Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

# RE: The 13th Ed. of AISC Manual

• To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
• Subject: RE: The 13th Ed. of AISC Manual
• From: "Gary Hodgson & Associates" <ghodgson(--nospam--at)bellnet.ca>
• Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:51:14 -0500
• Priority: normal

```Scott
Thanks for the reply. You're right abt the different
countries' choice of conversion.  Take rebar as an
example: Canada chose to completely revise their sizes.
So we changed from what you use to 10,15,20,30,35,45 and
55 (close to #3,5,6,9 ans so on) but the sizes are not
the true diameters as the sizes are really 100,200,300,
500, 700,1000 and so on square millimetres. The Brits
went for conversion of existing sizes so they have 10,
12,16 and so on.
In the nineties, I served on a Canadian Standards
Association committee when a few American military
officers went through to review our metrication.
Seems that whenever they drove into port or landed in
a field and ordered a gallon of fuel, the answer was
"no kipisch".  Sorry if I repeated myself because I know
I told that one before.
Gary
studying our metric conversion

On 21 Dec 2005 at 9:56, Scott Maxwell wrote:

> Gary,
>
> I believe that you are correct.  I believe that there is only one
> "flavor" of SI and it is consistant in it use of which units to use
> for certain situations.  It is then metric which has multiple
> "flavors", one of which being SI.
>
> I believe, however, that SI does not "deal" with rebar
> size/designations. Thus, even if one "standardizes" on SI (which not
> everyone has), there is not a standardization of rebar
> sizing/designation in metric systems.  I know of at least two
> different systems, but I believe that there is three.
>
> The point is that if we (the US) were to get the "SI metric thing back
> on track", which "flavor" should we use?  Do we use what Canada uses?
> Or what some in other locations use?  No matter what we choose, we
> will still be "in conflict" with someone, especially in things like
> rebar size/designation.
>
> FWIW, there are some industries in the US that have been "metrified".
> The auto industry is a reasonably good example.  If you have a "Big
> Three" car, try finding a bolt head or nut on it that is sizes for
> Imperial unit tools.  Good luck.  To my knowledge, most US cars use
> metric/SI bolts. The lugs on my tires require a lug wrench in mm not
> inches.  I believe this is because such parts are supplied from both
> US and non-US suppliers alike and the products will be sold in the US
> and abroad.  In the case of buildings and building materials, then I
> am designing something that will largely be supplied (with the
> possible exception of the raw steel members), fabricated, built, etc
> here in the US.  Thus, I will be dealing with a "closed" system.  The
> except to some degree is Canada.  Some of our "raw" materials (i.e.
> lumber and other wood products) comes from Canada and potentially some
> of our designed will be built in Canada.
>
> Regards,
>
> Scott
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Gary Hodgson & Associates wrote:
>
> > Scott,
> >   I may be wrong but I think there are several flavours
> > of metric of which SI is only one but it is consistent.
> >   I just came back from Great Britain where they are
> > more into metric but I noticed that a lot of road signs
> > are still in miles.  Engineering on the other hand seems
> > to be 100% metric.  I also noticed that they use a
> > shiney structural bolt which really stands out and they
> > are easy to count from a distance.  And they certainly
> > cut a lot of holes in beams for services ahead of time--
> > I think to save space between floors.  Any body else
> > have any comments on this?
> > Gary
> > that space is at a premium
> >
> >
> > On 20 Dec 2005 at 23:40, Scott Maxwell wrote:
> >
> > > Ah, when it comes to concrete, which SI metric do you want? <grin>
> > > There are several "flavors" to choose from which mainly effect
> > > rebar sizes and size designations.  This is why ACI has such a
> > > tough time coming up with an official "metricfication" (real word?
> > > if so, spelling?) policy for doing their dual units in their
> > > publications (I believe that ACI's official policy is that all ACI
> > > documents are supposed to be published in dual units...i.e.
> > > Imperial [foot, inch, etc] and SI/metric).  Beyond the issue of
> > > rebar, there still needs to be a consensus of what are the
> > > official metric units to use in various situations so that we all
> > > use the same stuff (not that it is that hard to move between
> > > various metric magnitudes).  For example, if you do a cross
> > > section of a concrete beam, do you use mm, cm, or m for the linear
> > > dimensions?  Some folks like mm while others prefer cm.
> > >
> > > So getting the "SI metric thing back on track" ain't such an easy
> > > thing...and that is not even starting to talk about getting
> > > entrenched, old fart dogs (which includes me at this point more
> > > than likely) to learn new tricks!  <grin>
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Scott (who technically works for a Canadian company now who is
> > > forced to do it "our" [i.e. Imperial units] way since they
> > > sell/work a LOT in the US <grin> ah, the power to be
> > > unilateralists!!!! <grin>) Adrian, MI
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Paul Ransom wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Personally, I'm glad to see it. Now if you folks could get the
> > > > SI metric thing back on track ...
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > R. Paul Ransom, P. Eng.
> > > > Civil/Structural/Project/International
> > > > Burlington, Ontario, Canada
> > > >
> > > > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** *
> > > > 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
> > > 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
> > *   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
> *   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