By end anchorage is not meant an inch or two of embedment in concrete, for an iron vise would not hold a rod for its full value by such means.  Neither does it mean a hook on the end of the rod.  A threaded end with a bearing washer, and a nut and a lock-nut to hold the washer in place, is about the only effective means, and it is simple and cheap.  Nothing is as good for this purpose as plain round rods, for no other shape affords the same simple and effective means of end connection.  In a line of beams, end to end, the rods may be extended into the next beam, and there act to take the top-flange tension, while at the same time finding anchorage for the principal beam stress.

The simplicity of this design is shown still further by the absence of a large number of little pieces in a beam box, as these must be held in their proper places, and as they interfere with the pouring of the concrete.

It is surprising that this simple and unpatented method of design has not met with more favor and has scarcely been used, even in tests.  Some time ago the writer was asked, by the head of an engineering department of a college, for some ideas for the students to work up for theses, and suggested that they test beams of this sort.  He was met by the astounding and fatuous reply that such would not be reinforced concrete beams.  They would certainly be concrete beams, and just as certainly be reinforced.

Bulletin 29 of the University of Illinois Experiment Station contains a record of tests of reinforced concrete beams of this sort.  They failed by the crushing of the concrete or by failure in the steel rods, and nearly all the cracks were in the middle third of the beams, whereas beams rich in shear rods cracked principally in the end thirds, that is, in the neighborhood of the shear rods.  The former failures are ideal, and are easier to provide against.  A crack in a beam near the middle of the span is of little consequence, whereas one near the support is a menace to safety.

The seventh point of common practice to which attention is called, is the manner in which bending moments in so-called continuous beams are juggled to reduce them to what the designer would like to have them.  This has come to be almost a matter of taste, and is done with as much precision or reason as geologists guess at the age of a fossil in millions of years.

If a line of continuous beams be loaded uniformly, the maximum moments are negative and are over the supports.  Who ever heard of a line of beams in which the reinforcement over the supports was double that at mid-spans?  The end support of such a line of beams cannot be said to be fixed, but is simply supported, hence the end beam would have a negative bending moment over next to the last support equal to that of a simple span.  Who ever heard of a beam being reinforced for this?  The common practice is to make a reduction in the bending moment, at the middle of the span, to about that of a line of continuous beams, regardless of the fact that they may not be continuous or even contiguous, and in spite of the fact that the loading of only one gives quite different results, and may give results approaching those of a simple beam.