Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historical bars such as plain and Ransome bars were used in reinforced concrete structures until about the mid-1950s in the U.S and Canada. Bond provisions for plain and Ransome bars are not included in the current edition of Canadian and American codes. Twenty-two splice specimens reinforced with either plain, Ransome, or deformed bars were therefore tested monotonically under four-point loading as a part of a multi-year experimental investigation to develop bond provisions for plain and Ransome bars. The reinforcement was cast either in the bottom or top position. Load versus deflection behaviour, cracking patterns, and maximum load attained by all specimens are presented. Moment curvature analysis was performed for the specimens to calculate the tensile resistance of the reinforcement at the maximum load level. Reliability-based provisions for splice and development length were proposed for plain bars from a test database of splice specimens. A comparison of the proposed development length required for plain bars as compared to deformed bars, calculated in accordance with CSA A23.3, suggests that plain bars require fifty percent more development length than deformed bars when cast in the bottom position. However, when reinforcement is cast in the top position, the required development length for plain square and plain round bars is two and three times that for modern deformed bars, respectively. Similarly, reliability-based provisions for splice length were proposed for Ransome bars. A comparison of the proposed splice length of Ransome bars and that calculated for deformed bars in accordance with CSA A23.3 suggests that the bond capacity of Ransome bars closely matches to that of deformed bars when bars are cast in the bottom position. However, the required splice length for Ransome bars is around 25% more than that for modern deformed bars when cast in the top position.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".