Bibliographic record
Abstract
As buildings age, their structural integrity must be assessed and reassessed at regular intervals to ensure the safety of their continued use and to advise on retrofits and repairs necessary for preventative maintenance and responsive repair. Historic buildings often contain plain reinforcement whereas modern buildings exclusively contain modern deformed reinforcement. Younger engineers in particular have not been trained with or worked with plain bar. Modern American Concrete Institute (ACI) and Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Group codes largely do not contain adequate provisions to assess the structural integrity of many historic buildings. \n\nTwenty-four beam-column joint specimens with four different hook configurations were tested under tension to compare the anchorage capacities of embedded plain and modern deformed 90° and 180° hooked bars. Six replicates of each configuration were tested to determine whether statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level existed between the anchorage capacities of plain versus modern deformed hooked bars. Visual observations were documented manually to assess differences between crack patterns and observed failure modes. \n\nTypical cracking patterns were observed for groups of both specimens containing 90° and 180° hooks. The degree of cracking observed aligned with results of similar studies. All specimens with 90° hooks failed by side blowout whereas those with 180° hooks failed by front blowout. No evidence of group effects (i.e. decreased anchorage capacity) was observed. Statistically significant differences in maximum normalized tensile load at the 95% confidence level were observed between 90° plain and modern deformed bars, wherein the plain bars had a 3.8 kN/MPa lower maximum; 180° plain and modern deformed bars, wherein the plain bars had a 5.6 kN/MPa lower maximum; and 90° and 180° modern deformed hooked bars, wherein the 90° bars had a 4.0 kN/MPa lower maximum. No statistically significant differences in displacement at maximum normalized load were observed.\n\nAn extensive replicate-based study of plain hooked bar incorporating additional parameters (e.g. lead length, bend angle, etc.) is recommended. The value of the recommended work is in determining the sensitivity of hooked bar performance to variations in these parameters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".