Combined Loading Behavior of Basalt FRP–Reinforced Precast Concrete Insulated Partially-Composite Walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The axial and flexure combined loading performance of a slender partially-composite concrete insulated wall design constructed using basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP) shear connectors and longitudinal BFRP reinforcement is investigated. The load-bearing wall panel sections, 600 mm wide and 2,700 mm long, were first subjected to axial loads ranging from 0 to 900 kN applied to the structural wythe only. The panels were then loaded to failure in four-point bending to develop the axial load-bending moment interaction diagram of the partially-composite system, which was compared to theoretical fully-composite and noncomposite curves. As axial load increased, failure under transverse loading changed from shear-compression of the structural wythe to diagonal splitting of insulation foam and rupture of BFRP connectors, then to crushing of the structural wythe. Composite action by the strength criterion reduced from 47 to 3% as axial load increased from 150 to 900 kN; while that by the stiffness criterion was much lower, 8–2.5%. Relative to a similar steel-reinforced wall panel with the same reinforcement ratio, the tested walls were 60–89% the strength; and the percentage increased with axial load. A method is introduced to estimate the effective centroid of the partially-composite wall in order to calculate the moment from the eccentric axial load applied to this load-bearing system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".