Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Urgent PCA Survey on Rebar Names

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Stan,

While I don't have anything that really confirms or denies this potential
change, it does make sense (at least in terms of where it is "coming from"
as far as rationale).

The 10, 13, 16, etc notation is the U.S. metric nomenclature for the bars
(the nominal diameter of the bars in mm).  As pointed out in the message,
most if not all rebar now a days is stamped with the U.S. metric
designation of the bar NOT the old imperial designation (#3, #4, #5, etc).
As pointed out in the email message, it does not change any thing else
about the bars...they will still have the dimensions/properties of a #3,
#4, #5, etc, just will be "required" to be called as they are stamped.  In
otherwords, when you go pick up a rebar on the site right now, the stamp
notation already has the new notation (10, 13, etc) so this change would
basically be making the contract documents reflect that the bar buster
would already find on the bar itself.

It is important to note that this metric bar "size" is unique (for the
most part) to the U.S.  Most true metric countries don't use this
designation...they use true metric bars not imperial bars with nice metric
"names".  For example, Canada (if I recall correctly) has adopted what was
to be the true metric bar sizes that ASTM originally created/adopted for
use in the U.S., but abandoned when the switch to metric in the
construction industry died.  The Canadian bar size notation is the nominal
area of the bar in mm^2 and the bars ARE actually different sizes than
U.S. "metric" bars (which are in fact still imperial bars in sheep's
clothing...in otherwords, under another name).

The end result is that in theory, the only real change for the engineer
would be getting used to calling a #3 bar a 10 bar instead.  The diameter,
area, etc used in calculation would be the same.  And if you do federal
projects, you are likely already used to this since many federal projects
require the project to be in metric or dual units, thus you would be used
to using the "metric" designations.

HTH,

Scott
Ypsilanti, MI


On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Caldwell, Stan wrote:

>
> 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:
>
> dvanderlinde(--nospam--at)cement.org
>
> DO NOT HIT REPLY OR RETURN THE SURVEY TO ME!  I DON'T WANT YOUR OPINION!
>
> Regards,
>
> 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)cement.org [mailto:dvanderlinde(--nospam--at)cement.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 1:51 PM
> To: dvanderlinde(--nospam--at)cement.org
>
> 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: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp * * This email was sent to you
> via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC)
> server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to: * *
> http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp * * Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org.
> 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: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ******
> ****** ********
>


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. 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: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********