Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Urgent PCA Survey on Rebar Names

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Title: Urgent PCA Survey on Rebar Names

I found this message in my mailbox today.  Assuming that this is real and not another stupid hoax, ASTM is (in my humble opinion) about to do something really dumb ... something that will cost architects and engineers a significant amount of time and effort (and therefore, money) for no apparent reason. 

If you have an opinion pro or con on the proposed change, please take a minute to express it ASAP by returning the simple two-question survey (below) to PCA at:




Stan R. Caldwell, P.E.
Dallas, Texas

"A #3 rebar by any other name is still a #3 rebar."
"If it looks like a #3 and feels like a #3, it's probably now a #10."
                                              ...anonymous engineers


-----Original Message-----
From: dvanderlinde(--nospam--at) [mailto:dvanderlinde(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 1:51 PM
To: dvanderlinde(--nospam--at)

Subject: PCA Informal Poll Concerning ASTM Proposed Change on Rebar Designation

> Dear Colleague:
> ASTM is currently balloting a proposed revision to ASTM A 615 and A 706,
> the specifications for reinforcing bars. The revision is concerned with
> the designations for bar sizes. If the revision is approved, bar sizes
> will be designated as Number 10, 13, 16, 19, and so on. The long-standing
> bar size Numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, etc., will be deleted from the
> specifications.  Note that everything else (i.e. diameter, area, and
> weight) will remain unchanged.
> The rationale given by ASTM A01.04 for the proposed revision: Virtually
> all reinforcing bars produced in the USA display the Numbers 10, 13, 16,
> 19, and so on, for bar sizes. Proponents believe the change will mitigate
> the confusion that exists with the current dual designations of bar sizes.
> PCA would like to get your feedback on this proposal. In particular:
> (1) Would you be in favor of the proposed changes?   Yes_____   No_____
> (2) How would this proposed change impact your work?
> Please provide your response to PCA by return e-mail no later than
> September 19, since on behalf of all concerned parties, we would like to
> forward the users' opinions to ASTM.
> Thank you for your help.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * Read list FAQ at: * * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to: * * * * Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********