Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Rebar placing drawings

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I usually check the following:

1. Size, placement, and spacing of slab, wall, and footing bars. 
2. Make sure the detailer has picked up all the major penetrations for duct
and pipe and provided supplementary bars and trim where required. 
3. Check stirrup and tie dimensions and placing instructions.
4. Spot check bar lengths and laps. Lengths are often off a little around
embedded hatch frames due to lack of contractor coordination with equipment
submittals. Same goes for bar dimensions at things like equipment pedestals
whose dimensions have to be coordinated.
5. Spot check bar counts.
6. Check bar grade.
7. Check that standard detail trim bars have been provided at doors,
windows, and slab corners.
8. Check that correct hook dimensions have been used.

It takes a little time to do this stuff, but it's not overwhelming if you
are systematic. I find it is a very important Q/C step, since there is
almost always something either the designer or the detailer overlooked. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Sherman, William [mailto:ShermanWC(--nospam--at)cdm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 6:47 AM
To: SeaInt Listserver (E-mail)
Subject: Rebar placing drawings


I am interested in hearing how others perform reviews of shop drawing
submittals of rebar placing drawings. In how much detail do you review the
placing drawings? What are the items that you do/ do not review? (bar size &
spacing, bar lengths, no. of bars, splice lengths, hook lengths, stirrup
dimensions vs beam size/conc cover, configuration of bars at corners/joints,
extra bars at openings, etc). What items are the Contractor's
responsibility? 

What is the "standard of care"? I've heard that some engineering firms state
in their specifications that they don't review rebar placing drawings - is
this common? Does it meet industry standards? 

As my shop drawing review budgets get tighter, I'm reviewing the level of
detail that I use in reviewing such submittals. It seems that there is some
variability amongst different engineers. ACI and CRSI only seem to address
this issue in generalities without specifics on what should be reviewed.
What do you do? 


William C. Sherman, PE
CDM, Denver, CO
Phone: 303-298-1311
Fax: 303-293-8236
email: shermanwc(--nospam--at)cdm.com

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