ArticleScientific reports2026
Experimental evaluation of sustainable jute-basalt hybrid FRP systems for flexural strengthening of RC beams with variable wrapping and light-weight aggregate replacement.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This research experimentally assesses the flexural strengthening of reinforced concrete (RC) beams through the use of sustainable jute–basalt (JB) hybrid fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) systems with variable wrapping schemes and lightweight aggregate (LWA) replacement. A total of 18 beams with identical geometry and reinforcement were tested under four-point bending, including controls, basalt FRP (BFRP), jute FRP (JFRP), and hybrid JB FRP systems in bottom-only, U-wrap, and full-wrap configurations. The results indicate that FRP confinement significantly modified failure modes, transitioning from the brittle crushing in controls to rupture- or debonding-controlled mechanisms. BFRP significantly enhanced strength, achieving up to 36.8% greater capacity in full-wrap beams, while JFRP improved ductility but was more prone to premature debonding. Hybrid JB FRP systems demonstrated the most balanced performance, with U-wrap hybrids achieving 39.6% higher load capacity and maintaining significant deformation capacity even in LWA concrete. Load–strain responses confirmed yielding of steel reinforcement in all cases, though maximum strains were reduced after confinement due to premature fiber debonding or rupture at smaller deflections. The use of LWA reduced ductility of control beams, but hybrid U-wrap systems successfully compensated for this limitation, providing the highest load and deflection values among all specimens. These results emphasize the potential of hybrid natural–mineral FRP systems as sustainable alternatives to synthetic composites, providing competitive ductility and reinforcement for structural retrofitting applications in both conventional and lightweight concretes.
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.