ArticlePolymers2025
Flexural Testing of Steel-, GFRP-, BFRP-, and Hybrid Reinforced Beams.
Article in Polymers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The construction industry is exploring alternatives to traditional steel reinforcement in concrete due to steel's corrosion vulnerability. Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) and Basalt Fiber Reinforced Polymer (BFRP), known for their high tensile strength and corrosion resistance, are viable options. This study evaluates the flexural performance of concrete beams reinforced with GFRP, BFRP, and hybrid systems combining these materials with steel, following ACI 440.1R-15 guidelines. Twelve beams were assessed under three-point bending to compare their flexural strength, ductility, and failure modes against steel reinforcement. The results indicate that GFRP and BFRP beams achieve 8% and 12% higher ultimate load capacities but 38% and 58% lower deflections at failure than steel, respectively. Hybrid reinforcements enhance both load capacity and deflection performance (7% to 17% higher load with 11% to 58% lower deflection). However, GFRP and BFRP beams show reduced energy absorption, suggesting that hybrid systems could better support critical applications like seismic and impact-prone structures by improving ductility and load handling. In addition, BFRP beams predominantly failed due to debonding and concrete crushing, while GFRP beams failed due to bar rupture, reflecting key differences in their flexural failure mechanisms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.