Concrete Contribution to Shear Strength of Beams Reinforced with Basalt Fiber-Reinforced Bars
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on the shear behavior of concrete beams reinforced with basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP) bars. In this study, 10 reinforced concrete beams with no transverse reinforcement, including 2 beams reinforced with longitudinal steel bars, were constructed and tested until failure. The test variables were the longitudinal reinforcement ratio and the span-to-depth ratio of the beams. The test results were compared with predictions of different available codes and design guidelines. Shear design equations of the CAN/CSA-806-12 code and the JSCE-97 guidelines provided accurate predictions. However, the predictions of CAN/CSA-806-12 were not conservative in some cases, whereas those of the ACI-440.1R-15 and the CAN/CSA-S6-10 were conservative. The test results were combined with the experimental results of a large database, including 75 beams and one-way slabs reinforced with carbon, glass, aramid, and BFRP bars. The behavior of beams reinforced with BFRP bars was quite similar to that of beams reinforced with glass and aramid fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars. The test results demonstrate the potential of using BFRP bars as alternative reinforcement in concrete members.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it