Bond Performance of Basalt Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars to Concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the test results of a study on the bond behavior of basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP) bars to concrete. Thirty six concrete cylinders reinforced with BFRP bars and twelve cylinders reinforced with glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars were tested in direct pullout conditions. Test parameters included the FRP material (basalt and glass), the bar diameter, and the bar embedment length in concrete. Bond-slip curves of BFRP and GFRP bars revealed similar trends. BFRP bars developed average bond strength 75% of that of GFRP bars. All BFRP specimens failed in a pullout mode of failure along the interfacial surface between the outer layer of the bar and the subsequent core layers. The influence of various parameters on the overall bond performance of BFRP bars is analyzed and discussed. The well-known BPE and modified-BPE analytical models were calibrated to describe the bond-slip relationships of the bars. Test results demonstrate the promise of using the BFRP bars as an alternative to the GFRP bars in reinforcing concrete elements.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".