of the steel
[5,6]. Trials carried out in a mini-mill pointed out the feasibility of adapting such processing [7], but
it is required to develop a model able to predict the mechanical properties of reinforcing bars as a
function of the various operational parameters.
The aim of this work is to present the results of a series of trials carried out in an
experimental rig designed to simulate tempcore processing to provide for specimens to study how

All rights reserved. No part of contents of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the
written permission of the publisher: Trans Tech Publications Ltd, Switzerland, www.ttp.net. (ID: 148.234.34.219-03/10/06,00:05:08)
534 Materials Science, Testing and Informatics III

the mechanical properties of the material are related to different operational parameters. i.e. time
and cooling rate (which depend on the lay-out, number of headers, and amount of water flowing
through the headers). This study is being complemented by the development of a finite element
model (FEM) to predict the transformations taking place in the bar as a function of the thermal
field. Only the results related to the temperature distribution within the bars will be presented at this
time.

Experimental procedure

The experimental rig shown in Figure 1 was constructed to simulate tempcore processing. A
furnace was located at the top of the rig to heat-up the specimens, a nitrogen atmosphere was
provided to reduce oxidation of the steel bars of 9.26 mm in diameter and 550 mm in length, Figure
2. The samples were kept at three different temperatures (900, 1000 and 1100ºC) for 20 minutes
before plunging them into the main cooling system consisting in five headers. The rig was designed
to place the specimens in a cooling bed as they exit the main cooling system. Three different
amounts of water flow (Q) in the system were used (830, 1000 and 1130 l/min). The temperature at
the entry point was recorded with the aid of an optical pyrometer. Table 1 shows the experimental
conditions and Table 2 shows the chemical composition of the experimental steel used in this study,
and that of a steel used in the production of commercial air-cooled reinforcing bars.

Fig. 1. Experimental rig designed to simulate the tempcore process.

Fig. 2. Samples used to simulate the tempcore process.

 Materials Science Forum Vols. 537-538 535

Table 1. Trial attempted to simulate the process.

Flow rate Reheating temperature (C)
(l/min) 900 1000 1100
830 A1 B1 C1
1000 A2 B2 C2
1130 A3 - C3

Table 2. Chemical composition (wt. %) of the steels studied.

Steel C Si Mn Cr Cu Ni Mo V S P Ce
Experimental 0.24 0.16 0.65 0.40 0.60 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.045 0.025 0.412
Commercial 0.36 0.18 0.76 0.40 0.60 0.25 0.25 - 0.05 0.04 0.549

Metallographic examination was conducted on samples from the various conditions, the
specimens were ground and polished following standard procedures, the microstructure was observed
after etching with a colouring reagent [8]. Volume fraction of ferrite, pearlite and martensite were
obtained by image analysis. Vickers microhardness indentation were made on the samples across the
section of the diameter, the applied load in these tests was 200 g for 15 sec. The hardness gradients
obtained in the present research were compared with the gradients in a reinforcing bar produced as a
commercial trial in an industrial plant [7] and with the hardness values obtained in a commercial air-
cooled reinforcing bar. Tensile tests were conducted on treated samples; the yield stress, ultimate
tensile strength and total elongation after failure were reported.
Temperature distribution within the cross-sectional area of the rod was computed with the
aid of the commercial software Abaqus in the implicit mode. The austenizing temperatures used
in the experimental trials (900, 1000 and 1100ºC) were considered. The model calculates the
temperature within the rod by conduction and imposes a heat transfer coefficient at the surface that
varies with the cooling media (air or water):
Q
h = (1)
A (T s − T ∞ )
where Q is the heat flow, A is the cross sectional area of the rod, which is assumed to be a perfect
circle, Ts the temperature at the surface and T∞ the temperature of the cooling medium (water or
air). As Ts changes the heat transfer coefficient is updated. The mesh was automatically generated
with elements of triangular shape.

Fig 3. Microstructures of the commercial air-cooled reinforcing bar (a) and the experimental one
after reheating at 900ºC and processed using water flow of 1000 l/min (b).
536 Materials Science, Testing and Informatics III

Table 3. Mechanical properties and microstructural parameters of the specimens.

σy σu εf hm
Condition HVN Xf Xp
(MPa) (MPa) (%) (mm)
A1 580 716 7 189 0.96 25.5 74.5
A2 547 671 9 180 0.863 37.7 62.3
A3 525 669 8 183 1.365 32.3 67.7
B1 460 642 9 168 0.905 35.1 64.9
B2 451 579 13 177 1.3 33.2 66.8
C1 494 646 11 173 1 35.5 64.5
C2 457 628 12 182 0.94 35.6 64.4
C3 448 629 13 168 1.008 28.9 71.1
σy: Yield stress. hm: Thickness of martensite layer.
σu: Ultimate tensile strength. Xf: Volume fraction of ferrite.
εf: Elongation to fracture. Xp: Volume fraction of pearlite.

Fig. 4. Microhardness gradients measured in the tested samples, the values of the industrial trial and
the air-cooled samples are identified as tempcore and normalized respectively.

Results and discussion

Figure 3 shows the microstructures at the centre of the reinforcing commercial air-cooled bar and at
the centre of the reinforcing bar obtained reheating at 900ºC and treating with a water flow of 1000
l/min, condition B2 in Table 3. It can be seen that the structure of the treated steel, Fig. 3b, consists
of a mixture of ferrite, bainite and pearlite, whereas that of the air-cooled steel does only consist of
ferrite and pearlite. The microhardness in the commercial steel is of 163 and the processed is of
177. Table 3 shows various microstructural parameters measured on the treated samples; it should
be mentioned that the volume fractions of ferrite and pearlite and the microhardness values reported
in Table 3 correspond to measurements carried out at the centre of the bars.
 Materials Science Forum Vols. 537-538 537

Figure 4 shows the microhardness gradients measured in the reinforcing bars tested. The
values corresponding to the industrial trial and the air-cooled reinforcing bars are included for
comparison. The radial position is normalized to take into account the difference in size of the
different bars. It can be seen that the microhardness values of the samples reheated at 900ºC fall
closer to the microhardness values measured in the bar produced in the industrial commercial trial.
The hardness at the surface of the treated bars lay in the range of 310 to 320 HVN, which are
expected for the amount of carbon in the steel [9].
The values of the yield stress, the ultimate tensile strength and elongation to fracture of
samples tested in tension are reported in Table 3. The criteria used to evaluate the best conditions to
process the tempcore bars are based on these mechanical properties. One of the attempts to predict
the dependence of the mechanical properties on terms of the water flow and the reheating
temperature is shown in Figure 5 in which the value of the tensile strength (σu) is given by:

σ u = 5452 − 1.294 ⋅ Q + 6.048 ⋅ 10 −4 ⋅ Q 2 − 8.055 ⋅ T + 3.09 ⋅ 10 −3 ⋅ T 2 (2)

where Q is the water flow, in l/min, and T is the reheating temperature, in ºC. σu is expressed in
MPa. Similar relationships have been drawn for the yield strength and the hardness at the centre of
the piece. The open symbols in Figure 5 corresponds to the tests carried out with a flow of 830
l/min, the solid ones at 1000 l/min, and the remaining were cooled with a flow of 1130 l/min. It can
be observed in Figure 5 the trend in the reduction of σu as the flow increases. The minimum values
in this parameter were found when reheating at 1000ºC.

Fig. 5. Tensile strength as a function of the flow rate and reheating temperature for samples
reheated at 900 (◊), 1000 (
) and 1100 (O)ºC.
538 Materials Science, Testing and Informatics III

Fig. 6. Micrographs of samples cooled with a flow of water of 1000 l/min after reheating at 1000 (a)
and 1100 (b)ºC.

The difference in strength at the various temperatures can be attributed to different mixtures
of phases being present. Figure 3a shows the microstructure at the centre of the sample reheated at
900ºC and cooled with a water flow of 1000 l/min, which can be compared with the microstructures
of the samples cooled with the same water flow, but after reheating them at 1000 and 1100ºC,
Figure 6. It can be appreciated that the amount and size of the acicular ferrite increases with the
increase of the reheating temperature, although the amount of ferrite, Xf in Table 3 does not vary
much, and such an engrossment should result in the reduction in strength, as it happens when the
temperature increases from 900 to 1000ºC. The increment in strength when the temperature changes
from 1000 to 1100ºC may be caused by the occurrence of either bainite or martensite at the higher
temperature, but it was not possible to detect such an effect by optical microscopy.
The results from the trials conducted in the pilot plant indicate that the best combination of
mechanical properties are found when the steel is reheated at 900ºC, although it is not clear whether
the use 830 or 1000 l/min should be recommended to the industrial plant. A more extensive analysis
on the variation of microstructure within the reinforcing bars is being conducted at this time.
Modelling the tempcore process started by computing the temperature field within the
samples, this has been attempted by the finite element method using the commercial code Abaqus
in the implicit mode. Figure 7 shows the variation in temperature at four different positions (centre,
on and two thirds of the radius and at the surface) of the reinforcing bars cooled with the same
water flow (830 l/min) after reheating at the three temperatures. The main difference that modelling
shows is that the bar reheated at the intermediate temperature (1000ºC) remains hotter at the centre
(curves a and b), resulting in a higher recalescence at the surface (curve d). It is not clear at this
moment the reason for this behaviour, although it may be due to the dependence of the heat transfer
rate on the temperature at the surface, Eq. (1).
 Materials Science Forum Vols. 537-538 539

Fig. 7. Changes in temperature within the reinforcing bars being cooled with the same water flow,
after reheating them at the three different temperatures (1100, 1000 and 900ºC).

Conclusions

It was found that the trials conducted in the pilot plant are able to reproduce the hardness variation
observed to occur within the reinforcing bars produced in the industrial plant, and this allows for the
physical simulation of the tempcore process.
The best combination of mechanical properties was attained in reinforcing bars reheated at
900ºC, whereas the worst combination occurred when reheating at 1000ºC. The presence of acicular
structures found at the centre of the bars may be responsible for such behaviour.
The first runs of a finite element model indicate that the temperature distribution within the
bars depends on the reheating temperature.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the support from the National Council for Science and Technology
(CONACYT), México, and the Program for the Support of Science and Technology (PAICYT) of
Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León.

References

1. P. Simon, M. Economopoulos, and P. Nilles, Tempcore a new process for the production of
high-quality reinforcing bars, CRM, Vol. 54, 1984.
2. G. Tiwari and S.K. Sarna, Steel India, Vol. 20, No.1 (1997).
 540 Materials Science, Testing and Informatics III

3. M. Economopoulos, Y. Respen, G. Lessel and G. Steffes. Application of the Tempcore Process

to the fabrication of High Yield Strength Concrete – Reinforcing Bars, CRM, Vol. 45, 1975
4. A. Kumar, C. McCulloch, E.B. Hawbolt and I.V. Saramarasekera, Mat. Sc. Techn., Vol. 7
(1991), p. 360
5. Liu Kun, Development of HSLA Rebar Steels in China. Processing, Properties and
Applications. The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, 1992.
6. H. Cetinel, M. Toparlo and L. Ozsoyeller, Mech. Mat., Vol. 32. (2000), p. 339.
7. Personal communication from Process Engineering Hot Rolling, HYLSA - Planta Norte, March
2004.
8. G.F. Vander Voort, ASM Handbook, Vol. 9: Metallography and Microstructures, ASM Int.,
Materials Park, 2004, 493.
9. E.C. Bain and H.W. Paxton, Alloying Elements in Steels, 2nd ed., ASM, Metals Park, 1961.

View publication stats