Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 46, No. 1, April - May 2019  pp. 29-38 No. 46-04

Performance of beams reinforced with pswc-bars and other rebars

Anil K. Kar*,, Urmil V. Dave** and Nirpex A. Patel***
 Email: dr.anil.kar@gmail.com

*Engineering Services International, BC 96 Salt Lake City, Calcutta - 700 064, India.
**Department of Civil Engineering, Nirma University, Ahmedabad - 392 481, India.
***Department of Civil Engineering, C.S. Patel Institute of Technology, Charusat, Gujarat - 388 421, India.

Received: 24 April 2018; Accepted: 11 June 2018

Compared to concrete constructions of earlier periods, constructions of recent decades have suffered early decay
and distress. In most cases, this early decay and distress in concrete structures is due to higher rates of corrosion in
today’s reinforcing bars of high strength steel. This higher and accelerated rate of corrosion can be attributed to the
provision and presence of ribs on the surface of rebars. In the absence of ribs or any other surface feature, PSWC-bars,
characterized by their plain surface and gentle wave-type configurations, will be naturally much less susceptible to
corrosion than ribbed bars are. Consequently, the use of PSWC-bars will remove the principal causes of early distress
in today’s reinforced concrete constructions, ushering in therewith many attendant benefits. Twenty four beams with
eight different rebar varieties were tested for their load-carrying capacities. The tests confirmed earlier findings by
others that, as in the case of compression elements, the use of well-proportioned PSWC-bars, among different types of
rebars, would lead to the highest load-carrying capacities of concrete flexural elements.

Keywords: Beam; corrosion; deformed bar; durability; rebar; reinforced concrete; reinforcement; reinforcing bar.

Compared to concrete structures of earlier periods,
concrete structures, built during the last fifty years or
so, have suffered early decay and distress. This will
be evident from the observations of Papadakis, et al.1,
Swamy2 and many others.
While Papadakis, et al.1 wrote in their paper, “The
last two decades have seen a disconcerting increase
in examples of unsatisfactory durability of concrete
structures, specially reinforced concrete ones”. Swamy2
observed that “the most direct and unquestionable
evidence of the last two/three decades on the service
life performance of our constructions and the resulting
challenge that confronts us is the alarming and
unacceptable rate at which our infrastructure systems
all over the world are suffering from deterioration when
exposed to real environments”.
This concern with the health of concrete structures
was in sharp contrast to the satisfactory performance of
concrete structures of earlier periods which had proved
to be durable.
It would appear from the observations of Papadakis,
et al.1 and those of Swamy2 that the problem of early
decay and distress in concrete structures started coming
into the limelight since the 1970s. Historically this
followed the start of use of high strength rebars (of
steel) with surface deformations in the form of ribs in
the decades of the 1960s and 1970s in many countries.
Though it is true that over the years gradually, but in
significant ways, the properties of cement and concrete
have changed, it cannot be overlooked that (a) the newly
observed problem of early distress in most cases is due
to high rates of corrosion in rebars, (b) the problem
started showing up more frequently following the start
of use of High Yield Strength Deformed (HYSD) and
Cold Twisted Deformed (CTD) bars, and (c) since it is
the corrosion in ribbed rebars, a part of the cause of the
problem of corrosion must be inherent in ribbed bars.

Journal of Structural Engineering 29

Vol. 46, No. 1, April - may 2019
 Engineers tended to overlook the inherent reason that
made ribbed bars of high strength steel so susceptible
to early corrosion.
Instead, in attempts to solve the problem of corrosion
in ribbed rebars, engineers have used (a) epoxy coated
rebars, (b) rebars with other coatings, (c) rebars with
zinc coating topped with epoxy coating, (d) stainless
steel, etc. Also, admixtures are occasionally used with
concrete to inhibit corrosion in rebars.
Besides additional costs, treatments to rebars may
invite other problems.
As a requirement for durability, the Bureau of
Indian Standards has made different recommendations.
The provision of surface protection systems on the
surface of concrete structures is codified in Sec. 8.2
of IS 456:2000, which is the basic code/standard for
the design and construction of concrete structures in
India.
Today, concrete bridges in India are being
increasingly given surface protection as an economic
means to lengthen the life span of such structures.
The practice of providing epoxy coatings to concrete
bridges has recently started in the USA too.
All of the protection systems, whether on the
surface of ribbed rebars or on the surface of concrete
structures, involve additional efforts and expenses.
In addition, the provision of protection systems has
its own uncertainty, whether in the nature of system,
material or workmanship.
Root Cause of the Problem and a
Solution
Recognizing that (a) the problem of early distress in
concrete structures followed the start of use of ribbed
rebars, (b) the rate of corrosion in steel rebars was a
function of the stress level, which in turn could be partly
or greatly dependent on the surface contour/condition
of rebars3-8, and also recognizing that (c) the provision
and presence of ribs on the surface of today’s ribbed
rebars of high strength steel make such bars highly
stressed and thus highly susceptible to corrosion, Kar7
suggested the use of PSWC-bars (initially named as
C-bars), which are characterized by their plain surface
and a gentle wave-type configuration along the length
(Fig. 1).
30 Journal of Structural Engineering
Vol. 46, No. 1, April - may 2019
Fig. 1 PSWC-bars with plain surface and gentle wave type
configuration
Given its plain surface, a PSWC-bar would be only
as little susceptible to corrosion as a plain bar of the
same composition, same stress level and exposed to a
similar environment, would be.
The gentle wave-type configuration is provided to
compensate for the absence of ribs which were earlier
devised to improve bond or engagement with concrete
when rebars of high strength (yield strength greater
than 250 MPa) steel was introduced.
Expected Benefits and the Need for
Tests
The use of PSWC-bars, characterized by their plain
surface, could be expected to help stave off early
corrosion in rebars, except in highly corrosive
environments, thereby leading to much longer life
spans for concrete structures, reinforced with such
bars, as was generally the case with reinforced concrete
structures, which were built with plain round bars
before the advent of HYSD or CTD bars.
How much longer can be the life span of concrete
structures, which may be reinforced with PSWC-bars?
The observation of Alekseev3 is worth recalling in this
context.
Alekseev3 had observed that the durability of
concrete structures, reinforced with ribbed bars, would
be one order of magnitude less, i.e., one-tenth of that of
concrete structures, reinforced with plain bars. In other
words, the life span of concrete structures, reinforced
with plain bars, as PSWC-bars are, are likely to have
about ten times the life span of concrete structures,
which might be reinforced with today’s ribbed bars.
A conservative suggestion would be that the life span
of concrete structures, reinforced with PSWC-bars,
characterized by their plain surface, would be at least
twice as much as the life span of concrete structures
which might be built with today’s HYSD bars of the
same steel but having ribs on the surface.
With so much going in favor of PSWC-bars, it
remained to be affirmed that the use of PSWC-bars, with
their characteristic wave-pattern and a plain surface,
would not have any adverse effect on the performance
of flexural and compression elements, e.g., beams and
columns under load.
Tests by Varu9 have shown that columns have
greater load-carrying capacities, when such columns
are reinforced with PSWC-bars (of the same strength)
rather than with conventional rebars, whether plain
round of earlier periods or deformed bars of these
days.
Comparisons of performance of beams, reinforced
with different types of rebars, as presented here, will
show that beams, reinforced with PSWC-bars, can
outperform concrete beams which may be reinforced
with other types of rebars.
Preliminary tests at several universities had
shown that, in addition to increased load-carrying
capacities even at yield, ductility of concrete beams,
when reinforced with well-proportioned PSWC-bars,
increased several fold over the performance of beams,
which might be reinforced with conventional plain
round bars of the same material. Furthermore, with
increasing load-carrying capacities beyond yield, the
energy absorbing capacities increased by even greater
margins.
Encouraged by the findings from the preliminary
tests that PSWC-bars, with proper configurations,
may have no detrimental effects on the load carrying
capacities of flexural elements, more detailed work
(both experimental and analytical) on beams was
carried out.
This paper presents results of tests on beams,
reinforced with plain round bars, PSWC-bars with
three different amplitudes of deformation of the axis,
and HYSD bars of different grades of steel, viz., Fe
415, Fe 500, Fe 500D and Fe 550D, in which grade
Fe 550D indicates yield strength of 550 MPa and the
material is of the ductile variety, as indicated by the
suffix D. All bars had a diameter of 12 mm.
Though in this group of tests three beams with
each of eight different types of rebars, i.e. a total of
twenty four beams were tested, the highest of the three
experimental ultimate loads, Wul, of the beams in each
of the eight different categories are presented together
with the standard deviation, S.D. The highest loads for
each of the eight categories of rebars are selected as
these represent the highest load-carrying capacities for
each type of beams.
Because of limitations of the particular test facilities,
the interesting and important post-yield behavior of the
beams, with many different types of rebars, could not
be studied. Thus, the strikingly superior post-yield
performance of beams with PSWC-bars could not be
reported.
PSWC-bar
Typical PSWC-bars are shown in Fig. 1. The particular
bars in Fig. 1 are of 6mm diameter with a pitch length
of 30d, i.e. 180mm. The maximum excursion of the
axes of the bars from their original straight line position
is 4.5 mm.
A schematic configuration of a 12mm dia PSWC-
bar, with 30d pitch length and different offsets, as used
in the tests of beams, which are reported in this article,
is depicted in Fig. 2. It is noted that the dimension
8-12mm represents the sum total of two excursions of
4-6mm each in two opposite directions of the straight
line configuration of conventional rebars.
360 mm pitch length
8-12 mm
Fig. 2 Partial lengths of PSWC-bars used in the tests (not to
scale)
Though hot forming will be the preferred way to go
for commercial production of PSWC-bars, the bars for
the tests were cold formed.
The PSWC-bars were made through manual cold
working on plain bars from the same source as that
of the plain round rebars which were used in the tests.
Though PSWC-bars, cold-formed elsewhere, were
expectedly found to have slightly greater strength
properties than the conventional plain bars had, the
PSWC-bars, used in the present tests, were apparently
affected during cold forming. As a result, the ultimate
stress, nominal breaking stress and the actual breaking
stress for the PSWC-bars in the test specimens were
a bit lower than the corresponding stresses for plain
round bars without any re-working effort as shown in
Table 1. The values are mean values of three tests.
In spite of the manufacturing defects and
shortcomings in strength, it will be seen in Table 2 that
Journal of Structural Engineering 31
Vol. 46, No. 1, April - may 2019
 Table 1
Tensitle Test Results of all Categories of Steel Specimens (all bars 12mm diameter)
Plain round bar
Particulars Fe 415 (MPa) Fe 500 (MPa) Fe 500D (MPa) Fe 550D (MPa) PSWC-bar (MPa)
(MPa)
Yield stress 433.92 520.70 529.37 576.79 325.44 325.44
Ultimate stress 542.40 650.88 642.19 715.96 503.34 477.31
% elongation 23 21.66 23.33 23.33 22.66 23.91

the beams with PSWC-bars performed much better than percent strain that ACI 318 would have required or
the beams with plain round bars in all respects, and the @0.2 percent proof stress as in conventionally used.
beams with PSWC-bars performed relatively better This was done keeping in mind that the objective of the
than beams with HYSD bars when the yield strength work was not design but tests which would be directly
of all bars were normalized for the yield strength of Fe related to the actual strength properties.
550D HYSD bars. Earlier tests by others, where beams
could be tested to failure, had shown that there would
be much greater load-carrying capacities at failure
when beams would be reinforced with PSWC-bars.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
(a) (b) (c) (d)
As a solution to the problem of excessive corrosion
Fig. 3 Tension test set up and failure pattern : HYSD bars (a) and
in today’s ribbed rebars, Kar7 had proposed the use (b); PSWC bars (c) and (d)
of PSWC-bars, characterized by their plain surface
and a gentle wave type configuration. Results of tests
Strain was measured at every increment of 2.45 kN
on concrete beams, reinforced with different types of
tensile force, i.e. at stress intervals of 21.68 MPa for
rebars, show that the use of PSWC-bars can greatly
the 12mm diameter bars. Average (of three specimens
enhance the load-carrying capacity, ductility and energy
of each type) stress vs. strain graphs for all categories
absorbing capacity. This adds to the confidence level
of steel rebars are plotted in Fig. 4.
in the use of PSWC-bars, which, in the absence of ribs,
can enhance the life span of concrete structures several 800 Fe 550D
fold, together with many attendant benefits, all at no 700 Fe 500D
added cost or effort.
Stress (N/mm2)

600
Fe 500
Tests on rebar 500 Fe 415
400
UTM (Universal Testing Machine) was used for the
300
tension test of steel rebars. Tension tests were carried Plain round PSWC-6 mm offset
out on HYSD bars (Fe 415, Fe 500, Fe 500D and Fe 200
550D), plain round bars and PSWC-bars (with 4mm, 100
5mm and 6mm maximum excursion of the axis from 0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06
the initial straight line configuration). Strain
Test parameters for all rebar specimens were kept Fig. 4 Stress vs. strain for different categories of steel up to strain
constant with length of 60cm, gauge length of 60mm of 0.06
and diameter of 12mm. An extensometer was set for
gauge length 60mm and it was fitted on the specimen Material and Mix Design of Concrete
as shown in Fig. 3.
Self-compacting concrete mix was prepared based
The yield strength values for Fe 415, Fe 500, Fe
on trial and error method. Three concrete mixes were
500D and Fe 550D are actual from tests and not at 0.35

32 Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 46, No. 1, April - may 2019
prepared based on weight batch to gain target mean
strength of 31.6 MPa after 28 days of curing. Tests
for fresh concrete like Flow test and V-funnel test
were adopted to check flowability of self-compacting
concrete and to verify the test results with EFNARC
guidelines.
The concrete, that was achieved, had a 7 day strength
of 24 MPa and a 28 day strength of 32.45 MPa for 150
mm × 150 mm × 150 mm cubes.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
The objective of the innovation behind PSWC-bars was
to develop a rebar whose susceptibility to corrosion
would be significantly less than the susceptibility of
today’s ribbed bars to corrosion, and yet there would
not be any substantial negative impact or consequences
in the performance of beam and column elements, when
reinforced with PSWC-bars of high strength steel. With
that objective in mind, tests were conducted on beams
with a special focus on finding out if the wave-type
configuration and the absence of ribs on the surface of
PSWC-bars could lead to
a. Spalling of concrete in the tension face
b. Decline in load-carrying capacity
c. Unacceptable crack widths at service load
Beam Specimens
A total of twenty four beams, with eight different
categories of reinforcing bars, were tested under
transverse load, as shown in Fig. 5, for their flexural
responses. Three beams in each category with identical
reinforcement were tested.
Notations for test beams
1. Fe 415: Under reinforced beam with rebars of Fe
415 grade steel in the tension region
2. Fe 500: Under reinforced beam with rebars of Fe
500 grade steel in the tension region
3. Fe 500D: Under reinforced beam with rebars of
Fe 500D grade steel in the tension region
4. Fe 550D: Under reinforced beam with rebars of
Fe 550D grade steel in the tension region
5. PR: Under reinforced beam with plain round mild
steel rebars in the tension region
6. PSWC-4mm: Under reinforced beam with PSWC-
bars (pitch 30d, 4mm offset) in the tension region
7. PSWC-5mm: Under reinforced beam with PSWC-
bars (pitch 30d, 5mm offset) in the tension region
8. PSWC-6mm: Under reinforced beam with PSWC-
bars (pitch 30d, 6mm offset) in the tension region
where d is the diameter of the rebar; the diameter
was 12 mm in all cases.
Loading frame
Hydraulic jack
Spacer
I-Section
Beam
Support Dreflection
meter
Fig. 5 Test setup for reinforced concrete beams
Rectangular beams of size 160mm (W) X 200mm
(D) and 1500mm length were provided with 2 nos. - 12
mm diameter bars, spaced 110mm apart in the tension
zone with an effective cover of 25mm at bottom and at
sides. Because of the undulating pattern of the PSWC-
bars, the effective cover as well as effective depth of
reinforcing bars varied in the case of the beams with
PSWC-bars. But if the maximum excursion of the
axis of a PSWC-bar from its original straight line
configuration would be 5mm, that would translate into
a maximum decrease of 5mm in the effective depth and
5mm in the cover thickness.
The effective depth in the case of beams with PSWC-
bars would keep changing along the length, as shown
in Fig. 6. The PSWC-bars were placed at heights such
that the average effective depth would be the same as in
the cases of beams with conventional rebars.
Though the effective depth in beams with PSWC-
bars kept varying, for the purpose of analytical design
the effective depth was considered to be invariant and
the central axes of the bars were assumed to be located
Journal of Structural Engineering 33
Vol. 46, No. 1, April - may 2019
at heights assuming that the bars had no undulations
along the length.
2 nos 8mmφ
1500
25
200
2 nos 12mmφ PSWC-bar 2 legged 8mmφ stirrup@ 150mm c/c
(a)
150 2 nos 8mmφ
25
200
25
1500
2 nos 12mmφ 2 legged 8mmφ stirrup@ 150mm c/c
(b)
Fig. 6 Detailing of beam with (a) PSWC-bar and (b) HYSD bars
Stirrups with 2-legged 8 mm diameter HYSD bars
of Fe 415 grade steel were provided at 150 mm c/c, as
shown in Fig. 6.
TESTS
Figure 7 shows a common test set up and failure patterns
for beams with different types of rebars. A hydraulic
jack of 250 kN capacity was used for loading. By means
of a steel I-section, load was distributed to two solid
cylinders resting on the beam, to be tested, at a specified
distance of 200 mm for all the beam specimens. The
load was applied in increments of 10 kN until yield of
the beam specimens. Experimental mean (of 3 beams
in the same group) load and corresponding deflection
at bottom mid span at every load interval for each
category of reinforced concrete beams were recorded.
Because of the limitations of the hydraulic jack,
loading could not be continued once the rebars reached
their yield state. As a consequence thereof, the post-
yield response of the beams could not be studied,
particularly when earlier tests at other universities had
shown dramatic increases in load-carrying capacities,
ductility and energy absorbing capacity in the case of
34 Journal of Structural Engineering
Vol. 46, No. 1, April - may 2019
beams, reinforced with well-proportioned PSWC-bars,
as shown in Fig. 8.
160
(a) Common test setup
(b) Failure pattern of beam with Fe 415 (c) Failure pattern of beam with Fe 500
160
(d) Failure pattern of beam with Fe 500D (e) Failure pattern of beam with Fe 550D
(f) Failure pattern of beam with PR (i) Failure pattern of beam with PSWC-4mm
(h) Failure pattern of beam with PSWC-5mm (i) Failure pattern of beam with PSWC-6mm
Fig. 7 General test set up and failure pattern of all eight types of
beam specimens10
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Load carrying capacity
In evaluating the comparative response under load, the
self weight of the beams were not accounted for.
Tests elsewhere had shown that though beams with
plain round bars failed after reaching an initial peak,
beams with PSWC-bars continued carrying substantially
higher loads after reaching an initial peak10 (Fig. 8). In
other words, though beams with plain round bars were
brittle in nature, beams with PSWC-bars exhibited
ductile response.
Though in the cases of beams with PSWC-bars there
would have been considerable capacity for carrying
additional load after the response pattern would have
reached the first-peak, the load at first peak was treated
as the ultimate load for purposes of comparison in this
article.
The best of the ultimate loads of the three beam
specimens in each category of beams were considered
as ultimate load for the respective beam categories.
The standard deviations of ultimate loads for different
 60.0 60.0
54.0 54.0
48.0 48.0
42.0 42.0
36.0 36.0
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
30.0 30.0
24.0 24.0
18.0 18.0
12.0 12.0
6.0 6.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 1.1 3.3 5.5 7.7 9.9 11.0 0.0 7.10 14.20 21.30 28.40 35.50
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(a) Load displacement curve conventional plain round bar (b) Load displacement curve PSWC-bar of steel same
as in conventional plain round bar
Note: Plots drawn to different scales
60.0
54.0
Load at failure (56.2 kN)
48.0
Rectangular beam
42.0 reinforced with
Load at yield of PSWC beam and
PSWC-Bars
Load (kN)

36.0 failure of conventional beam (43.7 kN)

Load (kN)

Load

30.0 a – deflection at yield of reinforcement

Rectangular beam Additional energy
24.0 reinforced with Absorbing capacity b – deflection at failure of beam with
plain round bars conventional plain bar
18.0 c – deflection at failure of beam with
12.0 PSWC bar
Ductility ratio
6.0 a Deflection Conventional bar = b/a
b
0.0 PSWC-bar = c/a
0.0 7.10 14.20 21.30 28.40 35.50 c
Displacement (mm)
(c) Load displacement curves plotted to same (d) Very significant improvement in ductility and energy absorbing
scale showing improvement in load-carrying capacity of flexural members when PSWC-bars are used
Fig. 8  Superior response of beam with PSWC-bars under load

categories of beams varied between 1.89 kN to 6.53 kN where, 576.79 MPa is the yield stress of the Fe 550D
(Table 2). bars
As explained, the real ultimate load in the cases of Waul is the achievable ultimate load (kN)
beams, reinforced with PSWC-bars, is generally much Wul is the best of the experimental ultimate load
greater than the yield load, shown in Table 2. (kN) of the three beams
In the tests, as could be expected, beams, reinforced fy is the yield strength of rebar (MPa)
with Fe 550D bars, with the highest yield strength of It is recognized that the Waul, calculated as above, is
576.79 MPa, had the highest mean ultimate load of very conservative (underestimate) in the case of beams
241.0 kN (Table 2). with PSWC-bars, as tests elsewhere had shown that the
The achievable ultimate load in kN (Table 2) was peak or ultimate load (i.e. load at failure) in the case of
calculated from the Eq. (1) beams with PSWC-bars, was much higher than the load
  Waul= Wul × (576.79 MPa ÷ f y) (1) at yield or first peak.

Journal of Structural Engineering 35

Vol. 46, No. 1, April - may 2019
 Table 2
Test Results for all Categories of Beam Specimens
Achievablea Maximum
Ratio of best Allowable
Yield Best of three ultimate deflection at Experimental
experimental load Waul mid span at crack
Type of strength of Analytical experimental crack width
S.D ultimate load width
and grade of reinforcing ultimate ultimate for the yield best
as per
at service
steel bar load kN Loads kN to stress of load (0.6 f y)
reinforcement ultimate ACI-318
fy MPa Wul kN analytical 576.79 MPa load, Wul mm
ultimate load mm
kN mm
325.44 52.36 104.0 4.08 2.18 202.05 2.99 0.35
Plain rebar 109.0
114.0
325.44 51.93 154.0 2.45 2.97 272.94 5.56 0.35
PSWC-4mm 151.0
148.0
325.44 51.93 155.0 2.87 3.04 280.03 5.25 0.35
PSWC-5mm 158.0
151.0
325.44 52.14 160.0 6.53 3.07 283.57 5.46 0.35
PSWC-6mm 152.0 Less than
144.0 0.2 mm
for all
433.91 67.10 169.0 4.55 2.58 229.97 6.42 0.46 categories
Ribbed bar
173.0
Fe 415
162.0
520.70 79.42 204.0 4.19 2.69 237.05 6.95 0.56
Ribbed bar
207.0
Fe 500
214.0
529.38 80.72 222.0 1.89 2.75 241.88 7.23 0.57
Ribbed bar
218.0
Fe 500 D
218.0
576.79 86.46 238.0 2.05 2.78 241.0 7.50 0.62
Ribbed basr
236.0
Fe 550 D
241.0
a
A check was made on the relative performance of the beams with different types of rebars. This was done by (hypothetically raising the
yield strength of all bars to 576.79 MPa, and multiplying the experimental ultimate load for beams with different types of rebars by the ratio
of 576.79 MPa and the actual yield strength of rebars in each of the eight types of beams.)

Even then, it is seen in Table 2 that the highest Waul
of 283.57 kN is reached in the case of beams with
PSWC- 6 mm rebars. Even for the other two cases
of beams with PSWC-bars, viz., PSWC-bars with 4
mm and 5mm excursions of the axis in their deformed
configurations, the achievable ultimate load Waul, as
shown in Table 2, is at least 12.8 percent higher than
the achievable ultimate loads of beams with all other
types of conventional rebars.
Higher load-carrying capacity (Table 2) is observed
for all beams with PSWC-bars as compared to that of
beams with plain round bars. This has occurred even
when the yield strength of PSWC-bars was lower than
the yield strength of plain round bars. This confirms
the superiority of PSWC-bars over plain round bars,
the use of which as rebars had given durable concrete
structures.

36 Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 46, No. 1, April - may 2019
 This is so even under the very conservative
assumption that the failure load in the case of a beam
with PSWC-bars will be reached when stresses in
PSWC-bars would reach the yield stress level whereas
tests elsewhere (Fig. 8) have conclusively shown that
the failure or ultimate capacity of beams with well -
proportioned PSWC-bars can be much greater than the
load when PSWC-bars reach yield state.
The information of Table 2 shows that, even without
taking into account the benefit of additional load-
carrying capacity beyond yield, beams with PSWC-
bars have greater reserve strength than beams with any
other conventional rebar, plain or HYSD.
In the cases of beams with PSWC-4mm, PSWC-
5mm and PSWC-6 mm bars, the percentage increases
over the case with plain round bars are 35.1, 38.6 and
40.4. These increases still do not take into consideration
further increases in the load-carrying capacities, beyond
yield, in the cases of beams which may be reinforced
with PSWC-bars.
Even though, as seen in Table 2, beams with
PSWC-bars can outperform beams with ribbed bars,
any comparison between load-carrying capacities of
concrete elements, reinforced with PSWC-bars and the
load-carrying capacities of concrete elements, reinforced
with today’s ribbed bars, is in a way unnecessary or
merely academic, as excessive corrosion in ribbed bars
has practically rendered such bars subject to scrutiny for
use as rebars when durability of concrete construction
is going to be an important consideration. It is because
of this recognition that the use of ribbed bars may not
give durable concrete constructions, much effort is
made and expenses incurred in using stainless steel,
and different coated rebars. And that too sometimes
with undesirable results.
It is worth noting in Table 2 that
(a) hypothetically assuming that all eight types of
rebars had the same yield stress of 576.79 MPa,
the beams, reinforced with PSWC-bars, with 6
mm offset, would lead to the maximum achievable
ultimate load waul of 283.57 kN.
(b) the ratio of experimental ultimate load (at yield)
to the analytical ultimate load is the highest (3.07)
in the case of beams with PSWC-bars; it need be
recognized again that because of the capacity to
carry much greater load beyond yield, the real
experimental failure load would have been much
higher than the experimental ultimate load in
the cases of beams with PSWC-bars, shown in
Table 2.
(c ) the information of Table 2 clearly shows that
beams with ribbed bars perform better than beams
with plain bars for the same strength of rebars,
and beams with PSWC-bars perform better than
beams with ribbed bars of the same strength.
Strain and Crack Width
Strain was measured at six locations on front side as
well as at six locations on the back side of all beam
specimens at same loading intervals. Propagation of
cracks and their lengths as well as widths were recorded
for all beam specimens on front as well as at back side
at all loading intervals of 10 kN up to the ultimate load,
which, as defined earlier, was the load at yield of the
reinforcement.
The widths of cracks at the tension face showed no
discernible pattern that could be thought of having been
influenced by the type of reinforcement.
Finally, crack width at service load was reviewed
in the light of the crack width criterion of ACI-318. In
none of the cases of beams the crack widths exceeded
the limit.
As beams with PSWC-bars can have a large ductile
response under enhanced loads and consequent large
(greater) deflection and cracks exceeding the limits for
crack width, set in ACI-318 or in other standards, it
need not be a matter of concern as such greater widths
of cracks represent a state at failure load, which is
considerably higher than the load at yield in the case
of beams with PSWC-bars, as shown in Fig. 8. The
basic load-deflection curves in Fig. 8 are obtained from
tests which were conducted at the Indian Institute of
Technology Kharagpur, India.
Trends, similar to those in Fig. 8, were also observed
by Aarathi10 who found the ultimate load capacity (i.e.
the load at failure) to be 39% higher when PSWC-
bars were used, and the mid-span deflection at failure
increased from 5.39mm in the case of beams with
conventional plain round bars to 17.23mm in the case
of the beam with PSWC-bars of the same steel.
Journal of Structural Engineering 37
Vol. 46, No. 1, April - may 2019
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the present work and on the findings on
beams, tested earlier, the following conclusions can be
arrived at :
• Steel reinforcing bars, christened as PSWC-bar,
and characterized by their plain surface and a gentle
wave-type configuration, when used as rebars, raise
the performance of reinforced concrete beams and
other elements to new levels.
• The ratio of experimental ultimate load (at yield
and not at failure) to the analytical ultimate load for
reinforced concrete beams was the highest (3.07)
when PSWC-bars were used as rebars. Also,
when all bars were thought to have the same yield
strength of 576.79 MPa, the beams with PSWC-
bars indicated the highest achievable ultimate load
(283.57 kN) even at the onset of the yield state.
• The much higher load beyond yield and the several
fold increase in deflection beyond yield mean
several fold increase in available ductility and
even greater increase in energy absorbing capacity,
transforming thereby brittle concrete construction
into ductile concrete construction.
• The superiority of PSWC-bars in load-carrying
capacity is in addition to the other benefits, viz.,
much greater life span and resistance to seismic
forces that PSWC-bars can endow concrete
constructions with.
• It is estimated that a doubling of the life span of
concrete constructions will help in the following
ways :
a) a 50 per cent reduction in the life cycle cost of
constructions
b) a 5 per cent reduction in the total global emission
of CO2 from all sources, just from a reduced
demand for cement over a period of time
c) besides reduction in CO2 emission, there are many
other attendant benefits, viz., reduced demand for
steel and other materials required for concrete
constructions, reduced haulage of materials and
reduced demand for land for dumping of materials
from a greater number of fallen structures
The greater resistance to seismic forces is likely to
save many lives and avoid loss of properties during
earthquakes.
38 Journal of Structural Engineering
Vol. 46, No. 1, April - may 2019
REFERENCES
1. Papadakis, V.G., Vayensa, C.G. and Fardis,
M.N., “Physical and Chemical Characteristics
Affecting the Durability of Concrete”, ACI Mat.
Jl., American Concrete Institute, Vol. 88, No. 2,
1991, pp 186–196.
2. Swamy, R.N., “Infrastructure regeneration : the
challenge of climate change and sustainability
─ design for strength or durability”, The Indian
Conc. Jl., The ACC Ltd., Vol. 81, No. 7, Mumbai,
India, 2007, pp 7–13.
3. Alekseev, S.N., “Corrosion of steel reinforcement”,
in Durability of Reinforced Concrete in Aggressive
Media, Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
(Translation of : Dolgovechnosti zhelezobetona
v aggressivnikh sredakh, Stroiizdat, Moscow),
Chapter 7, 1990, pp 164–247.
4. Kar, A.K., “Concrete structures — the pH potential
of cement and deformed reinforcing bars”, Jl. of
the Institution of Engrs. (India), Civil Engineering
Division, Calcutta, India, Vol. 82, 2001, pp 1–13.
5. Kar, A.K., “Deformed reinforcing bars and early
distress in concrete structures”, Highway Research
Bulletin, Number 65; Highway Research Board,
Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi, India, 2001,
pp 103–114.
6. Kar, A.K., “High strength rebars and durability of
concrete bridges”, Indian Roads Congress, India,
Vol. 69-3, 2008, pp 235–244.
7. Kar, A.K. , “Improved rebar for durable concrete
constructions”, New Build. Mat. and Construct.
World; New Delhi, India, Vol. 16, Issue-1, 2010,
pp 180–199.
8. Kar, A.K., “Durability of concrete structures”, Nat.
Conf. on Futuristic Innovats. and Emerg. Trends
in Civ. Engg., Department of Civil Engineering
School of Infrastructure, B.S. Abdur Rahman
University, Chennai, 2014, pp 1–18.
9. Varu, R., Studies on C-bar as reinforcement
for columns, M.Tech thesis, Nirma University,
Ahmedabad, 2014.
10. Aarathi, A.R.V., “Optimization of C-bars for
enhanced flexural performance of RCC beams”,
M. Tech thesis, B.S. Abdur Rahman University,
Chennai, India, 2014.
(Discussion on this article must reach the editor before
October 31, 2019)