Bond performance of tensile lap-spliced basalt-FRP reinforcement in high-strength concrete beams
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 investigates the bond between high-strength concrete (HSC) and tensile lap-spliced basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP) bars. Ten large-scale BFRP-reinforced concrete beams (300 × 450 × 3900 mm) were fabricated and tested under four-point loading until failure. The parameters investigated included the BFRP bar diameter (10, 12, and 16 mm), the splice length (400–1200 mm range), and the bar surface texture (sand-coated (SC) and helically wrapped (HW)). Test results demonstrated that the flexural capacity of the beams reinforced with SC-BFRP bars was almost similar to that of beams reinforced with HW-BFRP bars. However, SC-BFRP bars showed a slightly higher bond with concrete compared to that of helically wrapped counterparts. The bond strength of spliced BFRP bars was inversely related to the splice length. Also, BFRP bars with larger diameter bars require longer splice lengths to reach their maximum capacity. Finally, the experimentally estimated critical splice lengths were compared to those calculated by existing models and code-based equations. Both ACI 440.1R-15 and CSA S806-12 provisions were conservative in predicting splice length for BFRP bars. However, the CSA-S6-14 design code was more accurate in estimating the splice length for BFRP with bigger diameters. Though, it was not conservative with smaller diameters.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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