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]
Peter,

Thanks for the correction...since everyone has there own metric version, I
have trouble keeping track of who uses what! <grin>  I only really
remembered that Canada had kept the original ASTM designation system that
was to be used in the U.S. before we bailed on our neighbors to the north
leaving them all alone.

You are correct that everyone seems to have their own designation for
metric bars.  This was a serious problem that was being discussed by the
ACI TAC Metrication committee (I was the secretary for this committee
while a staff engineer at ACI).  It virtually makes it impossible for
someone to produce a metric set of drawings or design rules that will work
anywhere.

Regards,

Scott
Ypsilanti, MI


On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Peter James wrote:

> Scott Maxwell wrote:
>
> (SNIPPED)
>
> > 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).
> >
>
> WRT Canada, this is not quite correct.
>
> Our rebars are different to both US imperial rebars and European metric
> rebars, and probably (waiting for correction here) to those anywhere else in
> the world.
>
> Our standard rebars have areas that are multiples of 100 mm˛ - and their
> designation is the nearest number (in multiples of 5) that approximates the
> actual diameter.... like this:
>
> area		designation	actual diameter (3 SF)
>
> 100 mm˛	10M		11.3 mm
> 200 mm˛	15M		16.0 mm
> 300 mm˛	20M		19.5 mm
> 500 mm˛	25M		25.2 mm
> 700 mm˛	30M		29.9 mm
> 1000 mm˛	35M		35.7 mm
> 1500 mm˛	45M		43.7 mm
> 2500 mm˛	55M		56.4 mm
>
> Now this might be a good system, and it might be a bad system, but it's
> certainly different....
>
> And we can look forward to three different rebars designated "10" in the
> future:
>
> US (3/8")	9.53 mm	71.3 mm˛
> real metric	  10 mm	78.5 mm˛
> CDN metric	11.3 mm	100 mm˛
>
>
> Peter James
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********