Talk:Reinforced concrete

message: This article (reinforced concrete) contains some information that belongs with the article (concrete). The content on reinforcing need to be reinforced.
Gregorydavid 07:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reinforced concrete normally refers to structural grade concrete that is reinforced by means of high tensile steel reinforcing bars which have a deformed surface and mild steel bars which are smooth.
Reinforced concrete design relates to the structural analysis of beams, slabs and columns. The resulting design yeilds the required amount of main tensile reinforcing, secondary compression reinforcing and shear reinforcing in the form of stirups.
Concrete technology relates to all the chemistry and workability issues..
So we have three articles Concrete, Reinforced concrete and Prestressed concrete.. can we merge all th relevant parts?
Gregorydavid 18:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concrete versus Reinforced concrete

message: ===Fertilizer induced spalling===
In agriculture warehouses where nitrogen fertilizers are stored, one sees the reinforced concrete bins spalling after just a few years of use. Does anyone know the chemical reaction that is weakening the concrete?
nitrogen (N) + phosphorus pentoxide (P2O5) + potassium oxide (K2O) + calcium carbonate (CaCO3) ->?
===Cutting and replacing reinforced concrete===
If you need to cut a section of a reinforced concrete slab, is there any standard for tying in newly poored concrete to preserve the integrity of the reinforcing?  I understand that you may be able to cut in new re-bars into the existing concrete but am unclear re how this is done to ensure safe load transfer from the old to new concrete.  Can someone please advise how this is done?
:Wikipedia isn't the place for homework questions, but here's the answer: Holes are drilled into the existing slab, and dowels placed into the holes, held securely with epoxy. The length which the dowel extends into the existing slab, the length which the dowel extends into the new concrete, and the connections between the dowels and the new reinforcing are determined by the structural engineer, subject to building code constraints. Argyriou 07:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions awaiting answers

message: If you need to cut a section of a reinforced concrete slab, is there any standard for tying in newly poored concrete to preserve the integrity of the reinforcing?  I understand that you may be able to cut in new re-bars into the existing concrete but am unclear re how this is done to ensure safe load transfer from the old to new concrete.  Can someone please advise how this is done?
:Wikipedia isn't the place for homework questions, but here's the answer: Holes are drilled into the existing slab, and dowels placed into the holes, held securely with epoxy. The length which the dowel extends into the existing slab, the length which the dowel extends into the new concrete, and the connections between the dowels and the new reinforcing are determined by the structural engineer, subject to building code constraints. Argyriou 07:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cutting and replacing reinforced concrete

message: Thebluejay wrote
"Because FRP materials are linearly-elastic to failure, FRP-reinforced concrete elements will typically exhibit more brittle structural behaviour than those elements reinforced with traditional steel rebars. FRP-reinforced elements also exhibit vastly reduced fire-resistance. These two considerable weaknesses have limited its use to only extremely specialized applications."
I can't agree directly on this. Testing on our lab (Norwegian Building research Institute) shows that FPS (plastic fibres) is as ductile as steel - they adsorbe the same ammount of energy without beeing more brittle than steel. We have not tested Carbon based FPR. As to fire resistance this is of course dependent of the temperature where the FPR looses it's effect, and do varry from FPR to FPR. Removed the section from the page untill someone gets up with something better..... Oyvind 08:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FRP materials 

message: ===Anchor length===
Although the ridges on rebar offer increased surface area to resist tension forces, sometimes there is not enough embedment of reinforcing steel in the concrete to fully transfer tensile forces between the concrete and rebar. In these cases the rebar may be bent into a 90 degree hook, which itself will transfer half of the capacity of the rebar between the rebar and concrete.
This needs more detail to be understanable to a non-engineer reader.
Okay, I took a stab at it, I may be wrong...
:Hi, this discussion deals with the anchor length required so that bars do not pull out when they are subjected to tension or pulling forces. Test and theorerical calculations based on the condition where the steel bar begins to yield and the grip between the concrete and the steel begins to happen simultaneously give a required lap length equivalent to about 42 diametre of the bars to be anchored or lapped. Bars with hooks require a shorter anchor length.
Gregorydavid 06:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics and statics 

message: Although the ridges on rebar offer increased surface area to resist tension forces, sometimes there is not enough embedment of reinforcing steel in the concrete to fully transfer tensile forces between the concrete and rebar. In these cases the rebar may be bent into a 90 degree hook, which itself will transfer half of the capacity of the rebar between the rebar and concrete.
This needs more detail to be understanable to a non-engineer reader.
Okay, I took a stab at it, I may be wrong...
:Hi, this discussion deals with the anchor length required so that bars do not pull out when they are subjected to tension or pulling forces. Test and theorerical calculations based on the condition where the steel bar begins to yield and the grip between the concrete and the steel begins to happen simultaneously give a required lap length equivalent to about 42 diametre of the bars to be anchored or lapped. Bars with hooks require a shorter anchor length.
Gregorydavid 06:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anchor length

message: They just sort of make the article look silly. Reinforced concrete, while certainly a marvel of modern architecture, is not that exciting. 66.82.9.90 22:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got rid of the last two. Argyriou 23:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exclaimation Points 

message: I don't understand the relevance of this section. Concrete cancer simply doesn't exist! Alkali-silica reaction, HAC conversion and sulfate attack are deterioration mechanisms in their own right and should be upgraded accordingly.Kpeyn 22:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concrete Cancer 

message: shouldn't there at least be some mention of the many uses of reinforced concrete e.g. military enginering Askin 18:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  uses 

message: Possible diagram with the rebar or other materials that make reinforce concrete, in .svg file.  Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.252.156 (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram 

message: I was hesitant to change sulphate to sulfate. Now I know that IUPAC follows U.S. spelling rather than U.K. spelling in this case. I was hesitant because, some months ago, I was reprimanded for changing aluminium to aluminum, where IUPAC follows U.K. practice. It is still not clear, in general, when to follow British and when to follow American practice.  (I have an English A.B. from Stanford but not from Oxford, so my ignorance is incomplete. Donfbreed (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The rules on this are a tad confusing. Generally, you can't change from one spelling to another where the article has an established convention. In this case we seem to have a bit of a mix - "behavior", "behaviour", and "colour" all occur. :) I have no problem with going to US spelling, if you think that's a good idea. - Bilby (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Sainte Jeanne d'Arc-1-large.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I notice that, beginning with the section Reinforced_concrete#Sulphates and continuing with the sections Reinforced_concrete#Steel plate construction and Reinforced_concrete#Fiber-reinforced concrete, there are no longer any inline references. Furthermore, the section Reinforced_concrete#Non-steel reinforcement has just three references for all the information presented. I am unsure how to tag the article, but it appears that this material was contributed without due regard for inline references. 
At the same time, the two sections Reinforced_concrete#Fiber-reinforced concrete and Reinforced_concrete#Non-steel reinforcement now rather lack coherence, with the latter incorporating much material that ought to be in the former. My notion would be to move all information about reinforcement with fibers from the section Reinforced_concrete#Non-steel reinforcement into the article Fiber_reinforced_concrete and rework the section Reinforced_concrete#Fiber-reinforced concrete accordingly (perhaps employing conditional transclusion). Then the section Reinforced_concrete#Non-steel reinforcement would refer only to non-steel reinforcement in the form of bars. That section would still need better inline references. ArthurOgawa (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some portions are lacking in inline references; some information is mislocated 

message: The current intro is 136 words, of which 134 of them are in bold (!!).
I suggest this defeats the very purpose of boldening, ie to highlight just the key concepts, as well as making it look cluttered & hard to scan.
If no objections I was planning to clean this up.  Geekstreet (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro all done in bold 

message: The information in the section on non-steel reinforcement may be better located under the Rebar and/or Fibre-reinforced plastic pages. Jtyler277 (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-steel reinforcement  

message: The history page on concrete and this page do not agree on who first used reinforcement in concrete.  I think the source referenced on the concrete page for Monier is inaccurate, and the Joseph Monier page does not contain the information given in the concrete history.  More research should be done to accurately summarize the early history with good references, and coordinate these pages. Jtyler277 (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early history conflict 

message: "low tensile strength and ductility" does this mean low tensile strength and low ductility, or low tensile strength and (high) ductility. Either way it should be changed to be less ambiguous (e.g. "low tensile strength and low ductility" or "ductility and low tensile strength") Finnigami (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Sentence 

message: Reads like somebody with a stake in bamboo-reinforced concrete just plunked a whitepaper straight into the article. Otherdorian (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the step of just removing it. I don't think there needs to be any discussion before removal as it is a low-quality, seemingly low-effort copy-paste contribution. It doesn't at all fit with the rest of the article's contents and structure. It even had its own separate references section. A blurb about bamboo could be incorporated into the "Non-steel reinforcement" section but that's not what was contributed. North by Midwest (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section on bamboo