Experimental Study for the Effect of Steel Fibers Types and Volume Fraction on the Flexural Performance of RC Beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research explores the structural response of reinforced concrete beams (RCBs) enhanced with steel fibers (SFs), focusing on both mechanical strength and flexural behavior.The investigation examined how variations in fiber geometry and dosage affect performance under flexural loads.A series of seven beam specimens, each 20 cm wide, 25 cm deep, and 1.5 m long, were subjected to four-point bending tests.The fibers used included straight, hooked-end, and corrugated types, incorporated at different volumetric ratios.The study also assesses the adequacy of current code predictions in comparison with experimental results.Notably, beams containing hooked-end fibers at a 1% volume fraction demonstrated the greatest performance gains.Specifically, specimens with 3 cm and 5 cm hooked-end fibers exhibited increases in ultimate load capacity of 12.05% and 13.64%, respectively, while deflection capacity increased by 137.83% and 140.73%.The findings reveal that the addition of hooked-end fibers significantly improves flexural strength and ductility.However, existing design models were found to substantially underestimate the ultimate moment capacity.The ACI code predictions were approximately 45% lower, and those of EC2 were about 50% lower than the experimental results.These outcomes indicate the necessity for revision in current design practices to more accurately represent the behavior of steel fiberreinforced concrete.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".