From: "Sprague, Harold O." <SpragueHO(--nospam--at)bv.com>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 09:59:25 -0500
At the primary steel mill, ingots are rolled into billets, blooms, and
slabs. Billets, blooms, and slabs are distinguished by their shape and
size, and are reduced from ingots to expedite the rolling process. The
reduction in shape also produces a more homogeneous product.
Billets are often rolled from blooms, but can be produced from small ingots.
Most reinforcing steel is rolled from billets. Billet steel has nothing to
do with ductility and weldability. You can get almost any steel chemistry
you want in billets including A706.
Weldability is not necessarily the same as ductility, but generally weldable
steels are more ductile. Ductility can markedly change by cold working and
quenching. Weldability is a function of chemistry. When there is a sound
reason to specify ductility (like high seismic) it should be specified.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vicpeng [SMTP:vicpeng(--nospam--at)vtcg.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 4:35 PM
> To: SEAINT
> Cc: Dave Bevan
> Subject: Reinforcing
> Here's one that should perhaps have Canadian engineers questioning. Maybe
> the list in general can educate me.
> In the concrete standard CSA A23.3-94 under Clause 1.3 "Reference
> Publications" we have the following.
> CAN/CSA-G30.18-M92: Billet-Steel for Concrete Reinforcing
> My understanding is that "billet-steel" is steel made from re-cycled steel
> products and that the composition is such that the steel is relatively
> brittle and also not weldable. If that is the case why do we accept this
> as is the steel to use for Limit States Design with respect to getting
> plastic deformations or ductilities that allow the assumptions attached to
> the attainment of fy? Why don't we use "weldable steels" that are more
> malleable for reinforcing bars?
> Thor A Tandy P.Eng, MCSCE
> Victoria BC
> e-mail: vicpeng(--nospam--at)vtcg.com <mailto:vicpeng(--nospam--at)vtcg.com>