document_title: Rebar

question_text: when did they start using rebar in concrete

text: Rebar

text: History[edit]

text: Reinforcing bars in masonry construction have been used since at least the 15th century (2,500 meters of rebar was used in the Château de Vincennes).[3] During the 18th century, rebar was used to form the carcass of the Leaning Tower of Nevyansk in Russia, built on the orders of the industrialist Akinfiy Demidov. The cast iron[citation needed] used for the rebar was of high quality, and there is no corrosion on the bars to this day. The carcass of the tower was connected to its cast iron tented roof, crowned with one of the first known lightning rods.[4] However, it was not until the mid-19th century that rebar displayed its greatest strengths with the embedding of steel bars into concrete, thus producing modern reinforced concrete. Several people in Europe and North America developed reinforced concrete in the 1850s. These include Joseph-Louis Lambot of France, who built reinforced concrete boats in Paris (1854) and Thaddeus Hyatt of the United States, who produced and tested reinforced concrete beams. Joseph Monier of France is one of the most notable figures for the invention and popularization of reinforced concrete. As a French gardener, Monier patented reinforced concrete flower pots in 1867, before proceeding to build reinforced concrete water tanks and bridges.[5]

text: Ernest L. Ransome, an English engineer and architect who worked in the United States, made a significant contribution to the development of reinforcing bars in concrete construction. He invented twisted iron rebar, which he initially thought of while designing self-supporting sidewalks for the Masonic Hall in Stockton, California. His twisted rebar was, however, not initially appreciated and even ridiculed at the Technical Society of California, where members stated that the twisting would weaken the iron.[6] In 1889, Ransome worked on the West Coast mainly designing bridges. One of these, the Alvord Lake Bridge in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park, was the first reinforced concrete bridge built in the United States. He used twisted rebar in this structure.[7]

text: At the same time Ernest L. Ransome was inventing twisted steel rebar, C.A.P. Turner was designing his "mushroom system" of reinforced concrete floor slabs with smooth round rods and Julius Kahn (inventor) was experimenting with an innovative rolled diamond-shaped rebar with flat-plate flanges angled upwards at 45° (patented in 1902). Kahn predicted concrete beams with this reinforcing system would bend like a Warren Truss, and also thought of this rebar as shear reinforcement. Kahn's reinforcing system was built in concrete beams, joists, and columns. The system was both praised and criticized by Kahn's engineering contemporaries: C.A.P. Turner voiced strong objections to this system as it could cause catastrophic failure to concrete structures. He rejected the idea that Kahn's reinforcing system in concrete beams would act as a Warren Truss and also noted that this system would not provide the adequate amount of shear stress reinforcement at the ends of the simply supported beams, the place where the shear stress is greatest. Furthermore, Turner warned that Kahn's system could result in a brittle failure as it did not have longitudinal reinforcement in the beams at the columns. This type of failure manifested in the partial collapse of the Bixby Hotel in Long Beach, California and total collapse of the Eastman Kodak Building in Rochester, New York, both during construction in 1906. It was, however, concluded that both failures were the consequences of poor quality labor. With the increase in demand of construction standardization, innovative reinforcing systems such as Kahn's were pushed to the side in favor of the concrete reinforcing systems seen today.[8]

text: Requirements for deformations on steel bar reinforcement were not standardized in U.S. construction until about 1950. Modern requirements for deformations were established in "Tentative Specifications for the Deformations of Deformed Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement", ASTM A305-47T. Subsequently, changes were made that increased rib height and reduced rib spacing for certain bar sizes, and the qualification of “tentative” was removed when the updated standard ASTM A305-49 was issued in 1949. The requirements for deformations found in current specifications for steel bar reinforcing, such as ASTM A615 and ASTM A706, among others, are the same as those specified in ASTM A305-49.[9]

text: Use in concrete and masonry[edit]

text: Concrete is a material that is very strong in compression, but relatively weak in tension. To compensate for this imbalance in concrete's behavior, rebar is cast into it to carry the tensile loads. Most steel reinforcement is divided into primary and secondary reinforcement, but there are other minor uses:

text:
Primary reinforcement refers to the steel which is employed to guarantee the resistance needed by the structure as a whole to support the design loads.
Secondary reinforcement, also known as distribution or thermal reinforcement, is employed for durability and aesthetic reasons, by providing enough localized resistance to limit cracking and resist stresses caused by effects such as temperature changes and shrinkage.
Rebar is also employed to confer resistance to concentrated loads by providing enough localized resistance and stiffness for a load to spread through a wider area.
Rebar may also be used to hold other steel bars in the correct position to accommodate their loads.
External steel tie bars can constrain and reinforce masonry structures, as illustrated by the Nevyansk Tower or ancient structures in Rome and the Vatican.

text: Masonry structures and the mortar holding them together have similar properties to concrete and also have a limited ability to carry tensile loads. Some standard masonry units like blocks and bricks are made with voids to accommodate rebar, which is then secured in place with grout. This combination is known as reinforced masonry.

text: Physical characteristics[edit]

text: Steel has a thermal expansion coefficient nearly equal to that of modern concrete. If this were not so, it would cause problems through additional longitudinal and perpendicular stresses at temperatures different from the temperature of the setting.[10] Although rebar has ribs that bind it mechanically to the concrete, it can still be pulled out of the concrete under high stresses, an occurrence that often accompanies a larger-scale collapse of the structure. To prevent such a failure, rebar is either deeply embedded into adjacent structural members (40–60 times the diameter), or bent and hooked at the ends to lock it around the concrete and other rebar. This first approach increases the friction locking the bar into place, while the second makes use of the high compressive strength of concrete.

text: Common rebar is made of unfinished tempered steel, making it susceptible to rusting. Normally the concrete cover is able to provide a pH value higher than 12 avoiding the corrosion reaction. Too little concrete cover can compromise this guard through carbonation from the surface, and salt penetration. Too much concrete cover can cause bigger crack widths which also compromises the local guard. As rust takes up greater volume than the steel from which it was formed, it causes severe internal pressure on the surrounding concrete, leading to cracking, spalling, and, ultimately, structural failure. This phenomenon is known as oxide jacking. This is a particular problem where the concrete is exposed to salt water, as in bridges where salt is applied to roadways in winter, or in marine applications. Uncoated, corrosion-resistant low carbon/chromium (microcomposite), silicon bronze, epoxy-coated, galvanized, or stainless steel rebars may be employed in these situations at greater initial expense, but significantly lower expense over the service life of the project.[11][12] Extra care is taken during the transport, fabrication, handling, installation, and concrete placement process when working with epoxy-coated rebar, because damage will reduce the long-term corrosion resistance of these bars.[13] Even damaged bars have shown better performance than uncoated reinforcing bars, though issues from debonding of the epoxy coating from the bars and corrosion under the epoxy film have been reported.[14] These bars are used in over 70,000 bridge decks in the USA.[15]

text: The requirements for deformations are found in standard product specifications for steel bar reinforcing, such as ASTM A615 and ASTM A706, and dictate lug spacing and height.

text: Fibre-reinforced plastic rebar is also used in high-corrosion environments. It is available in many forms, such as spirals for reinforcing columns, common rods, and meshes. Most commercially available rebar is made from unidirectional fibers set in a thermoset polymer resin, and is often referred to as FRP.

text: Some special construction such as research and manufacturing facilities with very sensitive electronics may require the use of reinforcement that is non-conductive to electricity, and medical imaging equipment rooms may require non-magnetic properties to avoid interference. FRP rebar, notably glass fibre types have low electrical conductivity and are non-magnetic which is commonly used for such needs. Stainless steel rebar with low magnetic permeability is available and is sometimes used to avoid magnetic interference issues.

text: Reinforcing steel can also be displaced by impacts such as earthquakes, resulting in structural failure. The prime example of this is the collapse of the Cypress Street Viaduct in Oakland, California as a result of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, causing 42 fatalities. The shaking of the earthquake caused rebars to burst from the concrete and buckle. Updated building designs, including more circumferential rebar, can address this type of failure.

text: Sizes and grades[edit]

text: US sizes[edit]

text: US/Imperial bar sizes give the diameter in units of ⅛ inch for bar sizes #2 through #8, so that #8 = 8⁄8 inch = 1 inch diameter. The cross-sectional area, as given by πr², works out to (bar size/9.027)², which is approximated as (bar size/9)² square inches. For example, the area of #8 bar is (8/9)² = 0.79 square inches.

text: Bar sizes larger than #8 follow the ⅛ inch rule imperfectly and skip sizes #12-13, and #15-17 due to historical convention. In early concrete construction bars 1 inch and larger were only available in square sections, and when large format deformed round bars became available around 1957[16] the industry manufactured them to provide the cross-sectional area equivalent of standard square bar sizes that were formerly used. The diameter of the equivalent large format round shape is rounded to the nearest ⅛ inch to provide the bar size. For example, #9 bar has a cross section of 1.00 square inches, and therefore a diameter of 1.128 inches. #10, #11, #14, and #18 sizes correspond to 11⁄8 inch, 11⁄4, 11⁄2, and 2 inch square bars, respectively.[17] #14 rebar is particularly affected by this approximation; by diameter it would be #13.5.

text: Sizes smaller than #3 are no longer recognized as standard sizes. These are most commonly manufactured as plain round undeformed rod steel, but can be made with deformations. Sizes smaller than #3 are typically referred to as "wire" products and not "bar", and specified by either their nominal diameter or wire gage number. #2 bars are often informally called "pencil rod" as they are about the same size as a pencil.

text: When US/Imperial sized rebar are used in projects with metric units, the equivalent metric size is typically specified as the nominal diameter rounded to the nearest millimeter. These are not considered standard metric sizes, and thus is often referred to as a soft conversion or the "soft metric" size. The US/Imperial bar size system recognizes the use of true metric bar sizes (No. 10, 12, 16, 20, 25, 28, 32, 36, 40, 50 and 60 specifically) which indicates the nominal bar diameter in millimeters, as an "alternate size" specification. Substituting a true metric size for a US/Imperial size is called a hard conversion, and sometimes results in the use of a physically different sized bar.

text: There are no fractional bar sizes in this system. The "#" symbol in this system indicates the number sign, and thus "#6" is read as "number six". The use of the "#" sign is customary for US sizes, however "No." is sometimes used instead.

text:
U.S. rebar size chart

Imperial
bar size

Metric bar
size (soft)

Linear Mass Density
Nominal diameter
Nominal area

lb⁄ft
(kg/m)
(in)
(mm)
(in²)
(mm²)

#2 [a]
No.6
0.167
0.249
0.250 = 1⁄4
6.35
0.05
32

#3
No.10
0.376
0.561
0.375 = 3⁄8
9.525
0.11
71

#4
No.13
0.668
0.996
0.500 = 1⁄2
12.7
0.20
129

#5
No.16
1.043
1.556
0.625 = 5⁄8
15.875
0.31
200

#6
No.19
1.502
2.24
0.750 = 3⁄4
19.05
0.44
284

#7
No.22
2.044
3.049
0.875 = 7⁄8
22.225
0.60
387

#8
No.25
2.670
3.982
1.000 = 8⁄8
25.4
0.79
509

#9
No.29
3.400
5.071
1.128 ≈ 9⁄8
28.65
1.00
645

#10
No.32
4.303
6.418
1.270 ≈ 10⁄8
32.26
1.27
819

#11
No.36
5.313
7.924
1.410 ≈ 11⁄8
35.81
1.56
1006

#14
No.43
7.650
11.41
1.693 ≈ 14⁄8
43
2.25
1452

#18
No.57
13.60
20.284
2.257 ≈ 18⁄8
57.3
4.00
2581

text: Jump up ^ Historic size designation that is no longer in common use.

text: Canadian sizes[edit]

text: Metric bar designations represent the nominal bar diameter in millimeters, rounded to the nearest 5 mm.

text:
Metric
bar size

Linear Mass Density
(kg/m)

Nominal diameter
(mm)

Cross-sectional
Area (mm²)

10M
0.785
11.3
100

15M
1.570
16.0
200

20M
2.355
19.5
300

25M
3.925
25.2
500

30M
5.495
29.9
700

35M
7.850
35.7
1000

45M
11.775
43.7
1500

55M
19.625
56.4
2500

text: European sizes[edit]

text: Metric bar designations represent the nominal bar diameter in millimetres. Preferred bar sizes in Europe are specified to comply with Table 6 of the standard EN 10080,[18] although various national standards still remain in force (e.g. BS 4449 in the United Kingdom). In Switzerland some sizes are different from European standard.

text:
Metric
bar size

Linear mass
density (kg/m)

Nominal
diameter (mm)

Cross-sectional
area (mm²)

6,0
0.222
6
28.3

8,0
0.395
8
50.3

10,0
0.617
10
78.5

12,0
0.888
12
113

14,0
1.21
14
154

16,0
1.58
16
201

20,0
2.47
20
314

25,0
3.85
25
491

28,0
4.83
28
616

32,0
6.31
32
804

40,0
9.86
40
1257

50,0
15.4
50
1963

text: Australian sizes[edit]

text: Reinforcement for use in concrete construction is subject to the requirements of Australian Standards AS3600-2009 (Concrete Structures) and AS/NZS4671-2001 (Steel Reinforcing for Concrete). There are other standards that apply to testing, welding and galvanising.

text: The designation of reinforcement is defined in AS/NZS4671-2001 using the following formats:

text: Bars[edit]

text:
Shape code
Yield strength (MPa)
Ductility class
Nominal diameter (mm)

D - deformed bar - Grade 300
300 MPa
N - normal
10

D - deformed bar - Grade 500
500 MPa
N - normal
10

R - round bar
250 MPa
L - low
12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

text: Bars are typically abbreviated to simply 'N' (hot-rolled deformed bar), 'R' (hot-rolled round bar), 'RW' (cold-drawn ribbed wire) or 'W' (cold-drawn round wire), as the yield strength and ductility class can be implied from the shape. For example, all commercially available wire has a yield strength of 500 MPa and low ductility, while round bars are 250 MPa and normal ductility.

text: India[edit]

text: Rebars are available in the following grades as per IS:1786-2008 FE 415/FE 415D/FE 415S/FE 500/FE 500D/FE 500S/FE 550, FE550D, FE 600. Rebars are quenched with water at a high level pressure so that the outer surface is hardened while the inner core remains soft. Rebars are ribbed so that the concrete can have a better grip. Coastal regions use galvanized rebars to prolong their life.

text: Weight chart of Indians Rebars with tolerances and sizes.[19]

text: Jumbo and Threaded Bar sizes[edit]

text: Very large format rebar sizes are widely available and produced by specialty manufacturers. The tower and sign industries commonly use "jumbo" bars as anchor rods for large structures which are fabricated from slightly oversized blanks such that threads can be cut at the ends to accept standard anchor nuts.[20][21] Fully threaded rebar is also produced with very coarse threads which satisfy rebar deformation standards and allow for custom nuts and couplers to be used.[22] Note that these customary sizes while in common use, do not have consensus standards associated with them, and actual properties may vary by manufacturer.

text:
Jumbo rebar size chart

Imperial
bar size

Metric bar
size (soft)

Linear Mass Density
Nominal diameter
(outside of threaded zone)

Nominal area
(outside of threaded zone)

lb⁄ft
(kg/m)
(in)
(mm)
(in²)
(mm²)

#14J
-
9.48
14.14
1.88
47.8
2.78
1794

#18J
-
14.60
21.78
2.34
59.4
4.29
2768

text:
Threaded rebar size chart

Imperial
bar size

Metric bar
size (soft)

Linear Mass Density
Maximum diameter
Nominal area

lb⁄ft
(kg/m)
(in)
(mm)
(in²)
(mm²)

(#18 and smaller are the same as US/Imperial sizes)

#20
No.63
16.70
24.85
2.72
69
4.91
3168

#24
No.75
24.09
35.85
3.18
81
7.06
4555

#28
No.90
32.79
48.80
3.68
94
9.62
6207

1"
No.26
3.01
4.48
1.25
32
0.85
548

1 1⁄4"
No.32
4.39
6.53
1.45
37
1.25
806

1 3⁄8"
No.36
5.56
8.27
1.63
41
1.58
1019

1 3⁄4"
No.46
9.23
13.73
2.01
51
2.58
1665

2 1⁄2"
No.65
18.20
27.08
2.80
71
5.16
3329

3"
No.75
24.09
35.85
3.15
80
6.85
4419

text: Grades[edit]

text: Rebar is available in grades and specifications that vary in yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, chemical composition, and percentage of elongation.

text: The use of a grade by itself only indicates the minimum permissible yield strength, and it must be used in the context of a material specification in order to fully describe product requirements for rebar. Material specifications set the requirements for grades as well as additional properties such as, chemical composition, minimum elongation, physical tolerances, etc. Fabricated rebar must exceed the grade's minimum yield strength and any other material specification requirements when inspected and tested.

text: In US use, the grade designation is equal to the minimum yield strength of the bar in ksi (1000 psi) for example grade 60 rebar has a minimum yield strength of 60 ksi. Rebar is most commonly manufactured in grades 40, 60, and 75 with higher strength readily available in grades 80, 100, 120 and 150. Grade 60 (420 MPa) is the most widely used rebar grade in modern US construction. Historic grades include 30, 33, 35, 36, 50 and 55 which are not in common use today.

text: Some grades are only manufactured for specific bar sizes, for example under ASTM A615, Grade 40 (280 MPa) is only furnished for US bar sizes #3 through #6 (soft metric No.10 through 19). Sometimes limitations on available material grades for specific bar sizes is related to the manufacturing process used, as well as the availability of controlled quality raw materials used.

text: Some material specifications cover multiple grades, and in such cases it is necessary to indicate both the material specification and grade. For example, material specification ASTM A615 has four grades (40, 60, 75 and 80) and one would need to indicate "ASTM A615 Gr.60" to be unequivocal. On the other hand, material specification ASTM A706 has only one grade which is 60, therefore indicating "ASTM A706" is technically equivalent to "ASTM A706 Gr.60", however the latter is unambiguous. Rebar grades are customarily noted on engineering documents, even when there are no other grade options within the material specification, in order to eliminate confusion and avoid potential quality issues such as might occur if a material substitution is made. Note that "Gr." is the common engineering abbreviation for "grade", with variations on letter capitalization and the use of a period.[23]

text: In certain cases, such as earthquake engineering and blast resistant design where post-yield behavior is expected, it is important to be able to predict and control properties such as the maximum yield strength and minimum ratio of tensile strength to yield strength. ASTM A706 is an example of a controlled property range material specification which has a minimum yield strength of 60 ksi (420 MPa), maximum yield strength of 78 ksi (540 MPa), minimum tensile strength of 80 ksi (550 MPa) and not less than 1.25 times the actual yield strength, and minimum elongation requirements that vary by bar size.

text: In countries that use the metric system, the grade designation is typically the yield strength in megapascals MPa, for example grade 400 (similar to US grade 60, however metric grade 420 is actually the exact substitution for the US grade).

text: Common US specifications, published by ACI and ASTM, are:

text:
American Concrete Institute: "ACI 318-14 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary", ISBN 978-0-87031-930-3 (2014)
ASTM A82: Specification for Plain Steel Wire for Concrete Reinforcement
ASTM A184/A184M: Specification for Fabricated Deformed Steel Bar Mats for Concrete Reinforcement
ASTM A185: Specification for Welded Plain Steel Wire Fabric for Concrete Reinforcement
ASTM A496: Specification for Deformed Steel Wire for Concrete Reinforcement
ASTM A497: Specification for Welded Deformed Steel Wire Fabric for Concrete Reinforcement
ASTM A615/A615M: Deformed and plain carbon-steel bars for concrete reinforcement
ASTM A616/A616M: Specification for Rail-Steel Deformed and Plain Bars for Concrete Reinforcement
ASTM A617/A617M: Specification for Axle-Steel Deformed and Plain Bars for Concrete Reinforcement
ASTM A706/A706M: Low-alloy steel deformed and plain bars for concrete reinforcement
ASTM A722/A722M: Standard Specification for High-Strength Steel Bars for Prestressed Concrete
ASTM A767/A767M: Specification for Zinc-Coated(Galvanized) Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement
ASTM A775/A775M: Specification for Epoxy-Coated Reinforcing Steel Bars
ASTM A934/A934M: Specification for Epoxy-Coated Prefabricated Steel Reinforcing Bars
ASTM A955: Deformed and plain stainless-steel bars for concrete reinforcement (Supplementary Requirement S1 is used when specifying magnetic permeability testing)
ASTM A996: Rail-steel and axle-steel deformed bars for concrete reinforcement
ASTM A1035: Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain, Low-carbon, Chromium, Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement

text: ASTM marking designations are:

text:
'S' billet A615
'I' rail A616 "ASTM A616 / A616M - 96a Standard Specification for Rail Steel Deformed and Plain Bars for Concrete Reinforcement (Withdrawn 1999, superseded by A996)". Astm.org. Retrieved 2012-08-24. )
'IR' Rail Meeting Supplementary Requirements S1 A616 "ASTM A616 / A616M - 96a Standard Specification for Rail Steel Deformed and Plain Bars for Concrete Reinforcement (Withdrawn 1999, superseded by A996)". Astm.org. Retrieved 2012-08-24. )
'A' Axle A617 "ASTM A617 / A617M - 96a Standard Specification for Axle Steel Deformed and Plain Bars for Concrete Reinforcement (Withdrawn 1999, superseded by A996)". Astm.org. Retrieved 2012-08-24. )
'W' Low-alloy — A706

text: Historically in Europe, rebar is composed of mild steel material with a yield strength of approximately 250 MPa (36 ksi). Modern rebar is composed of high-yield steel, with a yield strength more typically 500 MPa (72.5 ksi). Rebar can be supplied with various grades of ductility. The more ductile steel is capable of absorbing considerably more energy when deformed - a behavior that resists earthquake forces and is used in design. These high yield strength ductile steels are usually produced using the TEMPCORE process,[24] a method of thermomechanical processing. The manufacture of reinforcing steel by re-rolling finished products (e.g. sheets or rails) is not allowed.[25] In contrast to structural steel, rebar steel grades are not harmonized yet across Europe, each country having their own national standards. However some standardization of specification and testing methods exist under EN 10080 and EN ISO 15630:

text:
BS EN 10080: Steel for the reinforcement of concrete. Weldable reinforcing steel. General. (2005)
BS 4449: Steel for the reinforcement of concrete. Weldable reinforcing steel. Bar, coil and decoiled product. Specification. (2005/2009)
BS 4482: Steel wire for the reinforcement of concrete products. Specification (2005)
BS 4483: Steel fabric for the reinforcement of concrete. Specification (2005)
BS 6744: Stainless steel bars for the reinforcement of and use in concrete. Requirements and test methods. (2001/2009)
DIN 488-1: Reinforcing steels - Part 1: Grades, properties, marking (2009)
DIN 488-2: Reinforcing steels - Part 2: Reinforcing steel bars (2009)
DIN 488-3: Reinforcing steels - Part 3: Reinforcing steel in coils, steel wire (2009)
DIN 488-4: Reinforcing steels - Part 4: Welded fabric (2009)
DIN 488-5: Reinforcing steels - Part 5: Lattice girders (2009)
DIN 488-6: Reinforcing steel - Part 6: Assessment of conformity (2010)
BS EN ISO 15630-1: Steel for the reinforcement and prestressing of concrete. Test methods. Reinforcing bars, wire rod and wire. (2010)
BS EN ISO 15630-2: Steel for the reinforcement and prestressing of concrete. Test methods. Welded fabric. (2010)

text: Placing rebar[edit]

text: Rebar cages are fabricated either on or off the project site commonly with the help of hydraulic benders and shears. However, for small or custom work a tool known as a Hickey, or hand rebar bender, is sufficient. The rebars are placed by steel fixers "rodbusters" or concrete reinforcing iron workers, with bar supports and concrete or plastic rebar spacers separating the rebar from the concrete formwork to establish concrete cover and ensure that proper embedment is achieved. The rebars in the cages are connected by spot welding, tying steel wire, sometimes using an electric rebar tier, or with mechanical connections. For tying epoxy coated or galvanised rebars, epoxy coated or galvanized wire is normally used, respectively.

text: Stirrups[edit]

text: Stirrups form the outer part of a rebar cage. Stirrups are usually rectangular, and are placed at regular intervals along a column or beam to prevent shear failure.[26]

text: Welding[edit]

text: The American Welding Society (AWS) D 1.4 sets out the practices for welding rebar in the U.S. Without special consideration the only rebar that is ready to weld is W grade (Low-alloy — A706). Rebar that is not produced to the ASTM A706 specification is generally not suitable for welding without calculating the "carbon-equivalent". Material with a carbon-equivalent of less than 0.55 can be welded.

text: ASTM A 616 & ASTM A 617 (now replaced by the combined standard A996) reinforcing bars are re-rolled rail steel and re-rolled rail axle steel with uncontrolled chemistry, phosphorus and carbon content. These materials are not common.

text: Rebar cages are normally tied together with wire, although spot welding of cages has been the norm in Europe for many years, and is becoming more common in the United States. High strength steels for prestressed concrete may absolutely not be welded.[citation needed]

text: Mechanical connections[edit]

text: Also known as "mechanical couplers" or "mechanical splices", mechanical connections are used to connect reinforcing bars together. Mechanical couplers are an effective means to reduce rebar congestion in highly reinforced areas for cast-in-place concrete construction. These couplers are also used in precast concrete construction at the joints between members.

text: The structural performance criteria for mechanical connections varies between countries, codes, and industries. As a minimum requirement, codes typically specify that the rebar to splice connection meets or exceeds 125% of the specified yield strength of the rebar. More stringent criteria also requires the development of the specified ultimate strength of the rebar. As an example, ACI 318 specifies either Type 1 (125% Fy) or Type 2 (125% Fy and 100% Fu) performance criteria.[27]

text: For concrete structures designed with ductility in mind, it is recommended that the mechanical connections are also capable of failing in a ductile manner, typically known in the reinforcing steel industry as achieving "bar-break". As an example, Caltrans specifies a required mode of failure (i.e., "necking of the bar").[28]

text: Safety[edit]

text: To prevent injury, the protruding ends of steel rebar are often bent over or covered with special steel-reinforced plastic "plate" caps. "Mushroom" caps may provide protection from scratches and other minor injuries, but provide little to no protection from impalement.[29]

text: Designations[edit]

text: Reinforcement is usually tabulated in a "reinforcement schedule" on construction drawings. This eliminates ambiguity in the notations used around the world. The following list provides examples of the notations used in the architectural, engineering, and construction industry.

text:
New Zealand

Designation
Explanation

HD-16-300, T&B, EW
High strength (500 MPa) 16 mm diameter rebars spaced at 300 mm centers (center-to-center distance) on both the top and bottom face and in each way as well (i.e., longitudinal and transverse).

3-D12
Three mild strength (300 MPa) 12 mm diameter rebars

R8 Stirrups @ 225 MAX
D grade (300 MPa) smooth bar stirrups, spaced at 225 mm centres. By default in New Zealand practice all stirrups are normally interpreted as being full, closed, loops. This is a detailing requirement for concrete ductility in seismic zones; If a single strand of stirrup with a hook at each end was required, this would typically be both specified and illustrated.

text:
United States

Designation
Explanation

#4 @ 12 OC, T&B, EW
Number 4 rebars spaced 12 inches on center (center-to-center distance) on both the top and bottom faces and in each way as well, i.e. longitudinal and transverse.

(3) #4
Three number 4 rebars (usually used when the rebar perpendicular to the detail)

#3 ties @ 9 OC, (2) per set
Number 3 rebars used as stirrups, spaced at 9 inches on center. Each set consists of two ties, which is usually illustrated.

#7 @ 12" EW, EF
Number 7 rebar spaced 12 inches apart, placed in each direction (each way) and on each face.

text: Reuse and recycling[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: In China and many other countries, after the demolition of a concrete structure, workers are called in to remove the rebar. They scour the site, extracting the metal using bolt cutters, welding equipment, sledgehammers, and other tools. The metal is partially straightened, bundled and sold.

text: Rebar, like almost all metal products, can be recycled as scrap. It is usually combined with other steel products, melted down, and re-formed.


document_title: Benson (surname)

question_text: where does the last name benson come from

root

text: Benson (surname)

text:
BensonLanguage(s)
EnglishOriginRegion of origin
EnglandMeaning
"Son of Ben"Other namesVariant(s)
Benison, Bensone, Bennison, Bennsone, Bennisoun, Bennisone
Footnotes: Frequency Comparisons:[1]

tag: table

text: Benson is a common patronymic surname of English origin meaning "son of Ben" (Benedict, Benjamin, Bennett).[1][2] Benson is uncommon as a first name, but quite common as a surname in English speaking countries.

tag: p

text: Notable people with the name Benson include:

text:
A. C. Benson (1862–1925), English poet and essayist
Ada Benson (1840–1882), British headmistress and educationist
Adolph B. Benson (1881–1961), Swedish-American educator and historian
Al Benson (1908–1978), American radio DJ, music promoter and record label owner
Al Benson (basketball), American professional basketball player
Alexander Benson (1872–1947), American diplomat
Alfred W. Benson (1843–1916), United States Senator from Kansas
Allan L. Benson (1871–1940), American journalist and Socialist Presidential candidate
Allen Benson (1908–1999), American professional baseball player
Amanda Benson (born 1995), volleyball player
Amber Benson (born 1977), American actress
Ambrosius Benson (c. 1495/1500 – 1550), Italian painter, part of the Northern Renaissance
Andrew Benson (1917–2015), American chemist
Anna Benson (born 1976), American model
Annette Benson (1895–1965), British film actress
Sir Arthur Benson (1907–1987), British colonial administrator and governor
Arthur W. Benson (c. 1798–1889), American industrialist and real-estate developer
Ashley Benson (born 1989), American actress
Aslag Benson (1855–1937), member of the North Dakota Senate from 1903 to 1906
Benny Benson (1913–1972), creator of Alaska's state flag
Bernadette Benson, Canadian born athlete specialising in ultra distance events
Bernard Benson (1922–1996), British inventor, author of The Peace Book
Berry Benson (1843–1923), American Civil War soldier depicted on the Augusta Confederate Monument, later an accountant who discovered the "Ponzi scheme"
Bertil W. Benson (1843–1907), Norwegian-born American politician in North Dakota
Bill Benson (rugby league) (1893–1968), Australian rugby league player
Bob Benson (1883–1916), English professional footballer
Bobby Benson (1922–1983), entertainer and musician who influenced the Nigerian music scene
Brad Benson (born 1955), American football player
Brendan Benson (born 1970), American musician
Bruce Benson (disambiguation)
Bryan Benson, Governor of the Bank of England from 1735 to 1737
Carl Benson, pseudonym of American writer Charles Astor Bristed (1820–1874)
Carla L. Benson, American vocalist, most known for her recorded background vocals
Carville Benson (1872–1929), American politician
Catherine Benson (born 1992), American rugby union player
Catherine Brewer Benson (1822–1908), one of the earliest women to earn a college bachelor's degree in the U.S.
Cedric Benson (born 1982), American football player for the Green Bay Packers
Charles Benson (American football) (born 1960), American former professional football defensive end
Chima Simone Benson (born 1982), TV personality and freelance journalist
Christopher Benson (1788–1868), Cambridge educated theologian
Claus Benson (born 1889), American basketball player
Cliff Benson (born 1961), former American football tight end
Connie Benson (1889–1969), Canadian professional ice hockey player
Constance Benson (1864–1946), British stage and film actress
Constantine Walter Benson (1909–1982), British ornithologist
Craig Benson (born 1954), American businessman and politician
Craig Benson (swimmer) (born 1994), Scottish double Olympian (London 2012 and Rio 2016)
David Benson-Pope (born 1950), New Zealand politician
Dee Benson (born 1948), American judge
Doug Benson (born 1964), American comedian and actor
E. F. Benson (Edward Frederic Benson, 1867–1940), English novelist
Edgar Benson (born 1923), Canadian politician
Edward Benson (bishop) (Edward White Benson, 1829–1896), Archbishop of Canterbury
Edwin Benson (1931–2016), American educator
Egbert Benson (1746–1833), American politician and jurist
Elmer Austin Benson (1895–1985), American politician
Ezra Taft Benson (1899–1994), American politician and the 13th President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Frank Benson (disambiguation)
George Benson (disambiguation)
Gordon Benson (born 1994), British triathlete
Henry N. Benson (1872–1960), American politician
Herbert Benson (born 1935), American cardiologist and Harvard professor, author of The Relaxation Response
Howard Benson (born 1956), music producer
Ivy Benson (1913–1993), British bandleader
James Benson (disambiguation)
Jessica Benson (born 1988), American singer
Joanne Benson (born 1943), American politician
Jodi Benson (born 1961), American voice actress and singer
John Benson (disambiguation)
Karl Benson (born 1951), American college sports administrator
Kent Benson (born 1954), American basketball player
Kris Benson (born 1974), American baseball player
Lee Benson, American sports writer
Margaret Benson (1865–1916), English author and amateur Egyptologist
Margaret Jane Benson (1859-1936), British botanist and scholar
Mark Benson (engineer), German-born inventor of the Benson boiler
Mark Benson (born 1958), English cricketer
Martin Benson (actor) (1918–2010), British actor
Mary Benson (hostess) (1841–1918), English hostess
Mary Benson (campaigner) (1919–2000), South African writer and anti-apartheid activist
Michael Benson (disambiguation)
Mildred Benson (1905–2002), American  writer
Mykel Benson (born 1987), American football player
Nicholas John Benson (born 1961), Ghanaian-American soldier, lawyer, businessman, writer
Nicholas Benson (born 1964), American stone carver
Nigel Benson (born 1955), British author and illustrator.
Ray Benson (born 1951), American actor and composer
Raymond Benson (born 1955), American author
Renaldo Benson ("Obie" Benson, 1936–2005), American soul and R&B singer and songwriter
Rhian Benson (born 1977), Ghanaian singer
Richard Meux Benson (1824–1915), Anglican clergyman and founder of an Anglican religious order
Robert Benson (disambiguation)
Ron Benson (1925–1997), English professional footballer
Sally Benson (1897–1972), American screenwriter
Sally Benson (professor), professor of energy engineering at Stanford University
Sam Benson, CBE (1909–1995), Australian politician
Samuel P. Benson (1804–1876), United States Representative from Maine
Seve Benson (born 1986), English professional golfer
Shaun Benson (born 1976), Canadian actor
Shebin Benson (born 1995), Indian film actor from the Malayalam film industry
Sheila Benson, American journalist and film critic
Sheri Benson, Canadian politician
Simon Benson (1851–1942), Norwegian-born American logging entrepreneur and philanthropist
Stella Benson (1892–1933), English feminist, novelist, poet, and travel writer
Stephanie Benson (Princess Akua Ohenewaa Asieanem of Kokobin), UK based Ghanaian singer and performer
Stephen Allen Benson (1816–1865), President of Liberia 1856–1864
Steve Benson (disambiguation)
T. D. Benson (1857–1926), British socialist activist
T. O. S. Benson (1917–2008), Nigerian lawyer
Taylor Benson (1922–1996), member of the Wisconsin State Senate
Teco Benson, Nigerian film director and producer
Tom Benson (disambiguation)
Tony Benson (athlete) (born 1942), Australian long-distance runner
Tony Benson (rugby league) (born 1965), New Zealand rugby league coach
Troy Benson (born 1963), former professional American football player
Trudy Benson (born 1985), American artist
Vern Benson (1924–2014), American baseball player
Violet Benson, (online alias Daddy Issues), Russian-born American Internet personality
Warren Benson (1924–2005), American composer and timpanist
Wayne Benson, American mandolinist and songwriter in the bluegrass tradition
Wendy Benson (born 1971), American actress seen in many television shows
William Benson (disambiguation)

tag: ul

text: Fiction[edit]

text:
Carly Corinthos (née Benson), role played by Sarah Joy Brown and Laura Wright in American soap opera General Hospital
Freddie Benson, role played by Nathan Kress in American TV sitcom iCarly
Kurt Benson, character in British soap opera Hollyoaks
Olivia Benson, character in American polica drama Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
Benson, brother-in-law of Deputy Arthel Queen in the novel Deliverance
Jamesir Bensonmum, character played by Sir Alec Guinness in the 1976 comedy film "Murder By Death"
Zoe Benson, character played by Taissa Farmiga in American Horror Story: Coven
Barry B. Benson, Bee protagonist played by Jerry Seinfeld in Bee Movie


document_title: List of women's One Day International cricket records

question_text: highest individual score in women's odi cricket world cup

question_tokens: highest individual score in women 's odi cricket world cup

text: Team records[edit]

text: Team wins, losses, and ties[edit]

text: Most wins[edit]

text: Teams are sorted by most wins, then most matches, then by alphabetical order.

text:
Ranking
Team
Span
Matches
Won
Lost
Tied
NR
 %Win*

1
 Australia
1973–2017
308
238
62
2
6
79.13

2
 England
1973–2017
320
188
120
2
10
60.96

3
 New Zealand
1973–2017
317
160
149
2
6
51.76

4
 India
1978–2017
247
136
106
1
4
56.17

5
 South Africa
1997–2017
170
82
79
2
7
50.90

6
 West Indies
1979–2017
156
74
77
1
4
49.01

7
 Sri Lanka
1997–2017
149
55
89
0
5
38.19

8
 Pakistan
1997–2017
144
40
102
0
2
28.16

9
 Ireland
1987–2017
145
39
100
0
6
28.05

10
 Netherlands
1984–2011
101
19
81
0
1
19.00

11
 Bangladesh
2011–2017
30
7
21
0
2
25.00

12
 Denmark
1989–1999
33
6
27
0
0
18.18

13
International XI
1973–1982
18
3
14
0
1
17.64

14
 Trinidad and Tobago
1973-1973
6
2
4
0
0
33.33

15
 Scotland
2001–2003
8
1
7
0
0
12.50

16
Young England
1973-1973
6
1
5
0
0
16.66

17
 Jamaica
1973-1973
5
1
4
0
0
20.00

18
 Japan
2003-2003
5
0
5
0
0
0.00

text: Source: Cricinfo.com. Last updated 21 July 2017.

text: * The percentage excludes no results and counts ties as half a win.

text: Most consecutive wins[edit]

text:
Rank
Wins
Team
Period

1
17
 Australia
12 December 1997 to 7 February 1999

2
16
 Australia
25 February 1999 to 18 December 2000

16
 India
7 February 2016 to 17 May 2017

4
13
 England
19 July 1989 to 20 July 1991

5
12
 Australia
1 January 1978 to 30 January 1982

12
 Sri Lanka
20 January 2002 to 23 March 2003

12
 Australia
3 March 2002 to 17 February 2004

Source: Cricinfo.com. Last updated 27 June 2017.

text: Most consecutive defeats[edit]

text:
Rank
Defeats
Team
Period

1
22
 Netherlands
19 August 2005 to 26 April 2011

2
20
 Netherlands
26 July 1998 to 14 April 2001

3
19
 Sri Lanka
18 May 2015 to 7 February 2017

4
15
 Pakistan
28 January 1997 to 1 August 2000

15
 Pakistan
29 March 2004 to 26 January 2007

Source: Cricinfo.com. Last updated 27 June 2017.

text: Team scoring records[edit]

text: Highest innings totals[edit]

text:
Rank
Score
Teams
Venue
Season

1
455–5 (50 overs)
 New Zealand v Pakistan
Christchurch
1997–1998

2
412–3 (50 overs)
 Australia v Denmark
Mumbai
1997–1998

3
397–4 (50 overs)
 Australia v Pakistan
Melbourne
1996–1997

4
378–5 (50 overs)
 England v Pakistan
Worcester
2016

5
377–7 (50 overs)
 England v Pakistan
Leicester
2017

Source: Cricinfo.com. Last updated 27 June 2017.

text: Highest match aggregate[edit]

text:
Rank
Score
Teams
Venue
Season

1
678–14 (100 overs)
 England v  South Africa
Bristol
2017

2
577–12 (96.4 overs)
 Australia v  New Zealand
Sydney
2012–13

3
570–14 (98.0 overs)
 New Zealand v  Australia
Hamilton
2008–09

4
563–16 (98.2 overs)
 England v  New Zealand
Chennai
2006–07

5
551–15 (97.5 overs)
 New Zealand v  Australia
Auckland
2016–17

Source: Cricinfo.com. Last updated: 5 July 2017.

text: Largest successful run chases[edit]

text:
Rank
Score
Teams
Venue
Season

1
289–6 (46.4 overs)
 Australia v  New Zealand
Sydney
2012–13

2
276–5 (49.1 overs)
 New Zealand v  Australia
Auckland
2016–17

3
273–5 (49.2 overs)
 Australia v  New Zealand
Mount Maunganui
2016–17

4
269–4 (46.4 overs)
 Australia v  England
Chennai
2006–07

269–6 (49.3 overs)
 Australia v  England
Hobart
2013–14

Source: Cricinfo.com. Last updated 27 June 2017

text: Lowest team totals[edit]

text:
Rank
Score
Teams
Venue
Season

1
22 (23.4 overs)
 Netherlands v West Indies
Deventer
2008

2
23 (24.1 overs)
 Pakistan v Australia
Melbourne
1996–97

3
24 (21.3 overs)
 Scotland v England
Reading
2001

4
26 (19.1 overs)
 India v New Zealand
St Saviour
2002

5
27 (13.4 overs)
 Pakistan v Australia
Hyderabad (Deccan)
1997–98

Source: Cricinfo.com. Last updated 27 June 2017.

text: Individual records[edit]

text: This section shows individual players records. All players still available for selection on international matches appear in bold.

text: Batting[edit]

text: Most career runs[edit]

text:
Runs
Player
Innings
Average
ODI Career Span

6,190
Mithali Raj
167
51.58
1999–present

5,992
Charlotte Edwards
180
38.16
1997–2016

4,844
Belinda Clark
114
47.49
1991–2005

4,814
Karen Rolton
132
48.14
1995–2009

4,101
Claire Taylor
120
40.20
1998–2011

Source:Cricinfo. Last updated: 15 July 2017.

text: Highest career average[edit]

text:
Batting average
Player
Innings
Career Runs
ODI Career Span

58.45
Rachael Heyhoe-Flint
20
643
1973–1982

57.44
Lindsay Reeler
23
1,034
1984–1988

55.53
Meg Lanning
62
2,999
2011–present

53.40
Bronwyn Calver
21
534
1991–1998

51.58
Mithali Raj
167
6,190
1999–present

Qualification: Minimum of 20 innings.
Source:Cricinfo. Last updated: 15 July 2017

text: Most career centuries[edit]

text:
Position
Name
Team
100's
Innings

1
Meg Lanning
 Australia
11
62

2
Charlotte Edwards
 England
9
180

3
Suzie Bates
 New Zealand
8
99

Claire Taylor
 England
8
120

Karen Rolton
 Australia
8
132

6
Amy Satterthwaite
 New Zealand
6
95

Mithali Raj
 India
6
167

8
Jan Brittin
 England
5
59

Sarah Taylor
 England
5
101

Stafanie Taylor
 West Indies
5
104

Belinda Clark
 Australia
5
114

text: Most career fifties[edit]

text:
Position
Name
Team
50+
50's
100's
Innings

1
Mithali Raj
 India
55
49
6
159

Charlotte Edwards
 England
55
46
9
180

3
Karen Rolton
 Australia
41
33
8
132

4
Debbie Hockley
 New Zealand
38
34
4
115

5
Belinda Clark
 Australia
35
30
5
114

6
Stafanie Taylor
 West Indies
31
26
5
98

7
Claire Taylor
 England
31
23
8
120

8
Suzie Bates
 New Zealand
30
22
8
95

9
Alex Blackwell
 Australia
26
23
3
116

10
Lisa Keightley
 Australia
25
21
4
78

text: Highest individual score[edit]

text:
Position
Name
Runs
Team
Opponent
Date

1
Belinda Clark
229*
 Australia
 Denmark
16 December 1998

2
Deepti Sharma
188
 India
 Ireland
15 May 2017

3
Chamari Atapattu
178
 Sri Lanka
 Australia
29 June 2017

4
Charlotte Edwards
173*
 England
 Ireland
16 December 1997

5
Harmanpreet Kaur
171*
 India
 Australia
20 July 2017

Stafanie Taylor
171
 West Indies
 Sri Lanka
3 February 2013

7
Tammy Beaumont
168*
 England
 Pakistan
27 June 2016

Suzie Bates
168
 New Zealand
 Pakistan
19 March 2009

9
Rachel Priest
157
 New Zealand
 Sri Lanka
7 November 2015

10
Lisa Keightley
156*
 Australia
 Pakistan
7 February 1997

Claire Taylor
156*
 England
 India
14 August 2006

text: Source Cricinfo.com – Updated 20 July 2017

text: Most runs in a calendar year[edit]

text:
Position
Name
Team
Runs
Year

1
Belinda Clark
 Australia
970
1997

2
Debbie Hockley
 New Zealand
880
1997

3
Amy Satterthwaite
 New Zealand
853
2016

4
Belinda Clark
 Australia
842
2000

5
Claire Taylor
 England
807
2005

6
Meg Lanning
 Australia
761
2016

7
Ellyse Perry
 Australia
732
2016

8
Emily Drumm
 New Zealand
722
2000

9
Stafanie Taylor
 West Indies
707
2013

10
Mithali Raj
 India
684
2006

text: Bowling[edit]

text: Best figures in a match[edit]

text:
Position
Name
Figures
(wickets – runs)
Team
Opposition
Date

1
Sajjida Shah
7–4
 Pakistan
 Japan
21 July 2003

2
Jo Chamberlain
7–8
 England
 Denmark
19 July 1991

3
Anisa Mohammed
7–14
 West Indies
 Pakistan
26 November 2011

4
Shelley Nitschke
7–24
 Australia
 England
19 August 2005

5
Jackie Lord
6–10
 New Zealand
 India
14 January 1982

Mamatha Maben
6–10
 India
 Sri Lanka
25 April 2004

Shabnim Ismail
6–10
 South Africa
 Netherlands
18 November 2011

8
Glenys Page
6-20
 New Zealand
 Trinidad and Tobago
23 June 1973

Deepti Sharma
6–20
 India
 Sri Lanka
19 February 2016

10
Jhulan Goswami
6–31
 India
 New Zealand
5 July 2011

text: Source Cricinfo.com – Updated 27 June 2017

text: Most career wickets[edit]

text:
Position
Name
Team
Wickets
Average
Best
(wickets-runs)
5w

1
Jhulan Goswami
 India
195
21.95
6–31
2

2
Cathryn Fitzpatrick
 Australia
180
16.79
5–14
4

3
Lisa Sthalekar
 Australia
146
24.97
5–35
1

4
Neetu David
 India
141
16.34
5–20
2

5
Anisa Mohammed
 West Indies
136
18.72
7–14
5

6
Jenny Gunn
 England
123
27.99
5–22
2

7
Katherine Brunt
 England
120
22.28
5–18
4

8
Stafanie Taylor
 West Indies
116
18.73
4–17
0

Ellyse Perry
 Australia
116
24.12
5–19
2

10
Dane van Niekerk
 South Africa
120
17.66
5–17
2

Shashikala Siriwardene
 Sri Lanka
106
25.20
4–11
0

text: Most wickets in a calendar year[edit]

text:
Position
Name
Team
Wickets
Year

1
Anisa Mohammed
 West Indies
37
2011

Suné Luus
 South Africa
37
2016

3
Charmaine Mason
 Australia
36
2000

4
Neetu David
 India
33
2005

Neetu David
 India
33
2004

6
Stefanie Taylor
 West Indies
32
2013

7
Dane van Niekerk
 South Africa
28
2013

Clare Taylor
 England
28
2000

9
Laura Marsh
 England
26
2009

Rachel Pullar
 New Zealand
26
2000

text: Fielding records[edit]

text: Most dismissals by a wicketkeeper in ODI career[edit]

text:
Position
Name
Team
Dismissals
Catches
Stumpings

1
Rebecca Rolls
 New Zealand
133
89
44

2
Trisha Chetty
 South Africa
131
90
41

3
Jane Smit
 England
114
69
45

4
Sarah Taylor
 England
113
73
40

5
Julia Price
 Australia
99
69
30

6
Batool Fatima
 Pakistan
97
51
46

7
Merissa Aguilleira
 West Indies
87
67
20

8
Rachel Priest
 New Zealand
86
67
19

9
Anju Jain
 India
81
30
51

10
Jodie Fields
 Australia
74
55
19

text: Most catches by a fielder in ODI career[edit]

text:
Position
Name
Team
Catches
Innings

1
Jhulan Goswami
 India
59
162

2
Alex Blackwell
 Australia
54
141

3
Suzie Bates
 New Zealand
52
98

Lydia Greenway
 England
52
123

Charlotte Edwards
 England
52
187

6
Stafanie Taylor
 West Indies
49
99

Lisa Sthalekar
 Australia
49
125

8
Jenny Gunn
 England
47
135

10
Belinda Clark
 Australia
45
117

Mithali Raj
 India
45
186

text: Source Cricinfo.com – Last updated 20 July 2017

text: Most matches played[edit]

text:
Position
Name
Team
Matches

1
Mithali Raj
 India
186

2
Charlotte Edwards
 England
180

3
Jhulan Goswami
 India
158

4
Karen Rolton
 Australia
141

5
Alex Blackwell
 Australia
134

Sara McGlashan
 New Zealand
134

7
Jenny Gunn
 England
133

8
Anjum Chopra
 India
127

9
Lydia Greenway
 England
126

Claire Taylor
 England
126

text: Source Cricinfo.com – Last updated 27 June 2017<

text: Partnerships records[edit]

text: Highest wicket partnerships by wicket[edit]

text:
Wicket
Runs
Team
Partners
Opposition
Date

1st.
320
 India
Poonam Raut & Deepti Sharma
 Ireland
15 May 2017

2nd.
275
 England
Tammy Beaumont & Sarah Taylor
 South Africa
5 July 2017

3rd.
244
 Australia
Karen Rolton & Lisa Sthalekar
 Ireland
31 July 2005

4th.
224*
 South Africa
Johmari Logtenberg & Mignon du Preez
 Netherlands
5 August 2007

5th.
188*
 England
Claire Taylor & Jane Smit
 Sri Lanka
12 December 2000

6th.
142
 South Africa
Suné Luus & Chloe Tryon
 Ireland
5 August 2016

7th.
104*
 New Zealand
Sarah Tsukigawa & Nicola Browne
 England
23 February 2007

104
 England
Natalie Sciver & Danielle Hazell
 Sri Lanka
17 November 2016

8th.
85*
 England
Sarah Clarke & Nicky Shaw
 Scotland
10 August 2001

9th.
73
 England
Lynsey Askew & Isa Guha
 New Zealand
3 March 2007

10th.
76
 Australia
Alex Blackwell & Kristen Beams
 India
20 July 2017


document_title: Internet Information Services

question_text: what is the iis version in windows 10

question_tokens: what is the iis version in windows 10

text: Internet Information Services

text: History[edit]

text: The first Microsoft web server was a research project at the European Microsoft Windows NT Academic Centre (EMWAC), part of the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, and was distributed as freeware.[3] However, since the EMWAC server was unable to handle the volume of traffic going to Microsoft.com, Microsoft was forced to develop its own web server, IIS.[4]

text: Almost every version of IIS was released either alongside or with a version of Microsoft Windows:

text:
IIS 1.0 was initially released as a free add-on for Windows NT 3.51.
IIS 2.0 was included with Windows NT 4.0.
IIS 3.0, which was included with Service Pack 2 of Windows NT 4.0, introduced the Active Server Pages dynamic scripting environment.[5]
IIS 4.0 was released as part of the "Option Pack" for Windows NT 4.0. It introduced the new MMC-based administration application.
IIS 5.0 shipped with Windows 2000 and introduced additional authentication methods, support for the WebDAV protocol, and enhancements to ASP.[6] IIS 5.0 also dropped support for the Gopher protocol[7]
IIS 5.1 was shipped with Windows XP Professional, and was nearly identical to IIS 5.0 on Windows 2000.
IIS 6.0, included with Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, added support for IPv6 and included a new worker process model that increased security as well as reliability.[8]
IIS 7.0 was a complete redesign and rewrite of IIS, and was shipped with Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008. IIS 7.0 included a new modular design that allowed for a reduced attack surface and increased performance. It also introduced a hierarchical configuration system allowing for simpler site deploys, a new Windows Forms-based management application, new command-line management options and increased support for the .NET Framework.[9] IIS 7.0 on Vista does not limit the number of allowed connections as IIS on XP did, but limits concurrent requests to 10 (Windows Vista Ultimate, Business, and Enterprise Editions) or 3 (Vista Home Premium). Additional requests are queued, which hampers performance, but they are not rejected as with XP.
IIS 7.5 was included in Windows 7 (but it must be turned on in the side panel of Programs and Features) and Windows Server 2008 R2. IIS 7.5 improved WebDAV and FTP modules as well as command-line administration in PowerShell. It also introduced TLS 1.1 and TLS 1.2 support and the Best Practices Analyzer tool and process isolation for application pools.[10]
IIS 8.0 is only available in Windows Server 2012 and Windows 8. IIS 8.0 includes SNI (binding SSL to hostnames rather than IP addresses), Application Initialization, centralized SSL certificate support, and multicore scaling on NUMA hardware, among other new features.
IIS 8.5 is included in Windows Server 2012 R2 and Windows 8.1. This version includes Idle worker-Process page-out, Dynamic Site Activation, Enhanced Logging, ETW logging, and Automatic Certificate Rebind.
IIS 10 is included in Windows Server 2016 and Windows 10. This version includes support for HTTP/2.[11]

text: All versions of IIS prior to 7.0 running on client operating systems supported only 10 simultaneous connections and a single website.

text: Microsoft was criticized by vendors of other web server software, including O'Reilly & Associates and Netscape Communications Corp., for its licensing of early versions of Windows NT; the "Workstation" edition of the OS permitted only ten simultaneous TCP/IP connections, whereas the more expensive "Server" edition, which otherwise had few additional features, permitted unlimited connections but bundled IIS. It was inferred that this was intended to discourage consumers from running alternative web server packages on the cheaper edition.[12] Netscape wrote an open letter to the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice regarding this distinction in product licensing, which it asserted had no technical merit.[13]

text: Features[edit]

text: IIS 6.0 and higher support the following authentication mechanisms:[14]

text:
Anonymous authentication
Basic access authentication
Digest access authentication
Integrated Windows Authentication
UNC authentication
.NET Passport Authentication (Removed in Windows Server 2008 and IIS 7.0)[15]
Certificate authentication

text: IIS 7.0 has a modular architecture. Modules, also called extensions, can be added or removed individually so that only modules required for specific functionality have to be installed. IIS 7 includes native modules as part of the full installation. These modules are individual features that the server uses to process requests and include the following:[16]

text:
Security modules: Used to perform many tasks related to security in the request-processing pipeline, such as specifying authentication schemes, performing URL authorization, and filtering requests.
Content modules: Used to perform tasks related to content in the request-processing pipeline, such as processing requests for static files, returning a default page when a client does not specify a resource in a request, and listing the contents of a directory.
Compression modules: Used to perform tasks related to compression in the request-processing pipeline, such as compressing responses, applying Gzip compression transfer coding to responses, and performing pre-compression of static content.
Caching modules: Used to perform tasks related to caching in the request-processing pipeline, such as storing processed information in memory on the server and using cached content in subsequent requests for the same resource.
Logging and Diagnostics modules: Used to perform tasks related to logging and diagnostics in the request-processing pipeline, such as passing information and processing status to HTTP. sys for logging, reporting events, and tracking requests currently executing in worker processes.

text: IIS 7.5 includes the following additional or enhanced security features:[17]

text:
Client certificate mapping
IP security
Request filtering
URL authorization

text: Authentication changed slightly between IIS 6.0 and IIS 7, most notably in that the anonymous user which was named "IUSR_{machinename}" is a built-in account in Vista and future operating systems and named "IUSR". Notably, in IIS 7, each authentication mechanism is isolated into its own module and can be installed or uninstalled.[15]

text: IIS 8.0 offers new features targeted at performance and easier administration. The new features are:

text:
Application Initialization: a feature that allows an administrator to configure certain applications to start automatically with server startup. This reduces the wait time experienced by users who access the site for the first time after a server reboot.[18]
Splash page during application initialization: the administrator can configure a splash page to be displayed to the site visitor during an application initialization.[18]
ASP.NET 4.5 support: With IIS 8.0, ASP.NET 4.5 is included by default, and IIS also offers several configuration options for running it side-by-side with ASP.NET 3.5.[19]
Centralized SSL certificate support: a feature that makes managing certificates easier by allowing the administrator to store and access the certificates on a file share.[20]
Multicore scaling on NUMA hardware: IIS 8.0 provides several configuration options that optimize performance on systems that run NUMA, such as running several worker processes under one application pool, using soft or hard affinity and more.[21]
WebSocket Protocol Support[22]
Server Name Indication (SNI): SNI is an extension to Transport Layer Security, which allows binding of multiple websites with different hostnames to one IP address (similar to how Host Headers are used for non-SSL sites).[23]
Dynamic IP Address Restrictions: a feature that enables an administrator to dynamically block IPs or IP ranges that hit the server with a large number of requests[24]
CPU Throttling: a set of controls that allow the server administrator to control CPU usage by each application pool in order to optimize performance in a multi-tenant environment[25]

text: IIS 8.5 has several improvements related to performance in large-scale scenarios, such as those used by commercial hosting providers and Microsoft's own cloud offerings. It also has several added features related to logging and troubleshooting. The new features are:

text:
Idle worker-Process page-out: a function to suspend idle site to reduce the memory footprint of idle sites[26]
Dynamic Site Activation: a feature that registers listening queues only to sites that have received requests[27]
Enhanced Logging: a feature to allow collection of Server variables, request headers and response headers in the IIS logs[28]
ETW logging: an ETW provider which allows collecting real-time logs using various Event-tracing tool[29]
Automatic Certificate Rebind: a feature that detects when a site certificate has been renewed, and automatically rebinds the site to it[30]

text: IIS Express[edit]

text: IIS Express, a lightweight (4.5–6.6 MB) version of IIS, is available as a standalone freeware server and may be installed on Windows XP with Service Pack 3 and subsequent versions of Microsoft Windows. IIS 7.5 Express supports only the HTTP and HTTPS protocols. It is portable, stores its configuration on a per-user basis, does not require administrative privileges and attempts to avoid conflicting with existing web servers on the same machine.[31] IIS Express can be downloaded separately[32] or as a part of WebMatrix[33] or Visual Studio 2012 and later.[34] (In Visual Studio 2010 and earlier, web developers developing ASP.NET apps used ASP.NET Development Server, codenamed "Cassini".)[35] By default, IIS Express only serves local traffic.[36][34]

text: Extensions[edit]

text: IIS releases new feature modules between major version releases to add new functionality. The following extensions are available for IIS 7.5:

text:
FTP Publishing Service: Lets Web content creators publish content securely to IIS 7 Web servers with SSL-based authentication and data transfer.[37]
Administration Pack: Adds administration UI support for management features in IIS 7, including ASP.NET authorization, custom errors, FastCGI configuration, and request filtering.[38]
Application Request Routing: Provides a proxy-based routing module that forwards HTTP requests to content servers based on HTTP headers, server variables, and load balance algorithms.[39]
Database Manager: Allows easy management of local and remote databases from within IIS Manager.[40]
Media Services: Integrates a media delivery platform with IIS to manage and administer delivery of rich media and other Web content.[41]
URL Rewrite Module: Provides a rule-based rewriting mechanism for changing request URLs before they are processed by the Web server.[42]
WebDAV: Lets Web authors publish content securely to IIS 7 Web servers, and lets Web administrators and hosters manage WebDAV settings using IIS 7 management and configuration tools.[43]
Web Deployment Tool: Synchronizes IIS 6.0 and IIS 7 servers, migrates an IIS 6.0 server to IIS 7, and deploys Web applications to an IIS 7 server.[44]

text: Usage[edit]

text: According to Netcraft, on 13 February 2014, IIS had a market share of 32.80%, making it the second most popular web server in the world, behind Apache HTTP Server at 38.2%. Netcraft showed a rising trend in market share for IIS, since 2012.[45] A day later, however, the W3Techs shows different results. According to W3Techs, IIS is the third most used web server behind Apache HTTP Server (1st place) and Nginx. Furthermore, it shows a consistently falling trend for IIS use since February 2013.[46]

text: Netcraft data in February 2017 place indicate an IIS market share of 9.22%, making it the third most popular web server in the world, behind Apache at 41.41% and nginx at 28.34%.[47]

text: Security[edit]

text: IIS 4 and IIS 5 were affected by the CA-2001-13 security vulnerability which led to the infamous Code Red attack;[48] however, both versions 6.0 and 7.0 have no reported issues with this specific vulnerability.[49][50] In IIS 6.0 Microsoft opted to change the behaviour of pre-installed ISAPI handlers,[51] many of which were culprits in the vulnerabilities of 4.0 and 5.0, thus reducing the attack surface of IIS. In addition, IIS 6.0 added a feature called "Web Service Extensions" that prevents IIS from launching any program without explicit permission by an administrator.

text: By default IIS 5.1 and earlier run websites in a single process running the context of the System account,[52] a Windows account with administrative rights. Under 6.0 all request handling processes run in the context of the Network Service account, which has significantly fewer privileges, so that should there be a vulnerability in a feature or in custom code it won't necessarily compromise the entire system given the sandboxed environment these worker processes run in.[53] IIS 6.0 also contained a new kernel HTTP stack (http.sys) with a stricter HTTP request parser and response cache for both static and dynamic content.[54]

text: According to Secunia, as of June 2011[update], IIS 7 had a total of six resolved vulnerabilities while[50] IIS 6 had a total of eleven vulnerabilities, out of which one was still unpatched. The unpatched security advisory has a severity rating of 2 out of 5.[49]

text: In June 2007, a Google study of 80 million domains concluded that while the IIS market share was 23% at the time, IIS servers hosted 49% of the world's malware, the same as Apache servers whose market share was 66%. The study also observed the geographical location of these dirty servers and suggested that the cause of this could be the use of unlicensed copies of Windows that could not obtain security updates from Microsoft.[55] In a blog post on 28 April 2009, Microsoft noted that it supplies security updates to everyone without genuine verification.[56][57]

text: The 2013 mass surveillance disclosures made it more widely known that IIS is particularly bad in supporting perfect forward secrecy (PFS), especially when used in conjunction with Internet Explorer. Possessing one of the long term asymmetric secret keys used to establish a HTTPS session should not make it easier to derive the short term session key to then decrypt the conversation, even at a later time. Diffie–Hellman key exchange (DHE) and elliptic curve Diffie–Hellman key exchange (ECDHE) are in 2013 the only ones known to have that property. Only 30% of Firefox, Opera, and Chromium Browser sessions use it, and nearly 0% of Apple's Safari and Microsoft Internet Explorer sessions.[58]


document_title: List of United States cities by crime rate

question_text: highest murders in us by city 2017 wikipedia

text: Note about population

text: Often, one obtains very different results depending on whether crime rates are measured for the city jurisdiction or the metropolitan area.[2]

text: Information is voluntarily submitted by each jurisdiction and some jurisdictions do not appear in the table because they either did not submit data or they did not meet deadlines.

text: The FBI website has this disclaimer on population estimates:

text: Crime rates per 100,000 people

text:
State
City
Population
Violent Crime
Murder and
Nonnegligent Manslaughter

Rape
Robbery
Aggravated Assault
Property Crime
Burglary
Larceny-Theft
Motor Vehicle Theft
Arson1

New Mexico
Albuquerque
559,721
965.8
7.7
72.2
301.2
584.8
6073.2
1071.2
4076.7
925.3
15.9

California
Anaheim
349,471
363.7
5.2
36.9
125.6
196.0
2872.3
422.4
1972.4
477.6
8.0

Alaska
Anchorage
301,239
1070.9
8.6
171.6
206.1
684.5
3917.5
559.4
2975.0
383.1
35.2

Texas
Arlington
387,565
502.1
2.1
53.7
136.5
309.9
3443.6
559.9
2657.1
226.5
7.5

Georgia
Atlanta
464,710
1119.6
20.2
36.6
429.3
633.5
5499.3
1028.8
3549.1
921.4
10.8

Colorado
Aurora
360,237
460.8
6.7
97.7
124.1
232.3
2936.7
467.2
2119.4
350.0
17.8

Texas
Austin
938,728
372.5
2.5
51.9
99.0
219.2
3771.0
532.6
2990.0
248.3
9.7

California
Bakersfield
373,887
484.1
5.9
19.0
175.2
284.0
4161.4
1036.9
2484.2
640.3
90.7

Maryland
Baltimore
621,252
1535.9
55.4
46.2
694.2
740.1
4980.4
1248.6
2842.3
889.5
41.9

Massachusetts
Boston
665,258
706.8
5.7
36.1
233.1
431.9
2316.1
354.3
1769.5
192.3
N/A

New York
Buffalo
258,096
1118.6
15.9
67.0
400.2
635.4
4330.2
1076.0
2875.3
378.9
67.0

Arizona
Chandler
258,875
189.3
0.4
30.5
44.0
114.3
2083.2
297.4
1686.9
98.9
17.4

North Carolina
Charlotte-Mecklenburg
877,817
677.6
6.9
24.6
221.8
424.2
3767.9
769.5
2744.4
253.9
24.6

Illinois
Chicago
2,728,695
903.8
28.7
52.5
353.6
480.2
2946.3
482.0
2089.7
374.6
19.6

California
Chula Vista
265,215
265.8
2.3
23.8
90.1
149.7
1741.6
267.7
1166.2
307.7
10.2

Ohio
Cincinnati
298,478
925.0
22.1
79.1
423.1
400.7
5510.0
1478.5
3642.8
388.6
147.4

Ohio
Cleveland*
388,655
1334.3
16.2
124.0
769.3
424.8
5434.4
1787.7
2659.2
987.5
78.2

Colorado
Colorado Springs
452,410
438.3
5.5
75.4
83.1
274.3
3648.0
533.6
2732.7
381.7
27.9

Ohio
Columbus
847,745
546.3
9.1
95.1
264.2
177.9
3934.3
851.6
2715.6
367.2
47.8

Texas
Corpus Christi
324,326
645.0
5.2
86.9
121.5
431.4
3465.6
674.6
2632.8
158.2
18.2

Texas
Dallas
1,301,977
694.2
10.4
60.1
320.8
302.8
3440.2
854.2
2002.8
583.3
26.8

Colorado
Denver
682,418
673.9
7.8
80.3
180.2
405.6
3529.9
697.8
2192.5
639.6
16.4

Michigan
Detroit
673,225
1759.6
43.8
78.7
513.5
1123.5
4093.6
1161.6
2157.2
774.8
125.1

North Carolina
Durham
257,911
847.2
13.2
28.7
286.1
519.2
4115.8
1234.5
2644.7
236.5
12.0

Texas
El Paso
686,077
366.6
2.5
46.9
59.8
257.4
1914.2
206.8
1591.1
116.3
8.3

Indiana
Fort Wayne
259,712
378.9
9.6
37.3
171.7
160.2
3058.4
569.9
2360.7
127.8
18.9

Texas
Fort Worth
829,731
525.4
6.7
62.2
118.2
338.2
3585.7
723.7
2589.9
272.1
17.1

California
Fresno
520,837
551.2
7.5
32.1
194.3
317.4
4148.3
850.4
2723.3
574.7
49.0

North Carolina
Greensboro
285,950
597.0
9.1
25.2
185.3
377.3
3568.5
828.5
2551.5
188.5
34.6

Nevada
Henderson
282,554
168.5
1.4
34.7
63.7
68.7
1893.1
479.9
1225.6
187.6
7.1

Hawaii
Honolulu
999,307
243.9
1.5
31.8
89.7
120.9
3110.7
428.7
2294.6
387.4
23.1

Texas
Houston
2,275,221
966.7
13.3
43.3
451.7
458.3
4397.5
872.8
2928.7
596.0
29.5

Indiana
Indianapolis
863,675
1288.0
17.1
78.4
440.2
752.3
4790.8
1283.5
2929.5
577.9
N/A

California
Irvine
258,198
55.8
0.8
10.5
22.1
22.5
1498.1
202.6
1217.7
77.8
3.1

Florida
Jacksonville
867,258
648.3
11.2
54.3
161.2
421.6
3673.0
701.3
2704.6
267.0
8.2

New Jersey
Jersey City
265,159
521.6
10.2
36.6
207.0
267.8
1594.9
368.1
998.6
228.2
23.4

Missouri
Kansas City
473,373
1417.3
23.0
77.3
359.8
957.2
4441.3
1029.0
2587.6
824.7
41.8

Texas
Laredo
256,280
379.3
3.1
51.9
63.2
261.0
3370.9
405.8
2843.8
121.4
34.3

Nevada
Las Vegas
1,562,134
920.7
8.1
70.9
320.7
521.0
2995.3
952.3
1537.0
506.0
8.6

Kentucky
Lexington
314,077
332.4
4.8
51.9
162.7
113.0
3949.7
797.6
2834.0
318.1
15.0

Nebraska
Lincoln
276,585
370.6
0.4
69.8
77.4
223.1
3265.9
480.1
2655.2
130.5
32.9

California
Long Beach
476,318
580.7
7.6
37.2
221.3
314.7
3010.0
649.6
1766.3
594.1
14.5

California
Los Angeles
3,962,726
634.8
7.1
55.7
225.9
346.0
2359.6
407.8
1544.2
407.6
28.5

Kentucky
Louisville Metro
680,550
631.8
11.9
30.1
227.0
362.8
4166.0
922.3
2769.8
473.9
N/A

Tennessee
Memphis
657,936
1740.1
20.5
80.6
475.9
1163.2
5630.8
1561.2
3655.2
414.3
45.9

Arizona
Mesa
471,034
418.7
3.4
51.2
86.6
277.5
2527.4
471.1
1881.2
175.1
17.0

Florida
Miami
437,969
1021.3
17.1
18.3
383.8
602.1
4367.4
709.9
3132.9
524.7
20.8

Wisconsin
Milwaukee
600,400
1596.1
24.2
72.6
624.4
874.9
4264.2
912.9
2122.1
1229.2
37.1

Minnesota
Minneapolis
413,479
1062.9
11.4
98.4
458.5
494.6
4193.9
859.8
2918.9
415.3
28.1

Alabama
Mobile2
250,346
610.8
9.6
46.3
160.6
394.3
4311.6
882.0
3186.4
243.3
N/A

Tennessee
Nashville Metropolitan
658,029
1101.0
10.9
77.0
280.7
732.3
3805.8
779.9
2805.8
220.1
8.1

Louisiana
New Orleans
393,447
949.6
41.7
104.0
380.5
423.4
3874.2
736.6
2497.9
639.7
9.1

New York
New York
8,550,861
585.8
3.0
14.0
198.2
357.2
1518.7
164.9
1267.4
86.4
N/A

New Jersey
Newark*
279,110
1077.7
33.3
17.6
688.6
338.2
2851.2
622.0
1365.1
864.2
14.0

California
Oakland
419,481
1442.5
20.3
67.9
784.3
570.0
5856.8
794.6
3539.1
1523.1
42.7

Oklahoma
Oklahoma City
630,621
765.6
11.6
76.1
189.0
488.9
3956.1
923.4
2573.3
459.4
14.7

Nebraska
Omaha
452,252
515.0
10.6
38.5
144.8
321.1
3595.6
477.6
2555.7
562.3
17.9

Florida
Orlando
268,438
940.6
11.9
67.8
194.5
666.4
6015.5
1267.0
4309.0
439.6
14.5

Pennsylvania
Philadelphia
1,567,810
1029.0
17.9
84.3
431.5
495.3
3147.4
515.6
2310.7
321.1
21.0

Arizona
Phoenix
1,559,744
593.8
7.2
65.1
193.6
327.8
3491.3
820.5
2198.3
472.5
N/A

Pennsylvania
Pittsburgh
306,870
706.2
18.6
26.7
279.6
381.3
3224.5
715.9
2312.7
195.8
56.0

Texas
Plano
282,968
153.0
1.4
32.2
41.0
78.5
1799.1
260.1
1442.9
96.1
6.7

Oregon
Portland*
615,672
472.8
4.2
42.6
137.6
288.5
5234.8
673.4
4013.0
548.3
27.0

North Carolina
Raleigh**
428,993
392.3
2.8
18.4
141.0
230.1
3063.0
735.9
2162.7
164.3
12.6

California
Riverside
323,064
446.0
3.1
42.4
161.0
239.6
3259.7
505.5
2211.3
542.9
22.0

California
Sacramento
489,717
737.4
8.8
21.4
239.7
467.4
3369.5
758.2
2014.4
596.9
28.6

Texas
San Antonio
1,463,586
587.2
6.4
71.7
135.7
373.4
5029.5
794.8
3812.8
422.0
17.8

California
San Diego
1,400,467
398.6
2.6
40.4
98.4
257.1
2082.0
366.2
1351.9
363.9
12.4

California
San Francisco
863,782
776.8
6.1
39.8
417.9
312.9
6138.0
600.4
4737.1
800.5
31.5

California
San Jose
1,031,458
329.6
2.9
36.4
110.5
179.8
2427.1
474.7
1273.7
678.7
9.0

California
Santa Ana
337,304
482.1
3.6
45.7
155.1
277.8
2155.3
269.5
1332.3
553.5
11.0

Washington
Seattle
683,700
598.7
3.4
21.1
224.1
350.2
5522.0
1122.9
3831.9
567.2
13.5

Missouri
St. Louis
317,095
1817.1
59.3
82.9
564.5
1110.4
6316.1
1325.2
3998.8
992.1
70.3

Minnesota
St. Paul
300,721
703.3
5.3
67.8
237.4
392.7
3282.1
706.6
1994.2
581.3
39.9

Florida
St. Petersburg
255,821
741.9
5.5
53.2
224.0
459.3
5622.7
906.5
4120.9
595.3
25.0

California
Stockton
304,890
1352.0
16.1
44.3
375.2
916.4
4263.2
948.2
2662.9
652.0
33.8

Florida
Tampa
364,383
630.7
9.3
21.1
184.1
416.0
2295.9
503.0
1629.3
163.6
14.8

Ohio
Toledo
279,552
1128.9
8.6
81.6
322.7
716.1
4475.0
1476.3
2676.8
321.9
N/A

Arizona
Tucson
529,675
655.5
5.9
79.7
199.9
370.0
6642.8
691.7
5586.8
364.2
22.1

Oklahoma
Tulsa
401,520
903.6
13.7
90.9
212.7
586.3
5203.2
1372.8
3170.2
660.2
43.3

Virginia
Virginia Beach
452,797
138.3
4.2
22.7
59.6
51.7
2205.6
211.1
1898.4
96.1
21.0

District Of Columbia
Washington
672,228
1202.6
24.1
73.5
506.4
598.6
4516.2
442.0
3599.1
475.1
N/A

Kansas
Wichita
389,824
984.8
6.9
89.5
188.0
700.3
5041.2
892.7
3623.9
524.6
33.1

text: Notes: * 2014 Data

text: ** 2013 Data

text: 1 The FBI does not publish arson data unless it receives data from either the agency or the state for all 12 months of the calendar year.

text: 2 The population for the city of Mobile, Alabama, includes 55,819 inhabitants from the jurisdiction of the Mobile County Sheriff's Department.

text: Criticism of ranking crime data

text: The FBI web site recommends against using its data for ranking because these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents.[4] The FBI web site also recommends against using its data to judge how effective law enforcement agencies are, since there are many factors that influence crime rates other than law enforcement.[5]

text: In November 2007, the executive board of the American Society of Criminology (ASC) went further than the FBI itself, and approved a resolution opposing not only the use of the ratings to judge police departments, but also opposing any development of city crime rankings from FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCRs) at all. The resolution opposed these rankings on the grounds that they "fail to account for the many conditions affecting crime rates" and "divert attention from the individual and community characteristics that elevate crime in all cities", though it did not provide sources or further elaborate on these claims. The resolution states the rankings "represent an irresponsible misuse of the data and do groundless harm to many communities" and "work against a key goal of our society, which is a better understanding of crime-related issues by both scientists and the public".[6]

text: The U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a similar statement, which also committed the Conference to working with the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice "to educate reporters, elected officials, and citizens on what the (UCR) data means and doesn't mean."[6]


document_title: History of the petroleum industry in the United States

question_text: when was the first oil refinery built in the us

text: 19th century[edit]

text: Before the Drake well[edit]

text: Native Americans had known of the oil in western Pennsylvania, and had made some use of it for many years before the mid-19th century. Early European explorers noted seeps of oil and natural gas in western Pennsylvania and New York. Interest grew substantially in the mid-1850s as scientists reported on the potential to manufacture kerosene from crude oil, if a sufficiently large oil supply could be found.

text: The Jesuit Relations of 1657 states:

text: As one approaches nearer to the country of the Cats, one finds heavy and thick water, which ignites like brandy, and boils up in bubbles of flame when fire is applied to it. It is, moreover, so oily, that all our Savages use it to anoint and grease their heads and their bodies.[2]

text: Salt was a valuable commodity, and an industry developed near salt springs in the Ohio River Valley, producing salt by evaporating brine from the springs. Salt wells were sunk at the salt springs to increase the supply of brine for evaporation. Some of the wells were hand-dug, but salt producers also learned to drill wells by percussion (cable tool) methods. In a number of locations in western Virginia, Ohio, and Kentucky, oil and natural gas came up the wells along with the brine. The oil was mostly a nuisance, but some salt producers saved it and sold it as illuminating oil or medicine. In some locations, enough natural gas was produced to be used as fuel for the salt evaporating pans.[3] Early salt brine wells that produced byproduct oil included the Thorla-McKee Well of Ohio in 1814, a well near Burkesville, Kentucky, in 1828,[4] and wells at Burning Springs, West Virginia, by 1836.

text: The US natural gas industry started in 1821 at Fredonia, Chautauqua County, New York, when William Hart dug a well to a depth of 27 feet (8.2 m) into gas-bearing shale, then drilled a borehole 43 feet (13 m) further, and piped the natural gas to a nearby inn where it was burned for illumination. Soon many gas wells were drilled in the area, and the gas-lit streets of Fredonia became a tourist attraction.

text: Drake well, Titusville, Pennsylvania[edit]

text: On August 28, 1859, George Bissell and Edwin L. Drake made the first successful use of a drilling rig on a well drilled especially to produce oil, at a site on Oil Creek near Titusville, Pennsylvania. The Drake partners were encouraged by Benjamin Silliman (1779-1864), a chemistry professor at Yale, who tested a sample of the oil, and assured them that it could be distilled into useful products such as illuminating oil.

text: The Drake well is often referred to as the "first" commercial oil well, although that title is also claimed for wells in Azerbaijan, Ontario, West Virginia, and Poland, among others. However, before the Drake well, oil-producing wells in the United States were wells that were drilled for salt brine, and produced oil and gas only as accidental byproducts. An intended drinking water well at Oil Springs, Ontario found oil in 1858, a year before the Drake well, but it had not been drilled for oil. Historians have noted that the importance of the Drake well was not in being the first well to produce oil, but in attracting the first great wave of investment in oil drilling, refining, and marketing:

text: Appalachian Basin[edit]

text: The success of the Drake well quickly led to oil drilling in other locations in the western Appalachian mountains, where oil was seeping to the surface, or where salt drillers had previously found oil fouling their salt wells. During the American Civil War, the oil-producing region spread over much of western Pennsylvania, up into western New York state, and down the Ohio River valley into the states of Ohio, Kentucky, and the western part of Virginia (now West Virginia). The Appalachian Basin continued to be the leading oil-producing region in the United States through 1904.[6]

text: The first commercial oil well in New York was drilled in 1865. New York's (and Northwestern Pennsylvania) crude oil is very high in paraffin.[7]

text: The principal product of the oil in the 19th century was kerosene, which quickly replaced whale oil for illuminating purposes in the United States. Originally dealing in whale oil which was widely used for illumination, Charles Pratt (1830–1891) of Massachusetts was an early pioneer of the natural oil industry in the United States. He was founder of Astral Oil Works in the Greenpoint section of Brooklyn, New York. Pratt's product later gave rise to the slogan, "The holy lamps of Tibet are primed with Astral Oil." He joined with his protégé Henry H. Rogers to form Charles Pratt and Company in 1867. Both companies became part of John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil in 1874.

text: Lima-Indiana District[edit]

text: Mid-Continent[edit]

text: The Mid-continent area is an area generally including Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, North Louisiana and the part of Texas away from the Gulf Coast. The first commercially successful oil well drilled in Kansas was the Norman No. 1 near Neodesha, Kansas, on November 28, 1892.

text:
Corsicana, Texas, 1894, Texas, plus 44,000,000 barrels (7,000,000 m3)
McCamey, 1928, Baker No. 1., Texas.

text: Oklahoma[edit]

text: Oil was discovered at Bartlesville and Burbank in 1897. But the initial discoveries created no great excitement until the discovery gusher of the Glenn Pool in 1905. The Glenn discovery came when Gulf Coast production was declining rapidly, and the operators were eager for new areas to drill. The increased drilling resulted in major discoveries at Cushing in 1912 and Healdton in 1913.[8]

text:
Greater Seminole, 1926, Oklahoma, plus 200,000,000 barrels (32,000,000 m3)
Oklahoma City, No. 1 Discovery Well, 1928, Oklahoma. The Mary Sudik No. 1, "Wild Mary Sudik", gusher did not blow until March 25, 1930—she sprayed an estimated 3,000 barrels (480 m3) an hour (133 L/s) for the next 11 days.

text: East Texas[edit]

text: The largest oil field in the lower 48 states, the East Texas oil field, was not discovered until 1930, when wildcatter Columbus Marion Joiner (more commonly known as "Dad" Joiner) drilled the Daisy Bradford No. 3 well, in Rusk County, Texas.[9]

text: North Louisiana[edit]

text: In 1906, the Caddo-Pine Island Field in northern Caddo Parish, Louisiana was discovered, and a rush of leasing and drilling activity ensued. In 1908, the first natural gas pipeline was constructed to transport gas from Caddo-Pine Island to Shreveport, Louisiana. This was one of the earliest commercial uses of natural gas, which was commonly viewed as an undesirable by-product of oil production and often "flared" or burnt off at the well site.

text: Other innovations in the Caddo-Pine Island Field included the first over-water oil platform, which was constructed in the field on Caddo Lake in 1910. In that same year, a major oil pipeline was constructed from Caddo-Pine Island Field to a refinery built and operated by Standard Oil Company of Louisiana in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The refinery continues to operate today.

text: Other early petroleum discoveries in North Louisiana included the Bull Bayou Field, Red River Parish, Louisiana (1913), Monroe Gas Field, Ouachita Parish, Louisiana (1916), Homer Field, Claiborne Parish, Louisiana (1919) and Haynesville Field, Claiborne Parish, Louisiana (1921).[10]

text: California[edit]

text: Native Americans had known of the tar seeps in southern California for thousands of years, and used the tar to waterproof their canoes. Spanish settlers also knew of the seeps, such as at Rancho La Brea (Spanish for Tar Ranch) in present-day Los Angeles, from which the priests obtained tar to waterproof the roofs of the Los Angeles and San Gabriel missions.[11]

text: Despite the abundance of well-known seeps in southern California, the first commercial oil well in California was drilled in Humboldt County, northern California in 1865.[12]

text: Some attempts were made in the 1860s to exploit oil deposits under tar seeps in the Ventura Basin of Ventura County and northeastern Los Angeles county. The early efforts failed because of complex geology, and, more importantly, because the refining techniques then available could not manufacture high-quality kerosene from California crude oil, which differed chemically from Pennsylvania crude oil.[13] Most California crude oil in the early years was turned into the less lucrative products of fuel oil and asphalt.

text: Oil production in the Los Angeles Basin started with the discovery of the Brea-Olinda Oil Field in 1880, and continued with the development of the Los Angeles City Oil Field in 1893, the Beverly Hills Oil Field in 1900, the Salt Lake Oil Field in 1902, and many others. The discovery of the Long Beach Oil Field in 1921, which proved to be the world's richest in production per-acre of the time, increased the importance of the Los Angeles Basin as a worldwide oil producer. This increased again with the discovery of the Wilmington Oil Field in 1932, and the development of the Port of Los Angeles as a means of shipping crude oil overseas.[14]

text: Production in Santa Barbara County began in the 1890s with the development of the Summerland Oil Field, which included the world's first offshore oil wells. With the discovery of the Orcutt and Lompoc fields, northern Santa Barbara County became a regional center of production; towns such as Orcutt owe their existence to the quickly growing industry.[14]

text: Oil in the San Joaquin Basin was first discovered at the Coalinga field in 1890. By 1901, the San Joaquin Basin was the main oil-producing region of California, and it remains so in the 21st century, with huge oil fields including the Midway-Sunset, Kern River, and Belridge fields producing much of California's onshore oil.

text: Rocky Mountains[edit]

text: The first commercial oil well in the Rocky Mountains was drilled near Canon City, Colorado in 1862. The wells in the Canyon City-Florence field, drilled near surface oil seeps, produced from fractures in the Pierre Shale.

text:
Bighorn Basin
Denver Basin
Green River Basin
North Park (Colorado basin)
Paradox Basin
Piceance Basin
Powder River Basin
Raton Basin
San Juan Basin
Uinta Basin

text: Alaska[edit]

text: A Russian sea captain noted oil seeps along the shore of the Cook Inlet as early as 1853, and oil drilling began in 1898 in a number of locations along the southern coast of Alaska.[15] Production was relatively small, however, until huge discoveries were made on Alaska's remote North Slope.

text: Petroleum seeps on the North Slope have been known for many years, and in 1923, the federal government created US Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 to cover the presumed oil fields beneath the seeps. Some exploration drilling was done in the reserve during World War II and the 1950s, but the remote location deterred intensive exploration until the 1960s. The Prudhoe Bay Oil Field, the largest oil field in the United States in terms of total oil produced, was discovered in 1968. Production began in 1977, following completion of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Through 2005, the field has produced 13 billion barrels (2.1×10^9 m3) of oil (an average of 1.5 million barrels/day), and is estimated to contain another 2 billion barrels (320×10^6 m3) of economically recoverable oil.

text: 20th century[edit]

text: Gulf Coast[edit]

text: Capt. Anthony Francis Lucas, an experienced mining engineer and salt driller, drilled a well to find oil at Spindletop Hill. On the morning of January 10, 1901, the little hill south of Beaumont, Texas began to tremble and mud bubbled up over the rotary table. A low rumbling sound came from underground, and then, with a force that shot 6 tons of 4-inch (100 mm) diameter pipe out over the top of the derrick, knocking off the crown block, the Lucas Gusher roared in and the Spindletop oil field was born. Spindletop became the focus of frenzied drilling; oil production from the field peaked in 1902 at 17,400,000 barrels (2,770,000 m3), but by 1905 production had declined 90% from the peak.[16]

text: Spindletop Hill turned out to be the surface expression of an underground salt dome, around which the oil accumulated. The Spindletop gusher started serious oil exploration of the Gulf Coast in Texas and Louisiana, an area that had previously been dismissed by oil men. Other salt dome mounds were quickly drilled, resulting in discoveries at Sour Lake (1902), Batson (1904) and Humble (1905).[17]

text: The Standard Oil Company was slow to appreciate the economic potential of the Spindletop oil field, and the Gulf Coast generally, which gave greater opportunity to others; Spindletop became the birthplace of oil giants Texaco and Gulf Oil. Although in 1899 Standard Oil controlled more than 85% of the oil production in the older oil regions in the Appalachian Basin and the Lima-Indiana trend, it never controlled more than 10% of the oil production in the new Gulf Coast province.[18]

text: Federal price regulation[edit]

text: By the Natural Gas Act of 1938, the federal government imposed price controls on natural gas in interstate commerce. The Federal Power Commission was mandated to set interstate gas prices at "just and reasonable" rates.[19] The FPC at first only regulated the price at which pipelines sold gas to utilities and industry, but later put limits on the wellhead price of gas sold to an interstate pipeline. Gas producers challenged the controls, but lost in the Supreme Court in Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin (1954).

text: The federal government had controlled the price of natural gas that crossed state lines, but not of gas produced and sold within a state. In the 1970s, the low interstate price set by the federal government caused supply shortages of gas in consuming states, because gas producers sold as much as they could of their product for higher prices in the local markets within gas-producing states. In the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978, the federal government extended price controls to all natural gas in the country. At the same time, the government created a complex price system in which the price paid to the producer depended on the date the well was drilled, the depth of the well, the geological formation, the distance to other gas wells, and several other factors. The price system was an attempt to keep the average price low while encouraging new production.[20]

text: The last federal price controls on natural gas were removed by the Natural Gas Decontrol Act of 1989, which phased out the last remaining price control as of 1 January 1993.[21]

text: 21st century[edit]

text: North Dakota[edit]

text: As of December, 2012, North Dakota was producing oil at the rate of 750,000 barrels/day.[22]