Construction Technical Note

Technical Note
CTN–M–1–11

Field Inspection of
Reinforcing Bars
Introduction The improper placement of reinforcing steel
In an ideal world, quality control or inspec- can greatly affect the strength and service life
tion to assure compliance with project drawings*, of a structure. This could lead to reduced struc-
project specifications, material standards, and tural performance, whereby the structure can
building codes would not be necessary because no longer be used in the manner in which it was
the project drawings and project specifications intended. In the transportation field, where the
would be complete without errors or omissions, concrete elements are exposed to the environ-
the materials would be manufactured exactly to ment, costly repairs and early replacement of
the material standards, and the field workman- structures have been too common and are often
ship would be precise. However, in the real world, caused by improper reinforcing steel placement.
quality control programs are recommended, with A better understanding of the reasons for prop-
inspection usually mandated to ensure compli- er reinforcement placement and how to inspect
ance with a regulatory agency’s policies. Why is reinforcement in the field will hopefully reduce
this necessary? the need for costly repairs and possible early re-
placements of structures falling short of their ser-
Project drawings are not always complete due vice life.
to an owner’s desire for a rapid start and com-
pletion of a project. Materials may not meet the Inspector Qualifications
standards due to variations in the raw material or Inspectors are individuals qualified to perform
the manufacturing process. Workmanship is not the inspection tasks. Through education, training,
always accurate due to improper training, inade- and experience, they should have the ability to
quate experience, or careless supervision. Thus, read and understand project specifications, ma-
there is recognition by owners, contractors, ar- terial standards, project drawings, and building
chitects/engineers, and regulating agencies that code requirements. In the event of field problems,
programs for quality control and inspection are they must work with the contractor and make de-
necessary to ensure compliance with the con- cisions on improvised details if the architect/en-
tract documents and the building code applicable gineer is unavailable to provide direction. An in-
to the project under construction. spector must project confidence in his decisions.
He should be meticulous, correct, fair, and firm,
The benefits of a quality control program and along with the ability to compromise when faced
mandated inspection are mainly monetary, but with a dispute regarding a conflict in the contract
they also ensure structural safety and compliance documents or actual field conditions, or both.
with architectural requirements. The owners, pri-
vate and governmental, benefit with lower total Inspection Goals
costs, on-time construction schedules, and quick- The goal of any inspection or quality control
er occupancy. The architect/engineer benefits in program is to ensure that the intent of the contract
the knowledge that the structure will conform to documents is met and the applicable requirements
the design intent. The contractor, his subcontrac- of the building code are followed. Inspection and
tors and suppliers, and all of their employees testing by themselves do not add quality to the
will benefit in a similar manner. The public, as product or the material being inspected, but only
the ultimate consumer and user of the structure, confirm whether or not what is being inspected
benefits in the knowledge that the structure has meets the criteria established by the project draw-
been built according to the project drawings and ings, project specifications, and building code.
specifications.
Quality during the construction process is
* See the Terminology section on Page 7 for definitions of certain achieved almost entirely by the contractor’s
terms used in this report. quality assurance program, which depends on
and involves all workers and field supervisors. The con- d. Approved Placing Drawings: The latest approved
tractor’s inspectors are his employees and are sepa- placing drawings should be available for review and
rate from the inspectors mandated by the owner or lo- study by field placing personnel and the inspector at
cal building department. The quality control inspection least one day prior to the actual placing of the reinforc-
by the contractor helps ensure that the finished con- ing bars.
struction meets the owner’s requirements, while simi-
lar programs by the material producers and suppliers e. Material Shipment: A schedule of anticipated delivery
ensure that the products and materials being supplied dates should be provided and updated as necessary
will meet the specific requirements of the material stan- so the inspector can schedule an in-place inspection
dards. The final in-place acceptance inspection is a and review any reinforcing bar material tags.
formalized procedure providing the owner and regula-
tory agency with an acceptable degree of assurance f. Potential Concerns: A discussion between all parties
that the contractor has satisfied his obligations as de- is desirable to identify difficult-to-place reinforcement
scribed in the contract documents and by the building details, lack of specific details or information on the
code. To accomplish this end, the inspector must be contract documents, possible structural drawing dis-
familiar with the project specifications and project draw- crepancies, detailing or placing errors, and verification
ings, have reasonable knowledge of the building code and acceptability of implemented field changes.
requirements, have access to material standards and
reference codes, and have available industry manuals g. Tolerances: A discussion with all parties is necessary
and reports. See "Applicable References" at the end of regarding which tolerances are critical, the method of
this Technical Note. measurement, and the basis for either rejection or ac-
ceptance.
At the start of a construction project, whether small,
medium or large, it is recommended that the inspector h. Periodic Meetings: It is recommended that regularly
establish an inspection program for the reinforcing bars. scheduled meetings be held in order to discuss the
The program can be established at a pre-construction previous inspection reports, any problems that were
conference with the general contractor’s superintendent, encountered, solutions to the problems, and the
the supplier’s representative, the ironworker foreman, schedule of work for the next period.
and other interested parties, such as the architect/engi-
neer or the architect/engineer’s inspector. This meeting Material Verification
should establish a checklist procedure and minimum re- In-place inspection of reinforcing bars starts with the
quirements for inspection acceptance. mill test report, which in some cases is supplemented
by a report from an independent testing laboratory. Both
Checklist reports should provide data as to grade of steel, tensile
The checklist for the inspection of reinforcing bars properties (yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, and
should include, but not be limited to, the following: percentage of elongation), bend tests, chemical com-
position and carbon equivalent (C.E.) in the event the
a. Construction Schedule: A construction schedule reinforcing bars are to be welded, and the spacing and
from the general contractor is important and neces- height of deformations. The reported data should meet
sary so the inspector can follow the reinforcing bar the requirements of the applicable ASTM standard. A vi-
placing crew and carry out an inspection of the in- sual examination of the mill markings on a bar will iden-
place reinforcing bars prior to the scheduled placing tify the producing mill, the bar size, the type of steel, and
and finishing of the concrete. the grade of steel.

b. Certified Mill Test and/or Bar Coating (Certifica- Inspection of In-Place Reinforcing Bars
tion) Reports: These reports may accompany the Inspection of the reinforcing bars installed in the forms
shipments of material to the job-site, and thus should is done by visually examining the layout pattern, measur-
be available to the inspector. In the event the reports ing the spacing, and counting of bars. The bar diameter
are sent to the contractor’s office rather than to the and the bar shape, if bent, can be visually checked. Bar
job-site, arrangements should be made to make them lengths, bar spacings, embedments, and bearings on
available to the inspector. walls or beams are normally checked by measurement.
In a slab, the total number of pieces can be counted with
c. Independent Testing Laboratory Reports: The re- the spacing of the slab bars verified by measurement,
ports on samples taken either at the reinforcing bar all checked against the approved placing drawings in
fabricator’s shop or from material shipped to the job- conjunction with the structural drawings. Similarly, beam
site, offer supplemental verification of the producer’s longitudinal bars, column vertical bars, and stirrup and
mill test report. tie spacings are checked visually and by measurement,
as required.

2 Field Inspection of Reinforcing Bars [CTN-M-1-11]

Bar Supports — At the same time the beam and slab Tolerances
reinforcing bars are being inspected, the heights of bar No structure is built exactly level, plumb, straight, and
supports should be measured to verify that the concrete true to line. Tolerances are the means used to establish
cover and clearances will be as specified. It is extremely permissible variations in dimensions and locations. Thus,
important that the bar supports for slab or mat top bars the architect/engineer, contractor, and inspector have
be checked not only for height but also for stability, be- parameters within which the work can be performed and
cause they can easily be displaced during the placement inspected. Tolerances should neither be overly restric-
of concrete. In fact, the entire mat and cages of reinforc- tive nor lenient. The contract documents should specify
ing bars should be evaluated for stability for the same the standard tolerances to be followed, usually by refer-
reason. If the project specifications require corrosion- ence to the ACI 117 Specification. Judgment on the part
protection measures, the class of protection of the bar of the inspector will establish a range of acceptability.
supports furnished should be verified. Incompatible tolerances should be referred to the archi-
tect/engineer for resolution.
Tying Requirements — Reinforcing bars are tied to-
gether to form a rigid mat for footings, walls, and slabs. Fabricating Tolerances — Fabricating tolerances for
A cage is formed when beam or column longitudinal bars reinforcing bars are established in the ACI 117 Specifica-
are wire-tied to the stirrups or ties, respectively. Ironwork- tion, the ACI Detailing Manual, and the CRSI Manual of
ers are usually instructed to tie a minimum number of Standard Practice. Shearing length tolerance for straight
intersections. Unless the project specifications are very bars is plus or minus 1 inch. The out-to-out dimension
specific about the number of intersections to be tied, it is of bars with hooks or bends at one end or at both ends
safe to assume that the bars have been adequately tied is plus or minus 1 inch. Stirrups, hoops, and ties that fit
unless it is apparent that the mats or cages of reinforcing into a beam or column form, for #3, #4, and #5 bars (#10,
bars will be displaced from their inspected position dur- #13, and #16 bars), with a gross length of 12 ft-0 in. or
ing the placement, screeding, and finishing of the con- less, have a tolerance of plus or minus 1/2 inch. When
crete. The placer is responsible for tying reinforcing bars the gross length exceeds 12 ft-0 in., the tolerance is in-
in such a manner that the bars will not be displaced. The creased to plus or minus 1 inch.
inspector should only verify and concur that this condi-
tion has been achieved. Only coated tie wire should be Placing Tolerances — Placing tolerances recognize
used to tie coated reinforcing bars. the imprecise nature of the placing operation and allow
deviation criteria. The ACI 117 Specification indicates
CRSI’s publication, Placing Reinforcing Bars, the authori- tolerances on clear distance to side forms and resulting
tative publication on placing practices, states in its Chapter concrete surfaces, and on the clear distance to formed
10 under General Principles of Tying Reinforcing Bars: concrete soffits in the direction of the tolerance. These
tolerances are:
“…It is not necessary to tie reinforcing bars at every
intersection. Tying adds nothing to the strength of the Member Size Tolerance
finished structure…” ≤ 4 in. ± ¼ in.
> 4 in. and ≤ 12 in. ± ⅜ in.
Surface Condition of Bars > 12 in. ± ½ in.
Generally, rust and mill scale on reinforcing bars
should not be a cause for rejection by the inspector. The ACI 117 tolerances for concrete cover measured
The ASTM standards and the ACI 318 Building Code at right angles to the concrete surface in the direction of
describe how to inspect and evaluate rusted reinforcing the tolerances are:
bars. However, dirt, grease, or other deleterious materi-
als on the bars, i.e., materials that can affect bond, must Member Size Tolerance
be removed prior to concrete placement. Tests have in- ≤ 12 in. – ⅜ in.
dicated that water soluble cutting oils, those used when > 12 in. – ½ in.
threading ends of bars for attaching to mechanical splic-
es, do not significantly affect bond. Reduction in concrete cover is permitted by ACI 117.
Generally, the reduction should not exceed one-third of
Damage to Bar Coating the specified cover. For formed soffits, the reduction in
If epoxy-coated, zinc-coated (galvanized), or dual- cover is limited to ¼ inch.
coated reinforcing bars are specified for corrosion pro-
tection, the project specifications should be studied to The uniform spacing or center-to-center distance be-
determine the criteria for acceptance or rejection in the tween reinforcing bars in slabs and walls have a toler-
event there is damage to the coating. Any corrective ac- ance of 3 inches from a specified location. The tolerance
tions should follow recommended repair procedures and in the longitudinal location of bends and ends of bars, in
be completed prior to acceptance by the inspector. general, is plus or minus 2 inches, but at a discontinuous

CRSI Technical Note 3

end of a structural member the tolerance is reduced to placement will be found. Small openings, pipe sleeves,
plus or minus 1 inch. At the discontinuous ends of cor- electrical outlets, and similar items may interfere with the
bels and brackets, the tolerance is plus or minus ½ inch. specified location of the reinforcing bars, but the ironwork-
The tolerance for embedded bar length and length of bar er usually will shift the reinforcement to one side to avoid
laps is minus 1 inch for #3 to #11 bars (#10 to #36 bars) the obstruction. The ACI 117 Specification allows a max-
and minus 2 inches for #14 and #18 bars (#43 and #57 imum deviation from the specified location of 3 inches.
bars). In terms of percentages, these tolerances may be This deviation normally is sufficient, provided that the total
considered liberal, and normally are easily met. A longer number of bars in a wall or slab panel is not reduced. No
splice length would be considered safer, hence there is cutting of reinforcing bars should be performed to clear
no plus tolerance. obstructions without approval by the architect/engineer.

The tolerance for deviations from cross-sectional di- The ACI 117 spacing tolerance for stirrups measured
mensions, except slabs, are: along a line parallel to the stirrup spacing is the lesser
of plus or minus 3 in., or plus or minus 1 in. per ft. of
Specified Dimension Tolerance beam depth. For column ties, the requirements are the
≤ 12 in. + ⅜ in., – ¼ in. same except the least column width is the key dimension
> 12 in. and ≤ 36 in. + ½ in., – ⅜ in. instead of beam depth. Thus, stirrup or tie placement in
> 36 in., + 1 in., – ¾ in. an 18-inch square beam or column could vary from the
specified location by 1½ inches.
The tolerance for the thickness of suspended slab is
– ¼ in.
In-Situ Bending and Rebending*
A potential problem occurs if the stirrups or ties are The practice of bending and rebending installed re-
fabricated to the plus tolerance of ½ inch when the forms inforcing bars is often questioned. Many conditions and
are made to the minus tolerance of ⅜ inch. This condi- situations at the job-site require such bending and re-
tion has the effect of reducing the clearance to 7/16 inch bending. As an example, the horizontal leg of bent rein-
on each side of the stirrup or tie. The inspector must de- forcing bars (fabricated) projecting from a wall to become
termine whether or not this encroachment on concrete the top bars of a beam may have been improperly placed
cover is critical. As previously stated, the ACI 117 Speci- too low or too high, well in excess of concrete cover and
fication permits a reduction in concrete cover of ⅜ inch placing tolerances. These bars will require ‘straightening’
when the member size is 12 inches or less, and ½ inch and then ‘rebending’ to the proper position. The inspector,
if the member is over 12 inches in the direction of toler- after consultation with the architect/engineer, should ap-
ance. This type of problem should be resolved with the prove the procedure used to accomplish the task. Section
assistance of the architect/engineer. R7.3.2 in the Commentary of the ACI 318 Building Code
presents guidelines for straightening and rebending em-
Another example of encroachment on concrete cover is bedded reinforcing bars. Section 3 in the ACI 301 Specifi-
a formed footing; the horizontal form tolerance is plus 2 inch- cation includes provisions for field bending or straighten-
es and minus ½ inch, while the tolerance on the reinforcing ing of reinforcing bars.
bars, either straight or bent, is plus or minus 1 inch. Again, if
the forms are ‘minus’ and the reinforcing bars are ‘plus’, the In some instances, the use of planned pre-bent dow-
concrete cover at each end of the bars is reduced from 3 els is requested by the contractor. The architect/engi-
inches to 2 ¼ inches. However, this condition would be ac- neer should review the request and notify the inspector.
ceptable, because the allowed reduction in concrete cover Similarly, straight dowels may be planned to be field bent
is 1 inch for sizes of structural members in excess of 2 feet. into place, such as an outside face wall where vertical
bars will be bent horizontally to become the slab end
In another example, the length of a beam which is top bars. This procedure is intended to facilitate slab
discontinuous at each end may create a problem if the formwork erection. Again, the architect/engineer should
formwork is ‘minus’ when at the same time the reinforc- review the procedure and notify the inspector. The in-
ing bars are ‘plus’. Each trade, carpenter and ironworker, spector should discuss the bending procedure with the
can claim that their work is within tolerance, thus giving placing foreman to ensure that the bends conform to the
the responsibility to the inspector to make a decision. ACI 315 Standard. Where large diameter bars are in-
The inspector must determine whether the encroach- volved, some amount of heating may be recommended
ment on concrete cover is detrimental to the safety and
service life of the structure, or is within the allowable lim-
its of reduction in concrete cover. * This subject is not related to the fabrication of reinforcing bars. Fabrication
of reinforcing bars is the cutting-to-length of straight bars, and cutting-to-
length and bending-to-shape of bent bars. The issue here is concerned
Inspection of reinforcing bar placement in walls and with bending and straightening or rebending of reinforcing bars that are
slabs is usually straight forward and normally no mis- partially embedded in hardened concrete.

4 Field Inspection of Reinforcing Bars [CTN-M-1-11]

by the architect/engineer to avoid the potential for brittle After cutting epoxy-coated reinforcing bars, the cut ends
failure during bending. should be coated with the patching material used for
repairing damaged coating. Damaged epoxy coating in
Field Cutting of Reinforcing Bars the vicinity of the cut ends should also be properly re-
An issue often occurring on construction projects paired.
concerns the cutting of reinforcing bars. The cutting en-
visioned in this discussion is unplanned cutting. It is not Splices
the kind of cutting associated with field fabrication of re-
inforcing bars. CRSI discourages field fabrication.* Lap Splices — The location and length of lap splices has
always been a concern of the architect/engineer, estima-
Field cutting of reinforcing bars would be required, for tor, detailer, placer, and inspector. The ACI 318 Building
example, when bars are too long as a result of design Code states that the design drawings shall show the lo-
changes, or when errors were made in detailing, fabrica- cation and length of lap splices. The ACI 315 Standard
tion, or placing. The field cutting could involve overlength repeats the above requirement and further instructs the
bars prior to their placement in the forms or overlength detailer to follow the architect/engineer’s details, thus
bars that are partially embedded in hardened concrete. both the placing drawings and the structural drawings
should show the same location and length of lap splices.
Various means are used for field cutting. For smaller Chapter 12 of the ACI 318 Building Code contains pro-
size bars, #3, #4, and #5 (#10, #13, and #16), the cutting visions for determining tension lap splice lengths. Lap
can usually be accomplished with bolt-cutters. All bar siz- splice lengths will vary due to concrete compressive
es can be cut with a portable band saw, a reciprocating strength, yield strength of the bars, bar spacing, epoxy
saw, or by flame-cutting with an oxy-acetylene torch. coating, concrete cover, and other factors. The inspector
should make certain that the specified lap splice lengths
From CRSI’s experience, questions are likely to sur- are for the strength criteria of the materials furnished to
face regarding the suitability of flame-cutting, i.e., will the job-site, and that the placer follows the placing draw-
flame-cutting affect the reinforcing bars? The answer is ings. Also, longer lap splice lengths are usually not det-
“No.” This is supported by a testing program that was rimental.
undertaken to investigate the effect of flame-cutting rein-
forcing bars. In the testing program: Mechanical Splices — The ACI 318 Building Code re-
quires the architect/engineer to show the type and loca-
• Bar sizes #5, #8, #11, and #18 (#16, #25, #36 and tion of mechanical splices on the design drawings. If a
#57) were investigated. full mechanical splice is required, the inspector should
make certain that a compression-only mechanical splice
• The test bars were Grade 420 [minimum yield is not furnished in error. In all cases, inspection should
strength ƒy = 420 MPa or 60,900 psi; Grade 420 is verify that the splice manufacturer’s installation proce-
the metric counterpart of Grade 60.] dures and any instructions in the project specifications
are followed. Dowel bar mechanical splices and lap-
• The test bars were carbon-steel conforming to
splice connector systems are used to replace pre-bent or
ASTM A615/A615M, and low-alloy steel conforming
other types of dowels which connect two separate pours
to ASTM A706/A706M.
of a reinforced concrete structure. The type and location
should be approved by the architect/engineer.
The results of the testing program showed that any
effect of flame-cutting is localized to the end-cut surfac- Welded Splices — Welded splices of reinforcing bars
es. Only a very short distance or length of bar, approxi- present the same difficulty of inspection as welded struc-
mately 3/16 inch, from the flame-cut ends is affected. tural steel connections. The ACI 318 Building Code (Sec-
Hardness testing was used to evaluate the effects of the tion 3.5.2) states: “…Type and location of welded splices
flame-cutting on the tensile properties of the bars. From and other required welding of reinforcing bars shall be
an analysis of the hardness test data, it was concluded indicated on the design drawings or in the project speci-
that flame-cutting had no adverse effects on the bars. fications.” Section 3.5.2 also requires: “Welding of rein-
forcing bars shall conform to ‘Structural Welding Code
Flame-cutting of epoxy-coated reinforcing bars is not — Reinforcing Steel (AWS D1.4/D1.4M)’ of the American
recommended. Coating damage can be minimized by Welding Society.”
using other means of cutting rather than flame-cutting.
It should be noted, under the AWS Welding Code,
that the architect/engineer is not obliged to specify the
* According to the CRSI Manual of Standard Practice, “It is recommended welding procedures to be used. Rather the Welding
that all reinforcing bars be shop fabricated and so specified by the archi-
tect/engineer, as operations can be performed with greater accuracy in Code requires the contractor to prepare written welding
the shop.” procedure specifications (WPS’s) for the welded splices.

CRSI Technical Note 5

 Regarding inspection activities at the job-site, the in-
spector should review the mill test reports for the reinforc- For further information on inspection, tolerances, in-
ing bars to determine the carbon equivalent (C.E.), and dustry standard practices, fabricating, placing and splic-
verify the preheat requirements. The inspector should be es, consult the following references.
aware that both types of generally-available reinforcing
bar, ASTM A615 (carbon-steel) and ASTM A706 (low-
alloy), can be welded as per the AWS D1.4 specification. Applicable References
The difference between welding these two types is that “Specifications for Tolerances for Concrete Construction and
A615 bars, depending on the C.E., could require preheat- Materials and Commentary (ACI 117-10),” American Con-
ing up to 500° F, while A706 bars will probably not require crete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
any preheating. Other types of reinforcing bars are avail-
able, but these are the common types in building con- ACI Detailing Manual — 2004, Publication SP- 66, Amer-
struction. ican Concrete Institute. The standard “Details and Detail-
ing of Concrete Reinforcement (ACI 315-99)” is included
The inspector should verify the welder’s certification, in the Manual.
confirm that the correct electrodes (oven dry) are avail-
able, and that the preheat temperature crayon sticks “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
are on hand. Continuous inspection is usually specified (ACI 318-08) and Commentary (ACI 318R-08),” Ameri-
to ascertain that the welder uses the proper number of can Concrete Institute.
passes, controls the interpass heat loss, and uses a wire
brush and chipping hammer to remove any slag. “Specifications for Structural Concrete (ACI 301-10),”
American Concrete Institute.
For some projects, the contract documents will require
radiographic inspection of the welded splices. This pro- “Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Car-
cedure is time consuming and costly, and can be incon- bon-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement (A615/
clusive. More often a test specimen located at random A615M-09b),” ASTM International, West Conshohock-
is removed for a laboratory tension test and analysis. en, Pennsylvania.

Welding of Crossing Bars – The inspector should not “Standard Specification for Low-Alloy Steel Deformed
allow field tack welding of reinforcing bars, i.e., welding and Plain Bars for Concrete Reinforcement (A706/
of crossing bars, as a means for assembly of reinforce- A706M-09b)”, ASTM International.
ment. Tack welding can embrittle the steel, which reduces
strength and can also have a detrimental effect on ductility “Standard Specification for Epoxy-Coated Steel Rein-
and fatigue resistance. Field tack welding is not a substi- forcing Bars (A775/A775M-07b)”, ASTM International.
tute for wire tying the assembly of reinforcing bars.
“Standard Specification for Epoxy-Coated Prefabricated
For information on shop-welded assemblies of rein- Steel Reinforcing Bars (A934/A934M-07)”, ASTM Inter-
forcing bars, see EDR No. 53 “Assembling Reinforcing national.
Bars by Fusion Welding in the Fabricating Shop.”
“Standard Specification for Zinc-Coated (Galva-
nized) Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement (A767/
Conclusions A767M-09)”, ASTM International.
All the foregoing discussion indicates that the in-
spector has a formidable assignment when inspecting “Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Stain-
in-place reinforcing bars. This impression is not neces- less-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement (A955/
sarily true, but it is an exacting task, one that assures A955M-10a)”, ASTM International.
the workers perform their job to the best of their ability.
However, mistakes can and will happen, but an inspec- “Standard Specification for Headed Steel Bars for Con-
tor is expected to find them and have them corrected. All crete Reinforcement (A970/A970M-09)”, ASTM Interna-
parties involved in a construction project, from the archi- tional.
tect/engineer to the contractor, attempt to do error-free
work. A quality control program by the contractor helps in “Standard Specification for Rail-Steel and Axle-Steel De-
achieving this goal, which makes final inspection easier. formed Bars for Concrete Reinforcement (A996/A996M-
The inspector should not perceive his role as adversarial, 09b)”, ASTM International.
but as complementary to the workers in support of good
construction techniques and practice. Good inspection Manual of Standard Practice, 28th Edition, 2009, CRSI.
is assurance of a properly built structure, one which all
parties involved in the process can take pride. Placing Reinforcing Bars, 8th Edition, 2005, CRSI.

6 Field Inspection of Reinforcing Bars [CTN-M-1-11]

Reinforcing Bars: Anchorages and Splices, 5th Edition, Ameristeel Corporation, “Flame Cutting of Reinforcing
2008, CRSI. Bars,” Internal Report, Ameristeel Knoxville Steel Mill Di-
vision, Knoxville, Tennessee, April 1999, 10 pp.
“Using Soft Metric Reinforcing Bars in Non-Metric Construc-
tion Projects,” Engineering Data Report No. 42, CRSI. Terminology
The source of the following terms and their definitions
“Commonly Asked Technical Questions Concerning is “Specifications for Structural Concrete (ACI 301-10)”.
Cast-in-Place Reinforced Concrete Construction,” Engi-
neering Data Report No. 44, CRSI. [See discussion of Architect/Engineer or Engineer/Architect — Architect,
Field Bending of Reinforcing Bars and Welded Splices Engineer, architectural firm, engineering firm, or archi-
of Reinforcing Bars.] tectural and engineering firm issuing Contract Docu-
ments or administering the work under the Contract
“Assembling Reinforcing Bars by Fusion Welding in the Fab- Documents, or both.
ricating Shop,” Engineering Data Report No. 53, CRSI.
Contract Documents — A set of documents supplied
“Field Inspection of Reinforcing Bars”, 25-minute CD, by Owner to Contractor as the basis for construction;
2008, CRSI. these documents contain contract forms, contract con-
ditions, specifications, drawings, addenda, and contract
“Field Handling Techniques for Epoxy-Coated Reinforc- changes.
ing Bars at the Job Site”, a Reference Guide and CD,
1996, CRSI. Project Drawings — Graphic presentation of project re-
quirements.
Structural Welding Code — Reinforcing Steel (AWS
D1.4/D1.4M:2010), American Welding Society, Miami, Project Specifications — The written document that
Florida. details requirements for the Work in accordance with
service parameters and other specific criteria.
International Building Code, 2009, International Code
Council, Falls Church, Virginia. Work — The entire construction or separately identifi-
able parts thereof required to be furnished under Con-
Rylander, E., “Effect of Torch-Cut Rebar Ends on the tract Documents.
CADWELD Splice,” Internal Report, Erico Products, So-
lon, Ohio, June 1972, 6 pp.

Appendix A – Potential Project Submittal Items for Reinforcement

(adapted from ACI 301 — Specifications for Structural Concrete )
These items listed will be submitted by the Contractor and reviewed by the Architect/Engineer.

• Certified mill test reports on reinforcing materials. • When Contractor finds it necessary to move reinforcement
beyond the specified placing tolerances to avoid interfer-
• Placing drawings showing fabrication dimensions and lo-
ence with other reinforcement, conduits, or embedded
cations for placement of reinforcement and supports.
items, review a submittal showing the resulting reinforce-
• List of splices and request to use splices not indicated on ment arrangement.
the Contract Documents.
• Inspection and quality-control program of plant that is not
• Request to use mechanical splices not shown in the Con- certified by Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute.
tract Documents.
• Provide equivalent certification program for evaluation by
• Request for placement of column dowels without using Architect/Engineer.
templates.
• Precast concrete support materials.
• Request a procedure to field bend or straighten partially
• Request to heat reinforcement before bending.
embedded reinforcing bars.
• Request to extend reinforcement through control joints,
• Copy of CRSI Plant Certification and/or NTPEP Mill Certi-
including saw-cut joints.
fication, if applicable.
• Request to use an alternative method or setting column
• Description of reinforcing bar weld locations, welding pro-
dowels.
cedure specifications, and welder qualifications.
• Request to use other method to measure preheat tem-
• Proposed supports for coated reinforcement and materi-
perature.
als for fastening coated reinforcement.
• Request to field cut reinforcement.
• Request use of alternative reinforcement support type.

CRSI Technical Note 7

Appendix B – Suggested Checklist Items for Reinforcing Steel Inspection

Prior to reinforcing bar placement: During/after reinforcing bar placement:

• Obtain reinforcing bar tags and mill test reports. • Check reinforcing bar quantity, size, and location with
plans or applicable drawings. Document as necessary.
• Check reinforcing bar tags for proper markings.
• Check spacing before and after concrete placement.
• Check delivered material against reinforcing bar sched-
ules & drawings. • Check reinforcing bar concrete cover and clearances –
vertical and horizontal.
• Check bar markings and/or grade marks against CRSI’s
Manual of Standard Practice, Appendix A. • Check splice locations and splice lengths. If required, ver-
ify the lap lengths are at the minimum lengths.
• Check reinforcing bar condition.
• Check placement and adequacy of ties and supports. Ver-
• Take material samples, as required.
ify tied bar junctions are adequately tied.
• Check for coating damage in bundle; implement
• Check for coating damage; patch if necessary.
repairs before bar placement.
• Verify bars are free of dirt, oil, rust, paint, etc.
• Check storage of reinforcing bars. [Are all delivered re-
inforcing bars stored above the ground upon skids, plat- • Are there any special trim reinforcing bars re-
forms or other supports? Are epoxy-coated reinforcing quired at sleeves or openings, indentified in "typical"
bars stored on wooden or padded steel cribbing? Are the details? (i.e. diagonal bars at corners, etc.)
reinforcing bars protected from mechanical injury and • Is the reinforcement properly placed adjacent to construc-
from deterioration by exposure? For uncoated (black) tion joints?
bars, a light coating of rust should not be considered ob-
jectionable.] • Check any reinforcement congestion concerns/problems,
and evaluate prior to concrete placement.
• Where two or more separate mats of reinforcing steel are
required, should each mat be independently supported by
an approved support system?
• Check embedment lengths.
• Check all mechanical splices. Are the two bars entering
the splice properly anchored (set screws torqued, grout
installed, wedge set, etc.)?
• Hooks oriented properly?
• Headed bar anchors are installed and tight, so they will not
displace during the concrete placement operation.
• Punching shear stud assemblies tied properly or
attached properly to formwork?

Contributors: Dr. David P. Gustafson, P.E., S.E. and Anthony L. Felder, P.E., with subsequent
contributions from Neal S. Anderson, P.E., S.E..

Keywords: inspection, checklist, tolerances, splices, submittals

Reference: Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute-CRSI [2011], “Field Inspection of Reinforcing

Bars,” CRSI Technical Note CTN-M-1-11, Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, Schaumburg, Il-
linois, 8 pp.
933 North Plum Grove Rd.
Historical: Formerly Engineering Data Report No. 54 (2004), which replaced EDR No. 49. Schaumburg, IL 60173-4758
p. 847-517-1200 • f. 847-517-1206
Note: This publication is intended for the use of professionals competent to evaluate the signifi- www.crsi.org
cance and limitations of its contents and who will accept responsibility for the application of the Regional Offices Nationwide
material it contains. The Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute reports the foregoing material as
A Service of the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute
a matter of information and , therefore, disclaims any and all responsibility for application of the
©2011 This publication, or any part thereof, may not be
stated principles or for the accuracy of the sources other than material developed by the Institute. reproduced without the expressed written consent of CRSI.

Printed in the U.S.A.