ArticleScientific reports2026
Behavior of reinforced concrete two-way slabs reinforced with carbon FRP bars under flexural loads.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Structural behavior of HPC columns reinforced with CFRP bars under axial loading.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study presents an experimental, numerical, and analytical investigation of the flexural behavior of two-way high-strength concrete (HSC) slabs reinforced with carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) bars. Seven slabs with dimensions of 1500 mm × 1500 mm were tested, including one steel-reinforced reference slab and six CFRP-reinforced slabs with two thicknesses, 100 and 120 mm, and three CFRP reinforcement ratios. For the 100 mm slabs, increasing the CFRP reinforcement ratio increased the ultimate load by 13.8% and 24.3% relative to S100-CFRP1, while the corresponding increases for the 120 mm slabs were 31.1% and 48.0% relative to S120-CFRP1. Increasing the slab thickness from 100 to 120 mm enhanced the ultimate load by 27.7%, 47.2%, and 52.1% for the corresponding CFRP-reinforced specimens. A mechanically normalized comparison between the steel-reinforced reference slab and the CFRP-reinforced slab with the same nominal reinforcement ratio showed that the two specimens were not mechanically equivalent. The CFRP-reinforced slab had lower effective reinforcement stiffness but a higher strength-based mechanical reinforcement index, resulting in a higher ultimate load but lower deformation capacity. Crack observations confirmed flexural failure with more localized cracking in the CFRP-reinforced slabs. A nonlinear finite element model was developed in ABAQUS and validated against the experimental results, with an average ultimate-load prediction error of approximately 7.2%. Analytical predictions based on ECP 208-2019 and ACI 440.1R-15 showed average predicted-to-experimental ultimate-load ratios of 1.43 and 1.27, respectively, indicating that ACI 440.1R-15 provided closer estimates than ECP 208-2019 for the tested CFRP-reinforced slabs.
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.