Talk:Rebar

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Iwight. Peer reviewers: Amiller262.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sewage plants
rebar is one of those fundamental but not discussed things, like sewage plants Zeizmic 12:24 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Sentences removed
I removed the following sentences: The first is a little misleading, since some seemingly trivial details are crucial and others aren't. The second suggests that the work of lathers is more important than the work of other skilled trades.
 * As can be seen in the image of a standard beam cage, it is extremely important to get the minor details right.
 * All those ties are extremely important, and require skilled workers to complete.

I'm not trying to be controversial or to demean the important work of lathers!

--Spindustrious 01:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rebars in fiction
I removed reference to half-life:


 * The computer video game Half-Life 2 features a crossbow that fires a red-hot piece of rebar. It is an accurate and deadly weapon.  However, the game glosses over the intricasies of obtaining packaged rebar ammo, as well as powering the crossbow's heating mechanism.

its interesting, but its not appropriate to imply that one can in reality obtain 'packaged rebar ammo' Jennifer Grubb 23:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I know I'm going way off topic here, but I always figured Freeman picked up rebar off the ground and that they were cut to size by people who used it as a weapon. I never thought they were packaged.  76.197.27.14 (talk) 09:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a serious article about engineering uses of rebar. &mdash;QuicksilverT @ 18:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete "Rebars in fiction"?
References to rebar in films and videogames crop up periodically in this article. While in its current form, it is more academic/encyclopedic than ever before, references to popular culture directly adjacent to a purely technical article just strike me as out of place. What do you think? --Spindustrious 01:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with "Rebar in Fiction." It strikes me that the point of a Wikipedia article is to provide as much information as possible on a particular subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaotician (talk • contribs) 06:24, 10 October 2005


 * I agree Spindustrious. The Swingin' Utters have a song called Nothing to Rely On (http://www.lyricstime.com/swingin-utters-nothing-to-rely-on-lyrics.html) which mentions rebar. Should a section be created for "Rebar in Songs"? Should a section be created about rebar's use in art (http://www.showshown.com/mykind/stool/)? Of course not. I suppose I disagree with the point that the point Wikipedia is provide as MUCH information as possible, because I think it's purpose to to provide as much RELEVANT information as possible. It's trivial to include fiction for this topic just as it would be to add sections like "Duct Tape in Fiction" or "Duct Tape in Movies" or, god forbid, "Duct Tape in the TV Show MacGyver" to the duct tape article. --Anonymous 10 Nov 2005


 * --Maybe not, but we can make a list for it. Ha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.16.56 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 31 January 2006


 * There are two questions to consider when adding this kind of 'trivia' to a page:
 * Does such data as a song by The Swingin' Utters belong to the page on the band or is it more relevent to the article on rebar? Would someone seeking information about the song look in the page about rebar?  Would anyone seeking to find information about rebar give a damn about the song?  I really don't think so.  So - yes, this information is relevent - but no, it's not relevent in the context of this article.  Someone who wished to find songs about rebar could type the word 'rebar' into the 'search' box and find the Swingin' Utters article with no problem if that's what they really wanted.
 * Furthermore, what would be the consequence of making this a policy of Wikipedia? If every noun uttered in every song, poem, novel, tv show, video game or movie were mentioned in the page about that noun - would this truly be a good thing?  Hell no!  It would swamp us quite utterly beneath literally billions of junk links and some one page articles would contain hundreds of pages of 'trivia' entries.  Imagine if the page on 'beer' listed every song, movie, TV show, etc in which beer had been mentioned, brewed, offered, drunk, refused, spilled or whatever!  Just because cultural references to rebar are relatively rare, that doesn't make them any more relevent.
 * So there is everything wrong with the "Rebar in Fiction" section - and it's good that it's gone. If you feel passionately that you wish to become a 'collector' of every possible rebar reference in modern culture - then I suggest you make a new page "List of references to rebar in modern culture" and provide a link to it in the 'See also' section of this article.  (I'm not joking - that's what I did with my 'collection': "List of films featuring Mini cars" in order to avoid cluttering up the Mini article.) SteveBaker 22:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You see, spindustruious? The people of wikipedia want this to be as average an encyclopedia as humanly possible.  That means they have to make it completely uninteresting.  It's almost as if they don't want donations at all, since, before long, their overuse of regulations will ultimately destroy the site.  Logically, they must be doing this on purpose.  Oh, and don't expect a reaction from any retort you might make.  I strictly use google now.  Oh, and you lost a few donors.  You people just broke the camel's back, and from a year old post, that's sad.... 76.197.27.14 (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: The "Rebars in fiction" section was removed 31 January 2006 by 66.81.16.56 &mdash;QuicksilverT @ 18:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Picture available
A Creative Commons Attribution (cc-by-2.0) picture is available here; is it useful for this article - ? &mdash; Catherine\talk 16:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Revisit
Every couple of years I go back to articles I started. I like how this one turned out, and shows the value of the wiki. --Zeizmic 13:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ridges in the Rebars
Why are the ridges on the rebars inclined or slanting? Can this be explained.

Mhora

 


 * It increases the contact area between the rebar and the concrete. SteveBaker 22:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Metric Sizes
In the Rebar Sizes and Grades section it is stated that metric sizes are rounded to the nearest 5mm, as far as I am aware(based on British Standards) they are designated by rounding to the nearest 1mm and the common sizes used for scheduling of rebar are 6,8,10,12,16,20,25,32,40 and 50. Also there is no mention of steel grades in this section. If anyone else agrees maybe this section should be updated. Sorry i'm new to wikipedia and thought i'd raise this here before editing anything. HughMillard 11:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The metric bar sizes shown are Canadian. I wouldn't mind a section on steel grades, but I'm far to lazy to do anything about it.King aardvark 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's on my to-do list to add European/UK sizes and grades (along with correcting several errors in the article), but if anyone else gets there first, great! Hugh, you may wish to consider WP:BOLD. -- Kvetner 20:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Reo steel
After using the terms reo steel, reinforcing steel, for 49 years in the building industry I now discover that it is called rebar. Aint Wikipedia great. How come we still got Steel fixer though? Surely our American friends should call them rebar fixers. :-) Added a few photos. billbeee 08:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've only ever seen it referred to as rebar, reinforcing steel or reinforcement, in the UK at least. I couldn't find any reference online to anyone calling it reo, so changed it. But if you can show where reo is in common use, that could be mentioned in the article. -- Kvetner 10:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see from a bit of further searching that reo is an Aussie colloquialism - I'll add that to the article and to the reo disambiguation page. -- Kvetner 12:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We Yanks don't call them "rebar fixers", we call them "rodbusters". Argyriou (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think the title of this article should be "reinforcement bar," not rebar. Rebar and reo should both redirect to the formal name. Although WP:Commonname indicates that rebar is acceptable, it is not internationally accepted. Mr. Welsh (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ASTM uses the awkward title of "Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Carbon-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement" (ASTM A615 / A615M), and doesn't use the terms "reinforcement bar" or "reinforcing bar" anywhere in the abstract on their Web site. It may be better to leave the article title as "Rebar", with appropriate redirects from Reinforcing bar and Reinforcement bar. &mdash;QuicksilverT @ 18:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Rebar is surely an informal name used in some parts of the world. In Australian consulting engineering and the Australian Standards use "reinforcement" or "reinforcing steel". Informally we call it "reo", but never "rebar". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.46.142 (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Any Aussie, structural engineer or drafter, who can confirm the above statement? Peter Horn User talk 16:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I realize this is an old comment, but in the US the American Concrete Institute's Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318) refers to it as "Concrete Reinforcement", or "Reinforcing", sometimes "Steel Reinforcing". No mention of "rebar" anywhere in the entire document. Jason Kilgore 23:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What year was rebar introduced in the United States?
What year was rebar introduced in the United States for construstion use?

144.99.8.10 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)dh


 * 1914. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.27.14 (talk) 10:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture gallery
I've noticed that a lot of picture are in the gallery and more are getting added on a pretty regular basis. Is there really a need for a picture gallery of rebar? I can understand a picture of it and maybe some pictures for how it's used, but we have pictures of people cutting it and people organizing it. This seems to be stretching it. Wizard191 (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * i agree. the gallery is full of redundant rebar images and is simply under the physical properties section. some display things not yet mentioned in the article. it would be better to add images throughout the article in the section where it is appropriate. BaomoVW (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding Sources
I added a basic source to the first section providing a basic background on why rebar is use. The site I linked has plenty of good information and could probably be used as a source in other areas of this article. If I find some other, better sources, I'll be sure to add them as well. Anybody else know of some good sources? Ricardj (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the source you added is a good source. It just lists a bunch of info without any references to primary or secondary sources. I don't think it qualifies as a WP:reliable source. Specifically it looks like something that's self published, which won't cut it per Verifiability. Moreover, it's really fishy that the website hasn't been around for at least 6 month based on a search of http://www.webarchive.org. --Wizard191 (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You raise a valid point. You can try emailing them (info@usingrebar.com, from their website) and see who they are. I was unable to find anything else that had solid information. We could always source the NBC (National Building Code) of Canada, or the US, or anywhere in fact.Ricardj (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could find info at http://books.google.com ? --Wizard191 (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

rebar manufacturers
Any idea who the big global manufacturers of rebar would be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.152.192 (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

use of rusted rebar
I am not sure this is the proper forum to pose this question, please forgive me if it is not. i have approximately 3000 lbs of rebar that has been exposed to the weather for two full Utah winters. The rebar was purchased for use in a Concrete Masonry Structure, I would like to know if the rebar is still suitable for use in the structure.

Thank You

Kelly Penrod 75.149.227.110 (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, this talk page is for discussing the article itself. For non-article related questions please see the referenced desk. Wizard191 (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

How can something be used *before* it was invented?
"Some 150 years before its invention rebars were used to form the carcass of the Leaning Tower of Nevyansk in Russia"

Can this be changed to something like: "Some 150 years before the invention of modern rebar materials, reinforcing steel rods were used to form the carcasss of the Leaning Tower of Nevyansk in Russia".... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.136.15.149 (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"Jumbo" rebar added to sizes section
I work in the electrical transmission industry in the USA and regularly specify #18J "Jumbo" rebar for use as anchor rods for large engineered poles. The bars are deformed from a slightly larger bar than the standard #18 (4.29 square inches vs. 4.00). The purpose for the larger bar is that after deformation and cutting to length, the ends of the bar can be turned/lathed down to a smooth rod and standard 2.25" diameter - 4.5 UNC threads can be rolled in the end for an anchor nut. If you start with a regular #18 bar the minimum deformed width is too small for full thread development. I have full bar specifications (diameter, weight, etc.) as used by our regular supplier, but I do not have any sort of official reference. I know that #14J bars are also produced, but I do not have any dimensions for that size. Jason Kilgore 23:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwkilgore (talk • contribs)


 * This information was great. I moved the Jumbo bar sizes from the "US sizes" section into a new one called "Jumbo and Threaded Bar sizes" since as you mention they are not really an official US standard size.  I checked the numbers and updated them based on manufacturer data.  Moved the descriptive text and checked the references.  Still could not find an "official" specification for 14J and 18J, will look again sometime as it has me curious. Jtyler277 (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add quantitative information re typical weight fraction of steel
I suggest that the amount of steel typically required for various applications of reinforced concrete would be relevant and interesting. It could be expressed as either a partial density of steel (kg/m³) averaged over the composite, and/or a density fraction (%) = (partial density of steel)/(average density of the composite). Layzeeboi (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed, while we now indicate the linear density per foot in the size tables, it would be useful to describe the relationship between weight and nominal diameter. Steel is always 490 lb/ft3, I'm sure this is given on another Wiki page and could be linked.  Will work on this if when I find time. Jtyler277 (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Content and Emphasis
As a start class this is good, but seems to need adjustments to the emphasis. While the reference to the Leaning Tower of Russia is interesting, it seems to wander off-topic, and should be trimmed. The discussion should note that reinforcing steel bars were not always deformed - this is a modern invention. And steel bars are rolled, not forged. I'll attempt to cover some of these, but if anyone has historical info on deformed bars, please add it! The consequences to reinforced concrete of (a) road salt and (b) earthquakes are huge issues and deserve much discussion, if anyone is so inclined. Doc Adam (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Size and grades > Material specifications
I suggest the size and grades portion should be renamed to "material specifications" or "material standards". Size and grade are a subset of material specifications as a whole. The grades section needs expanded to include more than just carbon steel, and cover stainless steel rebar and FRP rebar. A section on bar finishing and deformations would be good. The various sizes sections should probably be condensed under a single Sizes section which includes the various regional sizes as subsections. Jtyler277 (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

US #2 bar
I don't think the #2 bar is considered a standard size anymore, should the size table indicate perhaps that it is a historic convention only? Need to research this... Jtyler277 (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

= Epoxy Coated Rebar = Volume I—Technical Evaluation" - JOINT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PROGRAM INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PURDUE UNIVERSITY"
 * If my understanding was correct, it had a major issue with Crevice Corrosion where any small imperfection would localize all the corrosion, although i may be mistaken
 * I am no expert, may have seen it in a video by Practical Engineering (Just checked, actually by "Tyler Ley" on YouTube, does a pile of stuff on concrete
 * A Video by the YouTube Channel "Tyler Ley" Titled "What is epoxy coated rebar and why is it being banned?"
 * Reference they used: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3066&context=jtrp "Increasing Bridge Deck Service Life
 * This should be covered in the wikipedia, right? Asking here pre-adding to it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Lotze (talk • contribs) 19:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)