SI vs. Metric vs. US Reinforcing Call-outs
SI vs. Metric vs. US Reinforcing Call-outs
(OP)
I have a drawing showing European rebar, calling out the rebar as "Ø25" that refers to 25 mm diameter reinforcing. I have another drawing calling it out as "#25" that an American like myself would verbally identify as "number twenty-five rebar" knowing that the #25 stands for a 25 mm rebar as well.
Which is correct? That is, what is the most common, proper practice for reinforcing? Is it a diameter sign or a number sign? Thanks for any assistance!
Which is correct? That is, what is the most common, proper practice for reinforcing? Is it a diameter sign or a number sign? Thanks for any assistance!






RE: SI vs. Metric vs. US Reinforcing Call-outs
RE: SI vs. Metric vs. US Reinforcing Call-outs
Of course, as a fellow American (the "real" kind-smile), the correct terminology would be #8.
RE: SI vs. Metric vs. US Reinforcing Call-outs
I should clarify, while I am working in the USA, this is a project in a European country to be built by Europeans. And all my calcs are in metric. What's the most common practice in Europe and if anyone can point me to a definative resource (I haven't found one on the web, but that doesn't mean it's not there) I would be most grateful.
RE: SI vs. Metric vs. US Reinforcing Call-outs
In some countries some additional information on the type of reinforcing steel (ductility class mostly) is also included in each rebar reference, but you'll need to check it individually.
RE: SI vs. Metric vs. US Reinforcing Call-outs
For projects to be built in Europe, all work should be completed using the sizes which will be available and used. In general, these are true metric sizes.
ht
RE: SI vs. Metric vs. US Reinforcing Call-outs
So if you had 100 of them it would be 100H25. If these were called off as barmark 01 on the schedule and were spaced at 150mm centres then you have 100H25-01-150. There are then commonly instructions for placement which follow (Top, bottom, each face) and (staggered, alternating etc) 100H25-01-150-EF ALT
RE: SI vs. Metric vs. US Reinforcing Call-outs
Ussuri: That is also interesting, useful information. My own opinion is that I would try to avoid different grades of rebar on a contract drawing unless I had total confidence in the construction contractor's paying attention to the drawings. At any rate, 100H25-01-150EF ALT translates, for my non-UK project, to Ø25 @ 150 EF with a note at the beginning of my plan set stating the grade of rebar, etc.
RE: SI vs. Metric vs. US Reinforcing Call-outs
RE: SI vs. Metric vs. US Reinforcing Call-outs
There is a tolerance on the rebar which is usually specified in the relevant standard. I dont have the BS EN that TXstructural linked to, but I do have the BS for example (BS4449). The standards include the tolerance range. In 4449 the tolerance is applied to the mass per metre.
"The permissible deviation from nominal mass per metre shall be not more than ±4.5 % on nominal
diameters greater than 8 mm, and ±6.0 % on nominal diameters less than or equal to 8 mm"
Im sure you could look into it and find other tolerances. It will also likely be different for other countries. It would probably be listed in the eurocode for concrete somewhere in the references.
RE: SI vs. Metric vs. US Reinforcing Call-outs
Dik