Conventional and High-Strength Hooked Bars—Part 2: Data Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empirical equations are developed to characterize the anchorage strength of hooked bars. The equations are based on tests of 245 simulated beam-column joint specimens with two hooked bars: 146 with confining reinforcement and 99 without. Bar stresses at failure for specimens used in the analysis ranged from 30,800 to 144,100 psi (212 to 994 MPa), and concrete compressive strengths ranged from 2570 to 16,200 psi (17.7 to 112 MPa). For the specimens analyzed, hooked bar anchorage strength was proportional to concrete compressive strength raised to the 0.29 power. For confining reinforcement parallel to and located within eight or 10 bar diameters of the straight portion of the hooked bar, the contribution to anchorage strength was proportional to the area of confining reinforcement; for confining reinforcement perpendicular to the straight portion of the bar, more legs of the confining reinforcement contributed to anchor strength, but each leg made a smaller contribution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".