Anchorage and lap capacity of square twisted reinforcement for assessment of existing structures
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although square twisted section reinforcement is no longer used in new construction, there remain many older structures still in service that were built with such bars. The increasing need for assessment of existing construction means there remains a continuing need for information on performance over older types of reinforcement. Research into plain surface bars essentially ceased when ribbed bars became the norm, and plain bars have consequently been bypassed in developments in understanding of bond since 1960. The basis through which margins of safety are introduced for design has also changed as formal methods for analysis of reliability have developed. An analysis of test data on bond of square twisted bars, also termed Type 1 deformed or Ransome type bars is presented, and a new semi‐empirical formulation for anchorage capacity of straight square twisted bars in R.C. structures consistent with the reliability‐based approach included in the forthcoming second generation of Eurocodes is derived. The expression parallels that for ribbed bars in the fib Model Code 2010. A comparison with provisions of some historical international design codes suggests that in some cases the margin of safety against failure of straight plain bar anchorages may have been lower than would be required by current norms. Implications for practice are briefly discussed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it