Performance of Concrete Beams Reinforced with Basalt FRP for Flexure and Shear
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The flexural and shear performances are evaluated for concrete beams reinforced with basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP) rebar and stirrups. Nine 150× 300× 3, 100-mm beams were tested in four-point bending to examine the effect of BFRP flexural reinforcement ratios varying from 0.28 to 1.60 the balanced ratio on the structural performance. The beams were reinforced by either BFRP or steel stirrups, and some had no shear reinforcement. It was shown that ultimate and service loads increased with flexural reinforcement ratio for all shear reinforcement types while the service load levels were not affected by stirrup type. Beams without stirrups and those with BFRP stirrups failed in shear, with the former reaching 55–58% of ultimate flexural capacity and the latter failing by stirrup rupture at 90–96% of flexural capacity. Beams with steel stirrups failed in flexure. Deformability values show that methods that combine strength and curvature digress more from those based on midspan strain energy as shear-related deformation increases. Standard provisions predicted well the capacity of beams failing in flexure. For beams failing in shear, standards were both conservative and nonconservative. The modified compression field theory predicted well the shear capacity for members with and without stirrups. Designated methods gave reasonable predictions for service loads at deflections of span/360 and span/180.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".