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]
If the US is the only country with metric (soft conversion) names for
imperial bars, then why even bother making the change.  For the next 5
years, if we specify a #10 bar, someone will ask if that is a big #10 or a
small #10, or a #10#3 or a #10#10.  Many of the people that build our
structures cannot even speak English and now you want to do this?

Brian K. Smith, P.E.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 11:37 PM
> To: 'SEAINT Listserv'
> Subject: Re: Urgent PCA Survey on Rebar Names
>
>
> 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
> >
> **************************************************************************
> >
> > ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤
> >
> > -----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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********