## 3 Results and Discussion
### FRAAM Composite: Mechanical Behavior
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Region I**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Region II**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Region III**} \\  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Uncracked Stage**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Crack Development**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Post-Cracking Stage**} & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Specimen ID**} & \(\sigma_{\text{I}}\) & \(\varepsilon_{\text{I}}\) & \(\varepsilon_{\text{II}}\) & \(\varepsilon_{\text{II}}\) & \(\varepsilon_{\text{II}}\) & \(\varepsilon_{\text{II}}\) & \(\sigma_{\text{u}}\) & \(\varepsilon_{\text{u}}\) & \(\varepsilon_{\text{II}}\) & **Exploitation Ratio** \\  & **(MPa)** & **(\%)** & **(GPa)** & **(MPa)** & **(\%)** & **(GPa)** & **(MPa)** & **(\%)** & **(GPa)** & **(\%)** & **(GPa)** & **(\%. Textile)** \\ \hline DT B4 AAM 1 & 158 & 0.020 & 1618 & 290 & 1.721 & 4.51 & 514 & 2.257 & 44 & 0.55 \\ DT B4 AAM 2 & 166 & 0.050 & 1621 & 303 & 1.802 & 6.06 & 483 & 2.281 & 43 & 0.52 \\ DT B4 AAM 3 & 194 & 0.007 & 2737 & 288 & 1.794 & 2.57 & 372 & 2.055 & 36 & 0.40 \\ DT B4 AAM 4 & 185 & 0.034 & 1441 & 233 & 1.518 & 1.95 & 406 & 2.155 & 37 & 0.43 \\ DT B4 AAM 5 & 167 & 0.010 & 2031 & 262 & 1.607 & 2.31 & 394 & 2.212 & 34 & 0.42 \\ \hline Avg & 174 & 0.024 & 1890 & 275 & 1.689 & 3.48 & 434 & 2.192 & 39 & 0.46 \\ CoV & 8.7\% & 73.8\% & 27.6\% & 10.2\% & 7.3\% & 50.3\% & 14.2\% & 4.1\% & 11.3\% & 14.2\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Results of tensile tests on composite specimens: the main values related to the stages. Figure 13: Characteristic stress–strain response curve of composite specimens. results is an effect of the intrinsic variability of the observed cracking phenomena. Transverse cracks, mostly located at fiber bundles, as can be observed in Figure 14A, can be attributed to the waviness of the basalt textile (Figure 14B,C), which induces local stress concentration in those regions, where, in addition, a concurrent reduction of matrix thickness is produced by the inclusion of the textile [45]. Lengthwise cracks at the fabric-to-matrix interface stem from the initial misalignment of the yarns being removed while increasing the applied strain that leads to matrix spalling. In region III, the load is borne by the reinforcement in the cracked area of the specimen; thus, the composite stiffness in that region should be equal to the stiffness of the reinforcement. The actual slope was found to be lower than the expected value. This finding can be attributed to two phenomena that can occur. The former is the failure of some filaments occurring simultaneously to the matrix cracking as a result of the previously described stress concentrations. The latter is that some of the filaments that are inside the core of the yarns are not bonded to the outer ones, as shown in Figure 14B. This causes a non-optimal loading transfer [47]. Composites then fail by sequential tensile failure of the fiber bundles. The misalignment that is shown in Figure 14C is acquired during weaving of the textile. The waviness causes a strain reserve in the textile. In the crack development stage (region II), with the increasing of applied displacement, textile recovers the strain reserve thus causing numerous matrix cracks and spalling. The waviness is thus also responsible for the large extent of region II. Only when the initial misalignment is recovered stress-strain response moves to region III. Furthermore, the recovering of the strain reserve initially stored in the waviness of basalt textile caused a delayed loading of the reinforcement that produced, in the FRAAM composites, a stress-strain response shifted towards larger strains [47], confirming the outcomes of the tensile characterization of textile reinforced inorganic-matrix composites made up with carbon and basalt stitch-bonded textiles reported by [PERSON] et al. [45].