EFFECT OF FIRE ON MECHANICAL PROPERTIES AND

MICROSTRUCTURE OF STEEL BARS PRODUCED IN

BANGLADESH
Shubhrodev Bhowmik1, Md. Rashidun Nawaz Shaown2, Md. Sayem Shahriar3
1, 2, 3
MME Department, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka-1000,
Bangladesh
Abstract
For Bangladesh fire is the single most disaster causing maximum loss of life and economy
after natural disaster. To understand the effect of fire on mechanical properties and
microstructure of steel re-bars, 3 different grades (500W TMT, 400, 300 grade) of locally
produced bars of 8 mm diameter has been investigated. Each grade of rebar was tested at 3
different temperature (500°C, 600°C & 650°C) in steady method at a strain rate of 0.5
mm/min. Their high temperature chemical composition, mechanical properties and
microstructure were determined and compared with the ones from the as received condition.
The test results demonstrated all grades of local steel bars loses their mechanical properties
with increasing temperature. It is to be noted that, 300 grade bar lose their strength much
easily than the 500W TMT. The deterioration of mechanical properties with increased
temperature was due to the tempering of steel above 560°C.

Keywords: high temperature deformation, reduction factor, grades of steel rebars

Introduction

Concrete is weak in tension and cracks as soon as the principle tensile stress exceeds its
tensile strength. Consequently, concrete is reinforced to enable it to resist these stresses. Steel
is the widely used reinforcement in concrete for its top notch mechanical properties. High
Strength Steel (HSS) usually are those with nominal yield strength higher than 460 MPa.
Compared with conventional mild structural steel, the application of HSS could reduce the
total weight of structure and emission of carbon dioxide in structural industry, which could
lead to economy. As a result, research on the behaviour and application of HSS has become
an important topic in the structural engineering community. [1-4]
Historical events have clearly demonstrated that fire hazard is a major threat to the structural
integrity of a structure throughout its service life. Steel has excellent strength properties at
ambient temperature, however, like other materials; steel loses its strength and stiffness with
temperature. For example: yield strength becomes about half at 550 0C, 10% or less at 10000C
and almost depletion at 12040C. [5, 6] Young’s Modulus does not decrease with temperature
as rapidly as does yield strength. [5]
The load needs to fail a structure depends on duration and intensity of fire. [7] That’s why,
load bearing capability of steel decreases when steel or composite structure is subjected to a
continuous fire action. In addition, grain size has a measurable effect on most mechanical
properties of structures. For example, at room temperature, hardness, yield strength, tensile
strength, fatigue strength and impact strength all increase with decreasing grain size. [8] Also,
fine-grain steels have greater fatigue resistance, and a fine grain size promotes greater
toughness and shock resistance. During fire cold working frequently alters grain size by
promoting more rapid coarsening of the grains in critically stressed areas.
The failure of building WTC7 (World Trade Centre) on 11th September 2001 alerted the
engineering profession to the possibility of connection failure under fire conditions [9]. The
structural response of buildings to fire conditions has been the focus of intensive research
activity in recent years. Although sufficient data on the elevated temperature properties of
concrete exist in the literature, the studies related to elevated temperature properties of steel
bars are limited [10] which emphasises the need of more investigative work in this area. And
there is hardly any studies in this field in Bangladesh (to the best of authors’ knowledge).
This paper presents the results of experimental testing which was conducted on the steel bars
(500WTMT, 400, 300grade-nonbrand) available in the local market in Bangladesh to
determine their properties in fire condition.
There are two common methods that can be used to test the mechanical properties of steel
under elevated temperatures, steady-state and transient-state. In a steady-state test, the test
specimen is first heated to a predefined Temperature. [11] A tensile load is then applied to the
specimen while the temperature is held constant. In a transient-state test, the test specimen is
first pre-loaded to a predetermined force. It is then heated slowly to the target temperature.
Steady-state tests are more often conducted because they can be performed over a shorter
period of time. [12-15] The tests were carried out in steady state method at 0.5mm/min strain
rate.
This study provides precise information on mechanical properties and microstructure of re-
bars to steel producers, designers, building industry, and standardization bodies. The results
may also be used to support other research projects aimed at studying the behaviour of rebar
steels structures in fire.

Experimental

3 samples were taken of same diameter of 8 mm as raw material. They were of TMT 500W,
400 (60 grade) and 300 (non-grade) rebars. The samples were marked as Sample S-1-500W,
S-2-400 and S-3-300 respectively. Compositions of the samples were found out by OES
spectrometer (Foundry-Master Pro, Oxford Instrument, Germany). In order to see the
microstructures the necessarily cut samples was coarse grinded by wheel grinder (Shan,
Taiwan), then rubbed with emery papers of 120, 320, 600, 800, 1200 and 1500 grades. Then
they were wheel polished in metallurgical sample pre-grinder (YM-2A, China), then etched
with 2% Nital solution. Finally microstructures were carefully observed at 500X
magnification with optical microscope (B-600MET, Optika Inc., Italy). Necessarily cut
standard samples were subjected to high temperature tensile testing by Testomeric M500-
50CT at high temperature deformation laboratory of BUET and was done in the steady state
method at a strain rate of 0.5 mm/min.Then same procedures mentioned above were followed
for microstructural observation after high temperature tensile tests.

Fig 1:
Initial
 Fig 2: High Fig 3: Final
Temperatur tasted
Results and Discussions

Chemical Composition
The following composition data were obtained in OES spectroscopy for the 3 samples:
Table 1: Chemical Compositions of re-bars
Sample Element proportion (%)
Grades C Si Mn P S Cr Mo V Nb Cu Ni

500W 0.21 .19 .71 .01 .02 .08 0.01 0.002 0.00 .22 .044
TMT 1
400W .133 .171 .975 .0156 .007 .026 .003 .016 .001 .105 .014
2
300 .196 .119 .651 .0023 .011 0244 .002 .006 .002 .001 .019
grade

These data of chemical composition of reinforcing bars may become helpful in explaining
changes that take place in steel at high temperatures. About 30 elements were identified using
OES (Optical Emission Spectrometry) machine. Of these, C, Mn, P, Cr, Ti and Co are the
important elements which have a direct influence on strength, ductility and hardenability of
steel. The proportions of the aforementioned elements in the control specimens are given in
Table 1.
Carbon is the principal element which provides both strength and ductility to steel. [16-19].
According to ASTM A706 maximum carbon percentage in structural steel is 0.18%. Among
all 3 different grades we tested 500W TMT had greater carbon percentage which is the main
reason for its greater strength. And 300 grade had more carbon than the 400. Manganese
(Mn) was found to be in the range of 0.65-0.97 which is well within the range of ASTM
A706 standard of 1.60% (maximum). The higher Mn content may partly responsible for
better ductility of the samples. Phosphorous contents in steel are limited to a maximum 0.04
as higher phosphorus affects steels ductility [17]. It is noted in Table 1, that phosphorous
contents in the bars comply with the requirements given in the respective standards. Addition
of niobium up to 0.025 percent [18] enhances strength without any loss of ductility. The
addition of 0.3-0.5 percent [19] copper improves strength and corrosion resistance of steel.
Again the addition of sulphur is detrimental to the mechanical properties. The amount of Nb,
Cu, S is well within the standards and are very small to have any significant effect on the
steel properties. Molybdenum (0.04-0.06 per cent) [19] can increase elevated temperature
strength and corrosion resistance of steel. But molybdenum in the TMT bars is significantly
less than the recommended proportion in the above.
Microstructure

With temperature increase, the diffusion related phenomena become more pronounced. At the
very high temperatures of 500, 600, and 650 0C, grain growth, ferrite recrystallization, carbide
coarsening mainly dictate the microstructure, in turn mechanical properties. From Fig 4 it can
be observed that 500 TMT rebar has tempered martensite at their edge microstructures and
ferrite pearlite in their centre. Other two grades have ferrite pearlite in their structures.
In the Fig 5, at 5000C, the microstructure is tempered martensite. At 6000C, the grains became
extensively large, which indicates the prior austenite grain size. The grains were heavily
stressed, which was proved when at the higher temperatures the grains broke into many
smaller equi-axed grains, to relax energy. The grains virtually didn’t change further from
6000C to 6500C, as the structures had already become stable. The stress-strain curves of Fig
8(a) also show that, from 6000C to 6500C the curves are almost similar. The high
concentration of solute strengthen may inhibit further grain growth.

Fig 4:
Room
temperature

Fig 5: Microstructures of S-1-500W at different temperatures; (a) 5000C, (b) 6000C,

(c) 6500C
(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

Fig 6: Microstructures of S-2-400 at different temperatures; (a) 5000C, (b) 6000C, (c)
6500C (a) (b) (c)
Fig 7: Microstructures of S-3-300 at different temperatures; (a) 5000C, (b) 6000C, (c)
6500C

Though S-3-300 got greater amount of C, P, S but if we consider the overall composition of
the two brands, S-2-400 got higher amount of alloying element in total. So in S-2-400 have
larger stress for its alloy content and so it readily broken down into grains at high
temperatures to reduce stress. This brand also has more high temperature ductility for higher
Mn, Ni content. On the other hand, S-3-300 performs well in room temperature but has less
ductility in high temperature due to lacking in its Mn and Ni content.
Mechanical Properties

Tensile Properties Figure shows the stress versus strain curve for samples at high
temperatures. The curves for as received samples are also shown for comparison purposes.
No strain hardening is observed for the samples at high temperatures like for samples at
ambient (250C).

Yield Strength (YS) According to Fig 8, all samples tested at room temperature have yield
plateau.Figure 8: Stress–strain curves ofattested rebars at elevated
500, 600temperatures; (a) S-1- from
However, it has disappeared temperatures and 650 0C. Moreover,
500W (b) S-2-400 (c) S-3-300
Fig 9(b), the yield strengths of all the samples decreased with increasing temperature. The
reduction of yield strength occurs because of requiring reduced level of energy for movement
of dislocation at high temperatures [1]. Fig 10 (b) illustrates the normalised yield strength
(ratio of yield strength at high and room temperatures for a certain sample) which represents
the coefficient for the reduction of yield strength.

Figure 10: Relationships of Reduction Factor

Figure 9: Relationships with Temperatures with Temperatures (a) Ultimate Tensile
of (a) Ultimate Tensile Strength; (b) Yield Strength; (b) Yield Strength and (c) Young’s
Strength; (c) % of Elongation and (d) Modulus
Young’s Modulus

This is also called the reduction factor. The high temperature yield strength can be calculated
by Figure 6(b). Bar yield strength becomes nearly 14% yield strength at room temperature at
6500C for S-1-500W and S-3-300. The loss of YS is much more for S-2-400 than others at
6500C and is about 24% and the reason might be high amount of Mn and Ni content as stated
before. The YS for S-2-400 less than required amount. It is because the carbon percentage is
the lowest.

Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS) The ultimate capacity of the bar corresponds to maximum
stress on the rebar stress–strain curve. Distinct differences in the behaviours of the bars in the
strain hardening region are seen in Fig 8. Strain hardening in the bars became negligible after
500°C and, in Fig 9(a), the UTS has gradually decreased for increasing temperature. Fig
10(a) illustrates the normalised ultimate strength ratio of ultimate strength at high and room
temperatures for a certain sample, which is the coefficient for the reduction or reduction
factor of rebars ultimate strength. It is seen in Fig 10(a) that the curves for reduction factor of
UTS follow a pattern similar to reduction factor of YS except for S-2-400 where the
coefficient for YS is about similar between 6000C and 6500C.

Modulus of Elasticity The elastic modulus of the bar at elevated temperature was calculated
as tangent modulus of the initial linear elastic part of the stress–strain curve (Fig 8). Figure
9(c) illustrates the coefficient for the reduction or reduction for of rebars elastic modulus
which has been calculated as the ratio of modulus at high and room temperatures. The
reduction of modulus is almost similar for all the samples (Fig 10c).

Rebar Ductility It is often represented with percentage of elongation. Fig 8(d) shows the
relationship between temperature and percentage of elongation. It has increased with
increasing temperature for S-2-400 which characterises ductile behaviour of these bars at
high temperatures. However, percentage of elongation has decreased for S-1-500W and S-3-
300 when temperature is increased from 600°C to 650°C. This might happen due to
deposition of fine chromium carbide in the matrix at high temperature. [20] The maximum
ductility is shown by S-2-400 which is about 44%.

Conclusion

Three samples (8mm rebar) of different grades produced in Bangladesh, which were 500W
TMT bar, 400 (60 grade) and 300 (non-grade) bars, were tested for high temperature
deformation to figure out their fire resistance at 500, 600 and 650 0C. There changes in
microstructures and mechanical properties between ambient and high temperatures have been
observed. For 500W TMT bar, the martensite phase was virtulally non-existant at high
temperatures indicating there were severe lack of martensite stabilizers in the composition
For all the samples at the very high temperatures of 500 0C, 6000C and 6500C, the high
temperature tempering occurred, so grain growth, ferrite recrystallization, carbide
precipitation all phenomena were persistent. The resulting microstructures composed of
almost ferrite and some pearlite which lacks necessary properties for structural purpose. As a
result, all the samples did not exhibit yield plateau and strain hardening at high temperatures
which was observed at ambient temperature for stress vs strain curve. Moreover, yield and
ultimate tensile strength both reduced to nearly 14% of normal strength at 650°C but for 400
grade sample the reduction was about 24% because of having high amount of Mn and Ni.
The ductility or percentage of elongation has increased much higher and up to 44%. So the
samples have become highly ductile at around fire temperatures.

References

1. L. Qu and H. Li, “Study on strength of Q420 steel section at elevated temperature”, Fire
Science and Technology, 5 (2004), 223-225.
2. W. Y. Wang, B. Liu, V. Kodur, “Effect of temperature on strength and elastic modulus of
high strength steel”, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 25 (2012), 174-182.
3. W. Y. Wang, B. Liu, “Experimental study on mechanical properties of Q460 high strength
steel at elevated temperature”, Journal of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Engineering,
35 (2012), 30-35.
4. P. Mäkeläinen, J. Outinen, J. Kesti, “Fire design model for structural steel S420M based
upon transient-state tensile test results” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 48 (1998)
47-57.
5. ASHI reporter, “The Effects of Fire on Structural Systems”, (American Society of Home
Inspectors, 2007).
6. American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc, Manual of Steel Construction, (Facts for
Steel Buildings-Fire, AISC, Chicago, IL,2003).
7. I. B. Topcu and C Karakurt, “Properties of Reinforced Concrete Steel Rebars Exposed to
High Temperatures”, Research Letters in MaterialsScience, 2008, 1-4.
8. D. H. Herring, “Grain Size and Its Influence on Materials Properties”, (Grain Size.pdf,
2005).
9. F. Wald et al., “Experimental behaviour of a steel structure under natural fire,” 2006Fire
Safety Journal, 41(7), 509-522.
10. Zhong Tao, Xingqiang Wang and Brian Uy, “Stress-Strain Curves of Structural and
Reinforcing Steels after Exposure to Elevated Temperatures”, Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, (2013).
11. R. Schneider, J. Lange, “Analysis of the time-dependent mechanical behavior of S460 in
case of fire”, Stahlbau, 81 (2012), 379-390.
12. R. Schneider, J. Lange, “Constitutive equations and empirical creep law of steel S460
under high temperatures” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering, 2 (2011), 217-230.
13. J.Lange, N. Wohlfeil, “Examination of the mechanical properties of steel S460 for fire”
Journal of Structural Fire Engineering, 1(2010), 189-204.
14. X. Qiang, F. S. K. Bijlaard, H. Kolstein, “Deterioration of mechanical properties of high
strength steel S460N under steady state fire condition”, Materials & Design, 36(2012), 438-
442.
15. X. Qiang, F. S. K. Bijlaard, H. Kolstein, “Deterioration of mechanical properties of high
strength steel S460N under transient state fire condition”, Materials & Design, 40(2012),
521-527.
16. S. H. Avner, Introduction to Physical Metallurgy (McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1964).
17. P. C. Basu, P. Shylamoni and A. D. Roshan, “Characterization of steel reinforcement for
RC structures: an overview and related issues”, Indian Concrete Journal, 78 (1) (2004), 19-
30.
18. W. D. Callister and D G Rethwisch, Fundamentals of Materials Science and Engineering
(Wiley, New York, NY, 2013).
19. N Fonstein, Advanced High Strength Sheet Steels: Physical Metallurgy, Design,
Processing, and Properties, (Springer, Berlin, 2015).
20.A. Kinzel, "Chromium Carbide in Stainless Steel", JOM, 4 (5) (1952), 469-488.